Portland, Maine, is relatively well known.

As I replied to the parent poster myself, anyone that says "GMOs are safe" or "GMOs are dangerous" should substitute the word "chemicals", as in "chemicals are safe" or "chemicals are dangerous". That makes both statements sound equally silly as both are broad categories that could readily contain both healthy and unhealthy products.

On the other hand, a statement like "companies must submit studies, and the FDA must approve them, before a chemical may be added to a food" sounds rather reasonable to most non-libertarians. Likewise, "companies must submit studies, and the FDA must approve them, before a genetic change may be added to a food" sounds equally reasonable and yet is labeled "zealotry" by folks like the parent poster.

Saying you are "pro-GMO" or that "GMOs are safe to injest" is like saying you are "pro-chemicals" or that "chemicals are safe to injest". Both statements are too overly broad to be anything but ridiculous.

There are most certainly genetic splices that could result in lethal "food" crops. For example, we could splice in genes from a variety of poisonous mushrooms and probably get them to express the lethal chemicals in, say, a tomato. Has Monsanto done that? No, of course not, that would be foolhardy of them, and they are evil, but not fools. Might one of the thousands of genetic modifications in the food supply yield something with unforeseen consequences? Without sufficient study, it's anti-science to say it's settled one way or the other. (That's the kind of sufficient study that *has* been done on global warming, but cannot be done on "GMOs" as a whole.)

GMOs need to be validated at the lowest level, one change to one crop at a time, where we can see what individual changes to certain plants do to their growth, production, and edible safety. Then we can approve those changes. Is this kind of approval being done? Not in the U.S. it isn't.

All of the above ignores the fact that some genetic changes are made to make the plants resistant to certain pesticides or other poisons, which are then slathered on the plants as they grow. Let's blanket assume that those genetic changes have been vetted, researched, and approved, and are 100% harmless for human consumption. Are the chemicals the plants have been bathed in suitable for human consumption? Just how long and how hard do I have to wash the food to get those chemicals off? Are they absorbed into the food? Is a non-GMO version less likely to have toxic chemicals in it? (Can I get a non-pesticide version without having to swing all the way to the other extreme and buy organic?)

The fact that you make such broad, unprovable statements such as "Anti-GMO hysteria is anti-science" and call your opponents "anti-GMO zealots" completely ruins the rest of your reasonable argument about the need for genetic modifications to food staples to ensure an adequate global food supply in the 21st century.

The link is like ten lines long. This is most of it:

Through the process of ending the program, we will be partnering more directly with a small set of developers whose applications have proven to be the most valuable for many of our members. Those applications will continue to operate beyond November 14, 2014. The following is a list of these applications:

        Instant Watcher
        Fanhattan
        Yidio
        NextGuide
        Flixster
        Can I Stream It?
        FeedFliks
        Instant Watch Browser for Netflix

It's maybe not that cheap, but I use an Intronix LogicPort 34-channel logic analyzer for professional development. And I do so even though I have a Tek MSO5204 that I could use instead; the Intronix software is really good! It looks like they are $389 now.

If only it worked that way. The thing is, it just doesn't, because the kind of people that become school administrators are generally suck-ups, at least in the limited experience I have, and that applies to sucking up both to higher-level administrators and to parents who would likely go over their heads and ruin their careers if they don't appease them.

I don't understand their lack of coverage on the I-35 corridor, the primary north-south corridor through the center of the country. Even when they add the Oklahoma City station later this year, and the Augusta, Kansas station in 2015, the runs from Fort Worth to Oklahoma City and from Topeka to Des Moines seem huge.

Ok, the internet says those distances are 196 miles and 256 miles, respectively. Already that only works in the 85 kWh version, and then only barely.

That just seems strange to me. In my anecdotal experience, driving north and south is far more likely than east and west; people* take cars to go up and down the coasts or the central corridor, but are more likely to fly from coast to coast or center to coast.

* At least the type of people that can afford a Tesla.

You are assuming that Uber drivers only go places they would go anyway. Numerous previous stories indicate otherwise. So drivers are on roads they may not know with a stranger they may not be comfortable with next to them, who may be talking on the phone or doing other things typically done in a cab. Plus the odds of having a passenger are higher, and you are less likely to know their past medical issues, and they are more likely to take you for all they can get than a friend would be.

I'm not an actuary, but those all seem like things that would result in higher premiums to me. And that excludes flat-out higher liabilities for commercial drivers.

I think you woefully underestimate the office politics in primary school administration. There are far too many administrators who want to micromanage their teachers and/or suck up to parents. And the "unpopular" part is telling parents that it's their fault - or their kid's fault - that he or she got a bad grade, especially when that parent can march into the office and complain to the principal thereafter.

It's not exactly the same as at college, but the pressures are there. The process to get rid of bad teachers needs to be objective, and merely eliminating tenure to restore "fire at will" will be nothing of the sort.

My old professors who had retired from research were the best I had. The younger ones were all too focused on their research ("other job") to be an effective instructor. The older ones still taught because they loved to teach and it really showed in their classes.

I think the issue is that scientists are more likely to cite their works, and in particular there are a lot of different species and thus many different articles and papers about species.

There's a relatively few versions of the bible, and while they are almost always cited, they may not be via links to Wikipedia articles but instead by line & verse to a standard. And that's assuming that every bible reference should be counted as Jesus reference, which is untrue even for the New Testament.

I would because I have T-Mobile, and they don't rape me when I travel internationally.

My understanding of "troll" is "someone who posts content specifically to entice a response", be that response anger, confusion, etc. Likewise, a "troll" post is that content.

A "flamebait", another moderation option, is a post written specificaly to entice a flame response. In my understanding, this is merely a subset of a "troll", albeit usually one focused on known sensitive topics like race, gender, or religion.

Meanwhile, there's no moderation for actual "flame" posts - i.e. those posts written by people angry and pissed at everything for real, not just pretending to be to elicit responses. So these usually get moderated as trolls or flamebait or just overrated, whatever feels right at the time. I wish they would replace "flamebait" with "flame" and let moderators adjust accordingly.

Anyway, that's why I think mods use "troll" for angry and pissed-off posts; slashdot fails to provide a correct mod for that scenario, moderators often feel that "1" or "2" is overrated for those posts, yet "overrated" is too bland for general use beyond correction of inaccurate moderation (i.e. something moderated "informative" that is factually incorrect).

I was thinking they had found Majipoor.

Like many things in law, it probably comes down to intent. Refusing to carry a book critical of their CEO is likely protected in most cases, since they aren't a "common carrier" required to deliver any content a customer requests. Refusing to carry or demoting the books of a given publisher unless they get paid more is trickier, if they are found to be abusing their effective monopoly to force those concessions.

Of course, if they are found to be abusing a monopoly, the resulting settlement could include requirements that they carry all books from certain publishers, which could then lead to them carrying books like the one critical of Bezos against their will.