GMO itself is a good thing for the planet. It allows us to unlock more potential in our foods. More hardy, faster growing, more productive, more nutritious, more resistant to pests and herbicides.
I will agree with you that the licensing structure is fairly evil and counterproductive. But these companies DO deserve to be renumerated for the costs involved in developing these crops and their growing ecosystem.
I could understand you wanting to ban because you thought the crops unhealthy. But banning the crops because you dislike their licensing model? That's just brain-damaged.
Again, these crops are made resistant to RoundUp, which has minimal update, ultra-low toxicity and and can be used in far smaller quantities than other FAR more toxic "natural" herbicides which destroys greater portions of crops.
Oats. Oats have a relatively high uptake of RoundUp. So, a product like Cheerios has something like 1100 parts per billion of one of RoundUp's active ingredients.
Know how much you'd have to eat?
By the EU standard, which caps at about 1/3rd of the US standard, you'd have to eat over 750 1-cup servings A DAY, EVERY DAY, FOREVER before you'd hit levels the EU considers "possibly harmful". And at that level, your body's eliminating it from your system as fast as you're taking it in.
Quite simply, YOU CANNOT EAT THAT MUCH. 1 cup of cheerios weighs in at about 36-37 grams. 750 cups is 27-ish kilograms (60 lbs). Again, YOU CANNOT EAT THAT MUCH REALISTICALLY.
After a point, you'd die of hypervitaminosis or dehydration as trying to shovel in that much food would likely trip your gag reflex and bring most of it back up. The rest, assuming you didn't constipate yourself with that much oats, you'd be shitting oat bricks continuously.
And here Mozilla is, actively emulating Chrome more and more (when it's not boot-strapping itself to failing initiatives) and actually innovating in their browser...not at all...
A blind vegetable could have seen this coming!
C'mon Mozilla! Time to stop bitching about the fecal smell pull your fucking collective heads out!
Your idea of using brutality and revenge as a means of discouraging offending has failed , it has never worked.
No. It works just fine.
But too many people have been conditioned to want to "understand" these rabid animals, instead of eradicating them for public safety reasons.
Basically it's a pernicious form of Stockholm Syndrome.
The reason terror is such an easy tool to use right now is because they're DEPENDING on their opposition being spineless and weak. It makes it easier to get away with things.
However, if you brutally eradicate these people when they try stuff like this (and go after those claiming credit for it), suddenly martyrdom and terror doesn't seem like such a pleasant option anymore.
You can mutter about those hunting dragons eventually becoming dragons.
The fact is, we were ALWAYS dragons. We've just been afraid of what could happen if we really cut loose.
And there are a bunch of stupid fuckers out there who INSIST on tickling the dragon's tail...
Seems to be working for the Germans and the Dutch.
Okay, for the benefit of the illiterate.
That's great for the Germans and the Dutch on a local level. They can be proud of that.
But, on a global level it means EXACTLY jack shit.
If country A decreases overall emissions by X kilotons a year, and countries B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I COLLECTIVELY increase their overall emissions by X kilotons a year, the entire thing is a wash and we're still screwed in the long run.
If country A decreases overall emissions by X kilotons a year, and countries B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I COLLECTIVELY increase their overall emissions by X+1 kilotons a year, we are now (marginally) worse off.
Unless we have a more or less unilateral, global effort to move off dirty power, there is little to no point in virtue signaling.
Because you're like the 1 guy in a 200 mile radius who drives a Tesla and a bunch of neighbors driving Tahoes and Camaros. Sure, you've decreased your personal emissions load, but overall you're a fractional drop in a very BIG bucket.
Now, if all your neighbors within that 200 mile radius began driving Teslas...
See where I'm going with this?
And, being the US, energy is a BIG deal here. It's what allows for our generally high standard of living. So decreasing power consumption by imposing austerity measures simply ISN'T going to fly here.
Now, if you can come up with a way to intelligently decrease consumption while maintaining that standard, you're on to something here. We need to come up with ways to decrease our NEED to consume. And the less user interaction required in the process, the better.
Better building design (insulation, building envelope, and design principles) is one way to shave a chunk off. Better electrical design (think whole-home LED and motion sensors on timers) in the same building can shave even more off. Follow that up with intelligent use of home solar/home wind where it makes sense. Not to mention the fact that buildings can easily be retrofit to be more energy-saving.
Those right there could enable a significant decrease (or at worst, a stabilization) in demand.
So the answer is "no", you haven't had a wrongful death suit filed against you.
A wrongful death suit is a civil suit. So there is no burden of proof protecting you. Such suits run on preponderance of evidence.
If your establishment has been robbed multiple times in the past, and one of your employees was eventually killed, his family could get you for wrongful death simply by dropping all those previous police reports in the jury's lap and go "See! Didn't take appropriate precautions to safeguard his employees!"
At that point, just sign your business over to them.
* Expense (because retrofits on existing planes isn't just "EXPENSIVE!!!", it's "FUCKING EXPENSIVE!!!" * Weight savings. A reinforced door and manual/ratcheted lock bar could easily add another 5-800 lbs to a plane. That's EASILY 3-5 passenger fares.
Save money vs save the crew's life? Fuck the crew! SAVE THE MONEY!
It's like these little 7-11 Slurpee stores in high crime areas. They get robbed repeatedly, yet they don't want to install safety cages for the employees. Because "it's too unfriendly", They just remove all access cash more than the current till. So what if a cashier gets shot, stabbed, beaten to a pulp or raped? At least most of the owner's money will be safe!
Slashdot Mirror
The main problem with Change.org is that it's still easy to ignore online petitions like theirs.
They tout their "victories".
How many petitions fell by the wayside or were simply told "no"?
Uh no. You're conflating two arguments.
GMO itself is a good thing for the planet.
It allows us to unlock more potential in our foods. More hardy, faster growing, more productive, more nutritious, more resistant to pests and herbicides.
I will agree with you that the licensing structure is fairly evil and counterproductive. But these companies DO deserve to be renumerated for the costs involved in developing these crops and their growing ecosystem.
I could understand you wanting to ban because you thought the crops unhealthy.
But banning the crops because you dislike their licensing model? That's just brain-damaged.
Again with the "drenched in".
Christ, did you join an anti-GMO CULT?
Again, these crops are made resistant to RoundUp, which has minimal update, ultra-low toxicity and and can be used in far smaller quantities than other FAR more toxic "natural" herbicides which destroys greater portions of crops.
Oats. Oats have a relatively high uptake of RoundUp. So, a product like Cheerios has something like 1100 parts per billion of one of RoundUp's active ingredients.
Know how much you'd have to eat?
By the EU standard, which caps at about 1/3rd of the US standard, you'd have to eat over 750 1-cup servings A DAY, EVERY DAY, FOREVER before you'd hit levels the EU considers "possibly harmful". And at that level, your body's eliminating it from your system as fast as you're taking it in.
Quite simply, YOU CANNOT EAT THAT MUCH. 1 cup of cheerios weighs in at about 36-37 grams. 750 cups is 27-ish kilograms (60 lbs). Again, YOU CANNOT EAT THAT MUCH REALISTICALLY.
After a point, you'd die of hypervitaminosis or dehydration as trying to shovel in that much food would likely trip your gag reflex and bring most of it back up. The rest, assuming you didn't constipate yourself with that much oats, you'd be shitting oat bricks continuously.
Just so you know. Whether you've known it or not, you've been eating RoundUp resistant crops for over a decade now.
And, likely, NONE of the farmed food you have ever eaten is unmodified by the hand of man over the last several centuries.
"We should do this!"
"We should do that!"
"We should, we should, we should..."
As soon as you can come up with a viable cash source to pay for it!
Until then, this is the US. The land of the free. Where, if you are a lazy fuckwad, you're free to STARVE.
I can avoid diarrhea AND credit card fraud!
And here Mozilla is, actively emulating Chrome more and more (when it's not boot-strapping itself to failing initiatives) and actually innovating in their browser...not at all...
A blind vegetable could have seen this coming!
C'mon Mozilla! Time to stop bitching about the fecal smell pull your fucking collective heads out!
Your idea of using brutality and revenge as a means of discouraging offending has failed , it has never worked.
No. It works just fine.
But too many people have been conditioned to want to "understand" these rabid animals, instead of eradicating them for public safety reasons.
Basically it's a pernicious form of Stockholm Syndrome.
The reason terror is such an easy tool to use right now is because they're DEPENDING on their opposition being spineless and weak. It makes it easier to get away with things.
However, if you brutally eradicate these people when they try stuff like this (and go after those claiming credit for it), suddenly martyrdom and terror doesn't seem like such a pleasant option anymore.
You can mutter about those hunting dragons eventually becoming dragons.
The fact is, we were ALWAYS dragons. We've just been afraid of what could happen if we really cut loose.
And there are a bunch of stupid fuckers out there who INSIST on tickling the dragon's tail...
Agreed.
Hi! Do you have a moment to talk about our lord and savior Hillary Clinton?
Kill me now.
There have to be consequences when a country treats their visitors the way the US do.
You mean by arresting assholes that break our laws and shooting dumbfucks who intentionally try to kill people?
If those types of people avoiding this country is a consequence, we could use more of it. Fuck them.
Oh boy! So there will be that many more (Cr)apps!
Because we absolutely MUST stay in compliance with Sturgeon!
I find your insights interesting and wish to subscribe to your periodical...
News: Unicorn farts will soon be more valuable than fairy piss! Film at 11!
Seems to be working for the Germans and the Dutch.
Okay, for the benefit of the illiterate.
That's great for the Germans and the Dutch on a local level.
They can be proud of that.
But, on a global level it means EXACTLY jack shit.
If country A decreases overall emissions by X kilotons a year, and countries B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I COLLECTIVELY increase their overall emissions by X kilotons a year, the entire thing is a wash and we're still screwed in the long run.
If country A decreases overall emissions by X kilotons a year, and countries B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I COLLECTIVELY increase their overall emissions by X+1 kilotons a year, we are now (marginally) worse off.
Unless we have a more or less unilateral, global effort to move off dirty power, there is little to no point in virtue signaling.
Because you're like the 1 guy in a 200 mile radius who drives a Tesla and a bunch of neighbors driving Tahoes and Camaros. Sure, you've decreased your personal emissions load, but overall you're a fractional drop in a very BIG bucket.
Now, if all your neighbors within that 200 mile radius began driving Teslas...
See where I'm going with this?
And, being the US, energy is a BIG deal here. It's what allows for our generally high standard of living.
So decreasing power consumption by imposing austerity measures simply ISN'T going to fly here.
Now, if you can come up with a way to intelligently decrease consumption while maintaining that standard, you're on to something here.
We need to come up with ways to decrease our NEED to consume. And the less user interaction required in the process, the better.
Better building design (insulation, building envelope, and design principles) is one way to shave a chunk off.
Better electrical design (think whole-home LED and motion sensors on timers) in the same building can shave even more off.
Follow that up with intelligent use of home solar/home wind where it makes sense.
Not to mention the fact that buildings can easily be retrofit to be more energy-saving.
Those right there could enable a significant decrease (or at worst, a stabilization) in demand.
Actually yes it DOES.
It doesn't help much if we ramp down emissions and the rest of the world ramps them UP in response.
Hey, if you want to go shiver in a cave someplace, feel free to volunteer.
Until then, avoid trying to act like you know better than others.
Oh wait! He's serious?
*Explodes in unending laughter.*
So the answer is "no", you haven't had a wrongful death suit filed against you.
A wrongful death suit is a civil suit. So there is no burden of proof protecting you. Such suits run on preponderance of evidence.
If your establishment has been robbed multiple times in the past, and one of your employees was eventually killed, his family could get you for wrongful death simply by dropping all those previous police reports in the jury's lap and go "See! Didn't take appropriate precautions to safeguard his employees!"
At that point, just sign your business over to them.
Sure you did. In costs that were passed along to you in software and devices you purchased.
And it's inferior by virtue of the fact that you're still paying fees to Fraunhofer and it's DRM encumbered.
MP3 will probably be supported on pretty every device for the foreseeable. There's literally no reason not to.
There's a very clear reason not to :
Force users to rebuy the song they are used to listen to.
Armor piercing question: How is this a concern for the makers of MP3 PLAYERS and software that plays/encodes MP3s?
Hint: It isn't...
You've never had a wrongful death lawsuit filed against you have you?
That and manual deadlocks on the inside.
The reasons airlines don't want to put them in?
* Expense (because retrofits on existing planes isn't just "EXPENSIVE!!!", it's "FUCKING EXPENSIVE!!!"
* Weight savings. A reinforced door and manual/ratcheted lock bar could easily add another 5-800 lbs to a plane. That's EASILY 3-5 passenger fares.
Save money vs save the crew's life? Fuck the crew! SAVE THE MONEY!
It's like these little 7-11 Slurpee stores in high crime areas. They get robbed repeatedly, yet they don't want to install safety cages for the employees. Because "it's too unfriendly", They just remove all access cash more than the current till. So what if a cashier gets shot, stabbed, beaten to a pulp or raped? At least most of the owner's money will be safe!
Nobody's talking about merely "watching" dumbass.
We're talking about the full piracy process.
Which, let's face it, is far easier to execute on non-phone/non-tablet/non-phablet Wintel systems that aren't running Android.
Cogitate on this.
Sorry, were you speaking to an adult here?