Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: FUD (Score 0) 357

Every single Monsanto study (even the scientifically double-blind gold-standard ones) has used Monsanto supplied data and/or analysis. Not saying GMO and Monsanto are the same, but that's the state of the science. The best I found was one in Germany that only used a consultant and data from Monsanto, without describing the consultant's role, showing reasonable data that a specific pesticide wasn't a serious carcinogen.

Linking to a news site about patent expiry has no bearing on the matter. The studies aren't in, so there are reasonable grounds and Monsanto has plenty of other patents. Show me new data that isn't from partnered with a GMO producer (whoever that may be)

Comment Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score 1) 261

> Exactly. I've held a Secret clearance for 38 years, and the rules covering this sort of thing are very clear. The penalties include a huge fine and very serious federal prison time.

> You are lying, clueless, or an idiot.

You are clearly projecting.

The entire 2 sentences he posted were succinct, accurate, and reasonable. You throw around generalities and vitrol as if you're making some kind of point beyond "I'm a frothing nutjob". How is this kind of mental vomit modded up?

Comment Re:SIgh (Score 3) 490

> This basically puts control of an entire nation directly into the hands of whomever can hack the results of the voting system

Just like it is now? Except it's easier when there's fewer elections. This concern is not limited to this continuous voting ideal. The question of "should policy be shaped by public mass opinion" is the important one.

Comment Chilling? More like "obvious" (Score 5, Insightful) 166

> The Strategic Air Command study includes chilling details

This faux pearl-clutching is a joke or just the side effect of ignorance. Every country's targets have included high-population areas that include infrastructure and manufacturing, as described. Why would this be chilling? It's pragmatic.

Comment Re:Background (Score 1) 313

> typical politicians who rely on campaign donors.
> But Mr. Trump has become one of those politicians.

He doesn't NEED to use the money but is taking the financially responsible route (as anyone would) with no reason to pander to an audience. He has not become a politician who relies on campaign donors. No need to lie to portray him as a liar.

This doesn't preclude him making backroom deals for other campaign purposes... He is a clever businessman.

Comment Re:To higher ground? (Score 1) 289

> Why does your lifestyle matter more than the entire world?

Where did that question come from? Because it wasn't this discussion.

> If you really are as selfish and arrogant as you appear then perhaps you wouldn't notice the hypocrisy

  "I don't think temperatures and sea levels respond to that kind of equivocation." was simply astute. I think this is where you went off the deep end.

> the world wouldn't care if the people Kiribati lived or died

It doesn't. People have lived and died for millenia. The world would be a better place if you didn't exist. It would save us from your inane victim mentality.

Slashdot Top Deals

My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.