...which actually isn't bad given you get copies of all the nominated works as part of your voting packet.
Probably better value though during years when the nominated works reflect what ordinary fans have liked, rather than gamed by people voting for slates of works that don't offend them.
By voting "No Award" it sure seems like there was some organized group bent on preventing the interlopers from getting their way - even if it meant that nobody got an award this year.
No. The organized group was at the nomination stage. Two organized groups, the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, organized to prevent anything other than bland or poorly written, ideologically sound, material was up for a Hugo.
At the vote itself, there was no organized. We know this because the "No award" votes - which were open to all fans who paid the membership fee - attracted more than 50% of the vote on the first round. A small anti-right-wing rump wouldn't have been able to organize that.
Hanlon's razor applies here. What do you think happened? Somehow "SJWs" were able to mind control 51%+ of Hugos voters to vote a particular way, or that a ballot that consists only of "ideologically sound" options picked by two groups of anti-left activists, might not actually contain anything considered as Hugo-worthy by the majority of fans, and additionally the blatant attempt at ballot gaming might offend those concerned about the integrity of the Hugos?
If so-called SJWs had the powers their opponents ascribe to them, there wouldn't be any social justice issues for anyone to go to war over.
I am sick to death with the progressive war on free speech and association. They don't get to choose who the right or wrong fans are. Fans get to choose if they're fans of the genre.
In case you missed it: What happened here is that two right wing organizations gamed the system to ensure that only works they considered ideologically sound were allowed to be voted upon. Not progressives. Right wingers. One hard right (Vox Day) and one group that just felt that too many Hugos had gone to stories with progressive themes recently.
So progressives weren't at war with free speech and association here. Right wingers are.
Those same groups are claiming, here, that the Hugos somehow did not reflect the "Fans" votes. That's in the very headline of this article. In fact, the Hugos do reflect the vote, and those some right wingers are simply claiming that votes from people who did not like the limited choices provided to them, or who objected on principle to the ballot paper being rigged, should not count.
So progressives aren't trying to "choose" who the right or wrong fans are. Right wingers are.
The fact you would try to defend the Puppies on "free speech" grounds when both Puppy groups are opposed to allowing stories with themes they find offensive from being considered for awards is astonishing.
Progressives have never tried to game the ballot. Never. Never in the history of the Hugos has that happened. Nor have we ever claimed that supporters of books with themes that are anti-progressive (and there are plenty of examples) are somehow not true science fiction fans. That's exclusively a right-wing phenomenon.
Does anyone who's not a complete ideological nutball really think that if, for the sake of argument, Lesbians of Color Against Bernie Sanders, had somehow created their own slate and organized, Puppy-style, enough bad faith voting that ALL the ballot options were leftish and there were no right wing books to be had, that the reaction by Hugo voters would have been any different whatsoever?
Hugo voters voted the way they did for two reasons. They were aware two third parties with broadly similar, albeit to different extremes, had gamed the selection, and were pissed about it. And they had to choose between a second rate selection of works selected not by merit, but by political ideology.
They were never going to vote any other way. And it doesn't matter whether the next attempt to force a slate is from the right, left, or the Monster Raving Loony Party, they're not going to accept this crap again.
The * Puppies lost, however much their supporters might spin it otherwise. They proved nothing beyond the fact that Hugo voters care about the integrity of the award.
Yes, it's a lie, and your attempt to claim otherwise neither matches reality or matches the summary's headline, and barely addresses the major lies in the summary.
The headline claims that fans votes were ignored. That's a lie. The fans rejected the Puppy's works. The entities running the Hugos did not override the vote, ignore them, or in any other way replace a legitimate vote with a "No award".
The summary claims that the controversy over the selection had to do with "a group of (fans)" wanting to promote "hard science fiction". That's a lie. It had to do with two groups, one of which wanted to promote right wing works, the other of which wanted to prevent works it perceived as left wing from being voted upon, both of which using slates of "ideologically sound" works to squeeze out other works from the final ballots.
Even when the summary tells the truth, its worded in such a way to imply conspiracy where there is none: The summary the bizarre statement "The question was left: would the final voters of the Hugo awards accept these nominees, or just take their ball home and refuse to give out anyway awards at all?" as if to imply that there was something wrong with voters on the Hugos, which is open to everyone who pays the small membership fee involved, being offended by a blatant attempt to rig the Hugos.
I don't recall, in the history of Slashdot, seeing such a blatant attempt by political ideologues to lie about an event they were a part of.
And to the Puppies here claiming that somehow they "won": no, you didn't. You didn't "prove anything" beyond the fact that those who care about the Hugos hate it - absolutely hate it - when you try to rig their awards. If the so-called "SJWs" tried to pull the same stunt, the same thing would have happened. You know it.
The Hugos are a fan vote, not a judge vote. The fans voted: they rejected an attempt by two groups, one a band of right wing extremists, the other a kinda "We feel in our gut that previous winners are left wing but can't come up with a coherent reason why", to hijack the awards by gaming the nomination process.
The two groups, Vox Day's "Rabid Puppies" (the right wing extremists), and the "Sad Puppies", attempted (mostly successfully) to force fans to choose between only works they believed were ideologically sound by focusing nomination votes on two slates. With fans only able to vote for the highest supported works, there was a strong chance each ballot would only have Puppy-supported works on it. This happened in a number of ballots.
The fans said no. The choices we're stuck with suck. We'd rather not vote for anyone.
The headline is an outright unmitigated lie. The fans voted. They rejected the slates they were offered. The Hugos accepted the fan's choices here.
(And how ironic that supporters use the SJW canard when both Puppy campaigns were blatant attempts to prevent anyone voting for anything that might be ideologically unsound to the grounds involved.)
I wouldn't take it seriously. Right now, the candidates are telling Republicans want they want to hear so they can win the primaries. That goes for all of them, including the supposed straight talker who's winning because everyone thinks the Mafia-connected blowhard is "honest".
No they banned it because nobody living under the flight path wanted it flying overhead. I used to live under Concorde's flight path in the UK. I lived in Reading. Thirty miles from Heathrow. I don't even know if it was actually supersonic when it got overhead, I just know it was impossible to hear the TV, the other person on the phone, or hold a conversation with anyone nearby then it did.
I can tell you, right now, that if it had become the norm and most mid-to-long distance flights were on Concorde, it would have been hell for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people.
It's a good thing it failed. Much as I liked the concept.
The problem is that some people tend to spend all their money on vices rather than their children. So now you have to introduce housing vouchers, food stamps, etc... and you get the same welfare system you have today, plus a basic income.
No, really, you don't. You provide people with a basic income and you leave it at that. If you provide additional assistance at all, it would be purely to account for regional differences - ensuring, for example, someone can live with a roof over their head whether they live in Kentucky or New York City.
Micromanaging what people can do with their welfare check seems to be a largely American phenomenon and has more to do with trying to appease and/or bypass critics of government assistance programs than actually trying to help people spend wisely. As an example, Food Stamps were introduced during the Great Depression. More general improvements in welfare would have been more appropriate at the time, but Roosevelt knew he couldn't pass that. What he could do was rail against waste, against food being thrown away when the country was full of starving people, and so food stamps were born.
If someone is going to spend their money on cigarettes and booze, that's unfortunate, but they suffer anyway from doing that. We don't have either give them more money, or else micromanage the expenditures of everyone else. That's a different problem, and it needs to be addressed separately from how you ensure everyone in the world can exercise a right to eat, drink, receive medical care, and have shelter.
They're not ditching C. The headline was intended to mean "Google releases Version 1.5 of its Go Programming Language which finally ditches C" (itself poor wording, but at least accurate and non-misleading) but for some reason a comma, implying Google was the entity ditching C, was substituted in place of the "which". If the submitter was short of characters for the headline, ditching "Google" and using the phrase "self hosting" somewhere would have been less clumsy and harder to mess up.
Go being self hosted is a good thing, as it implies maturity and makes it less dependent upon existing infrastructure.
C is... problematic and there are good reasons to steer clear of it when it's unnecessary to use it. String handling, for example, is abysmal in C and one of the largest causes of bugs. As a result a sizable proportion of the development community does try to get away from C when it can find an opportunity to. But that has nothing to do with the article at hand.
I can pay my taxes in fiat dollars, so as long as we have a government, they do hold value and I am required, legally, to use them.
Is it a social construct? Well, yeah, but so's government - and that latter social construct becomes very tangible when it's slipping handcuffs around your wrists.
Oh bollocks. You already knew this was his position. He's anti-immigrant, heavily anti-immigrant. Why would you think he's going to be anti-immigrant on virtually everything except one particular visa type, one that he doesn't even benefit from personally? (Not many H1B construction workers. Funnily enough, one of the Mafia owned Unions he employed in the early eighties gave him mostly illegal immigrant workers, but, well, that kinda mkaes the point now doesn't it?)
Voting on one thing that happens to be a consequence of a larger thing that isn't so good isn't wise. If Trump supported the nuking of California, would you support it because it would mean the end of the MPAA?
You know, don't answer that one. I have a horrible feeling enough Slashdotters would support a nuking of California if the MPAA was collateral damage for me to get depressed about it...
I don't disagree that a reasonable, well adjusted person should do exactly what you said. But that's not the description of many software engineers
No, just most. Oh sure, there's a stereotype associated with being a developer that describes us as anti-social, but the vast majority of software engineers I've met in real life are perfectly capable of acting professionally and most do.
I might add I find the attitude that we should overlook a lack of professionalism, and treat is as cultural or biological, harmful. It not only perpetuates the stereotype, but implicitly blesses bad behavior, and discourages personal improvement. It's harmful ultimately not just to the businesses we work for (and the workplace culture within them) but to all developers allowed to let their id run amok, for much the same reason as a bogus psychiatric evaluation can cause permanent harm.
They have as much right to be there as you, and like you they have no alternatives. Believe me, no cyclist wants a line of large, heavy, motor vehicles driven by frustrated, angry, drivers, to be behind them.
Take it up with your local governments (city, county, and state - they all have a hand in it) for insisting that the only rights-of-way available to both cars and cyclists are the main, unpartitioned, roads.
Transportation in the US is seriously broken. But it's not going to be fixed unless people start complaining about it.
If the biggest telecoms get split from 3 to 300, that means 100x as many lobbyists. If you look at giant industries in the US that aren't getting their way, you'll notice it's almost always industries dominated by a small handful of players, hopelessly outnumbered by their competition.
No, it makes him a realist. Being a member of a political party means you're bound to support things that the party wants and your political power to oppose those things may be limited, even if you're otherwise a decent person.
It's not as bad for a position like a mayor, but for things like representative bodies like parliament and congress, the fact some person you like is a member of the party you dislike is a serious problem, because voting for him or her is likely to increase that party's majority and bring with it policies you strongly oppose.
Personally, I think there needs to be a moratorium on anything to do with converting rail right of ways to trails, in part or in whole. The proposals sound well meaning, but they're frequently done in bad faith as an attempt to prevent trains from being used in certain areas, and they're based upon the proposition that trains are "obsolete" and "never coming back" whereas 99% of the issues the US rail industry has can be traced to systematically hostile governance and subsidies of the alternatives.
Rail will, ultimately, go back to growing as a means of transportation due to a combination of population growth, and under (real) capacity. As that happens, the politically nearly-impossible-to-reverse destruction of rail right-of-ways will become a major problem.
Build the cycle paths in the areas next to the freeways. They're normally pretty wide as it is. For bridges etc, alternate routes can be found.
I think you missed the comments earlier in the thread that I'm responding to. The TL;DR is that you're licensed to use the Java API if you use Oracle's compiler. That is, Oracle are giving you a license to use it.
Third party compilers, licensed under the GPL or anything else, don't have that licensing because it's not their's to license.
Well Microsoft have said explicitly that you won't, so no.
I think Microsoft is happy with the revenue from their "PC tax", the fact you'll have to buy a PC every few years to run modern applications should be enough to ensure they get roughly the same revenue from Windows as before. That said, they've also been giving Windows away for free on low cost devices lately, so they're obviously planning to tap into other revenue streams.
but they have NOTHING on the Dems throwing their weight behind Hillary.
We haven't thrown our weight behind Hillary yet...
No idea if she'll win the nomination or not. The establishment believes she will. But the establishment also thinks Jeb Bush is really winning the Republican nomination. Sanders is strong right now, and nobody knows if Biden is going to throw his hat in.
It's fairly simple. Generically modified crops will appear fine at first. People will happily eat them, unaware that anything is wrong.
Then, wham! One day, we all wake up. Zombies everywhere.
Same dealio with irradiated foods. Except Mutants everywhere.
Also Monsanto is evil. If they can genetically engineer food, they're probably grafting other things to create X5s and Nexus 6es. BMW has already released an "X5", but where did they get the design from? Likewise, where did Google get its Nexus 6 from? Monsanto, that's where.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably better value though during years when the nominated works reflect what ordinary fans have liked, rather than gamed by people voting for slates of works that don't offend them.
No. The organized group was at the nomination stage. Two organized groups, the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, organized to prevent anything other than bland or poorly written, ideologically sound, material was up for a Hugo.
At the vote itself, there was no organized. We know this because the "No award" votes - which were open to all fans who paid the membership fee - attracted more than 50% of the vote on the first round. A small anti-right-wing rump wouldn't have been able to organize that.
Hanlon's razor applies here. What do you think happened? Somehow "SJWs" were able to mind control 51%+ of Hugos voters to vote a particular way, or that a ballot that consists only of "ideologically sound" options picked by two groups of anti-left activists, might not actually contain anything considered as Hugo-worthy by the majority of fans, and additionally the blatant attempt at ballot gaming might offend those concerned about the integrity of the Hugos?
If so-called SJWs had the powers their opponents ascribe to them, there wouldn't be any social justice issues for anyone to go to war over.
In case you missed it: What happened here is that two right wing organizations gamed the system to ensure that only works they considered ideologically sound were allowed to be voted upon. Not progressives. Right wingers. One hard right (Vox Day) and one group that just felt that too many Hugos had gone to stories with progressive themes recently.
So progressives weren't at war with free speech and association here. Right wingers are.
Those same groups are claiming, here, that the Hugos somehow did not reflect the "Fans" votes. That's in the very headline of this article. In fact, the Hugos do reflect the vote, and those some right wingers are simply claiming that votes from people who did not like the limited choices provided to them, or who objected on principle to the ballot paper being rigged, should not count.
So progressives aren't trying to "choose" who the right or wrong fans are. Right wingers are.
The fact you would try to defend the Puppies on "free speech" grounds when both Puppy groups are opposed to allowing stories with themes they find offensive from being considered for awards is astonishing.
Progressives have never tried to game the ballot. Never. Never in the history of the Hugos has that happened. Nor have we ever claimed that supporters of books with themes that are anti-progressive (and there are plenty of examples) are somehow not true science fiction fans. That's exclusively a right-wing phenomenon.
You need to rethink your world view.
Exactly.
Does anyone who's not a complete ideological nutball really think that if, for the sake of argument, Lesbians of Color Against Bernie Sanders, had somehow created their own slate and organized, Puppy-style, enough bad faith voting that ALL the ballot options were leftish and there were no right wing books to be had, that the reaction by Hugo voters would have been any different whatsoever?
Hugo voters voted the way they did for two reasons. They were aware two third parties with broadly similar, albeit to different extremes, had gamed the selection, and were pissed about it. And they had to choose between a second rate selection of works selected not by merit, but by political ideology.
They were never going to vote any other way. And it doesn't matter whether the next attempt to force a slate is from the right, left, or the Monster Raving Loony Party, they're not going to accept this crap again.
The * Puppies lost, however much their supporters might spin it otherwise. They proved nothing beyond the fact that Hugo voters care about the integrity of the award.
Yes, it's a lie, and your attempt to claim otherwise neither matches reality or matches the summary's headline, and barely addresses the major lies in the summary.
The headline claims that fans votes were ignored. That's a lie. The fans rejected the Puppy's works. The entities running the Hugos did not override the vote, ignore them, or in any other way replace a legitimate vote with a "No award".
The summary claims that the controversy over the selection had to do with "a group of (fans)" wanting to promote "hard science fiction". That's a lie. It had to do with two groups, one of which wanted to promote right wing works, the other of which wanted to prevent works it perceived as left wing from being voted upon, both of which using slates of "ideologically sound" works to squeeze out other works from the final ballots.
Even when the summary tells the truth, its worded in such a way to imply conspiracy where there is none: The summary the bizarre statement "The question was left: would the final voters of the Hugo awards accept these nominees, or just take their ball home and refuse to give out anyway awards at all?" as if to imply that there was something wrong with voters on the Hugos, which is open to everyone who pays the small membership fee involved, being offended by a blatant attempt to rig the Hugos.
I don't recall, in the history of Slashdot, seeing such a blatant attempt by political ideologues to lie about an event they were a part of.
And to the Puppies here claiming that somehow they "won": no, you didn't. You didn't "prove anything" beyond the fact that those who care about the Hugos hate it - absolutely hate it - when you try to rig their awards. If the so-called "SJWs" tried to pull the same stunt, the same thing would have happened. You know it.
The Hugos are a fan vote, not a judge vote. The fans voted: they rejected an attempt by two groups, one a band of right wing extremists, the other a kinda "We feel in our gut that previous winners are left wing but can't come up with a coherent reason why", to hijack the awards by gaming the nomination process.
The two groups, Vox Day's "Rabid Puppies" (the right wing extremists), and the "Sad Puppies", attempted (mostly successfully) to force fans to choose between only works they believed were ideologically sound by focusing nomination votes on two slates. With fans only able to vote for the highest supported works, there was a strong chance each ballot would only have Puppy-supported works on it. This happened in a number of ballots.
The fans said no. The choices we're stuck with suck. We'd rather not vote for anyone.
The headline is an outright unmitigated lie. The fans voted. They rejected the slates they were offered. The Hugos accepted the fan's choices here.
(And how ironic that supporters use the SJW canard when both Puppy campaigns were blatant attempts to prevent anyone voting for anything that might be ideologically unsound to the grounds involved.)
This is good news for Bitcoin...
It's OK though, it will still be possible to distinguish Firefox from Chrome: Firefox will not run Chrome's plug-ins...
I wouldn't take it seriously. Right now, the candidates are telling Republicans want they want to hear so they can win the primaries. That goes for all of them, including the supposed straight talker who's winning because everyone thinks the Mafia-connected blowhard is "honest".
No they banned it because nobody living under the flight path wanted it flying overhead. I used to live under Concorde's flight path in the UK. I lived in Reading. Thirty miles from Heathrow. I don't even know if it was actually supersonic when it got overhead, I just know it was impossible to hear the TV, the other person on the phone, or hold a conversation with anyone nearby then it did.
I can tell you, right now, that if it had become the norm and most mid-to-long distance flights were on Concorde, it would have been hell for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people.
It's a good thing it failed. Much as I liked the concept.
No, really, you don't. You provide people with a basic income and you leave it at that. If you provide additional assistance at all, it would be purely to account for regional differences - ensuring, for example, someone can live with a roof over their head whether they live in Kentucky or New York City.
Micromanaging what people can do with their welfare check seems to be a largely American phenomenon and has more to do with trying to appease and/or bypass critics of government assistance programs than actually trying to help people spend wisely. As an example, Food Stamps were introduced during the Great Depression. More general improvements in welfare would have been more appropriate at the time, but Roosevelt knew he couldn't pass that. What he could do was rail against waste, against food being thrown away when the country was full of starving people, and so food stamps were born.
If someone is going to spend their money on cigarettes and booze, that's unfortunate, but they suffer anyway from doing that. We don't have either give them more money, or else micromanage the expenditures of everyone else. That's a different problem, and it needs to be addressed separately from how you ensure everyone in the world can exercise a right to eat, drink, receive medical care, and have shelter.
Convene a meeting of the YouTube Vlogger Ethics Committee at once!
They're not ditching C. The headline was intended to mean "Google releases Version 1.5 of its Go Programming Language which finally ditches C" (itself poor wording, but at least accurate and non-misleading) but for some reason a comma, implying Google was the entity ditching C, was substituted in place of the "which". If the submitter was short of characters for the headline, ditching "Google" and using the phrase "self hosting" somewhere would have been less clumsy and harder to mess up.
Go being self hosted is a good thing, as it implies maturity and makes it less dependent upon existing infrastructure.
C is... problematic and there are good reasons to steer clear of it when it's unnecessary to use it. String handling, for example, is abysmal in C and one of the largest causes of bugs. As a result a sizable proportion of the development community does try to get away from C when it can find an opportunity to. But that has nothing to do with the article at hand.
I can pay my taxes in fiat dollars, so as long as we have a government, they do hold value and I am required, legally, to use them.
Is it a social construct? Well, yeah, but so's government - and that latter social construct becomes very tangible when it's slipping handcuffs around your wrists.
Oh bollocks. You already knew this was his position. He's anti-immigrant, heavily anti-immigrant. Why would you think he's going to be anti-immigrant on virtually everything except one particular visa type, one that he doesn't even benefit from personally? (Not many H1B construction workers. Funnily enough, one of the Mafia owned Unions he employed in the early eighties gave him mostly illegal immigrant workers, but, well, that kinda mkaes the point now doesn't it?)
Voting on one thing that happens to be a consequence of a larger thing that isn't so good isn't wise. If Trump supported the nuking of California, would you support it because it would mean the end of the MPAA?
You know, don't answer that one. I have a horrible feeling enough Slashdotters would support a nuking of California if the MPAA was collateral damage for me to get depressed about it...
No, just most. Oh sure, there's a stereotype associated with being a developer that describes us as anti-social, but the vast majority of software engineers I've met in real life are perfectly capable of acting professionally and most do.
I might add I find the attitude that we should overlook a lack of professionalism, and treat is as cultural or biological, harmful. It not only perpetuates the stereotype, but implicitly blesses bad behavior, and discourages personal improvement. It's harmful ultimately not just to the businesses we work for (and the workplace culture within them) but to all developers allowed to let their id run amok, for much the same reason as a bogus psychiatric evaluation can cause permanent harm.
They have as much right to be there as you, and like you they have no alternatives. Believe me, no cyclist wants a line of large, heavy, motor vehicles driven by frustrated, angry, drivers, to be behind them.
Take it up with your local governments (city, county, and state - they all have a hand in it) for insisting that the only rights-of-way available to both cars and cyclists are the main, unpartitioned, roads.
Transportation in the US is seriously broken. But it's not going to be fixed unless people start complaining about it.
Nah, that'll make things worse, not better.
If the biggest telecoms get split from 3 to 300, that means 100x as many lobbyists. If you look at giant industries in the US that aren't getting their way, you'll notice it's almost always industries dominated by a small handful of players, hopelessly outnumbered by their competition.
No, it makes him a realist. Being a member of a political party means you're bound to support things that the party wants and your political power to oppose those things may be limited, even if you're otherwise a decent person.
It's not as bad for a position like a mayor, but for things like representative bodies like parliament and congress, the fact some person you like is a member of the party you dislike is a serious problem, because voting for him or her is likely to increase that party's majority and bring with it policies you strongly oppose.
Personally, I think there needs to be a moratorium on anything to do with converting rail right of ways to trails, in part or in whole. The proposals sound well meaning, but they're frequently done in bad faith as an attempt to prevent trains from being used in certain areas, and they're based upon the proposition that trains are "obsolete" and "never coming back" whereas 99% of the issues the US rail industry has can be traced to systematically hostile governance and subsidies of the alternatives.
Rail will, ultimately, go back to growing as a means of transportation due to a combination of population growth, and under (real) capacity. As that happens, the politically nearly-impossible-to-reverse destruction of rail right-of-ways will become a major problem.
Build the cycle paths in the areas next to the freeways. They're normally pretty wide as it is. For bridges etc, alternate routes can be found.
I think you missed the comments earlier in the thread that I'm responding to. The TL;DR is that you're licensed to use the Java API if you use Oracle's compiler. That is, Oracle are giving you a license to use it.
Third party compilers, licensed under the GPL or anything else, don't have that licensing because it's not their's to license.
Which is presumably great if you're using Oracle's Java compiler. And not so great if you're not...
Well Microsoft have said explicitly that you won't, so no.
I think Microsoft is happy with the revenue from their "PC tax", the fact you'll have to buy a PC every few years to run modern applications should be enough to ensure they get roughly the same revenue from Windows as before. That said, they've also been giving Windows away for free on low cost devices lately, so they're obviously planning to tap into other revenue streams.
Subscriptions for operating systems though? Nah.
We haven't thrown our weight behind Hillary yet...
No idea if she'll win the nomination or not. The establishment believes she will. But the establishment also thinks Jeb Bush is really winning the Republican nomination. Sanders is strong right now, and nobody knows if Biden is going to throw his hat in.
It's fairly simple. Generically modified crops will appear fine at first. People will happily eat them, unaware that anything is wrong.
Then, wham! One day, we all wake up. Zombies everywhere.
Same dealio with irradiated foods. Except Mutants everywhere.
Also Monsanto is evil. If they can genetically engineer food, they're probably grafting other things to create X5s and Nexus 6es. BMW has already released an "X5", but where did they get the design from? Likewise, where did Google get its Nexus 6 from? Monsanto, that's where.