You have this backwards. If companies are going to introduce new products into our food supply, the burden of proof should be on them to prove that there aren't any negative health consequences.
Is it harder to show proof of absence? You bet your ass. And given the ramifications involved, it should be.
Look, I'm not an anti-gmo crusader. I think it has a lot of promise to more efficiently feed a growing world. But, like any technology, it can be used both responsibly and irresponsibly, and the private sector doesn't have a great track record of putting public health ahead of profits.
Interesting read, but imo he missed the mark by not including a size chart for a frame of reference.
Because a picture is worth 1000 words. Or in this case, more.
Most business owners may have issue with you claiming IP for things built on company time. Even if you build something in your off hours, it may be difficult to prove you didn't use company resources.
Make sure that if you have an agreement with your employer that you have something signed by a senior executive or the owner.
Seriously, if you want a real experience then turn off the PC, go outside and DO IT.
Ah, the "it's not everything so it's nothing" attack. If you happen to live in the upper northeast, I could see this being a helpful part of one's winter-exercise regimen. Or inner cities. Or anywhere where easily - accessible mountain bike trails aren't accessible.
And the truth is, for many of us, something like a MTB trip to Moab would be really cool, but it's not quite high enough against competing options. It'd be awesome to experience some of that scenery.
Lastly, for anyone naysaying the technology... give it time. VR is in its infancy, and in some not too distant future, it will be indistinguishable from the real thing.
A.G. Riddle wrote a pretty good story based on a similar premise - gene-affecting viruses that modify our intellectual capabilities.
Most CEO's and Executive Level types are sociopaths.
Perhaps not "Most CEO's", but the position tends to attract them: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ke...
First and foremost, I want my kids to learn from playing games in addition to being entertained. And there's something to be said about the visual simplicity of older (classic) games encouraging imagination, just like books stimulate the brain more than TV and Movies. You could probably make an argument that the eye candy in today's game is distracting from the puzzle-solving aspects. Then again, newer games potentially have better puzzles... I don't recall much of a physics engine in my Atari 2600.
Fortunately, we don't have to make an either/or choice. But if I did, I would probably start with classic games.
Oh yeah. Obligatory to add "Get off my lawn".
"The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray." -- Robert G. Ingersoll