3 ms·
You are clearly not interested, as you were presented with the information and still dismiss it because being wrong upsets you. I did not say it was in product
by MustardTiger 10y ago
You are clearly not interested, as you were presented with the information and still dismiss it because being wrong upsets you. I did not say it was in production use yet, I said it was available. It is. And as I said, it only introduces a minor cost increase, and is already set to be required by law within 2 years.
- ars 10y ago> I did not say it was in production use yet, I said it was available. It is not available. Two people posted links about research, neither research has even reached the prototype stage yet, never mind "available". > as you were presented with the information and still dismiss it because being wrong upsets you I dismissed it because it is not available. I don't understand how even in the face of evidence you still think it's available. Do you want it so badly that you will misread things on purpose? > and is already set to be required by law within 2 years. Uh hu. They can require whatever they like, but if the technology doesn't exist a whole lot of good it'll do them. What they should do (and probably are in fact doing) is fund research. When it's available we can come back and talk, right now it's not.
- MustardTiger 10y agoSimply repeating a lie won't make it true. You've been shown repeatedly that it is available. The fact that you do not like this is irrelevant. It is already being used in hatcheries in Germany. It is on track to be fully implemented on all farms in the entire country by the end of the year. There's no way to pretend that is not available.
- ars 10y agoYou are too funny. Post a link to it being used then, and how it works, if you are so sure of yourself.