Comment Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score 1) 320
No, "contains chemicals" doesn't tell me what's in the food.
And now you see why "contains gmo" is a bad label.
No, "contains chemicals" doesn't tell me what's in the food.
And now you see why "contains gmo" is a bad label.
You know, that pesky fact that evolution maintains balance because ALL creatures are evolving. GMO foods do not.
And creatures are still evolving. We've seen new pests that are immune to the roundup crops.
Given the right mutations plants could also naturally contain "Fungus, Insect, and Animal DNA" (though that's like saying my smartphone shares code with my computer because they both support an API).
No, labeling GE foods is like labeling evolution teaching textbooks with the name of the author, name of the publisher and copyright date.
And calling them something that sounds scary to the ignorant, while at the same time leaving out other information that could be relevant. In food, it may be useful to know what pesticides are used or even what species a plant is. Have you ever seen corn labeled any more specifically than "Corn"? There are lots of varieties of corn (GMO and not) that are out there with different nutritional attributes, but we don't label that.
a = a * 2
Now, getting past the substitute of * for X as an indicator of a multiplication operation, most CS-types will interpret this as a command to double the value of a while a math-type would instead view this as a statement of fact (within the scope of the problem) and infer from this (probably without even thinking about it) that a is zero because no other value satisfies the formula.
Now I wouldn't identify as a "math-type", but I'm pretty sure we could infer a = 1 as an alternative to a = 0
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn