Every single Monsanto study (even the scientifically double-blind gold-standard ones) has used Monsanto supplied data and/or analysis. Not saying GMO and Monsanto are the same, but that's the state of the science. The best I found was one in Germany that only used a consultant and data from Monsanto, without describing the consultant's role, showing reasonable data that a specific pesticide wasn't a serious carcinogen.
Linking to a news site about patent expiry has no bearing on the matter. The studies aren't in, so there are reasonable grounds and Monsanto has plenty of other patents. Show me new data that isn't from partnered with a GMO producer (whoever that may be)
Except that in the US it's exceedingly rare to have bidirectional 1 lane thoroughfares with adjacent parking spots and automation will signal the immediate need to clean up these niche cases.
> Exactly. I've held a Secret clearance for 38 years, and the rules covering this sort of thing are very clear. The penalties include a huge fine and very serious federal prison time.
> You are lying, clueless, or an idiot.
You are clearly projecting.
The entire 2 sentences he posted were succinct, accurate, and reasonable. You throw around generalities and vitrol as if you're making some kind of point beyond "I'm a frothing nutjob". How is this kind of mental vomit modded up?
> This basically puts control of an entire nation directly into the hands of whomever can hack the results of the voting system
Just like it is now? Except it's easier when there's fewer elections. This concern is not limited to this continuous voting ideal. The question of "should policy be shaped by public mass opinion" is the important one.
> The Strategic Air Command study includes chilling details
This faux pearl-clutching is a joke or just the side effect of ignorance. Every country's targets have included high-population areas that include infrastructure and manufacturing, as described. Why would this be chilling? It's pragmatic.
> typical politicians who rely on campaign donors. > But Mr. Trump has become one of those politicians.
He doesn't NEED to use the money but is taking the financially responsible route (as anyone would) with no reason to pander to an audience. He has not become a politician who relies on campaign donors. No need to lie to portray him as a liar.
This doesn't preclude him making backroom deals for other campaign purposes... He is a clever businessman.
> Why does your lifestyle matter more than the entire world?
Where did that question come from? Because it wasn't this discussion.
> If you really are as selfish and arrogant as you appear then perhaps you wouldn't notice the hypocrisy
"I don't think temperatures and sea levels respond to that kind of equivocation." was simply astute. I think this is where you went off the deep end.
> the world wouldn't care if the people Kiribati lived or died
It doesn't. People have lived and died for millenia. The world would be a better place if you didn't exist. It would save us from your inane victim mentality.
Of course it fits. It fits that false narrative perfectly. Screening and "categorization" of individuals would be what a totalitarian regime would do. But it doesn't happen, because we just have incompetence and weakness.
Not sure what you're trying to say, as laws vary wildly from locality to locality.
The concept, in California, is called "severability". This describes the condition. Invalidating one part of a mutual contract does not invalidate other parts. Because wording and legal statutes are complicated, this isn't as simple as it seems at a glance.
We record more detailed information about people (secretly) already. Shit-all has been done about it. I can't believe you think it's not suggested routinely and then enacted routinely. Oh, you couched it in a triple assertion of catagloging, rounding, and internment which have nothing to do with the question or answer.
Nope. Open source implies the source that comprises the entirety of the application is available to be inspected. Terms of that access are orthogonal to the phrase, although RMS would insist it must be free as in beer, philosophically or it isn't "open".
The term "hyperlink" was coined in 1965 (or possibly 1964) by Ted Nelson at the start of Project Xanadu. So, no. It's not a European invention. It was promoted by Tim heavily. Tim has some responsibility in popularizing it, I would agree.
> ESPECIALLY at the so-called "top" (which is just a figment of your imagination, really)
Really it's not. See how compelling that sounds? Linus being a particularly good example of top-down security design (since his branches are the only ones that end up being used). Microsoft is another. Amazon is another. BSD, not so much. Even with cross-pollination, technology flows from clearly delineated tiers.
We get new sources, rarely, but the top-down nature of technology propogation doesn't change. There's a corollary in there about modern capitalism and those with money are those who get a message out best.
I didn't know who he is and I wont remember tomorrow. Introducing any of these people (badly) is rather pointless. If they were properly linked instead of calling someone a professor and ostensibly leaving out the important bits, there would be no issue. Instead we have an editorial fail. @ slashdot, it's business as usual.
Unless you have a double blind study to point to, why the fuck are you linking to some 3rd-hand article? "A new study says" is meaningless, in this context. Don't cite articles and call it news. We have a standard of proof, so follow it or you're part of the misinformation problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Every single Monsanto study (even the scientifically double-blind gold-standard ones) has used Monsanto supplied data and/or analysis. Not saying GMO and Monsanto are the same, but that's the state of the science. The best I found was one in Germany that only used a consultant and data from Monsanto, without describing the consultant's role, showing reasonable data that a specific pesticide wasn't a serious carcinogen.
Linking to a news site about patent expiry has no bearing on the matter. The studies aren't in, so there are reasonable grounds and Monsanto has plenty of other patents. Show me new data that isn't from partnered with a GMO producer (whoever that may be)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... has let me down, because, yes. There are many things [about the universe] that are fundamentally unknowable.
> The rarity of these types of roadways makes it even more likely that the devices do not properly handle them.
The case described does not have a proper procedure. This is a traffic design failing, not a civil liability.
Except that in the US it's exceedingly rare to have bidirectional 1 lane thoroughfares with adjacent parking spots and automation will signal the immediate need to clean up these niche cases.
> Exactly. I've held a Secret clearance for 38 years, and the rules covering this sort of thing are very clear. The penalties include a huge fine and very serious federal prison time.
> You are lying, clueless, or an idiot.
You are clearly projecting.
The entire 2 sentences he posted were succinct, accurate, and reasonable. You throw around generalities and vitrol as if you're making some kind of point beyond "I'm a frothing nutjob". How is this kind of mental vomit modded up?
> Because as bad as politicians are, they are still better-informed than the general population.
I think they are about the same.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quo...
> This basically puts control of an entire nation directly into the hands of whomever can hack the results of the voting system
Just like it is now? Except it's easier when there's fewer elections. This concern is not limited to this continuous voting ideal. The question of "should policy be shaped by public mass opinion" is the important one.
> The Strategic Air Command study includes chilling details
This faux pearl-clutching is a joke or just the side effect of ignorance. Every country's targets have included high-population areas that include infrastructure and manufacturing, as described. Why would this be chilling? It's pragmatic.
> typical politicians who rely on campaign donors.
> But Mr. Trump has become one of those politicians.
He doesn't NEED to use the money but is taking the financially responsible route (as anyone would) with no reason to pander to an audience. He has not become a politician who relies on campaign donors. No need to lie to portray him as a liar.
This doesn't preclude him making backroom deals for other campaign purposes... He is a clever businessman.
> Why does your lifestyle matter more than the entire world?
Where did that question come from? Because it wasn't this discussion.
> If you really are as selfish and arrogant as you appear then perhaps you wouldn't notice the hypocrisy
"I don't think temperatures and sea levels respond to that kind of equivocation." was simply astute. I think this is where you went off the deep end.
> the world wouldn't care if the people Kiribati lived or died
It doesn't. People have lived and died for millenia. The world would be a better place if you didn't exist. It would save us from your inane victim mentality.
At-will does not protect an organization from wrongful termination or libel or slander. He can probably end up in a mediation for damages.
AFAIK, we extract/chemically produce a great deal of the Helium used.
Apologies. You're correct.
Helium on earth is rare (we have almost depleted our natural H2). H3 is not found on earth in abundant supply.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
> totalitarian agenda
Of course it fits. It fits that false narrative perfectly. Screening and "categorization" of individuals would be what a totalitarian regime would do. But it doesn't happen, because we just have incompetence and weakness.
What does "bad" mean?
I figure "now" ostensibly means the 21st century.
> No more than a prenup, or a restraining order.
Not sure what you're trying to say, as laws vary wildly from locality to locality.
The concept, in California, is called "severability". This describes the condition. Invalidating one part of a mutual contract does not invalidate other parts. Because wording and legal statutes are complicated, this isn't as simple as it seems at a glance.
We record more detailed information about people (secretly) already. Shit-all has been done about it.
I can't believe you think it's not suggested routinely and then enacted routinely. Oh, you couched it in a triple assertion of catagloging, rounding, and internment which have nothing to do with the question or answer.
The mods must be joking.
> If it's not GPL'ed, it's not open source
Nope. Open source implies the source that comprises the entirety of the application is available to be inspected. Terms of that access are orthogonal to the phrase, although RMS would insist it must be free as in beer, philosophically or it isn't "open".
Can I get an even an anon explanation of why this is offtopic?
The term "hyperlink" was coined in 1965 (or possibly 1964) by Ted Nelson at the start of Project Xanadu. So, no. It's not a European invention. It was promoted by Tim heavily. Tim has some responsibility in popularizing it, I would agree.
> ESPECIALLY at the so-called "top" (which is just a figment of your imagination, really)
Really it's not. See how compelling that sounds? Linus being a particularly good example of top-down security design (since his branches are the only ones that end up being used). Microsoft is another. Amazon is another. BSD, not so much. Even with cross-pollination, technology flows from clearly delineated tiers.
We get new sources, rarely, but the top-down nature of technology propogation doesn't change. There's a corollary in there about modern capitalism and those with money are those who get a message out best.
I didn't know who he is and I wont remember tomorrow. Introducing any of these people (badly) is rather pointless. If they were properly linked instead of calling someone a professor and ostensibly leaving out the important bits, there would be no issue. Instead we have an editorial fail. @ slashdot, it's business as usual.
Unless you have a double blind study to point to, why the fuck are you linking to some 3rd-hand article? "A new study says" is meaningless, in this context.
Don't cite articles and call it news. We have a standard of proof, so follow it or you're part of the misinformation problem.
I have heard of lots of acronyms. That doesn't mean I'm familiar with them.
> MOOC
Until I read the wikipedia entry, I had no idea what it meant even though I've participated in one (started on Stanford's machine learning).
> first introduced in 2008 and emerged as a popular mode of learning in 2012
Popular? That's laughable. Easily accessible, yes.