But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.
GMO will have great benefits if done properly.
So, because done right, it has benefits, that means that done wrong should be tolerated or encouraged?
That's not what he said or implied though.
Looks like it to me. I gave some of the reasonable objections I've heard to unregulated GMO, and he responded, dismissing them all, if only it was "done right".
Seems the problem with the GMO communication is that the pro-GMO crowd assume someone who isn't pro-GMO is an idiot, and don't even bother to listen.
All of the food we eat is 'genetically modified' in the sense that we've been breeding and artificially selecting for desirable traits in plants and animals for millenia, now it's just become possible to do it at way faster timescales and increasing accuracy.
Selective breeding doesn't introduce kill genes (well it might, but they die and are bred out). Selective breeding doesn't generally result in a toxic food, where the toxin is more toxic to insects than humans. Nope, it's not just the "timescale" that has changed.
So, because done right, it has benefits, that means that done wrong should be tolerated or encouraged? Since labor builds value, slavery should be legal. Nope, just because done right is good, it doesn't mean that it should be done poorly, at all, under any circumstances.
The other is that the pro-GMO people insist that anti-GMO means that if you eat GMO, that you die.
GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.
GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them.
GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison. And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO.
GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction.
GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.
But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.
You left out Rock and Roll, and music (1920s, Mozart, and other times it's been raised). Urbanification was also complained about when the kids left the moisture farm to go to the Academy, and again in the 1700s, 1800s, 1900s, and even today, depending on where you are.
The list of complaints is long. Perhaps someone should do a paper on how old people yell "get off my lawn" and the destruction of a generation from old person bitterness.
No, they did studies. The only "censorship" was of religious types that were trespassing by blocking sidewalks and preaching without a permit. The invited speakers are not "censored" in any way. There are often cancellations, for a variety of reasons, of people of every political persuasion. Only the Cuckservative snowflakes complain.
So, everyone should do what you would, or they should go to jail. I hope you don't like your eggs scrambled. I had them scrambled this morning, and they'll be fried tomorrow. Either way, in your world, I'd be in jail for living outside your requirements.
Facebook is letting someone in that they know is going to make a copy, then calling it "hacking" that a copy was made.
Even if the door is open, once the owner says "Do not enter", coming in is trespassing. Accessing the data once you have been asked not to is still illegal access.
More like:
Facebook has a used goods store. The sign says "open". Bob comes in, buys a chair, then re-sells it on eBay for twice as much. Facebook says that Bob is welcome to come in the shop, and buy things, but if he sells them, then he was trespassing when he bought the item.
Facebook is arguing that getting the data is legal, but the use of the data after retroactively makes the legal act illegal hacking.
You can't invite someone into your house, find out they took a smelly poo in the bathroom, the file charges against them because they trespassed to leave the poop, as you later claim that the invitation implied that there'd be no pooping. Facebook's door isn't just unlocked, when someone knocks (sends a get), Facebook opens the door and says "come in", then sues them for coming in.
I keep sensitive data for the family. If someone needs an SSN, say signing up a child at a school, and messages me for it, I should be legally allowed to encrypt the response, if I so choose.
Then why didn't they file a copyright complaint? Instead, they are claiming "hacking" for viewing public information. (not copyright for using it, but "hacking" for viewing). Copyright is irrelevant, and not the complaint.
I can go into the Louvre, sit in front of the Mona Lisa, and sketch an exact replica of it, down to the brush stroke (except for the fact that there are always people standing in front of it trying to take a selfie), then sell that copy. Wait, what was your point again?
So the solution is to provide public APIs, and request scrapers use those, so the data access can be tracked and identified just like when humans and search engines use it.
If they make it public and predictable so search engines point to them, then they have given a robots.txt that allows that use, so it's "licensed" by the lack of controls, same as search engines.
But anyways, what about their user agreement?
The search engines never log in or agree to the user agreement, and this use seems to be a search engine that doesn't simply direct views to their page.
If everyone sends it back, it would make the next robot better. Better mapping of actual areas. Battery vs cleaning tradoffs. All that stuff. So your today robot won't be impacted by your data, but the next one you buy will be improved if you do.
then those would be legal. The original, not updated, and without a hush kit doesn't meet noise regulations, and thus, is "illegal", at least at some times and places.
And the thing I see ignored is latency. You'll lose 1-10 ms with a GP computer running a network. The dedicated boxes don't have to use CPU processes to move a packet and are effectively shunted on the NIC. Faster and more efficient.
convert kWh to W-year Both are Watt * time. He converted to Wy to simplify the long-term cost estimate. I have no idea whether his conversion and pricing is correct, but his unit is no less valid than kWh, just less common.
So if you sign yourself into slavery for $100, what will the courts do?
I have read the court decisions on the matter, and you are talking about what "should" happen, not what has already been ruled and is considered settled law.
You are confusing "entered the war" with "declared war". The US entered the war on the side of the Allies, then, after becoming entangled, declared war. The Germans sank US ships in the Atlantic because the US was actively running the English blockade. That act of war was met with an act of war.
Over history, you are picking one point. Russia wouldn't have saved us from Germany if Russia didn't exist. If Russia wasn't there in the 1800s, then the Ottoman Empire may have ruled it at the start of WWI, making the conflict shorter and of no consequence, so that Germany wasn't punished with reparations that lead to WWII. Again, the lack of Russia doesn't seem to doom the USA.
When the government enforces a contract against you, it's the government who infringes your freedom of speech. A contract is meaningless without the force of the government enforcing it. So separating a contract from the government seems absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
GMO foodstuffs are the most heavily regulated of any crops.
Really? Then why is there no regulation that GMO be labeled as "contains GMO"? Seems like the wild west to the consumers.
Natural mono-crop is bad, therefore unnatural mono-crop is OK?
Analogies aren't strawmen. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=analogy
But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.
GMO will have great benefits if done properly.
So, because done right, it has benefits, that means that done wrong should be tolerated or encouraged?
That's not what he said or implied though.
Looks like it to me. I gave some of the reasonable objections I've heard to unregulated GMO, and he responded, dismissing them all, if only it was "done right".
Seems the problem with the GMO communication is that the pro-GMO crowd assume someone who isn't pro-GMO is an idiot, and don't even bother to listen.
All of the food we eat is 'genetically modified' in the sense that we've been breeding and artificially selecting for desirable traits in plants and animals for millenia, now it's just become possible to do it at way faster timescales and increasing accuracy.
Selective breeding doesn't introduce kill genes (well it might, but they die and are bred out). Selective breeding doesn't generally result in a toxic food, where the toxin is more toxic to insects than humans. Nope, it's not just the "timescale" that has changed.
So, because done right, it has benefits, that means that done wrong should be tolerated or encouraged? Since labor builds value, slavery should be legal. Nope, just because done right is good, it doesn't mean that it should be done poorly, at all, under any circumstances.
The other is that the pro-GMO people insist that anti-GMO means that if you eat GMO, that you die.
GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.
GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them.
GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison. And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO.
GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction.
GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.
But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.
Company kills people for profit, then covers it up?
How is this news? It's called "capitalism".
The claim does not talk about copyright, so let's focus on the facts Facebook asserts.
You left out Rock and Roll, and music (1920s, Mozart, and other times it's been raised). Urbanification was also complained about when the kids left the moisture farm to go to the Academy, and again in the 1700s, 1800s, 1900s, and even today, depending on where you are.
The list of complaints is long. Perhaps someone should do a paper on how old people yell "get off my lawn" and the destruction of a generation from old person bitterness.
No, they did studies. The only "censorship" was of religious types that were trespassing by blocking sidewalks and preaching without a permit. The invited speakers are not "censored" in any way. There are often cancellations, for a variety of reasons, of people of every political persuasion. Only the Cuckservative snowflakes complain.
So, everyone should do what you would, or they should go to jail. I hope you don't like your eggs scrambled. I had them scrambled this morning, and they'll be fried tomorrow. Either way, in your world, I'd be in jail for living outside your requirements.
Even if the door is open, once the owner says "Do not enter", coming in is trespassing. Accessing the data once you have been asked not to is still illegal access.
More like:
Facebook has a used goods store. The sign says "open". Bob comes in, buys a chair, then re-sells it on eBay for twice as much. Facebook says that Bob is welcome to come in the shop, and buy things, but if he sells them, then he was trespassing when he bought the item.
Facebook is arguing that getting the data is legal, but the use of the data after retroactively makes the legal act illegal hacking.
You can't invite someone into your house, find out they took a smelly poo in the bathroom, the file charges against them because they trespassed to leave the poop, as you later claim that the invitation implied that there'd be no pooping. Facebook's door isn't just unlocked, when someone knocks (sends a get), Facebook opens the door and says "come in", then sues them for coming in.
There is no censorship at the universities. There is only confirmation bias from cuntservative idiots.
I keep sensitive data for the family. If someone needs an SSN, say signing up a child at a school, and messages me for it, I should be legally allowed to encrypt the response, if I so choose.
Then why didn't they file a copyright complaint? Instead, they are claiming "hacking" for viewing public information. (not copyright for using it, but "hacking" for viewing). Copyright is irrelevant, and not the complaint.
I can go into the Louvre, sit in front of the Mona Lisa, and sketch an exact replica of it, down to the brush stroke (except for the fact that there are always people standing in front of it trying to take a selfie), then sell that copy. Wait, what was your point again?
If they make it public and predictable so search engines point to them, then they have given a robots.txt that allows that use, so it's "licensed" by the lack of controls, same as search engines.
But anyways, what about their user agreement?
The search engines never log in or agree to the user agreement, and this use seems to be a search engine that doesn't simply direct views to their page.
If everyone sends it back, it would make the next robot better. Better mapping of actual areas. Battery vs cleaning tradoffs. All that stuff. So your today robot won't be impacted by your data, but the next one you buy will be improved if you do.
then those would be legal. The original, not updated, and without a hush kit doesn't meet noise regulations, and thus, is "illegal", at least at some times and places.
Please list the implementations of the JT8D that have met Stage-3 noise certification.
And the thing I see ignored is latency. You'll lose 1-10 ms with a GP computer running a network. The dedicated boxes don't have to use CPU processes to move a packet and are effectively shunted on the NIC. Faster and more efficient.
convert kWh to W-year Both are Watt * time. He converted to Wy to simplify the long-term cost estimate. I have no idea whether his conversion and pricing is correct, but his unit is no less valid than kWh, just less common.
So if you sign yourself into slavery for $100, what will the courts do?
I have read the court decisions on the matter, and you are talking about what "should" happen, not what has already been ruled and is considered settled law.
You are confusing "entered the war" with "declared war". The US entered the war on the side of the Allies, then, after becoming entangled, declared war. The Germans sank US ships in the Atlantic because the US was actively running the English blockade. That act of war was met with an act of war.
Over history, you are picking one point. Russia wouldn't have saved us from Germany if Russia didn't exist. If Russia wasn't there in the 1800s, then the Ottoman Empire may have ruled it at the start of WWI, making the conflict shorter and of no consequence, so that Germany wasn't punished with reparations that lead to WWII. Again, the lack of Russia doesn't seem to doom the USA.
When the government enforces a contract against you, it's the government who infringes your freedom of speech. A contract is meaningless without the force of the government enforcing it. So separating a contract from the government seems absurd.