And you'd fly backwards at a rather impressive rate, too.

Damn you, Newton!

Live without food for a month. Good luck.

And what hypocrisy? That things should be labeled? That labeling a negative quantity isn't as useful as labeling a positive one? Perhpas your using a nonstandard definition of hypocrisy. Perhaps you should share it.

So restricting information is a good thing? Is this only true in food labeling, or should we restrict all information that would allow consumers to make choices (intelligent or not)?

Or, you know, I could have been mistaken? Oh no, there must be malice, really? Your view of humanity must be a bit depressing.

I'm not going to apologize, since you accuse me of lying. I was wrong, I got it confused for the movement to supress labeling things as having GMO, as opposed to the opposite. Actually, rereading my post, I wasn't wrong. We're not allowed to have a label saying "this product contains GMO ingredients".

Food should have comprehensive labels. Instead of allowing companies to say that they don't use certain practices, companies that do should be forced to label their products. It is food, which, last I checked, is pretty much the most important thing in the world. I still get mad every time I buy milk from BGH free cows, and have to read the ridiculous disclaimer put on their just to protect certain large diary groups.

Did I ever say that they didn't commit felonies, or were convicted of them?

I just see no evidence whatsoever that they "ruined" people's lives, innocent or not. Obviously this doesn't make them good guys. I am not defending Microsoft. Hell, they are STILL doing things I find morally dubious, and quite possibly illegal. This hasn't ruined my life though. Inconvenienced, yes, Ruined, no.

As for farms (where the hell did that come from?), perhaps it did, perhaps not. Small businesses in general have been dying, and not only because subsidies. Money concentrates. This happens in every industry, someone gets an edge, gets rich, and buys everyone else, and then gets richer. This happened in the 1920-30s as well, without any help from the government.

Yes. Which I find bizarre. I don't actually think that transgenic GMO is bad for you, mind, it might be in the long term, but I doubt it. I'm more concerned with actually allowing consumer choice. If people don't want it, that is fine, even if it is potentially stupid and misguided.

My only actually concern with GMO is enviromental, and ecological. We already see weeds and pests developing resistance, and further there is proof that GMO plants can cross pollinate with wild varieties. Between these two, I see possible scenarios that are somewhat like our over use of antibiotics in medicine. In the long term, we might just developing better weeds and pests.

Yeah sure, MS does bad things. But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really compare to the things Bill Gates is actually throwing money at. I'd much rather the money go to bigger problems than just crushing a silly software company.

Also... whose life has been ruined by Microsoft? This smells like hyperbole. Yes, they have some rather nasty business practices, but saying that someone life has been actually "ruined" is a bit much. I wasn't aware that Balmer had death squads.

Perspective. Nerds don't have it.

I live in AZ. I HATE things that try to be smart with DST. For awhile, I had to throw out atomic clock syncing alarm clocks yearly, the second that everything decided I should magically wake up an hour late or early because the rest of the US decided on a stupid time system that makes no sense.

That said, I love my phone. Its smart enough to track time, but also smart enough not to make default assumptions.

And if they aren't worth my money... I don't care. I don't need your content. Mostly I don't care about it, it is a distraction, nothing more. Perhaps a pleasurable one, but no more pleasurable than my hobbies, books, or friends. Something will fill the gap, we lived for hundred of thousands of years without your blog, and we can live a couple hundred thousand more without it again.

  Adapt or die. And the second you try to exploit me, is the second where I shop giving a shit about exploiting you.

I will ad block, and if they die ask me for actual money. If I don't pay, it tells you what I think your worth. There is no right to profit.

Further, you almost run into the RIAA fallacy. If no one paid, people would still make content. People always make content, it is what we do. I post reams of shit online (art, text, etc...) and will never get paid a cent for it. So do millions of other people. Sure, the volume will go down, but whose to say that the shit/quality ratio won't improve?

Adblock. I love it. If illegal, I'll still use it.

That said, your cheap way of trying to be an authority via implied ad hominem is rather silly. I am intelligent, and I fucking hate ads. I think ads are pretty much absolute scum, and rather insulting (as a person of real intelligence I don't think anyone could find them otherwise).

But then again, you have a small point, since thanks to ads I no longer watch TV, or go to sports. The few magazines I read are completely ad free (they cost more, but who cares?). Sadly, I have "real intelligence" when a large enough to be profitable portion of the words population don't. Sadly these are only the ads I can avoid, sometimes I wish people would go Edward Abbey on billboards, and destroy them all. I have no choice about them, and receive no benefit from them.

As for internet ads, I don't give a shit. I'm not here to make you money. And if you can't produce content worth my time or money, then you deserve to die. No loss to me, I've got books, hobbies, and friends. I'm only looking out for me, which any rational person would do. If your service can't service, then surely it didn't deserve to. Not my problem.

Reading comprehension fail?

I'm not agreeing with the OP. I think he is pretty much totally wrong. But, the internet, video games, and cable TV are mostly ubiquitous in the developed world, while the obesity epidemic isn't. This sort of points to it not being an actual problem. Its like the video games and gun violence debate, which completely ignores the fact that the US isn't the world.

I'm guessing it is a more complex and deeper problem, but our stupid love of sugar is probably to blame. Not just HFCS, which may or not be bad (haven't seen anything conclusive either way), but the fact that it is almost impossible to buy food that isn't overly sweet or sweetened anymore. As a person without a sweet tooth, this makes shopping hell.

Further the quality of our food has declined. When was the last time you had a good tomato; one that isn't pasty, sweet, bland, and completely lacking in acidity? Or sweet corn? It was never sugar sweet, but now it is. They used to be my favorite produce, but now I can't eat them. Hell, buying meat is a PitA now, since all of our birds have gotten flabby, while all of our pork has so little fat that it is almost impossible to cook. Unless your willing to pay out the ass, our food sucks.

Well, I also have friends who eat a meal a day at fast food restaurants, and very few of my friends in my age group (early to mid-30s) can actually cook. Not cooking (i.e. being aware of ingredients), and eating shit, are probably our number one cause of obesity. That and we all sit in offices, on our asses, all day. Hell, I try to eat well, and exercise, and the only reason I'm not obese is because my metabolism is better than most. And even so, I went from 6'4" and 160-70 pounds, to 200 once I hit 30, which is a bit high.

Hyperbole much?

In the scale of real world evil, Microsoft doesn't even rank. We have famine, disease, and genocide... and Microsoft?

Who really cares? Sure, they do crappy things, but its just silly software? Does anyone actually give a shit, besides /.?

Because we're legally not allowed to know if we have GMO in our foods.... Because it helps consumer choice.

Ahem.

This would be funny, if when this was a story here awhile back, most people supporting limited choice as a means of increasing choice.

That might be it, I keep AA down a notch since it is the the feature with highest requirements for the smallest effect. I honestly can't tell the difference (in game) between all the new alphabet soup AAs and the bog-standard AA. I've come to the conclusion that they are largely a marketing thing. Though most of the time I can use whatever FXAA DMAA PPAA WTFBBQAA they have. And generally autodetect throws me into max, at least for the games I play. Perhaps I've saved as well because I don't just do "max", I turn off things that I find annoying (Bloom. Oh lord. And in some games post processing, since I hate glowing textures, GW2 is the worst with this).

But I figure, at max settings, with 6x AA, with bloom, or any other horrible lighting effects (not for performance, just because they are hideous), turned off, running at 30-40fps is just fine. Granted, I'm not a big FPS guy, or a competitive gamer, so FPS for me is just aesthetics. I don't care if it is above 30 in most games, and as long as it is around 60 in FPS I'm fine. Anything above 60 is a bit silly on a 60Hz monitor.

Using lines laid with public dollars, and protected with limited monopolies. Also, often building off research done at public universities, with government grant money.