I don't believe the dangers of GMOs are from a health standpoint.
But most people do believe that it's a health thing. Even the first comment in this thread is about the safety of the food.
So recognizing that most people do believe that it's a health issue, do you think it is better to have a label which will be taken as deceptive or not?
You're assuming that they know that every item in their product chain is GMO-free. They may not know. They know that it's safe, and they know what it does for their product; because so far, that's all that they needed to know.
In a properly democratic society, that means food should require labeling regardless of if it makes sense or not.
But when people believe that they feel the need to be informed is for safety purposes, and yet this is completely a non-food safety issue, that information is now deceptive. And it is not good for some members of a society to be enforcing deceptive information onto the rest of the populous.
When the information actually effects you, I agree with your stance. But given that the GMO vs non-GMO doesn't affect your body at all, I find this information to be more of a hindrance than a help.
Why would you try to conceal GMO products from the consumer? It's confirmation that the makers of GMO products have something to hide!
It's not that there's something to hide, it could just comes down to cost. How much does it cost to find out if any one of the perfectly safe ingredients in your supply chain can be labeled as GMO? It could be a lot. Plus, there's the overhead of changing the labeling just for Vermont. Then the logistics of making sure that Vermont only good end up only in Vermont, and non-Vermont goods stay out of Vermont.
There's nothing to hide, but there also could be nothing to be gained.
There's no reason Comcast's video-on-demand service should get preferential treatment over Netflix.
The reason would be peering agreements. If you've found a way to keep costs down by keeping everything in network, channeling data internetwork could cost you more.
Because big players can make deals with local politicians and say something like "Give us a monopoly, and we'll give internet to a low cost housing unit (or something like that)" and the politician will agree. Because the next time they run they can say "Look at what I did! I enabled a program which provided internet to a low cost housing development." which is way easier than saying "I resisted breaking the principles of an open marketplace." The latter being rather fuzzy, especially in the minds of voters.
This is almost exactly the same thing as that offer from Sprint to allow streaming videos from certain providers not to count against data usage.
But almost exactly, and exactly are not the same. It's possible to draw lines. If Sprint (or potentially T-Mobile) owns the servers/service then I would say it's all in their network and fair game. But if they don't own whomever created/licensed the content, and the source of the bytes is coming from out of network, then that's a plan which does break net neutrality.
As long as competitor content isn't slowed down to make your content more attractive, it seams reasonable to me to put caps on out of network usage, but no caps on usage from servers which are wholly owned by the ISP.
After reading all of the comments here I thought I'd check what my computers update status was. It said that there was a restart pending to install KB3140743. I clicked Restart, the computer ran updates and came back fine. Now I've even typing this comment on the computer which just installed KB3140743! O'well, no exciting BSOD for me.
So many bad guys though, aren't going to roll their own encryption. It's not like someone is going to think "I'm going to start committing crimes today, better change my encryption scheme". And those organized well enough to do so, will probably be under the gaze of the five eyes. It's somewhat similar to when a terrorist expert is asked why a dirty bomb has yet to happen and the answer is that to be the type of person to actually get a dirty bomb working requires a certain mental standard which prevents one from working with terrorists.
Calculus is essential to differential equations, which in turn is necessary to model the physical world. No scientific or engineering education is complete without it.
I absolutely agree. But how many students are going to have a complete scientific or engineering education at the high school level?
Instead of having so many students struggle with math year after year, because it's kept as this theoretical, abstract thing, where they can't see it's application; I think that the trial and error which comes through debugging and a development cycle, really solidifies the math concepts in ways that busy work never does for most people.
Think about xkcd 1050, the one which has the text "It's weird how proud people are of not learning math when the same arguments apply to learning to play music, cook, or speak a foreign language."
I think that the problem is that every math class in school, after Algebra feels like it's being taught because every student needs math every year, and they already learned the material from the previous year, so what's left to teach them? It has a feel of trivia to it, but it's frustrating because you grasp trivia, but this math thing feels like it is supposed to be used somehow but you never get to apply it to anything.
When a student asks "Why am I learning calculus?" the closest answer which feels remotely right to them is "In case you decide to teach math in High School, you'll need to know calculus".
What to do about it? Drop pre-algebra for Intro to Computer Science. It'll really be some basic programming, but still. Even tell the students that they get a years break from math. Many will love that, and those that don't will get over themselves quickly. Then do algebra, and then possibly even drop algebra 2 for more programming. This will create a balance in the students minds of learning mathematical principles, and then actually getting to apply them. They'll become better at math.
And if many students start to get good at programming, it might even be worth it to drop calculus, and trigonometry, for more statistics or even machine learning. I know that there are professions which use calculus, but there are so many more which use stats. And more and more, every business is going to using machine learning.
I say this as someone who loved math in school. I honestly think that by balancing out theoretical math class with some math application (programming) more students will do better at math and be more prepared for the future workforce.
a judge can't just order a random person to pick it up.
But a judge can approve a request from a member of the Executive Branch if it's publicly documented and is part of an investigation. It takes multiple parties, that's the checks and balances.
Demanding that Apple force its programmers to write custom software THAT DOES NOT NOW EXIST to allow the FBI to break into one particular iPhone is "unreasonable"
But what if the software does exist? Asking "Hey, can you change a couple of variables, and recompile" is not very burdensome. As for the driver to allow for PIN guesses via some other method than the touch screen, that sounds more likely to be unreasonable. But what if the code already exists? It's not too hard to imagine that Apple already has some test assembly that they use in test labs for testing PIN entries on physical devices.
Because if there aren't any limits to THIS PARTICULAR LAW, then the Constitution died in 1789, barely two years after its ratification.
There are limits. The word 'reasonable' and that it takes a request from one branch of government, and another independent branch to sign off on it. If either one believes that what is being asked is not reasonable, then it doesn't apply.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no confidence that GMO producers will test their GMO food products well enough. It’s not profitable.
Hey, because the lawsuits from killing off millions of consumers would just be a little line item on the balance sheet.
I don't believe the dangers of GMOs are from a health standpoint.
But most people do believe that it's a health thing. Even the first comment in this thread is about the safety of the food.
So recognizing that most people do believe that it's a health issue, do you think it is better to have a label which will be taken as deceptive or not?
You're assuming that they know that every item in their product chain is GMO-free. They may not know. They know that it's safe, and they know what it does for their product; because so far, that's all that they needed to know.
In a properly democratic society, that means food should require labeling regardless of if it makes sense or not.
But when people believe that they feel the need to be informed is for safety purposes, and yet this is completely a non-food safety issue, that information is now deceptive. And it is not good for some members of a society to be enforcing deceptive information onto the rest of the populous.
When the information actually effects you, I agree with your stance. But given that the GMO vs non-GMO doesn't affect your body at all, I find this information to be more of a hindrance than a help.
Why would you try to conceal GMO products from the consumer? It's confirmation that the makers of GMO products have something to hide!
It's not that there's something to hide, it could just comes down to cost. How much does it cost to find out if any one of the perfectly safe ingredients in your supply chain can be labeled as GMO? It could be a lot. Plus, there's the overhead of changing the labeling just for Vermont. Then the logistics of making sure that Vermont only good end up only in Vermont, and non-Vermont goods stay out of Vermont.
There's nothing to hide, but there also could be nothing to be gained.
Losing business to whom?
Changing the value of two variables, to something greater than 10,000 is not a rewrite.
How competent are police forces in dealing with computer issues? None at all, the answer is none at all.
Sweet, now I can bog down my sites with more eye candy, and the users won't notice a slowdown.
There's no reason Comcast's video-on-demand service should get preferential treatment over Netflix.
The reason would be peering agreements. If you've found a way to keep costs down by keeping everything in network, channeling data internetwork could cost you more.
Why do we put up with this?
Because big players can make deals with local politicians and say something like "Give us a monopoly, and we'll give internet to a low cost housing unit (or something like that)" and the politician will agree. Because the next time they run they can say "Look at what I did! I enabled a program which provided internet to a low cost housing development." which is way easier than saying "I resisted breaking the principles of an open marketplace." The latter being rather fuzzy, especially in the minds of voters.
Putting caps on competing services is slowing it down.
I'm pretty sure there's a difference between not offering anymore service, vs. slowing service down.
This is almost exactly the same thing as that offer from Sprint to allow streaming videos from certain providers not to count against data usage.
But almost exactly, and exactly are not the same. It's possible to draw lines. If Sprint (or potentially T-Mobile) owns the servers/service then I would say it's all in their network and fair game. But if they don't own whomever created/licensed the content, and the source of the bytes is coming from out of network, then that's a plan which does break net neutrality.
Then its the refusal to get enough bandwidth to any but preferred sites.
Once you go from 'sites wholly owned by the ISP' to 'preferred sites' it's breaking Net Neutrality.
As long as competitor content isn't slowed down to make your content more attractive, it seams reasonable to me to put caps on out of network usage, but no caps on usage from servers which are wholly owned by the ISP.
Couldn't this have been done via a website decades ago? What makes apps so special?
After reading all of the comments here I thought I'd check what my computers update status was. It said that there was a restart pending to install KB3140743. I clicked Restart, the computer ran updates and came back fine. Now I've even typing this comment on the computer which just installed KB3140743! O'well, no exciting BSOD for me.
So many bad guys though, aren't going to roll their own encryption. It's not like someone is going to think "I'm going to start committing crimes today, better change my encryption scheme". And those organized well enough to do so, will probably be under the gaze of the five eyes. It's somewhat similar to when a terrorist expert is asked why a dirty bomb has yet to happen and the answer is that to be the type of person to actually get a dirty bomb working requires a certain mental standard which prevents one from working with terrorists.
Calculus is essential to differential equations, which in turn is necessary to model the physical world. No scientific or engineering education is complete without it.
I absolutely agree. But how many students are going to have a complete scientific or engineering education at the high school level?
Instead of having so many students struggle with math year after year, because it's kept as this theoretical, abstract thing, where they can't see it's application; I think that the trial and error which comes through debugging and a development cycle, really solidifies the math concepts in ways that busy work never does for most people.
Think about xkcd 1050, the one which has the text "It's weird how proud people are of not learning math when the same arguments apply to learning to play music, cook, or speak a foreign language."
I think that the problem is that every math class in school, after Algebra feels like it's being taught because every student needs math every year, and they already learned the material from the previous year, so what's left to teach them? It has a feel of trivia to it, but it's frustrating because you grasp trivia, but this math thing feels like it is supposed to be used somehow but you never get to apply it to anything.
When a student asks "Why am I learning calculus?" the closest answer which feels remotely right to them is "In case you decide to teach math in High School, you'll need to know calculus".
What to do about it? Drop pre-algebra for Intro to Computer Science. It'll really be some basic programming, but still. Even tell the students that they get a years break from math. Many will love that, and those that don't will get over themselves quickly. Then do algebra, and then possibly even drop algebra 2 for more programming. This will create a balance in the students minds of learning mathematical principles, and then actually getting to apply them. They'll become better at math.
And if many students start to get good at programming, it might even be worth it to drop calculus, and trigonometry, for more statistics or even machine learning. I know that there are professions which use calculus, but there are so many more which use stats. And more and more, every business is going to using machine learning.
I say this as someone who loved math in school. I honestly think that by balancing out theoretical math class with some math application (programming) more students will do better at math and be more prepared for the future workforce.
a judge can't just order a random person to pick it up.
But a judge can approve a request from a member of the Executive Branch if it's publicly documented and is part of an investigation. It takes multiple parties, that's the checks and balances.
The FBI has said that what they're asking of Apple, is something which Apple has done 70 times before for them. So it's not really burdensome.
Demanding that Apple force its programmers to write custom software THAT DOES NOT NOW EXIST to allow the FBI to break into one particular iPhone is "unreasonable"
But what if the software does exist? Asking "Hey, can you change a couple of variables, and recompile" is not very burdensome. As for the driver to allow for PIN guesses via some other method than the touch screen, that sounds more likely to be unreasonable. But what if the code already exists? It's not too hard to imagine that Apple already has some test assembly that they use in test labs for testing PIN entries on physical devices.
Because if there aren't any limits to THIS PARTICULAR LAW, then the Constitution died in 1789, barely two years after its ratification.
There are limits. The word 'reasonable' and that it takes a request from one branch of government, and another independent branch to sign off on it. If either one believes that what is being asked is not reasonable, then it doesn't apply.
They'd be better off making sure their students had a grasp of fundamental skills than adding additional CS requirements to graduation.
How is CS not a fundamental skill?