No kidding. If you're going to bring back a Sci Fi show from that era, why not do one with good writing, like The Twilight Zone? Though somehow I don't think that'd be the same without the narrator smoking a cigarette...
Hww about this reboot? Twilight zone as done by a couple stoners in the Colorado Rockies? Then thy could be smoking something.
Wow. Didn't take long at all for the first "Thanks, Obama!" post.
It doesn't matter who you blame it on, the ACA is a shitty excuse for a national health care system.
I think at best, its a foot-in-the-door solution.
Imagine the reaction if some group who shall not be named manages to repeal it, and people who were at one time locked into a job because some pre-existing condition meant they could never be insured again if they ever had to switch employers.
It does suck, but it sucks by the results of the work done to make it suck.
And that, friends, is not the fault of the current occupant.
I'd rather watch reruns of Johnny Quest or Clutch Cargo. Or Speed Racer (the original crappy cartoon), which was the absolute worst piece of shit ever to hit the airwaves.
Clutch Cargo, with Spinner and Paddlefoot! That show creeped me out. no real movement, only superimposed video lips. Maybe it could be used for punishment today.
"If you don't pick up you're room, you're going to have to sit on this couch and watch Clutch Cargo!"
Isn't it enough to hate Windows and Apple? Windows 8+ with Metro should have given them plenty to hate on; I hate Metro with a passion.
Metro did two things amazing to me. My wife refused to use her computer after a month because as she put it "This is the stupidest fscking thing I ever used!"
And it was so unpleasant for me, I refused to work on a W8X computer ever again.
Now she is incredibly happy with Linux mint, which as it turns out runs great on a touchscreen, and she understands why I like Linux and OS X. A happy ending.
full disclosure - From an operating standpoint, I don't hate Windows 10. Yesterday was the first time I had to go to the web, because of a computer that went through a power outage and surge, and I needed to find out how to safeboot it - no easy task. But 8 was a never-ending embarrassment to administer. No internet, and I was playing whack-a-mole trying to find stuff.
I was a little kid when I saw that show, and even then, it was obvious it was a piece of crap.
I said the same thing about Battlestar Galactica. But the first 2.5 seasons of the new version may have been the best Sci-Fi in the past 15 years. I'm now withholding judgement on any "reboot".
Perhaps if they changed the whole premise.
One thing's sort of funny. When I was a kid and watched it, I thought Angela Cartwright was cute. I just looked at some of the old cast photos and realized that it was actually June Lockhart who was the hottie out of that crew.
You're probably going to be getting downmodded merely for mentioning systemd, but it is starting to have an impact on the perception of Linux as a viable OS, especially in high-availability server environments.
Recently, when I've suggested the use of Linux to clients, I've now dealt with several clients who have been uncertain of using it thanks to the complaints they've heard about systemd.
Sounds apocryphal to me.
Systemd would be pretty far down the list for people who think a computer must run Windows office or be unusable.
Besides, there's FreeBSD. Never had systemd, never will, and I've heard that it is sperior in all ways to any Linux distro that has systemd.
The new attitude is the commercial style developer/user split. There are those who develop it and know what's best for you and you're the user. You're meant to use it, not dig into the guts. I think this attitude sits badly with an awful lot of people, people who feel the culture they are part of an in many cases helped build is being destroyed by large, moneyed interests.
Agreed. But this attitude of "take what the privileged developer class gives you and like it" has been around for decades, dating back to game consoles with cryptographic countermeasures against running user-created programs.
Who forced you to use systemd? There are alternatives, promoted by those who hate systemd - as superior, and free of systemd. Why are people complaining and not moving over to them?
I just have the sense that most people complaining about it just doesn't want any kind of forward progress and don't like things to change.
That plus those who just need something to hate. I have had perhaps two meaningful communications about systemd with others. Thee rest are people doing a computing version of the Thanks Obama meme.
Will be our last war in space for a long long time.
It will produce a mighty effective no-orbit zone, as we create a lot of new tiny satellite killers out of the debris from the pnce upon a time satellites. They'll eventuallu deorbit, some fairly soon, and some will be up there quite a long time.
It won't even take that many things going kablooey to make wharever we wish impossible to get through. You don't have to hit the satellite, you don't even need to get near it. Just create the shrapnel and let basic orbital mechanics to take care of the rest. A fleck of paint did thishttp://blogs.voanews.com/science-world/files/2012/03/sts7crack.jpg to a space shuttle window on mission STS7. Imagine what millions of substantial pieces of metal and other stuff that used to be a satellite will do.
The only possible ways to make this not a earth orbiting version of mutually assured destruction is to somehow keep whatever is trying to kill the satellite unable to achieve orbit, and fall back ot earth. Maybe a laser, but even those would likely cause some debris.
...Windows 10 sharing your WiFi password with a person you allow on it and their social circle. By default. You have to opt out of that invasion.
Bzzt! Wrong! There is a checkbox when you connect to the network for the first time. That checkbox is UNCHECKED. You have to actually check the box if you want to share the WiFi connection information. Don't spread FUD please.
Buzz! I just did 5 machines that we're exactly NOT as your version of the truth. Waht's more, on teh one machine I doid b efore learning of this, I had to go in and turn it off.
In the end though, it doesn't matter, this feature should not exist in any way shape of form, my shilly little shill, for your shillinglgy levels of shiilieness.
... problem solved. The only reason this attack vector exists in the first place is that people are too lazy to install their own equipment. Instead, they rent a Comcast Wifi router at an exorbitant cost and questionable security.
This! When Comcast retied to get me to install one of their new routers, I asked about this stupid system, and if they would put in writing that I was not responsible for other people's actions on the router on my property. Crickets chirped.
This is right up there with Windows phone and Windows 10 sharing your WiFi password with a person you allow on it and their social circle. By default. You have to opt out of that invasion
The roots of this problem are understandable The amount of data people are trying to consume with their smartphones has become a problem. That and the tons of ads and tracking scripts placed on a mobile device will take you to and beyond your cap pretty quickly. So they are getting desperate to hand the web off to any wifi they can.
Not
My
Problem
I want to see the face and shake the hand of anyone who attaches to my wifi.
According to the referenced story, Better Privacy will take care of the evercookie. And not using scriptblocker is the web's version of unprotected sex with Charlie Sheen.
No, giving the advice to avoid wolf-filled woods is always a good idea. But the fact that you wouldn't feel compelled to give your son the same advice (or at least not with the same urgency) is symptomatic of a deep sickness in our society.
Actually, the advice is different, but essentially the same. My mother sat with me one day and said "Look at that girl across from you on your date. If you like the idea of looking at her for the rest of your life, or going to jail, or paying child support, have fun. Otherwise keep it in your pants."
As opposed to a sign of societal sickness, the differing advice is based on the consequences. Women do bear most of the consequenses of sexual activity.
Now if we only found an effective, level-headed way to deal with the agressors: granted, the agression has to stop (better after two reports than never, but one feels even that is two reports too late).
It's tough speaking to hormones, but if you avoid putting yourself into the situations the women will not be bothered, and you won't get into trouble.
Have you ever considered that even before this was commonly regarded as sexual assault it still wasn't okay? Maybe what you call "playing hard to get" was more like "rejecting the advances of". "Trying to get to 2nd - 3rd base" was more like "wearing her down until she gives in".
Sadly, this is a technique used by pick-up artists.
I mostly agree, there are two issues though, one touched on in yout last sentence I quoted. If a woman feels that the guy is being an idiot, she should get up and leave. Responsible guys have always been responsive to a "no". I grew up and sowed my share of wild oats. But any time a young lady told me " no thanks", we just settled back and watched the movie or TV. I didn't even sulk or anything.
But now onto to the assholes. Yes, if a guy can't keep his hands to himself, and the woman doesn't want any of that, it's time to go. And while we've all heard the "Fuck or Walk" stories, but I've never heard of one campus assault performed in that manner. It's always been a frat party, or someone invited to the dorm room.
But the problem with all of these matters is that while prudent guys will decide its simply better to LWA, the assholes won't be affected a bit. That's certainly how it worked in the Sexual Harassment wars of the late 80's on campus, and the prudent men decided that their careers were worth more than any sort of interaction with the women in the workforce - which by the way, pissed off most of the women - while the guys who harassed women didn't miss a beat.
Ladies - if a guy assaults you - have him arrested. There's never an excuse for sexual assault. Programs are nice and all, but the power resides in your timely reportage.
> Or any hybrid food for that matter. Or plant splicing, like done on tomatoes or fruit trees. Its a scary world.
Not even close. GMO is more "useful". That's why there are so many ninnies like you participating as willing dupes in the Monsanto propaganda campaign. If it were otherwise, then companies like Monsanto simply wouldn't bother. They would have no motive.
Ummm, spare me the "ninnies" comments. Truce? Or are you in the liberal version of the Fox News bubble?
Because trying to equate Monsanto's herbicide resistance malfeasance and my supposed usefulness to that program is perhaps less then insightful when you make it the equivalent of producing a fish that grows faster. herbicide resistance as part of the genetic makeup in plants is a lost cause in a crop because all it does is make the pest plants stronger. Which is already happening in roundup ready seeds. It's a dumbass lost cause.
Fact is, we aren't supposed to be consuming herbicides like that.
We aren't supposed to be using utensils made of bisphenol A, or many other nasty-ass modern things.
Now you want to see interesting weed control?
http://loe.org/shows/segments....
The only resistance that can be gained against blasting is a thicker weed. What's more instead of the walnut shells they used as the original grit, they will be blasting with organic fertilizers. Two factors for th eprice of one
But on to your assessment that I am completely off, that hybrids are nothing like genetic manipulation.
You need to affirm that you are saying that hybrids or cross breeds are genetically identical to the plants they were bred with. Could you do that?
Because if they are not genetically identical across all the varieties that we hybridized or crossbred, then that is exactly genetic manipulation, and you are only facing a truth that is inconvenient for your worldview.
Can we chat about crossbreeding as safe and GM as dangerous? The Lenape potato.
The Lenape Potato, a conventionally crossbred potato. A fine looking speciman that looked like it was going to take over the potato chip world for a while, had one slight problem. It was toxic.
Many scientists, based on this truth, are saying that the crossbred pant, which to you seems acceptable, should be held to the same standards as GM. Perhaps a new field for deniers?
howeever setting all that aside, I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, and eat only GM salmon for the rest of my life that have been produced this way.
Do you have the strength of your conviction to eat one meal of conventionally crossbred Lenape Potatoes in return? It's even vegan, so no problem there. Sounds like a fair test to me.
Really, please don't. I may be a useful ninnie, but I don't want anyone to come to harm. I'll still eat those salmon. I'll bet they are yummmmmy.
And what is so scary about GMO? Bad taste, fearmongerer, and a luddite, sheesh...
That's the point. Nobody knows what's scary about GMO. There isn't enough data. At one time, radium was used to treat all sorts of ailments. It was only stopped later, when there was data to show that it was indeed harmful. Same can be said about hormone and antibiotic laced cattle. At one time, it was said to be safe, not there is data showing otherwise.
So, where is the data regarding GMO salmon show it is safe?
Or any hybrid food for that matter. Or plant splicing, like done on tomatoes or fruit trees. Its a scary world.
Your radium/antibiotic/hormone argument has some flaws as compared to genetically modified food.
Radium was known to be poisonous pretty quickly, the biggest issues were companies that weren't responsibly handling it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Even more recently , in Lock Haven, PA, there were irresponsible people making uncontrolled releases http://www.yardbird.com/reform...
The hormones and antibiotics are also added substances - and have a clear path of possible problems, just like the estrogen mimics in some plastics. There is known possible side effects right from the first introduction of those substances.
Now this genetic splicing you fear. One of the first indications that it isn't going to be a problem is that it doesn't kill the fish. They survive, they grow. Any addition that might be toxic to people will have to be both not toxic to the salmon, but also very subtle.
Now this in no way means that GM fish can be produced that are not toxic. All manner of animals produce toxic elements, and if a fish could be engineered to contain that, it would become toxic. I am no geneticist, but I suspect that is incredibly difficult, as you would first have to genetically modify the fish to be unaffected by the toxin before adding the ability to produce the toxin. But in the meantime, unless one of the fish is toxic in the natural state, I'm happy to consume it.
> Better yet, catch it yourself. It's quite an enjoyable and delicious hobby.
Right, I'll be sure to catch myself a years worth of salmon during the brief period they are catchable here. I'm sure my job won't miss me for however many weeks that takes, if it's even possible. Clearly if I want wild caught fish, or fish that don't have lab tuned genes, I should have to be a subsistence hunter.
I don't think he offered as something you had to do.
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding. If you're going to bring back a Sci Fi show from that era, why not do one with good writing, like The Twilight Zone? Though somehow I don't think that'd be the same without the narrator smoking a cigarette...
Hww about this reboot? Twilight zone as done by a couple stoners in the Colorado Rockies? Then thy could be smoking something.
"Below in the deep there's adventure and danger... that's where you'll find Diver Dan"
When was that?
... affordable care act ...
Wow. Didn't take long at all for the first "Thanks, Obama!" post.
The turtles have been replaced - It's "Thanks Obama's" all the way down.
Wow. Didn't take long at all for the first "Thanks, Obama!" post.
It doesn't matter who you blame it on, the ACA is a shitty excuse for a national health care system.
I think at best, its a foot-in-the-door solution.
Imagine the reaction if some group who shall not be named manages to repeal it, and people who were at one time locked into a job because some pre-existing condition meant they could never be insured again if they ever had to switch employers.
It does suck, but it sucks by the results of the work done to make it suck.
And that, friends, is not the fault of the current occupant.
Oh god, kill me now.
I'd rather watch reruns of Johnny Quest or Clutch Cargo. Or Speed Racer (the original crappy cartoon), which was the absolute worst piece of shit ever to hit the airwaves.
Clutch Cargo, with Spinner and Paddlefoot! That show creeped me out. no real movement, only superimposed video lips. Maybe it could be used for punishment today.
"If you don't pick up you're room, you're going to have to sit on this couch and watch Clutch Cargo!"
Please - no reboot!
That plus those who just need something to hate.
Isn't it enough to hate Windows and Apple? Windows 8+ with Metro should have given them plenty to hate on; I hate Metro with a passion.
Metro did two things amazing to me. My wife refused to use her computer after a month because as she put it "This is the stupidest fscking thing I ever used!"
And it was so unpleasant for me, I refused to work on a W8X computer ever again.
Now she is incredibly happy with Linux mint, which as it turns out runs great on a touchscreen, and she understands why I like Linux and OS X. A happy ending.
full disclosure - From an operating standpoint, I don't hate Windows 10. Yesterday was the first time I had to go to the web, because of a computer that went through a power outage and surge, and I needed to find out how to safeboot it - no easy task. But 8 was a never-ending embarrassment to administer. No internet, and I was playing whack-a-mole trying to find stuff.
I was a little kid when I saw that show, and even then, it was obvious it was a piece of crap.
I said the same thing about Battlestar Galactica. But the first 2.5 seasons of the new version may have been the best Sci-Fi in the past 15 years. I'm now withholding judgement on any "reboot".
Perhaps if they changed the whole premise.
One thing's sort of funny. When I was a kid and watched it, I thought Angela Cartwright was cute. I just looked at some of the old cast photos and realized that it was actually June Lockhart who was the hottie out of that crew.
Green Acres, starring Kanye West and Kim Kardashian in a dual role as both Lisa and Arnold.
With her backside playing Arnold Ziffle the pig.
The bottom of the barrel, we scrape it here.
What next, "My Mother, the Car"?
Opps, I meant the anti-GMO crowd. This electrical circuitry might get out into the wild, and soon the only roses left will be circuitzed.
You're probably going to be getting downmodded merely for mentioning systemd, but it is starting to have an impact on the perception of Linux as a viable OS, especially in high-availability server environments.
Recently, when I've suggested the use of Linux to clients, I've now dealt with several clients who have been uncertain of using it thanks to the complaints they've heard about systemd.
Sounds apocryphal to me.
Systemd would be pretty far down the list for people who think a computer must run Windows office or be unusable.
Besides, there's FreeBSD. Never had systemd, never will, and I've heard that it is sperior in all ways to any Linux distro that has systemd.
The new attitude is the commercial style developer/user split. There are those who develop it and know what's best for you and you're the user. You're meant to use it, not dig into the guts. I think this attitude sits badly with an awful lot of people, people who feel the culture they are part of an in many cases helped build is being destroyed by large, moneyed interests.
Agreed. But this attitude of "take what the privileged developer class gives you and like it" has been around for decades, dating back to game consoles with cryptographic countermeasures against running user-created programs.
Who forced you to use systemd? There are alternatives, promoted by those who hate systemd - as superior, and free of systemd. Why are people complaining and not moving over to them?
I just have the sense that most people complaining about it just doesn't want any kind of forward progress and don't like things to change.
That plus those who just need something to hate. I have had perhaps two meaningful communications about systemd with others. Thee rest are people doing a computing version of the Thanks Obama meme.
Adopt Microsoft's ribbon or Windows 8 interface?
It will produce a mighty effective no-orbit zone, as we create a lot of new tiny satellite killers out of the debris from the pnce upon a time satellites. They'll eventuallu deorbit, some fairly soon, and some will be up there quite a long time.
It won't even take that many things going kablooey to make wharever we wish impossible to get through. You don't have to hit the satellite, you don't even need to get near it. Just create the shrapnel and let basic orbital mechanics to take care of the rest. A fleck of paint did thishttp://blogs.voanews.com/science-world/files/2012/03/sts7crack.jpg to a space shuttle window on mission STS7. Imagine what millions of substantial pieces of metal and other stuff that used to be a satellite will do. The only possible ways to make this not a earth orbiting version of mutually assured destruction is to somehow keep whatever is trying to kill the satellite unable to achieve orbit, and fall back ot earth. Maybe a laser, but even those would likely cause some debris.
Bzzt! Wrong! There is a checkbox when you connect to the network for the first time. That checkbox is UNCHECKED. You have to actually check the box if you want to share the WiFi connection information. Don't spread FUD please.
Buzz! I just did 5 machines that we're exactly NOT as your version of the truth. Waht's more, on teh one machine I doid b efore learning of this, I had to go in and turn it off.
In the end though, it doesn't matter, this feature should not exist in any way shape of form, my shilly little shill, for your shillinglgy levels of shiilieness.
... problem solved. The only reason this attack vector exists in the first place is that people are too lazy to install their own equipment. Instead, they rent a Comcast Wifi router at an exorbitant cost and questionable security.
This! When Comcast retied to get me to install one of their new routers, I asked about this stupid system, and if they would put in writing that I was not responsible for other people's actions on the router on my property. Crickets chirped.
This is right up there with Windows phone and Windows 10 sharing your WiFi password with a person you allow on it and their social circle. By default. You have to opt out of that invasion The roots of this problem are understandable The amount of data people are trying to consume with their smartphones has become a problem. That and the tons of ads and tracking scripts placed on a mobile device will take you to and beyond your cap pretty quickly. So they are getting desperate to hand the web off to any wifi they can.
Not
My
Problem
I want to see the face and shake the hand of anyone who attaches to my wifi.
According to the referenced story, Better Privacy will take care of the evercookie. And not using scriptblocker is the web's version of unprotected sex with Charlie Sheen.
No, giving the advice to avoid wolf-filled woods is always a good idea. But the fact that you wouldn't feel compelled to give your son the same advice (or at least not with the same urgency) is symptomatic of a deep sickness in our society.
Actually, the advice is different, but essentially the same. My mother sat with me one day and said "Look at that girl across from you on your date. If you like the idea of looking at her for the rest of your life, or going to jail, or paying child support, have fun. Otherwise keep it in your pants."
As opposed to a sign of societal sickness, the differing advice is based on the consequences. Women do bear most of the consequenses of sexual activity.
Now if we only found an effective, level-headed way to deal with the agressors: granted, the agression has to stop (better after two reports than never, but one feels even that is two reports too late).
It's tough speaking to hormones, but if you avoid putting yourself into the situations the women will not be bothered, and you won't get into trouble.
Sounds draconian, but quite effective.
Have you ever considered that even before this was commonly regarded as sexual assault it still wasn't okay? Maybe what you call "playing hard to get" was more like "rejecting the advances of". "Trying to get to 2nd - 3rd base" was more like "wearing her down until she gives in".
Sadly, this is a technique used by pick-up artists.
I mostly agree, there are two issues though, one touched on in yout last sentence I quoted. If a woman feels that the guy is being an idiot, she should get up and leave. Responsible guys have always been responsive to a "no". I grew up and sowed my share of wild oats. But any time a young lady told me " no thanks", we just settled back and watched the movie or TV. I didn't even sulk or anything.
But now onto to the assholes. Yes, if a guy can't keep his hands to himself, and the woman doesn't want any of that, it's time to go. And while we've all heard the "Fuck or Walk" stories, but I've never heard of one campus assault performed in that manner. It's always been a frat party, or someone invited to the dorm room.
But the problem with all of these matters is that while prudent guys will decide its simply better to LWA, the assholes won't be affected a bit. That's certainly how it worked in the Sexual Harassment wars of the late 80's on campus, and the prudent men decided that their careers were worth more than any sort of interaction with the women in the workforce - which by the way, pissed off most of the women - while the guys who harassed women didn't miss a beat.
Ladies - if a guy assaults you - have him arrested. There's never an excuse for sexual assault. Programs are nice and all, but the power resides in your timely reportage.
Guys? What's your future worth?
> Or any hybrid food for that matter. Or plant splicing, like done on tomatoes or fruit trees. Its a scary world.
Not even close. GMO is more "useful". That's why there are so many ninnies like you participating as willing dupes in the Monsanto propaganda campaign. If it were otherwise, then companies like Monsanto simply wouldn't bother. They would have no motive.
Ummm, spare me the "ninnies" comments. Truce? Or are you in the liberal version of the Fox News bubble?
Because trying to equate Monsanto's herbicide resistance malfeasance and my supposed usefulness to that program is perhaps less then insightful when you make it the equivalent of producing a fish that grows faster. herbicide resistance as part of the genetic makeup in plants is a lost cause in a crop because all it does is make the pest plants stronger. Which is already happening in roundup ready seeds. It's a dumbass lost cause.
http://www.usnews.com/news/art...
Fact is, we aren't supposed to be consuming herbicides like that.
We aren't supposed to be using utensils made of bisphenol A, or many other nasty-ass modern things.
Now you want to see interesting weed control?
http://loe.org/shows/segments.... The only resistance that can be gained against blasting is a thicker weed. What's more instead of the walnut shells they used as the original grit, they will be blasting with organic fertilizers. Two factors for th eprice of one
But on to your assessment that I am completely off, that hybrids are nothing like genetic manipulation.
You need to affirm that you are saying that hybrids or cross breeds are genetically identical to the plants they were bred with. Could you do that?
Because if they are not genetically identical across all the varieties that we hybridized or crossbred, then that is exactly genetic manipulation, and you are only facing a truth that is inconvenient for your worldview. Can we chat about crossbreeding as safe and GM as dangerous? The Lenape potato.
The Lenape Potato, a conventionally crossbred potato. A fine looking speciman that looked like it was going to take over the potato chip world for a while, had one slight problem. It was toxic.
http://boingboing.net/2013/03/...
Many scientists, based on this truth, are saying that the crossbred pant, which to you seems acceptable, should be held to the same standards as GM. Perhaps a new field for deniers?
howeever setting all that aside, I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, and eat only GM salmon for the rest of my life that have been produced this way.
Do you have the strength of your conviction to eat one meal of conventionally crossbred Lenape Potatoes in return? It's even vegan, so no problem there. Sounds like a fair test to me.
Really, please don't. I may be a useful ninnie, but I don't want anyone to come to harm. I'll still eat those salmon. I'll bet they are yummmmmy.
Well seems to me like they could answer that question easily in a weekend. They can even have fun with it.
You and I have vastly different definitions of "fun".
Could be. I am assuming since these folks participate in curling, they enjoy it on some level.
And what is so scary about GMO? Bad taste, fearmongerer, and a luddite, sheesh...
That's the point. Nobody knows what's scary about GMO. There isn't enough data. At one time, radium was used to treat all sorts of ailments. It was only stopped later, when there was data to show that it was indeed harmful. Same can be said about hormone and antibiotic laced cattle. At one time, it was said to be safe, not there is data showing otherwise.
So, where is the data regarding GMO salmon show it is safe?
Or any hybrid food for that matter. Or plant splicing, like done on tomatoes or fruit trees. Its a scary world.
Your radium/antibiotic/hormone argument has some flaws as compared to genetically modified food.
Radium was known to be poisonous pretty quickly, the biggest issues were companies that weren't responsibly handling it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Even more recently , in Lock Haven, PA, there were irresponsible people making uncontrolled releases http://www.yardbird.com/reform...
The hormones and antibiotics are also added substances - and have a clear path of possible problems, just like the estrogen mimics in some plastics. There is known possible side effects right from the first introduction of those substances.
Now this genetic splicing you fear. One of the first indications that it isn't going to be a problem is that it doesn't kill the fish. They survive, they grow. Any addition that might be toxic to people will have to be both not toxic to the salmon, but also very subtle.
Now this in no way means that GM fish can be produced that are not toxic. All manner of animals produce toxic elements, and if a fish could be engineered to contain that, it would become toxic. I am no geneticist, but I suspect that is incredibly difficult, as you would first have to genetically modify the fish to be unaffected by the toxin before adding the ability to produce the toxin. But in the meantime, unless one of the fish is toxic in the natural state, I'm happy to consume it.
> Better yet, catch it yourself. It's quite an enjoyable and delicious hobby.
Right, I'll be sure to catch myself a years worth of salmon during the brief period they are catchable here. I'm sure my job won't miss me for however many weeks that takes, if it's even possible. Clearly if I want wild caught fish, or fish that don't have lab tuned genes, I should have to be a subsistence hunter.
I don't think he offered as something you had to do.