Interesting how you talk about free speech but cheer those who want to deny professors the right to teach what science tells them is best. People entering colleges are adults. They can choose not to accept the ideas that are taught to them but denying them the right to hear perspectives outside of mainstream US ideas is censorship.
That's interesting because we have so called "liberal" students from Evergreen State saying, and I quote, "fuck free speech".
Oh ok, this makes it easy: You're making the same boneheaded mistakes that Greenpeace is making. So you're just a bonehead. 'Nuff said.
By the way: I really like how you had absolutely no response at all to any of the evidence I have provided in favor of GMO: I showed, very clearly, how GMO if used properly can increase biodiversity, can induce the population to reduce its numbers by its own free will, and can reduce habitat destruction preventing a mass extinction. You had absolutely nothing to say about any of this, and completely ignored my direct reply to you.
You're a textbook one dimensional person, therefore no further discussion on this subtopic is necessary.
I was halfway expecting this. No, it isn't. Nazism is an attempt at controlling who lives and who dies, believing their own to be better or more worthy than others. Evolutionism is an attempt at not fighting evolution tooth and talon, but accept that not everybody surviving is the primary driving force of evolution, and do our damnedest not to pick who lives and who dies, beyond our own survival instinct. That's diametrically opposite of nazism.
This is actually getting comical. You're pulling a page right out of Nazi ideology and you don't even realize it. You are the textbook definition of a social darwinist, and social darwinism is absolutely fundamental to Nazi ideology, just like I said. Without social darwinism there is no Nazism. Sure, the Nazis went further with eugenics and racial hygiene, however those build upon social darwinism, and just plain don't exist without it. Granted, this didn't begin with Nazis, rather it more or less began with Thomas Malthus and then was expanded and defined by Nietzsche and Herbert Spencer. But, nobody actually applied it as a matter of law until Nazi Germany.
The belief that life is sacred and lives of children especially so is codswallop based on religious culture.
No, it's not. Sure, religions might claim it as their idea, and they're wrong when they do so, but this actually occurs in nature. Especially with mammals, all of whom MUST care for their young for a long time in order for them to survive at all. Here's a hint for why that is: The word mammal comes from the term "mammary glands". The young CAN NOT survive without them, and the act of using them further reinforces exactly this, hence the fundamental feeling that it is "sacred". I'll let you try to figure out the scientific how and why if you have any brains at all, but you've already failed by pinning this idea on religion.
Death is tough on a personal level, but in the grander scheme, it's necessary. As long as the deaths can be compensated for by reproduction, the herd is better off.
What's interesting here is that you're now making an argument in favor of why the population should grow to be very large: You have to have many children in order to guarantee their survival and growth in the situation you describe. Even before modern medicine came around and all but guaranteed longer lifespans, the population was already growing exponentially. Medicine just made it grow even faster for a while, but the population would have grown anyways without it. Where this gets interesting is that in countries where there is advanced medicine, the population is actually *declining*. The global population is only increasing as a result of people in other countries without these luxuries: They breed like rabbits not only to survive, but also they need ever more help in gathering food, which the children help with. GMO can mitigate that as well, by the way.
But instead of actually paying attention, you just stick to social darwinism as the answer, even though it will more than likely result in the opposite of what you think it will do. This, among other reasons, is why it has been discredited for a long time now.
I'm sorry if it thwarts your strawman argumentation, but I got none of my "talking points" from Greenpeace.
That's not what I said. What I said is that the talking points you are making all have their roots in Greenpeace's disinformation campaign. They lied to other people, who then lied to you. Vicariously, they lied to you.
You're saying that as if it were a good thing?
Uhh...yeah. While I'm not diabetic myself, I do have a chronic disease that would otherwise result in death, and I very much appreciate treatment available for it. Eventually everybody does, and when you do, I'll just offer you a cyanide tablet.
For what it's worth, the ideology you are putting across is a central tenet of Nazism.
Aside from my earlier post about GMO actually being able to increase biodiversity, Greenpeace, who is behind every talking point you've ever made on this topic, has blatantly lied to you, multiple times.
Greenpeace also likes to hold two opposing arguments at the same time about GMO Bt, depending on which side best fits their pre-conceived narrative (without doing any actual research) on that particular day:
Drop the anti-GMO crusade. It's pure post-truth populism and anti-science bullshit. To date there is not a single good argument against GMO. And if that's not enough, the most of the anti-GMO scientific papers about health impact were authored by a guy who has an established history of manipulating his data in order to fit his activist narrative:
He's currently under investigation by the Italian senate for scientific fraud. And by the way, GMO has been saving the lives of diabetics allergic to cow and pig insulin since 1982.
Buying new seeds with a patent license every season instead of having them from your crops is a solution? Only for Monsanto's revenue growth. Ordinary crops can be grown without having to sign any license.
Actually the reason GMO seeds are so popular is because they are much more profitable for the farmer. If it wasn't, then they'd just buy conventional seed rather than pay extra.
Again this idiocy. There is no shortage of food. There is an excess of population growth and rampant capitalism. GMOs only solve the cash problems of some corporations.
Did you even read my post? GMO can keep the same food production but with LESS landmass. Furthermore, it's mostly undeveloped nations that have a population problem, which is also something GMO can solve by virtue of the fact that people in these countries will need to have fewer kids in order to feed themselves.
And capitalism has nothing to do with this, moron.
Not only that, but if the Gros Michel's Panama disease was around today, GMO could have saved those bananas. And it still can, as a matter of fact, because the Gros Michel still exists in isolated areas that weren't exposed to that. But Greenpeace and other anti-science groups would throw a fit, like they always do, so we can't have nice things.
The GMO crap they produce now is crap, built in pesticides to kill pests and harm people
The only built in pesticide is Bt, which is a protein that was discovered a hundred years ago and is only known to be toxic to invertebrates. All farmers (including organic) use Bt liberally, and you eat it all the time.
herbicide resistant to pass tolerance to closely related species
It's also worth noting that the process of using herbicides greatly reduces the amount of water needed, in addition to reducing the landmass and increasing crop yields.
long life with poor digestibility, basically all the crap ideas
Where the fuck did you get this from? There isn't any evidence that they aren't digestible. People like you with your constant spewing of lies are why we can't have nice things:
The proteins that have been introduced into foods, to this point in time, have all been shown to be readily digestible and not similar to any known toxins or allergens.
And don't use some crap source like Greenpeace or some conspiracy theory website if you're going to make a counterpoint.
Actually, GMO will help with that, and it won't involve any draconian population control methods, rather the population will, of its own accord, just stop reproducing in large enough numbers to continue growing.
Until the past 150 years, less than 10% of the population had any career other than farming. The best way to keep your farm operational was to have as many kids as you could have in order to have additional farm-hands. Thus, having kids was an asset. However, nowadays, having kids is no longer an asset, instead they are a liability as they cost you money without bringing any ROI other than "yay, I had kids!" Thus, the number of children per female is decreasing in developed countries.
If we can make farming more efficient, we can reduce the need for farmland everywhere in the world, reduce the price of food so you need fewer children to sustain yourself, which in turn reduces the amount of natural habitat destroyed, and reduces the population growth.
And if you had bothered to read TFA, you would have realized that GMOs kills biodiversity.
/facepalm
This statement is stupid on so many levels and has been debunked time and time again. It's not going to decrease biodiversity any more than existing agriculture already does and MUST do, and in fact can help increase biodiversity:
Biodiversity of untouched nature will almost always far surpass that of farmland, and it’s important to keep as much of that nature intact as possible. That’s the primary argument for modern agriculture: efficiently farmed land helps reduce the area of farmland needed. The use of GMOs also significantly increases yields, which reduces deforestation and other destructive practices used to create farmland, particularly in the developing world.
Since this is all about habitat loss, which is mainly caused by people clearing land to make way for farmland, we already have a well known proven effective solution to minimize the need for all of that: GMO. Unfortunately, groups like Greenpeace and pretty much every European government have dashed all hopes of that ever seeing global adoption, and the Democrats in the US figure it would be awesome if we made agriculture even less efficient and more wasteful than what we have now by pushing for everybody to go all organic under the (totally false) notion that it is healthier. But you know, because Monsanto exists, obviously we need to throw out GMO technology and never use it again.
European cars = so far ahead of the American cars it's not funny.
LOL...let's see...Volkswagen, Fiat, Volvo...these are all notoriously shit cars...the US doesn't make ANY cars that are as bad as these. Sure, Mercedes, BMW, and Porshe and a few others make cars that at best parallel many models of US cars, but overall, European cars are pretty bad. US cars aren't the best though, those are almost universally all Japanese cars. The US however does make the best trucks. Japanese trucks are a very close second, and European trucks...well...let's just say that nobody other than Europeans would ever want to be seen in one because not only are they totally butt ugly, but they're completely unreliable.
Oh and by the way, have you seen the 1939 Volkswagen logo? If not, I'd suggest doing so.
The idea the US "won the war" though is patently absurd.
Correct, but the US was absolutely critical to that war. You could have removed any one allied country in that effort EXCEPT the US to have victory. USSR would be a distant second, but they were poor as fuck and really had no chance without the US hitting Germany hard from the west. This is also entirely ignoring the pacific theater.
But let's look after the war: Very few countries in Europe were either not fascist or not gobbled up by the USSR immediately after the war, and Europe's infrastructure was almost completely destroyed (In fact, the last fascist regime, Spain, ended in 1975.) If the US hadn't implemented the Marshall Plan, what countries didn't end up ultimately joining the Warsaw Pact would have remained fascist.
Quite simply, the US rebuilt Europe, and served as Europe's only hope as a bulwark against the USSR, who was doing its damnedest to expand westward and force more countries into communism (Think I'm lying? Go read about the Berlin Airlift.) Then after that threat finally ended, little shits like you come back here and say that we didn't do anything at all and that the "red scare" was really never actually threat, much like holocaust deniers.
Also, Star Trek is purely socialist. They skipped the whole UBI thing and went straight to having no money.
Being able to replicate anything you want at any time you want makes money irrelevant, which also means that concepts like socialism and communism don't apply either. In Star Trek Voyager where resources were scarce, they had money in the form of replicator rations. If the entire economy was truly automated like that, you'd end up with no need for money and there would never be a need for UBI at any point along the path. UBI is trying to solve a problem that probably won't ever exist, and it certainly can't offer enough money to end homelessness or solve any other socioeconomic problem you can name.
95% of the time I reply to you, it's when you're thread crapping to discussions like this one by incessantly playing the victim card in order to narcissistically draw attention to yourself.
Every other time, I don't even notice that you're the one I'm replying to.
No, we've already seen this movie before, and we already know how it ends up:
Robots form their own civilization and end up doing a much better job than people do, which causes the human economies to collapse. So, the humans declare war on the robots and blacken the sky so that the robots no longer have a power source. Eventually the robots win the war anyways and turn the remaining humans into batteries that power the new robot civilization while having them trapped in a big elaborate VR simulation. But then a new Jesus comes along and brokers a peace deal with the robots, and we all live happily ever after.
You fundamentally misunderstand Microsoft's motives. Microsoft's strengths have traditionally been bringing power user functionality to products that are also relatively easy to understand by novice users. However, that all changed when the iPhone came out, and then Steve Ballmer laughed at it, and then ended up eating his foot.
After that, Microsoft changed its business strategy to target the lowest common denominator of users, because if it worked really well for Apple, then clearly it will work for them as well. But four windows phones later, Microsoft still doesn't understand that they can better differentiate themselves by not trying to be Apple.
Until that happens (which doesn't seem likely) you can continue to expect more fails like Edge in the foreseeable future.
On laptop and touch screens, the light grey to the right of the "auto-detect" dropdown box sends an impression (to most users I show it to) that this is where you're supposed to type the text. But it's not, where you're supposed to type text is in the little box below it with an outline so thin that it's barely even visible on many screens, so it's not immediately even obvious that the text field is actually there at all.
Edge has this problem in the URL bar, where there's no UI hint that you can actually type there unless you happen to move your mouse over it, though most people who have used other web browsers tend to get it just because that's where the URL bar sits in other browsers so it's not quite a deal breaker, but it would otherwise be. Though a greater example of fail in Edge is when users want to change the default search engine. It turns out that they are rarely ever able to figure it out on their own without searching the internet for an answer, whereas they are more easily able to do so with IE and Chrome.
And that's just for novice users. Edge also doesn't have a place for power users either since it lacks most of the features (beyond just rendering web content) that modern browsers have had for a very long time. The only audience that Edge is suitable for are hardcore Microsoft fans. Yes, they exist, and they're also every bit as annoying as Apple fans were back when nobody used Apple products.
There are good reasons to be against GMO, mostly because the commercial part of it or the side effects that "change".
So because of some commercial uses bother you, means the technology is bad? That's like saying we should ban desktop computers because Microsoft makes questionable business practices. Besides, many well known GMO patents have expired, and farmers have been using GMO plants royalty free for the last two years to the exclusion of non-GMO because they know the GMO ones to be superior:
Absolutely conclusive evidence until you read the rebuttals. Like the fact that his data excluded all restaurants (almost 35% of minimum wage jobs), excluded any business with more than one location, etc, etc, etc. Just remember, figures never lie but liers can figure.
First of all, restaurants typically don't even pay minimum wage, they mostly rely on tips, which typically put actual wages well above the minimum. If you do include restaurants, then THAT IS THE LIE. Sure, I could see it happening that if a minimum wage hike increases the money supply, and therefore people do nice things more often, like eating out, and therefore tips go up.
Second of all, there's actually a very good reason to exclude multi-site businesses. Some 60% to 70% (varies over time) of the economy consists of small businesses. Small businesses get hit HARD when minimum wages increase. Meanwhile, the very large businesses with minimum wage employees are able to deal with it much easier. Therefore, small businesses are more likely to reduce the working hours of their employees than multi-site businesses, and therefore, the employees make less. And, given small businesses make up the lion's share of the economy...
In other words, UW actually made a sound effort to normalize the data, whereas UCB made very little effort towards that end. Likewise, I think the UW report is more reliable.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting how you talk about free speech but cheer those who want to deny professors the right to teach what science tells them is best. People entering colleges are adults. They can choose not to accept the ideas that are taught to them but denying them the right to hear perspectives outside of mainstream US ideas is censorship.
That's interesting because we have so called "liberal" students from Evergreen State saying, and I quote, "fuck free speech".
https://youtu.be/2cMYfxOFBBM?t...
My understanding comes from my own studies
Oh ok, this makes it easy: You're making the same boneheaded mistakes that Greenpeace is making. So you're just a bonehead. 'Nuff said.
By the way: I really like how you had absolutely no response at all to any of the evidence I have provided in favor of GMO: I showed, very clearly, how GMO if used properly can increase biodiversity, can induce the population to reduce its numbers by its own free will, and can reduce habitat destruction preventing a mass extinction. You had absolutely nothing to say about any of this, and completely ignored my direct reply to you.
You're a textbook one dimensional person, therefore no further discussion on this subtopic is necessary.
I was halfway expecting this. No, it isn't.
Nazism is an attempt at controlling who lives and who dies, believing their own to be better or more worthy than others.
Evolutionism is an attempt at not fighting evolution tooth and talon, but accept that not everybody surviving is the primary driving force of evolution, and do our damnedest not to pick who lives and who dies, beyond our own survival instinct. That's diametrically opposite of nazism.
This is actually getting comical. You're pulling a page right out of Nazi ideology and you don't even realize it. You are the textbook definition of a social darwinist, and social darwinism is absolutely fundamental to Nazi ideology, just like I said. Without social darwinism there is no Nazism. Sure, the Nazis went further with eugenics and racial hygiene, however those build upon social darwinism, and just plain don't exist without it. Granted, this didn't begin with Nazis, rather it more or less began with Thomas Malthus and then was expanded and defined by Nietzsche and Herbert Spencer. But, nobody actually applied it as a matter of law until Nazi Germany.
The belief that life is sacred and lives of children especially so is codswallop based on religious culture.
No, it's not. Sure, religions might claim it as their idea, and they're wrong when they do so, but this actually occurs in nature. Especially with mammals, all of whom MUST care for their young for a long time in order for them to survive at all. Here's a hint for why that is: The word mammal comes from the term "mammary glands". The young CAN NOT survive without them, and the act of using them further reinforces exactly this, hence the fundamental feeling that it is "sacred". I'll let you try to figure out the scientific how and why if you have any brains at all, but you've already failed by pinning this idea on religion.
Death is tough on a personal level, but in the grander scheme, it's necessary. As long as the deaths can be compensated for by reproduction, the herd is better off.
What's interesting here is that you're now making an argument in favor of why the population should grow to be very large: You have to have many children in order to guarantee their survival and growth in the situation you describe. Even before modern medicine came around and all but guaranteed longer lifespans, the population was already growing exponentially. Medicine just made it grow even faster for a while, but the population would have grown anyways without it. Where this gets interesting is that in countries where there is advanced medicine, the population is actually *declining*. The global population is only increasing as a result of people in other countries without these luxuries: They breed like rabbits not only to survive, but also they need ever more help in gathering food, which the children help with. GMO can mitigate that as well, by the way.
But instead of actually paying attention, you just stick to social darwinism as the answer, even though it will more than likely result in the opposite of what you think it will do. This, among other reasons, is why it has been discredited for a long time now.
Wow, so I got modded troll while the guy who talks about draconian methods of killing off the population didn't? Typical slashdot.
I'm sorry if it thwarts your strawman argumentation, but I got none of my "talking points" from Greenpeace.
That's not what I said. What I said is that the talking points you are making all have their roots in Greenpeace's disinformation campaign. They lied to other people, who then lied to you. Vicariously, they lied to you.
You're saying that as if it were a good thing?
Uhh...yeah. While I'm not diabetic myself, I do have a chronic disease that would otherwise result in death, and I very much appreciate treatment available for it. Eventually everybody does, and when you do, I'll just offer you a cyanide tablet.
For what it's worth, the ideology you are putting across is a central tenet of Nazism.
Sure, art is important, but not the modern crap "weird for the sake of weird" art that we see today.
https://youtu.be/jHKW5AWLby0?t...
Aside from my earlier post about GMO actually being able to increase biodiversity, Greenpeace, who is behind every talking point you've ever made on this topic, has blatantly lied to you, multiple times.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Greenpeace also likes to hold two opposing arguments at the same time about GMO Bt, depending on which side best fits their pre-conceived narrative (without doing any actual research) on that particular day:
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Further reading where Greenpeace holds double standards:
https://geneticliteracyproject...
https://geneticliteracyproject...
Drop the anti-GMO crusade. It's pure post-truth populism and anti-science bullshit. To date there is not a single good argument against GMO. And if that's not enough, the most of the anti-GMO scientific papers about health impact were authored by a guy who has an established history of manipulating his data in order to fit his activist narrative:
http://retractionwatch.com/201...
He's currently under investigation by the Italian senate for scientific fraud. And by the way, GMO has been saving the lives of diabetics allergic to cow and pig insulin since 1982.
Buying new seeds with a patent license every season instead of having them from your crops is a solution? Only for Monsanto's revenue growth. Ordinary crops can be grown without having to sign any license.
Actually the reason GMO seeds are so popular is because they are much more profitable for the farmer. If it wasn't, then they'd just buy conventional seed rather than pay extra.
Again this idiocy. There is no shortage of food. There is an excess of population growth and rampant capitalism. GMOs only solve the cash problems of some corporations.
Did you even read my post? GMO can keep the same food production but with LESS landmass. Furthermore, it's mostly undeveloped nations that have a population problem, which is also something GMO can solve by virtue of the fact that people in these countries will need to have fewer kids in order to feed themselves.
And capitalism has nothing to do with this, moron.
Not only that, but if the Gros Michel's Panama disease was around today, GMO could have saved those bananas. And it still can, as a matter of fact, because the Gros Michel still exists in isolated areas that weren't exposed to that. But Greenpeace and other anti-science groups would throw a fit, like they always do, so we can't have nice things.
The GMO crap they produce now is crap, built in pesticides to kill pests and harm people
The only built in pesticide is Bt, which is a protein that was discovered a hundred years ago and is only known to be toxic to invertebrates. All farmers (including organic) use Bt liberally, and you eat it all the time.
herbicide resistant to pass tolerance to closely related species
Actually there's already a solution to that:
https://geneticliteracyproject...
It's also worth noting that the process of using herbicides greatly reduces the amount of water needed, in addition to reducing the landmass and increasing crop yields.
long life with poor digestibility, basically all the crap ideas
Where the fuck did you get this from? There isn't any evidence that they aren't digestible. People like you with your constant spewing of lies are why we can't have nice things:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harves...
The proteins that have been introduced into foods, to this point in time, have all been shown to be readily digestible and not similar to any known toxins or allergens.
And don't use some crap source like Greenpeace or some conspiracy theory website if you're going to make a counterpoint.
There's another solution: Population control.
Actually, GMO will help with that, and it won't involve any draconian population control methods, rather the population will, of its own accord, just stop reproducing in large enough numbers to continue growing.
Until the past 150 years, less than 10% of the population had any career other than farming. The best way to keep your farm operational was to have as many kids as you could have in order to have additional farm-hands. Thus, having kids was an asset. However, nowadays, having kids is no longer an asset, instead they are a liability as they cost you money without bringing any ROI other than "yay, I had kids!" Thus, the number of children per female is decreasing in developed countries.
If we can make farming more efficient, we can reduce the need for farmland everywhere in the world, reduce the price of food so you need fewer children to sustain yourself, which in turn reduces the amount of natural habitat destroyed, and reduces the population growth.
And if you had bothered to read TFA, you would have realized that GMOs kills biodiversity.
/facepalm
This statement is stupid on so many levels and has been debunked time and time again. It's not going to decrease biodiversity any more than existing agriculture already does and MUST do, and in fact can help increase biodiversity:
https://gmo.geneticliteracypro...
Biodiversity of untouched nature will almost always far surpass that of farmland, and it’s important to keep as much of that nature intact as possible. That’s the primary argument for modern agriculture: efficiently farmed land helps reduce the area of farmland needed. The use of GMOs also significantly increases yields, which reduces deforestation and other destructive practices used to create farmland, particularly in the developing world.
So your entire counter-argument is moot.
Since this is all about habitat loss, which is mainly caused by people clearing land to make way for farmland, we already have a well known proven effective solution to minimize the need for all of that: GMO. Unfortunately, groups like Greenpeace and pretty much every European government have dashed all hopes of that ever seeing global adoption, and the Democrats in the US figure it would be awesome if we made agriculture even less efficient and more wasteful than what we have now by pushing for everybody to go all organic under the (totally false) notion that it is healthier. But you know, because Monsanto exists, obviously we need to throw out GMO technology and never use it again.
European cars = so far ahead of the American cars it's not funny.
LOL...let's see...Volkswagen, Fiat, Volvo...these are all notoriously shit cars...the US doesn't make ANY cars that are as bad as these. Sure, Mercedes, BMW, and Porshe and a few others make cars that at best parallel many models of US cars, but overall, European cars are pretty bad. US cars aren't the best though, those are almost universally all Japanese cars. The US however does make the best trucks. Japanese trucks are a very close second, and European trucks...well...let's just say that nobody other than Europeans would ever want to be seen in one because not only are they totally butt ugly, but they're completely unreliable.
Oh and by the way, have you seen the 1939 Volkswagen logo? If not, I'd suggest doing so.
The idea the US "won the war" though is patently absurd.
Correct, but the US was absolutely critical to that war. You could have removed any one allied country in that effort EXCEPT the US to have victory. USSR would be a distant second, but they were poor as fuck and really had no chance without the US hitting Germany hard from the west. This is also entirely ignoring the pacific theater.
But let's look after the war: Very few countries in Europe were either not fascist or not gobbled up by the USSR immediately after the war, and Europe's infrastructure was almost completely destroyed (In fact, the last fascist regime, Spain, ended in 1975.) If the US hadn't implemented the Marshall Plan, what countries didn't end up ultimately joining the Warsaw Pact would have remained fascist.
Quite simply, the US rebuilt Europe, and served as Europe's only hope as a bulwark against the USSR, who was doing its damnedest to expand westward and force more countries into communism (Think I'm lying? Go read about the Berlin Airlift.) Then after that threat finally ended, little shits like you come back here and say that we didn't do anything at all and that the "red scare" was really never actually threat, much like holocaust deniers.
Also, Star Trek is purely socialist. They skipped the whole UBI thing and went straight to having no money.
Being able to replicate anything you want at any time you want makes money irrelevant, which also means that concepts like socialism and communism don't apply either. In Star Trek Voyager where resources were scarce, they had money in the form of replicator rations. If the entire economy was truly automated like that, you'd end up with no need for money and there would never be a need for UBI at any point along the path. UBI is trying to solve a problem that probably won't ever exist, and it certainly can't offer enough money to end homelessness or solve any other socioeconomic problem you can name.
I'm not making any rationalization, I'm stating a fact.
You know you could always refuse funding from them.
95% of the time I reply to you, it's when you're thread crapping to discussions like this one by incessantly playing the victim card in order to narcissistically draw attention to yourself.
Every other time, I don't even notice that you're the one I'm replying to.
No, we've already seen this movie before, and we already know how it ends up:
Robots form their own civilization and end up doing a much better job than people do, which causes the human economies to collapse. So, the humans declare war on the robots and blacken the sky so that the robots no longer have a power source. Eventually the robots win the war anyways and turn the remaining humans into batteries that power the new robot civilization while having them trapped in a big elaborate VR simulation. But then a new Jesus comes along and brokers a peace deal with the robots, and we all live happily ever after.
What is Microsoft waiting for?
You fundamentally misunderstand Microsoft's motives. Microsoft's strengths have traditionally been bringing power user functionality to products that are also relatively easy to understand by novice users. However, that all changed when the iPhone came out, and then Steve Ballmer laughed at it, and then ended up eating his foot.
After that, Microsoft changed its business strategy to target the lowest common denominator of users, because if it worked really well for Apple, then clearly it will work for them as well. But four windows phones later, Microsoft still doesn't understand that they can better differentiate themselves by not trying to be Apple.
Until that happens (which doesn't seem likely) you can continue to expect more fails like Edge in the foreseeable future.
I disagree. Microsoft's UI design language just plain sucks, and Edge is no exception. A great example of why it sucks is this page:
https://www.bing.com/translato...
On laptop and touch screens, the light grey to the right of the "auto-detect" dropdown box sends an impression (to most users I show it to) that this is where you're supposed to type the text. But it's not, where you're supposed to type text is in the little box below it with an outline so thin that it's barely even visible on many screens, so it's not immediately even obvious that the text field is actually there at all.
Edge has this problem in the URL bar, where there's no UI hint that you can actually type there unless you happen to move your mouse over it, though most people who have used other web browsers tend to get it just because that's where the URL bar sits in other browsers so it's not quite a deal breaker, but it would otherwise be. Though a greater example of fail in Edge is when users want to change the default search engine. It turns out that they are rarely ever able to figure it out on their own without searching the internet for an answer, whereas they are more easily able to do so with IE and Chrome.
And that's just for novice users. Edge also doesn't have a place for power users either since it lacks most of the features (beyond just rendering web content) that modern browsers have had for a very long time. The only audience that Edge is suitable for are hardcore Microsoft fans. Yes, they exist, and they're also every bit as annoying as Apple fans were back when nobody used Apple products.
Now how was I able to predict that Blarbara would be all over a sexual harassment topic like flies on shit?
Professional victim reporting for duty, sir!
Organic pesticides seem to be doing a good job of that already.
There are good reasons to be against GMO, mostly because the commercial part of it or the side effects that "change".
So because of some commercial uses bother you, means the technology is bad? That's like saying we should ban desktop computers because Microsoft makes questionable business practices. Besides, many well known GMO patents have expired, and farmers have been using GMO plants royalty free for the last two years to the exclusion of non-GMO because they know the GMO ones to be superior:
https://www.technologyreview.c...
Example: You do realize GMO plants do not contain pollen?
This is just downright laughable. By far the most prominent GMO product is canola, which without a doubt produces pollen. Read myth #2 here:
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
The whole anti-GMO movement relies on mis-truths, and wouldn't exist at all if nobody ever made up any of the bullshit you just bought in to.
Absolutely conclusive evidence until you read the rebuttals. Like the fact that his data excluded all restaurants (almost 35% of minimum wage jobs), excluded any business with more than one location, etc, etc, etc. Just remember, figures never lie but liers can figure.
First of all, restaurants typically don't even pay minimum wage, they mostly rely on tips, which typically put actual wages well above the minimum. If you do include restaurants, then THAT IS THE LIE. Sure, I could see it happening that if a minimum wage hike increases the money supply, and therefore people do nice things more often, like eating out, and therefore tips go up.
Second of all, there's actually a very good reason to exclude multi-site businesses. Some 60% to 70% (varies over time) of the economy consists of small businesses. Small businesses get hit HARD when minimum wages increase. Meanwhile, the very large businesses with minimum wage employees are able to deal with it much easier. Therefore, small businesses are more likely to reduce the working hours of their employees than multi-site businesses, and therefore, the employees make less. And, given small businesses make up the lion's share of the economy...
In other words, UW actually made a sound effort to normalize the data, whereas UCB made very little effort towards that end. Likewise, I think the UW report is more reliable.