That does sound like a good technique, if you can call it good. I'm really only opposed to the characteristic European smugness regarding the policy. Governments do terrible, monstrous things to their own citizens that make most capital crimes seem like jaywalking. Limiting their power to kill is reasonable.
A world where no one kills anyone else seems a lot better to me, and we'd all be better served focusing on bringing that about than arguing about how to kill or not kill a bunch of weirdos who are going to be safely imprisoned until they die.
As a result, they're harming innocent people and costing lives because of politically motivated drug shortages. Which side of the Atlantic was being barbaric, again?
Converting Renminbi to foreign currencies is a big one. There's a hard limit on the amount of RMB that can be exchanged for foreign currency per person per year, enforced by the Chinese government. Much of the European usage was supposed to be in the same vein.
Of course, you can feel free to dismiss them as unimportant if they're not important to you.
Cancer is a whole spectrum of diseases with different causes, effects, mortality rates, etc. This question is only a little less silly than asking why we haven't cured all disease yet.
It's called having faith in democracy and the ability of the polity to sort out issues. If that doesn't sound reasonable to you, then why not head off to N. Korea where the leaders think just like you do.
With clear-minded, rational and thoughtful voters like you, how could democracy ever fail? "Agree with me or go starve" is a little extreme, don't you think? Free exchange of ideas is essential to successful democracy.
According to Russell, the principle behind the so-called Malthusian catastrophe was discovered by Condorcet, who didn't consider it an issue, because he assumed that birth control would be mandatory. The answer has been obvious for over 200 years.
I'll assume you're talking about GMOs as food. Golden rice, which has been mentioned several times in the comments, was developed out of humanitarian concern and, as far as I can tell, is not encumbered by patents. Misguided and ignorant activists are prepared to let malnourished children go blind rather than allow them a staple crop providing vitamin A.
Increasing crop production and the availability of food is still important to those who don't have enough to eat. You can't claim that they can magically get food somehow because there are unfinished plates in America! If it was that simple, why does anyone still starve? 1 in 8 people are "chronically undernourished." Unless your contention is that people starve simply because they choose not to eat, it's disingenuous to say that we can already feed the planet without adding that we choose not to.
At risk of belaboring the point, there is enough food not when the richest can afford to eat or throw scraps to the poor, but when the poorest can afford to feed themselves.
There's a difference between simply producing food and producing food in a way that's affordable for everyone. Unless you're actually committed to sending all that extra food to starving people for free, you anti-GMO nuts are just going to raise the price of food until the developing world starves.
Attack the real problem, then! We can feed the planet and get rid of patents on organisms at the same time. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater!
If you're worried about someone seeing what you're working on, get a polarizing screen protector (or maybe an active one that syncs with glasses if you're super paranoid), a hood for your screen, or just don't work on that when you're not in a secure facility.
Or you could get a Google Glass, since the display isn't visible to everyone around you...
Roland posted a lot of garbage that no one was interested in, with links to entries on his own blog that he used to generate ad traffic. Then he died, and the groupthink consensus was that it wasn't worth hating the dead.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be true if its native range included the entirety of Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_to_conclusions
Not that one.
That does sound like a good technique, if you can call it good. I'm really only opposed to the characteristic European smugness regarding the policy. Governments do terrible, monstrous things to their own citizens that make most capital crimes seem like jaywalking. Limiting their power to kill is reasonable.
A world where no one kills anyone else seems a lot better to me, and we'd all be better served focusing on bringing that about than arguing about how to kill or not kill a bunch of weirdos who are going to be safely imprisoned until they die.
As a result, they're harming innocent people and costing lives because of politically motivated drug shortages. Which side of the Atlantic was being barbaric, again?
I managed it, so it's possible for anyone.
Don't be rough on him--it's more expensive when you have to pay for an escort, too.
You probably meant yore.
Converting Renminbi to foreign currencies is a big one. There's a hard limit on the amount of RMB that can be exchanged for foreign currency per person per year, enforced by the Chinese government. Much of the European usage was supposed to be in the same vein.
Of course, you can feel free to dismiss them as unimportant if they're not important to you.
And if they worked like a deathstar beam weapon after charging up, better still.
Cancer is a whole spectrum of diseases with different causes, effects, mortality rates, etc. This question is only a little less silly than asking why we haven't cured all disease yet.
It's called having faith in democracy and the ability of the polity to sort out issues. If that doesn't sound reasonable to you, then why not head off to N. Korea where the leaders think just like you do.
With clear-minded, rational and thoughtful voters like you, how could democracy ever fail? "Agree with me or go starve" is a little extreme, don't you think? Free exchange of ideas is essential to successful democracy.
According to Russell, the principle behind the so-called Malthusian catastrophe was discovered by Condorcet, who didn't consider it an issue, because he assumed that birth control would be mandatory. The answer has been obvious for over 200 years.
I'll assume you're talking about GMOs as food. Golden rice, which has been mentioned several times in the comments, was developed out of humanitarian concern and, as far as I can tell, is not encumbered by patents. Misguided and ignorant activists are prepared to let malnourished children go blind rather than allow them a staple crop providing vitamin A.
Are you also against books, movies and software because of non-sensible copyright laws? You sound confused at best.
We can already feed the planet.
Increasing crop production and the availability of food is still important to those who don't have enough to eat. You can't claim that they can magically get food somehow because there are unfinished plates in America! If it was that simple, why does anyone still starve? 1 in 8 people are "chronically undernourished." Unless your contention is that people starve simply because they choose not to eat, it's disingenuous to say that we can already feed the planet without adding that we choose not to.
At risk of belaboring the point, there is enough food not when the richest can afford to eat or throw scraps to the poor, but when the poorest can afford to feed themselves.
There's a difference between simply producing food and producing food in a way that's affordable for everyone. Unless you're actually committed to sending all that extra food to starving people for free, you anti-GMO nuts are just going to raise the price of food until the developing world starves.
Attack the real problem, then! We can feed the planet and get rid of patents on organisms at the same time. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater!
centuries of selective breeding
Millennia, but yeah.
If you're worried about someone seeing what you're working on, get a polarizing screen protector (or maybe an active one that syncs with glasses if you're super paranoid), a hood for your screen, or just don't work on that when you're not in a secure facility.
Or you could get a Google Glass, since the display isn't visible to everyone around you...
It's shocking that you entered that industry and ended up working with disreputable and dishonest people!
'They said this is an agriculture item,' said Razgui, who was not present when his bag was opened.
Am I missing your extremely subtle humor, or would you like to try again?
Yup, a bunch of sticks tied together in a bundle
That sounds more like a faggot to me.
But I have something that guarantees safety from even a direct lightning strike....
Insurance.
--unless the lightning strikes you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Piquepaille
Roland posted a lot of garbage that no one was interested in, with links to entries on his own blog that he used to generate ad traffic. Then he died, and the groupthink consensus was that it wasn't worth hating the dead.