Judicial authorities have also fined Google citing the same offenses and also for failing to store the data of Russian users on domestic services. As part of broad efforts to reel foreign tech under its control, Russia also banned six major VPN providers this month including Nord VPN and Express VPN.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.themoscowtimes.com...
I believe it was Russia that invented the term 'useful idiot'
...then I would look into the overuse of pesticides, herbicides and the likes...
That changed quickly this year, or your argument makes no sense.
And screw the company, trash the PR and stock if they don't get their cut. If anything goes, stop whining like little bitches when the cheating isn't in your favor.
I've watched that interview and others. The position of Twitter has been consistent and actually fits the facts of being reasonably non-biased. It just seems that way because the pattern recognition of harassment behavior, is flagging people in ways that seem to bias some arguments. They are actually just trying to promote productive discussions and discourage harassment as a means to win arguments.
No one was banned because tweeted an 'N' at someone. They were banned because they used multiple twitter accounts, participating in harassing people by tweeting one letter of N-word at a time to people.
Similar with the gender issue or dead naming. It was the behavior of attacking an individual, instead of an idea, that was flagging the bans. So it is the behavior, that would have gotten you banned with either left or right wing positions, that is getting the account penalties.
Now to the anti-capitalist right wing whiners like Tim Pool, Twitter is under no obligation to destroy its shareholder value by keeping toxic people on its platform. It is not a public service and is not getting public money. (Just because a bible publishing company won't publish your gay porn book does not mean your free speech has been violated.) You are free create your own platform or make the government provide one. Saying that no one will use the new platform only proves that Twitter is correct in assessing that some people weaponize, what is technically free speech, to harass others out of the conversations.
or it will collapse the mosquito population and have a cascade effect on all the animals that rely on them, and those that rely on the previous ones, and so on. Other than that, really nothing can go wrong.
"Aedes aegypti species, which are *not native* to the Cayman Islands and are the main vector for Zika as well as other viruses, including chikingunya and dengue."
Mosquito-born disease affects lots of people around the globe, but how do we know the little flying Frankenstein monsters aren't going to end up enabling future mutations that helps disease (existing, or new ones) to spread to even MORE people?
Because they are sterile, unable to spread genes and male, unable to bite and spread disease. And if it loses the sterility somehow, that's the wild mosquito now isn't it? This tech lest you target one specific species while leaving all the other bugs, birds, even other mosquito species unpoisoned. You can even only release enough sterile males to keep populations lowered instead of extinct. Wild mosquitoes can also mutate in all the dangerous ways you mentioned, at least as easily. If you let viruses like Zika spread than it can mutate into more dangerous forms. That is millions of times more likely than _sterility_ creating a reproductive advantange.
Instead of this, why not just use the irradiated sterile mosquitos instead? Its been done before
Not sure about this specific species, but from what I'd heard radiation levels required to sterilize often make the insects quite sick and less able to compete for mates. So it's not as effective.
But what I'm curious about is why don't they use the GMO mosquitos that only have male descendents. That would quickly bring the species to extinction.
That a much harder genetic engineering problem. It also involves having the GMO organism reproducing in the wild, which will make regulations and environmental assessments much more difficult.
I believe that the food itself is probably OK for human consumption although GMO food (especially tomatoes) does seem to have much less and/or odd flavour.
The flavour problem is not because of GMO, it is because the industry does not care about flavour at all. http://www.slate.com/articles/...
It's more like bashing Ford for it's role (along with GM) in, say, killing off public transit or the electric car. The producer is distorting the market and large parts of human civilization for their long term profit; and doing it at a scale that's hard to grasp...
More like bashing all car companies, including Tesla, because of those business practices of companies like Ford and GM.
What does Golden Rice (GMO), developed to save lives, non-profit, by academics, have to do with Monsanto? Big agribusiness business practices and mono-culture crops were a problem before GMOs entered the picture. Why not actually address the root of the problems, which are the business practices, rather the the technology?
Why would you expect golden rice to somehow be less expensive than regular rice? And besides, any land suitable for growing rice is suitable for growing other vegetables.
Golden rice was not developed for profit, it will cost exactly the same but have more nutrients. It is for subsistence farmers who are lacking vitamin A, due to extreme poverty.
You are acting like there are not thousands of children dying and going blind every year due to vitamin A deficiency. Now for no reason, because a zero additional cost fix has been developed.
There is no royal road to geometry. -- Euclid
