If that is the case, the other farmer could (I think) and should (definitely) be sued for destroying your via pollution.
I doubt modern genetic engineering pollution would be covered under an ancient, grandfathering "Right To Farm Act" in any state.
Re:PBS Has Expose' on Chemical Industry Coverups
on
Monsanto and PCBs
·
· Score: 1
Fact: To this day, longevity continues to increase, largely because of chemicals developed to use in farming, medicine, and, believe it or not, industry in general by making manufacturing more productive.
DDT was banned not because it was not safe and effective for humans -- it was tremendously safe and effective. It was banned because it harmed birds.
The decision to put birds ahead of the benefit to humanity was a conscious decision by the government. It may arguably have been a bad one, too. Just because one thing gets done doesn't mean you hide your head in the sand about all the effects.
Notice the use of "makes Agent Orange" as a perjorative, then trying to use the association as manufacturer of Roundup to "contaminate" Roundup and anything else the company does.
While one could rationally disagree with the "War on (Some) Drugs" (well put), he then continues with another observation about their genetic activities, again as a pure perjorative.
To sum up the post:
Agent Orange Manufacturing Bad
Genetic Activities Bad
Roundup Is Being Used Like Agent Orange Bad
There's always the dirty little secret that crushes the masturbatory beliefs in the great evils of the world.
Strange how findings of fact by judges regarding Microsoft are trumpetted here, but findings of fact by judges, that the "entire field" possessed Monsanto's genetic stuff, is ignored because it conflicts with the world view that all corporations are always evil.
This is a harder pill for this crowd to swallow than right wing extremists swallowing the recorded tapes of the Waco people setting themselves on fire.
For episode #1, he didn't care how much the movie earned -- that was small potatoes. He had already lined up over two billion dollars worth of merchandising agreements. The movie could have had zero viewers and he'd still be 1.9 million ahead of the game. (Of course, that would cut into episode 2's marketing deals quite a bit...)
> And shutting down one blackmailer wouldn't
> protect one from all of the others, who have
> access to the same info.
Already you have to pay the phone company to not list you in the phone book or in online/operator directories. Would the phone company charging you to not be sold around be that out of the question? It's the same thing, and sounds more than a little like blackmail.
Have you seen that ad on TV lately, where a girl at the bar gives her phone number to a guy who asks for it, then some other guys ask him for her number, and he says "5 bucks OK?"
Lawyers can argue that spending $2,000.00 on a bunch of cheap tin pans is "wise financial advice", for god's sake. It wouldn't be hard to state the boilerplate is "everyday language". After all, boilerplate is all about evolved language that survives a court challenge, whereas "everyday language", whatever that is (sayeth the lawyer) has not been tested...
You forgot that we're too stupid to be allowed to vote without proper supervision.
See, if we see ads bought by corporations that list issues, we might actually be swayed by those issues, and de-elect the politicians in power. Well, you can see why those politicians think this is a bad idea. I agree with the censors. Anything that stops me from kicking out the pols who are doing such a great job is fine with me!
It seems logical to restrict the money, too! I mean, the amount spent on elections tops the entire marischino cherry industry! My god, the hellish amounts of cash. That will really sway the election, much more than the incumbents and their additional 2+ trillion dollar federal budget to spend around and buy more votes via programs and handouts.
> A few local residents came in against the plan
> for various reasons, and the big company was
> sent packing.
Yes, this is, um, a victory for the little guy, umm, I, umm, guess.
You also have to realize that in many small municipalities, the government has an interest in keeping out independent towers, too. See, they can sell it as a bill of BS to the people as protecting the landscape (West Bloomfield, MI is one such goofy place I know of.) However, the city itself has its own tower, see, for fire and police, see, so the cell phone companies, who must put up signal, buy tower space from the cities at something on the order of 3-4x the price of space on private towers.
The city makes out like a thieving bandit. It is the worst of government wrapped up into one little package: lies to the people about the real reasons for a law (and gaining political power in the next election, to boot!), a coercive monopoly to drive up prices (coercive = legal right to put out of business your competitors via threats with guns to back you up), ripping off the public by extorting high prices because of said monopoly (again wrong, not because of monopoly status, but because of coercive monopoly status)
Campaign finance reform is going nowhere further, and rightly so. To limit soft money, i.e. for "issues" ads, rather than "anti-Politician X" ads, you would be directly impinging freedom of speech and of the press.
The only thing that scares me more than companies buying politicians is politicians telling the country they can't promote ads that harm those very politicians.
Sounds like Internet ca. 1996 when you would sign up, get an human immediately, then later when having technical problems, wait on hold until you gave up an hour and a half later (not a toll-free call.)
Someone needs to bring a lawsuit like vs. AOL to force them to pay out until the service measured up.
> But there is no reason that content can't be
> classified with better granularity than
> "adult/non-adult"
If the issue is protecting kids, then this is all the granularity you need. Make it illegal to sell "adult" to non-adults. I care not whether some adult is offended by some adult content.
> What I really have a problem with is people who
> think that the internet should be made safe so
> that they can let their kids roam free and not
> have to watch them.
I submit that the bigger problem are power hungry legislators who pretend protecting kids is an issue and trump up problems so they can pontificate and be seen as "solving" the problem via ending free speech. If only Australia had one of those anachronistic US-style constitutions, bits of paper from another era...
>> But in America, cartoons are watered down to
>> Disney-level and it's just not cool to be an
>> adult who watches toons.
>
> Um, where have you been? Anime is hugely popular
> in America.
He said it's not too cool for adults to watch anime. Try walking into a room of actual adults, not a geekCon, and say, "Hey! Sailor Moon is on!" OMG will the women line up to get down on their knees for you.
> WE do not worship bits of paper or words that belong to another era.
Yes. I agree that having natural, inalienable rights is an anachronism, and that the modern concept of rights as "privledges" the government "grants" you, susceptible to the whim of the almighty democratic vote is definitely the way to go for modern, enlightened people.
I don't know, even in a head-dead universe, wouldn't eventually the right particles whack up at the right momentums and angles to reproduce a star and planets? Forever is a long, long damned time after all.
Or build nonsentient tools, for that matter. How much of chaos theory involves complex patterns no human could see using their own brain, but became apparent when run thru various algorithms?
Slashdot Mirror
So it's like testing for witches in the middle ages?
Take a suspected witch, tie them up in a burlap sack, throw them in the lake. If the sink and drown, they're an innocent normal human!
And they do this much like the middle ages, without the permission of the suspected witch?
> I was not previously aware that sterility was a hereditary property.
It sure is!
Everyone knows that if your parents didn't have any children, you won't either!
If that is the case, the other farmer could (I think) and should (definitely) be sued for destroying your via pollution.
I doubt modern genetic engineering pollution would be covered under an ancient, grandfathering "Right To Farm Act" in any state.
Fact: To this day, longevity continues to increase, largely because of chemicals developed to use in farming, medicine, and, believe it or not, industry in general by making manufacturing more productive.
DDT was banned not because it was not safe and effective for humans -- it was tremendously safe and effective. It was banned because it harmed birds.
The decision to put birds ahead of the benefit to humanity was a conscious decision by the government. It may arguably have been a bad one, too. Just because one thing gets done doesn't mean you hide your head in the sand about all the effects.
Notice the use of "makes Agent Orange" as a perjorative, then trying to use the association as manufacturer of Roundup to "contaminate" Roundup and anything else the company does.
While one could rationally disagree with the "War on (Some) Drugs" (well put), he then continues with another observation about their genetic activities, again as a pure perjorative.
To sum up the post:
Agent Orange Manufacturing Bad
Genetic Activities Bad
Roundup Is Being Used Like Agent Orange Bad
Therefore they should be executed.
Brilliant work! (Note to FBI: This is sarcastic.)
There's always the dirty little secret that crushes the masturbatory beliefs in the great evils of the world.
Strange how findings of fact by judges regarding Microsoft are trumpetted here, but findings of fact by judges, that the "entire field" possessed Monsanto's genetic stuff, is ignored because it conflicts with the world view that all corporations are always evil.
This is a harder pill for this crowd to swallow than right wing extremists swallowing the recorded tapes of the Waco people setting themselves on fire.
For episode #1, he didn't care how much the movie earned -- that was small potatoes. He had already lined up over two billion dollars worth of merchandising agreements. The movie could have had zero viewers and he'd still be 1.9 million ahead of the game. (Of course, that would cut into episode 2's marketing deals quite a bit...)
> And shutting down one blackmailer wouldn't
> protect one from all of the others, who have
> access to the same info.
Already you have to pay the phone company to not list you in the phone book or in online/operator directories. Would the phone company charging you to not be sold around be that out of the question? It's the same thing, and sounds more than a little like blackmail.
Have you seen that ad on TV lately, where a girl at the bar gives her phone number to a guy who asks for it, then some other guys ask him for her number, and he says "5 bucks OK?"
> The real kicker is when Citibank informed me
> that they were revoking my right to trial
Kind of strange, even if you agree to it. I thought it, like all rights, was "inalienable". Even you can't sign away your inalienable rights.
The phone company does know your real address, too, because that's where the phone land lines go, and they could sell that, too.
Isn't "everyday language" legally meaningless, though?
Lawyers can argue that spending $2,000.00 on a bunch of cheap tin pans is "wise financial advice", for god's sake. It wouldn't be hard to state the boilerplate is "everyday language". After all, boilerplate is all about evolved language that survives a court challenge, whereas "everyday language", whatever that is (sayeth the lawyer) has not been tested...
Or, if forced to put up a web site, "First, before you opt out, please view this 60-minute video about the benefits of not opting out!"
** 227 bytes read (of 645,094,293k)
You forgot that we're too stupid to be allowed to vote without proper supervision.
See, if we see ads bought by corporations that list issues, we might actually be swayed by those issues, and de-elect the politicians in power. Well, you can see why those politicians think this is a bad idea. I agree with the censors. Anything that stops me from kicking out the pols who are doing such a great job is fine with me!
It seems logical to restrict the money, too! I mean, the amount spent on elections tops the entire marischino cherry industry! My god, the hellish amounts of cash. That will really sway the election, much more than the incumbents and their additional 2+ trillion dollar federal budget to spend around and buy more votes via programs and handouts.
> A few local residents came in against the plan
> for various reasons, and the big company was
> sent packing.
Yes, this is, um, a victory for the little guy, umm, I, umm, guess.
You also have to realize that in many small municipalities, the government has an interest in keeping out independent towers, too. See, they can sell it as a bill of BS to the people as protecting the landscape (West Bloomfield, MI is one such goofy place I know of.) However, the city itself has its own tower, see, for fire and police, see, so the cell phone companies, who must put up signal, buy tower space from the cities at something on the order of 3-4x the price of space on private towers.
The city makes out like a thieving bandit. It is the worst of government wrapped up into one little package: lies to the people about the real reasons for a law (and gaining political power in the next election, to boot!), a coercive monopoly to drive up prices (coercive = legal right to put out of business your competitors via threats with guns to back you up), ripping off the public by extorting high prices because of said monopoly (again wrong, not because of monopoly status, but because of coercive monopoly status)
Have a nice day!
Campaign finance reform is going nowhere further, and rightly so. To limit soft money, i.e. for "issues" ads, rather than "anti-Politician X" ads, you would be directly impinging freedom of speech and of the press.
The only thing that scares me more than companies buying politicians is politicians telling the country they can't promote ads that harm those very politicians.
And it is a ton more scary.
Sounds like Internet ca. 1996 when you would sign up, get an human immediately, then later when having technical problems, wait on hold until you gave up an hour and a half later (not a toll-free call.)
Someone needs to bring a lawsuit like vs. AOL to force them to pay out until the service measured up.
Is RC illegal? I.e. have some people, with guns, decided that other people, without guns, cannot see it without the gun-toter's permission? (denied!)
> But there is no reason that content can't be
> classified with better granularity than
> "adult/non-adult"
If the issue is protecting kids, then this is all the granularity you need. Make it illegal to sell "adult" to non-adults. I care not whether some adult is offended by some adult content.
> What I really have a problem with is people who
> think that the internet should be made safe so
> that they can let their kids roam free and not
> have to watch them.
I submit that the bigger problem are power hungry legislators who pretend protecting kids is an issue and trump up problems so they can pontificate and be seen as "solving" the problem via ending free speech. If only Australia had one of those anachronistic US-style constitutions, bits of paper from another era...
>> But in America, cartoons are watered down to
>> Disney-level and it's just not cool to be an
>> adult who watches toons.
>
> Um, where have you been? Anime is hugely popular
> in America.
He said it's not too cool for adults to watch anime. Try walking into a room of actual adults, not a geekCon, and say, "Hey! Sailor Moon is on!" OMG will the women line up to get down on their knees for you.
> the only people who lost guns here due to the
> federal government were people who the majority
> of Australians would rather didn't have guns.
Government Official: Ok, Aussies. Turn in your guns.
Crook 1: No
Crook 2: No
Law-Abiding Aussi 1: No
Government Official: Ok, we're sending the police to you, Aussi 1!
Aussi 1: Ok, then. Here ya go.
Yes, Australia sounds much safer already, with the guns being retained proportionally by people most likely to use them in crime. Brilliant move.
> WE have as much information as anyone.
Except for what the government forbids.
> WE do not worship bits of paper or words that belong to another era.
Yes. I agree that having natural, inalienable rights is an anachronism, and that the modern concept of rights as "privledges" the government "grants" you, susceptible to the whim of the almighty democratic vote is definitely the way to go for modern, enlightened people.
> All my mathematics physics and chemistry
> teachers were always bitching at each other's
> classes or "way of seeing things".
And not a damned one could get a date with the music teacher.
I don't know, even in a head-dead universe, wouldn't eventually the right particles whack up at the right momentums and angles to reproduce a star and planets? Forever is a long, long damned time after all.
There's your universal rebirth.
Or build nonsentient tools, for that matter. How much of chaos theory involves complex patterns no human could see using their own brain, but became apparent when run thru various algorithms?