"Drink a glass" is a common argument from those unable to to comprehend the difference between a carcinogen and a toxin.
Cyanide isn't carcinogenic. But you wouldn't drink a glass of it because it's extremely toxic. You avoid drinking a glass of glyphosate because its toxic at that dosage. That fact is not evidence for it being carcinogenic, whatosever.
So then they goal-post shift to "it's toxic therefore it's dangerous". But 90% of the stuff we consume is toxic if consumed at a quantity in which it's toxic to humans. Water is toxic if you drink too much of it. It causes acute water toxicity. The key is that we consume goods at levels they're not toxic in humans. "The dose makes the poison".
So then they move the goalposts again to "any amount of a toxic chemical is bad", illustrating their complete misunderstanding of chemistry or toxicity. No, it's not. Bananas contain potassium. Potassium is required by the body for many chemical processes. But if you drink a glass of it, you'll die. If you get none of it at all, you'll die. Same goes for copper. Same goes for magnesium. Etc. Required to live. Only dangerous if you consume too much. Arsenic and formaldehyde are found in plenty of foods - but they're not toxic at the levels we consume them. Hell, cyanide is produced in plenty of plants we eat. But it's not toxic at the levels we consume it. Trace amounts of glyphosate found on food are thousands of times below the threshold of toxicity in humans - it's non bio-accumulating, so unless you're eating several thousands cabbages in one sitting, you can never consume glyphosate in toxic quantities from food.
Yeah - there's plenty of evidence glyphosate is toxic at high doses, just like almost every pesticide used in organic food production. Which is why you need to wear safety gear if you're handling it directly. But the fact it's toxic is not evidence its carcinogenic at all, and when the summation of IARC findings that it "may" cause one type of cancer is "because people blamed it for their cancer", you just have to look at the number of folk who think vaccines cause autism to understand that science is never determined by popularity. Policy may be. Science is not.
Naw, the analogue would be that Kaspersky is your accounting software, and the attacker is the accountant. You don't stop doing accounting just because one accountant has a way to screw with your books. The point is, all accountants have a way to screw with your books, no matter what accounting system you're using. Swap out you accounting package, and another (or the same) accountant are able to screw with that as well. If you want to keep your accounts safe, lock them all in a vault that accountants can't access.
Except he wasn't arguing that you should run an AV that doesn't require kernel mode drivers. He said you shouldn't be running AV at all. You asked him to provide a solution for something he never suggested.
Since the OS it's running on top of is already deeply rooted by the NSA, what difference does it make if another spy agency has a zero day for one particular program I'm running on there? Hell, I'm sure both the KGB and NSA have zero-days for half the software I run on my PC. It takes a good half-hour of regedits, scripts and service disabling just to turn off telemetry in Windows 10, and that's just the stuff you're meant to know about.
If I was working on documents that I really needed to keep secret from a state-sponsored attacker, I'd need to air-gap that shit. Whether I was running Windows, Linux, or XBMC.
As it is, while Kaspersky won't keep state-sponsored attackers out (and neither will any other AV, or Windows Defender), it does a darn good job of keeping non-state-sponsored attackers out. And if a malicious attacker gets access to the same kind of tools a state-sponsored attacker does, it makes no difference whether I'm using Kaspersky or something else.
Unless someone can show me that Kaspersky puts me MORE at risk from non-state-sponsored attackers than a competing AV (or no AV at all), then swapping one out for another makes no difference. And no, "a hacker could get a-hold of KGB's zero days" is not an argument against Kaspersky, since a hacker could also get a-hold of NSAs zero days which don't target Kaspersky.. you know, like the whole dump of NSA zero-days that was dumped.
Just on a side-note, Starcraft 2 shouldn't really bog down that system. If you're running Windows 10, make sure to turn off GameDVR in the Xbox app, because it can cause serious conflicts with Starcraft 2 and can result in considerable graphical buffering issues, particularly in cut-scenes in Legacy of the Void, and even static scenes in Heart of the Swarm if graphics settings are turned up. If this isn't applicable to you, please disregard.:)
Just installed WaterFox, and it imported my profile and all addons automatically, and away I go. Am going to have to retrain NoBlock, but this is great.
Ha, I like how they've changed the "LEGACY" flag to "FULL ADD-ON". From the patch notes -
Whatâ(TM)s new in Waterfox 55.0.1?
Updated to Firefox 55.0.1 (Release Notes)
Full add-ons are now marked as such in the about:addons page, in preparation for keeping support.
Waterfox will CARRY ON SUPPORT for add-ons.
So, I've found my FireFox replacement.. Thanks anonymous!
It's almost as if the Firefox team doesn't realise the only reason people still use Firefox is because of the broad support for addons.
Of the 13 addons I use, all except 1 are marked Legacy, and ironically, that 1 is something I was testing and never use. In fact I need to remove that.
Every other addon I consider essential to my browsing experience, simply because they've allowed me to configure my usage to the most optimal experience for me. Likewise, if they stop working; I'm not going to waste time dealing with roadblocks to performance - I'm just going to switch to another browser which will continue to perform these functions. Whether that's PaleMoon (which I already have installed for a few occasional tasks which are no longer supported by FireFox) or to Chrome, depends on which provides the most functionality.
Unfortunately, Mozilla, your strong SJW stance isn't going to bring legions of supporters to your browser - they're all using Chrome or Safari. Power-users are your bread and butter, and if you shut them out, then there's nothing really left.
Really? You felt the need to correct a single typo on glyphosate despite it being correct everywhere else in the post? I'm hoping that's just a pet hate of yours, rather than extreme pettiness.
Here in NZ and Aus, glyphosate on most produce is in the PPB range. On some products, it is in the PPM range. On some where it's allowed in the PPM range by regulation, it's still found in PPB. But that kinda misses the point of my argument (although given the typo correction, I'm guessing you didn't actually miss it, but practice extreme pedantism), which is that there are far more toxic chemicals found naturally in food.
His "evidence" of glyphosate causing cancer, was widely laughed at studies where they basically drowned animals in glyphosate and then pointed out that it's toxic because it killed them. Of course it's toxic - that has nothing to do with either causing cancer, or being any danger to humans at low doses. Which was my point - he's consuming MORE toxic chemicals, at HIGHER doses, occurring naturally in many foods. It's extreme cognitive dissonance.
That would be reckless. It's toxic in high doses, which is irrelevant to residue since it's non-bio-accumulating.
I wouldn't drink a full glass of vinegar either, and it's MORE toxic than glyphosphate. Vinegar (the acetic acid it's made of, not the water content) has an LD50 of 3.3g per kilogram. Glyphosate has an LD50 of 5.6g per kilogram.
There's a vast difference between a chemical being toxic in high doses (many naturally occurring chemicals are extremely toxic in even small doses - this is where we get poisons from, for example) and a chemical causing cancer, which there's no evidence glyphosate does. Are you replying to the wrong post?
Nobody said glyphosate isn't toxic. It's less toxic than copper sulphate or any of a hundred other organic pesticides, but it's certainly toxic. The level it's toxic in humans is several million times higher than its found on produce. It's not bio-accumulating. If you were actually afraid of it because of "toxins", then you shouldn't be breathing AIR, which has more PPB of anthrax, than you'll find on your food in glyphosphate.
Yes, they gave tadpoles very high doses of a toxic chemical and then recorded it had adverse effects. Are they going to come collect the Nobel prize, or am I going to have to courier it?
If your fear is of 'toxins' then either you have to understand that the threshold of consumption required before a chemical is toxic to humans is important to the conversation ("the dose makes the poison" - even water is toxic if you consume too much of it), or you must live in absolute fear of every foodstuff out there, with toxins prevalent in all foodstuffs, with higher LD50s than glyphosate, and far higher concentrations than glyphosate are ever found in food. Formaldehyde? Anthrax? Cyanide? Why are you happy to consume these toxic chemicals at much higher concentrations in your food, than the less toxic glyphosate?
Right. I'm glad you were able to provide an unbiased source which hasn't firebombed crops and has solid science to back up their general anti-GMO paranoia. An organisation which has saved tens of thousands of children from having to deal with the burden of sight, through blocking golden rice. If I knew your source was credible militant anti-science, anti-human Luddites, I would never have dared ask.
And you're correct. There are significant ecological reasons to farm organic. Just ask any farmer. If you want to use more land, and more water, with less yield, and significantly greater (in most commercial scale operations) application of herbicides and pesticides, by all means - go organic. If you believe otherwise, you may never have actually spoken to farmers. Organic IS about fear-mongering. Ask people who actually buy organic why they do it and you'll get "it's healthier" (it's not), "it's more sustainable" (it's not), "it uses less pesticides" (it doesn't, except in hobby farms), "it uses fewer artificial chemicals" (there are over 40 artificial chemicals approved for use in organic production - and many non-artificial chemicals approved for use are still fine to use if they're produced artificially), "it's better for the planet" (it's not, it uses more resources, for less yield), "it doesn't contain toxins" (the traits introduced to GMOs to produce natural pesticides are brought across from other plants where they already exist - even in the organic forms), and so on and so forth. We could do this all day, but I doubt we'll convince each other if anything.
As long as the science says GMO are better for the environment, more sustainable, with no adverse effects, I'll happily support them. If peer-reviewed science ever shows any actual harm, I'll be happy to revisit that view. The same can't be said for organic proponents, as they don't care about the science. They care about feelings, and their feelings tell them "GMO bad. Organic good."
Please. Tell us the scientifically proven health advantages of food which has been classified "organic" over food which has not been classified "organic".
So you disregard any source which doesn't agree with your viewpoint, as being part of a grand conspiracy? Chalk one up for confirmation bias.
If you're against Monsanto because "chemiKILLZ", then likely there's no rationale that will convince you, as you really don't care about the science, you just want an echo chamber to agree with your unfounded fears. Don't worry, there's plenty of crazy internet out there for you.
You mean the part of the article saying that the only possible link between glyphosate and cancer is a possible increase in likliehood of non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, while linking to the actual report from the EPA which concluded:
"The available data at this time do no support a carcinogenic process for glyphosate. Overall, animal carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies were remarkably consistent and did not demonstrate a clear association between glyphosate exposure and outcomes of interest related to carcinogenic potential. In epidemiological studies, there was no evidence of an association between glyphosate exposure and numerous cancer outcomes; however, due to conflicting results and various limitations identified in studies investigating NHL, a conclusion regarding the association between glyphosate exposure and risk of NHL cannot be determined based on the available data."
So, not only is there absolutely no evidence of it being linked to ANY OTHER cancer, but there's insufficient evidence to even link it to NHL. There's a reason why non statistically-significant, non-replicatable studies aren't considered conclusive. Because they're non statistically-significant. Unfortunately, bias does enter science. If your conclusion can't be replicated in peer-review, it means jack.
Actually, the Johnson & Johnson claims keep getting over-turned on appeal. There have been plenty of claims, but they don't end up paying them out because the science doesn't support talc causing ovarian cancer. But yes, another jury of members of the public has found in favour of a claimant. Doubtless, it'll again be overturned on appeal. There's lots to read about this, but it is odd that the only 'scientific' studies that find there is a statistically significant link between un-contaminated talc powder and cancer, are those being performed by claimants, and nobody else can replicate their results. http://www.latimes.com/busines...
As for glyphosate, they ARE very, very clear about it. It's the most widely used herbicide in the world. It has been tested over and over and over again. There's no *evidence* it causes cancer. That's it. (Evidence, that is, which is able to be replicated. Anybody can make a claim in a study, but there's no peer-reviewed, replicated studies, which find any link between glyphosate and any form of cancer).
And be a test subject? Sure - I'll happily eat any and all GMOs. I go out of my way to avoid any food labelled 'organic' between 1) I don't support fear-mongering, and 2) I generally know from a most-used range of 6 products, which pesticides and herbicides are being used on non-organic crops. Conversely, I *don't* know which of over 170 organic-approved pesticides/herbicides are being used on organic crops, Most of these are more toxic than glyphosate, and unlike glyphosate, most have not been through 40 years of studies to prove their safety.
Agent Orange isn't glyphosate. It doesn't contain any of the same active ingredients (besides water). Monsanto was one of several companies which manufactured the herbicide under contract to the US government. It was never safe for use on populations. Blaming Monsanto for Agent Orange is like blaming a firearms manufacturer for someone shooting up a gay nightclub.
Except nobody has ever died from glyphosate. The company tries to kill negative press about "glyphosate causing cancer" because it's bullshit that has been debunked again and again. IARC did claim it "could possibly" cause cancer, based on research which has since been debunked, which is why every other major regulatory agency have approved the fact that it doesn't cause cancer. Hell, it's even less toxic than most organic pesticides.
Those that cling to "glyphosate causes cancer" and "Monsatan is the devil" are the same folks who believe in chemtrails, vaccines causing autism, and countless other health conspiracies.
Sure, Monsanto is a business and they want to protect their image against nonsense, as is their right (and, to shareholders, their responsibility) to do so.
Well, you're restricting your imagination somewhat. The clock inside a simulation is self-referencing. It doesn't half to self-heal. The operator could run a single cycle, see what happens, then make adjustments before continuing. It doesn't matter how long it takes to calculate or process the physics of the universe, since the referential time-frame of the subjects of the universe is part of the simulation itself. One second in the simulation could take 10 seconds, 10 years, or a hundred million years to process in the "outside world", but it wouldn't make any difference to the operation within the simulation.
A lot of commenters have posted arguments like the scale being impossible (why? our simulated universe could be 10^200 times smaller than the universe one level above us, there's no reason to think it'd contain the same amount of information), or that things like quantum physics would break the bounds of the computer running the simulation (sincere lack of imagination - if it's a simulation, these quantum physics don't "exist", the simulation of them is part of a running program), and other such arguments which keep forgetting that they're talking about a simulation, not something physically real.
It's basically comes down to this - if we postulate that given enough time (billions of years? trillions of years? pick a number) and sufficiently advanced technology, we could eventually simulate the entire physics of our universe (the nature of the physics) and accurately simulate a universe (even if much smaller than our own) right down to every aspect of the physics, then it immediately becomes more likely that we're in such a simulation than not.
Why? Because if we were able to have an accurate simulation of the physics, then it would be possible for the inhabitants of our simulated universe to also do the same, on a smaller scale. And so on and so forth. There's an analogy in computers in that we can write an emulator which accurately emulates in software the hardware of a computer. Then, in that emulated computer, we can write another emulator which accurately emulates in software the "hardware" of the simulated computer, etc etc. The limit of this recursion is only the processing power of the initial "seed" computer. However, each computer in the chain acts as if it is the seed computer, and its processing power is the first step.
Likewise, in a universe simulation, the inhabitants of each universe would think they're the top level "seed" universe. As it's a simulation, there's no way they could ever escape the bounds of the simulation as they don't "exist" outside of it. Thats what makes this simply a thought exercise, because even if simulated, it's still our "real", as you mention at the end of your post.
But, if we accept the initial premise that we'd eventually be able to produce such a universal physics simulation, that makes it logical that we're in such a simulation, and by no means the "seed" universe. After all, if we could run one such simulation, why not multiple. And why would the inhabitants of those simulations once they too were able to do the same (given they have the same physics, it would be possible within the simulation), also not run multiple simulations? If we accept the initial premise, then we have to accept that there could be an uncountable number of simulated universes, only one seed universe, and no way for the inhabitants of any simulation to ever know if they're the seed or a simulation.
And it doesn't matter. If we're in such a simulation, we could never know. Even if the operator decided to program the simulation to be aware of itself, it would still only be operating within the bounds of the simulation. What we think of as self-awareness would just be part of the physics simulation running its course, meaning that although the inhabitants of the simulation would 'act' self aware to an observer, they're only doing so because of the accuracy of the physical simulation.
It's all a fascinating thought exercise, but has no real world applications. For us, the simulation and reality would be one and the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Except, they programmed it to do precisely that, so.. intentionally. Just unintentionally raised the ire of folks in doing so.
"Drink a glass" is a common argument from those unable to to comprehend the difference between a carcinogen and a toxin.
Cyanide isn't carcinogenic. But you wouldn't drink a glass of it because it's extremely toxic. You avoid drinking a glass of glyphosate because its toxic at that dosage. That fact is not evidence for it being carcinogenic, whatosever.
So then they goal-post shift to "it's toxic therefore it's dangerous". But 90% of the stuff we consume is toxic if consumed at a quantity in which it's toxic to humans. Water is toxic if you drink too much of it. It causes acute water toxicity. The key is that we consume goods at levels they're not toxic in humans. "The dose makes the poison".
So then they move the goalposts again to "any amount of a toxic chemical is bad", illustrating their complete misunderstanding of chemistry or toxicity. No, it's not. Bananas contain potassium. Potassium is required by the body for many chemical processes. But if you drink a glass of it, you'll die. If you get none of it at all, you'll die. Same goes for copper. Same goes for magnesium. Etc. Required to live. Only dangerous if you consume too much. Arsenic and formaldehyde are found in plenty of foods - but they're not toxic at the levels we consume them. Hell, cyanide is produced in plenty of plants we eat. But it's not toxic at the levels we consume it. Trace amounts of glyphosate found on food are thousands of times below the threshold of toxicity in humans - it's non bio-accumulating, so unless you're eating several thousands cabbages in one sitting, you can never consume glyphosate in toxic quantities from food.
Yeah - there's plenty of evidence glyphosate is toxic at high doses, just like almost every pesticide used in organic food production. Which is why you need to wear safety gear if you're handling it directly. But the fact it's toxic is not evidence its carcinogenic at all, and when the summation of IARC findings that it "may" cause one type of cancer is "because people blamed it for their cancer", you just have to look at the number of folk who think vaccines cause autism to understand that science is never determined by popularity. Policy may be. Science is not.
Naw, the analogue would be that Kaspersky is your accounting software, and the attacker is the accountant. You don't stop doing accounting just because one accountant has a way to screw with your books. The point is, all accountants have a way to screw with your books, no matter what accounting system you're using. Swap out you accounting package, and another (or the same) accountant are able to screw with that as well. If you want to keep your accounts safe, lock them all in a vault that accountants can't access.
Except he wasn't arguing that you should run an AV that doesn't require kernel mode drivers. He said you shouldn't be running AV at all. You asked him to provide a solution for something he never suggested.
Since the OS it's running on top of is already deeply rooted by the NSA, what difference does it make if another spy agency has a zero day for one particular program I'm running on there? Hell, I'm sure both the KGB and NSA have zero-days for half the software I run on my PC. It takes a good half-hour of regedits, scripts and service disabling just to turn off telemetry in Windows 10, and that's just the stuff you're meant to know about.
If I was working on documents that I really needed to keep secret from a state-sponsored attacker, I'd need to air-gap that shit. Whether I was running Windows, Linux, or XBMC.
As it is, while Kaspersky won't keep state-sponsored attackers out (and neither will any other AV, or Windows Defender), it does a darn good job of keeping non-state-sponsored attackers out. And if a malicious attacker gets access to the same kind of tools a state-sponsored attacker does, it makes no difference whether I'm using Kaspersky or something else.
Unless someone can show me that Kaspersky puts me MORE at risk from non-state-sponsored attackers than a competing AV (or no AV at all), then swapping one out for another makes no difference. And no, "a hacker could get a-hold of KGB's zero days" is not an argument against Kaspersky, since a hacker could also get a-hold of NSAs zero days which don't target Kaspersky.. you know, like the whole dump of NSA zero-days that was dumped.
Just on a side-note, Starcraft 2 shouldn't really bog down that system. If you're running Windows 10, make sure to turn off GameDVR in the Xbox app, because it can cause serious conflicts with Starcraft 2 and can result in considerable graphical buffering issues, particularly in cut-scenes in Legacy of the Void, and even static scenes in Heart of the Swarm if graphics settings are turned up. If this isn't applicable to you, please disregard. :)
Well, nevermind, this solves all my problems. https://ask.slashdot.org/comme...
Just installed WaterFox, and it imported my profile and all addons automatically, and away I go. Am going to have to retrain NoBlock, but this is great.
Ha, I like how they've changed the "LEGACY" flag to "FULL ADD-ON". From the patch notes -
So, I've found my FireFox replacement.. Thanks anonymous!
It's almost as if the Firefox team doesn't realise the only reason people still use Firefox is because of the broad support for addons.
Of the 13 addons I use, all except 1 are marked Legacy, and ironically, that 1 is something I was testing and never use. In fact I need to remove that.
Every other addon I consider essential to my browsing experience, simply because they've allowed me to configure my usage to the most optimal experience for me. Likewise, if they stop working; I'm not going to waste time dealing with roadblocks to performance - I'm just going to switch to another browser which will continue to perform these functions. Whether that's PaleMoon (which I already have installed for a few occasional tasks which are no longer supported by FireFox) or to Chrome, depends on which provides the most functionality.
Unfortunately, Mozilla, your strong SJW stance isn't going to bring legions of supporters to your browser - they're all using Chrome or Safari. Power-users are your bread and butter, and if you shut them out, then there's nothing really left.
So.. guess who won't be updating.
You'll be held in contempt until you provide it.
Really? You felt the need to correct a single typo on glyphosate despite it being correct everywhere else in the post? I'm hoping that's just a pet hate of yours, rather than extreme pettiness.
Here in NZ and Aus, glyphosate on most produce is in the PPB range. On some products, it is in the PPM range. On some where it's allowed in the PPM range by regulation, it's still found in PPB. But that kinda misses the point of my argument (although given the typo correction, I'm guessing you didn't actually miss it, but practice extreme pedantism), which is that there are far more toxic chemicals found naturally in food.
His "evidence" of glyphosate causing cancer, was widely laughed at studies where they basically drowned animals in glyphosate and then pointed out that it's toxic because it killed them. Of course it's toxic - that has nothing to do with either causing cancer, or being any danger to humans at low doses. Which was my point - he's consuming MORE toxic chemicals, at HIGHER doses, occurring naturally in many foods. It's extreme cognitive dissonance.
That would be reckless. It's toxic in high doses, which is irrelevant to residue since it's non-bio-accumulating.
I wouldn't drink a full glass of vinegar either, and it's MORE toxic than glyphosphate. Vinegar (the acetic acid it's made of, not the water content) has an LD50 of 3.3g per kilogram. Glyphosate has an LD50 of 5.6g per kilogram.
There's a vast difference between a chemical being toxic in high doses (many naturally occurring chemicals are extremely toxic in even small doses - this is where we get poisons from, for example) and a chemical causing cancer, which there's no evidence glyphosate does. Are you replying to the wrong post?
Nobody said glyphosate isn't toxic. It's less toxic than copper sulphate or any of a hundred other organic pesticides, but it's certainly toxic. The level it's toxic in humans is several million times higher than its found on produce. It's not bio-accumulating. If you were actually afraid of it because of "toxins", then you shouldn't be breathing AIR, which has more PPB of anthrax, than you'll find on your food in glyphosphate.
Yes, they gave tadpoles very high doses of a toxic chemical and then recorded it had adverse effects. Are they going to come collect the Nobel prize, or am I going to have to courier it?
If your fear is of 'toxins' then either you have to understand that the threshold of consumption required before a chemical is toxic to humans is important to the conversation ("the dose makes the poison" - even water is toxic if you consume too much of it), or you must live in absolute fear of every foodstuff out there, with toxins prevalent in all foodstuffs, with higher LD50s than glyphosate, and far higher concentrations than glyphosate are ever found in food. Formaldehyde? Anthrax? Cyanide? Why are you happy to consume these toxic chemicals at much higher concentrations in your food, than the less toxic glyphosate?
Right. I'm glad you were able to provide an unbiased source which hasn't firebombed crops and has solid science to back up their general anti-GMO paranoia. An organisation which has saved tens of thousands of children from having to deal with the burden of sight, through blocking golden rice. If I knew your source was credible militant anti-science, anti-human Luddites, I would never have dared ask.
And you're correct. There are significant ecological reasons to farm organic. Just ask any farmer. If you want to use more land, and more water, with less yield, and significantly greater (in most commercial scale operations) application of herbicides and pesticides, by all means - go organic. If you believe otherwise, you may never have actually spoken to farmers. Organic IS about fear-mongering. Ask people who actually buy organic why they do it and you'll get "it's healthier" (it's not), "it's more sustainable" (it's not), "it uses less pesticides" (it doesn't, except in hobby farms), "it uses fewer artificial chemicals" (there are over 40 artificial chemicals approved for use in organic production - and many non-artificial chemicals approved for use are still fine to use if they're produced artificially), "it's better for the planet" (it's not, it uses more resources, for less yield), "it doesn't contain toxins" (the traits introduced to GMOs to produce natural pesticides are brought across from other plants where they already exist - even in the organic forms), and so on and so forth. We could do this all day, but I doubt we'll convince each other if anything.
As long as the science says GMO are better for the environment, more sustainable, with no adverse effects, I'll happily support them. If peer-reviewed science ever shows any actual harm, I'll be happy to revisit that view. The same can't be said for organic proponents, as they don't care about the science. They care about feelings, and their feelings tell them "GMO bad. Organic good."
Please. Tell us the scientifically proven health advantages of food which has been classified "organic" over food which has not been classified "organic".
"Anyone who values science over fear is a corporate shill". Gotcha.
So you disregard any source which doesn't agree with your viewpoint, as being part of a grand conspiracy? Chalk one up for confirmation bias.
If you're against Monsanto because "chemiKILLZ", then likely there's no rationale that will convince you, as you really don't care about the science, you just want an echo chamber to agree with your unfounded fears. Don't worry, there's plenty of crazy internet out there for you.
You mean the part of the article saying that the only possible link between glyphosate and cancer is a possible increase in likliehood of non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, while linking to the actual report from the EPA which concluded:
" The available data at this time do no support a carcinogenic process for glyphosate. Overall, animal carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies were remarkably consistent and did not demonstrate a clear association between glyphosate exposure and outcomes of interest related to carcinogenic potential.
In epidemiological studies, there was no evidence of an association between glyphosate exposure and numerous cancer outcomes; however, due to conflicting results and various limitations identified in studies investigating NHL, a conclusion regarding the association between glyphosate exposure and risk of NHL cannot be determined based on the available data."
So, not only is there absolutely no evidence of it being linked to ANY OTHER cancer, but there's insufficient evidence to even link it to NHL. There's a reason why non statistically-significant, non-replicatable studies aren't considered conclusive. Because they're non statistically-significant. Unfortunately, bias does enter science. If your conclusion can't be replicated in peer-review, it means jack.
Yes.. yes I did read it.
No worries. Keep in mind, if the merger with Bayer goes ahead, we'll be switching across to "Bayerzebub".
Actually, the Johnson & Johnson claims keep getting over-turned on appeal. There have been plenty of claims, but they don't end up paying them out because the science doesn't support talc causing ovarian cancer. But yes, another jury of members of the public has found in favour of a claimant. Doubtless, it'll again be overturned on appeal. There's lots to read about this, but it is odd that the only 'scientific' studies that find there is a statistically significant link between un-contaminated talc powder and cancer, are those being performed by claimants, and nobody else can replicate their results. http://www.latimes.com/busines...
As for glyphosate, they ARE very, very clear about it. It's the most widely used herbicide in the world. It has been tested over and over and over again. There's no *evidence* it causes cancer. That's it. (Evidence, that is, which is able to be replicated. Anybody can make a claim in a study, but there's no peer-reviewed, replicated studies, which find any link between glyphosate and any form of cancer).
And be a test subject? Sure - I'll happily eat any and all GMOs. I go out of my way to avoid any food labelled 'organic' between 1) I don't support fear-mongering, and 2) I generally know from a most-used range of 6 products, which pesticides and herbicides are being used on non-organic crops. Conversely, I *don't* know which of over 170 organic-approved pesticides/herbicides are being used on organic crops, Most of these are more toxic than glyphosate, and unlike glyphosate, most have not been through 40 years of studies to prove their safety.
Agent Orange isn't glyphosate. It doesn't contain any of the same active ingredients (besides water). Monsanto was one of several companies which manufactured the herbicide under contract to the US government. It was never safe for use on populations. Blaming Monsanto for Agent Orange is like blaming a firearms manufacturer for someone shooting up a gay nightclub.
Except nobody has ever died from glyphosate. The company tries to kill negative press about "glyphosate causing cancer" because it's bullshit that has been debunked again and again. IARC did claim it "could possibly" cause cancer, based on research which has since been debunked, which is why every other major regulatory agency have approved the fact that it doesn't cause cancer. Hell, it's even less toxic than most organic pesticides.
Those that cling to "glyphosate causes cancer" and "Monsatan is the devil" are the same folks who believe in chemtrails, vaccines causing autism, and countless other health conspiracies.
Sure, Monsanto is a business and they want to protect their image against nonsense, as is their right (and, to shareholders, their responsibility) to do so.
Well, you're restricting your imagination somewhat. The clock inside a simulation is self-referencing. It doesn't half to self-heal. The operator could run a single cycle, see what happens, then make adjustments before continuing. It doesn't matter how long it takes to calculate or process the physics of the universe, since the referential time-frame of the subjects of the universe is part of the simulation itself. One second in the simulation could take 10 seconds, 10 years, or a hundred million years to process in the "outside world", but it wouldn't make any difference to the operation within the simulation.
A lot of commenters have posted arguments like the scale being impossible (why? our simulated universe could be 10^200 times smaller than the universe one level above us, there's no reason to think it'd contain the same amount of information), or that things like quantum physics would break the bounds of the computer running the simulation (sincere lack of imagination - if it's a simulation, these quantum physics don't "exist", the simulation of them is part of a running program), and other such arguments which keep forgetting that they're talking about a simulation, not something physically real.
It's basically comes down to this - if we postulate that given enough time (billions of years? trillions of years? pick a number) and sufficiently advanced technology, we could eventually simulate the entire physics of our universe (the nature of the physics) and accurately simulate a universe (even if much smaller than our own) right down to every aspect of the physics, then it immediately becomes more likely that we're in such a simulation than not.
Why? Because if we were able to have an accurate simulation of the physics, then it would be possible for the inhabitants of our simulated universe to also do the same, on a smaller scale. And so on and so forth. There's an analogy in computers in that we can write an emulator which accurately emulates in software the hardware of a computer. Then, in that emulated computer, we can write another emulator which accurately emulates in software the "hardware" of the simulated computer, etc etc. The limit of this recursion is only the processing power of the initial "seed" computer. However, each computer in the chain acts as if it is the seed computer, and its processing power is the first step.
Likewise, in a universe simulation, the inhabitants of each universe would think they're the top level "seed" universe. As it's a simulation, there's no way they could ever escape the bounds of the simulation as they don't "exist" outside of it. Thats what makes this simply a thought exercise, because even if simulated, it's still our "real", as you mention at the end of your post.
But, if we accept the initial premise that we'd eventually be able to produce such a universal physics simulation, that makes it logical that we're in such a simulation, and by no means the "seed" universe. After all, if we could run one such simulation, why not multiple. And why would the inhabitants of those simulations once they too were able to do the same (given they have the same physics, it would be possible within the simulation), also not run multiple simulations? If we accept the initial premise, then we have to accept that there could be an uncountable number of simulated universes, only one seed universe, and no way for the inhabitants of any simulation to ever know if they're the seed or a simulation.
And it doesn't matter. If we're in such a simulation, we could never know. Even if the operator decided to program the simulation to be aware of itself, it would still only be operating within the bounds of the simulation. What we think of as self-awareness would just be part of the physics simulation running its course, meaning that although the inhabitants of the simulation would 'act' self aware to an observer, they're only doing so because of the accuracy of the physical simulation.
It's all a fascinating thought exercise, but has no real world applications. For us, the simulation and reality would be one and the same.