If I had mod points, I'd give you some - this was a very insightful comment. This emphasis on victimization isn't making people stronger, and treating people like they're fragile is insulting.
Communism is primarily an economic system that could, in theory, be used by any form of government. In practice, however, countries that at least tried to follow a communist economic model needed to have strong, statist governments, both to organize things and to get people to cooperate.
Really take a look at mdsolar's source - I enjoyed this quote:
Among other things, the report said a review of modeling reports and notebooks didn't turn up evidence that information actually was falsified or modified as the e-mails suggested.
Oh, and this part:
the Energy Department said last year that the scientific work was being redone by Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, at a cost of more than $20 million.
Which makes it seem to me that they've had nine years to redo the work, and had the budget for it.
Your own citation says the work was being redone nine years ago, which directly refutes your claim that "we'll never be able to use that site because of corruption polluting the knowledge base." Moreover,
Among other things, the report said a review of modeling reports and notebooks didn't turn up evidence that information actually was falsified or modified as the e-mails suggested.
Because the "debunking" is from a Slate blog (Slate not being known for its high standards of journalism, nor its deep and thorough understanding of science) and the original study is, at least, peer-reviewed? That's not to say it's automatically right - as we know, peer review fails at an alarming rate - but showing the original research and someone else's rebuttal gives people sources they can use to become better informed. Better to show it - and rebuttals - than to not publish it at all.
Why not temporarily ban white loners in their 20's from owning guns because most of the time it's one of them that are shooting up churches, schools, and theaters?
Actually, according to the FBI, there is no clear demographic profile of shooters except that they're usually male. Age and race were not significant contributors.
Banning all Muslims is not a common sense solution because your chances of getting killed by a Muslim in the US is virtually nil. It's not like people aren't getting killed on a daily basis, but the causes are much more mundane than terrorism.
The idea of banning all Muslims is a reaction to an irrational fear.
I completely agree; religious-based discrimination should have no place in government policy.
Ah, but using the profits obtained by cheating in the EU to subsidize losses elsewhere (to gain monopoly share) would already be in violation of anti-trust laws in other places. I'll concede that the upper management might be content to receive lower profits from outside the EU if they were getting a lot within the EU, but I think abusing market position in, say, Japan, could be prosecuted there. Oh, Switzerland is dirty as hell, I agree - but that sort of thing is better handled using trade agreements, don't you think?
Of course, the EU can pass whatever laws it likes, and enforce them too - I'm saying it's wrong of them to do so. If they said 100% of EU revenue and that turned out to be 20% of global revenues, then I wouldn't have a problem with that. I mean, I think it's a little high, but at least it's based on demonstrable harm, rather than speculative losses outside the EU.
If an argument is about principles, not effects, then changing words isn't pedantry. You can get the same effect through two different means, and have one of them be good and the other bad.
Long term epigenetic studies have not, to my knowledge, been done; however, there's no reason to think that they would change our epigenetics any more than non-GMO food, and no plausible mechanism by which they could do so.
If the fluoride comes from fertilizer production, then they are connected, I'll give you that. However, that doesn't mean it's bad for you, and most evidence is that in small doses it's beneficial.
True, most is not all. All vaccines on the market today are effective enough - both on a personal level and on a population level - to warrant approving them. Contrary to your assertion, effectiveness is pretty much the same regardless of funding source. No, in aggregate they aren't profitable - injectables cost a lot to make. Everything has some toxicity; vaccines on average have much lower toxicity than the disease they are supposed to prevent. Herd immunity is a real thing, and it's important for people who are too young to get some vaccines, the ever-growing population of people who are immunosuppressed (because of chemo/HIV/genetic disorders/organ transplants/whatever), and - for some diseases - herd immunity is the only way to wipe them out for good.
No, if a company can't compete in other countries because of Qualcomm's alleged violations in the EU, then they wouldn't have made money in those other countries anyways. The EU should not be policing antitrust violations outside of the EU; that's just trying to be the world's policeman, and that's a bad thing (just like when America does it).
What you're basically arguing is that companies should be free to fuck companies over with anti-competitive practices outside of Europe as long as they behave whilst within Europe. Sorry but why should we accept them in Europe at all if they're going to fuck over our companies with illegal practices outside of Europe? The other option is we block them from Europe altogether, and as the largest market that'll hurt them far more than a fine of global revenues for a year will - again, they can even choose this option for themselves if they wish.
Yeah, I'm arguing that the EU shouldn't fine companies for things they do outside of the EU. That oversteps the EU's authority, just like the US routinely oversteps its authority by trying to legislate what US-based companies do in other countries. If Qualcomm did something illegal in China, the Chinese should punish it, not you. You're being pretty Eurocentric here (almost nationalist, but since the EU isn't a country, that's not quite the right word).
Not formally, no. Congress can authorize military action while not formally declaring war; practically speaking, there is very little difference, but the President gets additional war-time powers only when war is actually declared. Of course, the President could just declare a state of emergency, which carries very similar powers. Additionally, if war is not declared, the President must get approval from Congress to keep troops deployed.
If enough people don't want to eat GMOs, then companies will - and do - make products that don't contain them, and market them as such.
This is obviously not true, as 90% -- depending on country -- of the populace don't want GMO food. Companies don't care as long as they make a profit. Especially in the USA.
[citation needed]
In the US, there are tons of products that say "GMO free" on them. Some people buy them for various reasons, most of which I disagree with, but they're perfectly within their rights to do so. Plenty of other people don't care one way or the other, and don't look for the label.
If they don't want to tell you the exact temperature that can of beans was pasteurized at, and you really want to know, they can either tell you or not.
This has nothing to do with GMO ingredients.
Correct, but it does have to do with your claim that you "have the right that you honestly tell me what is inside and don't sell me intentionally or inintenionally something I don't want". It's a comparison.
Regarding the right, yes I have it. There are basic human right charters, you know. It is not explicitly mentioned that I have a right to be not touched by GMO but it is a no brainer and easy conducted from all health related and life quality rights. E.g. I have the freedom to chose if I eat pig or not. Hence food contains labels: contains meat or products from pigs. Why should GMO be different?
It's not a no-brainer. If you're in public, you don't have a right to not be touched by a GMO. You have the right to decide whether you want to eat GMOs, of course, but nobody said they have to make it easy for you. You also have the right to not eat food prepared by anyone who's left-handed or has red hair, but they don't have to put that on the label. If it means a lot to you, figure it out.
Again, that's not a right. It's a law, but those two things are quite different.
As soon as there is a law: it is a right. no brainer. That the right existed beforehand and that a law needed to be made so the infringers finally recognize my rights, is a shame.
I'm going to chalk this up to English not being your native tongue. Just because someone is legally obligated to tell you something doesn't mean you had a right to know about it beforehand. English makes that distinction quite well.
With your argumentation, you have no right of living. But luckily there is a law that punishes killing humans. Actually, I'm not sure: is it explicitly forbidden to kill humans or is there only the threat of punishment, if you do?
What? How do you get "you have no right to life" from anything I said? People have certain rights; inalienable rights never involve people having to give them to you. They often require other people to protect your use of them, sadly (hence, police).
Again: bottom line it is simply ridiculous and hilarious that people who seem not to care about GMO, care if there is a label on it, why? What is your rational?
I don't care if companies label things one way or another, as long as they're honest. I don't think there's good enough scientific evidence to mandate labels, however. There's clearly a public interest in requiring nutrition labels and allergy warnings, but there is no such case for mandating GMO labeling. I think doing so is meaningless, because "GMO" covers a really broad range of modifications, and being pro/anti GMO as a whole is silly.
It was not a formal declaration of war; it was an authorization of military force by Congress. Technically, the last war the US was in was WWII. America has not formally declared war since.
If people don't want to eat it, they can buy the stuff that's labeled "GMO free". If they want to eat it, they can buy something that's labeled as containing GMOs. If they don't care, then they'll buy something with a label one way or the other, or no label. If enough people don't want to eat GMOs, then companies will - and do - make products that don't contain them, and market them as such.
If you sell me stuff, I definitely have the right that you honestly tell me what is inside and don't sell me intentionally or inintenionally something I don't want.
No, you don't. You have the right to buy what you want, and you have the legal right to not be lied to about what you're buying. However, they aren't under an obligation to tell you absolutely everything. If they don't want to tell you the exact temperature that can of beans was pasteurized at, and you really want to know, they can either tell you or not. If them not telling you is a deal-breaker for you, then don't buy it. In addition, how can you demand that they not unintentionally sell you something you don't want? How does that make sense to you?
However you live in a world where the only consumer rights seem to be: free refunds afte XMass. Luckily in my world food vendors are already oblieged to label most GMO food. You, see: I have that right. But you have not. That you don't want the same rights I have, is beyond me:)
Again, that's not a right. It's a law, but those two things are quite different.
As long as you don't know that there is no problem a mandatory label is what the citizens want. Not giving them that behave handwaving like you is a violation of basic human an civil rights.
No, it isn't. If you choose to buy something that doesn't say whether or not it's made with GMOs - something which has been approved by your local regulatory agency - that's your choice. Your rights are not being violated. If you want to know, buy something that tells you one way or the other. Your complaint is analogous to someone complaining that they don't know what fields the wheat in their bread came from.
Furthermore, I'm not choosing what you should eat for you. You are doing that, and there are options labeled "no GMO".
Humans with a deletion in CXCR5 are resistant to HIV infection. Their immune systems don't work *quite* as well in a few situations - parasitic infections, if I recall correctly - but mostly, they're fine.
Some genes encode receptors that are mostly redundant - other pathways can compensate for them if they're gone. I haven't looked at what they deleted, but my guess is it's one of those receptors. Will the pigs be as healthy as their counterparts without gene editing? I don't know, but my guess is that the scientists who did this weren't complete idiots, and didn't choose a target blindly. It's probably better on the whole for farmed pigs to be resistant to the disease. There could be unanticipated side effects, of course, but if they're too bad, then we can just not raise those pigs.
I think it's unfair because, if the EU thinks it has broken antitrust laws in Europe, penalize them for the amount of money they made in the EU. It could easily be a higher percentage of that money, but fining them based on their revenues in other areas of the world isn't fair. Consider a company that is huge in Asia but does very little business in Europe; assuming it broke EU laws, should it have to give up a lot of money it earned in Asia in compliance with local laws?
Also note, it's revenues, not profits. 10% of revenue is a considerably larger share of the profits.
With regards to your hypothetical company - how would their actions in the EU prevent a competitor from entering the global market? If the competitor can compete in the global market with the antitrust violations, but not in the EU, then they can still make money in the global market regardless, and it would only be fair to fine Qualcomm for the portion of revenues from the EU. If the hypothetical company could compete in the EU without the antitrust violations, but couldn't compete globally, it's the same result.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had mod points, I'd give you some - this was a very insightful comment. This emphasis on victimization isn't making people stronger, and treating people like they're fragile is insulting.
I'd wager I know more about it than you do, troll. And "little white boy"? That's what you choose as an insult?
enslaved
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
The AC asked for examples that were almost, but not quite, in that category. Your examples fail on that count.
Didn't they answer that question in the movie? Wasn't it some older Jedi who had gone missing a while ago or something?
Communism is primarily an economic system that could, in theory, be used by any form of government. In practice, however, countries that at least tried to follow a communist economic model needed to have strong, statist governments, both to organize things and to get people to cooperate.
Among other things, the report said a review of modeling reports and notebooks didn't turn up evidence that information actually was falsified or modified as the e-mails suggested.
Oh, and this part:
the Energy Department said last year that the scientific work was being redone by Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, at a cost of more than $20 million.
Which makes it seem to me that they've had nine years to redo the work, and had the budget for it.
Among other things, the report said a review of modeling reports and notebooks didn't turn up evidence that information actually was falsified or modified as the e-mails suggested.
Because the "debunking" is from a Slate blog (Slate not being known for its high standards of journalism, nor its deep and thorough understanding of science) and the original study is, at least, peer-reviewed? That's not to say it's automatically right - as we know, peer review fails at an alarming rate - but showing the original research and someone else's rebuttal gives people sources they can use to become better informed. Better to show it - and rebuttals - than to not publish it at all.
Why not temporarily ban white loners in their 20's from owning guns because most of the time it's one of them that are shooting up churches, schools, and theaters?
Actually, according to the FBI, there is no clear demographic profile of shooters except that they're usually male. Age and race were not significant contributors.
Banning all Muslims is not a common sense solution because your chances of getting killed by a Muslim in the US is virtually nil. It's not like people aren't getting killed on a daily basis, but the causes are much more mundane than terrorism.
The idea of banning all Muslims is a reaction to an irrational fear.
I completely agree; religious-based discrimination should have no place in government policy.
Ah, but using the profits obtained by cheating in the EU to subsidize losses elsewhere (to gain monopoly share) would already be in violation of anti-trust laws in other places. I'll concede that the upper management might be content to receive lower profits from outside the EU if they were getting a lot within the EU, but I think abusing market position in, say, Japan, could be prosecuted there. Oh, Switzerland is dirty as hell, I agree - but that sort of thing is better handled using trade agreements, don't you think?
Of course, the EU can pass whatever laws it likes, and enforce them too - I'm saying it's wrong of them to do so. If they said 100% of EU revenue and that turned out to be 20% of global revenues, then I wouldn't have a problem with that. I mean, I think it's a little high, but at least it's based on demonstrable harm, rather than speculative losses outside the EU.
If an argument is about principles, not effects, then changing words isn't pedantry. You can get the same effect through two different means, and have one of them be good and the other bad.
Long term epigenetic studies have not, to my knowledge, been done; however, there's no reason to think that they would change our epigenetics any more than non-GMO food, and no plausible mechanism by which they could do so.
If the fluoride comes from fertilizer production, then they are connected, I'll give you that. However, that doesn't mean it's bad for you, and most evidence is that in small doses it's beneficial.
True, most is not all. All vaccines on the market today are effective enough - both on a personal level and on a population level - to warrant approving them. Contrary to your assertion, effectiveness is pretty much the same regardless of funding source. No, in aggregate they aren't profitable - injectables cost a lot to make. Everything has some toxicity; vaccines on average have much lower toxicity than the disease they are supposed to prevent. Herd immunity is a real thing, and it's important for people who are too young to get some vaccines, the ever-growing population of people who are immunosuppressed (because of chemo/HIV/genetic disorders/organ transplants/whatever), and - for some diseases - herd immunity is the only way to wipe them out for good.
GMOs are tested. Water fluoridation has no connection to fertilizer production, and most vaccines are highly effective and not very profitable.
What you're basically arguing is that companies should be free to fuck companies over with anti-competitive practices outside of Europe as long as they behave whilst within Europe. Sorry but why should we accept them in Europe at all if they're going to fuck over our companies with illegal practices outside of Europe? The other option is we block them from Europe altogether, and as the largest market that'll hurt them far more than a fine of global revenues for a year will - again, they can even choose this option for themselves if they wish.
Yeah, I'm arguing that the EU shouldn't fine companies for things they do outside of the EU. That oversteps the EU's authority, just like the US routinely oversteps its authority by trying to legislate what US-based companies do in other countries. If Qualcomm did something illegal in China, the Chinese should punish it, not you. You're being pretty Eurocentric here (almost nationalist, but since the EU isn't a country, that's not quite the right word).
Not formally, no. Congress can authorize military action while not formally declaring war; practically speaking, there is very little difference, but the President gets additional war-time powers only when war is actually declared. Of course, the President could just declare a state of emergency, which carries very similar powers. Additionally, if war is not declared, the President must get approval from Congress to keep troops deployed.
If enough people don't want to eat GMOs, then companies will - and do - make products that don't contain them, and market them as such. This is obviously not true, as 90% -- depending on country -- of the populace don't want GMO food. Companies don't care as long as they make a profit. Especially in the USA.
[citation needed]
In the US, there are tons of products that say "GMO free" on them. Some people buy them for various reasons, most of which I disagree with, but they're perfectly within their rights to do so. Plenty of other people don't care one way or the other, and don't look for the label.
If they don't want to tell you the exact temperature that can of beans was pasteurized at, and you really want to know, they can either tell you or not. This has nothing to do with GMO ingredients.
Correct, but it does have to do with your claim that you "have the right that you honestly tell me what is inside and don't sell me intentionally or inintenionally something I don't want". It's a comparison.
Regarding the right, yes I have it. There are basic human right charters, you know. It is not explicitly mentioned that I have a right to be not touched by GMO but it is a no brainer and easy conducted from all health related and life quality rights. E.g. I have the freedom to chose if I eat pig or not. Hence food contains labels: contains meat or products from pigs. Why should GMO be different?
It's not a no-brainer. If you're in public, you don't have a right to not be touched by a GMO. You have the right to decide whether you want to eat GMOs, of course, but nobody said they have to make it easy for you. You also have the right to not eat food prepared by anyone who's left-handed or has red hair, but they don't have to put that on the label. If it means a lot to you, figure it out.
Again, that's not a right. It's a law, but those two things are quite different. As soon as there is a law: it is a right. no brainer. That the right existed beforehand and that a law needed to be made so the infringers finally recognize my rights, is a shame.
I'm going to chalk this up to English not being your native tongue. Just because someone is legally obligated to tell you something doesn't mean you had a right to know about it beforehand. English makes that distinction quite well.
With your argumentation, you have no right of living. But luckily there is a law that punishes killing humans. Actually, I'm not sure: is it explicitly forbidden to kill humans or is there only the threat of punishment, if you do?
What? How do you get "you have no right to life" from anything I said? People have certain rights; inalienable rights never involve people having to give them to you. They often require other people to protect your use of them, sadly (hence, police).
Again: bottom line it is simply ridiculous and hilarious that people who seem not to care about GMO, care if there is a label on it, why? What is your rational?
I don't care if companies label things one way or another, as long as they're honest. I don't think there's good enough scientific evidence to mandate labels, however. There's clearly a public interest in requiring nutrition labels and allergy warnings, but there is no such case for mandating GMO labeling. I think doing so is meaningless, because "GMO" covers a really broad range of modifications, and being pro/anti GMO as a whole is silly.
It was not a formal declaration of war; it was an authorization of military force by Congress. Technically, the last war the US was in was WWII. America has not formally declared war since.
Nope, the invasion of Iraq was not a declaration of war. Congress authorized military action, but did not formally declare war.
Saw the headline, and I just knew it would be Feinstein. One of the worst of the "regulation for regulation's sake"/"think of the children!!!" bunch.
If people don't want to eat it, they can buy the stuff that's labeled "GMO free". If they want to eat it, they can buy something that's labeled as containing GMOs. If they don't care, then they'll buy something with a label one way or the other, or no label. If enough people don't want to eat GMOs, then companies will - and do - make products that don't contain them, and market them as such.
If you sell me stuff, I definitely have the right that you honestly tell me what is inside and don't sell me intentionally or inintenionally something I don't want.
No, you don't. You have the right to buy what you want, and you have the legal right to not be lied to about what you're buying. However, they aren't under an obligation to tell you absolutely everything. If they don't want to tell you the exact temperature that can of beans was pasteurized at, and you really want to know, they can either tell you or not. If them not telling you is a deal-breaker for you, then don't buy it. In addition, how can you demand that they not unintentionally sell you something you don't want? How does that make sense to you?
However you live in a world where the only consumer rights seem to be: free refunds afte XMass. Luckily in my world food vendors are already oblieged to label most GMO food. You, see: I have that right. But you have not. That you don't want the same rights I have, is beyond me :)
Again, that's not a right. It's a law, but those two things are quite different.
As long as you don't know that there is no problem a mandatory label is what the citizens want. Not giving them that behave handwaving like you is a violation of basic human an civil rights.
No, it isn't. If you choose to buy something that doesn't say whether or not it's made with GMOs - something which has been approved by your local regulatory agency - that's your choice. Your rights are not being violated. If you want to know, buy something that tells you one way or the other. Your complaint is analogous to someone complaining that they don't know what fields the wheat in their bread came from.
Furthermore, I'm not choosing what you should eat for you. You are doing that, and there are options labeled "no GMO".
Humans with a deletion in CXCR5 are resistant to HIV infection. Their immune systems don't work *quite* as well in a few situations - parasitic infections, if I recall correctly - but mostly, they're fine.
Some genes encode receptors that are mostly redundant - other pathways can compensate for them if they're gone. I haven't looked at what they deleted, but my guess is it's one of those receptors. Will the pigs be as healthy as their counterparts without gene editing? I don't know, but my guess is that the scientists who did this weren't complete idiots, and didn't choose a target blindly. It's probably better on the whole for farmed pigs to be resistant to the disease. There could be unanticipated side effects, of course, but if they're too bad, then we can just not raise those pigs.
I think it's unfair because, if the EU thinks it has broken antitrust laws in Europe, penalize them for the amount of money they made in the EU. It could easily be a higher percentage of that money, but fining them based on their revenues in other areas of the world isn't fair. Consider a company that is huge in Asia but does very little business in Europe; assuming it broke EU laws, should it have to give up a lot of money it earned in Asia in compliance with local laws?
Also note, it's revenues, not profits. 10% of revenue is a considerably larger share of the profits.
With regards to your hypothetical company - how would their actions in the EU prevent a competitor from entering the global market? If the competitor can compete in the global market with the antitrust violations, but not in the EU, then they can still make money in the global market regardless, and it would only be fair to fine Qualcomm for the portion of revenues from the EU. If the hypothetical company could compete in the EU without the antitrust violations, but couldn't compete globally, it's the same result.