111–120 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely you don't think that frivolous claims are never won?
Not sure, certainly they shouldn't be won as a rule. Maybe there are exceptions, but it shouldn't be just a case of whoever hires the most expensive lawyers wins.
Sorry, I don't care how relevant or accurate the other information is, but it's not valid after that. Monsanto may or may not be evil, and the farmers may or may not be good, but you certainly can't (shouldn't) form any opinion based on this junk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't necessarily agree with your stance because you still haven't materialized official court cases dealing with this issue. I would like to see a case where Monsanto was sued for seed contamination and the farmer won the case.
Why is them winning important? EDIT: Sorry, read that as "where Monsanto sued and won the case" I expect you won't find many cases where Monsanto was sued and lost, since they would be extremely inclined to settle and it would be hard for a farmer to turn down the sort of money that Monsanto has available to it.
These are not two equally equipped sides engaging in a fair judicial process to settle a contract dispute, pretending that it is such a circumstance is overwhelmingly unfair to the farmers involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand your objection. Are you complaining that mentioning that Dow hired a private intelligence agency to monitor people expressing grievances makes Dow sound evil because most corporations would (or even should if they are "responsible") do the same, so it's not a particularly evil act amongst corporations?
Yes. If you knew someone was trying to bring a legal case against you, wouldn't you research them and keep an eye on them? It would be irresponsible not to.
This article makes some rather terrible claims. I've never heard of readersupportednews.org before. Are there similar articles in well-known, respectable publications? (Note: I'm not claiming the site is disreputable, I've just never heard of the site and want to read more on sites (on in publications) I know.)
Here's a link from RT.com (Russia Today): https://rt.com/news/monsanto-brazil-seed-soy-908/ I have no idea if they're trustworthy either, but Wikipedia[1] had this to say about them: > RT is the second most-watched foreign news channel in the United States, after BBC News and the first most-watched news channel worldwide. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29
While there is a chance it could be true, the association itself makes anything quoted extremely suspect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monsanto has genetically-modified (and patented) crops that produce 2x or more per acre of land. Sometimes they're the only way to make land profitable.
To me, that sounds like a market problem. I routinely pay more than twice the going rate for standard produce precisely because I recognize the problem cheap produce presents. I'm not suggesting that most people would make the same decision, but then most people aren't aware of the legal battles occurring in the fields where that food was grown. Eventually, something must give. Either cheap, GMO food will prevail (li…
On top of that the situation is still more complex, crop variety research in everything but Wheat and Oats is dominated by private industry so their interest is to ensure that any new varieties fall under the patent protection regime that GMO crops offer because the protections are better than plant-breeders rights. (Also I disagree with the 2x difference posted above but do agree that the divergence has become substantial.)
In addition because the global fertilizer business is effectively a cartel fertilizer prices have nothing to do with the costs of production but instead what the market will bear. (Natural gas is a key element and has been near all-time lows for quite a while but fertilizer prices are relatively high.) So the fertilizer companies are pricing to ensure that you must stay on the highest-productivity path in order to stay above water.
Finally, the vast majority of modern farmers in North America have gone from being cooperative-oriented to more pro-market and largely believe that this current state of affairs is somehow in their best interests -- what is good for agribusiness is good for farmers. It is my humble opinion that the market is totally broken and farmers are very ineffective at working together to counter-balance the powers of the large corporations in the industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I own a handgun, given to me as a hand-me-down, that was originally used for small game hunting.
This is reeeeeeeally missing the point. The conversation was about (apparently) the ethics of selling a product which is known to be used a majority of the time for the aim of killing a thing (whether that be deer or human, is up to the owner of the gun/bullet). This should not be a controversial statement. Before someone says "oh but you can use it for target shooting and/or sport!", there is nothing about the funct…
unless you are the worst hunter in the entire world, would never need such a weapon for hunting. It's like a bow and arrow with a grenade on the end.
This is false. An AK-47 shoots 7.62x39 cartridges, similar to .308 Winchester, which is a very common load for deer hunting. I own an SKS, which was the predecessor to the AK, and shoots the same ammo. It's very cheap, and like the AK is very reliable. This, plus some quirks of US gun control laws, have made this a very popular hunting rifle.
The sibling comment said
I know a guy who hunts with an AR-15. Is that necessary in any way?
Actually, he's got it completely backwards. The loads used in an AR-15 are too weak to use in deer hunting, unless you're a damned good shot. It's a 5.56mm bullet -- essentially a .22 caliber bullet, but with a bunch more velocity to it. This standard NATO round was designed (or maybe later rationalized?) with two important features: (1) it's smaller and lighter, allowing a soldier to carry more of them; and (2) it generally does not kill its human target (and understand that deer are tougher than humans in this regard), and thus ties up not just the enemy's wounded, but also medical resources in caring for the wounded.
The bottom line is that deer, and even more so, bears, elk, moose, etc., are really tough prey. It takes a lot more to take down one of them than it does to incapacitate a human enemy. Thus you need greater kinetic energy from your ammunition when hunting them.
This, of course, says nothing about rate of fire. Semi-auto is very helpful to a hunter. However, full auto is not useful. But then again, it's not very useful to most soldiers, either. That's why the later NATO assault rifles -- M16A2 -- no longer feature full auto. They're selectable to single shot, or three-round bursts.
EDIT, clarification: actually, saying that it takes more kinetic energy for large game is only part of the picture. The real key is energy transferred to the target. So a solid bullet that passes through the target does less harm than a bullet that fragments and gets caught up in the target, thus imparting all of its energy into the target.
Anyone writing an article who thinks they need to only talk to one of the parties in a lawsuit isn't practicing journalism.
I'd rather not see this on HN. Maybe the topic is appropriate (patents), but the article doesn't give any information about that aspect of things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your bulls raid my pasture and attack and rape my cows, I might shoot them and even have a barbecue. There's no reason I can't raise the calves as my own. Who cares what Schmeiser did to the plants GROWING ON HIS OWN LAND? Why must he explain his reasons to anyone for dealing with a predatory invader?
That's a good argument against the patentability of genetically modified plants, but not against the validity of the case given that GM plants currently ARE patentable.