I've never had a touch-screen anything, so be advised. With all the nonsense with touch-screens corrupting sacred UIs, why not a touchscreen keyboard? Now I may be going in odd directions, but it seems the touchy-feely (*8, Uni*, Gno*) sorts could have their cake and maybe have a slice of it too. Imagine an AI keyboard that catered to the user's ergonomics rather than the user to the the device.. What I imply, is a keyboard that could learn the user's ergonomics, kind of like voice-recognition -- and adapt accordingly. Something like this might be a useful range between voice-command and static hardware. And it could be almost like sandboxing the pestilent frenzy of bubbly touchy simpletardation mongers, yet they could play and so could "we". A harmonious mixture of the classically practical -- and restless innovation?
Interesting point I hadn't considered. What is the ratio of (land-made product) vs (fueled sea-voyage + manufacturing) per petroleum used? I do know a surprisingly large amount of fuel is required for a fishing voyage, and only more would be required to operate manufacturing machinery in addition. But the ocean is a planetary keystone too; so do we not need to directly confront the pollution that already exists? I wonder if it's even a choice. Perhaps the amount of petroleum used could be less relevant if used more responsibly and toward a tangible need? To be recklessly direct, what I am presently fantasizing about is using an aircraft-carrier for something other than bullshit and instead, for something like repairing the seas. I can't resist imagining the many billions spent on black-hole war-fetishes redirected to a better world. But I guess we'd all have chopsticks in our backs if we dared; or would we?.
FBI Weenie #001: "You know, we are a bunch of wankers after all." Sips Natural Ice from can.
FBI Weenie #002: "True. And we do suffer a lack of creativity." Sips Natural Ice from can.
FBI Wennie #001: "I'm bored out of my mind. It's been ten years since we had any real terrorists to deal with." Sips Natural Ice from can.
FBI Weenie #003: "Hey! Lets go mine slashdot and get some ideas. There's always a good one somewhere in the threads." Sips Natural Ice from can.
FBI Head Weenie: "Alright, I'll contact Stratfor and get them to whip up an Ask Slashdot title." Sips Budweiser from can
Moments later: Thousands of Slashdot readers see in their rss feeds: Ask Slashdot: What Would Your 'I've Got To Disappear' Plan Look Like?
You have shattered the capstone of my argument with the cudgel of reality. Alas, people are more insane than I feared. Worms endowed with phantasmagorical agility and slashing weapons! Behold a wicked world!
You really must read other works by Irvine Welsh; Filth, Ecstasy, Marabou Stork Nightmares, Acid House. All fantastic and wickedly insane novels. It's like an abscess in your fiction, but a worthy one.
Funny question. I am a slightly unusual fellow, but not quite that much. No, verbalizing anything but primordial noises and grunts would have only further agitated him. The guy was a very angry animal and could not be reasoned with. When he was kicking the Ringling student I mentioned, another officer suggested he stop, but he didn't. Anyway, I probably could've done a better job on the monologue description.
Glad that's out of the way; though toxoplasmosis and
schizophrenia don't seem too appealing either.
I may be blind to the more profound, esoteric aspects of the cat, but I do marvel at what high prices some will pay for a haughty ball of animated fur.
My suggestions to curb this perilous market are as follows, but first and foremost, it could become unlawful to possess an unshaven cat. This would discourage the majority of prospective cat ownership, as no healthy person wants a five pound worm with claws and fangs.
Exchanges, or replacement-cats would be comprised of internal motors, synthetic fur shells with a stuffable, washable center into which they could be figuratively "fed", and an exit module by which they could also be un-fed.
Some form of appropriately colored reusable putty would be included in the exchange. This putty would serve two purposes:
1.) To supplement food, thus saving money and resources and one's nose.
2.) To be placed into a litter-box for a genuine looking effect.
For the lower-maintenance, upgrade model, a wireless link would be installed. Through a very cute web interface, owners could enter credit-card numbers and refill codes to control the figurative health of the cat. It would bloat or compress upon signals received in accordance with funds transferred or not transferred. The cat would in extreme situations of over or underfunding, either gently explode or implode, but show only trivial, charming contractions under normal circumstances. There would of course, be settings, such as adjustable mewing, retractable thorns to cut one's self on or destroy furniture with, etc.
Who needs real men? I'd wear high-heels, lipstick and a dress any day for a ride in an X-Jet. Hell, I'd even shave my legs and sing the Lumberjack song if I had to.
Quite an insightful reply. I am inclined to agree that such footage can cause damage, but not nearly the damage that ignorance can. The footage cannot compare with the original events it represents -- events that ignorance will only promote the continuation of. If such footage were to be required as a prerequisite for supporting/funding war, there might be less war.
Censorship is the gangrene of society.
I've never watched vids for a living, but there are at least a dozen or so which have tainted my psyche to some extent. Some, I have to forget for my own health. But where does removing the meaninglessly wretched turn from "editing", to censorship of the meaningfully wretched? There are some truly horrible videos which have been available for years and left alone. Yet others which hardly compare are often removed. One particular video that is repeatedly removed is one of alleged US soldiers beating a sheep to death with a baseball bat. But as horrible as it is, it scarcely compares to hundreds of others which are not censored. Two pretty disturbing examples I can immediately think of are these:
Not that you'd want to for the sake of viewing something repugnant, but keywords "Syria Violence" could lead very quickly to an appointment with a therapist. For example: Bodies of postal workers thrown from rooftops -- and that is very mild compared to others, especially from Libya. ~ Those are the ones I must forget. As horrible as they are, I strongly believe they should not be censored, and many haven't been. Real events, however horrible, unless to protect privacy, should be left transparent. I admire the function implemented by Google which allows vids to be flagged as +18 Only, but I have also seen this option abused, misused, and sometimes 100% erroneously enforced. But at least it makes viewing certain content voluntary and comes with a disclaimer. That's fine. Censorship is not.
I can imagine viewing such things with any consistency could easily affect one's mental health, or even ruin someone's life. I am sure there are also many who could view such things over breakfast, lunch and dinner and carry on as normal. Certainly censoring bird song isn't difficult though, but I guess that's what AI is for.
What I'd really like see is a more thorough account of the real criterion for censorship at the Chocolate Factory. I've seen many examples of Google censorship which anything but fit the declared purpose. And then sometimes I am left completely surprised.
You really should have a look at this. [funny, but true]
And this too [a bit more serious]
Much more eloquently put than I am capable of - and more informative too.
As for the "well-educated, coordinated groups", I call them certain officials & corporations and unfortunately they are gaining plenty of financial and political power -- and the day the FBI, DHS, etc., point their attention upon them, my views will change along with the nation and world.
PS: The shorter term is "fascism".
A correction: He never did "pay" for our encounter. He went on behaving similarly until he was caught on video doing worse and people pressured the PD to take action. So I don't deserve a "Well done" for that. Bad writing on my part, sorry.
Not really, at least not from my own experience; though it would be funny. What I can assure you of, is that they can and have done the following:
Me: Meditating in a holding cell (yes, I was in one, and later acquitted)
Officer: "What the fuck are doing you STUPID FUCKING son of a bitch!" [not a question]
Me: Cease posture, face wall and ignore.
Officer: I'll crack your fucking skull open you piece of shit. Fucking kung fu asshole. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU"RE DOING in MY CELL?"
ME: Preparing for pain, but not terribly concerned. Remaining silent and compliant.
You might be interested to learn that several years later -- it did take several years of not only threats, but physical assaults -- he was fired. But it took media attention and persistent effort from many people. Being an outspoken advocate of fairness, with good but often mistaken or resented intentions, I have encountered worse and suffered minor injuries from officers. An acquaintance who was a student at Ringling Art School was beaten by the same officer, for nothing more than uttering the word "corruption". It really is no joke that the distribution of law has grave discrepancies. It generally takes experience or a victimized loved-one to understand it. But there's always research, which offers a sore abundance of examples.
For example, I've never made anything remotely close to a threat or in any way indicated foul plots or intentions. I have merely ridiculed that which seems so flagrantly absurd that without a voice of contrast, blindness would prevail. Yet their attentions have surely been captured:
http://eccentricintelligenceagency.info/wp-content/uploads/visitors1.png [image]
http://eccentricintelligenceagency.info/wp-content/uploads/visitors2.png [image] | This visitor showed up hours before my youtube account was terminated with no prior warnings or violations - Just terminated, period. Then they nixed my Google (gmail, webmaster, etc.) account shortly after.
That's a slim example of the "attention" I've had at my own website. Some are bots, and some are not, but between fusion-centers and other profilers, a lot more has their attention than one would (or should) reasonably expect. The new security bureaucracy is Big Business and there just aren't enough angry brown people with bombs to justify the affronts to our liberties otherwise. Where the enemy is not, the enemy will be created. Just look at all the post 9-11 terror plots "foiled" by the FBI; they've been primarily cultivated from sub-stupid imbeciles hand-picked from the pinnacles of ineptitude.
We need security. People will continue going berserk. There are dangers. But it is NOT security we're getting. They ( Authoritaria) behave as if their sole passion is to protect society and make people cozy and safe, yet they think not twice before scooping human fodder for strange wars, , employing sock puppets, defiling education, tainting the media, feeding horrendous penal institutions, and severely tampering with things like foreign nations and our own economy.
It's just fine to have faith in government. But hold their feet to the fire and scrutinize the hell out of them, lest faith become dogma. It would appear -- in recent handling of transparency -- that government currently has a strong preference for the latter.
You are correct -- it is assault, possibly aggravated depending on context. However, it's kind of a class-based enforcement policy. If you are an officer you can often get away with serious threats, but not always -- I know this from much experience;)
If you are a politician, it is called "diplomacy"; if you're a banker, it's called "a plea for help"; if a corporation, just go ahead and do it, and don't bother with threats; if government, it's implied.
I am formally asking you to cite a (reliable) reference to any common domesticated vegetable (or crop) which has by cross-breeding, cross-pollination, cross-examination, etc., ever integrated into itself the genetics of an animal or bacteria (foreign to either species) within a time-period of less than a decade, or even scored. And if so, please also cite the source of obfuscation regarding the affair.
Actually, modern corn, which is Monsanto's favorite child, is along with soy, the most prolifically used animal feed in existence. Corn, being very starchy, thus good for weight and fat cows, etc., does indeed cause -- due to its high starchiness -- a great disturbance in the digestive systems of cows especially. Consequently, large amounts of antibiotics are required to mitigate against the putrefaction ensuing from this unusual corn-induced flora. This is why you can see cattle with large holes bored into their stomaches which ranchers frequently sample for cultures. Science is grand, but there just seems something a wee bit grotesque in boring holes into the sides of living animals to monitor the effects of a deliberately foul diet. It could perhaps be argued that similar effects occur in humans, but I won't go there.
With the incestuous relationship of Monsanto and the FDA, an annual lobbying budget second only to Big Tobacco, it is likely they will continue purchasing the support of government officials as usual.
Why so many things can already be mis-labeled, i.e. MSG (Autolyzed Yeast Extract) and myriad other ingredients, but people are presumed without the right to know whether their dinner is bio-modified or not, makes no sense. If something is to be sold as food, all practically available information should be made available and transparent. What is entirely insane is the efforts of Monsanto to punish companies for labeling their own products as GMO Free. In most cases where GMO Free labels are used, a compulsory disclaimer of insignificance is placed below. Odd that such modifications would ever be made if no significant differences were achieved.
I am not anti GMO. But I am against its current implementation. Monsanto has destroyed many farmers, attempted such grotesque strategies as the Terminator Seed, litigated 1000s of hard-working farmers for nothing, and has at times been reckless with its technology. There are thousands of political reasons alone which should be ample cause for mandatory labeling, but voluntary labeling at the very least should be completely unhindered -- perhaps like Cruely Free, Dolphin Safe, etc.
The likeliness of every single instance of modified food proving itself safe after decades is low, and some margin of error seems inevitable. Food is also not an option for anyone -- it is totally essential and therefore a shared and public element. The very concept of privatizing food and obscuring its "nature" is asinine. Many supermarkets show the national origin of the product as they should, and consumers use this and similar data to make personal choices for which the interference of should be a crime. An informed public is the only public; anything else is a product. If consumers knew absolutely nothing of GMO and only of Monsanto's litigation history alone, that in itself would dissuade most consumers from touching their products. What are they afraid of? Choice? Well golly gee. I guess they'll just have to force themselves then, because as the meme goes, "We have a whole planet to feed". Next time someone pukes that meme, try asking them about their agricultural experience and just how far they think GMO really needs to go to meet that task. There is plenty of room for choice for many years to come. Assuming people can't make intelligent choices is dangerous behavior for a government, especially when it comes to basic needs. It is also a self-fulfilling, self-perpetuating expectation.
I've worked on a few farms and know very well what excellent production can be yielded without GMO. To even suggest that non-GMO agriculture has become obsolete is ludicrous. And until it is, label the damned products!
Strange that they left out biometrics[Ford], which is probably an imminent method of security in the future. WTF McAfee would be taking the lead in that, I don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never had a touch-screen anything, so be advised. With all the nonsense with touch-screens corrupting sacred UIs, why not a touchscreen keyboard? Now I may be going in odd directions, but it seems the touchy-feely (*8, Uni*, Gno*) sorts could have their cake and maybe have a slice of it too. Imagine an AI keyboard that catered to the user's ergonomics rather than the user to the the device.. What I imply, is a keyboard that could learn the user's ergonomics, kind of like voice-recognition -- and adapt accordingly. Something like this might be a useful range between voice-command and static hardware. And it could be almost like sandboxing the pestilent frenzy of bubbly touchy simpletardation mongers, yet they could play and so could "we". A harmonious mixture of the classically practical -- and restless innovation?
Interesting point I hadn't considered. What is the ratio of (land-made product) vs (fueled sea-voyage + manufacturing) per petroleum used? I do know a surprisingly large amount of fuel is required for a fishing voyage, and only more would be required to operate manufacturing machinery in addition. But the ocean is a planetary keystone too; so do we not need to directly confront the pollution that already exists? I wonder if it's even a choice. Perhaps the amount of petroleum used could be less relevant if used more responsibly and toward a tangible need? To be recklessly direct, what I am presently fantasizing about is using an aircraft-carrier for something other than bullshit and instead, for something like repairing the seas. I can't resist imagining the many billions spent on black-hole war-fetishes redirected to a better world. But I guess we'd all have chopsticks in our backs if we dared; or would we?.
Land lubbers needed too: Kamilo Beach?
It does seem like a fantastic, if not long overdue idea. Count me in if volunteers are needed.
FBI Weenie #001: "You know, we are a bunch of wankers after all." Sips Natural Ice from can.
FBI Weenie #002: "True. And we do suffer a lack of creativity." Sips Natural Ice from can.
FBI Wennie #001: "I'm bored out of my mind. It's been ten years since we had any real terrorists to deal with." Sips Natural Ice from can.
FBI Weenie #003: "Hey! Lets go mine slashdot and get some ideas. There's always a good one somewhere in the threads." Sips Natural Ice from can.
FBI Head Weenie: "Alright, I'll contact Stratfor and get them to whip up an Ask Slashdot title." Sips Budweiser from can
Moments later: Thousands of Slashdot readers see in their rss feeds: Ask Slashdot: What Would Your 'I've Got To Disappear' Plan Look Like?
You have shattered the capstone of my argument with the cudgel of reality. Alas, people are more insane than I feared. Worms endowed with phantasmagorical agility and slashing weapons! Behold a wicked world!
You really must read other works by Irvine Welsh; Filth, Ecstasy, Marabou Stork Nightmares, Acid House. All fantastic and wickedly insane novels. It's like an abscess in your fiction, but a worthy one.
Sounds like fun, but as far as I know, it's only water-resistant.
Funny question. I am a slightly unusual fellow, but not quite that much. No, verbalizing anything but primordial noises and grunts would have only further agitated him. The guy was a very angry animal and could not be reasoned with. When he was kicking the Ringling student I mentioned, another officer suggested he stop, but he didn't. Anyway, I probably could've done a better job on the monologue description.
Glad that's out of the way; though toxoplasmosis and schizophrenia don't seem too appealing either.
I may be blind to the more profound, esoteric aspects of the cat, but I do marvel at what high prices some will pay for a haughty ball of animated fur.
My suggestions to curb this perilous market are as follows, but first and foremost, it could become unlawful to possess an unshaven cat. This would discourage the majority of prospective cat ownership, as no healthy person wants a five pound worm with claws and fangs.
Exchanges, or replacement-cats would be comprised of internal motors, synthetic fur shells with a stuffable, washable center into which they could be figuratively "fed", and an exit module by which they could also be un-fed.
Some form of appropriately colored reusable putty would be included in the exchange. This putty would serve two purposes:
1.) To supplement food, thus saving money and resources and one's nose.
2.) To be placed into a litter-box for a genuine looking effect.
For the lower-maintenance, upgrade model, a wireless link would be installed. Through a very cute web interface, owners could enter credit-card numbers and refill codes to control the figurative health of the cat. It would bloat or compress upon signals received in accordance with funds transferred or not transferred. The cat would in extreme situations of over or underfunding, either gently explode or implode, but show only trivial, charming contractions under normal circumstances. There would of course, be settings, such as adjustable mewing, retractable thorns to cut one's self on or destroy furniture with, etc.
Those are my suggestions.
Who needs real men? I'd wear high-heels, lipstick and a dress any day for a ride in an X-Jet. Hell, I'd even shave my legs and sing the Lumberjack song if I had to.
And somehow, for some reason of time rather garbled and strange, this seems so boring in comparison to this wonderful antique: Williams WASP X-Jet
I'm not saying I don't want one, but if given the choice....
Venetian Snares - Pwntendo
All I can say
Quite an insightful reply. I am inclined to agree that such footage can cause damage, but not nearly the damage that ignorance can. The footage cannot compare with the original events it represents -- events that ignorance will only promote the continuation of. If such footage were to be required as a prerequisite for supporting/funding war, there might be less war.
Censorship is the gangrene of society.
That's as bad as it gets.
Sincerely,
Rick Rolled
I've never watched vids for a living, but there are at least a dozen or so which have tainted my psyche to some extent. Some, I have to forget for my own health. But where does removing the meaninglessly wretched turn from "editing", to censorship of the meaningfully wretched? There are some truly horrible videos which have been available for years and left alone. Yet others which hardly compare are often removed. One particular video that is repeatedly removed is one of alleged US soldiers beating a sheep to death with a baseball bat. But as horrible as it is, it scarcely compares to hundreds of others which are not censored. Two pretty disturbing examples I can immediately think of are these:
Man eaten alive by lions in front of family - yeah, WTF?
Guy has arm ripped off by crocodile - ugly, but understandably uncensored
Not that you'd want to for the sake of viewing something repugnant, but keywords "Syria Violence" could lead very quickly to an appointment with a therapist. For example: Bodies of postal workers thrown from rooftops -- and that is very mild compared to others, especially from Libya. ~ Those are the ones I must forget. As horrible as they are, I strongly believe they should not be censored, and many haven't been. Real events, however horrible, unless to protect privacy, should be left transparent. I admire the function implemented by Google which allows vids to be flagged as +18 Only, but I have also seen this option abused, misused, and sometimes 100% erroneously enforced. But at least it makes viewing certain content voluntary and comes with a disclaimer. That's fine. Censorship is not.
I can imagine viewing such things with any consistency could easily affect one's mental health, or even ruin someone's life. I am sure there are also many who could view such things over breakfast, lunch and dinner and carry on as normal. Certainly censoring bird song isn't difficult though, but I guess that's what AI is for.
What I'd really like see is a more thorough account of the real criterion for censorship at the Chocolate Factory. I've seen many examples of Google censorship which anything but fit the declared purpose. And then sometimes I am left completely surprised.
You really should have a look at this. [funny, but true]
And this too [a bit more serious]
Much more eloquently put than I am capable of - and more informative too.
As for the "well-educated, coordinated groups", I call them certain officials & corporations and unfortunately they are gaining plenty of financial and political power -- and the day the FBI, DHS, etc., point their attention upon them, my views will change along with the nation and world.
PS: The shorter term is "fascism".
A correction: He never did "pay" for our encounter. He went on behaving similarly until he was caught on video doing worse and people pressured the PD to take action. So I don't deserve a "Well done" for that. Bad writing on my part, sorry.
Not really, at least not from my own experience; though it would be funny. What I can assure you of, is that they can and have done the following:
Me: Meditating in a holding cell (yes, I was in one, and later acquitted)
Officer: "What the fuck are doing you STUPID FUCKING son of a bitch!" [not a question]
Me: Cease posture, face wall and ignore.
Officer: I'll crack your fucking skull open you piece of shit. Fucking kung fu asshole. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU"RE DOING in MY CELL?"
ME: Preparing for pain, but not terribly concerned. Remaining silent and compliant.
You might be interested to learn that several years later -- it did take several years of not only threats, but physical assaults -- he was fired. But it took media attention and persistent effort from many people. Being an outspoken advocate of fairness, with good but often mistaken or resented intentions, I have encountered worse and suffered minor injuries from officers. An acquaintance who was a student at Ringling Art School was beaten by the same officer, for nothing more than uttering the word "corruption". It really is no joke that the distribution of law has grave discrepancies. It generally takes experience or a victimized loved-one to understand it. But there's always research, which offers a sore abundance of examples.
For example, I've never made anything remotely close to a threat or in any way indicated foul plots or intentions. I have merely ridiculed that which seems so flagrantly absurd that without a voice of contrast, blindness would prevail. Yet their attentions have surely been captured:
http://eccentricintelligenceagency.info/wp-content/uploads/visitors1.png [image]
http://eccentricintelligenceagency.info/wp-content/uploads/visitors2.png [image] | This visitor showed up hours before my youtube account was terminated with no prior warnings or violations - Just terminated, period. Then they nixed my Google (gmail, webmaster, etc.) account shortly after.
That's a slim example of the "attention" I've had at my own website. Some are bots, and some are not, but between fusion-centers and other profilers, a lot more has their attention than one would (or should) reasonably expect. The new security bureaucracy is Big Business and there just aren't enough angry brown people with bombs to justify the affronts to our liberties otherwise. Where the enemy is not, the enemy will be created. Just look at all the post 9-11 terror plots "foiled" by the FBI; they've been primarily cultivated from sub-stupid imbeciles hand-picked from the pinnacles of ineptitude.
We need security. People will continue going berserk. There are dangers. But it is NOT security we're getting. They ( Authoritaria) behave as if their sole passion is to protect society and make people cozy and safe, yet they think not twice before scooping human fodder for strange wars, , employing sock puppets, defiling education, tainting the media, feeding horrendous penal institutions, and severely tampering with things like foreign nations and our own economy.
It's just fine to have faith in government. But hold their feet to the fire and scrutinize the hell out of them, lest faith become dogma. It would appear -- in recent handling of transparency -- that government currently has a strong preference for the latter.
You are correct -- it is assault, possibly aggravated depending on context. However, it's kind of a class-based enforcement policy. If you are an officer you can often get away with serious threats, but not always -- I know this from much experience ;)
If you are a politician, it is called "diplomacy"; if you're a banker, it's called "a plea for help"; if a corporation, just go ahead and do it, and don't bother with threats; if government, it's implied.
Nope, Government doesn't have to pay; they search and scour on their own:
http://eccentricintelligenceagency.info/wp-content/uploads/visitors1.png
http://eccentricintelligenceagency.info/wp-content/uploads/visitors2.png | This visitor showed up right before my youtube account was terminated with no prior warning or violations. Just terminated, period. Then they nixed my gmail account shortly after.
That's a small sample of the visitors I've had at my own website. Some are bots (AI), and some are not. But they are very busy, no doubt.
With due respect,
I am formally asking you to cite a (reliable) reference to any common domesticated vegetable (or crop) which has by cross-breeding, cross-pollination, cross-examination, etc., ever integrated into itself the genetics of an animal or bacteria (foreign to either species) within a time-period of less than a decade, or even scored. And if so, please also cite the source of obfuscation regarding the affair.
Sincerely,
Agt. Orange
Actually, modern corn, which is Monsanto's favorite child, is along with soy, the most prolifically used animal feed in existence. Corn, being very starchy, thus good for weight and fat cows, etc., does indeed cause -- due to its high starchiness -- a great disturbance in the digestive systems of cows especially. Consequently, large amounts of antibiotics are required to mitigate against the putrefaction ensuing from this unusual corn-induced flora. This is why you can see cattle with large holes bored into their stomaches which ranchers frequently sample for cultures. Science is grand, but there just seems something a wee bit grotesque in boring holes into the sides of living animals to monitor the effects of a deliberately foul diet. It could perhaps be argued that similar effects occur in humans, but I won't go there.
With the incestuous relationship of Monsanto and the FDA, an annual lobbying budget second only to Big Tobacco, it is likely they will continue purchasing the support of government officials as usual.
Why so many things can already be mis-labeled, i.e. MSG (Autolyzed Yeast Extract) and myriad other ingredients, but people are presumed without the right to know whether their dinner is bio-modified or not, makes no sense. If something is to be sold as food, all practically available information should be made available and transparent. What is entirely insane is the efforts of Monsanto to punish companies for labeling their own products as GMO Free. In most cases where GMO Free labels are used, a compulsory disclaimer of insignificance is placed below. Odd that such modifications would ever be made if no significant differences were achieved.
I am not anti GMO. But I am against its current implementation. Monsanto has destroyed many farmers, attempted such grotesque strategies as the Terminator Seed, litigated 1000s of hard-working farmers for nothing, and has at times been reckless with its technology. There are thousands of political reasons alone which should be ample cause for mandatory labeling, but voluntary labeling at the very least should be completely unhindered -- perhaps like Cruely Free, Dolphin Safe, etc.
The likeliness of every single instance of modified food proving itself safe after decades is low, and some margin of error seems inevitable. Food is also not an option for anyone -- it is totally essential and therefore a shared and public element. The very concept of privatizing food and obscuring its "nature" is asinine. Many supermarkets show the national origin of the product as they should, and consumers use this and similar data to make personal choices for which the interference of should be a crime. An informed public is the only public; anything else is a product. If consumers knew absolutely nothing of GMO and only of Monsanto's litigation history alone, that in itself would dissuade most consumers from touching their products. What are they afraid of? Choice? Well golly gee. I guess they'll just have to force themselves then, because as the meme goes, "We have a whole planet to feed". Next time someone pukes that meme, try asking them about their agricultural experience and just how far they think GMO really needs to go to meet that task. There is plenty of room for choice for many years to come. Assuming people can't make intelligent choices is dangerous behavior for a government, especially when it comes to basic needs. It is also a self-fulfilling, self-perpetuating expectation.
I've worked on a few farms and know very well what excellent production can be yielded without GMO. To even suggest that non-GMO agriculture has become obsolete is ludicrous. And until it is, label the damned products!
Strange that they left out biometrics[Ford], which is probably an imminent method of security in the future. WTF McAfee would be taking the lead in that, I don't know.