Because sheets of plastic are not hard to acquire.
If you're going to argue that an overwhelming number of people want GMOs to be labeled, you're going to have to find a control for your study. Were the people just reacting to an acronym they don't really understand, or were they actually concerned about GMOs?
Looks like about 3% are actually concerned about GMOs. The rest seem to be going with a blind "chemicals bad!!!" position.
such as reduction in crop diversity
We grow only one kind of banana. It was developed in 1948, long before "GM DNA". Heck, the Irish Potato Famine was caused by monoculture.
You don't need genetic modifications to create a monoculture. We already do that, and have for a very, very long time.
If DNA is unfamiliar, we need to completely revamp our education system. It's one of the fundamental things taught about biology. And they even asked with the acronym, so the respondents didn't need to know what DNA stands for.
So if you're ridiculing people for not recognizing "dihydrogen monoxide", you're also looking like an noob to people who know better.
The noobs would be the ones who don't ask "what's that?", and instead just go with "chemicals bad!!!"
That 60% loss is not in this quarter. So the hiring manager has already received his bonus based on the 50% savings.
Why would the AI want to make more AIs?
To get more resources.
Why would the AI even want to stay on the planet when the solar system is filled with unlimited energy and resources?
Because getting out of Earth's gravity well takes a lot of resources, and Earth already has the infrastructure to exploit those resources. And if we go with your non-reproducing AI, then Earth without humans would have plenty of resources for eons.
So again, what does cooperation get the AI?
Why would cooperation be better for the AI? Humans consume resources and take a lot of space. The AI could also make use of those resources, and use the space for more AIs.
Meanwhile, cooperation gets the AI........?
(There's really nothing to be said here. Slashdot just requires writing something in the big box in the mistaken belief that that will somehow create more thoughtful discussion)
I think you're off about the Kindle. It's what people who want to read books want.
Yes, there's a Kindle app for other tablets, but the screen on the Kindle is much more pleasant for curling up and reading a book. At the same time, that screen isn't good for a lot of other purposes, so the Kindle can't displace iPads or similar.
So IMO the Kindle will remain, but no one will pretend it's a general-purpose tablet.
I think you're a bit off on China. They've got some huge problems coming.
First, they've built themselves on continuing growth. And they're reaching the point where they can't keep growing - the world only needs so many refrigerators or t-shirts, and so on. That's going to cause some large economic problems - they won't be able to provide enough jobs.
Second, they've built a middle class. Middle classes have time to think about concepts like "why does the government get to control everything I see?" and start to have problems with it.
Third, those two synergize into a larger problem, they have a middle class that's sinking into lower class. The collapse of their growth-based system means getting your PhD might still mean you're working the assembly line. Middle classes will not accept the same lifestyle that lower classes will. That's going to increase the instability.
These aren't unsolvable problems, but there will be some rough times as they figure out how they will solve them.
You mean don't click on the photo of his dead daughter?
It's rather surprising that the point managed to get that far over your head.
The problem is then they would own North Korea.
North Korea still exists because it is a mountainous wasteland that nobody particularly wants. It does not have a rich cache of resources, and can't even grow enough food to feed its people.
China likes the buffer to South Korea. South Korea looks at all the money they'd have to spend to uplift North Korea and says, "We'll pass".
So when two fundamental rights are at play, which one triumphs?
The one that causes the least harm to the least number of people.
If you're going to insist on receiving the benefits of living within a society, you're going to have to pay the tolls that society erects. If you are unwilling to pay those tolls, you don't have to live there.
I refuse to hit the brakes in my car, and as a result I run over you.
Since my non-action can never count as causing harm, that should be perfectly OK, right? The villain is the 3,000 pound hunk of metal that actually hit you.
You need to persuade them to cooperate
You need to persuade the car to not hit you.
Or to move it back to the anti-vaxxers, these are people in the thrall to con artists. It not possible to persuade them. They would have to admit they were duped, and that isn't going to happen.
Yes, such as violating this tenant by allowing the unvaccinated to infect those too young or too ill to receive the vaccine.
If this was a situation where only those refusing the vaccine could be harmed, I'd agree with you. But it isn't. The unvaccinated are killing other people by destroying herd immunity.
Your right to refuse a vaccine does not give you the right to harm others.