What does this link have to do with my point? I'll bold the relevant part of my comment for you, because you obviously lack reading comprehension: Sell whatever GMO you want, as long as it is clearly labeled so that I can make an informed choice.
I am not pro or against GMO, I am not interested in your (or anyone's) opinion as to it safety. When I say informed, I mean one specific thing - a label on the product that makes it clear if I'm buying a GMO or not.
When I decide how to spend my money it is my right as a consumer to know what is being sold to me.
Remember what Marx said about the ruling principle of the Communist society? "To everyone according to their needs, from everyone according to their ability". Consider what that means in the terminology of modern economic science.
It means that when you're on the "supply side", you will be squeezed off to the last drop, and paid at the marginal, competitive rate that is set on the oligopsonic labor market by the several large players who mostly determine the price. You will have the rest of the working people around world against you. It also means that when you're on the "demand side", as a consumer, you will again be charged at the margin for every purchase you make.
If you studied some economic theory, you should immediately recognize that means "monetizing" - that is, taking away from you your producer and consumer surplus, the difference between what you would have paid if you could have been provided an only offer you can't refuse, and what a competitive market without differentiation (and advertising) can charge you.
This is the game that Facebooks, googles, amazons, and the rest of the "marketing" bunch is playing with the huge collection of consumer data. It is a game of selling you the cheapest piece of shit in the lot for the most money you would be willing to pay for it, and charging your employer their (and your) producer surplus for the "service". You buying shit from your online profile because of "incentives" is playing their game for them.
And when all your surplus is gone, then what? Will it stop? Hardly, the game is already set for the next stage - modifying your preferences so that you buy even shittier stuff for even more.
Maybe it should, but considering that all existing positioning services except Galileo are defense projects, and that the UN is unlikely to receive enough funding, the best chance we have is to hope that Galileo will stay civilian and accessible.
What "scare tactics" are you referring to? Be specific. The EU even refrained from participation in the referendum campaign so that it does not exert undue influence, and it has been as cooperative as possible with the British negotiators since then. All the sound and the fury is coming from London, and there is a good reason for that - the referendum was never a serious leave Brexit thing, the idiot Cameron was just planning to use it as a scare tactic against the EU.
Well, it kinda backfired, but how is this a fault of the EU?
Stop the hysteria, please, or you may hurt yourself. What will happen, without regard to the media frenzy to dig new scare every day, is that nobody will rush to "purge" anything, and people on both sides of la Manche will work hard and in good faith to figure out a solution.
People are pretty damned good at complex tasks like driving, and it will be quite a while before a machine can even do what an average driver behind the wheel does routinely while holding onto their smartphone for dear life.
I know quite a few people who really, honestly and stupidly thought Musk can do anything at all in general, and that full self-driving isn't all that difficult for him, specifically. A few even dropped money into the money pit that is Tesla, and even refused to listen when they were told Tesla marketing is mostly bullshit. All of them lost money, one or two - a lot.
Now, I don't really feel pity for any one of them, but if Tesla had been responsible with their claims about Tesla cars, these people would not have lost as much, which is the smaller benefit in the grand scheme of things.
The bigger benefit is that had Tesla not used false and misleading claims, it may have happened so that someone with a better technology and abilities but less "marketing savvy", that is, propensity to lie and exaggerate, would have gotten this money and moved the state of the art further ahead to the benefit of us all.
One run by the Internet Research Agency out of St. Petersberg during office hours, acting in unison with the other 99 accounts being run from the same room.
Ah, we're back at the "Russian trolls" excuse. I recall a few months ago Twitter banned a bunch of Bulgarian accounts for the sole reason that they wrote in Cyrillic alphabet, were from the capital city of Bulgaria and were active roughly during the daytime over there, thereby fulfilling all your criteria.
The irony was most of those blocked were the exact opposite of a troll farm - they were genuine accounts and of people who were mostly pro-western and quite liberal at that.
It is impossible to ascertain any of the things you propose with any certainty just by the online activity of an account, especially in the absence of clear policies.
Ironically, the very privacy EU citizens demanded will also be the very tool used to specifically identify them.
Not at all. When I submit a GDPR request to the authorities for violations of my privacy by a website that the website has refused to rectify, I may have to identify myself to the authorities to show that I am a side in that particular case. But I need to file a GDPR request like this only if that particular website is not in compliance, and it isn't the company that will receive my personal information.
Dunno, really. Could it be because they are a bunch of sleazy fucktards, who collect information that the Stazi would not without telling the users what exactly they have on them? Or because they hire experts to help them play the human psychology so that using FB becomes addictive? Or because they habitually lie about what they do with the collected information? Could it be because they keep shadow profiles for people who are not interested in their services? Perhaps because they pay the likes of Samsung to get their spyware preinstalled on phones in unremovable ways?
Who knows... It is hard to imagine why people don't like them.
What is a "fake" accunt anyway? At least in the EU, Facebook has got no formal right to ask you, citizen, for your papers when you create an account, which makes pretty much all their accounts from EU "fake".
There are no transparent, open and reasonable criteria from Facebook on what various transgressions constitute "policy violation", they are all arbitrary and whimsical and depend heavily on third party reporting.
There were people I know who valued the service and (the sorry fucks) built a life or a business around it have been fucked beyond measure by hateful and false reporting, which lead to disabled and closed accounts.
Playing the facebook game is like playing with that nuclear war computer - there is no way to win.
The only way to win is to shun the Zucker.
And I am uncomfortable to say it out loud, but hosts file works well enough for that, no even need for apks to edit it.
Too bad I am not interested in something that comes with several brands of spyware preinstalled as system apps, and the only way I can root it and remove them is to flash it with a binary blob that I downloaded from a shady site on the Internets, which incidentally and inappropriately will also remove the warranty on the hardware.
I've wanted a foldable, book-sized tablet with a good, wacom-like pen that I can read and annotate PDF files on comfortably since forever. The problem is, we'll only get something that can play two videos at once, because new shit isn't targeted at people who read, but at people who watch short advertising videos and "react".
Until such time as healthcare stops being a business, they know more than enough about it. It is really simple, too:
1) Provide the lowest possible quality and keep "driving the costs down" 2) Ensure that every punter is paying the highest possible price they can bear 3) Profit
Slashdot Mirror
What does this link have to do with my point? I'll bold the relevant part of my comment for you, because you obviously lack reading comprehension: Sell whatever GMO you want, as long as it is clearly labeled so that I can make an informed choice.
I am not pro or against GMO, I am not interested in your (or anyone's) opinion as to it safety. When I say informed, I mean one specific thing - a label on the product that makes it clear if I'm buying a GMO or not.
When I decide how to spend my money it is my right as a consumer to know what is being sold to me.
Another way to make an informed choice by reading information on the topic
Yeah, reading information is always good. Now, let's see how unbiased is this "Biotechnology Innovation Organization"....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.sourcewatch.org/in...
Yep, an entirely unbiased source of "information", this one.
I wish I had teeth like these.
I know I can trust any global holding to try to fuck me as hard as it can, yeah.
It looks like you're projecting straight from your experience. Please go on...
as long as it is clearly labeled so that I can make an informed choice.
And it is worse than the original.
Remember what Marx said about the ruling principle of the Communist society? "To everyone according to their needs, from everyone according to their ability". Consider what that means in the terminology of modern economic science.
It means that when you're on the "supply side", you will be squeezed off to the last drop, and paid at the marginal, competitive rate that is set on the oligopsonic labor market by the several large players who mostly determine the price. You will have the rest of the working people around world against you. It also means that when you're on the "demand side", as a consumer, you will again be charged at the margin for every purchase you make.
If you studied some economic theory, you should immediately recognize that means "monetizing" - that is, taking away from you your producer and consumer surplus , the difference between what you would have paid if you could have been provided an only offer you can't refuse, and what a competitive market without differentiation (and advertising) can charge you.
This is the game that Facebooks, googles, amazons, and the rest of the "marketing" bunch is playing with the huge collection of consumer data. It is a game of selling you the cheapest piece of shit in the lot for the most money you would be willing to pay for it, and charging your employer their (and your) producer surplus for the "service". You buying shit from your online profile because of "incentives" is playing their game for them.
And when all your surplus is gone, then what? Will it stop? Hardly, the game is already set for the next stage - modifying your preferences so that you buy even shittier stuff for even more.
The only way to win is not to play.
If you can afford it ;)
Maybe it should, but considering that all existing positioning services except Galileo are defense projects, and that the UN is unlikely to receive enough funding, the best chance we have is to hope that Galileo will stay civilian and accessible.
What "scare tactics" are you referring to? Be specific. The EU even refrained from participation in the referendum campaign so that it does not exert undue influence, and it has been as cooperative as possible with the British negotiators since then. All the sound and the fury is coming from London, and there is a good reason for that - the referendum was never a serious leave Brexit thing, the idiot Cameron was just planning to use it as a scare tactic against the EU.
Well, it kinda backfired, but how is this a fault of the EU?
Stop the hysteria, please, or you may hurt yourself. What will happen, without regard to the media frenzy to dig new scare every day, is that nobody will rush to "purge" anything, and people on both sides of la Manche will work hard and in good faith to figure out a solution.
Speak for yourself. I've never had any warm feelings for FB or its owners.
I know that people "freak up" way more often.
[Citation needed]
People are pretty damned good at complex tasks like driving, and it will be quite a while before a machine can even do what an average driver behind the wheel does routinely while holding onto their smartphone for dear life.
I know quite a few people who really, honestly and stupidly thought Musk can do anything at all in general, and that full self-driving isn't all that difficult for him, specifically. A few even dropped money into the money pit that is Tesla, and even refused to listen when they were told Tesla marketing is mostly bullshit. All of them lost money, one or two - a lot.
Now, I don't really feel pity for any one of them, but if Tesla had been responsible with their claims about Tesla cars, these people would not have lost as much, which is the smaller benefit in the grand scheme of things.
The bigger benefit is that had Tesla not used false and misleading claims, it may have happened so that someone with a better technology and abilities but less "marketing savvy", that is, propensity to lie and exaggerate, would have gotten this money and moved the state of the art further ahead to the benefit of us all.
One run by the Internet Research Agency out of St. Petersberg during office hours, acting in unison with the other 99 accounts being run from the same room.
Ah, we're back at the "Russian trolls" excuse. I recall a few months ago Twitter banned a bunch of Bulgarian accounts for the sole reason that they wrote in Cyrillic alphabet, were from the capital city of Bulgaria and were active roughly during the daytime over there, thereby fulfilling all your criteria.
The irony was most of those blocked were the exact opposite of a troll farm - they were genuine accounts and of people who were mostly pro-western and quite liberal at that.
It is impossible to ascertain any of the things you propose with any certainty just by the online activity of an account, especially in the absence of clear policies.
Ironically, the very privacy EU citizens demanded will also be the very tool used to specifically identify them.
Not at all. When I submit a GDPR request to the authorities for violations of my privacy by a website that the website has refused to rectify, I may have to identify myself to the authorities to show that I am a side in that particular case. But I need to file a GDPR request like this only if that particular website is not in compliance, and it isn't the company that will receive my personal information.
Why does Facebook get blamed
Dunno, really. Could it be because they are a bunch of sleazy fucktards, who collect information that the Stazi would not without telling the users what exactly they have on them? Or because they hire experts to help them play the human psychology so that using FB becomes addictive? Or because they habitually lie about what they do with the collected information? Could it be because they keep shadow profiles for people who are not interested in their services? Perhaps because they pay the likes of Samsung to get their spyware preinstalled on phones in unremovable ways?
Who knows... It is hard to imagine why people don't like them.
Yeah. Or to cover their asses, whatever works in a given situation.
What is a "fake" accunt anyway? At least in the EU, Facebook has got no formal right to ask you, citizen, for your papers when you create an account, which makes pretty much all their accounts from EU "fake".
There are no transparent, open and reasonable criteria from Facebook on what various transgressions constitute "policy violation", they are all arbitrary and whimsical and depend heavily on third party reporting.
There were people I know who valued the service and (the sorry fucks) built a life or a business around it have been fucked beyond measure by hateful and false reporting, which lead to disabled and closed accounts.
Playing the facebook game is like playing with that nuclear war computer - there is no way to win.
The only way to win is to shun the Zucker.
And I am uncomfortable to say it out loud, but hosts file works well enough for that, no even need for apks to edit it.
Use it :)
Too bad I am not interested in something that comes with several brands of spyware preinstalled as system apps, and the only way I can root it and remove them is to flash it with a binary blob that I downloaded from a shady site on the Internets, which incidentally and inappropriately will also remove the warranty on the hardware.
Ethics has not prevented the US from using nukes. Other people having nukes has.
I've wanted a foldable, book-sized tablet with a good, wacom-like pen that I can read and annotate PDF files on comfortably since forever. The problem is, we'll only get something that can play two videos at once, because new shit isn't targeted at people who read, but at people who watch short advertising videos and "react".
Until such time as healthcare stops being a business, they know more than enough about it. It is really simple, too:
1) Provide the lowest possible quality and keep "driving the costs down"
2) Ensure that every punter is paying the highest possible price they can bear
3) Profit
No bullet point with question marks involved.
And their server farms will be named "the Matrix".
Why not both.gif
Confessio est regina probationum, no way out of it.