Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: nature and consumers (Score 1) 358

by elgo (#44410179) Attached to: GMO Oranges? Altering a Fruit's DNA To Save It
If the judge will so easily see that GMOs are OK, then shouldn't the smaller mom-and-pop company have an easier time getting clearance for their GMO product in the first place? Oh wait, they have nasty laws and regulations to contend with... I don't know, my friend. You really seemed to tie yourself in knots with this little parable, without arriving at a point of any consequence. I know you're not an industry shill because you wouldn't last more than a day. I don't see the harm in GMO products being labelled, so consumers can make an informed choice. If GMOs are a-OK, why did companies like Monsanto campaign against GMO labeling in California? The argument that genetically modifying organisms is the same exact thing as selective breeding is flat-out wrong, and only serves to underscore a near-complete lack of comprehension about the issue. Looking over this thead, there are surprisingly few misinformed militant anti-GMOers, and a disheartening amount of pro-GMO shills using strawman arguments. I suppose that's what money buys you these days... that, and triticale with octopus genes.

Comment: Re:Furor about the conservation... not the co-opt (Score 2) 265

by elgo (#39185541) Attached to: Advertisers Co-Opting <em>The Lorax</em> With Half-Truths About Conservation
OK, you are right on the money. It is still worth pointing out that this abomination of a movie is not even trying to pretend to be environmentally aware in its associated marketing deals. Floor wax, etc. might be equallu environmentally unfriendly, but as you said, the shilling for an SUV gets the liberal "target audience" mad. There's nothing wrong with that, though. Advertisers and movie studios have become increasingly brazen, not even pretending to respect the ideas behind the intellectual properties they exploit. It is worthwhile to send them a message by posting about it on ./ (?)

Comment: Spin/damage control... (Score 5, Interesting) 125

by elgo (#39153183) Attached to: Facebook Has 25 People Dedicated To Handling Gov't Info Requests
So Facebook provides all the necessary info for Law Enforcement, but doesn't engage in detailed logging, probably because it is too expensive and as the gentleman said, it doesn't yet fit in with FB's business model. Still, they provide peoples' names, emails, and IP addresses for Law Enforcement, so really they cooperate with the fuzz as much as is needed. Nice damage control, making themselves out to be standing up to Big Brother. Then again, IDNRTFA, and with the way sunmaries have been lately, this could be an article about My Little Pony, for all I know...

Comment: Re:I'm all for it (Score 1) 184

by elgo (#39116327) Attached to: Eternal Copyright: a Modest Proposal
What I am saying is that if an artist or business falls on hard times - which happens quite often - their only means of income could be taken away from them. Clearly, paying exorbitant fees does not allow for a level playing field; it will never cause problems for large corporations, but could easily cause problems for smaller ones and individuals. I am not even in favor of copyright as it stands, but I think the rules should be the same for everyone, regardless of income. Perhaps one way to do this would be to have a sliding scale incorporated with your idea - the fee for renewal could be a percentage of the copyright holder's income.

Comment: Re:Much of the world has "illegal speech" (Score 4, Interesting) 915

by elgo (#39007233) Attached to: Journalist Arrested By Interpol For Tweet
GP may be disingenuously trying to square the circle by turning this story around on left-wingers, but you are wrong: one does not have to be ignorant to see that left-wingers restrict speech all the time. I am very left-wing and I am disgusted by the fact that left wingers try and succeed at restricting speech in the U.S. and abroad. To me, it flies in the face of what progressivism should be about. What you are missing is that both left and right wing restrict speech in America, Saudi Arabia, Holland, etc. It is a phenomenon that occurs, regardless of ideology, when people get to a point where they see themselves as the sole judges of what is good and righteous, whether they are Mullahs or elected officials in a socialist country. Maybe given enough power, you could get frustrated enough to restrict GP's right to blame things on left wingers, or I could restrict your right to make gross generalizations about right wingers. In the US, the left wing often tries to suppress speech through social means like shaming people and protesting un-P.C. speech. They try to tell people which words they can and cannot say. Worse, as mentioned above, many progressive European countries without our history of codified "free speech" have actual laws against denying the Holocaust. Incidentally, if I were an adolescent growing up in Germany, the fact that it is illegal to deny the Holocaust - which is on its face a crazy opinion to have - would make me think that paradoxically there might be some truth to Holocaust denial. After all, why are they trying to stop discussion about it? In America, we let idiots like Fred Phelps and company spew all the hatred they want, without fear of official reprisal. It makes it easier to keep tabs on them and to know what we are dealing with. In countries like Germany, forbidding people to speak openly about their history has arguably aided the resurgence of neo-naziism. Moreover, restricting hate speech makes it harder to keep track of these hate groups and to know what their true goals are. The smarter/saner ones don't dare deny the Holocaust in public. Many of the most powerful neo Nazis are polite businessmen in suits and ties, hiding in plain sight like an antisemetic Gustavo Fring.

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Working...