Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re: This legislation brought to you by.. (Score 1) 446


Of course it isn't since there are no known safety concerns of GMOs. It's about fear mongering and irrational people that don't understand scary words like "GENETIC".

What's "deficient" is knowledge of which products are using a technology that people object to on, for example, the grounds that Monsanto's use of patented GMO crops are polluting neighbor small farmers who are then inadvertently find themselves in trouble for patent infringement.

Not all GMO crops are patented under abusive corporations and not all GMO crops can cross-pollinate. Unless we label all products that come from unethical corporations, no reason to start here. If we do start here, we should label them "Unethical corporation food", not "GMO"

Another reason is people don't like new technologies forced on them whether they like it or not.

Do we give them that choice for other technologies? Of course not! If some crops are grown with a new type of fertilizer or processed in a different way, that's not indicated in any way, should we label food with "Harvested with Mark-12 combine harvester" as well? What about just a generic "Brought to you by new technology" rather than just the specific case for GMO

They know if they label GMOs some people won't buy them because of it.

This is exactly the reason why we shouldn't have mandatory labeling - people won't buy products they see have scary "GMO" on them, but they aren't doing that for any reason.
Now if food manufacturers want to label their foods as "GMO-free" or "Asbestos-free" or even "GMO", they should be free to do so, but we shouldn't be passing laws requiring food that comes from a different process be labeled because some people don't like scary words.

Comment Re:what is interesting is not that it won (Score 1) 591

You don't seriously think the meaning of the law was changed, do you? Have you been paying attention to any of this health care debate or how the system was rolled out? If the SCOTUS changed the meaning by deciding it should be a broken law, that would be a bad joke and they should be ashamed.

Comment Re: what is interesting is not that it won (Score 1) 591

Yes, there is a mistake in the writing of the law. The intent of it however is clear, do you think the people who voted it in or the president who signed it thought that the subsidies were only suppose to be for the state exchanges, not the federal ones? Obviously not as we can see from how it has been implemented. The courts are suppose to read a little deeper than just 4 words and in this case they did that (well most of them).

Comment Re:Could you tell a difference at distance? (Score 1) 535

The only thing people who carry are afraid of is being in the wrong place at the wrong time and having to watch their loved ones die because they didn't have the means to at least try to defend them or get them to safety.

The world must be a scary place for them!

The good thing about first aid and insurance are that they help make realistic issues better. I don't keep a surgical table or have volcano insurance because those aren't issues I will realistically have to deal with, and if they are then there are others better equipped to handle them

Variables don't; constants aren't.