If you're referring to Molson Canadian or Labatt's Blue, you won't get much of an argument. Those are the equivalent of an American Budweiser. There are however some fantastic smaller high-production breweries and plenty of great micro-breweries.
I think you would have been better off going with an 'Ah... that explains why Bruce Wayne had white under his nose when he came out of the bathroom at that fundraiser last night.'
Thanks for the citations...honestly, I did a search before asking for a citation and didn't find anything overly relevant. However even the reports you reference don't really provide more than 8 years of data that do not specify what would be considered 'normal' losses in a mild or an average over-winter, without influence from insecticides and/or invasive parasites. I would also suggest that resistance to parasites could potentially be impacted by insecticides. Rarely in ecology is the health of a species determined by just a single environmental factor.
The days of the mom&pop run farms is over. A large percentage of the North American food supply is controlled by corporations. You can't lay that at the feet of GMOs or claim that if GMOs went away then so would the corporations.
As far as reduced biodiversity, agricultural sustainability and overuse of pesticides go, these risks are all still there if GMOs go away AND some GMO 'products' have no risks related to any of these. Likewise, many invasive species are more harmful than GMO's; try zebra muscles, purple loosetrife, sparrows, domestic cats....
With that said, I do think corporations, and independent mad scientists, should be accountable for what they release on the world. Anything created to increase the use of a pesticide is not in the Earth's best interest. Anything created that can out-compete and eliminate natural species should be highly regulated with the potential for fines large enough to reverse damage done.
The problem with general opposition to GMO food is that it's a slightly milder form of the objection some people have to 'chemicals'. Saying all are harmful is as stupid as saying all are perfectly beneficial.
Not to mention things like disproportionate focus on CO2 emission sources that, even if eliminated, would have a negligible effect on overall world emissions (such as Alberta oil[tar]sands). Why? Because they're high profile, polarizing targets that net them more donations than going after high impact targets.
So you try to discredit my scale by substituting in an arbitrary scale of your own?
You are also trying to imply that old = ancient, suggesting that you have a penchant for hyperbole. As I stated, XP is still very much alive and kicking, with phase out being forced by Microsoft through a cutoff of support more than it becoming obsolete in the business world. Contrast that with DOS, Windows 3.1, NT and 95. Those I would say are potentially ancient, and only persist to run legacy software with no modern alternative (common in laboratories with older gas chromatographs for example).
In my world, a sun dial is ancient, clocks are old.
A litter is ancient, a Model-T is legacy, a 88 Honda Civic is old.
When using ancient to describe objections, to me it means no longer in use and no longer relevant. Legacy means, it still is functional and has use, but is far from current and is costly to keep running or maintain. Old means just that... not new.
In the world of many younger people it's 'Oh crap, they released a new iPhone, the one in my hand is now ancient.'.
Did you really just call XP 'ancient software'? Are you twelve? Calling an operating system that persists on a significant percentage of computers to this day 'ancient' is ridiculous, I don't think it even qualifies for the term 'legacy' yet.
As naive as anyone who thinks that any of the other parties would have come to a different decision. I'll save my criticism of the Cons for the erosion of charter rights and environmental stewardship.
I think the cautionary tale comes from applying what we've learned from GMO in other sectors. Try this on for size: So your parents were told there was a 50% chance of producing offspring with a debilitating genetic disease. A Chinese based company offers a service where they perform an in vitro fertilization with genetic modification to reduce the chance the disease manifests to 0%. Your parents go ahead with the procedure and, voila, you're born to a disease free, healthy life; that is until you decide to procreate. At that point, the Chinese company steps in and says they own the genetic modification you would be passing on to your potential children. They demand a licensing fee, or threaten legal action.
"I do not despise those who can't comprehend the things that I can, no matter how they try. I mean, why should I?"
I agree with this statement. What I find difficult to stomach is people who refuse to question things with the intelligence they were born with.
Yeah... there's no chance that there was tribal warfare, slaughter, genocide, rape or any other atrocities happening before the stupid white man showed up, right? There was no tribal chieftain who was obliterated by another chieftain because of either a slight or an idea that all land belonged elusively to them. Anyone who doesn't think all humans are the same, and capable of the same actions is a bigot.
Don't confuse stupidity with ignorance. Many parents do not understand computers or that they can be used for bullying with little effort and a great deal of anonymity. Her statement suggests that she saw no signs that he was making 'bad decisions', in other words falling in with the wrong crowd; likely oblivious to the whole concept that the wrong crowd might be having influence over an internet connection.
One of the things I'll be struggling with in the future, as my son gets older, is just how much covert monitoring to do on my son's computer and how much to be open about. Trying to strike a balance between keeping him safe, keeping him honest, giving him enough leeway to make relatively harmless errors in judgement and keeping him from doing serious mental harm to others is going to be difficult. If I knew very little about computers I'd be screwed.
I found Borderlands 2 and Saints Row IV thoroughly enjoyable. Mind you, I don't buy games until they're heavily discounted on Steam and have always found that my enjoyment is moderated by how much I paid for the game.
Yes, opposition can come from the right wing f'tards, but saying 'You can't do this, cuz Bible' is not as credible to a jury or panel as someone pulling up in a wheel chair saying that if you go ahead with the proposed change they fear for their life.
Yeah, that's right, there are f'tards at both ends of the spectrum, and depending on the issue, one side or the other may have the most clout. This just happens to be one where my experience has been that it's 'debate over' as soon as some unfortunate s.o.b. states that you're condemning them to death if they permit AA.
I would agree with you if I considered the 'right wing' religious opposition to be the major problem. I find that it's the other end of the spectrum that has equal clout and is often the mouthpiece that speaks at high profile assisted suicide debates/court cases.
Call me flamebait all you want, but be honest... I somehow hurt your feelings by sharing a viable opinion as to what the major roadblock is. Face it, abortion is legal DESPITE opposition from the biblical right wing. Why? Because the far left fully supports it (and rightfully so).
The problem is that there is always some f'tard left wing MS patient (pick whatever chronic debilitating disease you want... MS was just the first one to come to mind) that insists this will lead to their extermination. They insist that their right to life is somehow put at risk by permitting others the right to die.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're referring to Molson Canadian or Labatt's Blue, you won't get much of an argument. Those are the equivalent of an American Budweiser. There are however some fantastic smaller high-production breweries and plenty of great micro-breweries.
I think you would have been better off going with an 'Ah... that explains why Bruce Wayne had white under his nose when he came out of the bathroom at that fundraiser last night.'
Thanks for the citations...honestly, I did a search before asking for a citation and didn't find anything overly relevant. However even the reports you reference don't really provide more than 8 years of data that do not specify what would be considered 'normal' losses in a mild or an average over-winter, without influence from insecticides and/or invasive parasites. I would also suggest that resistance to parasites could potentially be impacted by insecticides. Rarely in ecology is the health of a species determined by just a single environmental factor.
The days of the mom&pop run farms is over. A large percentage of the North American food supply is controlled by corporations. You can't lay that at the feet of GMOs or claim that if GMOs went away then so would the corporations. As far as reduced biodiversity, agricultural sustainability and overuse of pesticides go, these risks are all still there if GMOs go away AND some GMO 'products' have no risks related to any of these. Likewise, many invasive species are more harmful than GMO's; try zebra muscles, purple loosetrife, sparrows, domestic cats.... With that said, I do think corporations, and independent mad scientists, should be accountable for what they release on the world. Anything created to increase the use of a pesticide is not in the Earth's best interest. Anything created that can out-compete and eliminate natural species should be highly regulated with the potential for fines large enough to reverse damage done.
Citation needed on your claim that honeybees are doing fine in the Canadian prairies.
The problem with general opposition to GMO food is that it's a slightly milder form of the objection some people have to 'chemicals'. Saying all are harmful is as stupid as saying all are perfectly beneficial.
Not to mention things like disproportionate focus on CO2 emission sources that, even if eliminated, would have a negligible effect on overall world emissions (such as Alberta oil[tar]sands). Why? Because they're high profile, polarizing targets that net them more donations than going after high impact targets.
So you try to discredit my scale by substituting in an arbitrary scale of your own? You are also trying to imply that old = ancient, suggesting that you have a penchant for hyperbole. As I stated, XP is still very much alive and kicking, with phase out being forced by Microsoft through a cutoff of support more than it becoming obsolete in the business world. Contrast that with DOS, Windows 3.1, NT and 95. Those I would say are potentially ancient, and only persist to run legacy software with no modern alternative (common in laboratories with older gas chromatographs for example).
In my world, a sun dial is ancient, clocks are old. A litter is ancient, a Model-T is legacy, a 88 Honda Civic is old. When using ancient to describe objections, to me it means no longer in use and no longer relevant. Legacy means, it still is functional and has use, but is far from current and is costly to keep running or maintain. Old means just that... not new. In the world of many younger people it's 'Oh crap, they released a new iPhone, the one in my hand is now ancient.'.
Did you really just call XP 'ancient software'? Are you twelve? Calling an operating system that persists on a significant percentage of computers to this day 'ancient' is ridiculous, I don't think it even qualifies for the term 'legacy' yet.
As naive as anyone who thinks that any of the other parties would have come to a different decision. I'll save my criticism of the Cons for the erosion of charter rights and environmental stewardship.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, otherwise I'd have posted 'Woosh!'. I'm more commenting on how the followup joke was inevitable.
I knew this one was coming. I almost spelled it "N-O", but thought the result would have been the same.
Cities flooded by NO exhaust? Wouldn't that be gas!
I think the cautionary tale comes from applying what we've learned from GMO in other sectors. Try this on for size: So your parents were told there was a 50% chance of producing offspring with a debilitating genetic disease. A Chinese based company offers a service where they perform an in vitro fertilization with genetic modification to reduce the chance the disease manifests to 0%. Your parents go ahead with the procedure and, voila, you're born to a disease free, healthy life; that is until you decide to procreate. At that point, the Chinese company steps in and says they own the genetic modification you would be passing on to your potential children. They demand a licensing fee, or threaten legal action.
"I do not despise those who can't comprehend the things that I can, no matter how they try. I mean, why should I?" I agree with this statement. What I find difficult to stomach is people who refuse to question things with the intelligence they were born with.
My neighbours named their dog Karma. What an awesome name for a female dog.
Yeah... there's no chance that there was tribal warfare, slaughter, genocide, rape or any other atrocities happening before the stupid white man showed up, right? There was no tribal chieftain who was obliterated by another chieftain because of either a slight or an idea that all land belonged elusively to them. Anyone who doesn't think all humans are the same, and capable of the same actions is a bigot.
Don't confuse stupidity with ignorance. Many parents do not understand computers or that they can be used for bullying with little effort and a great deal of anonymity. Her statement suggests that she saw no signs that he was making 'bad decisions', in other words falling in with the wrong crowd; likely oblivious to the whole concept that the wrong crowd might be having influence over an internet connection. One of the things I'll be struggling with in the future, as my son gets older, is just how much covert monitoring to do on my son's computer and how much to be open about. Trying to strike a balance between keeping him safe, keeping him honest, giving him enough leeway to make relatively harmless errors in judgement and keeping him from doing serious mental harm to others is going to be difficult. If I knew very little about computers I'd be screwed.
I found Borderlands 2 and Saints Row IV thoroughly enjoyable. Mind you, I don't buy games until they're heavily discounted on Steam and have always found that my enjoyment is moderated by how much I paid for the game.
I wish. I'd be a much happier, care-free person were I an uber-tard. Instead I'm stuck seeing hypocrisy and idiocy everywhere I look.
Yes, opposition can come from the right wing f'tards, but saying 'You can't do this, cuz Bible' is not as credible to a jury or panel as someone pulling up in a wheel chair saying that if you go ahead with the proposed change they fear for their life. Yeah, that's right, there are f'tards at both ends of the spectrum, and depending on the issue, one side or the other may have the most clout. This just happens to be one where my experience has been that it's 'debate over' as soon as some unfortunate s.o.b. states that you're condemning them to death if they permit AA.
I would agree with you if I considered the 'right wing' religious opposition to be the major problem. I find that it's the other end of the spectrum that has equal clout and is often the mouthpiece that speaks at high profile assisted suicide debates/court cases. Call me flamebait all you want, but be honest... I somehow hurt your feelings by sharing a viable opinion as to what the major roadblock is. Face it, abortion is legal DESPITE opposition from the biblical right wing. Why? Because the far left fully supports it (and rightfully so).
The problem is that there is always some f'tard left wing MS patient (pick whatever chronic debilitating disease you want... MS was just the first one to come to mind) that insists this will lead to their extermination. They insist that their right to life is somehow put at risk by permitting others the right to die.
Not to mention that perhaps their efforts are better off trying to curb their reputation as a last stop tourist destination for ISIS recruits.