It is a total waste of time to continue down this road, my name is whatever I say it is. Until it comes time to pay taxes, then it's whatever my parents said it was on the day I was born.
I don't know that the IRS cares either, as long as the TIN (taxpayer identification number) is correct and the numbers add up.
Facebook has made, and will continue to make, money from selling my demographic information, and companies that want to sell me stuff don't care if my name is Fred Willard or Bjorn Florgen as long as I have money they can separate me from.
You still have to explain how a solar farm isn't "more efficient" than a fossil fuel plant,
You list the inefficiencies of fossil fuel plants, but forget the ones attached to solar. You have to mine the materials to manufacture the panels, supply the energy to make them, ship them, install them, clean them, and combine the small-scale generation capabilities into a larger scale distribution system.
And then you need to factor in the conversion efficiency of the panels, compared to the heat generated by the absorption of unconverted sunlight and by the conversion process itself.
It sounds to me like the good people of Woodland, North Carolina have a whole bunch of separate reasons for not wanting solar farms,
Like: we already have three of them, this new one is planned within 50 feet of residences, and too close to a major highway.
but apparently don't have a problem with being surrounded by tobacco farms.
Productive farm land is a valuable resource. You don't need farm land to farm solar energy. The article says nothing about tobacco, but it does mention soybeans.
Were this a project intended for a similar space where I live, it, too, would be shot down very early in the process. Our "comprehensive land use planning" laws define farmland as farmland and don't allow easy conversion to other uses. These hicks in this solar-hating town allowed that zoning conversion three times, and said to the fourth "no". That's how much they hate solar power.
The support for solar panels doesn't eat that much area,
But there are enough of them that they make navigating the area under the solar panels difficult. You could have a 1" pole and a total area of just a few square feet, but if those poles are every 6' in a regular pattern then putting parking spaces amidst them is difficult, and they're likely to be hit on a regular basis.
even trickier to maneuver around than simple columns at each end of a row.
None of the solar farms I've seen built anywhere around here are supported only at the ends of the rows.
Are you argumenting for the arguments sake to drive non english speakers in a corner where they can not compete with your superior english?
You provided what was supposed to be the correct translation of a German law regarding "hate speech". You used the phrase "incitement of people". Was that not correct? If not, why are you blaming me?
What exactly is "incitememt of people" when people by themselves decide to take action?
If "people by themselves" decide, then it isn't incitement. "Incite" is an active verb requiring an action on something. What we're talking about is NOT "people by themselves", we're talking about expressions of opinions that "incite" other people to commit violence. Like, publishing an editorial cartoon that depicts Mohammed. Since we know that expressing that speech today will cause a violent outcome (i.e. "incitement of people") then clearly that speech is "hate speech" according to German law -- as you have provided the correct definition.
But a political cartoon depicting Jesus does not elicit such a response, so it must not be "hate speech" as you have defined it.
So, if 1000 people burn down a theater because of the new Star Wars movie, then the new Star Wars movie must be "hate speech" as defined by German law and as you have translated it for us. The movie caused "incitement of people" to commit violence. Without the movie, they would not have burned anything down, therefore the movie incited them to that action. That movie, therefore, must be banned under German law.
Or you are just full of knockwurst and should be ignored.
Huh? Said nothing about it being illegal. Talking about the reason why Germany wants Google et.al to remove "hate speech". Let's curb racism by banning hate speech -- except it doesn't.
...but if you ban speech like that, you are really greasing up the slippery slope on thought crime.
Did you see me say anything that disagrees with that?
It's just said that they had to literally explain to someone complaining that this was not the case
Then this becomes specific error number 3: they did not have to explain this to anyone, it was a vote of the town council and they didn't have to educate every doofus who opposed it for ridiculous reasons. There wasn't even the issue that they would have to worry about losing the doofus vote because they voted against the project just like the doofii wanted, just not for the reasons the media tried to make it out to be.
Well, could be because all the support for free-standing panels would create a nightmare trying to navigate the parking lot, and building a parking structure to put solar on top of would be prohibitively expensive?
The proper term would be "incitememt of people", degrading assault on other cultures or religions etc.
So then, saying negative things about Allah is hate speech because we know it will incite a certain number of Muslims to violence, but saying negative things about Jesus is not because it is unlikely to incite the same kind of violence?
This is a clear example of how the law is flawed. Your speech is banned if someone will riot because of it, no matter how unjustified they are in doing so. If I can find 1000 people who will burn down a movie theater because they object to Jedi nonsense, can I get the new Star Wars movie banned in the US? Or just Germany?
you think being an opinion somehow makes it not hate speech?
If you are incited to violence just because someone expressed an opinion, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. Only if that "opinion" actually calls for violence can you even begin to justify banning it.
"Your god does not exist, you worship hot air" is an opinion. That's all it is. Get over it. "We should all go out and kill those who worship like you do" is an opinion trying to incite violence.
A local newspaper blog just had an example of the stupidity of trying to claim every opinion someone doesn't like is a call to violence. One person said that someone else was stupid and the time for talking was over. The stupid one claimed that this was a death threat. Really. I kid you not. Getting tired of talking to X was a death threat. I hope the stupid guy has never been on Usenet and been "plonked". He'd be apoplectic and calling the cops every ten minutes.
but really you're just a bigot apologist,
I think it was said best by an early US founder. Something like "I oppose what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." I suppose he is a "bigot apologist", too, because he opposed what was said.
The issue with Google et. al going along with this is that removing "hate speech" (as defined by someone) does not stop racism. It only makes the speakers 1. go underground and 2. resent even more the fact they are being silenced in the name of political correctness. It's not a winning strategy, and our (the US) founders knew that.
What fact did the 'Net or Social Media get wrong, or can you even answer that question?
1. The town does not oppose solar farms, just one at that location.
2. The fourth solar farm to be built was not rejected because it would "soak up the sun".
Who could imagine, a small rural town might have a couple of people who don't understand solar power, and that those couple of people would be paraded in front of the world as representing every person in that town. I hope you don't live somewhere where you might find some ignorant people who are made into your town spokesmen by a media looking for web traffic and eyeballs.
But before this was discovered? That's a HUGE safety hazard.
An aircraft being 70km from where it is supposed to be with nobody knowing it is a huge safety hazard, both to that aircraft and others.
But an aircraft being exactly where it is supposed to be, with the pilots knowing where it is and that it is where it is supposed to be, and ATC being told by the pilots it is where it is supposed to be, is not a huge safety hazard to anyone. ATC issues clearances based on the assumption that aircraft will be where they are told to be, so an aircraft that is where it was told to be is hardly a problem.
It WOULD be a problem were ATC to see a mis-reported location and decide "hey, I can slip a couple of other airplanes into that space where that guy was supposed to be..." without verifying with "that guy" that he really isn't where he's supposed to be. That's why ATC wouldn't do that.
and the system only screwed up when there were no other planes around
I don't know where you got that idea from either the summary or TFA. There was nothing I saw that said that the airspace was otherwise empty, and if you're talking about a 787 on a major airway, it is highly unlikely there were "no other planes around".
Maybe it's a "units" issue similar to the "units" issue that caused the Mars spacecrafts more than a decade ago to make an unexpected and unfortunate (very) hard landing...
TFA explains what the error is. It's a missing lat or lon in data being sent to the ADS-B system by the internal packet data network, and the system is interpolating the missing data until correct data is provided. The problem appears most after the aircraft has made a course change ("turn") at a navigation waypoint, because the interpolation doesn't know about the turn and continues straight ahead.
It's not an error in the navigation systems, and the pilots know where they are. The ground-based radar knows where the airplane is. It's the ADS-B system that has the wrong info.
Netflix can't do anything about your shitty Comcast connection.
I don't know who you are addressing this to. I don't have a poor Comcast connection.
Netflix cannot directly change my connection. But they certainly can put the bug in the ear of people like the NY officials. They have a dog in the bandwidth fight since they want their product delivered to the customer at the lowest cost to them, and upgrading their own outbound bandwidth costs money. If they can get NY regulators on Comcast's back for "poor speeds" and Comcast is forced to upgrade their gateways, then Netflix wins. My entire, and only, point was that Netflix is not an unbiased source of speed data because they have a financial interest in matter.
Comcast is already throttling Netflix.
Not upgrading their peering interconnects is not the same as deliberate throttling of a specific site.
Congratulations, you just failed your reading comprehension test! You are mixing terminology. I said "maximum weight at takeoff", you said "maximum take off weight".
Yep. I noticed what you said. What you said is irrelevant because the rules don't talk about "maximum weight at takeoff", and that is not what "maximum takeoff weight" means. You're the one who mixed things up, not I.
From the fine PDF linked from the linked URL,
Yes, I quoted it for you. I know what it says.
A drone that weighs 230g that carries a 100g payload would be 330g.
Obvious typo, chuckles.
No it was not an "obvious typo". It was nonsense. Don't insult other people if you cannot edit what you post before doing so.
Because you didn't,
Right. Whatever. Please register your drone for 130g because you get to subtract the payload from the base weight, ok?
What they actually mean is the maximum weight at takeoff, not the maximum potential weight at takeoff,
No. MTOW is not an actual weight, it is a maximum weight. It includes the aircraft "Here:
"MTOW is the heaviest weight at which the aircraft has been shown to meet all the airworthiness requirements applicable to it. "
FAA defined the applicable aircraft:
"Unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds and more
than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) on takeoff, including everything
that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft..."
Emphasis mine.
Luckily, they're not trying; it's based on the weight of what you're actually flying.
Wrong.
If you build a complete drone weighing 230g with battery but you plan to carry a 100g payload, you need to register for 130g.
A drone that weighs 230g that carries a 100g payload would be 330g. If it can actually fly (implying that the maximum takeoff weight is greater than 330g), then this regulation says it must be registered. I have no idea what you mean by "register for 130g". The registration applies whether or not the 230g drone is carrying that payload.
Which is because of the light pollution, which is caused by the US
Which is "caused" by people who want to be able to see things at night. The final result is, the claim that "there are good locations except..." really translate as "there are no good locations."
Ummm, because I read their arguments. I know what the standard arguments against GMO are because they come up every time some new GMO issue comes up.
99% od the anti GMO front only want two things:
a) don't let get GMOs go wild
b) lable food that contains GMOs
So you are completely ignorant of the arguments they make in support of those demands. Why does food made with GMO need labels? It's not because they worry about how great the GMO products will be for them, it's because they think they will be harmed by them and don't want to eat them.
For some strange readon the GMO Mafias pull every string availbale to prevent those two things becoming law.
There is no law against labeling products that either do or do not contain GMO components. You don't need a law to do it.
That's what I was getting at - the reporting completely left out all details.
And what I was getting at was that were this specific protein important enough to the life of the pig, then the modified pigs will not survive the market. Farmers aren't going to try raising pigs that won't live long enough to make it to the butcher. They won't buy the modified pigs, and this will become an interesting footnote in the history of gene editing.
But once again, it doesn't matter what the pig thinks about it. You care more about the pigs than the people who eat them, I get it. But the standard argument against GMO is not what it does to the O, it's what effect that O has on the people who eat it.
We have a very very long history of people who eat NO pork. Thus we can be sure that pork that doesn't have a specific protein will NOT have any negative effects on people who eat it, because there are no significant negative effects on all the people who already don't eat it.
I don't know what the "guy below", whoever you are referring to, is talking about. If it's the guy who is talking about blowfish toxins, well, now we can talk about when pigs swim instead of when pigs fly.
the complete lack of information about the specific protein other than apparently it is the protein whose job it is to make sure the pig can get a virus.
No, it is not the "job" of that protein to make sure the pig can host the specific virus. The virus needs that protein to reproduce. Your statement is like saying that the job of a window is so that thieves can break into houses through them.
The protein was there for some other purpose, but apparently since the pigs don't seem hurt by it not being there, it's a truly vestigial remnant of pig evolution.
If the pigs don't survive better without the protein, then the improvement will fail in the marketplace. The evaluation of "better" includes balancing the lifespan of the pigs against the death rate of the pigs and the disease. Given that a pig intended for food doesn't need a huge lifespan to begin with, the result will be biased to "fewer dead from disease".
But the complaints about GMO that I was referring to have nothing to do with the life of the O, but the effects on humans eating the O. Usually that is "the insecticide gene in corn poisons humans!" But in this case anti-GMO zealots will be stuck arguing that the LACK of a specific pig protein in the human diet will cause unimaginable harm to humans. As if every muslim (who doesn't eat the pork protein in question) was already being caused unimaginable harm by not eating pork.
There certainly hasn't been enough testing of how the lack of the protein will impact human beings planetwide. There must be testing or it cannot be safe.
You notice how eminent domain is never used against the one-percenters? Eminent domain, today, is only used against those who don't have the resources to fight against it.
Perhaps because the one-percenters aren't tied so tightly to one piece of property that they would refuse any and all offers to buy it before eminent domain was invoked? Those who "have the resources" have the resources to adapt. Eminent domain is (supposed to be) a last resort.
I understand that the US has several good locations in the southwest, except for light pollution.
In other words, the US has no good locations in the southwest.
to the complaints that this pig will kill us all because it doesn't have something and there hasn't been enough testing of how not eating a specific protein and...
Maybe it is you that needs to listen a bit more closely becasue I've never heard that argument.
I need to listen more closely because you haven't been paying attention? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I see the "nobody needs" argument EVERY time gun control comes up, or at least the vast majority of times. "Nobody needs 'assault rifles'" (when referring to semi-automatic rifles that look like military weapons). "Nobody needs ten shotguns". Yada yada yada. "Nobody needs a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds." "Nobody needs..."
Slashdot Mirror
The truth is, if vegetables were meant to be eaten, they wouldn't be made out of carbohydrates.
And damn /. would respect the "ads disabled" checkbox and stop showing me ads.
It is a total waste of time to continue down this road, my name is whatever I say it is. Until it comes time to pay taxes, then it's whatever my parents said it was on the day I was born.
I don't know that the IRS cares either, as long as the TIN (taxpayer identification number) is correct and the numbers add up.
Facebook has made, and will continue to make, money from selling my demographic information, and companies that want to sell me stuff don't care if my name is Fred Willard or Bjorn Florgen as long as I have money they can separate me from.
You still have to explain how a solar farm isn't "more efficient" than a fossil fuel plant,
You list the inefficiencies of fossil fuel plants, but forget the ones attached to solar. You have to mine the materials to manufacture the panels, supply the energy to make them, ship them, install them, clean them, and combine the small-scale generation capabilities into a larger scale distribution system.
And then you need to factor in the conversion efficiency of the panels, compared to the heat generated by the absorption of unconverted sunlight and by the conversion process itself.
It sounds to me like the good people of Woodland, North Carolina have a whole bunch of separate reasons for not wanting solar farms,
Like: we already have three of them, this new one is planned within 50 feet of residences, and too close to a major highway.
but apparently don't have a problem with being surrounded by tobacco farms.
Productive farm land is a valuable resource. You don't need farm land to farm solar energy. The article says nothing about tobacco, but it does mention soybeans.
Were this a project intended for a similar space where I live, it, too, would be shot down very early in the process. Our "comprehensive land use planning" laws define farmland as farmland and don't allow easy conversion to other uses. These hicks in this solar-hating town allowed that zoning conversion three times, and said to the fourth "no". That's how much they hate solar power.
The support for solar panels doesn't eat that much area,
But there are enough of them that they make navigating the area under the solar panels difficult. You could have a 1" pole and a total area of just a few square feet, but if those poles are every 6' in a regular pattern then putting parking spaces amidst them is difficult, and they're likely to be hit on a regular basis.
even trickier to maneuver around than simple columns at each end of a row.
None of the solar farms I've seen built anywhere around here are supported only at the ends of the rows.
Are you argumenting for the arguments sake to drive non english speakers in a corner where they can not compete with your superior english?
You provided what was supposed to be the correct translation of a German law regarding "hate speech". You used the phrase "incitement of people". Was that not correct? If not, why are you blaming me?
What exactly is "incitememt of people" when people by themselves decide to take action?
If "people by themselves" decide, then it isn't incitement. "Incite" is an active verb requiring an action on something. What we're talking about is NOT "people by themselves", we're talking about expressions of opinions that "incite" other people to commit violence. Like, publishing an editorial cartoon that depicts Mohammed. Since we know that expressing that speech today will cause a violent outcome (i.e. "incitement of people") then clearly that speech is "hate speech" according to German law -- as you have provided the correct definition.
But a political cartoon depicting Jesus does not elicit such a response, so it must not be "hate speech" as you have defined it.
So, if 1000 people burn down a theater because of the new Star Wars movie, then the new Star Wars movie must be "hate speech" as defined by German law and as you have translated it for us. The movie caused "incitement of people" to commit violence. Without the movie, they would not have burned anything down, therefore the movie incited them to that action. That movie, therefore, must be banned under German law.
Or you are just full of knockwurst and should be ignored.
And since when did being a racist become illegal?
Huh? Said nothing about it being illegal. Talking about the reason why Germany wants Google et.al to remove "hate speech". Let's curb racism by banning hate speech -- except it doesn't.
...but if you ban speech like that, you are really greasing up the slippery slope on thought crime.
Did you see me say anything that disagrees with that?
It's just said that they had to literally explain to someone complaining that this was not the case
Then this becomes specific error number 3: they did not have to explain this to anyone, it was a vote of the town council and they didn't have to educate every doofus who opposed it for ridiculous reasons. There wasn't even the issue that they would have to worry about losing the doofus vote because they voted against the project just like the doofii wanted, just not for the reasons the media tried to make it out to be.
Well, could be because all the support for free-standing panels would create a nightmare trying to navigate the parking lot, and building a parking structure to put solar on top of would be prohibitively expensive?
The proper term would be "incitememt of people", degrading assault on other cultures or religions etc.
So then, saying negative things about Allah is hate speech because we know it will incite a certain number of Muslims to violence, but saying negative things about Jesus is not because it is unlikely to incite the same kind of violence?
This is a clear example of how the law is flawed. Your speech is banned if someone will riot because of it, no matter how unjustified they are in doing so. If I can find 1000 people who will burn down a movie theater because they object to Jedi nonsense, can I get the new Star Wars movie banned in the US? Or just Germany?
you think being an opinion somehow makes it not hate speech?
If you are incited to violence just because someone expressed an opinion, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. Only if that "opinion" actually calls for violence can you even begin to justify banning it. "Your god does not exist, you worship hot air" is an opinion. That's all it is. Get over it. "We should all go out and kill those who worship like you do" is an opinion trying to incite violence.
A local newspaper blog just had an example of the stupidity of trying to claim every opinion someone doesn't like is a call to violence. One person said that someone else was stupid and the time for talking was over. The stupid one claimed that this was a death threat. Really. I kid you not. Getting tired of talking to X was a death threat. I hope the stupid guy has never been on Usenet and been "plonked". He'd be apoplectic and calling the cops every ten minutes.
but really you're just a bigot apologist,
I think it was said best by an early US founder. Something like "I oppose what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." I suppose he is a "bigot apologist", too, because he opposed what was said.
The issue with Google et. al going along with this is that removing "hate speech" (as defined by someone) does not stop racism. It only makes the speakers 1. go underground and 2. resent even more the fact they are being silenced in the name of political correctness. It's not a winning strategy, and our (the US) founders knew that.
What fact did the 'Net or Social Media get wrong, or can you even answer that question?
1. The town does not oppose solar farms, just one at that location.
2. The fourth solar farm to be built was not rejected because it would "soak up the sun".
Who could imagine, a small rural town might have a couple of people who don't understand solar power, and that those couple of people would be paraded in front of the world as representing every person in that town. I hope you don't live somewhere where you might find some ignorant people who are made into your town spokesmen by a media looking for web traffic and eyeballs.
But before this was discovered? That's a HUGE safety hazard.
An aircraft being 70km from where it is supposed to be with nobody knowing it is a huge safety hazard, both to that aircraft and others.
But an aircraft being exactly where it is supposed to be, with the pilots knowing where it is and that it is where it is supposed to be, and ATC being told by the pilots it is where it is supposed to be, is not a huge safety hazard to anyone. ATC issues clearances based on the assumption that aircraft will be where they are told to be, so an aircraft that is where it was told to be is hardly a problem.
It WOULD be a problem were ATC to see a mis-reported location and decide "hey, I can slip a couple of other airplanes into that space where that guy was supposed to be..." without verifying with "that guy" that he really isn't where he's supposed to be. That's why ATC wouldn't do that.
and the system only screwed up when there were no other planes around
I don't know where you got that idea from either the summary or TFA. There was nothing I saw that said that the airspace was otherwise empty, and if you're talking about a 787 on a major airway, it is highly unlikely there were "no other planes around".
Maybe it's a "units" issue similar to the "units" issue that caused the Mars spacecrafts more than a decade ago to make an unexpected and unfortunate (very) hard landing...
TFA explains what the error is. It's a missing lat or lon in data being sent to the ADS-B system by the internal packet data network, and the system is interpolating the missing data until correct data is provided. The problem appears most after the aircraft has made a course change ("turn") at a navigation waypoint, because the interpolation doesn't know about the turn and continues straight ahead.
It's not an error in the navigation systems, and the pilots know where they are. The ground-based radar knows where the airplane is. It's the ADS-B system that has the wrong info.
Netflix can't do anything about your shitty Comcast connection.
I don't know who you are addressing this to. I don't have a poor Comcast connection.
Netflix cannot directly change my connection. But they certainly can put the bug in the ear of people like the NY officials. They have a dog in the bandwidth fight since they want their product delivered to the customer at the lowest cost to them, and upgrading their own outbound bandwidth costs money. If they can get NY regulators on Comcast's back for "poor speeds" and Comcast is forced to upgrade their gateways, then Netflix wins. My entire, and only, point was that Netflix is not an unbiased source of speed data because they have a financial interest in matter.
Comcast is already throttling Netflix.
Not upgrading their peering interconnects is not the same as deliberate throttling of a specific site.
Because we all know that Netflix has no dog in this fight, right?
Congratulations, you just failed your reading comprehension test! You are mixing terminology. I said "maximum weight at takeoff", you said "maximum take off weight".
Yep. I noticed what you said. What you said is irrelevant because the rules don't talk about "maximum weight at takeoff", and that is not what "maximum takeoff weight" means. You're the one who mixed things up, not I.
From the fine PDF linked from the linked URL,
Yes, I quoted it for you. I know what it says.
A drone that weighs 230g that carries a 100g payload would be 330g.
Obvious typo, chuckles.
No it was not an "obvious typo". It was nonsense. Don't insult other people if you cannot edit what you post before doing so.
Because you didn't,
Right. Whatever. Please register your drone for 130g because you get to subtract the payload from the base weight, ok?
What they actually mean is the maximum weight at takeoff, not the maximum potential weight at takeoff,
No. MTOW is not an actual weight, it is a maximum weight. It includes the aircraft "Here: "MTOW is the heaviest weight at which the aircraft has been shown to meet all the airworthiness requirements applicable to it. " FAA defined the applicable aircraft: "Unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds and more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) on takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft ..."
Emphasis mine.
Luckily, they're not trying; it's based on the weight of what you're actually flying.
Wrong.
If you build a complete drone weighing 230g with battery but you plan to carry a 100g payload, you need to register for 130g.
A drone that weighs 230g that carries a 100g payload would be 330g. If it can actually fly (implying that the maximum takeoff weight is greater than 330g), then this regulation says it must be registered. I have no idea what you mean by "register for 130g". The registration applies whether or not the 230g drone is carrying that payload.
Which is because of the light pollution, which is caused by the US
Which is "caused" by people who want to be able to see things at night. The final result is, the claim that "there are good locations except ..." really translate as "there are no good locations."
What do you know anout what people are arguing?
Ummm, because I read their arguments. I know what the standard arguments against GMO are because they come up every time some new GMO issue comes up.
99% od the anti GMO front only want two things: a) don't let get GMOs go wild b) lable food that contains GMOs
So you are completely ignorant of the arguments they make in support of those demands. Why does food made with GMO need labels? It's not because they worry about how great the GMO products will be for them, it's because they think they will be harmed by them and don't want to eat them.
For some strange readon the GMO Mafias pull every string availbale to prevent those two things becoming law.
There is no law against labeling products that either do or do not contain GMO components. You don't need a law to do it.
That's what I was getting at - the reporting completely left out all details.
And what I was getting at was that were this specific protein important enough to the life of the pig, then the modified pigs will not survive the market. Farmers aren't going to try raising pigs that won't live long enough to make it to the butcher. They won't buy the modified pigs, and this will become an interesting footnote in the history of gene editing.
But once again, it doesn't matter what the pig thinks about it. You care more about the pigs than the people who eat them, I get it. But the standard argument against GMO is not what it does to the O, it's what effect that O has on the people who eat it.
We have a very very long history of people who eat NO pork. Thus we can be sure that pork that doesn't have a specific protein will NOT have any negative effects on people who eat it, because there are no significant negative effects on all the people who already don't eat it.
I don't know what the "guy below", whoever you are referring to, is talking about. If it's the guy who is talking about blowfish toxins, well, now we can talk about when pigs swim instead of when pigs fly.
the complete lack of information about the specific protein other than apparently it is the protein whose job it is to make sure the pig can get a virus.
No, it is not the "job" of that protein to make sure the pig can host the specific virus. The virus needs that protein to reproduce. Your statement is like saying that the job of a window is so that thieves can break into houses through them.
The protein was there for some other purpose, but apparently since the pigs don't seem hurt by it not being there, it's a truly vestigial remnant of pig evolution.
If the pigs don't survive better without the protein, then the improvement will fail in the marketplace. The evaluation of "better" includes balancing the lifespan of the pigs against the death rate of the pigs and the disease. Given that a pig intended for food doesn't need a huge lifespan to begin with, the result will be biased to "fewer dead from disease".
But the complaints about GMO that I was referring to have nothing to do with the life of the O, but the effects on humans eating the O. Usually that is "the insecticide gene in corn poisons humans!" But in this case anti-GMO zealots will be stuck arguing that the LACK of a specific pig protein in the human diet will cause unimaginable harm to humans. As if every muslim (who doesn't eat the pork protein in question) was already being caused unimaginable harm by not eating pork.
There certainly hasn't been enough testing of how the lack of the protein will impact human beings planetwide. There must be testing or it cannot be safe.
You notice how eminent domain is never used against the one-percenters? Eminent domain, today, is only used against those who don't have the resources to fight against it.
Perhaps because the one-percenters aren't tied so tightly to one piece of property that they would refuse any and all offers to buy it before eminent domain was invoked? Those who "have the resources" have the resources to adapt. Eminent domain is (supposed to be) a last resort.
I understand that the US has several good locations in the southwest, except for light pollution.
In other words, the US has no good locations in the southwest.
to the complaints that this pig will kill us all because it doesn't have something and there hasn't been enough testing of how not eating a specific protein and ...
Maybe it is you that needs to listen a bit more closely becasue I've never heard that argument.
I need to listen more closely because you haven't been paying attention? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I see the "nobody needs" argument EVERY time gun control comes up, or at least the vast majority of times. "Nobody needs 'assault rifles'" (when referring to semi-automatic rifles that look like military weapons). "Nobody needs ten shotguns". Yada yada yada. "Nobody needs a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds." "Nobody needs ..."