There is a difference between "Chinese / Russian IP addresses" and "Chinese / Russian sanctioned cyber attacks", but this has not reached the MSM yet...
At leas to a sufficient degree as to satisfy the FDA
This is not proving harmlessness, merely running a successful marketing / lobbying campaign.
If you sell something, you should be able to show it can do what you claim it does.
The software industry has been overselling their products for ages, yet, we're all still in a lucrative business selling junk. As mentioned in another comment, homeopathic products are still on the shelf (and selling big), and you can still buy a ghost detector. To an extend or another, there is no successful business based on a 100% truthful and honest marketing, which is an antinomy in itself, as marketing is basically the art of lying.
I would have no objection to the FDA demanding accurate labeling including "This product contains chemicals that have not been proven safe for human use and have no proven benefit" and let the people decide from there.
Though the agency ruled years ago that triclosan and other antimicrobials are safe, it’s now revisiting claims that the chemicals make soaps and other personal care products better.
Kinda like the ATF arbitrary deciding to ban stuff overnight while it previously considered them legal for years / decades before.
This is just like saying you're "being guilty until you prove yourself innocent "... The FDA should have to prove harm, rather than the soap companies proving effectiveness.
The point of this isn't to ban a harmless ingredient, but to ban a harmless ingredient that could eventually prove to not be so harmless.
This is "precautionary principle" horseshit. It is either harmful, and you demonstrated such harmfulness, or it is not. And from another point of view, you can't prove a negative, so the burden of proof should be on the FDA proving harm, rather than bigpharma proving harmfulness / effectiveness.
OIf these chemicals put in soap don't kill germs as the makers may claim, then they must be removed from those products.
Fuck that, if this has no action, but is safe, then the FDA should have no authority for an outright ban. Ghost detector can't detect shit, but it's still being sold...
perhaps because new details keep appearing about the extend of her lies, which makes her looks less and less "honest" and "capable" for the job she's looking for...
That's not the point, any conviction would prevent her accession to the US Throne. US AG Loretta Lynch (and upper in the hierarchy) can't allow that, who knows how much "corruption" stories she could remember while in jail...
is that why you force negros, illegal hispanics (remember, "diversity", all "legal" would create a monoculture), asians, lgbtqtabtc and women down the throat of companies ?
If all these things are so expansive, then tell me how I can get a $200 third-party phone from Costco which outperform an iPhone 6 both in term of usability, hackability *and* battery life.
Slashdot Mirror
Nokia is not specifically an exemple to follow...
False. Canadian data show that suicide rates are *not* affected by easy access to firearm, which remains constant post gun control laws.
There is a difference between "Chinese / Russian IP addresses" and "Chinese / Russian sanctioned cyber attacks", but this has not reached the MSM yet...
At leas to a sufficient degree as to satisfy the FDA
This is not proving harmlessness, merely running a successful marketing / lobbying campaign.
If you sell something, you should be able to show it can do what you claim it does.
The software industry has been overselling their products for ages, yet, we're all still in a lucrative business selling junk. As mentioned in another comment, homeopathic products are still on the shelf (and selling big), and you can still buy a ghost detector.
To an extend or another, there is no successful business based on a 100% truthful and honest marketing, which is an antinomy in itself, as marketing is basically the art of lying.
I would have no objection to the FDA demanding accurate labeling including "This product contains chemicals that have not been proven safe for human use and have no proven benefit" and let the people decide from there.
Which is blatantly false... http://arstechnica.com/science...
Though the agency ruled years ago that triclosan and other antimicrobials are safe, it’s now revisiting claims that the chemicals make soaps and other personal care products better.
Kinda like the ATF arbitrary deciding to ban stuff overnight while it previously considered them legal for years / decades before.
Last time I checked, ghost detectors were still legal to buy... What is the FTC doing !
This is just like saying you're "being guilty until you prove yourself innocent "... The FDA should have to prove harm, rather than the soap companies proving effectiveness.
The point of this isn't to ban a harmless ingredient, but to ban a harmless ingredient that could eventually prove to not be so harmless.
This is "precautionary principle" horseshit. It is either harmful, and you demonstrated such harmfulness, or it is not. And from another point of view, you can't prove a negative, so the burden of proof should be on the FDA proving harm, rather than bigpharma proving harmfulness / effectiveness.
Next thing you know, the FDA bans the dangerous chemical name "sodium stearate". They're not banning soap, just it's most common ingredient.
OIf these chemicals put in soap don't kill germs as the makers may claim, then they must be removed from those products.
Fuck that, if this has no action, but is safe, then the FDA should have no authority for an outright ban. Ghost detector can't detect shit, but it's still being sold...
perhaps because new details keep appearing about the extend of her lies, which makes her looks less and less "honest" and "capable" for the job she's looking for...
... and the last time was the day right before Bill ran into Loretta Lynch to talk about their grand-children.
That's not the point, any conviction would prevent her accession to the US Throne. US AG Loretta Lynch (and upper in the hierarchy) can't allow that, who knows how much "corruption" stories she could remember while in jail...
they can't afford it, but they can make the property worthless by denying construction "permits".
is that why you force negros, illegal hispanics (remember, "diversity", all "legal" would create a monoculture), asians, lgbtqtabtc and women down the throat of companies ?
If all these things are so expansive, then tell me how I can get a $200 third-party phone from Costco which outperform an iPhone 6 both in term of usability, hackability *and* battery life.
An iPhone 6 manufacturing cost is estimated at $200, even if you add 50% for R&D, that's still a 100% profit margin over the entry level model.
Or have you assumed the opposite, that women are too god damn fragile, always talking about their "feelings" ?
I guess you misunderstood my position, or I misunderstood previous AC comment.
I'm never gonna get "domesticated".
over my cold dead body (literally) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Sure, it is. That's why I went full MGTOW.
easy. 0... or actually, maybe 3 to 9, at the balance beam, uneven bars, and gymnastic floor..
The "women at the top" have a rather poor performance history. Marissa Mayer sank Yahoo, Carly Fiorina did the same with HP...
Even if they worked as hard, they're still performing worst, disproving the "everybody's equal" leftist myth.
Sure... higher likelihood of death on the job, higher dropout rates, higher homelessness rates, higher legal obligation, higher deathtoll in wars, higher suicide rates, higher homicide rates, higher sentencing rates, less cancer research funding rates, smaller custody rates, higher victimization rates.
Enough ?