I agree with all this, except that you have confused future and present. E.g.
But again, since there will be massses of people for whom work simply does not exist in the coming decades, UBI is a necessity.
But again, since there will be massses of people for whom work simply does not exist in the coming decades, UBI will be a necessity. FTFY.
The future you describe is very close as compared to existence of humans, but still 50-1000 years away. Definitely not before 50 years, and if there are major surprises may not happen in 1000 years.
Every strain will have a million specialties, allergens, nutrient differences. Some will be known a few years after the strain is in use. It is easier to write the strain, or give a qr-code on the packet.
Low Acrylamide could be due to removal of them by processing the potato too.
There are mandatory parts of it that you specified later, so what you're talking about is not entirely voluntary either.
The part of it that is voluntary, benefits no one. The manufacturer gets no benefit from a dry announcement when it can use far more moving text/design of its choice to influence more and more customers while legally promising almost nothing. The potential customers don't derive the benefit of knowing the exact strain so other than a very weak attempt to discredit all GMO, such labels achieve nothing.
No. If you want to display a label indicating that the USDA has certified your product as non-GMO
What if you don't? You just want your potential customers to think that your product doesn't contain the ghosts of GMO. So you put "no genetic manipulation performed at our farms.".
This is better than "Non-GMO project verified" seal, for 2 reasons :
1. You can word it to more directly access some emotions of you potential customers than the requirement of fact based labeling. In getting people to act, emotions are known to be much more effective.
2. You can perform the said genetic manipulation at your labs and yet never be convicted of fraud for this.
Moreover, it is not even very informative. Some GMO potatoes have the low carcinogen content, but not all. What if I want the low carcinogen GMO potato, but not any other kind of potato?
Various? The problem of plenty, with standards? You are making my point for me.
Even then, following those standards cannot be mandatory if the labeling itself is voluntary.
The examples I gave for "labeling" GMO free are NOT fraudulent legally. They are just misleading. They can be completely true, yet mean nothing, or worse - mean something other than what will be understood by most people.
Words have meanings. The word "obvious" had a meaning. Either you can learn to use it with proper meaning, or appear to be poorly educated.
Here, incomplete information that you admit cars provide, means the information they are not taking into account while making important decisions is NOT obvious. Correcting you for the fourth time.
You could have argued that it is not necessary for that information to be obvious, but you didn't. You started that it IS obvious, which is false.
Consumer goods companies, including packaged food companies, spend billions of dollars every year just to decide which labels, design, artwork, packaging material etc. to go with which product's which line of product in which market. This does not include actual advertisement & packaging spend.
If they can spend so much to fool people, they can spend to inform people.
Their "struggles" to sell products for which consumers have no need are documented in thousands of business journals/books. They deserve no sympathy for their struggles.
Whatever the "given that" refers to, car giving incomplete information means it is NOT obvious what information it is not taking into account. Correcting you for the third time.
Voluntary labels have one problem: no standardization. Advertisers/marketers already live on the edge of the truth. Some will say
1. "free of artificial genes", so genes of scorpions in rice are fine
2. some saying " no genetic manipulation was done at our farms", so if it is done at someone else's farms , or their own labs , it is OK.
It is not humanly possible to find loopholes in all such claims while shopping in a hurry.
The only solution is to label the exact strain, and mandatorily so that there is no wiggle room. Consumer goods industry spends millions of dollars every year on just deciding what labels to go with what product in what market while going with what advertising and endorsement and PR bullshit , this is really not an onerous requirement.
What if I want the GMO potato with low carcinogens as described in TFS ?
Whether GMO or not, species strains should be labeled. If you read this particular/. story's summary, some GMO potatoes have less carcinogens than non-GMO. Some other kind of GMO potato may not have that benefit. The customers need to know.
By labeling picked olives, do you think it stigmatizes pickled olives? In packaging, the manufacturers already have millions of ways to fool the brains of people shopping in a hurry or while distracted. Color, sheen, stiffness, shape, design , artwork of packaging is capable of misleading lots of people. If they are forced to convey some meaningful information, it still repairs only slightly the terrible information gap between manufacturers and consumers.
If there are a significant number of Jews in the target market, no problem labeling kosher. Islam dominated countries have halal labeling requirements. Hindu countries have a weird idea of vegetarianism, they have such labels. But in every market, customers are dominated by human beings - so information that matters to human bodies makes sense in every market rather than Jew, Hindu or Muslim dominated markets.
But you drew the extremely incorrect conclusion - "Given that, I think it is obvious what trivial parts it is handling." Since it is giving out incomplete information, it is NOT obvious what trivial parts it is handling. FTFY again.
You are demanding the impossible and throwing out what might be a life saving technology because it doesn't meet your level of perfection.
It is not impossible to leave out unfinished work from cars sold to general public.
Nice dodge, but I said "Try proving your own hypothesis using your own definition.".
Basically what I am saying is that my mind is educated : I could have provisionally adopted the definition. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle"
For using it to pay less attention on the trivial parts of driving, it has to be obvious what are the trivial parts. Obvious not only through analysis using one's neomammalian cortex, but obvious to parts of brain closer to the brain stem, because they react much faster and resist distraction much better.
With cruise control, it is obvious that it manages your speed for you. With obstacle avoidance, I'm not so sure. With this particular obstacle avoidance, it is certainly a surprise for the moment that the AI couldn't deal with it. The failure can be explained away in a conference taking hours of lawyers and PR guys, but that won't help when you have microseconds of life left.
Which brings to mind the paleontological issue I'm more interested in lately - that many dinosaurs were feathered. I'm fascinated by the possibility that rather than ugly leatherbags, that dinosurs might hve been colorful feathered megabirds in appearance.
Yeah, unfortunately there isn't much evidence of primary colours like red and blue. Most evidence is of brown and grey - though very little is known about colours. And osteoderms would have dampened the soft-toy appearance.
But many of their babies have been proven to be cute, so there you are.
There is no escape from multi-culturism. In the same "culture", different people have different beliefs. If not about religion, then about government, or politics, or economics, or food, or child raising. If you cannot live with people of different beliefs without killing each other, there is no hope for you anyway.
Attack on multiculturism is a threat to anyone against your views, or against " majority " views. Though everyone has some views that are against majority views, so let's all kill each other. No globalism required.
Yes, but Microsoft broke the core trust of Microsoft's customers/users, not that of the state/government/court. The customers have the power to punish Microsoft by stopping their money from going to Microsoft. I don't see many such victims punishing Microsoft.
You are making the claim that the statement "open source is more secure because you can see the code" is NOT true even if you interpret "you can see" as "you can see and show to experts".
For this, you need to understand what "more" means. When do you plan to learn it?
Let's get to reading comprehension first, software security comes years later than that.
In spite of using the word "more" repeatedly, you were "not comparing it to anything". Reminder : https://slashdot.org/comments.....
Have you really understood the meaning of the word" more" ? Or pretending again? If you have, summarize the definition of the word "more" in your own words.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with all this, except that you have confused future and present. E.g.
But again, since there will be massses of people for whom work simply does not exist in the coming decades, UBI is a necessity.
But again, since there will be massses of people for whom work simply does not exist in the coming decades, UBI will be a necessity. FTFY.
The future you describe is very close as compared to existence of humans, but still 50-1000 years away. Definitely not before 50 years, and if there are major surprises may not happen in 1000 years.
Every strain will have a million specialties, allergens, nutrient differences. Some will be known a few years after the strain is in use. It is easier to write the strain, or give a qr-code on the packet.
Low Acrylamide could be due to removal of them by processing the potato too.
There are mandatory parts of it that you specified later, so what you're talking about is not entirely voluntary either.
The part of it that is voluntary, benefits no one. The manufacturer gets no benefit from a dry announcement when it can use far more moving text/design of its choice to influence more and more customers while legally promising almost nothing. The potential customers don't derive the benefit of knowing the exact strain so other than a very weak attempt to discredit all GMO, such labels achieve nothing.
No. If you want to display a label indicating that the USDA has certified your product as non-GMO
What if you don't? You just want your potential customers to think that your product doesn't contain the ghosts of GMO. So you put "no genetic manipulation performed at our farms.".
This is better than "Non-GMO project verified" seal, for 2 reasons :
1. You can word it to more directly access some emotions of you potential customers than the requirement of fact based labeling. In getting people to act, emotions are known to be much more effective.
2. You can perform the said genetic manipulation at your labs and yet never be convicted of fraud for this.
Moreover, it is not even very informative. Some GMO potatoes have the low carcinogen content, but not all. What if I want the low carcinogen GMO potato, but not any other kind of potato?
Various? The problem of plenty, with standards? You are making my point for me.
Even then, following those standards cannot be mandatory if the labeling itself is voluntary.
The examples I gave for "labeling" GMO free are NOT fraudulent legally. They are just misleading. They can be completely true, yet mean nothing, or worse - mean something other than what will be understood by most people.
Words have meanings. The word "obvious" had a meaning. Either you can learn to use it with proper meaning, or appear to be poorly educated.
Here, incomplete information that you admit cars provide, means the information they are not taking into account while making important decisions is NOT obvious. Correcting you for the fourth time.
You could have argued that it is not necessary for that information to be obvious, but you didn't. You started that it IS obvious, which is false.
Consumer goods companies, including packaged food companies, spend billions of dollars every year just to decide which labels, design, artwork, packaging material etc. to go with which product's which line of product in which market. This does not include actual advertisement & packaging spend.
If they can spend so much to fool people, they can spend to inform people.
Their "struggles" to sell products for which consumers have no need are documented in thousands of business journals/books. They deserve no sympathy for their struggles.
Whatever the "given that" refers to, car giving incomplete information means it is NOT obvious what information it is not taking into account. Correcting you for the third time.
Voluntary labels have one problem: no standardization. Advertisers/marketers already live on the edge of the truth. Some will say
1. "free of artificial genes", so genes of scorpions in rice are fine
2. some saying " no genetic manipulation was done at our farms", so if it is done at someone else's farms , or their own labs , it is OK.
It is not humanly possible to find loopholes in all such claims while shopping in a hurry.
The only solution is to label the exact strain, and mandatorily so that there is no wiggle room. Consumer goods industry spends millions of dollars every year on just deciding what labels to go with what product in what market while going with what advertising and endorsement and PR bullshit , this is really not an onerous requirement.
What if I want the GMO potato with low carcinogens as described in TFS ?
Whether GMO or not, species strains should be labeled. If you read this particular /. story's summary, some GMO potatoes have less carcinogens than non-GMO. Some other kind of GMO potato may not have that benefit. The customers need to know.
By labeling picked olives, do you think it stigmatizes pickled olives? In packaging, the manufacturers already have millions of ways to fool the brains of people shopping in a hurry or while distracted. Color, sheen, stiffness, shape, design , artwork of packaging is capable of misleading lots of people. If they are forced to convey some meaningful information, it still repairs only slightly the terrible information gap between manufacturers and consumers.
If there are a significant number of Jews in the target market, no problem labeling kosher. Islam dominated countries have halal labeling requirements. Hindu countries have a weird idea of vegetarianism, they have such labels. But in every market, customers are dominated by human beings - so information that matters to human bodies makes sense in every market rather than Jew, Hindu or Muslim dominated markets.
As I just said, it is necessarily incomplete
Yes.
But you drew the extremely incorrect conclusion - "Given that, I think it is obvious what trivial parts it is handling." Since it is giving out incomplete information, it is NOT obvious what trivial parts it is handling. FTFY again.
You are demanding the impossible and throwing out what might be a life saving technology because it doesn't meet your level of perfection.
It is not impossible to leave out unfinished work from cars sold to general public.
Nice dodge, but I said "Try proving your own hypothesis using your own definition.".
Basically what I am saying is that my mind is educated : I could have provisionally adopted the definition.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle"
The feedback information the autopilot mechanism gives out is incomplete. So it is NOT obvious what trivial parts it is handling. FTFY.
For using it to pay less attention on the trivial parts of driving, it has to be obvious what are the trivial parts. Obvious not only through analysis using one's neomammalian cortex, but obvious to parts of brain closer to the brain stem, because they react much faster and resist distraction much better.
With cruise control, it is obvious that it manages your speed for you. With obstacle avoidance, I'm not so sure. With this particular obstacle avoidance, it is certainly a surprise for the moment that the AI couldn't deal with it. The failure can be explained away in a conference taking hours of lawyers and PR guys, but that won't help when you have microseconds of life left.
Try proving your own hypothesis using your own definition. Why the cold feet?
Oh, a definition non-understander.
This is not a precise enough definition, especially of "culture". It is good for making general statements and conclusions, but not very specific.
More's the pity, because proving your hypothesis is now more difficult. But go ahead, prove how multi-culturism is dangerous.
1. Define multi-culturism, and by extension culture.
2. Point out its risks other than those of conflicts.
Then you will understand.
Every single conflict is due to a difference in beliefs. That is the thing to worry about, not bogeymen of choice.
It is like worrying about the speed of cars when difference in speeds causes accidents.
Which brings to mind the paleontological issue I'm more interested in lately - that many dinosaurs were feathered. I'm fascinated by the possibility that rather than ugly leatherbags, that dinosurs might hve been colorful feathered megabirds in appearance.
Yeah, unfortunately there isn't much evidence of primary colours like red and blue. Most evidence is of brown and grey - though very little is known about colours. And osteoderms would have dampened the soft-toy appearance.
But many of their babies have been proven to be cute, so there you are.
There is no escape from multi-culturism. In the same "culture", different people have different beliefs. If not about religion, then about government, or politics, or economics, or food, or child raising. If you cannot live with people of different beliefs without killing each other, there is no hope for you anyway.
Attack on multiculturism is a threat to anyone against your views, or against " majority " views. Though everyone has some views that are against majority views, so let's all kill each other. No globalism required.
Than what?
Yes, but Microsoft broke the core trust of Microsoft's customers/users, not that of the state/government/court. The customers have the power to punish Microsoft by stopping their money from going to Microsoft. I don't see many such victims punishing Microsoft.
Actually no, I did not say it is not true, I said it is disingenuous
Even for that you do need to know what "more" means.
You are making the claim that the statement "open source is more secure because you can see the code" is NOT true even if you interpret "you can see" as "you can see and show to experts".
For this, you need to understand what "more" means. When do you plan to learn it?
Let's get to reading comprehension first, software security comes years later than that.
In spite of using the word "more" repeatedly, you were "not comparing it to anything". Reminder : https://slashdot.org/comments.....
Have you really understood the meaning of the word" more" ? Or pretending again? If you have, summarize the definition of the word "more" in your own words.