It has never been found to be cancerous. Yes a working group of the WHO (IARC) released a paper in 2015 where it claimed to link glyphosate to cancer but it turned out that every citation in their study pointed in the opposite direction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yes that study was poorly done. However a major problem with DDT is that it's half-life in soil can be between 20 days and 30 years and it will bio accumulate in i.e birds. In the war against malaria these things might well be less dangerous that the malaria so there DDT might have a good use but that is a different question.
So ban all farming? Or are people actually believing that non-GMO and/or organic farming does not use pesticides that affect the insects and environment in way more ways than these GMO crops?
BT is produced by i.e caterpillars in nature, it's not an invented chemical. It's also used as a pesticide by non-GMO farmers including organic farmers. And the method by which BT affects insects is well known and understood, the things it attacks in the insects does not even exist in mammals.
Well for one there does not exist any GMO popcorn so your troubles with popcorn must definitely does not come from GMO:s. Secondly the exact method how BT works is well known and only effects insects, in fact BT is actually naturally produced and is also used as a pesticide by non-GMO farmers (including organic farmers).
And no you cannot just wash off sprayed pesticides, the pesticides leaks down into the ground where the plants roots are and thus is also gets inside the plants. Compare this with a GMO such as BT Cotton where the Cotton itself produces BT which is a process that stops as soon as you harvest (i.e kill the cotton) it.
Not only that but Seralini also doesn't understand statistics: "A 2015 reanalysis of multiple animal studies found that Seralini chose to forgo statistical tests in the main conclusions of the study. Using Seralini's published numerical data, the review found no significant effects on animal health after analysis with statistical tests."
Exactly this yes, Microsoft managed (by various means, many of which where illegal) to be the one platform option back in 1994-1995 when the current software market matured and cemented. After that point in time it didn't matter if you came up with a newer, better or faster product since the desktop world at large where too heavily invested in Windows.
So in other words you do not understand what the word "compatible" means in this context. Most software does not just run on an OS, it uses the various infrastructures provided by said OS.
Why is this even a question? If you want to run your Windows 10 applications, why don't you simply use Windows? Why switch to Linux if you just want it to be another form of Windows?
No they must not. But why should it also not be allowed for any one then to complain that said company does not support Linux? It's not like TFA talks about introducing federal laws forcing Razer to support Linux.
I would say that in cases like this it's actually the other way around. It's beyond stupid for all these different hw vendors to put man hours into creating their own firmware updaters when they all could supply their firmware to projects like LVFS, writing that small piece of driver needed. After that they should form some temporary group and talk to Microsoft and Apple as one voice telling that they should implement the equivalent of the fwupd command in their OS:s as well and use the LVFS database as the source for firmwares.
That way the no longer had to put time, money and effort into making their own software for each piece of hw they make and they would ensure that all their end users would be fully patched at all times. As a bonus they would get free support for all of Linux, BSD and whatnot.
But no, this is the standard Windows-mentality where every company have to reinvent the wheel every time (firmware updates, software updates and so on) and some people defend this...
If so then they are beyond stupid. Normal well established practise is to encrypt and sign the firmware itself and let the device decrypt the firmware and check the signature before applying it. Doing something during the USB-transfer is just stupid and unnecessary.
This is exactly what it all is for. With snap you create a package that contains the application that you provide plus all it's dependencies in a self contained directory. Snapd is currently not available for RHEL afaik but they are working on it. Any snap can run on any system where snapd runs.
And btw lot's of upstream does binary distribution, and many of them provide RHEL packages so I don't really get your point here.
They can "stay current" as in upstream can release a snap for their new version that then every system using snap can use immediately. So upstream does not have to provide a separate version for Debian 7, Debian 8, 10 versions of Ubuntu, 2 versions of RHEL and so on. I.e devs and companies that are familiar with the Windows model wants this because they see the normal distribution model of Linux a fragmented and that fragmented is bad.
I and lot's of other devs that are used to how things work in Linux-land use build servers where you call a simple script and it then builds a version for all different systems, one benefit here is that you then get to see how your code compiles with different versions of various libraries (my code is better today due to this).
Slashdot Mirror
So ban all farming?
If the insects wouldn't want then they wouldn't die from trying to eat them.
Organic farmers uses tons of pesticides including BT. What they cannot use is synthetic pesticides.
So cells and DNA are not natural now?
Organic farmers uses tons of pesticides including BT. What organic farmers cannot use is synthetic pesticides.
an nor does GMO:s or glyphosate.
It has never been found to be cancerous. Yes a working group of the WHO (IARC) released a paper in 2015 where it claimed to link glyphosate to cancer but it turned out that every citation in their study pointed in the opposite direction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yes that study was poorly done. However a major problem with DDT is that it's half-life in soil can be between 20 days and 30 years and it will bio accumulate in i.e birds. In the war against malaria these things might well be less dangerous that the malaria so there DDT might have a good use but that is a different question.
Why would producers genetically modify crops to tear up your guts from the inside? That does not sound like a viable business strategy (nor legal).
So ban all farming? Or are people actually believing that non-GMO and/or organic farming does not use pesticides that affect the insects and environment in way more ways than these GMO crops?
Hardly, more like 99%
BT is produced by i.e caterpillars in nature, it's not an invented chemical. It's also used as a pesticide by non-GMO farmers including organic farmers. And the method by which BT affects insects is well known and understood, the things it attacks in the insects does not even exist in mammals.
Well for one there does not exist any GMO popcorn so your troubles with popcorn must definitely does not come from GMO:s. Secondly the exact method how BT works is well known and only effects insects, in fact BT is actually naturally produced and is also used as a pesticide by non-GMO farmers (including organic farmers).
And no you cannot just wash off sprayed pesticides, the pesticides leaks down into the ground where the plants roots are and thus is also gets inside the plants. Compare this with a GMO such as BT Cotton where the Cotton itself produces BT which is a process that stops as soon as you harvest (i.e kill the cotton) it.
Not only that but Seralini also doesn't understand statistics: "A 2015 reanalysis of multiple animal studies found that Seralini chose to forgo statistical tests in the main conclusions of the study. Using Seralini's published numerical data, the review found no significant effects on animal health after analysis with statistical tests."
What facts? The Séralini study have been severely debunked and have since been retracted.
The you must not have a dog (or have others taking care of it).
Exactly this yes, Microsoft managed (by various means, many of which where illegal) to be the one platform option back in 1994-1995 when the current software market matured and cemented. After that point in time it didn't matter if you came up with a newer, better or faster product since the desktop world at large where too heavily invested in Windows.
And that went well..
So in other words you do not understand what the word "compatible" means in this context. Most software does not just run on an OS, it uses the various infrastructures provided by said OS.
Why is this even a question? If you want to run your Windows 10 applications, why don't you simply use Windows? Why switch to Linux if you just want it to be another form of Windows?
No they must not. But why should it also not be allowed for any one then to complain that said company does not support Linux? It's not like TFA talks about introducing federal laws forcing Razer to support Linux.
I would say that in cases like this it's actually the other way around. It's beyond stupid for all these different hw vendors to put man hours into creating their own firmware updaters when they all could supply their firmware to projects like LVFS, writing that small piece of driver needed. After that they should form some temporary group and talk to Microsoft and Apple as one voice telling that they should implement the equivalent of the fwupd command in their OS:s as well and use the LVFS database as the source for firmwares.
That way the no longer had to put time, money and effort into making their own software for each piece of hw they make and they would ensure that all their end users would be fully patched at all times. As a bonus they would get free support for all of Linux, BSD and whatnot.
But no, this is the standard Windows-mentality where every company have to reinvent the wheel every time (firmware updates, software updates and so on) and some people defend this...
If so then they are beyond stupid. Normal well established practise is to encrypt and sign the firmware itself and let the device decrypt the firmware and check the signature before applying it. Doing something during the USB-transfer is just stupid and unnecessary.
This is exactly what it all is for. With snap you create a package that contains the application that you provide plus all it's dependencies in a self contained directory. Snapd is currently not available for RHEL afaik but they are working on it. Any snap can run on any system where snapd runs.
And btw lot's of upstream does binary distribution, and many of them provide RHEL packages so I don't really get your point here.
They can "stay current" as in upstream can release a snap for their new version that then every system using snap can use immediately. So upstream does not have to provide a separate version for Debian 7, Debian 8, 10 versions of Ubuntu, 2 versions of RHEL and so on. I.e devs and companies that are familiar with the Windows model wants this because they see the normal distribution model of Linux a fragmented and that fragmented is bad.
I and lot's of other devs that are used to how things work in Linux-land use build servers where you call a simple script and it then builds a version for all different systems, one benefit here is that you then get to see how your code compiles with different versions of various libraries (my code is better today due to this).