You need to educate yourself. GMO is not cross-breeding. GMO practices typically insert genes from already-modified bacteria, or other animals, into plants or other animals.
Sorry, but squids and cows don't cross-breed. Neither does E. Coli and corn. It just doesn't happen, man.
There is a very big difference. If all they were doing was cross-breeding or even a sped-up equivalent, nobody would care. But that's NOT what they're doing.
To add to what the others have said: yes, it is FAR different. Cross-breeding does not insert genes from exotic animal species or bacteria into plants. It is NOT the same at all, and if you think it is, you have been grievously misinformed.
It's not even remotely the same. Cross-breeding does not generally insert genes from bacteria into plants, or squid genes into mammals. Not to mention bacteria or squid or other organisms that themselves had been previously "modified".
A lot of modern GMO practices resemble "cross breeding" about as much as Chicken Vienna Sausage resembles an actual chicken. Less even.
"November 2011. 24% of independents support the movement, down from previous surveys. 17% oppose. 20% approve of the way the protest is being conducted. 26% disapprove."
And that was 3 months into the movement, but 9 months ago. It's pretty hard to see how it has much relevance to today.
"The camping and confrontations with police are turning independents away from Occupy."
It might turn them away from the protests themselves, but I don't think it turns them away from at least tacit support of them.
I will repeat, with different emphasis: most independents and libertarians I know very strongly support the Occupy movement, even if they aren't protesting themselves. Maybe the ones you know are different.
I should add: again at least theoretically, removing your handcuffs but not trying to escape would not be "resisting arrest". IANAL, but I am pretty sure a good lawyer could argue that on the contrary, it is strong evidence that you were NOT resisting.
"Say, if linking to copyrighted stuff is criminal, why are Google and Microsoft still operating search engines?"
Exactly. And that is only part of the point: how can linking be a crime, when even downloading isn't a crime. ("Piracy" is, but downloading is not piracy, according to the legal definition. Downloading is merely infringement, a civil infraction. Piracy is a crime, but in order to be piracy (generally speaking), it has to involve mass distribution of copyrighted materials for profit.
"Linking to copyrighted material would fall under facilitation."
So far, according to the courts, that is only true when the INTENT is clearly to facilitate infringement. And even then... infringement is not a crime. Piracy is, but by (legal) definition, "piracy" only occurs when infringement is done for profit motive.
"If someone asks Siri where to hide a dead body, she will give them the locations of Dumps, Mineshafts, Quarries, etc. Would that make Apple accessory to murder?"
You are merely reinforcing my point. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to ask such a thing... even for the purposes of forensics. Just as there are plenty of legitimate "fair use" purposes for copying or downloading, which would otherwise be infringement.
At least in the U.S. I don't pretend to know the laws of other countries.
Pardon the multiple replies, but this is basically what I'm talking about (without going into unnecessary detail):
You have a systems feedback bus, which contains information like "the headlights are on", "the stereo volume level is X", "the temperature control is set at 70 degrees", and "internal cabin temperature is 60 degrees", "current speed is 70 mph", etc.
These inputs can be shared by both your peripheral control system and your core "engine and driving" system... without combining the two.
However, that bus does not carry any commands. It is feedback only. Commands can go from the core system to the peripheral system, which has its own set of internal commands, but not the other way around.
This is the essence of your basic asymmetric distributed system. Each subsystem has its own duties, but commands flow in only one direction. In general it is FAR more robust that combining it all into a single processor and gigantic bug-ridden blob of software.
Is it possible to rig the feedback and give false signals to the core system? Sure. But that's possible with ANY system. With this kind of design, however, it's not possible for malicious code to get into your core system, unless someone has direct access to it. In other words, there is no possibility of engine control via a virus that is introduced through a USB stick you plugged into your sound system.
"To keep the isolation you want the interface between the devices has to be broader, increasing the attack surface, or you need to find room for a whole bunch of controls, instead of using the very nice display already in the vehicle."
That is not true at all. Sharing hardware inputs does NOT "increase the attack surface", and very nicely isolates the systems. You can still have control FROM your essential core system to the peripherals, just not in the other direction.
You can still have a "central control" for most of your car's systems, it just doesn't cross over to the core system that has to do with driving, engine control, and safety.
Yes, there is a bit of redundancy there, but not much.
" So the display and its associated controls are shared devices."
Fine. But it doesn't have to be part of essential systems control. It can share some inputs (oil pressure, etc.), but there is no reason to combine it all with the essential control of the vehicle (engine timing, abs, auto braking, etc. etc.)
There are very strong system design reasons to keep them separate. As mentioned before, those reasons include bugs and security vulnerabilities.
As the first poster mentioned, it's not a crime. I can even link to a criminal site if I want, with the link saying "Look! Here's a criminal site! The bastards!"
If they start regulating what you can link to, the internet is doomed. Don't go there.
Besides, at least in the U.S., free speech is very much an issue when it comes to links.
"But few independents are "occupy protesters" or supporters of them."
I think you are wrong, and on-site news interviews have tended to back me up. A lot of the protesters are liberals, but a lot of them are independents, too, regardless of whether that makes them strange bedfellows.
"O implies I does not mean that I implies O."
Of course. But that doesn't imply that I am wrong, either. Most independents and libertarians I know very strongly suport the Occupy movement, even if they aren't protesting themselves. Yet.
In this case it turns out that the Ooyala player insists on using "local storage" ("flash cookies") before it will work at all, but I do not allow sites to use local storage. Nor should anything on Slashdot be dependent on such a nefarious system in order to work.
"I'm sure you know quite a few things that could get you in trouble, but don't do anything illegal with that information."
Some people just don't get that knowledge is valuable, and the same knowledge can be used by the occasional criminal for evil, but at the same time used by the majority, for doing good.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.
"About 1/3 of the Colonials supported the revolution. That is a large number. That is literally about the percentage that are registered Democrats or registered Republicans according to a recent survey."
Which leaves the remaining 1/3 just about ready to revolt against the Democrats and Republicans.
" They knew how much debt they would be incurring, and under what interest rate they'd have to pay. "
But here is what many of them did not know, when they made future plans and started their post-secondary education:
(1) That the government would progressively tighten the terms and time limits for repaying the loans.
(2) That the government would progressively reduce grants and direct loans, and rely on more private loans at higher interest rates.
(3) That the economy would crash due to Wall Street greed and government collusion in same, and that they would not be able to find a decent job for years, if then.
(4) That the government would change the rules about defaults. Many of today's M.D.s and Ph.D.s defaulted on their student loans... and go unpenalized. Yet today, a liberal-arts or business graduate, with far lower debt but who can't finde a decent job, finds him- or herself in a position in which the loan can never be forgiven, bankruptcy is not an option, and their tax returns (if any) are seized by the government every year unless and until the loans are paid off.
No, they didn't necessarily know all this going in, because the government changed it gradually, year after year.
"Seems that you can spend up to a year in jail for what is now a misdemeanor, as opposed to getting a ticket for the infraction."
Resisting arrest has always carried relatively harsh penalties. Theoretically, though, you have to do it actively (struggle or try to escape), as opposed to passively (sitting down or lying limp).
They aren't actually cable ties. They are specially designed for use as handcuffs. Specifically, they are harder to shim and made so that (normally) you need a special "key" to open them or to cut them off.
Slashdot Mirror
Definitely! Monsanto should be required to modify their corn so that each kernel says "Patent no. 12345678" on it.
No, I am not being sarcastic.
You need to educate yourself. GMO is not cross-breeding. GMO practices typically insert genes from already-modified bacteria, or other animals, into plants or other animals.
Sorry, but squids and cows don't cross-breed. Neither does E. Coli and corn. It just doesn't happen, man.
There is a very big difference. If all they were doing was cross-breeding or even a sped-up equivalent, nobody would care. But that's NOT what they're doing.
To add to what the others have said: yes, it is FAR different. Cross-breeding does not insert genes from exotic animal species or bacteria into plants. It is NOT the same at all, and if you think it is, you have been grievously misinformed.
It's not even remotely the same. Cross-breeding does not generally insert genes from bacteria into plants, or squid genes into mammals. Not to mention bacteria or squid or other organisms that themselves had been previously "modified".
A lot of modern GMO practices resemble "cross breeding" about as much as Chicken Vienna Sausage resembles an actual chicken. Less even.
"November 2011. 24% of independents support the movement, down from previous surveys. 17% oppose. 20% approve of the way the protest is being conducted. 26% disapprove."
And that was 3 months into the movement, but 9 months ago. It's pretty hard to see how it has much relevance to today.
"The camping and confrontations with police are turning independents away from Occupy."
It might turn them away from the protests themselves, but I don't think it turns them away from at least tacit support of them.
I will repeat, with different emphasis: most independents and libertarians I know very strongly support the Occupy movement, even if they aren't protesting themselves. Maybe the ones you know are different.
I should add: again at least theoretically, removing your handcuffs but not trying to escape would not be "resisting arrest". IANAL, but I am pretty sure a good lawyer could argue that on the contrary, it is strong evidence that you were NOT resisting.
It's not something I would recommend. But still.
"Say, if linking to copyrighted stuff is criminal, why are Google and Microsoft still operating search engines?"
Exactly. And that is only part of the point: how can linking be a crime, when even downloading isn't a crime. ("Piracy" is, but downloading is not piracy, according to the legal definition. Downloading is merely infringement, a civil infraction. Piracy is a crime, but in order to be piracy (generally speaking), it has to involve mass distribution of copyrighted materials for profit.
"Linking to copyrighted material would fall under facilitation."
So far, according to the courts, that is only true when the INTENT is clearly to facilitate infringement. And even then... infringement is not a crime. Piracy is, but by (legal) definition, "piracy" only occurs when infringement is done for profit motive.
"If someone asks Siri where to hide a dead body, she will give them the locations of Dumps, Mineshafts, Quarries, etc. Would that make Apple accessory to murder?"
You are merely reinforcing my point. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to ask such a thing... even for the purposes of forensics. Just as there are plenty of legitimate "fair use" purposes for copying or downloading, which would otherwise be infringement.
At least in the U.S. I don't pretend to know the laws of other countries.
Pardon the multiple replies, but this is basically what I'm talking about (without going into unnecessary detail):
You have a systems feedback bus, which contains information like "the headlights are on", "the stereo volume level is X", "the temperature control is set at 70 degrees", and "internal cabin temperature is 60 degrees", "current speed is 70 mph", etc.
These inputs can be shared by both your peripheral control system and your core "engine and driving" system... without combining the two.
However, that bus does not carry any commands. It is feedback only. Commands can go from the core system to the peripheral system, which has its own set of internal commands, but not the other way around.
This is the essence of your basic asymmetric distributed system. Each subsystem has its own duties, but commands flow in only one direction. In general it is FAR more robust that combining it all into a single processor and gigantic bug-ridden blob of software.
Is it possible to rig the feedback and give false signals to the core system? Sure. But that's possible with ANY system. With this kind of design, however, it's not possible for malicious code to get into your core system, unless someone has direct access to it. In other words, there is no possibility of engine control via a virus that is introduced through a USB stick you plugged into your sound system.
"To keep the isolation you want the interface between the devices has to be broader, increasing the attack surface, or you need to find room for a whole bunch of controls, instead of using the very nice display already in the vehicle."
That is not true at all. Sharing hardware inputs does NOT "increase the attack surface", and very nicely isolates the systems. You can still have control FROM your essential core system to the peripherals, just not in the other direction.
You can still have a "central control" for most of your car's systems, it just doesn't cross over to the core system that has to do with driving, engine control, and safety.
Yes, there is a bit of redundancy there, but not much.
" So the display and its associated controls are shared devices."
Fine. But it doesn't have to be part of essential systems control. It can share some inputs (oil pressure, etc.), but there is no reason to combine it all with the essential control of the vehicle (engine timing, abs, auto braking, etc. etc.)
There are very strong system design reasons to keep them separate. As mentioned before, those reasons include bugs and security vulnerabilities.
As the first poster mentioned, it's not a crime. I can even link to a criminal site if I want, with the link saying "Look! Here's a criminal site! The bastards!"
If they start regulating what you can link to, the internet is doomed. Don't go there.
Besides, at least in the U.S., free speech is very much an issue when it comes to links.
"Wait, how does an M.D. or Ph. D get to default on a loan without penalty."
Here is one of the reasons, to be more specific:
Once upon a time, declaring bankruptcy could free you from your student loans. But not today.
"Wait, how does an M.D. or Ph. D get to default on a loan without penalty."
I don't think they can, anymore. That was my point. Things were a lot different when they were in school.
Which is why a lot of old-schoolers should be more careful with their criticisms. The world is a much different place today.
"But few independents are "occupy protesters" or supporters of them."
I think you are wrong, and on-site news interviews have tended to back me up. A lot of the protesters are liberals, but a lot of them are independents, too, regardless of whether that makes them strange bedfellows.
"O implies I does not mean that I implies O."
Of course. But that doesn't imply that I am wrong, either. Most independents and libertarians I know very strongly suport the Occupy movement, even if they aren't protesting themselves. Yet.
It isn't that. It's that I have my Flash player set to reject requests for "local storage" (otherwise known as "flash cookies").
Which is a different issue, but just as bad. Slashdot should know better than to allow such a thing on their site.
"Not really. The historical precedent would be the remaining 1/3 are neutral and not getting involved. Now that seems about "right"."
Except that they aren't, so historical precedent does not necessarily apply.
And awful lot of the protesters are independent, and sick to their stomachs of the "Big 2" parties. Count on it.
Here is a link to a torrent in case you, like me, don't allow sites to used "local storage" via Flash but you still want to see the video.
In this case it turns out that the Ooyala player insists on using "local storage" ("flash cookies") before it will work at all, but I do not allow sites to use local storage. Nor should anything on Slashdot be dependent on such a nefarious system in order to work.
Bad move, Slashdot.
"I'm sure you know quite a few things that could get you in trouble, but don't do anything illegal with that information."
Some people just don't get that knowledge is valuable, and the same knowledge can be used by the occasional criminal for evil, but at the same time used by the majority, for doing good.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.
"About 1/3 of the Colonials supported the revolution. That is a large number. That is literally about the percentage that are registered Democrats or registered Republicans according to a recent survey."
Which leaves the remaining 1/3 just about ready to revolt against the Democrats and Republicans.
Sounds about right.
" They knew how much debt they would be incurring, and under what interest rate they'd have to pay. "
But here is what many of them did not know, when they made future plans and started their post-secondary education:
(1) That the government would progressively tighten the terms and time limits for repaying the loans.
(2) That the government would progressively reduce grants and direct loans, and rely on more private loans at higher interest rates.
(3) That the economy would crash due to Wall Street greed and government collusion in same, and that they would not be able to find a decent job for years, if then.
(4) That the government would change the rules about defaults. Many of today's M.D.s and Ph.D.s defaulted on their student loans... and go unpenalized. Yet today, a liberal-arts or business graduate, with far lower debt but who can't finde a decent job, finds him- or herself in a position in which the loan can never be forgiven, bankruptcy is not an option, and their tax returns (if any) are seized by the government every year unless and until the loans are paid off.
No, they didn't necessarily know all this going in, because the government changed it gradually, year after year.
"Seems that you can spend up to a year in jail for what is now a misdemeanor, as opposed to getting a ticket for the infraction."
Resisting arrest has always carried relatively harsh penalties. Theoretically, though, you have to do it actively (struggle or try to escape), as opposed to passively (sitting down or lying limp).
"Breaking news from 1962..... handcuffs can be opened without a key!"
More like 1562. Get with the times, man.
They aren't actually cable ties. They are specially designed for use as handcuffs. Specifically, they are harder to shim and made so that (normally) you need a special "key" to open them or to cut them off.