You prove my point well. Asbestos was not something we made, it was something we found. As such, it's dangerousness provides a low bar for GMO to beat.
I am not saying that GMO stuff will be totally harmless. But it isn't any worse than non-GMO stuff, like asbestos.
As such, it does not need to be outlawed, just reasonably regulated (and that does not mean labels that will encourage fear).
Living things have had millions of years to engage in a evolutionary massive arms race. Defense has kept up with offense. Evolution is all about using random processes. Evolution has already given us the full set of defenses we need to change from 'random' or 'unintentional' attacks based on genetics. That's why we have immune systems with white blood cells, variant blood types, skin, mucus, fevers, blood-brain barriers, etc. etc. etc. etc.
The basic belief that human caused mutations will randomly create something dangerous demonstrates tremendous ignorance of evolution. It's like they believe in creationism.
I am not saying we can't get around these defenses. We can. But not by accident. The only truly harmful species will have to be intentionally designed by humans that go out of their way to make a dangerous life form, i.e. a plague genetically engineered to kill people.
But for every single 1 intentionally designed genetic species, there are (and will always be) millions of random mutations from cosmic rays, sunlight, etc. As the humans are not trying to make the gene engineered species dangerous, the chance of it happening are FAR more likely in the natural mutations than in the genetically created mutations.
Throw in the extensive testing that humans do to their genetically engineered species (that does not occur in the wild mutations), and you get a guarantee that for every single human engineered life that gets a dangerous trait by random chance, there will be 10 (or more) randomly evolved life forms with mutations we call dangerous.
Now, we might get things that inconvenience us - food that tastes bad or turns a funky color, etc. etc. Even something like a slightly greater cancer risk is just an inconvenience, not a real problem. We already risk that with non-gene engineered stuff. Basically, I am saying that a genetically engineered sugar substitute will be no more risky than Saccharine - which is still legal.
Liability is an EASY problem, not a hard one.
No fault insurance is a real thing that already exists in some states and countries.. It already solves the problem
Your thinking is pessimist foolishness, ignorant of real world solutions.
Liability will do nothing more than hold up robot cars for MAYBE one year.
But no fault insurance, while it could solve it, will probably not be the solution to this issue. Car companies are already responsible for defaults in manufacturing. Given reasonable safety records, car companies will probably end up INSISTING on taking all the risk. It will be a big selling point, that when you buy their car, they give you free insurance. They will claim that their software is so safe, that they can offer that deal, but manual cars are so dangerous, they can't.
Insurance companies will push heavily IN FAVOR of auto-autos.
This assumes that robots are safer drivers than humans (which is an obvious requirement before they legalize it).
The reasons are clear:
1) Car insurances don't want to pay you because someone else hit your car, but they can't prove it. Robot cars decrease this risk.
There is a LOT of money spent by the insurance companies trying to prove fault. It is big business. By reducing the actual risk from other drivers, insurance companies will save billions, even if they never insure a robot car.
Also, insurance companies make money when things become safer - because rate changes are always behind actual risk changes. So more safety always equals insurance profits and less safety always equals insurance losses.
I agree that speed traps and red light cameras will vanish, but I am not so sure about toll roads. In fact, they might grow in power, using the robots to connect tolls. They might simply have a tax charge to drive fast in the state. As in, your robot car will be limited to 50 mph unless you purchase the NJ Fast Lane upgrade from New Jersey Transit.
They are a blog (your 'page' has words and pictures, time stamped, aka a BLOG).
Connected to an email service.
With some automated responses (like) and mass mailing features.
Connected to some games
All held together by exclusivity That is, they won't let you someone's blog, email them, or get emails, unless you join them.
Well, I did leave some extra stuff out - but basically the other stuff is all the privacy killing back office things that no users wants - i.e. the ability to tag other people's photos, the ability to track people viewing, etc. etc.
If you make a distributed version of it, it's called THE INTERNET.
P.S. It already exists. Frankly, the entire thing is just a simplified way for non technical people to get involved on the internet. Not everyone realizes how useful a blog, mass mailings, etc. are so they packaged them up as a "Social Network" and suddenly people that never heard of a blog are blogging.
"damage to human welfare, the environment, the economy or national security in any country"
First note that it allows for damaging the national security in any country. So the UK is now the world police? Hey, I thought that was the USA's job! Also, does that mean they will protect ISIL? Or North Korea? Does that mean when the government of South Korea attempts to defend itself from a cyberattack from North Korea, they are violating the UK's law? It's damaging the National Security of North Korea by preventing them from undermining South Korea!
Human welfare, the environment, the economy or National security pretty much covers ANYTHING. And the word damage is similarly vague.
When I use Hack BP's computer and find out they are illegally dumping oil in Scotland, isn't that damaging the economy by revealing BP's crime?
When the FBI pretends to be a criminal on Facebook, isn't that damaging the 'welfare" of the human criminal?
This is a law designed to let the UK selectively arrest anyone who does anything on a computer that is 'unauthorised'.
I disagree. You don't have to harden your internet connected refrigerator against malicious attacks.
Why? Because when you ask "what could possibly go wrong?" the answer is your food will spoil, and you will have to throw it out. It's not like spoiled food is not instantly recognizable.
But when you ask that company about medical equipment, the answer is PEOPLE WILL DIE.
The problem is obvious, it just takes half a second to think and you know you need security.
Actually, the real problem is that idiot manufacturers refused to think at all.
2) Easier to use for one off jobs, where you have one letter.
3) They envision ending/greatly reducing the physical stamp program. This will piss off the collectors a lot.
4) They get paid for it, rather than the company that makes the QR codes etc.
Basically, I don't think it has enough advantages to catch on somewhere where they already have stamps. But ISIL might want it for their new country, I bet they want to replace Syria's and Iraq's old postal system.
Monetarily yes, but not legally. That is, when you buy a used car, it may have been repaired, or not. No way for you to tell.
Why? Because they are not legally required to FIX the car, just legally required to offer to fix it.
But that can't be a big problem right? I mean, most cars get fixed, right?
No. They don't. Most cars are never fixed. The problems are often small - so it has a half second delay in the brakes, who notices/ Or it has a small tendency to roll over, no big deal.
In Europe, that is not the case. If a car is recalled, ALL the cars are fixed.
The original stats (pre internet) came from the Kinsey Reports (via wikipedia: D. Richard Laws and William T. O'Donohue: Books.Google.co.uk, Sexual Deviance, page 391. Guilford Press, 2008. ISBN 978-1-59385-605-2. )
New studies suggest that the Kinsey estimates are no longer accurate (if they ever were). There is no clear evidence that the internet caused it, but I am not the first person to suggest it.
Psychiatrists have found that they can not end any sexuality, but that they can in fact add new perversions, mainly be slowly introducing the desired perversion into sexual fantasies. Some have theorized that while they can't 'cure' gay, they can convert to bisexuality. I am not sure about that, but it is definitely not absurd to shift sexuality from kids to something else
There are people in this world that think they can legislate away bad things. Pass a law, and boom, it goes away. They tried it with alcohol and marijuana, and look how well that worked out.
That is not how the real world works. Here, there is the law of unintended consequences.
Sometimes the law results in good things - for example, the existence of internet porn has pretty much ended bestiality. Before the internet, farms had an estimated fifty percent bestiality rate. Around 8 % and 3% for the general population. After the internet, all of those numbers dropped like a stone. Why? Because a pretty picture of a girl is more satisfying than bestiality.
Why do I bring this up? Because outlawing behavior doesn't stop it. Some people are and and will be attracted to kids. You can't turn off sexuality (ask any gay man or lesbian woman from an anti-gay tradition). Better that they read manga than buy actual child pornography.
Just as we use a lesser opiate (methadone) to treat addicts, we should use Manga to treat others.
Manga looks to me like a great way to:
1) wean them off child pornography
2) protect real children from being hurt by the industry
3) slowly shift their sexuality from kids to something more acceptable.
This should be required treatment for people interested in children, rather than outlawed.
Because if encryption is bad, then they should give it up, right?
Unless, they think they deserve privacy but don't want to give it to other people.
What about reporters investigating corruption among FBI? Will they be allowed encryption? Will the reporter have to admit they are investigating FBI, or will all reporters be allowed encryption?
This is nothing more than a consumption tax, based only on air.
It is a horrible idea. It is designed to tax the poor far more than the wealthy.
It is NOT fair in any way shape or way. It simply refuses to admit the many many benefits that the wealthy get from the government, that the poor don't.
The poor don't care if the government is overthrown and someone confiscates half the wealth. The wealthy do.
The poor don't care if their house burns down (and no one dies), the wealthy do. (at least not to the same extent - they are left as poor as they started).
The poor don't benefit from police as much as the wealthy do. (Think about what happens when they are both arrested for a similar crime, or how much you lose if someone steals from you.)
The poor don't benefit from transportation infrastructure, the wealthy do, they don't travel or ship as much.
The wealthy can call up government officials and get stuff done, the poor can't.
Your idea is ultimate regressive, and you fail to see the problem with it. Worse, arguing with someone like you is irrelevant because you don't care about right and wrong, and your sense of fairness is so radically warped that you have no idea that the far majority of people in the world disagree with it. It's like you said you don't see anything wrong with slavery.
The basic problem is you do NOT understand the very concept of 'fair'. Fair means an equal chance. That means when you get more, you pay more, and the wealthy get SO much more, they have to PAY so much more. It means that children are not penalized for mistakes or stupidity of their parents. No that child gets nothing because his parents had a big family, or just couldn't afford college.
Until you learn the real meaning behind the world 'fair', the rest of the world will laugh at what you think is fair.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not saying that GMO stuff will be totally harmless. But it isn't any worse than non-GMO stuff, like asbestos.
As such, it does not need to be outlawed, just reasonably regulated (and that does not mean labels that will encourage fear).
Living things have had millions of years to engage in a evolutionary massive arms race. Defense has kept up with offense. Evolution is all about using random processes. Evolution has already given us the full set of defenses we need to change from 'random' or 'unintentional' attacks based on genetics. That's why we have immune systems with white blood cells, variant blood types, skin, mucus, fevers, blood-brain barriers, etc. etc. etc. etc.
The basic belief that human caused mutations will randomly create something dangerous demonstrates tremendous ignorance of evolution. It's like they believe in creationism.
I am not saying we can't get around these defenses. We can. But not by accident. The only truly harmful species will have to be intentionally designed by humans that go out of their way to make a dangerous life form, i.e. a plague genetically engineered to kill people.
But for every single 1 intentionally designed genetic species, there are (and will always be) millions of random mutations from cosmic rays, sunlight, etc. As the humans are not trying to make the gene engineered species dangerous, the chance of it happening are FAR more likely in the natural mutations than in the genetically created mutations.
Throw in the extensive testing that humans do to their genetically engineered species (that does not occur in the wild mutations), and you get a guarantee that for every single human engineered life that gets a dangerous trait by random chance, there will be 10 (or more) randomly evolved life forms with mutations we call dangerous.
Now, we might get things that inconvenience us - food that tastes bad or turns a funky color, etc. etc. Even something like a slightly greater cancer risk is just an inconvenience, not a real problem. We already risk that with non-gene engineered stuff. Basically, I am saying that a genetically engineered sugar substitute will be no more risky than Saccharine - which is still legal.
Liability is an EASY problem, not a hard one. No fault insurance is a real thing that already exists in some states and countries.. It already solves the problem
Your thinking is pessimist foolishness, ignorant of real world solutions.
Liability will do nothing more than hold up robot cars for MAYBE one year.
But no fault insurance, while it could solve it, will probably not be the solution to this issue. Car companies are already responsible for defaults in manufacturing. Given reasonable safety records, car companies will probably end up INSISTING on taking all the risk. It will be a big selling point, that when you buy their car, they give you free insurance. They will claim that their software is so safe, that they can offer that deal, but manual cars are so dangerous, they can't.
This assumes that robots are safer drivers than humans (which is an obvious requirement before they legalize it).
The reasons are clear:
1) Car insurances don't want to pay you because someone else hit your car, but they can't prove it. Robot cars decrease this risk.
There is a LOT of money spent by the insurance companies trying to prove fault. It is big business. By reducing the actual risk from other drivers, insurance companies will save billions, even if they never insure a robot car.
Also, insurance companies make money when things become safer - because rate changes are always behind actual risk changes. So more safety always equals insurance profits and less safety always equals insurance losses.
I agree that speed traps and red light cameras will vanish, but I am not so sure about toll roads. In fact, they might grow in power, using the robots to connect tolls. They might simply have a tax charge to drive fast in the state. As in, your robot car will be limited to 50 mph unless you purchase the NJ Fast Lane upgrade from New Jersey Transit.
Does anyone know if FIOS internet uses the same system? I don't have a Verizon Wireless account.
Connected to an email service.
With some automated responses (like) and mass mailing features.
Connected to some games
All held together by exclusivity That is, they won't let you someone's blog, email them, or get emails, unless you join them.
Well, I did leave some extra stuff out - but basically the other stuff is all the privacy killing back office things that no users wants - i.e. the ability to tag other people's photos, the ability to track people viewing, etc. etc.
If you make a distributed version of it, it's called THE INTERNET.
P.S. It already exists. Frankly, the entire thing is just a simplified way for non technical people to get involved on the internet. Not everyone realizes how useful a blog, mass mailings, etc. are so they packaged them up as a "Social Network" and suddenly people that never heard of a blog are blogging.
Oh NO!. I better go into hiding! Who knows what they willl do to me!
"damage to human welfare, the environment, the economy or national security in any country"
First note that it allows for damaging the national security in any country. So the UK is now the world police? Hey, I thought that was the USA's job! Also, does that mean they will protect ISIL? Or North Korea? Does that mean when the government of South Korea attempts to defend itself from a cyberattack from North Korea, they are violating the UK's law? It's damaging the National Security of North Korea by preventing them from undermining South Korea!
Human welfare, the environment, the economy or National security pretty much covers ANYTHING. And the word damage is similarly vague.
When I use Hack BP's computer and find out they are illegally dumping oil in Scotland, isn't that damaging the economy by revealing BP's crime?
When the FBI pretends to be a criminal on Facebook, isn't that damaging the 'welfare" of the human criminal?
This is a law designed to let the UK selectively arrest anyone who does anything on a computer that is 'unauthorised'.
Worst law ever
Wow, the ability to come up with "he did it, but it' wasn't bad enough to warrant legal action" excuses has had a huge renaissance.
Why? Because when you ask "what could possibly go wrong?" the answer is your food will spoil, and you will have to throw it out. It's not like spoiled food is not instantly recognizable.
But when you ask that company about medical equipment, the answer is PEOPLE WILL DIE.
The problem is obvious, it just takes half a second to think and you know you need security.
Actually, the real problem is that idiot manufacturers refused to think at all.
http://www.neilgaiman.com/p/Co...
2) Easier to use for one off jobs, where you have one letter. 3) They envision ending/greatly reducing the physical stamp program. This will piss off the collectors a lot.
4) They get paid for it, rather than the company that makes the QR codes etc.
Basically, I don't think it has enough advantages to catch on somewhere where they already have stamps. But ISIL might want it for their new country, I bet they want to replace Syria's and Iraq's old postal system.
Start with:
Is this software related to our industry?
Do we need some advantage over our competition or can we just use the same stuff they do?
What's our back up plan if we discover that our self created software ends up making the Obamacare website rollout look good?
How much money do you think we will save?
If it ends up costing more money, how much we will sink into this project before quitting?
Why? Because they are not legally required to FIX the car, just legally required to offer to fix it.
But that can't be a big problem right? I mean, most cars get fixed, right?
No. They don't. Most cars are never fixed. The problems are often small - so it has a half second delay in the brakes, who notices/ Or it has a small tendency to roll over, no big deal.
In Europe, that is not the case. If a car is recalled, ALL the cars are fixed.
So if you refuse to do anything - or the car company says they can't fix your car for another 90 days, your car remains broken.
Chances are you won't stop driving the vehicle until then and they won't pay for a replacement.
Quite a few people ignore the recall and then sell the car to some poor shmuck who never received the recall note.l
As in, if they sold a faulty product, they have to fix it, whether it is a a set of brakes that don't work, or a window that won't open.
Basically, we end the 'buyer beware' system for new cars.
1) Do the installation in phases
2) Only move on to Phase 2 if Phase 1 works without any problems, as expected.
3) Require third party testing to be sure that Phase 1 is done fairly
P.S. PRSVP or STF, because NAWE are SAaD
New studies suggest that the Kinsey estimates are no longer accurate (if they ever were). There is no clear evidence that the internet caused it, but I am not the first person to suggest it.
Psychiatrists have found that they can not end any sexuality, but that they can in fact add new perversions, mainly be slowly introducing the desired perversion into sexual fantasies. Some have theorized that while they can't 'cure' gay, they can convert to bisexuality. I am not sure about that, but it is definitely not absurd to shift sexuality from kids to something else
Instead it is: Radiation and muscle loss
Long term travel exposes humans large amounts of radiation, in particular from cosmic rays, and from
In addition, living in a low gravity environment destroys your bones.
These two issues are far more problematic than food, air, and water.
That is not how the real world works. Here, there is the law of unintended consequences.
Sometimes the law results in good things - for example, the existence of internet porn has pretty much ended bestiality. Before the internet, farms had an estimated fifty percent bestiality rate. Around 8 % and 3% for the general population. After the internet, all of those numbers dropped like a stone. Why? Because a pretty picture of a girl is more satisfying than bestiality.
Why do I bring this up? Because outlawing behavior doesn't stop it. Some people are and and will be attracted to kids. You can't turn off sexuality (ask any gay man or lesbian woman from an anti-gay tradition). Better that they read manga than buy actual child pornography.
Just as we use a lesser opiate (methadone) to treat addicts, we should use Manga to treat others.
Manga looks to me like a great way to:
1) wean them off child pornography
2) protect real children from being hurt by the industry
3) slowly shift their sexuality from kids to something more acceptable.
This should be required treatment for people interested in children, rather than outlawed.
Just sell it from the back of a truck.. Have a guy taking money right there.
The only reason shops usually have a counter is 1) to display MULTIPLE items.
and 2) to discourage grab and run.
They are only selling ice and ice is not easy to grab and run.
Unless, they think they deserve privacy but don't want to give it to other people.
What about reporters investigating corruption among FBI? Will they be allowed encryption? Will the reporter have to admit they are investigating FBI, or will all reporters be allowed encryption?
It is NOT fair in any way shape or way. It simply refuses to admit the many many benefits that the wealthy get from the government, that the poor don't.
The poor don't care if the government is overthrown and someone confiscates half the wealth. The wealthy do.
The poor don't care if their house burns down (and no one dies), the wealthy do. (at least not to the same extent - they are left as poor as they started).
The poor don't benefit from police as much as the wealthy do. (Think about what happens when they are both arrested for a similar crime, or how much you lose if someone steals from you.)
The poor don't benefit from transportation infrastructure, the wealthy do, they don't travel or ship as much.
The wealthy can call up government officials and get stuff done, the poor can't.
Your idea is ultimate regressive, and you fail to see the problem with it. Worse, arguing with someone like you is irrelevant because you don't care about right and wrong, and your sense of fairness is so radically warped that you have no idea that the far majority of people in the world disagree with it. It's like you said you don't see anything wrong with slavery.
The basic problem is you do NOT understand the very concept of 'fair'. Fair means an equal chance. That means when you get more, you pay more, and the wealthy get SO much more, they have to PAY so much more. It means that children are not penalized for mistakes or stupidity of their parents. No that child gets nothing because his parents had a big family, or just couldn't afford college.
Until you learn the real meaning behind the world 'fair', the rest of the world will laugh at what you think is fair.