Neither claim which is true. No logs have ever been dropped by systemd and the exit on failure is because the daemon fails after systemd did it's thing and people not fully understanding how asynchronous starting works.
1. Create FUD about Monsanto. More specifically tell farmers that Monsanto would sue them if their crops where ever contaminated with Monsanto patented GMO:s.
2. Preemptively sue Monsanto so that a court would forbid them from doing #1.
However both the court and the appeals court threw that case out on the basis that since Monsanto have pledged on their own Web site to not do that then if they ever would try to do this then that would be held against them as and they would automatically loose. I.e there is no need for a court to tell Monsanto that they cannot sue farmers for accidental contamination when they have themselves already made a pledge that they will not do so.
And still you keep on arguing that they somehow could do this when two separate courts disagree with you? And no Bayer cannot simply ignore that pledge either, when you buy a company you also buy their legal responsibilities and pledges, would Bayer sue for accidental contamination then the defendant could just point to the Monsanto pledge and the fact that Bayer bought Monsanto and Bayer would loose.
For one example you can look at ABB and Combustion Engineering (CE), CE was a US company that prior to 1990 produces asbestos. In 1990 it was bought by the Swiss company ABB and in the 2000:s sever class action lawsuits where filed against ABB for the asbestos that CE had produced prior to the purchase. Now this is of course a different kind of case but it shows that when a company buys another company it also buys that company:s legal obligations.
No non-GMO crops is not just crops in this context. We are talking about a subset of the farmers and some lobby groups that have decided that GMO:s are bad, evil and will kill us all. So they are not just growing crops just like how people who for whatever medicinal reason are allergic to vaccines are not anti-vaxxers.
And no, boards does not have a profit responsibility to shareholders. I don't know where this myth comes from but it keeps creeping up here in Slashdot from time to time. The only think that you as a shareholder can do in regards to the company is to vote in the share holders meetings where your vote is determined on how much stock you own, it's the things that are voted on here that the board are supposed to implement, nothing else. Many companies doesn't even pay a dividend (and a dividend is the way for a company to distribute it's profits to it's shareholders) and good luck trying to sue a board or company for not paying dividends, you would be thrown out of court with a laughter.
So Monsanto sues nobody over accidental contamination but somehow suing for accidental contamination is now Monsanto:s tactics? Should you now sue your neighbour preemptively for not making a hole in your wall because you have a right to be protected from people making holes in your wall and we should just accept that you have a specific phobia about people making holes in your walls?
Well I cannot answer for how it works in the US but over here you will not get it prescribed just for complaining that you are feeling down. The suicide rate of people with bipolar disorder is magnitudes higher if they are not prescribed with SSRIs, I know because I'm married to one and before we found the particular dose and SSRI that worked for her I spent uncounted amounts of time in the ER to try to reverse her suicide attempts.
The company does not get money from you buying and selling stocks at the exchange. It's only at the IPO and when they do other issues that they get any money from the stocks.
He did not claim that 100% of the suicides where due to that. These two people where celebrities and it looks like bipolar and depression is very high among celebrities and those two groups have a high suicide rate.
And btw, even if we play with the idea that this is somehow true then that is a problem with the patent system and not with GMO:s or Monsanto. Every seed company that produces seeds with new abilities regardless of it's via GMO or via cross breeding is patenting their seeds since that is how the US patent system works. It's just that the anti-GMO lobby focused on Monsanto in order to have a common enemy.
But they are not just farmers, they are farmers that make a living selling non-GMO crops together with anti-GMO/Big-Organic lobby groups.
Second I think you miss the point about patent protection, Monsanto are obliged to do it as a function of the board's responsibility to shareholders.
A board have no such responsibility to shareholders. But even if that where the case there must also exist a legal way for a company to be able to sue a farmer when the farmers crops have been "infected" by said company, now I'm no lawyer (and no very little about US law) but I have a hard time believing that such a case would fly very long, not to mention how quickly Monsanto/Bayer would loose customers if they started to behave like this.
They never wrote that "we promise not to defend our patents", they only wrote that they will only defend them if farmers are deliberately violating them. The whole issue there is that the anti-GMO movement are spreading FUD among farmers that Monsanto some day in the future _might_ file lawsuits on farmers whose fields where inadvertently contaminated by Monsanto seeds. This is why they preemptively sued Monsanto which both the court and the appeals court threw out.
Which wiki? I don't remember having linked to any wiki (which does not mean that it didn't happen, I just have no recollection of it).
And btw this one which is one of your links: https://www.huffingtonpost.com... is about the US appeals court agreeing with my parent post that Monsanto writing on their own web site that they "It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means" would be held against them in a court of law if they really attempted to do so and thus the court threw out that preemptive case.
Please do read the article, it could give you some insight into exactly how crazy these anti GMO people actually are. I mean a preemptive court order?
Indeed, dpkg was fixed for this in 2010: https://vuldb.com/?id.52167 , couldn't find any relevant CVE for RPM so it was either designed to handle this from start, it was fixed before CVE was a thing or I simply didn't look hard enough. The end result however is the same, nor rpm neither dpkg are vulnerable to this and have not been for years.
Have you actually read these articles? I just did and no they do not refute what I wrote at all. Most of them are simply articles covering exactly what I wrote, while some are getting their info from "Big Organic" lobby organizations such as "Center for Food Safety" and "Save our Seeds".
The last article about poor Michael White which was the inspiration for the "Seeding Fear" "documentary" conveniently forgets to mention that Michael White admitted to the court that:
He admitted he knowingly planted, produced, saved, cleaned and sold Roundup Ready® soybeans (which contain a patented trait) without authorization. In addition, in the settlement, Mr. White acknowledged that he knew the soybeans were protected by patent rights and, that by cleaning other farmers’ seeds, he was enabling them to infringe on our patent rights as well.
The article from Natural Society are really conspiracrazy. Further examination of the entire site points to it being mostly a pseudoscience woo site. I mean look at the "food as medicine" section without cringing.
My limited understanding of the American legal system is that most civil lawsuits are settled out of court so I assume here that that is what happened to the 92%. On their own web site ( https://monsanto.com/company/m... ) Monsanto writes:
There have been farmers who were contacted and provided information that resulted in Monsanto closing the case. The vast majority of farmers who are presented with facts showing infringement admit the violation and pay a settlement.
Which seams to support my assumption. Also according to their commitment to farmers ( https://monsanto.com/company/c... ) we find item #10:
It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means.
Just words of course but it would be quite hard for them to sue for such a case without having this text thrown in their face by the defendants lawyers.
Whether the farmer settles right away, or the case settles during or through trial, the proceeds are donated to youth leadership initiatives including scholarship programs.
Good luck with that one. Aspartame have been the focus for numerous studies for decades and have time and time again been shown to be safe for human consumption. What ever George W might have been involved in is not something that I know or care about, I'm not American and George W did nothing to put Aspartame past the FDA equivalent in my country.
Slashdot Mirror
systemd was not the first init replacement so your #1 claim does not hold water. And btw none of the BSDs use SYSV Init either.
Neither claim which is true. No logs have ever been dropped by systemd and the exit on failure is because the daemon fails after systemd did it's thing and people not fully understanding how asynchronous starting works.
No what they did was this:
1. Create FUD about Monsanto. More specifically tell farmers that Monsanto would sue them if their crops where ever contaminated with Monsanto patented GMO:s.
2. Preemptively sue Monsanto so that a court would forbid them from doing #1.
However both the court and the appeals court threw that case out on the basis that since Monsanto have pledged on their own Web site to not do that then if they ever would try to do this then that would be held against them as and they would automatically loose. I.e there is no need for a court to tell Monsanto that they cannot sue farmers for accidental contamination when they have themselves already made a pledge that they will not do so.
And still you keep on arguing that they somehow could do this when two separate courts disagree with you? And no Bayer cannot simply ignore that pledge either, when you buy a company you also buy their legal responsibilities and pledges, would Bayer sue for accidental contamination then the defendant could just point to the Monsanto pledge and the fact that Bayer bought Monsanto and Bayer would loose.
For one example you can look at ABB and Combustion Engineering (CE), CE was a US company that prior to 1990 produces asbestos. In 1990 it was bought by the Swiss company ABB and in the 2000:s sever class action lawsuits where filed against ABB for the asbestos that CE had produced prior to the purchase. Now this is of course a different kind of case but it shows that when a company buys another company it also buys that company:s legal obligations.
No non-GMO crops is not just crops in this context. We are talking about a subset of the farmers and some lobby groups that have decided that GMO:s are bad, evil and will kill us all. So they are not just growing crops just like how people who for whatever medicinal reason are allergic to vaccines are not anti-vaxxers.
And no, boards does not have a profit responsibility to shareholders. I don't know where this myth comes from but it keeps creeping up here in Slashdot from time to time. The only think that you as a shareholder can do in regards to the company is to vote in the share holders meetings where your vote is determined on how much stock you own, it's the things that are voted on here that the board are supposed to implement, nothing else. Many companies doesn't even pay a dividend (and a dividend is the way for a company to distribute it's profits to it's shareholders) and good luck trying to sue a board or company for not paying dividends, you would be thrown out of court with a laughter.
So Monsanto sues nobody over accidental contamination but somehow suing for accidental contamination is now Monsanto:s tactics? Should you now sue your neighbour preemptively for not making a hole in your wall because you have a right to be protected from people making holes in your wall and we should just accept that you have a specific phobia about people making holes in your walls?
So now you have only 39998 cases left to explain then. I guess that they are all wealthy celebrities.
Well I cannot answer for how it works in the US but over here you will not get it prescribed just for complaining that you are feeling down. The suicide rate of people with bipolar disorder is magnitudes higher if they are not prescribed with SSRIs, I know because I'm married to one and before we found the particular dose and SSRI that worked for her I spent uncounted amounts of time in the ER to try to reverse her suicide attempts.
But then you are not Buzzword compliant!
And the blazing speed of Bitcoin is what now, 7-8 transactions per second?
You are all so oldschool, myself I will rewrite the blockchain in Rust so that it will Webscale!!!
For many of the users the effect of not taking the drugs are also suicide.
So you found one case out of 40k and that should somehow be proof for why the rest of them commited suicide?
The company does not get money from you buying and selling stocks at the exchange. It's only at the IPO and when they do other issues that they get any money from the stocks.
He did not claim that 100% of the suicides where due to that. These two people where celebrities and it looks like bipolar and depression is very high among celebrities and those two groups have a high suicide rate.
And btw, even if we play with the idea that this is somehow true then that is a problem with the patent system and not with GMO:s or Monsanto. Every seed company that produces seeds with new abilities regardless of it's via GMO or via cross breeding is patenting their seeds since that is how the US patent system works. It's just that the anti-GMO lobby focused on Monsanto in order to have a common enemy.
But they are not just farmers, they are farmers that make a living selling non-GMO crops together with anti-GMO/Big-Organic lobby groups.
Second I think you miss the point about patent protection, Monsanto are obliged to do it as a function of the board's responsibility to shareholders.
A board have no such responsibility to shareholders. But even if that where the case there must also exist a legal way for a company to be able to sue a farmer when the farmers crops have been "infected" by said company, now I'm no lawyer (and no very little about US law) but I have a hard time believing that such a case would fly very long, not to mention how quickly Monsanto/Bayer would loose customers if they started to behave like this.
They never wrote that "we promise not to defend our patents", they only wrote that they will only defend them if farmers are deliberately violating them. The whole issue there is that the anti-GMO movement are spreading FUD among farmers that Monsanto some day in the future _might_ file lawsuits on farmers whose fields where inadvertently contaminated by Monsanto seeds. This is why they preemptively sued Monsanto which both the court and the appeals court threw out.
Which wiki? I don't remember having linked to any wiki (which does not mean that it didn't happen, I just have no recollection of it).
And btw this one which is one of your links: https://www.huffingtonpost.com... is about the US appeals court agreeing with my parent post that Monsanto writing on their own web site that they "It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means" would be held against them in a court of law if they really attempted to do so and thus the court threw out that preemptive case.
Please do read the article, it could give you some insight into exactly how crazy these anti GMO people actually are. I mean a preemptive court order?
Indeed, dpkg was fixed for this in 2010: https://vuldb.com/?id.52167 , couldn't find any relevant CVE for RPM so it was either designed to handle this from start, it was fixed before CVE was a thing or I simply didn't look hard enough. The end result however is the same, nor rpm neither dpkg are vulnerable to this and have not been for years.
Are you sure that people are actually doing that?
Have you actually read these articles? I just did and no they do not refute what I wrote at all. Most of them are simply articles covering exactly what I wrote, while some are getting their info from "Big Organic" lobby organizations such as "Center for Food Safety" and "Save our Seeds".
The last article about poor Michael White which was the inspiration for the "Seeding Fear" "documentary" conveniently forgets to mention that Michael White admitted to the court that:
He admitted he knowingly planted, produced, saved, cleaned and sold Roundup Ready® soybeans (which contain a patented trait) without authorization. In addition, in the settlement, Mr. White acknowledged that he knew the soybeans were protected by patent rights and, that by cleaning other farmers’ seeds, he was enabling them to infringe on our patent rights as well.
The article from Natural Society are really conspiracrazy. Further examination of the entire site points to it being mostly a pseudoscience woo site. I mean look at the "food as medicine" section without cringing.
My limited understanding of the American legal system is that most civil lawsuits are settled out of court so I assume here that that is what happened to the 92%. On their own web site ( https://monsanto.com/company/m... ) Monsanto writes:
There have been farmers who were contacted and provided information that resulted in Monsanto closing the case. The vast majority of farmers who are presented with facts showing infringement admit the violation and pay a settlement.
Which seams to support my assumption. Also according to their commitment to farmers ( https://monsanto.com/company/c... ) we find item #10:
It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means.
Just words of course but it would be quite hard for them to sue for such a case without having this text thrown in their face by the defendants lawyers.
Also they make no money from these lawsuits: https://monsanto.com/company/m...
Whether the farmer settles right away, or the case settles during or through trial, the proceeds are donated to youth leadership initiatives including scholarship programs.
Miners have friends now eh? At least they don't work as hard as the poets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The Linux/macOS porters at Feral does not agree with you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Good luck with that one. Aspartame have been the focus for numerous studies for decades and have time and time again been shown to be safe for human consumption. What ever George W might have been involved in is not something that I know or care about, I'm not American and George W did nothing to put Aspartame past the FDA equivalent in my country.