Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:"to this very day..." (Score 1) 124 124

He invented something so he got a 18-year country-wide monopoly on the idea. What's the problem?

He invented a place on your computer desktop that you can click with a mouse and it will open a menu.

Genius, I tell you. Who would have ever thought something like that was possible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Comment Re:Biohacking? (Score 1) 60 60

But they didn't win, did they? If they didn't win, it's irrelevant.

So, you think it's "irrelevant" that this sacred GMO industry that you worship sued to block other companies from labeling their food as "GMO free"? You are truly a zealot. It wasn't about them trying to "prevent FUD". It was about them trying to block the free speech of people who don't use their products. And this is the industry to which you're willing to hand over the keys to our food supply?

I still don't see you providing any shred of evidence that there are proven human health concerns for GMOs.

For me, this is not about health concerns. If I was concerned about the food I eat, I wouldn't have had that burrito from the food cart lady with the prison tattoos this afternoon.

This is entirely political. It's a pro-consumer issue for me. The consumers are paying the bill for GMOs, so if they want, they should get to know what they're paying for. I'm not asking for a law to be passed, I'm asking for food companies to start labeling their products truthfully. And to stop with using lobbyists to influence the government to pass laws to keep consumers from knowing what they're buying. And consumers should continue to run from GMO products until the industry is willing to label their products with this one truthful fact.

And I want transparency in the patenting of basic foodstuffs, because that matters to me, and I'm the one paying the bill.

Comment Re:Biohacking? (Score 1) 60 60

If the customers "don't" get what they want, then buy the (likely overpriced) stuff labelled "GMO free"

I bet you didn't know that the GMO industry sued to prevent people from labeling their food "GMO free".

Face it, they just don't want you to know what you're buying.

Nutritional information and list of ingredients are *government mandated*.

But the kosher and halal designations are not. Nor is the word "delicious" in big letters or any of the other words on the label. When I walk into the grocery, why doesn't the sign above the corn say, "Roundup Corn 3 for $1"? If the wondrous, miraculous benefits of GMO foods really exist, why doesn't the GMO industry advertise that fact to the consumers?

And if you say "They can't, because there's so much FUD", then you should know that the only proper commercial response to FUD is exercising your freedom of speech to market your products in a positive manner. The answer to bad speech is more good speech, not doing everything you can to obfuscate what is a truthful statement: "This food is made from genetically modified organisms". I would also request that the patent be clearly marked on the label. I want to know if the basic foodstuffs I buy are patented. Or is that also information I should not be allowed to have?

Comment Re:Dubious assumptions are dubious (Score 1) 226 226

Turning off lights in cities isn't going to help astronomers much.

Actually, no. City glow is a huge impediment to astronomy for an area hundreds of times the size of the city.

There's a middle ground here. Lighting can be designed so it primarily lights the ground, instead of going every which way. Goes a long way towards reducing problems optical telescope use faces.

Comment Re:Biohacking? (Score 1) 60 60

Labelling them is arguably a "warning".

And arguably, it's truth in advertising.

There are labels of all sorts on food. There's a little "K" in a circle that means kosher and there's a symbol for Halal and there's labels that say "Grown in California" and "fresh" and "delicious". Those are not warnings.

There is nutritional information, there's a list of ingredients. If consumers want it, why not a simple little symbol that shows the food was grown from GM organisms?

Remember, it's the consumers that are paying for all the GMO research, for all the products, for all the salaries of all the scientists, for all the marketing and for the lobbyists trying to get the federal government to pass industry-friendly laws.

When an industry tries to get laws passed which are meant to make sure customers DON'T get what they want, it raises red flags.

Comment Re:Misleading headline (Score 1) 1144 1144

Generally speaking, self-defense is specifically listed as a valid reason in laws pertaining to negligent or reckless discharge of firearms. But you'd need to prove that you specifically fired in self-defense, and show that the direction of the shot etc was conductive to that claim. Following Joe Biden's suggestion and discharging a shotgun in the air to scare off the intruder would likely get you charged, for example.

Comment Re:quickly to be followed by self-driving cars (Score 1) 749 749

Don't worry, the automakers are taking care of that problem by... tracking you every where you go and when you do so, so they can sell it to marketers.

If you thought "owning" a car somehow got you out of the ubiquitous tracking and data collection that is coming to define this century, you're a fool.

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A giant panda bear is really a member of the racoon family.

Working...