If the government mandates labeling GMOs, but all the other mandatory labels are warnings, people who haven't studied the issue will assume 'may contain GMOs' is also a warning.
As I said: let's not decide whether or not to accurately label something because people *might* not interpret it the way you want them to.
I suppose I can add to that: let's not decide whether or not to accurately label something because you think "people who haven't studied the issue" *might* not react the way you want them to.
Or maybe they will assume it is superior... "SOYLENT ORANGE! GENUINE GM FOOD!"... let's not decide whether or not to accurately label something because people *might* not interpret it the way you want them to.
the government is fairly consistent about being pro-agribusiness and anti-consumer.
Uh, that is what I have been saying.
All of your examples have more to do with marketing
All my examples have to do with the amazing variety of things companies are allowed to stick on their packaging and the one (relevant) thing that they are prevented from putting on. What legitimate interest does government have in interfering in this?
The point is that you can't decide not to buy GM food if you can't look at the package and see whether or not it is GM food. Every other label and claim is allowed but this is specifically prohibited. Ought to make anyone suspicious.
OK: "Contains Flouristat 9000!"
NOT OK: "Contains flour from genetically modified wheat."
It's all moot anyhow - people should have the right not to be experimented on - because how do you know it has no dangerous effects until it has been consumed by a generation? Non-GM food has demonstrated safety (or danger for that matter) because of the length of time it has been consumed. Not quite the same thing as "look let's diddle this gene and see what happens... hey nobody died after two years? OK fine let's feed it to everybody then."
And people should have the right to know what they are eating... period, end of story.
Finally your analogy (made in Manitoba) doesn't fit because the government won't allow food producers to put "100% Non GM" on their products.
Yeah, interesting isn't it? You can label food as "Organic", as "Fair Trade", as "Mountain Grown!", as "Contains PYSLLIUM!!!!" etc. etc. but for some reason you can't label it "non-GM" or "Produced using only non-genetically modified crops"... seems kind of bizarre to make that one restriction given all the other kinds of labelling allowed.... whose interests are being served I wonder?
Who checks that they label correctly (for protein, fat, calories, % RDA etc.) now?
Is intentional cross-pollination genetic modification?
I don't know - is it? Is it creating genes that never existed in that species before?
Does it have to be done in a laboratory setting?
Yes almost certainly it will be done in a laboratory setting. That is the best way to arrive at patentable material and gain control of the food chain.
If I intentionally introduce a virus am I performing genetic modification, since that's how viruses work?
If that is your intention (to create a species with a different genetic code).
I'm sure we can come up with reasonable definitions... for example if you are gene splicing from one species into another. If it creates an organism sufficiently different from all prior organisms that it can be patented.
I think it would be interesting to see how many of the people who froth and foam because of copyright enforcement of digital media see no problem with patenting food. Or taking risks with the food chain such as GM organisms cross pollinating with non-GM organisms.
Well in Canada consumer groups wanted the government to require genetically modified foods to be labelled as such - so consumers could choose. The government refused. Why? Because people might be scared off and not buy it.
Part of me doesn't like the kind of mob action described in the summary but OTOH if governments are going to choose the well being of corporations over the rights of citizens to know what they are eating... it kind of seems like they are asking for this sort of thing to occur.
I have to wonder what you consider to be "free will" that it may be caused by some particle. Do you see that in a deterministic, i.e. no free will, scenario you drink that cup of coffee because that was the inevitable action, but then some free will particle comes along and ZAP! you are drinking that cup of coffee because you "decided to"?
If the universe is deterministic then there is no free will. If it is not deterministic then it is random and there is no free will. Free will as it is usually thought of would require a physics that was neither random nor deterministic.
However it could be random in a sufficiently complex way so as to falsely appear that we have free will. Or was I destined to think that? Hmmmm....
it would explain telepathy, reincarnation and a host of other phenomena
I'm pretty sure that for something to be labelled a phenomenon it has to actually exist. At least QM exists and conciousness seems to exist. So trying to use one to explain the other has at last some chance of being on the bottom rung of the ladder of reasonableness. OTOH promoting a guess about the nature of the brain to explain things which do not exist, or if you prefer for which there is no proof of existence, seems to be falling right off the ladder.
Just for a moment there I saw 5500 students/programmers/supportfolk/etc. all sitting in little cubicals slaving away at some problem after having had "Scientific Linux", aka the whip, "used" on them....
They move... constantly. Much of what was previously thought to be the rest mass of matter turns out to be mass generated/represented by the relativistic velocities of the quarks.
It certainly wasn't the last thing he ever said about it but at one point Feynman was giving a lecture to a non-physics audience and suddenly paused and said [not verbatim] "Remember it is a particle, we talk about it as a particle when that is convenient and we talk about it as a wave when that is convenient {pause}... but it really is a particle." Might have been one of the NZ lectures.
Yes but fortunately we scientists can take over for you engineers now that you've seen the light. And for those of you that haven't... well we have our ways.. prideful engineers line up on the left, repentant engineers on the right... Now prideful engineers, please line up according to your self-perceived level of superiority...
"Yes ma'am, I know you were murdered, but it's not like your attacker raped you."
See how stupid that sounds?
Well I think it sounds stupid but you know what? That (rape worse than murder) is an attitude promoted by an awful lot of people.
Do you know the story of the female member of the armed forces who was captured by the enemy and raped, and when she is eventually freed is then interviewed by a reporter who is going on about what an unbearable ordeal it must have been? The woman replies "Well it could have been worse." And the reporter replies "How could it possibly have been worse [than repeated rape]?"
"They could have killed me."
She deserved a cheer for having some perspective where so many didn't, couldn't or wouldn't.
You did??? Weird cause most people look at us like we're looney when we tell them we haven't had TV for years.
That is why the bullies get to keep pushing us around.
Whaaa? But I did all that.... and I'm the reason the bullies push us around? Oh wait... you were tarring everyone with the same really broad brush... I get it.
Unless your last name is Buffet or Dell you can't afford justice
That's pretty much what one very expensive lawyer said to me: "the law is for everyone, justice is for the rich" and he wasn't the least bit embarrassed to say it.
Well let's say it's a really cheap monitor, say $100. According to you that means you are making $10,000 per week or a half-mil a year.
Either you actually get $500K/year or you don't understand how to calculate percentages. It seems you are an exceptional employee in one way or another.
But if it's the latter I'd suggest you don't walk out too quickly.;)
Slashdot Mirror
As I said: let's not decide whether or not to accurately label something because people *might* not interpret it the way you want them to.
I suppose I can add to that: let's not decide whether or not to accurately label something because you think "people who haven't studied the issue" *might* not react the way you want them to.
Or maybe they will assume it is superior... "SOYLENT ORANGE! GENUINE GM FOOD!"... let's not decide whether or not to accurately label something because people *might* not interpret it the way you want them to.
I've already commented on this - please see my previous comments.
Uh, that is what I have been saying.
All my examples have to do with the amazing variety of things companies are allowed to stick on their packaging and the one (relevant) thing that they are prevented from putting on. What legitimate interest does government have in interfering in this?
The point is that you can't decide not to buy GM food if you can't look at the package and see whether or not it is GM food. Every other label and claim is allowed but this is specifically prohibited. Ought to make anyone suspicious.
OK: "Contains Flouristat 9000!"
NOT OK: "Contains flour from genetically modified wheat."
It's all moot anyhow - people should have the right not to be experimented on - because how do you know it has no dangerous effects until it has been consumed by a generation? Non-GM food has demonstrated safety (or danger for that matter) because of the length of time it has been consumed. Not quite the same thing as "look let's diddle this gene and see what happens... hey nobody died after two years? OK fine let's feed it to everybody then."
And people should have the right to know what they are eating... period, end of story.
Finally your analogy (made in Manitoba) doesn't fit because the government won't allow food producers to put "100% Non GM" on their products.
Yeah, interesting isn't it? You can label food as "Organic", as "Fair Trade", as "Mountain Grown!", as "Contains PYSLLIUM!!!!" etc. etc. but for some reason you can't label it "non-GM" or "Produced using only non-genetically modified crops"... seems kind of bizarre to make that one restriction given all the other kinds of labelling allowed.... whose interests are being served I wonder?
Who checks that they label correctly (for protein, fat, calories, % RDA etc.) now?
I don't know - is it? Is it creating genes that never existed in that species before?
Yes almost certainly it will be done in a laboratory setting. That is the best way to arrive at patentable material and gain control of the food chain.
If that is your intention (to create a species with a different genetic code).
I'm sure we can come up with reasonable definitions... for example if you are gene splicing from one species into another. If it creates an organism sufficiently different from all prior organisms that it can be patented.
I think it would be interesting to see how many of the people who froth and foam because of copyright enforcement of digital media see no problem with patenting food. Or taking risks with the food chain such as GM organisms cross pollinating with non-GM organisms.
Well in Canada consumer groups wanted the government to require genetically modified foods to be labelled as such - so consumers could choose. The government refused. Why? Because people might be scared off and not buy it.
Part of me doesn't like the kind of mob action described in the summary but OTOH if governments are going to choose the well being of corporations over the rights of citizens to know what they are eating... it kind of seems like they are asking for this sort of thing to occur.
Will implies control. You do understand that if it is random then there is no such thing as free will, right?
Ahhhh another bachelor.....
I have to wonder what you consider to be "free will" that it may be caused by some particle. Do you see that in a deterministic, i.e. no free will, scenario you drink that cup of coffee because that was the inevitable action, but then some free will particle comes along and ZAP! you are drinking that cup of coffee because you "decided to"?
If the universe is deterministic then there is no free will. If it is not deterministic then it is random and there is no free will. Free will as it is usually thought of would require a physics that was neither random nor deterministic.
However it could be random in a sufficiently complex way so as to falsely appear that we have free will. Or was I destined to think that? Hmmmm....
I'm pretty sure that for something to be labelled a phenomenon it has to actually exist. At least QM exists and conciousness seems to exist. So trying to use one to explain the other has at last some chance of being on the bottom rung of the ladder of reasonableness. OTOH promoting a guess about the nature of the brain to explain things which do not exist, or if you prefer for which there is no proof of existence, seems to be falling right off the ladder.
Maybe, maybe not.
Just for a moment there I saw 5500 students/programmers/supportfolk/etc. all sitting in little cubicals slaving away at some problem after having had "Scientific Linux", aka the whip, "used" on them....
Then I finished parsing the sentence.
They move... constantly. Much of what was previously thought to be the rest mass of matter turns out to be mass generated/represented by the relativistic velocities of the quarks.
It certainly wasn't the last thing he ever said about it but at one point Feynman was giving a lecture to a non-physics audience and suddenly paused and said [not verbatim] "Remember it is a particle, we talk about it as a particle when that is convenient and we talk about it as a wave when that is convenient {pause}... but it really is a particle." Might have been one of the NZ lectures.
I dunno - I think maybe the cartoon would be more effective if there had been a little kitten in harness pulling the rover around Mars...
Yeah, it's just that the summary was ambiguous (I know... welcome to /.)...
plus
So are the shields incompatible with the Arduino? Or is the ARM device not pin compatible with the Arduino?
ERROR ERROR ERROR DOES NOT COMPUTE ERROR ERROR ....
Yes but fortunately we scientists can take over for you engineers now that you've seen the light. And for those of you that haven't... well we have our ways.. prideful engineers line up on the left, repentant engineers on the right... Now prideful engineers, please line up according to your self-perceived level of superiority...
;)
Oh yeah...
Ahhh I see. So the ends justify the means. Well we know how that works out. Right?
It's so sad... humans never seem to learn the most obvious lessons. And people say the world is going to the dogs - as if that would be a bad thing.
Well I think it sounds stupid but you know what? That (rape worse than murder) is an attitude promoted by an awful lot of people.
Do you know the story of the female member of the armed forces who was captured by the enemy and raped, and when she is eventually freed is then interviewed by a reporter who is going on about what an unbearable ordeal it must have been? The woman replies "Well it could have been worse." And the reporter replies "How could it possibly have been worse [than repeated rape]?"
"They could have killed me."
She deserved a cheer for having some perspective where so many didn't, couldn't or wouldn't.
Yep, been there, done that.
You did??? Weird cause most people look at us like we're looney when we tell them we haven't had TV for years.
Whaaa? But I did all that.... and I'm the reason the bullies push us around? Oh wait... you were tarring everyone with the same really broad brush... I get it.
That's pretty much what one very expensive lawyer said to me: "the law is for everyone, justice is for the rich" and he wasn't the least bit embarrassed to say it.
Well let's say it's a really cheap monitor, say $100. According to you that means you are making $10,000 per week or a half-mil a year.
;)
Either you actually get $500K/year or you don't understand how to calculate percentages. It seems you are an exceptional employee in one way or another.
But if it's the latter I'd suggest you don't walk out too quickly.