And I support Cable!

The point is to use content labels to stimulate democratic change by hoping consumers become more concerned about words on a label with information they've been taught to pay attention to for health reasons. Now I do believe there are very legitimate social/environmental concerns over GM DNA, such as reduction in crop diversity, or unintended consequences. But there are no health concerns deriving specifically from the fact DNA was "modified" (could be bad, could be good, GMO is not health information). So "the point" is clear: to use labels to introduce non-health related message to consumners.

In my 20s I was involved in the "recycled/recyclable" label rules introduced in the 1980s and while I wasn't opposed to putting packaging content information, I saw it was rapidly politicized. "Metal has more recycled content", "glass is more recyclable", "plastic is source-reduced weight"... labels became "recyclable" or "recycled content", then "post-consumer recycled content". In Europe, composite material drink-boxes made a deal to pay-to-play, where the chasing raindrops label could simply reflect the packaging company "paying to support recycling". (That money led EU regulators to increase in number and power... a good thing when they know what they are talking about, an awful thing most other times).

There is a limited amount of "shelf space" on food package labels. Environmentalists are trying to repeat the "success" of recycled/recyclable. Many passionately believe in the social/environmental concerns, such as crop diversity, just as we believed in recycling. But perhaps labels should just be for health and nutrition information.

Most of the comments here assume people were ordering stuff on SkyMall for themselves. My assumption was always that, like holiday catalogues, the target audience was a gift shopper. Someone older who wants to order a nice gift for someone but can't think of anything their giftee actually needs or doesn't already have. Those shoppers have a lot more choices now.

That should eliminate the anti-vaccination applicants, without impinging on personal choice.

Yeah, but a single nuclear blast or two just sucks. It would take a LOT of nukes to destroy the world, and there are far fewer missiles now than when the Doomsday clock started. It seems extremely unlikely the Mideast would get into Mutually Assured Destruction.

They could at least reduce the hyperbole. It would be pretty hard to doom the Earth without going through several decades that just suck, first.

I haven't completed it, but maybe I should just to pollute the database. Is that a crime? I could say I'm tall, healthy, young Asian Latino woman? That would probably go too far, but at least this is data I can control better than the data the credit card companies dole out on my purchases. People are always thinking "invisibility" when nature prefers "camouflage".

We could just start an Olympics of Battlebots and invite every country to send its drones, duke it out in a stadium, with pre-arranged real estate ante. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

NO! NO NO! My biggest risk is websites which I don't care about trying to force me to use a very secure password. I use a word like "password" for example to access the Boston Globe online because a) I don't have anything to secure there, b) I don't care if someone learns my password and reads the Boston Globe, and most important c) I don't want an employee in Boston to have access to one of my more secure passwords. Unfortunately, sites like this force me to use "strong password rules" and then when I go back to it, when I have to guess my password, I may enter in an actual secure password which I actually use on an important secure site.

It seems like they can only lose if there is a big spike in claims, such as a natural disaster or possibly war/terrorism. And in those events, when a big spike in claims occurs, doesn't the government insure the insurance company with disaster relief?

The smaller "pinprick" losses are from individual fraud claims. You'd have to sign an insurance contract that gives Google investigation rights (just as you do a conventional insurance company) and what Google could do with those rights during a claim investigation could be a major advantage. And since I am not committing fraud, I would benefit from buying a policy from a company that is not the choice of fraudsters.

I watched until 5:50. 2 Most important things:

1) Chris Doohan is spooky (son of James Doohan, reprising his father as "Scotty")

2) Has a holodeck like ST Next Generation, but says "Where no MAN has gone before" in opening credits

Aside from that, it wasn't horrible, in fact they capture the 60's style so well that it's like a really good Vegas tribute act, an Elvis-Karaoke worth paying a compliment to.

Well, I don't know who to root for. I completely distrust the medical/cosmetic industry when it comes to selling solutions, especially for cosmetic issues (and this may be mostly health now, but don't kid yourself where it will be funded). On the other hand, the trolls who say it's all will power and fat is purely moral don't have much science behind them, and appear more motivated by "just world fallacy" reasoning (if a person is ill, and it isn't me, they more likely somehow deserve it). Both cost us money, over-prescription, and people who try to "believe-away" real health problems with high society costs.

As for the people who smugly think it's justice for affluent societies like USA, look at how obesity rates rise in nations which go from very poor to moderately poor. Africans, Asians, Latinos, and Europeans are not immune to unintended consequences. News Flash: As the threats of starvation subside, threats of overconsumption increase.