Comment Re: What did you expect? (Score 3, Insightful) 197
Friends and family are surely tired of my tinfoil hat, they just do not seem to care about their privacy. Many say the "I have nothing to hide" line.
It's "anti-science" to be opposed to the application of intellectual property laws to basic foodstuffs? It's "anti-science" to be opposed to putting ownership of that IP in the hands of companies like Monsanto?
Is it "pro-science" to want to keep the provenance of consumers' food a secret?
The problem with you pro-GMO people is that for some reason, you appear desperate to promote something for which there is no benefit to consumers and that may cause serious harm to the economics and politics of our food supply.
PCs have 2 major remaining market niches:
1) Enterprise(/educational) workstations (Like, for doing WORK on.)
2) PC Gaming)
What does it say about us that we now consider "doing work" to be a niche?
But I'd argue that elections in the US are designed to give people no real choice.
It's kind of the same thing. People don't vote because they can see through the charade and figure they have more important things to do, like sort their sock drawers alphabetically according to color.
that magical wall is sometimes called a paywall
And corporations are paying the bills. Just look at the names on the fancy new buildings in every Ag department at every major university.
Please explain how universities churn out paper after paper after paper sounding the alarm on climate change in the face of the multi-trillion dollar oil/gas industry that lobbies hard against said research,
Why do you think climate change became so "controversial"? It's because it wasn't supposed to happen. That's why you have enormous butthurt on the part of the oligarchs. They just can't believe that all these scientists went off the reservation.
You know the pro-GMO people must be right, because there arguments always include copious insults. That's the sure sign of a winning argument.
As far as bitcoin being nonsense, the New York Stock Exchange and a large bank just invested in a bitcoin company:
"The New York Stock Exchange and a large bank..."
They'd invest in tulip bulbs is there were sufficient suckers. Which in the case of Bitcoin, there most certainly are.
Good luck with your GaltBucks, boyo.
Not all of us are idiots.
If you have to say that, it's probably not true.
Or my electricity is part of my rent, or people in the military who live in base housing, or I can come up with 10 other examples
This may come as a shock to you, but if your electricity is part of your rent, you are still paying for your electricity.
No matter where you live, somebody is paying for your electricity. There is no free lunch (unless Mom and Dad are paying for the electricity, in which case, have at it because your John Galt Bucks are totally going to revolutionize the world economy).
Is there some fundamental property of Bitcoin that makes proponents silly?:
So what you are telling us is that the system is so rigged that in Oregon that it is able to suppress 40% of the population from voting for the labeling initiatives?
No. I'm saying the political system you find in the United States is designed to minimize participation by the public.
I'm curious, do you happen to know what the voter turnout was for that Oregon initiative? Let's say it was 1/2 of all registered voters. Since the election came down to a few hundred votes, that means 25% made policy for the state. This is by design. Even in blue states, universal suffrage is frowned upon.
Evolution is just a theory. I demand it be labeled on textbooks.
Um, it is labeled in textbooks. It's called the "theory of evolution".
A study once found a link between vaccines and autism. I demand that parents be informed prior to vaccinating their kids.
But a study is not a fact. If a food contains GMO product, it is an undeniable fact that the food contains GMO product. The study showing the link between autism and vaccines has been disproved, but you cannot make a food that contains GMOs not contain GMOs
Thing is, a fact taken out of context and presented to those without the basic background information is deceptive.
In that case, it is incumbent upon the person selling the product to provide that "basic background information" rather than simply hide the fact. No?
The food/chemical industry? This "survey" was done by a University.
It's funny that you think that makes a difference in the US. That you are so naive as to believe there is some magical invisible wall between corporations and the "research" they fund.
I haven't been keeping close watch, but I believe that every time a GMO labeling referendum has been put on the ballot, it has failed to pass.
Because elections in the US are designed to prevent people from voting.
A majority of voters in Oregon just voted down a GMO labelling law.
Now I bet if you thought about it, you could figure out why that statement is not true.
If it can only be used to discriminate in a particularly stupid way, then perhaps it should.
You understand that consumers get to discriminate regarding the products they buy, and for whatever reason they want.
If someone doesn't care for Apple laptops, but Apple laptops are better, should they not be able to "discriminate" between Apple and non-Apple products? Since I don't like green socks, should I not be allowed to see the color of the socks I'm buying because I might "discriminate" against green socks, even though they perform exactly the same function as blue socks?
Nobody, not even the most ardent supporter of GMO foods, can claim that the GMO plants are bio-identical to the non-GMO plants, because if that was the case, how the fuck can they be covered by intellectual property laws?
And who the fuck gets to decide what information a consumer may have and what they may not? You? Monsanto?
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.