video games have the greatest potential for art than almost any other medium out there, save 'science'.
It has barely been tapped. I'm looking forward to the day when a well rounded artist can take his time, ala kubrick, to make something extraordinary. I want to see genius! When the full social potential is tapped, watch out!
"It doesn't exactly do students a favor by exposing them to the forrest until they have a good grasp of the concept of the "tree"
Start with the forest, then start zooming in.
Details are boring. Boredom is learning death.
As to the question "Is this really what companies want of today's graduates?"
Yes.
They want someone who has proven themselves capable of putting up with endless bullshit...
And not someone who could simply start their own company. Heaven forbid if the Universities were to produce competitors!
University students are initiates going through an institutionalized hazing process. It's not meant to make sense. If you really want to learn something useful, do it on your own time.
I'm betting there was political motivation behind it. Phil might be called an 'opinion maker' when it comes to encryption. To portray him as feeling guilt over PGP helps in the push to pass anti-encryption laws. I've had limited experience with the press, but even in my case they always dressed it up to fit a 'message'. What do you think the message was in this case?
As far as Phils comment about good intentioned politicians: bullshit. Politicians deceive all the time. For example, nobody smiles that much while talking politics.;) I bet Phil just didn't want to say because he knows the audiences sensibilities as well as the Post does.
Playing it like Bush: "Oh, did I say Crusade? Oh, I didn't mean it like that... and how dare you for implying such a thing!"
Either that or he's a> naive or b> afraid of being ridiculed as a conspiracy guy.
Designed for the Earth's weather, the computer should be able to predict climate for the entire planet for thousands of years in a short amount of time.
If they predict it ahead of time, we won't be surprised when it happens! Please write your representatives and ask the government to stop manipulating the weather!
This 'poll' is as about as useful as going to war with Canada over the silverfish dispute. (Something ~90% of Americans support BTW...)
Yes, these polls MEAN something. They mean that people are generally stupid and will answer any question off the top of their head like they know exactly what they are talking about.
Or as one pollster put it: they're valuable not to gather what people actually think (they really don't understand the issues, but that's okay, because we don't need them to...) they are valuable to gauge the emotional response of the people. To see if they get spooked.
"I think both sides have valid points in the silverfish dispute, and it's going to be a difficult negotiation. I wouldn't rule out military action, I just hope it doesn't come to that..."
You can't force a student to be engaged in a subject. If you tried, students might eventually associate coercion with learning. That would be disasterous.
I agree. The 'solution' I'm leaning towards is not to reduce the amount of fighting, guns, wargames etc. in a childs life. Just the opposite. Go deeper and deeper into it. If your kid is interested in things associated with violence, like guns, get him a gun. No, don't let him 'get by' with only a surface understanding of what he is doing, get him deeper and deeper into it. You won't raise a psycho, you'll raise an expert. Psychos are the people who were denied the opportunity to follow their bliss, and have been secretly stalking it ever since.
I read a story about a guy who had a 'troublesome' fascination with fire. So his parents got him a job burning things. Now he's a master blacksmith, not an arsonist.
Chances are that little boys are attracted to violence because they know intuitively that violence is an important thing to learn about.
How do you protect a child from car accidents? Do you keep him isolated away from roads? Or do you expose him to roads as much as possible with a parent there as a guide? Which gives the child more experience to draw from later in life? Is it better to fear highways, or understand them?
1.) try to educate consumers better (not gonna happen because cpu design is complex)
or because consumers are generally simple... they've been educated that way. AMD doesn't want to work against the grain.
2.) fight dirty and do Intel's tricks right back to them.
The only reason it's called fighting dirty is because it's effective. Calling something 'dirty' is way to discourage simple minds from picking up effective tools...
And US has still not made reparations for this act and never will, and now preaches righeousness to us?
The US was also preaching righteousness to the Indians. It's a tactic. Preach honesty while lying, nonviolence while killing, innovation while stifling creativity.
The current educational environment rewards the flawed attitude you describe. Why learn for the sake of learning when you could devote your resources towards the grades that determine your status?
Its like saying a puppy has a flawed attitude for running straight for the food, instead of exploring the whole room first. The question is: if you didn't want him to run in that direction, why did you put the food there in the first place?
One thing that has always burned me up, from my 1-12 grade years was when some mindless mundane would ask "Is this going to be on the test?" and if the answer was no they'd veg out and not learn what was to come.
Your point suggests that the testing and grading system is defective because it encourages bad habits that can last into adulthood.
Forget the idea that we can live without biotech. We can't. There's not enough land.
**Corporate media coverage: Gannett, 9/15/99, Dallas Morning News, 1/25/98 p. 35A, The Economist, 4/24/99, Lewiston Morning Tribune, p. 1A. Associated Press 6/5/00**
"...Though Cuba is organic by default because it has no means of acquiring pesticides and herbicides, the quality and quantity of crop yields have increased. This increase is occurring at a lower cost and with fewer health and environmental side effects than ever. There are 173 established 'vermicompost' centers across Cuba, which produce 93,000 tons of natural compost a year. The agricultural abundance that Cuba is beginning to experience is disproving the myth that organic farming on a grand scale is inefficient or impractical..."
Our style of agriculture has more to do with the coalescing of money and power than anything else. There's lots more material like this around.
Perhaps someday we'll reintroduce math as a subject in schools, and people will be able to intellegently analyze risk. When they get old enough to serve on juries, companies might make more information available. Until then, it would just be stupid.
My translation of the above: biotechs are withholding scientific information from the public because they don't trust the quality of conclusions people would draw from it.
This could be based on a fear of misinterpretation as you say, but I'll bet that it's because their research reveals facts which are contrary to their claims. For example, my comment posted at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/06/27/22222 24&cid=390 (article about canola spreading like a weed)
Most likely: we're both right. My feeling is that they would justify it like this: "Sure we were lying, but we had to so nobody got the wrong idea..." The right idea being synchronous with an increase in business.
Now, I agree that the education system has alot to do with the lack of skills and perspective to make sound judgements. In my opinion, if people had the capacity to make sound judgements, they would demand to examine the data, demand independent studies, and would judge any attempt to deny access to either as highly suspicious. A big red flag.
So in this sense, the publics ignorant apathy is working to Monsantos advantage.
---
Just read your latest post, and I agree with you on education reform; it's probably the best route.
>>>>
Genetically engineered canola has become an uncontrollable weed just months after Monsanto and other manufacturers of genetically engineered seeds claimed that this would not happen. And because the plant was engineered to resist herbicides, it's tough to kill. "The GM canola has, in fact, spread much more rapidly than we thought it would," says Martin Entz, a plant scientist at the University of Manitoba. "It's absolutely impossible to control."
Scientists suspect that the plants spread through cattle manure. After the seeds traveled through the animals' digestive tracts, they were deposited on the soil, where they germinated.
When Ottawa approved GM canola in 1996, the possibility that it could become a weed was never brought up. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency describes the current problem as "a nuisance" and has advised farmers to "use another chemical." However, this will not be an option for organic farmers who are invaded by the GM canola. Also, some of the chemicals used to eradicate the pests could also kill the crops the farmer is trying to grow.
Monsanto, which created one of the GM canola strains, says that if farmers call the company and complain, they'll send out a team to pull up the weeds manually. Martin Phillipson, a University of Saskatchewan law professor, says that Monsanto may be liable for damages if their GM canola continues to spread.
Do you actually believe that the biotech companies have posters on the wall saying 'What natural system can we fuck up today?'
No, I don't think they give the environment a thought either way. (Thats a subject for PR firms.)
If concerns about *possible* environmental implications are standing between you and a few billion, I have some advice: stop having those concerns. Put it out of your mind. Don't think about it. Maybe convince yourself that nothing you could possibly do could ever hurt your habitat. Oh, and make sure to convince everyone else while your at it. Your paycheck depends on it.
Anyway, my point is that this subject could stand alot more scrutiny than its getting. Don't get me wrong, this scrutiny should apply to both scaremongers and corporate apologists alike. There's alot of good info out there that the biotechs don't respond to and the media doesn't report. You should check it out before commiting to one side of the debate.
"I trust the scientists hired by biotech companies at least as much (and generally more) as I trust those hired by the biotech scaremongers."
So people who want to see studies done that are financially independent of the big biotechs are 'scaremongers'?
Everyone has an agenda, everyone has bias, everyone is trying to sell something. The difference is that the Biotech companies actually have an interest in limiting their liability,
Another difference is that biotechs stand to make billions from being able to PATENT genetics. Not to mention the extra control you have when protecting your 'property'.
With that kind of money, you can limit your liability by a> hiring ten thousand lawyers and b> selling your shares before the shit hits the fan. (that's called timing) Think tobacco. They got caught hiding damaging results, but they're still here. And still pretty powerful.
Would you risk getting sued for a few billion dollars?
whereas the scaremongers, when shown to be wrong, will move on to the next scare,
Funny, the only people trying to prove that scaremongers are wrong are a> monsanto 'scientists' and b> corporate / gov PR campaigns. Where are all the independent studies by scientists who have a vested interest in doing GOOD science? I'd LOVE to see scaremongers proven wrong, but nobodys doin it! Why are big biotechs discouraging this sort of review? You'd think they'd welcome the opportunity to show how safe their product is. But instead they even keep most of their OWN findings under wrap, feeding the media sanitized 'summaries' that have on occasion found to be misleading at best.
Who's trying to verify that what Monsanto tells us is right?
Who cares about feeding the poor around the world. It's the wail strains of canola in canada that matter.
Do you believe that GM foods have anything to do with feeding the poor? I think that line has more to do with salesmenship: Public relations drivel. Just like the war on drugs is to protect children. Egad. The *war* on drugs has killed more kids than drugs have.
Also, introducing a franken-strain into the envrionment affects the WHOLE environment in unpredictable ways, since the rest of the environment must now adapt to the new info. It's a feedback loop.
Mr. Pusztai should release his data if he wants to be taken seriously.
For the time being you're going to trust the scientists that the salesmen hired to tell you about their product?:)
Doesn't it make you suspicious that Pusztais opportunity to publish in a peer reviewed journal was effectively sabotaged? Along with the other circumstantial details?
Your article is interesting. I'll eventually get around to researching the details. As an additional reply, I direct you to another part of this discussion: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/06/27/22222 24&cid=323
How do we know that Pusztai is independent (intellectually)?
We don't. That's what science is for, to establish credibility by reproducing results. So where are all the independent researchers who are supposed to be trying to discredit Pusztais results scientifically?
At least we know that Pusztai wasn't on Monsantos payroll when he did the study. Monsanto likes to hire 'friendly' scientists who work in back rooms.
Also, note that if Pusztai turns out to be a renegade green who fudged his science, it means only one thing: That NO independent studies have been done to test the safety of GM foods. That doesn't mean they're safe.
More significantly, the original poster specifically said that he was ignoring the question of genetic modifications that produce a harmful substance.
I addressed that at the end of my post. I was replying mainly to a narrow statement.
That may be the case. I don't know enough about it. But from what I've read, it appears this issue is more political than scientific.
One thing I don't understand is why so many people assume it is safe until proven dangerous. I think it should be assumed dangerous until proven safe. We don't know what long term effects these GM foods will have, on us or the environment. Unpredictable.
I concur that Pusztai's science has room for error. That does not mean that his results are necessarily wrong! If his results WERE wrong, that does not mean that GMFs are safe.
So where are all the independent studies confirming the safety of GM food? All you've got is a bunch of salesmen hiring corporate friendly scientists to say nice things about their product.
Monsanto has been caught fudging their science in at least one case that I'm aware of. (regarding amount of herbicide used by farmers) And their claims that the 'infertile' GM canola won't spread has been proven wrong. (But farmers still have to pay monsanto if it turns up in their fields...)
Nevermind the environmental implications of, for example, a herbicide resistent rape seed run amok. Genetic pollution.
This issue deserves great care and scrutiny.
No, I don't trust corporations, politicians or any other kind of salesmen. Why should I?
Slashdot Mirror
video games have the greatest potential for art than almost any other medium out there, save 'science'.
It has barely been tapped. I'm looking forward to the day when a well rounded artist can take his time, ala kubrick, to make something extraordinary. I want to see genius! When the full social potential is tapped, watch out!
Do you listen to music?
Do you know how to play an instrument?
**(Sheep do exist, but defining them in terms of your hobby is rather sheepish...)**
On a tangent, but this sort of illustrates why an education centered around testing is a BAD IDEA.
With enourmous implications...
"It doesn't exactly do students a favor by exposing them to the forrest until they have a good grasp of the concept of the "tree"
Start with the forest, then start zooming in.
Details are boring. Boredom is learning death.
As to the question "Is this really what companies want of today's graduates?"
Yes.
They want someone who has proven themselves capable of putting up with endless bullshit...
And not someone who could simply start their own company. Heaven forbid if the Universities were to produce competitors!
University students are initiates going through an institutionalized hazing process. It's not meant to make sense. If you really want to learn something useful, do it on your own time.
Agreed.
;) I bet Phil just didn't want to say because he knows the audiences sensibilities as well as the Post does.
I'm betting there was political motivation behind it. Phil might be called an 'opinion maker' when it comes to encryption. To portray him as feeling guilt over PGP helps in the push to pass anti-encryption laws. I've had limited experience with the press, but even in my case they always dressed it up to fit a 'message'. What do you think the message was in this case?
As far as Phils comment about good intentioned politicians: bullshit. Politicians deceive all the time. For example, nobody smiles that much while talking politics.
Playing it like Bush: "Oh, did I say Crusade? Oh, I didn't mean it like that... and how dare you for implying such a thing!"
Either that or he's a> naive or b> afraid of being ridiculed as a conspiracy guy.
Ridicule only works to inhibit thinking.
Designed for the Earth's weather, the computer should be able to predict climate for the entire planet for thousands of years in a short amount of time.
If they predict it ahead of time, we won't be surprised when it happens! Please write your representatives and ask the government to stop manipulating the weather!
This 'poll' is as about as useful as going to war with Canada over the silverfish dispute. (Something ~90% of Americans support BTW...)
Yes, these polls MEAN something. They mean that people are generally stupid and will answer any question off the top of their head like they know exactly what they are talking about.
Or as one pollster put it: they're valuable not to gather what people actually think (they really don't understand the issues, but that's okay, because we don't need them to...) they are valuable to gauge the emotional response of the people. To see if they get spooked.
"I think both sides have valid points in the silverfish dispute, and it's going to be a difficult negotiation. I wouldn't rule out military action, I just hope it doesn't come to that..."
I truly believe we need a system of criminal justice that effectively deals with... the lack of education that contributes to crime.
I think you need an education system that deals with the lack of education.
You don't have one of those yet.
Stay away from the dirty topics that might be *gasp* interesting. Reality is BORING and DIFFICULT and it should stay that way!
Preach on brother Calvin!
You can't force a student to be engaged in a subject. If you tried, students might eventually associate coercion with learning. That would be disasterous.
I agree. The 'solution' I'm leaning towards is not to reduce the amount of fighting, guns, wargames etc. in a childs life. Just the opposite. Go deeper and deeper into it. If your kid is interested in things associated with violence, like guns, get him a gun. No, don't let him 'get by' with only a surface understanding of what he is doing, get him deeper and deeper into it. You won't raise a psycho, you'll raise an expert. Psychos are the people who were denied the opportunity to follow their bliss, and have been secretly stalking it ever since.
I read a story about a guy who had a 'troublesome' fascination with fire. So his parents got him a job burning things. Now he's a master blacksmith, not an arsonist.
Chances are that little boys are attracted to violence because they know intuitively that violence is an important thing to learn about.
How do you protect a child from car accidents? Do you keep him isolated away from roads? Or do you expose him to roads as much as possible with a parent there as a guide? Which gives the child more experience to draw from later in life? Is it better to fear highways, or understand them?
Can violence be understood?
SICP online at:
k .h tml
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/boo
I guess we all know why Congressman Rick Boucher is in politics...
1.) try to educate consumers better (not gonna happen because cpu design is complex)
or because consumers are generally simple... they've been educated that way. AMD doesn't want to work against the grain.
2.) fight dirty and do Intel's tricks right back to them.
The only reason it's called fighting dirty is because it's effective. Calling something 'dirty' is way to discourage simple minds from picking up effective tools...
Deception works.
You're doing the same thing all over again.
If it works, repeat.
And US has still not made reparations for this act and never will, and now preaches righeousness to us?
The US was also preaching righteousness to the Indians. It's a tactic. Preach honesty while lying, nonviolence while killing, innovation while stifling creativity.
The current educational environment rewards the flawed attitude you describe. Why learn for the sake of learning when you could devote your resources towards the grades that determine your status?
Its like saying a puppy has a flawed attitude for running straight for the food, instead of exploring the whole room first. The question is: if you didn't want him to run in that direction, why did you put the food there in the first place?
It's a structural problem.
Regarding:
One thing that has always burned me up, from my 1-12 grade years was when some mindless mundane would ask "Is this going to be on the test?" and if the answer was no they'd veg out and not learn what was to come.
Your point suggests that the testing and grading system is defective because it encourages bad habits that can last into adulthood.
Forget the idea that we can live without biotech. We can't. There's not enough land.
2 24&cid=390 (article about canola spreading like a weed)
**Corporate media coverage: Gannett, 9/15/99, Dallas Morning News, 1/25/98 p. 35A, The Economist, 4/24/99, Lewiston Morning Tribune, p. 1A. Associated Press 6/5/00**
"...Though Cuba is organic by default because it has no means of acquiring pesticides and herbicides, the quality and quantity of crop yields have increased. This increase is occurring at a lower cost and with fewer health and environmental side effects than ever. There are 173 established 'vermicompost' centers across Cuba, which produce 93,000 tons of natural compost a year. The agricultural abundance that Cuba is beginning to experience is disproving the myth that organic farming on a grand scale is inefficient or impractical..."
Our style of agriculture has more to do with the coalescing of money and power than anything else. There's lots more material like this around.
Perhaps someday we'll reintroduce math as a subject in schools, and people will be able to intellegently analyze risk. When they get old enough to serve on juries, companies might make more information available. Until then, it would just be stupid.
My translation of the above: biotechs are withholding scientific information from the public because they don't trust the quality of conclusions people would draw from it.
This could be based on a fear of misinterpretation as you say, but I'll bet that it's because their research reveals facts which are contrary to their claims. For example, my comment posted at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/06/27/2222
Most likely: we're both right. My feeling is that they would justify it like this: "Sure we were lying, but we had to so nobody got the wrong idea..." The right idea being synchronous with an increase in business.
Now, I agree that the education system has alot to do with the lack of skills and perspective to make sound judgements. In my opinion, if people had the capacity to make sound judgements, they would demand to examine the data, demand independent studies, and would judge any attempt to deny access to either as highly suspicious. A big red flag.
So in this sense, the publics ignorant apathy is working to Monsantos advantage.
---
Just read your latest post, and I agree with you on education reform; it's probably the best route.
Here are some (albeit radical) education links:
http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Gatto.html
Speaking of limiting liability...
>>>>
Genetically engineered canola has become an uncontrollable weed just months after Monsanto and other manufacturers of genetically engineered seeds claimed that this would not happen. And because the plant was engineered to resist herbicides, it's tough to kill. "The GM canola has, in fact, spread much more rapidly than we thought it would," says Martin Entz, a plant scientist at the University of Manitoba. "It's absolutely impossible to control."
Scientists suspect that the plants spread through cattle manure. After the seeds traveled through the animals' digestive tracts, they were deposited on the soil, where they germinated.
When Ottawa approved GM canola in 1996, the possibility that it could become a weed was never brought up. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency describes the current problem as "a nuisance" and has advised farmers to "use another chemical." However, this will not be an option for organic farmers who are invaded by the GM canola. Also, some of the chemicals used to eradicate the pests could also kill the crops the farmer is trying to grow.
Monsanto, which created one of the GM canola strains, says that if farmers call the company and complain, they'll send out a team to pull up the weeds manually. Martin Phillipson, a University of Saskatchewan law professor, says that Monsanto may be liable for damages if their GM canola continues to spread.
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=607
Do you actually believe that the biotech companies have posters on the wall saying 'What natural system can we fuck up today?'
No, I don't think they give the environment a thought either way. (Thats a subject for PR firms.)
If concerns about *possible* environmental implications are standing between you and a few billion, I have some advice: stop having those concerns. Put it out of your mind. Don't think about it. Maybe convince yourself that nothing you could possibly do could ever hurt your habitat. Oh, and make sure to convince everyone else while your at it. Your paycheck depends on it.
Anyway, my point is that this subject could stand alot more scrutiny than its getting. Don't get me wrong, this scrutiny should apply to both scaremongers and corporate apologists alike. There's alot of good info out there that the biotechs don't respond to and the media doesn't report. You should check it out before commiting to one side of the debate.
"I trust the scientists hired by biotech companies at least as much (and generally more) as I trust those hired by the biotech scaremongers."
So people who want to see studies done that are financially independent of the big biotechs are 'scaremongers'?
Everyone has an agenda, everyone has bias, everyone is trying to sell something. The difference is that the Biotech companies actually have an interest in limiting their liability,
Another difference is that biotechs stand to make billions from being able to PATENT genetics. Not to mention the extra control you have when protecting your 'property'.
With that kind of money, you can limit your liability by a> hiring ten thousand lawyers and b> selling your shares before the shit hits the fan. (that's called timing) Think tobacco. They got caught hiding damaging results, but they're still here. And still pretty powerful.
Would you risk getting sued for a few billion dollars?
whereas the scaremongers, when shown to be wrong, will move on to the next scare,
Funny, the only people trying to prove that scaremongers are wrong are a> monsanto 'scientists' and b> corporate / gov PR campaigns. Where are all the independent studies by scientists who have a vested interest in doing GOOD science? I'd LOVE to see scaremongers proven wrong, but nobodys doin it! Why are big biotechs discouraging this sort of review? You'd think they'd welcome the opportunity to show how safe their product is. But instead they even keep most of their OWN findings under wrap, feeding the media sanitized 'summaries' that have on occasion found to be misleading at best.
Who's trying to verify that what Monsanto tells us is right?
Who cares about feeding the poor around the world. It's the wail strains of canola in canada that matter.
Do you believe that GM foods have anything to do with feeding the poor? I think that line has more to do with salesmenship: Public relations drivel. Just like the war on drugs is to protect children. Egad. The *war* on drugs has killed more kids than drugs have.
Also, introducing a franken-strain into the envrionment affects the WHOLE environment in unpredictable ways, since the rest of the environment must now adapt to the new info. It's a feedback loop.
Cheers,
James.
Mr. Pusztai should release his data if he wants to be taken seriously.
:)
2 24&cid=323
For the time being you're going to trust the scientists that the salesmen hired to tell you about their product?
Doesn't it make you suspicious that Pusztais opportunity to publish in a peer reviewed journal was effectively sabotaged? Along with the other circumstantial details?
Your article is interesting. I'll eventually get around to researching the details. As an additional reply, I direct you to another part of this discussion: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/06/27/2222
How do we know that Pusztai is independent (intellectually)?
We don't. That's what science is for, to establish credibility by reproducing results. So where are all the independent researchers who are supposed to be trying to discredit Pusztais results scientifically?
At least we know that Pusztai wasn't on Monsantos payroll when he did the study. Monsanto likes to hire 'friendly' scientists who work in back rooms.
Also, note that if Pusztai turns out to be a renegade green who fudged his science, it means only one thing: That NO independent studies have been done to test the safety of GM foods. That doesn't mean they're safe.
More significantly, the original poster specifically said that he was ignoring the question of genetic modifications that produce a harmful substance.
I addressed that at the end of my post. I was replying mainly to a narrow statement.
Pusztai's science was, unfortunately, flawed.
That may be the case. I don't know enough about it. But from what I've read, it appears this issue is more political than scientific.
One thing I don't understand is why so many people assume it is safe until proven dangerous. I think it should be assumed dangerous until proven safe. We don't know what long term effects these GM foods will have, on us or the environment. Unpredictable.
I concur that Pusztai's science has room for error. That does not mean that his results are necessarily wrong! If his results WERE wrong, that does not mean that GMFs are safe.
So where are all the independent studies confirming the safety of GM food? All you've got is a bunch of salesmen hiring corporate friendly scientists to say nice things about their product.
Monsanto has been caught fudging their science in at least one case that I'm aware of. (regarding amount of herbicide used by farmers) And their claims that the 'infertile' GM canola won't spread has been proven wrong. (But farmers still have to pay monsanto if it turns up in their fields...)
Nevermind the environmental implications of, for example, a herbicide resistent rape seed run amok. Genetic pollution.
This issue deserves great care and scrutiny.
No, I don't trust corporations, politicians or any other kind of salesmen. Why should I?