Ironically, these same people who think that lab grown meat is a great thing are against GMOs. By definition, lab grown meat is a GMO. Non-GMO meat will not grow to size from a "culture".
I’m against mandatory labeling of GMOs because GMO is not an ingredient. It would make as much sense as labeling for the day or the week a product is packed. Any manufacturer can put “No GMO on a product to please the Luddite market segment.
Lab meat, on the other hand, is a fundamentally different product from animal meat. It’s not going to look or taste the same, especially at first.
For these reasons, the major religions will come around on the issue, one by one. Here it may take a papal encyclical, there it may take a nitpicking reinterpretation of ancient dietary law or issuance of a new hadith by a popular imam.
Only one religion will remain proudly wedded to natural cattle flesh: the GMO-hating Greens. That one will change one funeral at a time.
Ethically, lab meat is going to enjoy a big advantage. Vegetarians may start eating it because no killing is involved. But because religion is perennially behind the times on adapting to new things, a ‘revelation’ may be required for it to become accepted into dietary law.
The same is going to hold for vegans, who are basically the religious wing of the vegetarian movement.
I would like artificial meat to be labeled as such because I would count the low environmental impact as being an advantage. I’m sure that initially it would be a ground beef replacement, and as such I would prefer it and seek it out in burger-type meals.
It will take time before lab meat gets the mouthfeel and taste of fine steak, but here again it being lab grown is a factor that I would count as a positive in comparingwhichb steak I would buy.
And do the other products use ludicrous precision?
We demand a select toggle to go between ludicrous precision and plaid precision. We will tie up the vital business of every court in California until we get our way (lies down on floor, pounds fists on carpet).
To cite the article's actual example of The Bad Old Way, how exactly would I balance my checking account with ambient computing? Would it just balance itself and have my livingroom speaker tell me if anything was off?
I don't like Google Recaptcha either. But what in hell does that have to do with their cars?
What people don't like about automated cars is their scrupulously careful driving habits, which puts them in the way of garden-variety asshole motorists. The need for this will gradually go away as fewer and fewer human drivers share the road with them.
We're seeing a growing "digital divide" between poor kids whose parents are too busy to supervise them all the time and choose to let screens raise them and rich kids whose parents increasingly keep them away from screens as much as possible.
No, the digital divide separates kids whose screen usage is rationally integrated into their lives as a way to explore the larger world, from those who use one device to do nothing but Instagram their meals to each other. Kids in the latter group typically had parents who were babysat by the tube.
I do a lot of reading, but almost entirely ebooks because I can control the font and size. AND I can go white on black, which I find much easier on my eyes.
They also really need to control for what content is being consumed, are they learning how to program an Arduino, or are they just streaming reality tv.
This is a big one. And they also need to control for the entire generation of heavy TV watching that preceded Android and iOS.
Yes, ya got me there. In that case, a vertical landing was essential to the mission itself, rather than being a recovery. But all though the subsequent Space Shuttle program, rocket recoveries were parachuted into seawater, which has a long history of ruining everything.
Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to give them such market dominance after all?
Amazon has been been under fire for making it too easy for vendors to use the platform to sell cheap knockoffs of popular brands. So now Amazon is the bad guy for trying to prevent this from happening?
More bad press about crypto currency, pushing us even closer to regulation to destroy any anonymous funds.
No regulation is needed, and by crypto's very nature it wouldn't work anyway. Although crypto was originally designed to be money, it has become so inconvenient to use this way that literally its only currency application is to pay ransoms.
Hardly anyone is going to want to use a digital license for traffic stops or getting through the airport, but what about all those times you need information from your ID for other purposes? Instead of squinting at tiny numbers and transcribing them to paper, being able to use an app to beam data you specify to people who need it would be a huge improvement. Being able to incorporate all forms of ID, including passports and professional certs, would be better still.
Cryptos are mined, which means over time more and more are added to the available pool. How does this fact fit into a "deflation mode"?
A currency is deflationary if its supply of money grows more slowly that the goods it can be exchanged for. The big selling point of cryptocurrencies is that because the money supply in each one is algorithmically limited and asymptotic to some final value, they are all inherently deflationary. As each one takes more energy to mine, the amount of coin it takes to buy a given real-word item decreases. That by definition is deflation.
That's exactly why Bitcoin and its many imitators soon stopped being a medium of exchange and turned into a weird fake digital investment: when money supply does not keep up with trade demand, people who hold the currency hoard it because "it's going up."
But the huge trap the "investors" have failed to spot is the proliferation of different cryptocurrencies. As soon as BTC came to be seen as an investment and not a currency, the trace to invent new cryptos for the gullible to mine and hold was on. Each crypto is regarded as a if it were a stock in a stock market. While each crypto is deflationary, the crypto market as a whole is massively inflationary because there is no limit on the number of different currencies people are investing in.
But stocks are equity in companies, people employed actually doing something that the company potentially profits by. Even in 1929, the NYSE shares being traded represented real enterprises, some of which stayed profitable after the crash. No crypto represents anything of real value whatever.
What you mean is that you found a greater fool to sell BTC to. Perhaps that person did in turn, or perhaps he didn’t. At some point all markets of this kind run out of greater fools to sell to.
Slashdot Mirror
What hormones and "chemicals" need to be added to lab meat? It's pure meat.
Ironically, these same people who think that lab grown meat is a great thing are against GMOs. By definition, lab grown meat is a GMO. Non-GMO meat will not grow to size from a "culture".
I’m against mandatory labeling of GMOs because GMO is not an ingredient. It would make as much sense as labeling for the day or the week a product is packed. Any manufacturer can put “No GMO on a product to please the Luddite market segment.
Lab meat, on the other hand, is a fundamentally different product from animal meat. It’s not going to look or taste the same, especially at first.
For these reasons, the major religions will come around on the issue, one by one. Here it may take a papal encyclical, there it may take a nitpicking reinterpretation of ancient dietary law or issuance of a new hadith by a popular imam.
Only one religion will remain proudly wedded to natural cattle flesh: the GMO-hating Greens. That one will change one funeral at a time.
It's the other other whitemeat. And I want to eat what I be.
This may actually become a thing. Before long, celebrity long pig will appear in specialty stores (“Cultured from one of Vin Diesel’s deltoid cells”).
Ethically, lab meat is going to enjoy a big advantage. Vegetarians may start eating it because no killing is involved. But because religion is perennially behind the times on adapting to new things, a ‘revelation’ may be required for it to become accepted into dietary law.
The same is going to hold for vegans, who are basically the religious wing of the vegetarian movement.
I would like artificial meat to be labeled as such because I would count the low environmental impact as being an advantage. I’m sure that initially it would be a ground beef replacement, and as such I would prefer it and seek it out in burger-type meals.
It will take time before lab meat gets the mouthfeel and taste of fine steak, but here again it being lab grown is a factor that I would count as a positive in comparingwhichb steak I would buy.
In any case, how is this News For Nerds?
And do the other products use ludicrous precision?
We demand a select toggle to go between ludicrous precision and plaid precision. We will tie up the vital business of every court in California until we get our way (lies down on floor, pounds fists on carpet).
The computer told me to vote Democrat. I did. But after I casted my vote, I still didn't get a good answer as to what a Democrat is.
Democrats are the people who used to build things. Republicans are the people who used to care what things cost.
for new sales slogans.
To cite the article's actual example of The Bad Old Way, how exactly would I balance my checking account with ambient computing? Would it just balance itself and have my livingroom speaker tell me if anything was off?
I don't like Google Recaptcha either. But what in hell does that have to do with their cars?
What people don't like about automated cars is their scrupulously careful driving habits, which puts them in the way of garden-variety asshole motorists. The need for this will gradually go away as fewer and fewer human drivers share the road with them.
Isn't the nature of the screen time tantamount?
Actually, it's paramount. Anyone who confuses those two words ought to be eaten by a catamount.
We're seeing a growing "digital divide" between poor kids whose parents are too busy to supervise them all the time and choose to let screens raise them and rich kids whose parents increasingly keep them away from screens as much as possible.
No, the digital divide separates kids whose screen usage is rationally integrated into their lives as a way to explore the larger world, from those who use one device to do nothing but Instagram their meals to each other. Kids in the latter group typically had parents who were babysat by the tube.
I do a lot of reading, but almost entirely ebooks because I can control the font and size. AND I can go white on black, which I find much easier on my eyes.
They also really need to control for what content is being consumed, are they learning how to program an Arduino, or are they just streaming reality tv.
This is a big one. And they also need to control for the entire generation of heavy TV watching that preceded Android and iOS.
Yes, ya got me there. In that case, a vertical landing was essential to the mission itself, rather than being a recovery. But all though the subsequent Space Shuttle program, rocket recoveries were parachuted into seawater, which has a long history of ruining everything.
Uh, the first vertical landing rocket was demonstrated in 1961.
We're talking about the first successful vertical landing, and from a mission that actually launched a payload.
Compared to other environmental effects, waste heat is the least important of the impacts of any power source. It also has numerous industrial uses.
Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to give them such market dominance after all?
Amazon has been been under fire for making it too easy for vendors to use the platform to sell cheap knockoffs of popular brands. So now Amazon is the bad guy for trying to prevent this from happening?
More bad press about crypto currency, pushing us even closer to regulation to destroy any anonymous funds.
No regulation is needed, and by crypto's very nature it wouldn't work anyway. Although crypto was originally designed to be money, it has become so inconvenient to use this way that literally its only currency application is to pay ransoms.
Hardly anyone is going to want to use a digital license for traffic stops or getting through the airport, but what about all those times you need information from your ID for other purposes? Instead of squinting at tiny numbers and transcribing them to paper, being able to use an app to beam data you specify to people who need it would be a huge improvement. Being able to incorporate all forms of ID, including passports and professional certs, would be better still.
EDIT: "race to invent new currencies to mine and hold..."
Cryptos are mined, which means over time more and more are added to the available pool. How does this fact fit into a "deflation mode"?
A currency is deflationary if its supply of money grows more slowly that the goods it can be exchanged for. The big selling point of cryptocurrencies is that because the money supply in each one is algorithmically limited and asymptotic to some final value, they are all inherently deflationary. As each one takes more energy to mine, the amount of coin it takes to buy a given real-word item decreases. That by definition is deflation.
That's exactly why Bitcoin and its many imitators soon stopped being a medium of exchange and turned into a weird fake digital investment: when money supply does not keep up with trade demand, people who hold the currency hoard it because "it's going up."
But the huge trap the "investors" have failed to spot is the proliferation of different cryptocurrencies. As soon as BTC came to be seen as an investment and not a currency, the trace to invent new cryptos for the gullible to mine and hold was on. Each crypto is regarded as a if it were a stock in a stock market. While each crypto is deflationary, the crypto market as a whole is massively inflationary because there is no limit on the number of different currencies people are investing in.
But stocks are equity in companies, people employed actually doing something that the company potentially profits by. Even in 1929, the NYSE shares being traded represented real enterprises, some of which stayed profitable after the crash. No crypto represents anything of real value whatever.
Which is a totally good thing. When you are alpha-testing new tech, you want wealthy early adopters to take the early risks.
What you mean is that you found a greater fool to sell BTC to. Perhaps that person did in turn, or perhaps he didn’t. At some point all markets of this kind run out of greater fools to sell to.