> That's cute. You think that actual benefits of GMOs mean anything to the people listening to all the FUD that gets spread about them.

My main objection to GMOs is that they transfer rights from individuals to large corporations.

The "science" aspect is entirely a side show to distract from that.

Well, the pink slime scandal was all about chemicals used in processing that weren't disclosed despite the fact that they remained in the end product in sufficient quantities to make them smell rank.

There are other additives that are in American foods and are unlabeled while being banned in other countries. Some of these are also relevant to some portion of the population that are sensitive to them.

Some people can even smell the farm chemicals on produce if you concentrate them through juicing.

Again, you are using the hubris of science to try and treat it like a religion and to smear any skeptic.

GMO is not a "science". It's technology, and like any tech "it's how you use it". Professors I tend to trust. Chemical companies not so much.

Extreme transgenics also ups the ante a bit and puts us in uncharted territory because these things are NOT the same. If they really were, then Monsanto wouldn't have such a hard on for them. They wouldn't because it would give them no added legal benefits.

...except the variety of a particular type of plant matters.

The obvious one here is that it has different nutritional content.

Someone in another forum also brought up the issue of allergies. This really isn't rice anymore. It's a hybrid grain. It's really much more like tritcale and they do label for that.

That's just BS. I know pre-teens that have sense. We just have this pathological aversion to allowing people to be responsible for themselves and it doesn't stop at the age of majority.

It doesn't help that we actively discourage any development of practical life skills or experience. The fact that we always keep our children locked up at all times is part of that.

> But Social Media could. Why shouldn't we let it have a reset button just because life doesn't?

No it could not.

Once something is "out there" then it is out there forever. Even if you go out of your way to hunt it down and destroy it, there will still be hiding places available.

That's why it's absurd to even contemplate the "right to be forgotten". You can't these days.

It actually would be easier for society to adapt to the new reality versus trying to impose a technological solution.

Nope.

The summary mentioned no firearms offenses, just two catchall offenses for crimes that don't have their own category.

He was basically charged with "disturbing the peace".

That's part of the reason that we have civil courts and Tort law. Quite often the law won't adequately pursue wrongdoers. Then it's up to you to prosecute the perpetrator. Except that's a very expensive prospect. Most people don't have the resources to do this.

It's much more effective to just shoot hovering trespassers out of the sky. It will be interesting to see what a jury does with this.

40mm is the size of tube launched grenade that a soldier might have attached to an M-16.

> So if your dog wanders on my yard, I can shoot it.

        Of course you can. Uncontrolled dogs are dangerous. They even get plenty of media coverage. They kill small children and other dogs and sometimes are rabid.

>
> Making up stuff must be awesome. Skip the law school, bro. Just tell the judge how YOU think it works.

        That's no problem as long as you bother to educate yourself regarding what the local law is.

      Assuming that you have to assume the fetal position and re-attach yourself to the state umbilical cord is not the only option.

Unless he was charged with illegally discharging a firearm specifically, I would not buy into any other charge of reckless endangerment.

Pretty much.

This is why you knock, announce yourself, and declare your intentions.

Why should any non-peasant tolerate the invasion of their home?

I could see how something that hooks into a video device driver for hardware assisted decoding could bork the OS because at that point you've cross the user barrier. This just seems to be a problem of unraveling the wrapper format. Nothing about that should render the OS crash prone.

They need to be going out of their way to make this more of a problem than it should be. No modern OS should be crashing simply because one of it's apps ran amok. This isn't 1981.

Unix + media player should not be able to crash the OS unless they took extra special measures to make the OS vulnerable.

...ought not to be defined by the government against which it is wielded.