then subsidized prices of goods to cut through the FUD
That has worked so well on the vaccine front where people are literally dying because they believe the FUD./sarcasm Where will this subsidy money come from?
I think sterile (in therory) seeds of a monoculture are a long term risk to the food supply.
There you go spouting a falsehood. No Monsanto seeds have ever produces sterile crops. Monsanto just does not allow the fertile crop to be planted without a license.
If there was proper labeling, those of us with money could vote against that with our wallets
So you would vote with your wallet based on false information.
Additionally, there's been allegations that weeds are rapidly developing resistance anyway (I haven't seen anything that credible either for or against this), so in the end we end up using tons more herbicides (allegedly).
Would you base your decisions on allegations rather than reality?
I'm not anti-GMO, and I eat corn products, so I definitely eat it, I still think it should need to be labeled.
You seem like a smart person who has actually looked into the issue and even you are acting on false information. How do you think that most people who do not take this time will think when they hear "GMO bad, Big business just wants your money. They will kill you if they want. Don't believe a word they say". It does not matter what big business says they have lost to hype and hysteria.
The main way that anti-GMO advertisement sways people is the fear of the unknown. All that have to do is say "we don't know it is safe" and they win over any facts that can be brought up. Just look at the anti-vaxers. They have no real evidence that vaccines cause autism but they still sway many people. The main problem is that it is impossible to prove that GMO foods are completely save. The best we can come up with is that all studies show no harm. Proving a negative is very hard if not impossible.
"These terrorist actions are completely opposite to the will of Allah. Everyone performing or willingly supporting them (including monetarily) will burn in hell forever."
Perhaps Islam is not a religion based on fear like Christianity. Maybe not doing something because it is wrong is more important than not doing something due to the consequences. Perhaps the Imams also do not think they speak for Allah as Christianity seems to so often.
It was called the "Republican Guard" not "Republican Army" and was destroyed in the Second Gulf War. Is Saddam leading them? Oh right, he is dead. Does ISIS control all of Iraq? Again, no. The Republican Guard was a better armed military force under Saddam and no longer exists as a cohesive unit. Sure some ex members joined ISIS but their leadership has nothing to to with the Guard.
Lets see, Bush banner in the context of mission complete against Iraq army and Obama "containment" in the context of containing military advances of ISIS. That seems pretty strict in both instances. You are the one that considers Obama's "containment" statement to include all of ISIS everywhere.
In the context of militarily taking and holding ground, which is what Obama was talking about, then yes. That is called context. Is ISIS holding any ground in France? The spread of ISIS control is contained not their actions.
Nice out of context reference. He said that had contained the advance of ISIS in Syria in that they are no longer gaining ground in Syria. Nothing more nothing less.
It is irrelevant if a bunch of irrelevant organizations condemn the actions of Muslim terrorists
They may be irrelevant to you but not Muslims. I bet you didn't even read the link. I pull some name out to make it easier; Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which represents 1.4 billion Muslims in 57 countries around the world, Al-Azhar’s Grand Mufti Shawqi Allam, Egypt’s highest religious authority Nabil al-Arabi, the Arab League Chief, Turkey’s highest ranking cleric, Mehmet Gormez, Saudi Arabia’s grand mufti, Abdulaziz al-Sheikh, the country’s top religious authority
And there is no central authority to certify whose interpretation is right.
Neither does Christianity. There are many different sects each with a separate leader in Christianity including, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Baptist, Anglican, Lutheran, etc. Christianity has leaders that corrupt the faithful. David Koresh is an example. Islam has sects as well.
Now what does this hypothesis predict? That terrorism should be equally distributed among religious followers.
Your "prediction" is false. The actual prediction would be that terrorism is concentrated in small minority sects that have been corrupted by their leaders.while most Muslims are taught peace and have no terrorist tendencies. That is what is happening.
To continue to apologize for Islam
I am not apologizing for Muslims. I am saying that the actions of a small minority do not represent the Muslim faith.
The real haters and racists, are those who refuse to admit that Islam is simply not compatible with western civilization.
Complete and utter bullshit. There have been Muslims living peacefully all over the the world since the days of Mohamed.
Your simplistic view that all Muslims are the same is completely false. Considering there are 1.6 billion Muslims all over the world western civilization would be in much bigger trouble if that were true. Here is a simple question. If all Muslims are the same then why are there Muslims fighting ISIS?
Those terrorists do not represent all Muslims in the world. Just as Breivik does not represent all Christians in the world. You asked me to show you where Muslims condemned ISIS actions and I did; or didn't you read the linked article. There are also many Muslims fighting ISIS right now.
Sorry if the facts don't coincide with your world view.
The "mission accomplished" was in reference to defeating Sadam's regime. It had nothing to do with terrorism as a whole.
Terrorism is impossible to completely defeat. There will always be someone who will commit an act of terrorism in the name of some group. Some people will always see wrongs that need to be avenged. The best we can hope for is keeping it to a manageable level.
I believe a laser strike has to effect the cockpit. A strike does not have to cause injury to be a problem. A pilot's vision can be dazzled/distracted without being injured.
I have an extremely powerful laser that finds itself pointing at the sky all the time.
If you are anywhere near an airport I would be careful.
One way or the other, the software is "unavailable" and therefore any research made using it can not be published.
So there is no difference between people starving because they chose not to eat and them starving because someone else does not allow them to eat. In the end they are not eating. To me the difference is choice and control.
I don't have a big enough horse in this race to be troubled with my own investigations.
But you feel entitled enough to ask others to disprove your claim. Why should others have to do your work?
Whether the software is unavailable because a person owns a Che Guevara T-shirt or because he lives in a country, that's too welcoming to immigrants, is of no account...
The difference is control. Scientists have control over there own action therefore by they have a choice whether or not to own a Che Guevara T-shirt and thereby whether or not to use your software. They do not have control over their countries' immigration policy therefore another body makes the decision whether or not they can use the software.
Can you cite an example where the policy has not been applied in this manner? It is quite possible that something like this has never happened before. You are basically claiming that the policy is probably being applied unevenly. It was a nice try to obfuscate the claim by "only asking questions" but it didn't work. You made the claim it is up to you to prove the claim.
My own license for a tiny open-source program bans owners of Che Guevara items from using it — would these distinguished editors find that offensive as well?
Maybe, maybe not. The question is irrelevant anyway as the situation is different. The scientists that are not allowed to use the software have little or no influence on immigration policy. They would have complete control of the ownership of Che Guevara items. See the difference?
Slashdot Mirror
It is similar to taking steroids but using genetics instead. The flesh would be the same without the steroid residue.
Nice FUD.
then subsidized prices of goods to cut through the FUD
That has worked so well on the vaccine front where people are literally dying because they believe the FUD. /sarcasm
Where will this subsidy money come from?
I think sterile (in therory) seeds of a monoculture are a long term risk to the food supply.
There you go spouting a falsehood. No Monsanto seeds have ever produces sterile crops. Monsanto just does not allow the fertile crop to be planted without a license.
If there was proper labeling, those of us with money could vote against that with our wallets
So you would vote with your wallet based on false information.
Additionally, there's been allegations that weeds are rapidly developing resistance anyway (I haven't seen anything that credible either for or against this), so in the end we end up using tons more herbicides (allegedly).
Would you base your decisions on allegations rather than reality?
I'm not anti-GMO, and I eat corn products, so I definitely eat it, I still think it should need to be labeled.
You seem like a smart person who has actually looked into the issue and even you are acting on false information. How do you think that most people who do not take this time will think when they hear "GMO bad, Big business just wants your money. They will kill you if they want. Don't believe a word they say". It does not matter what big business says they have lost to hype and hysteria.
The main way that anti-GMO advertisement sways people is the fear of the unknown. All that have to do is say "we don't know it is safe" and they win over any facts that can be brought up. Just look at the anti-vaxers. They have no real evidence that vaccines cause autism but they still sway many people. The main problem is that it is impossible to prove that GMO foods are completely save. The best we can come up with is that all studies show no harm. Proving a negative is very hard if not impossible.
The problem is that many people are not "rational humans".
Not just fuel but engine wear and air frame stress which reduces the life of the aircraft.
"These terrorist actions are completely opposite to the will of Allah. Everyone performing or willingly supporting them (including monetarily) will burn in hell forever."
Perhaps Islam is not a religion based on fear like Christianity. Maybe not doing something because it is wrong is more important than not doing something due to the consequences. Perhaps the Imams also do not think they speak for Allah as Christianity seems to so often.
The only references I see to ISIL in Baghdad are terorist attacks that a military guard unit could not stop anyway.
It was called the "Republican Guard" not "Republican Army" and was destroyed in the Second Gulf War. Is Saddam leading them? Oh right, he is dead. Does ISIS control all of Iraq? Again, no. The Republican Guard was a better armed military force under Saddam and no longer exists as a cohesive unit. Sure some ex members joined ISIS but their leadership has nothing to to with the Guard.
Lets see, Bush banner in the context of mission complete against Iraq army and Obama "containment" in the context of containing military advances of ISIS. That seems pretty strict in both instances. You are the one that considers Obama's "containment" statement to include all of ISIS everywhere.
In the context of militarily taking and holding ground, which is what Obama was talking about, then yes. That is called context. Is ISIS holding any ground in France? The spread of ISIS control is contained not their actions.
Nice out of context reference. He said that had contained the advance of ISIS in Syria in that they are no longer gaining ground in Syria. Nothing more nothing less.
It is irrelevant if a bunch of irrelevant organizations condemn the actions of Muslim terrorists
They may be irrelevant to you but not Muslims. I bet you didn't even read the link. I pull some name out to make it easier;
Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which represents 1.4 billion Muslims in 57 countries around the world,
Al-Azhar’s Grand Mufti Shawqi Allam, Egypt’s highest religious authority
Nabil al-Arabi, the Arab League Chief,
Turkey’s highest ranking cleric, Mehmet Gormez,
Saudi Arabia’s grand mufti, Abdulaziz al-Sheikh, the country’s top religious authority
And there is no central authority to certify whose interpretation is right.
Neither does Christianity. There are many different sects each with a separate leader in Christianity including, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Baptist, Anglican, Lutheran, etc. Christianity has leaders that corrupt the faithful. David Koresh is an example. Islam has sects as well.
Now what does this hypothesis predict? That terrorism should be equally distributed among religious followers.
Your "prediction" is false. The actual prediction would be that terrorism is concentrated in small minority sects that have been corrupted by their leaders.while most Muslims are taught peace and have no terrorist tendencies. That is what is happening.
To continue to apologize for Islam
I am not apologizing for Muslims. I am saying that the actions of a small minority do not represent the Muslim faith.
The real haters and racists, are those who refuse to admit that Islam is simply not compatible with western civilization.
Complete and utter bullshit. There have been Muslims living peacefully all over the the world since the days of Mohamed.
Your simplistic view that all Muslims are the same is completely false. Considering there are 1.6 billion Muslims all over the world western civilization would be in much bigger trouble if that were true. Here is a simple question. If all Muslims are the same then why are there Muslims fighting ISIS?
Considering there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world if what you say was true non-Muslims would be in big trouble.
why do you want to commit the crimes of Muslims on innocent Protestants
This is funny. There are no "crimes of Muslims". There are crime of people who call themselves Muslims. By the way what are your protesting?
Those terrorists do not represent all Muslims in the world. Just as Breivik does not represent all Christians in the world. You asked me to show you where Muslims condemned ISIS actions and I did; or didn't you read the linked article. There are also many Muslims fighting ISIS right now.
Sorry if the facts don't coincide with your world view.
Think again.
Should all Christians be lumped in with Anders Breivik.
The "mission accomplished" was in reference to defeating Sadam's regime. It had nothing to do with terrorism as a whole.
Terrorism is impossible to completely defeat. There will always be someone who will commit an act of terrorism in the name of some group. Some people will always see wrongs that need to be avenged. The best we can hope for is keeping it to a manageable level.
Mythbusters debunked the flag theory. It is caused by momentum and lack of air resistance.
I believe a laser strike has to effect the cockpit. A strike does not have to cause injury to be a problem. A pilot's vision can be dazzled/distracted without being injured.
I have an extremely powerful laser that finds itself pointing at the sky all the time.
If you are anywhere near an airport I would be careful.
One way or the other, the software is "unavailable" and therefore any research made using it can not be published.
So there is no difference between people starving because they chose not to eat and them starving because someone else does not allow them to eat. In the end they are not eating. To me the difference is choice and control.
I merely expressed doubt, that it ever has.
Again, making a passive claim.
I don't have a big enough horse in this race to be troubled with my own investigations.
But you feel entitled enough to ask others to disprove your claim. Why should others have to do your work?
Whether the software is unavailable because a person owns a Che Guevara T-shirt or because he lives in a country, that's too welcoming to immigrants, is of no account...
The difference is control. Scientists have control over there own action therefore by they have a choice whether or not to own a Che Guevara T-shirt and thereby whether or not to use your software. They do not have control over their countries' immigration policy therefore another body makes the decision whether or not they can use the software.
Can you cite an example where the policy has not been applied in this manner? It is quite possible that something like this has never happened before. You are basically claiming that the policy is probably being applied unevenly. It was a nice try to obfuscate the claim by "only asking questions" but it didn't work. You made the claim it is up to you to prove the claim.
My own license for a tiny open-source program bans owners of Che Guevara items from using it — would these distinguished editors find that offensive as well?
Maybe, maybe not. The question is irrelevant anyway as the situation is different. The scientists that are not allowed to use the software have little or no influence on immigration policy. They would have complete control of the ownership of Che Guevara items. See the difference?
Since when has Slashdot posted articles without links to corroborate the story? This is a new low even for Slashdot.