The age of consent for porn is 18 throughout the entire United States.
This has created all sorts of problems for people in that 16-18 age bracket taking photos of themselves or their partners, ruining their lives with chargers of "manufacturing child pornography," but hey, we have to "protect the children," don't we.
The point is to try to sell automated censorware to the public by saying it'll only be used against something "everyone" thinks ought to be censored. Once it's established, it's scope will be expanded to cover all sorts of other materials.
Prudery and insecurity borne of guilt and shame, formerly masquerading as "morality," in this century now calling itself "egalitarianism." It never dies, it's sufferers just find new ways of justifying it.
The system I am describing would only undermine targeted advertising. Advertising existed before companies invented "targeting." Google wouldn't make as much money but they could still sell ads.
I do host my own email. But it shouldn't require the technical skill that's needed to set up one's own server just for a person to get a basic level of privacy on the Internet, you know? Should I have to know how to construct a bank vault from scratch just to keep my house locked?
Tell that to the people using full-disk encryption on multi-terabyte storage arrays.
It's interesting how I basically described a system in use in several real-world applications (just not in use by big in-bed-with-the-government corporations), and so far I've had to rebut three different "but here's why it's impossible" comments.
Because, since the data transmitted via HTTPS to Google is decrypted on the Google end, what you suggest is entirely unnecessary for them to be able share the data with the government?
Gee, I dunno. The system I described is in use in several real-world applications, for example at blockchain.info and Kim Dotcom's new service. But I guess it doesn't work. Someone really ought to tell the people who are using it...
You can't. This is the same as happens whenever someone forgets their encryption keys. Google could make this kind of security a user-selected option: Use your login credentials to encrypt your data, with the understanding (big, red, blinking "I agree" checkbox or whatever) that if you lose your password, Google cannot help you.
Wrong. If Google cared, they could take measures to immunize themselves against court orders.
Courts can only order that these businesses divulge data they have. Google could encrypt your email, docs, &c., that are stored on their servers using your login password, and so long as they don't store your login password, they cannot now decrypt the data. All they could respond to a court order with would be an encrypted blob and, "if you want the data, subpoena the owner and get the password from him." No more spying without the owner's knowledge.
Google's encryption is just HTTPS, which is end-to-end between the user and Google's servers. It's great for protecting against MITM attacks, but useless to protect against Google themselves.
Was this software "worth" $100M in the same way a single MP3 you could buy for $0.99 is "worth" tens of thousands of dollars when it comes to copyright claims?
time.eprci.net. It initializes with the server-side time (the server clock is synced via ntpd) and then uses JavaScript to just increment second-by-second. It's a couple dozen lines of code in PHP and JavaScript. I wrote that in half an hour years ago.
"Yet another software company completely fixes what isn't broken, will shove down users' throats"
Making it look exactly like a competing product was truly a touch of genius. Maybe people were using your browser because they don't like Chrome's UI? So let's emulate it exactly!
Do you think that the "trial and error" process of conventional artificial selection---crossbreeding, grafting, &c.---only gives us what we want? (What do you think the "and error" part refers to?) Do you think any process of invention or discovery only gives us what we want?
See, this is what I mean about "irrational fears." Your worries over GM, causing you to apparently conclude that GM is a bad thing and unsafe, your attitude that it's "unwise" to engage in this kind of technology to begin with, is exactly what people like me mean when they call people like you "irrational" and "technophobic."
The companies like Monsanto that are doing it don't care about health, they only care about making money in the short term.
Do you think farmers thousands of years ago were breeding bigger and bigger ears of corn because they cared about health, or because they were trying to produce more food as quickly as possible?
And you are mistaking "what we want" (safe nutritious food) with "what Monsanto wants" (money in the very near term and to hell with consequences)
Actually, what most people want isn't "safe nutritious food" but "cheap tasty food." Like it or not, nutrition and safety isn't on most people's minds when they're shopping. People want food they like the taste of. And most people want money in the very near term too, just like Monsanto, and therefore what they want is cheap food. High-yield GM crops is one thing that gives us cheap loaves of bread and other vegetables.
People who shop for food based on how "safe" it is is a niche market, and the fact that organic foods cost so much more goes to show this. And guess what? The people selling these foodstuffs want money too---otherwise they wouldn't be selling it. And they mark up their products because they know you'll buy them at the higher prices.
I'm not defending everything Monsanto does. Their claims to "intellectual property" in the food they produce is an entirely separate issue, separate from the debate over GM safety. But to characterize Monsanto as being greedy money-grubbers as if this is somehow different than other producers and even most consumers, is patent nonsense.
How about just pick the products you want and let other people pick the ones they want, rather than insisting everyone else be denied their choices in products so you can "pick any product" you want?
[W]hy has Bt corn (already being sold) been proven to cause tumors in mice? Nobody tests this stuff.
Have there been follow-up studies in humans? Mice aren't humans. Saccharin was once feared because it caused bladder cancer in rats. Follow-ups showed that rats have unique bladder proteins that humans don't have, which interacted with the saccharin to cause cancer. Humans aren't rats, either, and, we having no such proteins, no such cancer has been demonstrated in humans. (And, predictably, there are plenty of people who still insist saccharin is unsafe.)
And personally, I think I should have the right to not be used as a lab rat for such experiments.
Sure you do. Buy products from companies who want to sell to people like you, companies that voluntarily label their products as organic, rather than demanding that everyone label their products to comply with your choices. Your rights end where you start infringing on others'.
If there's no difference, why are some GMO crops legally considered pesticides?
I can't even parse the logic here. Because some GM crops are pesticides, GM corn isn't (nutritionally) equivalent to non-GM corn?
Do you have a study that proves GM is unsafe? If you're going to assert that something needs positive government intervention---regulation or banning---you provide the proof that such is necessary. The burden of proof should like on the accuser.
On the other hand, if you're the type of person that just assumes something is unsafe because it's new and hasn't been proven otherwise... that's pretty much what I was getting at with my "irrational fear" point. You automatically fear something because it's new, or unknown, or recently invented. Irrational.
So you want the government to mandate that these companies label their food so you can more easily boycott them. Rather than do the research and figure it out yourself.
If my reason for not wanting to consume GM foods is that I've been visited by people who traveled back in time to warn me about them, that's my business. It's not up to you to judge the "rationality" of decisions that affect only me.
It certainly is if you are demanding I be forced to label my products to your preference. Your demands make it affect me.
Certain religions impose dietary restrictions on their practitioners. That might be deemed irrational or superstitious, but it's up to the individual to decide.
Indeed! And, does the government mandate that non-kosher foods be labeled non-kosher? Nope! Although producers who want to appeal to Jews who follow kashrut law are free to label those foods as being kosher, and they do.
You made my point for me. Thanks.
If GM crops live up to all of these promises about being cheaper to produce, more sustainable, etc. and with no negative side effects, then I'll be wasting my money on more expensive products produced with non-GMO crops. That should be my choice however.
And it is! Buy things that producers willingly label "organic" rather than force everyone to comply with your choices.
Actually, that gave me an idea. A lot of the Pagan religions have a deep affinity with nature. I refuse to consume GMOs because they are an affront to my sect of Paganism.
Good for you! Then don't eat them. See previous paragraph.
This. GMOs are just the next step in something we've been doing for thousands of years, just on a much smaller scale. Rather than blundering about with trial and error trying to make better plants, we finally have enough knowledge to tinker directly with their DNA to get what we want. Why is this a bad thing?
Slashdot Mirror
That tactic has worked so well eliminating all the pirate sites out there, hasn't it.
The age of consent for porn is 18 throughout the entire United States.
This has created all sorts of problems for people in that 16-18 age bracket taking photos of themselves or their partners, ruining their lives with chargers of "manufacturing child pornography," but hey, we have to "protect the children," don't we.
It's worked so well in the drug war, now hasn't it?
The point is to try to sell automated censorware to the public by saying it'll only be used against something "everyone" thinks ought to be censored. Once it's established, it's scope will be expanded to cover all sorts of other materials.
Prudery and insecurity borne of guilt and shame, formerly masquerading as "morality," in this century now calling itself "egalitarianism." It never dies, it's sufferers just find new ways of justifying it.
The system I am describing would only undermine targeted advertising. Advertising existed before companies invented "targeting." Google wouldn't make as much money but they could still sell ads.
I do host my own email. But it shouldn't require the technical skill that's needed to set up one's own server just for a person to get a basic level of privacy on the Internet, you know? Should I have to know how to construct a bank vault from scratch just to keep my house locked?
Tell that to the people using full-disk encryption on multi-terabyte storage arrays.
It's interesting how I basically described a system in use in several real-world applications (just not in use by big in-bed-with-the-government corporations), and so far I've had to rebut three different "but here's why it's impossible" comments.
Because, since the data transmitted via HTTPS to Google is decrypted on the Google end, what you suggest is entirely unnecessary for them to be able share the data with the government?
Gee, I dunno. The system I described is in use in several real-world applications, for example at blockchain.info and Kim Dotcom's new service. But I guess it doesn't work. Someone really ought to tell the people who are using it...
You can't. This is the same as happens whenever someone forgets their encryption keys. Google could make this kind of security a user-selected option: Use your login credentials to encrypt your data, with the understanding (big, red, blinking "I agree" checkbox or whatever) that if you lose your password, Google cannot help you.
Wrong. If Google cared, they could take measures to immunize themselves against court orders.
Courts can only order that these businesses divulge data they have. Google could encrypt your email, docs, &c., that are stored on their servers using your login password, and so long as they don't store your login password, they cannot now decrypt the data. All they could respond to a court order with would be an encrypted blob and, "if you want the data, subpoena the owner and get the password from him." No more spying without the owner's knowledge.
Google's encryption is just HTTPS, which is end-to-end between the user and Google's servers. It's great for protecting against MITM attacks, but useless to protect against Google themselves.
Was this software "worth" $100M in the same way a single MP3 you could buy for $0.99 is "worth" tens of thousands of dollars when it comes to copyright claims?
time.eprci.net. It initializes with the server-side time (the server clock is synced via ntpd) and then uses JavaScript to just increment second-by-second. It's a couple dozen lines of code in PHP and JavaScript. I wrote that in half an hour years ago.
"Yet another software company completely fixes what isn't broken, will shove down users' throats"
Making it look exactly like a competing product was truly a touch of genius. Maybe people were using your browser because they don't like Chrome's UI? So let's emulate it exactly!
The anti-nuclear power luddites are going to be so disappointed.
Do you think that the "trial and error" process of conventional artificial selection---crossbreeding, grafting, &c.---only gives us what we want? (What do you think the "and error" part refers to?) Do you think any process of invention or discovery only gives us what we want?
See, this is what I mean about "irrational fears." Your worries over GM, causing you to apparently conclude that GM is a bad thing and unsafe, your attitude that it's "unwise" to engage in this kind of technology to begin with, is exactly what people like me mean when they call people like you "irrational" and "technophobic."
Do you think farmers thousands of years ago were breeding bigger and bigger ears of corn because they cared about health, or because they were trying to produce more food as quickly as possible?
Actually, what most people want isn't "safe nutritious food" but "cheap tasty food." Like it or not, nutrition and safety isn't on most people's minds when they're shopping. People want food they like the taste of. And most people want money in the very near term too, just like Monsanto, and therefore what they want is cheap food. High-yield GM crops is one thing that gives us cheap loaves of bread and other vegetables.
People who shop for food based on how "safe" it is is a niche market, and the fact that organic foods cost so much more goes to show this. And guess what? The people selling these foodstuffs want money too---otherwise they wouldn't be selling it. And they mark up their products because they know you'll buy them at the higher prices.
I'm not defending everything Monsanto does. Their claims to "intellectual property" in the food they produce is an entirely separate issue, separate from the debate over GM safety. But to characterize Monsanto as being greedy money-grubbers as if this is somehow different than other producers and even most consumers, is patent nonsense.
How about just pick the products you want and let other people pick the ones they want, rather than insisting everyone else be denied their choices in products so you can "pick any product" you want?
Have there been follow-up studies in humans? Mice aren't humans. Saccharin was once feared because it caused bladder cancer in rats. Follow-ups showed that rats have unique bladder proteins that humans don't have, which interacted with the saccharin to cause cancer. Humans aren't rats, either, and, we having no such proteins, no such cancer has been demonstrated in humans. (And, predictably, there are plenty of people who still insist saccharin is unsafe.)
Sure you do. Buy products from companies who want to sell to people like you, companies that voluntarily label their products as organic, rather than demanding that everyone label their products to comply with your choices. Your rights end where you start infringing on others'.
I can't even parse the logic here. Because some GM crops are pesticides, GM corn isn't (nutritionally) equivalent to non-GM corn?
Do you have a study that proves GM is unsafe? If you're going to assert that something needs positive government intervention---regulation or banning---you provide the proof that such is necessary. The burden of proof should like on the accuser.
On the other hand, if you're the type of person that just assumes something is unsafe because it's new and hasn't been proven otherwise... that's pretty much what I was getting at with my "irrational fear" point. You automatically fear something because it's new, or unknown, or recently invented. Irrational.
So you want the government to mandate that these companies label their food so you can more easily boycott them. Rather than do the research and figure it out yourself.
It certainly is if you are demanding I be forced to label my products to your preference. Your demands make it affect me.
Indeed! And, does the government mandate that non-kosher foods be labeled non-kosher? Nope! Although producers who want to appeal to Jews who follow kashrut law are free to label those foods as being kosher, and they do.
You made my point for me. Thanks.
And it is! Buy things that producers willingly label "organic" rather than force everyone to comply with your choices.
Good for you! Then don't eat them. See previous paragraph.
But no matter how far away from civilization you go, you still have to deal with government bureaucrats telling you what you can and can't do.
The badgets are not blocking the buildout, bureaucrats are.
I guess the British are unfamiliar with the American landowners' credo: Shoot, shovel, and shut up.
This. GMOs are just the next step in something we've been doing for thousands of years, just on a much smaller scale. Rather than blundering about with trial and error trying to make better plants, we finally have enough knowledge to tinker directly with their DNA to get what we want. Why is this a bad thing?