I'd guess about half the anti-GMO rhetoric I've heard is directly attributable to something Monsanto did or has done. You'd think they had a total monopoly on GMO R&D from what people are saying. Yeah, Monsanto is a big, wriggly bag of cocks, but their behavior shouldn't color the entire field.
I accept the possibility that they are performing an important service, protecting IP rights, but the manner in which they have done so is appalling; stomping on rights and IPs.
If the intent of the software isn't malicious, it can't be malware-like in any meaningful way. There's nothing malware does that legitimate software doesn't, it just does them maliciously. For example, Chrome automatically logged me in to Slashdot. It did so by recording my login and sending it to an external server. One of the worst things malware can do, and yet nobody complains about "malware-like password managers".
It doesn't matter if the negotiations are held in secret, in fact all negotiations are. The outcome of the negotiations is entirely public, as is the debate over whether to ratify the final document, culminating (in the US) in a very public vote in the Senate.
The negotiators are appointed by the elected representatives of the people. Ratification is decided by elected representatives of the people, with input from their constituents. There's no point in getting worked up over any particular draft provision because by the time you know about it, it may have already changed.
A total non issue? You face a very high bar if you want to justify that claim. I don't see how the logical impossibility of your position is anything but an issue.
And yes, you're right that well known toxins, etc., can be tested for. Which is why they are tested for. The issue isn't known risks, it's unknown and unpredictable effects that aren't (and won't/can't be) revealed during tests.
Back to the matter at hand, the negotiators are appointed by the elected representatives of the people. The process of negotiations are held in secret, but when they finish, the final document is entirely public and must be ratified by the elected representatives of the people. In the US, that's 2/3rds of the Senate.
Negotiations are always held in secret. Be they between corporations, individuals, nations, unions and employers, unions and governments, etc. Your garbage collector's pay was negotiated in secret, then voted on by him, his coworkers, and your municipal government. Depending on local rules, you may have voted on it yourself. Why do these negotiations make you sick, but Delta's negotiations with their pilot's union do not?
Did he? He proposed a model for decision making, but so far as I can tell it doesn't exclude free will in any way, instead explaining how we make decisions on incomplete information and describing a flawed tendency to treat the decision as a certainty. In short, why people can be both entirely certain and entirely wrong.
But my information regarding his work is very limited, so I can't safely state that with certainty.
Is it even showing a decision? I don't see any elements of choice in the study, just visual information being processed before it's presented to the conscious mind. They seem to have found a way to exploit the delay between the arrival of raw visual data and its phenomenological representation. How that is related to free will seems to be based only on flawed reasoning.
At most it suggests that the visual processing center filters information presented to the conscious mind, which we already knew. This is a study of phenomenology, not free will.
Because otherwise, people who don't understand how something as complex as a multinational trade agreement is negotiated and written, let alone actual international trade, will start screaming about nothing.
Trade negotiations never are, and for good reason. For one, whatever is in these leaks is meaningless. The current draft may not look anything like the leaked version, and the final may be radically different from both.
It's like the old saying, "Never judge a book by the first draft".
What, you mean "applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances"? As a staunch supporter of the First Amendment, I believe you have the right to say such things. However, you may want to reconsider your position as it violates a key tenet of modern Liberal democracy, as enshrined in said Amendment.
No, it's secret because trade negotiations are always secret until finalized and sent to whichever bodies ratify them. ALWAYS.
There's no point in getting people worked up over an early draft that's going to change. It also keeps outside parties from manipulating the process, excluded parties from starting wars, and profiteers from engaging in insider trading.
Oh, and the so-called "Precautionary Principle" is utter nonsense rooted in a logical absurdity - proving non-existence.
"This causes harm" is an easily proven and verified statement. "This does not cause harm" is unprovable, and more often than not, un-verifiable.
It's not like all European regulations are more strict than those in the US. Drug/medical device approval is a big example.
And it's not like the current administration is pro-corporate, anti-regulation. It's not a matter of what regulations the negotiators can get weakened so much as how much stronger they can be made and still pass the Senate.
Geez, I don't know what's going on with your system, but I haven't run into any of those problems. Unless by "start menu won't pop up from time to time" you're referring to the problem with 'modern apps' that crops up sometimes with upgrades from 8/8.1. Which was fixed in 1511.
Yes, we all know Vista was pretty awful, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that NT has more installations. Or that NT AND 3.1 are more installed than 2000 (NT 5)! What the hell?
I could have burned Cupertino to the ground with only my rage when that happened to me. Years later I found MusicBrainz Picard and was able to put it right.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd guess about half the anti-GMO rhetoric I've heard is directly attributable to something Monsanto did or has done. You'd think they had a total monopoly on GMO R&D from what people are saying. Yeah, Monsanto is a big, wriggly bag of cocks, but their behavior shouldn't color the entire field.
Given the precarious conditions, I can only assume that they figure turning off the internet won't have that great an economic impact.
I accept the possibility that they are performing an important service, protecting IP rights, but the manner in which they have done so is appalling; stomping on rights and IPs.
For what, misinterpreting a memo? Having to get another copy of the report? Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.
Is their plan to destroy the US by ensuring the solvency of Social Security? How's that supposed to work?
If the intent of the software isn't malicious, it can't be malware-like in any meaningful way. There's nothing malware does that legitimate software doesn't, it just does them maliciously. For example, Chrome automatically logged me in to Slashdot. It did so by recording my login and sending it to an external server. One of the worst things malware can do, and yet nobody complains about "malware-like password managers".
Then I suppose I'll be showing you more respect than you are willing to show me. I'm disappointed, but I'll manage.
The negotiators are appointed by the elected representatives of the people. Ratification is decided by elected representatives of the people, with input from their constituents. There's no point in getting worked up over any particular draft provision because by the time you know about it, it may have already changed.
It's exactly like those optical illusions. Or magic tricks. They're exploiting a flaw in perception, not decision making.
And yes, you're right that well known toxins, etc., can be tested for. Which is why they are tested for. The issue isn't known risks, it's unknown and unpredictable effects that aren't (and won't/can't be) revealed during tests.
Back to the matter at hand, the negotiators are appointed by the elected representatives of the people. The process of negotiations are held in secret, but when they finish, the final document is entirely public and must be ratified by the elected representatives of the people. In the US, that's 2/3rds of the Senate.
Negotiations are always held in secret. Be they between corporations, individuals, nations, unions and employers, unions and governments, etc. Your garbage collector's pay was negotiated in secret, then voted on by him, his coworkers, and your municipal government. Depending on local rules, you may have voted on it yourself. Why do these negotiations make you sick, but Delta's negotiations with their pilot's union do not?
Not necessarily. On the whole, attitudes and regulations aren't that far apart. Besides, that isn't how compromise works.
But my information regarding his work is very limited, so I can't safely state that with certainty.
Or, 3) Processing raw sensory information introduces a delay the conscious mind "fills in" the same way it fills in the eye's blind spot.
Is it even showing a decision? I don't see any elements of choice in the study, just visual information being processed before it's presented to the conscious mind. They seem to have found a way to exploit the delay between the arrival of raw visual data and its phenomenological representation. How that is related to free will seems to be based only on flawed reasoning.
At most it suggests that the visual processing center filters information presented to the conscious mind, which we already knew. This is a study of phenomenology, not free will.
Because otherwise, people who don't understand how something as complex as a multinational trade agreement is negotiated and written, let alone actual international trade, will start screaming about nothing.
It's like the old saying, "Never judge a book by the first draft".
What, you mean "applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances"? As a staunch supporter of the First Amendment, I believe you have the right to say such things. However, you may want to reconsider your position as it violates a key tenet of modern Liberal democracy, as enshrined in said Amendment.
There's no point in getting people worked up over an early draft that's going to change. It also keeps outside parties from manipulating the process, excluded parties from starting wars, and profiteers from engaging in insider trading.
Oh, and the so-called "Precautionary Principle" is utter nonsense rooted in a logical absurdity - proving non-existence.
"This causes harm" is an easily proven and verified statement. "This does not cause harm" is unprovable, and more often than not, un-verifiable.
And it's not like the current administration is pro-corporate, anti-regulation. It's not a matter of what regulations the negotiators can get weakened so much as how much stronger they can be made and still pass the Senate.
How about, "promises"?
US regulations may move towards Europe's.
Geez, I don't know what's going on with your system, but I haven't run into any of those problems. Unless by "start menu won't pop up from time to time" you're referring to the problem with 'modern apps' that crops up sometimes with upgrades from 8/8.1. Which was fixed in 1511.
Yes, we all know Vista was pretty awful, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that NT has more installations. Or that NT AND 3.1 are more installed than 2000 (NT 5)! What the hell?
I could have burned Cupertino to the ground with only my rage when that happened to me. Years later I found MusicBrainz Picard and was able to put it right.