This should be modded up higher than 5 (or everything else should be knocked down to 4 or less). Best response in the thread. The only argument I can see for GMO labeling is that I'd buy it over any non-GMO alternative. I know that I'm the exception in this. Hopefully companies will hold out and not label. When the people in VT can't get the food they want they'll toss the labeling requirements out.

Your suggestion of a drone that could be used to "smash" into enemy aircraft has some issues. Such a drone would be like a missile, except much slower and with much longer range. While a missile will optimally hit a target aircraft, that's not required. Missiles will detonate in close proximity to a target, turning a near miss into a successful kill. Drones could also carry a warhead, but that will impact speed and/or range. If direct impact is the only "weapon" a drone has, that's going to be hard to achieve with something that is not significantly faster than its target, regardless of increased maneuverability. There's a bigger window of time for a pilot to react and more chance that a last second maneuver will generate a miss. The slower speed also makes the drone more vulnerable to counterfire. I'm not saying the idea won't work, but it would take a lot of drones to guarantee success. Clouds of drones have their own problems, the main one being control. A competent enemy would certainly be trying to jam anything controlled remotely, and unless you have a way for a single pilot to control multiple drones you have the problem of coordinating them. Could they be autonomous? Sure, with an increased risk of hitting the wrong target. (Why hello Mr Civilian Airliner! You look kind of like a bomber or military cargo plane. Time to die!) It's not a bad idea, but it's not a simple recipe for success either. Offense and defense constantly adapt, and then it's back to the drawing board. If we're not actively developing this, one factor might be that we think it's too easy to counter.

Interesting. You make some very good points well worth considering. Unfortunately, it seems I'm in the minority in thinking that facts matter for this kind of issue. For the busybodies who think the IJC is a wonderful idea and that only evil people can disagree with them (on any given subject), emotional appeals trump facts every time.

Why do we never hear about term limits anymore? It'll take a constitutional amendment to make it happen, and since we know the donor party won't vote to make it happen it'll have to come from the states. My guess is that a) it's going to be quite hard to do against the entrenched opposition and b) everyone supports term limits for the other guys, but their guy is just fine. That's the only hope of really making a difference against the influence of donors in politics.

People have always been predicting doom and gloom due to population growth, but the world has yet to collapse into the expected dystopia. In my lifetime the world population has almost doubled, but the absolute number of people in extreme poverty has dropped. Significantly. Serious famines made the news regularly when I was a kid. Nowadays you hardly ever hear of any that aren't caused by regional conflict. I'm not saying the world is without problems; just look at the number of severely malnourished kids in Haiti for example. But the problems there and elsewhere aren't due to global overpopulation or global food shortages. There is probably an upper limit to the world population, but we're not going to get there anytime soon (if ever).

So they can switch jobs IF the new employer is willing to go through the hassle of getting them what is effectively a brand new H-1B, which could be denied and result in them losing the new job and getting deported. So, you're correct that technically they can switch, but the reality of the situation is that they won't.

The sad thing is that I suspect this language is present in the treaty at our (the U.S.'s) request. We want other countries to respect our copyrights so we insist their laws be stronger, even when we are starting to realize our own laws are too strict. One would be tempted to think this is aimed at China, except they're not a participant in the treaty. It would be much better if trade treaties were limited to simply stating that "Trade between our countries shall be free and unrestricted." That might put a lot of lawyers out of work but it would be much easier to negotiate and have a lot fewer unintended consequences.

Yeah, the tendency of politicians to grab on to every little infraction of their opponents ends up sounding a lot like the boy crying wolf after a while. Most people just stop listening and stop caring. But sometimes there really is a scandal to be upset about.

So the tl;dr version is that because the Democrats have no other viable candidate that can win, she has to be innocent and even if she did do something wrong it's no big deal and no one got hurt so let's just forget about it and it's all the Republicans fault anyway. Think that's going to fly with anyone outside those who are blinded by hatred of the Right? Especially when FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors (neither group being Republican operatives) find evidence to the contrary?

Why? Politics. The right IS calling for her to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The media wishes to appear impartial so they avoid repeating the Republican claims and stick to just reporting as little as they can. But since in reality much of the media leans Democrat, they don't want to report anything at all. Because the Democrats just want this problem to go away. If Hillary is forced out of the race their bench is pretty weak. Sanders (who technically isn't even a Democrat) has no chance of winning nationally with his Socialist platform. Biden might be able to win, or he might implode completely. Throw in a mediocre governor no one knows and a progressive ivory tower senator who's as far left as Sanders, and that's about it. Clinton is (absent an act of self destruction by the Republicans - such as nominating Trump) their only realistic chance of keeping the White House. It's much easier to just go along pretending that this is all a partisan attack and hope it doesn't get any worse. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

This comment wins it all today. Spot on and exactly so. The concept of "do it right the first time" is rarely applied. We live in a "pay later" world.

Seriously, read this. Whichever side of the issue you fall on. Be informed. This isn't some corporate propaganda; it's an in depth look at actual real world GMO. It talks about the good and the bad. Bottom line: GMO are safe and we need to do more with the technology than just pesticides. Read it. http://www.slate.com/articles/...

A few thoughts on what you've said. First, it sounds like you're going through very rough times financially. I've been there myself and know how tough it is. It sucks, knowing your bank accounts are empty, you've just eaten the last piece of the generic bologna and now the fridge is empty too, creditors will start calling soon, payday is a week away, and even when the paycheck does come almost all of it will immediately go to keep from falling even further behind on the bills. It gets better. Hang in there. As for Donald Trump, he (or rather his company) is close to declaring bankruptcy for the fourth time, and while he may personally have millions, he's wasting tons of it running for the nomination in a party where well over half of the members have said that they would never under any circumstances vote for him. Brilliant. He may have inherited his fortune from his father the slumlord, but his kids better be investing well now if they want to stay rich. As for the Waltons, you're correct to say they have an almost inconceivable amount of money. But a generation ago that fortune was all Sam Walton's. Now it's split among all his kids. In another generation it'll be split again among all his grandkids. If all his kids (and their kids, and so on) have at least two children, the growth is exponential. Sure all the Walton great-great-great-grandchildren will be rich a hundred years from now, but they won't be anywhere close to Sam Walton rich unless their investments are getting unheard of returns. And you're right, they all aren't investing, at least not in a way that will bring them more money. One of the Waltons has used their fortune to build an art museum down in Arkansas that is considered among the best in the world. That's the kind of thing that can only happen when the system allows wealth to concentrate like it does. As for Walmart, I know I could (and still do) buy a lot more food there with a limited budget, and I was glad for it. The Walton's may have gotten wealthy doing it, but it helped me too. Supply side economics is flawed, but not completely. The basics of economic math can't be ignored. You have to have people creating wealth for an economy to grow. It's impossible to tax and spend your way to prosperity. Ignore the math and you end up like Greece.

Exactly so. Although Florida might not be the ideal spot for all seven billion given the frequency of hurricanes and the amount of swampland. Maybe the Carolinas. Or a state like Wyoming where there's not much good farmland (and if you really hate everyone it's perfect - it's a sucky place to live). In any case, Malthus was wrong. We're not going to outgrow the world anytime soon. If we extend human lifespan, we'll probably also extend the portion of a woman's life where she's capable of having kids. People will wait longer to have kids and population growth will slow. Relax people, it'll all be fine.

Ahh, yes. Time for another round of bashing the GOP. This thread cracks me up. First, it's true that in 2012 younger voters trended to vote for Democrats. How'd that work out for them in 2014? The GOP took control of the Senate in a crushing defeat for Democrats. The donkeys would have to flip five seats back to blue to retake control, and that seems unlikely. At the state level it's even worse. Dems only have 18 of the 50 governor's mansions, and only control both houses of the legislature in 11 states. Hardly a dominant position. Look at the Presidential candidates for 2016. The GOP will likely have over a dozen competing, of which 4 or 5 have a reasonable shot at winning. The Democrats have Hillary (and all her baggage). No one else has a chance. This is not to say all is well with the GOP and gloom and doom for the Democrats. Both parties have issues, but overall I'd say the Republicans are in better shape.