What if it's a good product? I don't mean "good" as in "high quality" here, but as in "worthwhile", "makes the world a better place", that kind of thing?
I mean, if an evil company (presupposing Monsanto is/was evil, I guess that Agent Orange thing would be an example, though they were one of many, probably thought they were saving lives by shortening the war, and is that division still part of Monsanto?) suddenly decides it's going to save orphans, cure cancer, and solve (or at least do something to help solve) world hunger, do we really say "Nah, you suck", or "Yes, keep doing that, maybe concentrate on that kind of thing, and less on the Eating Puppies and Using Laser Weapons to Threaten The UN Building, type stuff".
In this case, no, Monsanto isn't saving orphans or curing cancer... but it is doing something significant on the road to helping end world hunger.
That's... good, right?
I'm struggling to figure out how Monsanto can create a dependency upon something that's self-replicating and for which any legal restrictions they try to impose can only last 20 years. Also how "20 years" constitutes an "indefinite monopoly".
Round-up doesn't have patent protection any more. And Round-up ready seeds won't have for much longer.
Not a bit of this is true. Monsanto has only ever sued one farmer, in a specially designed test case where the farmer essentially went out of their way to be sued (as in they contacted Monsanto), and where the farmer had made a few elementary errors like having signed an agreement with Monsanto in the past. Plus he bought the seeds (from a grain elevator) with the intention of using them as GM crops (that is, planting them, then spraying the crop with Roundup to kill weeds.)
You guys are intent on inventing an insane conspiracy around them, when what they're doing is actually pretty good: make it easier for farmers to grow food, and ultimately food prices will fall. Cheap. Food.
That's something the world has always wanted. We humans have never really dug that whole "starvation" and "famine" thing. Those, in fact, are widely thought of as bad things we should do our best to avoid.
If Monsanto is making it cheaper to grow food and increasing yields in the process, then good for them.
Shouldn't the rule for a retailer wanting to use drones to deliver packages be exactly the same as a private user who sends his or her drone out to pick up and retrieve a package?
This feels like a description of a war between Al Qaeda and ISIL.
A company with no regard to the law wades into territory infested with other groups who similarly don't give a rat's behind about the law. It's not even popcorn worthy...
I believe these refer to cooling towers used for air conditioning, from context. These are more efficient versions (if I understand it correctly) of the compressor (the box that's usually outside as part of a normal two unit home air conditioning system), that use water evaporation to cool the system.
Yes, all libertarians I know love lawsuits, and truly believe this country would be better off with fewer clearly defined rules, and more lawsuits.
Hold on, my sarcasm meter just broke down.
Sometimes that's a good thing though. It took decades for the *ix community to realize that, actually, yes, email, rules applying to email, address books (both local and LDAP), and calendars go together, and many are still trying to figure out SSO, largely because the latter isn't as relevant to home networks as, say, email.
The problem isn't integration, it's bad integration. Netscape really screwed everyone over by making Communicator some all-in-one master-of-nothing PoC in the 1990s, creating unnecessary bloatware that influenced a generation of geeks to fear attempts to integrate.
Exchange Server is something I reluctantly admit Microsoft got completely 100% right.
I'm guessing that's the reason then, Amazon doesn't want to give Apple a cut if someone browses their library via an app and decides to buy the video there, rather than use the website to buy it and then switch to the Apple TV for actual watching.
I'd say both side's positions are wholly understandable under the circumstances.
I think the main reason these things fail is because people, upon getting the 3D devices, realize that they're not actually what was wanted in the first place.
What people think about when they hear "VR" is The Matrix (or something similar.) They kinda sorta recognize that a headset or 3DTV isn't going to give you that, but they go with it anyway and get excited because they think it might be a decent compromise between what can be done, and what's wanted.
And then you find out that if "normal", flat, technology is 231 millionths of the way towards VR, that actually 3D goggles (or whatever) is only 237 millionths of the way towards VR. And it's clunky, and makes your eyes bleed.
So they go back to the 2D devices, and we forget about 3D for another 20 years.
We can found no scientific discipline, nor a healthy profession on the technical mistakes of the Department of Defense and IBM. -- Edsger Dijkstra