Umm, no, I don't notice that. Advertisers advertise all the time. How do you think people find ad agencies to sell them something?

They don't have a lot of television advertisements. Print ads, direct mail, cold calls, social media, award shows, blogs, etc.. Advertisers advertise to their market segment, which is not the mass market like toilet paper or coca-cola.

I seems like many people on this thread has an overly narrow idea of what advertising is.

I have to disagree. I don't think the platonic ideal of bacon is cooked into our minds like facial expressions, and therefore I don't think the uncanny valley applies.

Lots of things taste kind of like other things, but not quite.

Yes, it's hard, but when you fail, it's your fault.

Who else are you going to blame? It's certainly not the Google Car's fault. It *might* in some extreme cases be the fault of poor signage or a criminal cutting your brake lines or something, but if you misjudge traction on an icy road, you're not alone, but you're at fault.

In principle, a self-driving car could use directed sound to lessen the annoyance. Humans aren't generally expected to "aim" their horn.

I think the whole point of this law is to legalize further development in the UK.

I don't actually think this is a terrible idea, for now. In the future we'll need to be rid of this, but until self-driving cars are consumer-ready we need a transitional state that still maintains public safety but allows for real-world development. Hence, you get somebody who knows the limitations of a self-driving car in the driver's seat, and you have him assimilate as closely as possible with human drivers.

The particle model said it was indivisible. The wave model did not. Your flock of starlings is essentially the wave model.

Showing that neither the particle model nor the wave model could, by itself, replicate the double slit experiment, is literally the whole point of the double slit experiment. You're pointing out the particle incompatibility alone.

In your final paragraph, you confuse photon and proton. I assume you meant proton throughout?

(You know, "flock of starlings" "quantum mechanics" brings up slashdot AC comments multiple times on the 1st page of results).

If your model can produce math that predicts at least as well as the existing math, then you're in business. But otherwise, it is indeed an answer. There's basically no math that's ever done a better job.

I consider myself an opponent of mandatory labelling GMO foods as GMO, without having a financial stake in it.

I would suggest instead that non-GMO products should voluntarily label themselves as non-GMO, and enforce the veracity of that claim under truth in advertising laws. I still believe that's actually better even for the people who are opposed to GMO in general, because now they know what to look for. This is the "kosher-label" model instead of the "danger: explosive!" model.

I could also see my way to mandatory labelling specific classes of GMO products if a legitimate concern could be cited about them. Otherwise it's just really arbitrary. Like mandating a "contains Utah genes" label for products whose ancestry ever included a plant or animal raised in Utah.

Enforcing labelling on an arbitrary basis does in fact create a barrier because your choice of what is a mandatory label *itself* conveys information ("we politicians aren't confident this is safe for human consumption, but aren't willing to ban it outright either"). And the thing is, that's what presumably any product that intentionally contains no GMO truly wants to advertise, so they should go ahead and advertise it. It's their right. I haven't seen a lot of these labels. There is "organic" which guarantees no GMO, but it also comes with some extra requirements you may not wish to impose, like limitations on pesticides and fertilizers.

It's kind of like biased reporting. It is possible to report a sequence of things that everybody agrees are facts, in such a way as to suggest something that is non-factual. That's what bias is.

Yes, I saw and do not dispute that definition. You seem to be disputing that you are implying causality, even though definition 1 is because.

Clear communication is not achieved by being able to provide a golden path through various dictionary definitions that aren't strictly wrong. It's by saying things such that they can be understood as easily as possible, without losing the message.

If you can't understand the objections people are raising in this thread, then I very strongly recommend that you avoid the phrase "in light of" entirely. It doesn't matter whether you believe you are using it correctly, because it's not working and we don't seem to be able to communicate to you why it's not working.

One last effort:

If something has two definitions, and the one you want is *not* the primary definition, you should avoid using it in a sentence where the primary definition fits grammatically.

This is how people use "in light of" for "because":

"In light of this new evidence, the police no longer suspect Bob of the Museum Caper."

And this is how people use "in light of" for "in consideration of".

"When you are selecting what university program to apply to, consider them in light of your personal interest in the field, and not just expected salary at graduation"

Yours was in a form like the "because" case, so it's confusing.

Citations where people recommend using "because" as a go-to replacement:

http://english.stackexchange.c...
http://www.4syllables.com.au/r...
http://web.uvic.ca/~gkblank/wo...

Yes, the stack exchange guy did say considering. Considering itself means because in some cases, usually when it's the first word of a sentence. But not that last sentence I used.

No, it is, because it's what you implied. Things you imply are by definition unsaid.

Here: http://idioms.thefreedictionar...

First clause of the first definition:

"because of certain knowledge now in hand; "

The use of "because" in this definition clearly conveys the causal link.

Everybody here is using accepted vocabulary, but not everybody is agreeing on what it means. I believe you are in the minority on this issue, both today and historically speaking.

This claim appears to fly in the face of every statistic, which shows the wealthier the nation (in other words, the less scarcity there is), the lower the birthrate, to considerably less than 1.5 children per person.

First of all, it's not clear to me that robbing a store with an unloaded pistol is necessarily less dangerous. Are there statistics on that?

But for the sake of argument, I'll assume it is. In that case, it's not irrelevant that what this guy did is more dangerous, but that's not a sole determining factor either.

The five main points of criminal justice: rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence, retribution, restitution.

If we believe that teenagers are unlikely to ever again swat somebody after a month in jail (which I personally consider extremely likely), then that satisfies incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Restitution can never be fully satisfied because you can't truly un-SWAT somebody. It's only retribution that's left, and I reject that as a reason for high sentences.

So the question is, even if this is more dangerous, is it also easier to fix the root problem?

Most government issued ID I've had (from two different governments) offer free replacements if the data is entered erroneously on their end, provided you inform them in a timely fashion after getting the ID.

No. No human being is without bias. But those who think they are without sin are dangerous because they throw stones with impunity.

I suspect that almost everybody believes they are a very good judge of character.

Real rape and false accusations of rape are both almost always a character misjudgement, because although both of them can happen to random strangers, they are more likely to happen to acquaintances.

I'm sorry, that's a "grandfatherly view"?

Birth rates collapsing aren't a bad thing. More people means we have more "human resources" but that our nonhuman resources have to be divided between more people. We can make arguments about what the optimal rate is, but the optimal population is clearly not infinity humans.

Also, birth rates have nothing to do with false rape accusations, and only a very dark correlation to actual rapes.

...what?

I really don't know where all this marxism bullshit is coming from. I do understand why you're bringing up MRAs, even though they weren't in this thread before, but then you bring up Marxists, birth rates, and your superhuman (though not unique) ability to smell evil.

For the record, I agree that the fundamental principles of justice demand innocent-until-proven-guilty in criminal matters, and prosecuting false accusations. Every false accusation of rape is both an assault on the accused -- an attempt to kidnap them and lock them in a cage for years -- and a huge slap in the face of actual rape victims, both ones that got convictions, ones that tried and failed, and ones that went unreported, because it reinforces, legitimately, the notion that their accusation may also be fake.

However, I have seen no significant evidence presented that there's any particular rash of false rape accusations that is getting "out of hand". I'm open to it but I haven't seen it.

8% aren't false, they are false *or unfounded*. Unfounded is very different from false. The first lines of the wikipedia article point out that it's hard to get statistics because of the difference between false and unfounded.

Also, 8% of accusations can be rare, depending on how many accusations there are in a year.

Why would you assume no damage when the article is linked and describes damages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, as well as his purchases using stolen credit cards?