Ok I'll play with your red herrings (yes, two of them you just used.)
First of all, there is no "frankenfood". When you hear about gene splicing from plants to animals, that's done for research purposes to understand how genes work, and doesn't end up on your plate. There are only two commercially used cases of gene splicing, and one is from one flora to another (that is, for Bt) and the other is to splice human genes into e. coli to produce Humulin, an insulin that is chemically identical to human insulin, which has been used by diabetics almost exclusively since 1982 (prior to that cow insulin was used, and a lot of people were allergic to it and died from it.) So there you have it, a "frankenfood" that has been proven to be saving lives for 33 years now.
Second of all, the effects of lead were well documented prior to it being regulated out of most products we use. However there are no documented negative effects of GMO, except in cases of scientific misconduct, as seen in TFA.
Go ahead, bring more anti-science at me, I'll be happy to debunk your Food Religion.
So butteflys didn't actually die fro BT crops? Bees are not sick?
In case you haven't noticed, organic farmers spray their crops with Bt. In fact, here's a nice unscientific Food Religion site for you that shows how to properly use Bt on organic plants in your "locally fresh" garden:
The roundup resistant crops are not causing other crops to die in Argentina?
That sounds like a geographical issue with Argentina, which their government should regulate as they see fit. Meanwhile we'll continue using it where this isn't relevant.
Labeling serves the purpose of choice, the consumer has the right to choose to buy or not to buy something based on whatever the hell they want.
That's fine, and manufacturers who want to be GMO free can label their products as such so they can cater to the food religion. They already do this, and there's nothing stopping them from continuing it. The same is also true of Kosher and Halal foods, which are labeled for equally useless reasons.
So you already have it your way, you just aren't aware of it yet, thus you can stop your lobbying for it already.
I'm guessing you're referring to glyphosate (aka roundup)?
First of all, GMO already has numerous uses (take for example, GMO is used to produce humulin, which has completely replaced the "natural" cow insulin diabetics were using before.) Another example is Bt crops which are highly toxic to invertebrates but are harmless to humans (in fact, organic farmers spray Bt on their crops) therefore making them highly insect resistant, the only difference is with GMO it's grown into the plant, so you effectively use less Bt while having better resistance.
Second of all, glyphosate isn't that toxic to humans. In large quantities, yes, but you literally have to handle it by the bucket load to be at any risk. The same is true of just about anything. Small amounts of glyphosate on plants won't do anything to you, even if you eat it without washing it.
If I had billions to gain, id try and disrupt an industry
There's actually truth to this. The organic industry is VERY profitable, and along with that, spend a LOT of money for political and advertising purposes. So many have this image of it being a collection of small geographically separate "locally grown" clubs, but that's just not the case. The fact is, organic food carries HIGH profit margins, and they don't like having conventional or GMO foods cutting into their sales, which is why they've launched a FUD campaign of their own:
If you don't want the Forbes link (I don't blame you, but use anti-adblock killer if you want to anyways) then here's another article, but not as detailed:
That is the real problem, and why some 3rd world countries won't use them. You become a slave to Monsanto. If you are willing, and you can make good money, then fine: you are a well compensated slave, but a slave nonetheless.
This is about as dumb as saying that if you use personal computers, you're a slave to Microsoft. And no, this isn't why third world countries don't use GMO technology; they don't use it because their politicians have been influenced by anti-science organizations like Greenpeace (which by the way, India has just revoked Greenpeace's ability to operate as a nonprofit in that country because of their anti-development agenda.)
Which by the way, greenpeace is completely wrong about this issue. In fact, you ought to read the history about their opposition of Bt spliced plants. First their argument was that GMO plants contain too much Bt, but then when it was found that conventional plants are sprayed with an even higher quantity of Bt, their argument suddenly turned into GMO plants don't have enough Bt, even though the amount they have has been proven to be equally effective.
If Greenpeace was truly an environmentalist organization instead of the anti-science one they've become over the last few decades (and similarly why Patrick Moore, a co-founder, left them) they'd be in favor of GMO as it is already solving some environmental problems (namely, higher crop yield for the same landmass and needing less water) and has the potential to solve many more.
Anyways there are a lot of other organization opposed to GMO technology (and for similar nonsensical reasons.)
I don't care one way or another about Monsanto, by the way. When I speak about GMO, I'm referring entirely to the technology itself, which has great potential.
Being anti GMO is every bit as nonsensical as being an anti-vaxer. There's all of about zero credible scientific data against it.
Furthermore, the efforts to label it are purely for the purpose of stigmatizing it and shouldn't be taken seriously. The reason ingredients are labeled is to help people with dietary concerns (such as allergies) however there's no dietary or other concerns with GMO food, hence labeling serves no useful (other than perhaps religious) purpose.
You made the claim that the American Military would have sympathy for an armed rebellion against tyranny and I stated that an armed rebellion would be spun as a socialist revolution which the military wouldn't support
From what you say, it sounds as if you think of the military as a bunch of robots that will just instantly obey commands. It doesn't work that way. Everybody in the military has civilian family members. All of them. They're also, most of the time, in constant contact with them. If their family were to take up something like that, it would draw sympathy. Such was the case with Robert E Lee in fact.
Washington to continue to steal land from the savages
That's not even close to accurate. Washington didn't even want independence at first. He had loyalty to the British Army and only wanted a different economic relationship with England. However he eventually realized that England didn't respect American colonists, and eventually joined his countrymen.
Lee to have the same right as Grant to own slaves
You don't even know history at all. The civil war was a rebellion against what they perceived as tyranny. I don't care how you try to spin it otherwise. It was over state's rights, as they felt that the federal government was imposing its authority in a way that they considered unacceptable. The whole slavery issue didn't even come up until after the civil war was well underway. Robert E. Lee actually preferred for the US to remain as a union, but he only joined the Confederacy because his family and everybody who lived in his area wanted to secede, and his loyalty was with them rather than the federal government, hence he defected.
Sorry but you've totally blown yourself out of this argument completely as you've demonstrated a complete and utter lack of knowledge of history.
They have, and it's kind of lame compared to the concept videos they show. It only grants you a tiny FOV which you're supposed to work within, which is far from the fully immersive world that they showcase in the concept videos.
and some people don't like that so are protesting to get him off the air. I can't see anything wrong with that, democracy and free speech and all that
See this right here? You just contradicted yourself in a really bad way, ultimately proving my point about not only yourself, but the left as well.
You see, free speech includes even allowing the speech that we don't like. Sure, you can ignore it if you want to, and even change the channel. Nothing is stopping you from doing that. However when you go out of your way to remove somebody's voice, you're engaging in censorship. It doesn't matter if you have a majority consensus or not, it's still censorship either way. The founding fathers even added protections in the Constitution against the tyranny of the majority for exactly this reason, and in spite of your belief otherwise, it does not fit the American model of democracy.
Even when interpreted properly, I can't help but wonder if this is the typical IT environment of "not supported". That is, in the IT world "not supported" doesn't mean "doesn't work".
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if, by popular demand, OEMs add UEFI modules to make it work anyways, even if Microsoft were to deliberately break it. It's certainly possible. And since OEMs are responsible for supporting Windows on their machines, they can always provide support for Windows 7 if they want, just the customer would have to provide their own copy as Microsoft would likely stop selling it to try to push users to 10.
Reporting a story that presents facts is not biased.
That's basically what I said. However you specifically brought up agreement about one's views. An agreement or disagreement is an opinion. There is no way around that.
I have no idea what you are talking about so can't comment.
You really think that the military would have sympathy for a leftist socialist rebellion?
Not likely, no.
Consider however, cases of popular rebellion. The US already has two major examples of high ranking officers defecting to join rebellions. In fact, George Washington himself was a member of the British militia, and Robert E. Lee was originally a Union officer.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and obviously never served in the US military
I did actually, US Army. MOS was 19-D, Armored Reconnaissance, also called Cavalry Scout. The classic title for it (in its early early days) is a Dragoon. Notice my nickname per chance?
As a former member, allow me to inform you: the vast majority of military officers AND enlisted are very pro-law-and-order, and don't take their oath to carry out orders lightly.
It's one thing when you're talking about average hooligans being unruly. Yes, completely agree in that respect. However I really don't think things would stay the same if there were legitimate grievances with the US government. There are, for example, such things as unlawful orders, and it is your duty as a soldier to disobey them.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok I'll play with your red herrings (yes, two of them you just used.)
First of all, there is no "frankenfood". When you hear about gene splicing from plants to animals, that's done for research purposes to understand how genes work, and doesn't end up on your plate. There are only two commercially used cases of gene splicing, and one is from one flora to another (that is, for Bt) and the other is to splice human genes into e. coli to produce Humulin, an insulin that is chemically identical to human insulin, which has been used by diabetics almost exclusively since 1982 (prior to that cow insulin was used, and a lot of people were allergic to it and died from it.) So there you have it, a "frankenfood" that has been proven to be saving lives for 33 years now.
Second of all, the effects of lead were well documented prior to it being regulated out of most products we use. However there are no documented negative effects of GMO, except in cases of scientific misconduct, as seen in TFA.
Go ahead, bring more anti-science at me, I'll be happy to debunk your Food Religion.
So butteflys didn't actually die fro BT crops? Bees are not sick?
In case you haven't noticed, organic farmers spray their crops with Bt. In fact, here's a nice unscientific Food Religion site for you that shows how to properly use Bt on organic plants in your "locally fresh" garden:
http://www.motherearthnews.com...
The roundup resistant crops are not causing other crops to die in Argentina?
That sounds like a geographical issue with Argentina, which their government should regulate as they see fit. Meanwhile we'll continue using it where this isn't relevant.
Labeling serves the purpose of choice, the consumer has the right to choose to buy or not to buy something based on whatever the hell they want.
That's fine, and manufacturers who want to be GMO free can label their products as such so they can cater to the food religion. They already do this, and there's nothing stopping them from continuing it. The same is also true of Kosher and Halal foods, which are labeled for equally useless reasons.
So you already have it your way, you just aren't aware of it yet, thus you can stop your lobbying for it already.
There is reasonable grounds to be skeptical of GMOs on economic grounds.
No, there's not.
http://www.technologyreview.co...
Well that guy mentioned in the Wikipedia article is free to do it now because the patents have expired:
http://www.technologyreview.co...
Not only that, but he's trying to use FUD to fight the technology. Monsanto's patents on roundup ready seeds expired last year:
http://www.technologyreview.co...
I'm guessing you're referring to glyphosate (aka roundup)?
First of all, GMO already has numerous uses (take for example, GMO is used to produce humulin, which has completely replaced the "natural" cow insulin diabetics were using before.) Another example is Bt crops which are highly toxic to invertebrates but are harmless to humans (in fact, organic farmers spray Bt on their crops) therefore making them highly insect resistant, the only difference is with GMO it's grown into the plant, so you effectively use less Bt while having better resistance.
Second of all, glyphosate isn't that toxic to humans. In large quantities, yes, but you literally have to handle it by the bucket load to be at any risk. The same is true of just about anything. Small amounts of glyphosate on plants won't do anything to you, even if you eat it without washing it.
If I had billions to gain, id try and disrupt an industry
There's actually truth to this. The organic industry is VERY profitable, and along with that, spend a LOT of money for political and advertising purposes. So many have this image of it being a collection of small geographically separate "locally grown" clubs, but that's just not the case. The fact is, organic food carries HIGH profit margins, and they don't like having conventional or GMO foods cutting into their sales, which is why they've launched a FUD campaign of their own:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jo...
If you don't want the Forbes link (I don't blame you, but use anti-adblock killer if you want to anyways) then here's another article, but not as detailed:
https://www.geneticliteracypro...
That is the real problem, and why some 3rd world countries won't use them. You become a slave to Monsanto. If you are willing, and you can make good money, then fine: you are a well compensated slave, but a slave nonetheless.
This is about as dumb as saying that if you use personal computers, you're a slave to Microsoft. And no, this isn't why third world countries don't use GMO technology; they don't use it because their politicians have been influenced by anti-science organizations like Greenpeace (which by the way, India has just revoked Greenpeace's ability to operate as a nonprofit in that country because of their anti-development agenda.)
The issue has never been about GMO itself
That's not what Greenpeace says:
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...
Which by the way, greenpeace is completely wrong about this issue. In fact, you ought to read the history about their opposition of Bt spliced plants. First their argument was that GMO plants contain too much Bt, but then when it was found that conventional plants are sprayed with an even higher quantity of Bt, their argument suddenly turned into GMO plants don't have enough Bt, even though the amount they have has been proven to be equally effective.
If Greenpeace was truly an environmentalist organization instead of the anti-science one they've become over the last few decades (and similarly why Patrick Moore, a co-founder, left them) they'd be in favor of GMO as it is already solving some environmental problems (namely, higher crop yield for the same landmass and needing less water) and has the potential to solve many more.
Anyways there are a lot of other organization opposed to GMO technology (and for similar nonsensical reasons.)
I don't care one way or another about Monsanto, by the way. When I speak about GMO, I'm referring entirely to the technology itself, which has great potential.
Probably the same type of fraud used against vaccinations.
Probably the later.
Being anti GMO is every bit as nonsensical as being an anti-vaxer. There's all of about zero credible scientific data against it.
Furthermore, the efforts to label it are purely for the purpose of stigmatizing it and shouldn't be taken seriously. The reason ingredients are labeled is to help people with dietary concerns (such as allergies) however there's no dietary or other concerns with GMO food, hence labeling serves no useful (other than perhaps religious) purpose.
You made the claim that the American Military would have sympathy for an armed rebellion against tyranny and I stated that an armed rebellion would be spun as a socialist revolution which the military wouldn't support
From what you say, it sounds as if you think of the military as a bunch of robots that will just instantly obey commands. It doesn't work that way. Everybody in the military has civilian family members. All of them. They're also, most of the time, in constant contact with them. If their family were to take up something like that, it would draw sympathy. Such was the case with Robert E Lee in fact.
Washington to continue to steal land from the savages
That's not even close to accurate. Washington didn't even want independence at first. He had loyalty to the British Army and only wanted a different economic relationship with England. However he eventually realized that England didn't respect American colonists, and eventually joined his countrymen.
Lee to have the same right as Grant to own slaves
You don't even know history at all. The civil war was a rebellion against what they perceived as tyranny. I don't care how you try to spin it otherwise. It was over state's rights, as they felt that the federal government was imposing its authority in a way that they considered unacceptable. The whole slavery issue didn't even come up until after the civil war was well underway. Robert E. Lee actually preferred for the US to remain as a union, but he only joined the Confederacy because his family and everybody who lived in his area wanted to secede, and his loyalty was with them rather than the federal government, hence he defected.
Sorry but you've totally blown yourself out of this argument completely as you've demonstrated a complete and utter lack of knowledge of history.
Lastpass is an addon/extension overlay, meaning there is no URL.
They were separatists. Washington never planned on marching on London and Lee marched on Washington after being attacked by the north.
And that invalidates my point how, exactly?
No I didn't, you have just failed to understand the argument.
The argument you presented is that it's ok to censor somebody so long as it's a democratic process.
They have, and it's kind of lame compared to the concept videos they show. It only grants you a tiny FOV which you're supposed to work within, which is far from the fully immersive world that they showcase in the concept videos.
Curious, what tool or map editor did he use to make it with? Or is he so hardcore that he just opened a hex editor?
and some people don't like that so are protesting to get him off the air. I can't see anything wrong with that, democracy and free speech and all that
See this right here? You just contradicted yourself in a really bad way, ultimately proving my point about not only yourself, but the left as well.
You see, free speech includes even allowing the speech that we don't like. Sure, you can ignore it if you want to, and even change the channel. Nothing is stopping you from doing that. However when you go out of your way to remove somebody's voice, you're engaging in censorship. It doesn't matter if you have a majority consensus or not, it's still censorship either way. The founding fathers even added protections in the Constitution against the tyranny of the majority for exactly this reason, and in spite of your belief otherwise, it does not fit the American model of democracy.
Thank you, I rest my case.
Even when interpreted properly, I can't help but wonder if this is the typical IT environment of "not supported". That is, in the IT world "not supported" doesn't mean "doesn't work".
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if, by popular demand, OEMs add UEFI modules to make it work anyways, even if Microsoft were to deliberately break it. It's certainly possible. And since OEMs are responsible for supporting Windows on their machines, they can always provide support for Windows 7 if they want, just the customer would have to provide their own copy as Microsoft would likely stop selling it to try to push users to 10.
Oh and also Robert E Lee was from Virginia, so the nation's capital wasn't exactly distant.
Neither was really a rebellion. Rather wars of separation.
... Seriously? It's the same thing. The confederates were the rebels. So were the colonists.
Not it's not.
Yes, it is, by definition.
Reporting a story that presents facts is not biased.
That's basically what I said. However you specifically brought up agreement about one's views. An agreement or disagreement is an opinion. There is no way around that.
I have no idea what you are talking about so can't comment.
Google "stop beck".
You really think that the military would have sympathy for a leftist socialist rebellion?
Not likely, no.
Consider however, cases of popular rebellion. The US already has two major examples of high ranking officers defecting to join rebellions. In fact, George Washington himself was a member of the British militia, and Robert E. Lee was originally a Union officer.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and obviously never served in the US military
I did actually, US Army. MOS was 19-D, Armored Reconnaissance, also called Cavalry Scout. The classic title for it (in its early early days) is a Dragoon. Notice my nickname per chance?
As a former member, allow me to inform you: the vast majority of military officers AND enlisted are very pro-law-and-order, and don't take their oath to carry out orders lightly.
It's one thing when you're talking about average hooligans being unruly. Yes, completely agree in that respect. However I really don't think things would stay the same if there were legitimate grievances with the US government. There are, for example, such things as unlawful orders, and it is your duty as a soldier to disobey them.