What is Digg?149 Comments
- Ydnar24, on 10/11/2007, -8/+110That's not what the article is saying. Buried as inaccurate.
- crawfishsoul, on 10/11/2007, -10/+97If you are eating at Burger King, McDonalds or Wendy's, you DON'T care about calories or fat.
- sockpuppets, on 10/11/2007, -11/+56I CANT HAS CHEEZBUGER?
- johndi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+42New York City is only targeting restaurants that already voluntarily provided the information. That's the style of protectionism NY is known for. What about local restaurants that don't even know the calorie count for their food? They get a free pass. It's also a violation of the 14th Amendments equal protection clause. The government isn't allowed to play favorites.
You can spin this like Bill O'Reilly, but don't expect people to miss such a huge misrepresentation. - BlindingEdge, on 10/11/2007, -9/+41mmm... cheeseburger.
- MikeOSX, on 10/11/2007, -4/+33NO YOU CANT! I IZ CHEEZBURGLER! KTHXBAI!
- moojj, on 10/11/2007, -2/+29In Australia our McDonalds packages contain fat content, salt content, etc. All of the nutritional information and even a percentage of your recommended daily intake. While on the topic of fat content, the double quarter pounder is over 100% of your daily intake of fat. I had one of these a few months ago and was ill for the rest of the day.
- Akaji, on 10/11/2007, -6/+33HAI
VISIBLE "DO NOT WANT"
KTHXBYE
(That goes for the new Digg interface, too. I liked it the way it was...) - videoCT, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21seriously - do we really need calorie information for fast food items? fast food is generally accepted worldwide as being an unhealthy food choice.
- CrucifiedEgo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16I can has threading?
- MikeOSX, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20Incorrect! I always order a diet coke.
- lhnz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13YAY! Now clicking on thumbs up multiple times brings up an error message rather than just doing nothing.
>_> - wyfflemunky, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13That quote isn't even in the freaking article, and anyone from McDonald's that said something like that would instantly be fired.
- SteveIreland, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12What's with the title? McDonald's never made the statement, "If They Knew What Was In It, They Wouldn't Eat It!" so why is it in quotes?!!
I'm really annoyed with these submitters including blatant inaccuracies in their titles/descriptions. That's propaganda. If it's news, just say it like it is. Don't like Fast-food? Guess what, it's counter-productive to your message to lie about the facts. It undercuts the credibility of the whole argument which will instantly make ignoring you even easier. This is a digg epidemic that stretches beyond just fast food. - Lyanto, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Someone didn't RTFA before they submitted...
- yurishoujo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13It's ridiculous to expect the places to put the calorie counts on the menu board. Most people know the food is horrible for you. Not to mention, if someone didn't care to walk over to read the calorie count posted on the wall like many had BEFORE this new law, why would they care now?
- ragnar0kk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12agreed this is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. The city of NY is stupid to only require this of restaurants who previously offered this information. Either make everyone do it or don't make anyone.
- tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Congratulations digg, you've now made it almost impossible to follow a conversation. ***** that.
- juicebag, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10u can has threading.
- shanesemler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8The person who posted this didn't bother to read the article. Buried as inaccurate.
- cecilgol, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Agreed. The content of the article is clearly misrepresented by the title of this summary.
- retral, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14""If They Knew What Was In It, They Wouldn't Eat It!" McDonald's Cries"
..sensationalist title.. ffs - CaptShmo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10i can has heartattackz?
- davewho, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Agree with wyfflemunky. There's no need to use quotation marks unless you're actually quoting.
- Aliarse, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7agreed, this ***** is horrible
- venir, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Anyone eating at McDonalds or Burger King or any other fast food for that mattter needs to be smacked if they don't already know it is bad for them.
- kwelling12, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I don't know what they're biatching about. I know how bad they are for me and I still eat them when I want to. Don't make it a habit though.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6If anything, its a good thing for the junk/fast food places.
If forced to list all the crap their products contain there is NO WAY they can be sued for making people fat:
"The info was on the wrapper you filthy fat pig. Don't blame us for your lack of self control and abysmal reading and comprehension skills!!" - smurf22, on 10/11/2007, -8/+14How dare we know what we are eating!
- MasterJediDan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Some people NEED calories...like us runners, for example. It never hurts to have a cheeseburger, cuz you're most likely going to burn them all off and more on your next 12-mile run. Unfortunately, the majority of America is a bunch of fat bastards, so we have to have all these stupid laws.
- aldenhg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Amen to that. There are much better ways to do threaded comments.
- kazukisan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5lol i agree this is just crazy crap
- theratdotus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5misleading title, RTFA. Wendies is complaining the size and room for the information is too limited.
- buddahead9, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Most of the McDs I've been to have had the nutrition info flyers....but thanks to a half ass public school education. I've learned fast food isn't healthy... i want something fast and somewhat cheap...
- wyfflemunky, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I disagree. They have menu items that they try to pass off as "healthier choices" and I for one would like to see the true nutritional value of those items.
And I don't think a lot of people that eat at those restaurants realize they may be eating in excess of 2000 calories in a single meal. Maybe they should know that kind of thing. You know? - spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9I'm actually usually surprised how few calories there are in fast-food, after having it drummed into you that you gain 10lbs just for reading the menu the reality never seems so bad.
- bovox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4lol. i agree. if a person is health-conscious enough to know why saturated fat is bad, they wouldn't be there in the first place.
- KarthVader, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Here's how I see it:
Everyone knows that fast food is bad for you. So, eat it in moderation or don't eat it at all. Over eating fast food and then suing the fastfood companies for making you or your kid fat is just ridiculous. Not that the fastfood companies aren't at fault here, but people should be smarter. - Ighuc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It's like how Digg is run by child labor...
- BlackAle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I wouldn't eat it anyways
- ddxChrist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I always found it to be a psychological issue. Even when food is known to be bad for you, people will tell themselves "Well it can't be THAT bad" and give themselves other justifications. Combined with a health program that's more inclined to promote ignorance of the masses, such matters are only made worse. However, with the information readily available it seems to put more weight on the personal justification versus the blatant facts; staring down an RDA can do that to some people.
It even helps avoid trickery or faulty reasoning. For example, "Oh, I'll just get the salad." And then it comes with dressing, is filled with grilled processed chicken, has sugar on it, the works.
Granted, when I was at the airport McDonald's was serving their products with the facts listed right on the packages.
Regardless, the more information available about the contents of food the better. Going by "it's bad for you, stupid" isn't enough. A lot of times the information helps answer questions that could follow: "Why is it bad for me? How is it bad for me? What are the consequences?" And the people that don't care won't mind. Those who don't care and then later on want to sue will be screwed. I don't see how anyone would lose. - LeeSoong, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Total Calorie Count Should be Printed right by the item, in the same font"
DOUBLE CHEESBURGER COMBO #3: 1900 Calories.
When people see that a medium soft drink adds 400 calories,
maybe they will get Water instead, or ice tea (unsweetened, with lemon.)
Should be required of ALL food service locations, not just fast food.
Including Beer and bar food too! - MikeOSX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3U Can Has Multiple Digg Downs.
- raitchison, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4You should RTFA? The restaurants were previously providing that info (and still do everywhere but NYC), but the new rules would make their menus unreadable so they were forced to remove the calorie count altogether.
- flukus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3In australia it works in theory only.
For instance, a can of coke has 1.5 servings. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3mmmmmm ***** holes. Makes me think of japanese porn.
- idestroy0, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4If you click Comment Display Options, there is a Show Full Tree button that shows all the comment/reply trees in full without needing to click. You can probably also make it default somewhere, but I haven't bothered to look yet.
- SuperCujo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Seeya
Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
Why didn't you leave when you starting getting annoyed with Digg? Why did you have to have an excuse? You don't owe it to Kevin to read Digg. You are just a lazy bastard. - Sushubh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3don't you just hate it?
- raitchison, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3No I think they RTFA'd I think they were deliberately trying to be misleading and sensationalist.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 141 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is