I myself am wondering why this is even news at all. As far as I know, people are inexplicably denied entry to the US all the time, usually just for having a name "similar" to somebody with known terrorist ties. It's probably easier for that to happen if you happen to be from the middle east and have the same first and last name as somebody else from there who DOES have terrorist ties.
But now we're getting "oh it's BECAUSE he was a muslim" and furthemore "Donald Trump is responsible for this" (yes, there's already a few big news outlets that, strangely enough, seem to assume that Trump already has enough influence to revoke Visas.)
Elon is apparently still riding the high of Falcon 9 success, a feat which while absolutely amazing, pales in complexity to self-driving cars.
Ummm...I kinda doubt that. One of their engineers did the math and found that it was just like trying to launch a really fragile pencil over the empire state building and then have it land on a moving shoe box in heavy wind. NOT a trivial thing to do. Hell, most people couldn't even figure out how to make the pencil actually launch.
I think the really, truly, absolutely hardest part of making self driving cars a reality is the politics. Why? Because people worry about everything from skynet to "think of the children" when there isn't a person driving a car. Their fears are horribly misplaced though, and if you want an example, go read what happened in Las Vegas last night. Scary shit, but believe it or not, people would readily trust the person driving that over a computer.
Chrome upgrades are free. Mozilla upgrades are free. Why is it a bad thing to force upgrades in the name of security here? That doesn't make any sense to me. It's not like anybody actually uses Microsoft's browsers anyways.
I'm sure they could have done this by the 70's if that were their goal.
I think the thing is that never would have been their goal. I'm not speaking of corruption (nor suggesting anything like it) but the thing with NASA is that their pockets have always been very deep. Thus they kind of just looked at discarding a stage 1 rocket a necessary cost of doing what they do and figured the funding would just be there anyways. The problem though is a high cost means that something is impractical, even if you can do it (such as the moon landing in the 60's.)
This is exactly where the private sector has an advantage: It seeks to become more practical, and it's a good time for the private sector to begin taking over at least when it comes to near earth missions, and I think it's time for governments to begin focusing more on deep space rather than fucking around with ISS.
Because it literally is a swipe an a flick away, swipe to one side you have an alphabetized list of all of your apps.
With Android you just hit the app drawer key. It's really just as simple, only better because you get a smaller grid layout with very distinctive icons. On WP it's just a big list with small, monocolor icons.
Flick the top down you have a lot of quick options that are editable and access to settings.
Umm...actually that's a feature Windows Phone ripped off of Android. In case you've forgotten, 18 months ago WP didn't even that whole shade system. Microsoft's answer was that you're supposed to use the tiles for notification, even though they were often 15 minutes behind. Needless to say it was shitty, so they eventually just copied what Android had since day one (and Apple copied 2 years after Android came out, though without the quick settings, which they later added as a bottom shade, but before WP had it.)
You hold it briefly, I don't know what you're doing that a less than one second hold is too much time.
Holding, no matter the duration, is slower than tapping. Furthermore, it's less intuitive.
Most andriod phones have a search button
No, they don't. You're thinking of 2010 and prior era phones that had hard keys with upwards of 6+ buttons, which there aren't many of anymore (considering that back then there was about 160k Android phones sold per day, whereas nowadays there's over 2 million Android phones sold per day.) Android has been on a soft key system for four years now which had 3 buttons: Back, home, and menu. However in 4.0 they replaced the menu button with the task switch button.
Microsoft must have just copied the old design and hasn't copied the new one yet. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll catch up in four years.
and if you type google
I have a better way: Just open Firefox for Android and type in the search terms directly. (Which by the way, firefox is the ONLY mobile browser that supports extensions, including adblock plus, ghostery, searchonymous, and lastpass)
Wow you are picky- how about your claim that widgets are 'infinitely better' than live tiles? It's just something you click on to do something.
Actually it's not. Widgets are fully interactive, i.e. I can tap on individual calendar events and it will open that event, or even scroll through events. You're just thinking in terms of live tiles where there's no interaction at all. It's just there, and if you tap on it, it opens the app. If you want to see e.g. other events, you just have to wait for it to flip through it; it literally does nothing else.
The only way it could be infinitely better is if the live tiles were completely non-functional.
Well put it this way: Think of Windows Phone's live tiles as being like linear TV whereas Android's widgets are more like a DVR. Sure, linear TV is functional in that you can watch the news as it airs, but once you have a DVR, linear TV seems so non-functional as to be almost useless.
I know a lot of people think Sander's views would put us in line with that of Nordic countries, but it just looks to me like it would be more similar to that of France, or rather, that of Francois Hollande, whose administration has been somewhat of a train wreck.
Not that I'm saying Hillary or Trump would be better (in fact I don't care for any of the three.) Though I'm one of those weirdo libertarians with ideas about going left on social issues and right on the economy.
Bottom line is a Windows Phone is much cleaner and more efficient to use than either an Android or iPhone...
I'm not sure how that could be argued. You're giving vague descriptions of things just being a "swipe and a flick away" but even the most basic tasks are more complicated on WP.
Here's a specific example: Task switching. On WP you have to hold the back key for a few seconds, which adds time to what should be a very quick function. On Android you just tap the task switch button; instant, easy.
And strangely, on WP they opted to put there...of all things...a search button, worsened by the fact that it's hard coded to Bing web searches and can't be changed. Now I understand if you're going all in Microsoft and you're a fan of Bing, that's one thing, but any time you want to search anything technical, Google is a sure bet, so if you want to search Google, you have to launch your browser, type google.com, etc. In other words, takes more time.
Meanwhile on Android (and this will vary depending on the launcher you use) you can just flick the home key upwards to search Google (which can be changed, again, depending on the launcher.)
Having owned one myself, I don't particularly care for its UI for a few reasons:
- You have to wait through animations when you do just about everything (these animations are what a lot of people refer to when they use the word "smooth" to describe the platform; which I'll admit that they have flashy appeal, but it gets old quick.)
- Android widgets are INFINITELY better than the live tiles. For example, my calendar widget can do a vertical layout and display multiple events in advance and can even scroll through extras, which sits in parallel with my voicemail transcripts where I also see multiple at once. On WP, your options are horizontal rectangle or giant square that nothing else (besides tiny tiles) can fit next to, and you'll see two upcoming events at best. Worst is that WP tiles will just periodically flip so you don't necessarily see what's pertinent, and they're about 15 minutes behind (as per the OS's restrictions.)
- The app drawer in WP sucks. It's long, has a really big font, and since the icons are mostly monocolor, you may not easily "spot" your app as you're scrolling by if you can't remember exactly what it was called but you remember what graphic it used. This basically means that you have to fill up your home screen and then essentially memorize your layout; otherwise launching apps feels impractical. I think the grid style in Android works much better.
- The flat UI concept sucks. Yes, I know it's better than the heavy bitmapped crap used in the past, but you can do at least light skeumorph without using bitmaps. Flat specifically means that you have no hints of depth (i.e. no shadows, no overlapping objects, no gradients, etc) which lends to the current fisher-price look as you have to do sharp contrasting colors in order to differentiate objects, which gets old really fast.
I don't know about that, it would probably be really slow, not to mention the need to always have some sort of a dock with you. Besides, if that were the case, then Surface tablets would always be used in place of iPads. (Which by the way, I own a Surface Pro 4; wonderful little device, but at least at the moment it doesn't have the business mindshare that iPad has.)
However, I don't profess it to the world, like owners of other phone systems.
Umm...you sure about that? I've both read and seen how Windows Phone fans react when they walk into a carrier store, ask where their Windows Phones are, and then when the staff say something to the effect of "we don't carry those because our customers don't want them" the WP fans suddenly behave like PETA activists at a fur store as if not carrying their brand is a crime against nature.
I know, it's rare because there are so few of their fans, but if you don't believe me go peruse some of the fan forums.
I'm surprised Microsoft hasn't just killed it off already. This is their third reboot, with nothing to indicate that this time will be any better than the last ones. Between R&D costs, marketing costs, the Nokia bribe, the Nokia buyout, and the fact that every phone sold costs them money, they've likely lost upwards of $20 billion on it already. I wonder how much longer the shareholders will tolerate this.
I dunno about that. The most difficult thing about gaming on Linux is that troubleshooting is HARD. For example, imagine running a game and it doesn't even start, it just spits out the message "segmentation fault". Uh yeah...let me just type that into google...and...nope, just a vague description of a memory error. What could be wrong? Well, a lot of fucking things to be honest.
Don't get me wrong, I use Linux every day (and in fact admin at least 20 of Linux servers) and it's a wonderful kernel for server OSes, but I've just never seen the appeal of running it for anything desktop related. The only way I foresee that is if basically everybody who would like to see Linux on the desktop could all get together and decide on the same software stack for use in practically every desktop environment (kind of like how every Android device runs essentially the same or at least 99.99% compatible stack.) The problem is, coders (and engineers in general) have their own way they like seeing things get done, and don't like doing it anybody else's way, thus when they work on their own and for their own benefit, there's no unified desktop environment that application developers can get behind.
What Valve is doing with SteamOS is a good start (i.e. establishing a common set of libraries that are required,) but IMO they've got a ways to go.
It's also useful in that it helps prevent multicast routing loops, so even if you're not trying to prevent spoofing, it's still good to use if you're an ISP, hence most of them do it. Basically every campus and/or service provider grade router supports it, even in hardware/asic so that you don't use high CPU in high traffic conditions. It's pretty much just the most nobody/backwoods ISP's of the world that don't, and fortunately there aren't that many.
That said, most botnet operators don't rely on spoofing anymore. Instead they just straight up syn flood the shit out of them.
However I imagine it will just drive botnet creators to be smarter with their operation. Showing lack of security by exploiting a fundamental weakness that doesn't do anything more than irritate customers is rather pointless. If you want to show customers how little organisations care for their 1s and 0s then the talk talk breach is a nice example (shame about the extortion).
I'm totally fine with that though, because there are countermeasures that you as either an individual or an organization can utilize; you just have to get smarter with your own cybersecurity. However the current status quo is the internet equivalent of terrorism before the Bush Doctrine. That is, people openly DDoS you, you know what systems they are doing it from, and hence you know exactly what systems to block, but there's nothing you can do to forcibly disarm those systems as their owners effectively grant safe harbor to the botnet operators, some don't know it, and some know but pretend to not know (a la LOIC.)
I think what they mean is that the internet as a whole just basically lacks cybersecurity. There really is more we can do to stop it, such as mandatory throttling and/or disconnecting of users that are known to be running compromised systems. Do it on a global scale with i.e. a treaty organization whose sole purpose is to protect the internet infrastructure itself (i.e. no intellectual property trolling, anti-terrorism, anti-fraud, etc, just nothing but an organization that sets rules and standards for making sure that even if Dr. Evil wants to take over the world using the internet and make mankind become slaves to Kodos, that's fine, just so long as the internet itself remains functioning and nobody is subject to having their internet services subject to ransom by DDoS kiddies.)
Oh, and pushing aside your really bad logical fallacy, as for your supposed link to cancer in water bottles, I think it's more likely that you'd get cancer from coffee. Why? Well coffee has over 36 known carcinogens in it (this includes natural/organic coffee.) KNOWN. Not this "fear of the unknown" shit you're appealing to.
If you're going to argue that everything you don't know about is dangerous, then you shouldn't ever eat anything again. Because by your argument, you might die from eating one of the hundreds of ingredients in a raw apple (or anything else) that you've never heard of and don't know what they do. Seriously, you're entire post is one big example of a logical fallacy:
The simpler fact is that if animals were made to be eaten, you wouldn't have to chase them down
Chase them? Nononono, you got it all wrong. Nobody chases animals. Granted, kids tend to chase animals of course, especially at the petting zoo, but petting zoo animals aren't ready for eating yet. Animals ready for eating get chased by bullets.
The simple fact is that if animals weren't meant to be eaten, then they wouldn't have been made out of food. Besides, there is plenty of evidence that shows that animals are, in fact, delicious.
Your link says that 65% of the time it's caused by "random mutation", which means we don't know what caused it. Was it a cosmic ray? Something you ate? Some toxic perfume you wore?
None of the above. afxgrin already answered this for you.
Something that leached into your bottled water, since all (yes, all) plastic bottles leach toxics into their contents over time? It doesn't support your assertion.
LOL, so now you're believing everything you read in those chain emails? Hate to piss in your cheerios, but those emails are chock full of urban myth:
Umm...cancer typically isn't the result of incompetence. In act, 65% of the time it's completely by chance, meaning no action you took caused it, you just got unlucky. Leprosy isn't necessarily either, in fact it can spread by somebody coughing into their hand, touching a doorknob, and you coming up later and touching that same doorknob without ever seeing that person.
Furthermore, fulfilling an economic need isn't trading on someone else's misfortune. If it was, then restaurants would be trading on someones misfortune of being hungry.
Slashdot Mirror
I myself am wondering why this is even news at all. As far as I know, people are inexplicably denied entry to the US all the time, usually just for having a name "similar" to somebody with known terrorist ties. It's probably easier for that to happen if you happen to be from the middle east and have the same first and last name as somebody else from there who DOES have terrorist ties.
But now we're getting "oh it's BECAUSE he was a muslim" and furthemore "Donald Trump is responsible for this" (yes, there's already a few big news outlets that, strangely enough, seem to assume that Trump already has enough influence to revoke Visas.)
Elon is apparently still riding the high of Falcon 9 success, a feat which while absolutely amazing, pales in complexity to self-driving cars.
Ummm...I kinda doubt that. One of their engineers did the math and found that it was just like trying to launch a really fragile pencil over the empire state building and then have it land on a moving shoe box in heavy wind. NOT a trivial thing to do. Hell, most people couldn't even figure out how to make the pencil actually launch.
I think the really, truly, absolutely hardest part of making self driving cars a reality is the politics. Why? Because people worry about everything from skynet to "think of the children" when there isn't a person driving a car. Their fears are horribly misplaced though, and if you want an example, go read what happened in Las Vegas last night. Scary shit, but believe it or not, people would readily trust the person driving that over a computer.
Unions in this country behave more like (and often are) the mafia. Compare them vs the ones in Europe, big difference.
GGGP was calling out Google, not Microsoft.
Chrome upgrades are free. Mozilla upgrades are free. Why is it a bad thing to force upgrades in the name of security here? That doesn't make any sense to me. It's not like anybody actually uses Microsoft's browsers anyways.
I'm sure they could have done this by the 70's if that were their goal.
I think the thing is that never would have been their goal. I'm not speaking of corruption (nor suggesting anything like it) but the thing with NASA is that their pockets have always been very deep. Thus they kind of just looked at discarding a stage 1 rocket a necessary cost of doing what they do and figured the funding would just be there anyways. The problem though is a high cost means that something is impractical, even if you can do it (such as the moon landing in the 60's.)
This is exactly where the private sector has an advantage: It seeks to become more practical, and it's a good time for the private sector to begin taking over at least when it comes to near earth missions, and I think it's time for governments to begin focusing more on deep space rather than fucking around with ISS.
Because it literally is a swipe an a flick away, swipe to one side you have an alphabetized list of all of your apps.
With Android you just hit the app drawer key. It's really just as simple, only better because you get a smaller grid layout with very distinctive icons. On WP it's just a big list with small, monocolor icons.
Flick the top down you have a lot of quick options that are editable and access to settings.
Umm...actually that's a feature Windows Phone ripped off of Android. In case you've forgotten, 18 months ago WP didn't even that whole shade system. Microsoft's answer was that you're supposed to use the tiles for notification, even though they were often 15 minutes behind. Needless to say it was shitty, so they eventually just copied what Android had since day one (and Apple copied 2 years after Android came out, though without the quick settings, which they later added as a bottom shade, but before WP had it.)
You hold it briefly, I don't know what you're doing that a less than one second hold is too much time.
Holding, no matter the duration, is slower than tapping. Furthermore, it's less intuitive.
Most andriod phones have a search button
No, they don't. You're thinking of 2010 and prior era phones that had hard keys with upwards of 6+ buttons, which there aren't many of anymore (considering that back then there was about 160k Android phones sold per day, whereas nowadays there's over 2 million Android phones sold per day.) Android has been on a soft key system for four years now which had 3 buttons: Back, home, and menu. However in 4.0 they replaced the menu button with the task switch button.
Microsoft must have just copied the old design and hasn't copied the new one yet. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll catch up in four years.
and if you type google
I have a better way: Just open Firefox for Android and type in the search terms directly. (Which by the way, firefox is the ONLY mobile browser that supports extensions, including adblock plus, ghostery, searchonymous, and lastpass)
Wow you are picky- how about your claim that widgets are 'infinitely better' than live tiles? It's just something you click on to do something.
Actually it's not. Widgets are fully interactive, i.e. I can tap on individual calendar events and it will open that event, or even scroll through events. You're just thinking in terms of live tiles where there's no interaction at all. It's just there, and if you tap on it, it opens the app. If you want to see e.g. other events, you just have to wait for it to flip through it; it literally does nothing else.
The only way it could be infinitely better is if the live tiles were completely non-functional.
Well put it this way: Think of Windows Phone's live tiles as being like linear TV whereas Android's widgets are more like a DVR. Sure, linear TV is functional in that you can watch the news as it airs, but once you have a DVR, linear TV seems so non-functional as to be almost useless.
I know a lot of people think Sander's views would put us in line with that of Nordic countries, but it just looks to me like it would be more similar to that of France, or rather, that of Francois Hollande, whose administration has been somewhat of a train wreck.
Not that I'm saying Hillary or Trump would be better (in fact I don't care for any of the three.) Though I'm one of those weirdo libertarians with ideas about going left on social issues and right on the economy.
Bottom line is a Windows Phone is much cleaner and more efficient to use than either an Android or iPhone...
I'm not sure how that could be argued. You're giving vague descriptions of things just being a "swipe and a flick away" but even the most basic tasks are more complicated on WP.
Here's a specific example: Task switching. On WP you have to hold the back key for a few seconds, which adds time to what should be a very quick function. On Android you just tap the task switch button; instant, easy.
And strangely, on WP they opted to put there...of all things...a search button, worsened by the fact that it's hard coded to Bing web searches and can't be changed. Now I understand if you're going all in Microsoft and you're a fan of Bing, that's one thing, but any time you want to search anything technical, Google is a sure bet, so if you want to search Google, you have to launch your browser, type google.com, etc. In other words, takes more time.
Meanwhile on Android (and this will vary depending on the launcher you use) you can just flick the home key upwards to search Google (which can be changed, again, depending on the launcher.)
Having owned one myself, I don't particularly care for its UI for a few reasons:
- You have to wait through animations when you do just about everything (these animations are what a lot of people refer to when they use the word "smooth" to describe the platform; which I'll admit that they have flashy appeal, but it gets old quick.)
- Android widgets are INFINITELY better than the live tiles. For example, my calendar widget can do a vertical layout and display multiple events in advance and can even scroll through extras, which sits in parallel with my voicemail transcripts where I also see multiple at once. On WP, your options are horizontal rectangle or giant square that nothing else (besides tiny tiles) can fit next to, and you'll see two upcoming events at best. Worst is that WP tiles will just periodically flip so you don't necessarily see what's pertinent, and they're about 15 minutes behind (as per the OS's restrictions.)
- The app drawer in WP sucks. It's long, has a really big font, and since the icons are mostly monocolor, you may not easily "spot" your app as you're scrolling by if you can't remember exactly what it was called but you remember what graphic it used. This basically means that you have to fill up your home screen and then essentially memorize your layout; otherwise launching apps feels impractical. I think the grid style in Android works much better.
- The flat UI concept sucks. Yes, I know it's better than the heavy bitmapped crap used in the past, but you can do at least light skeumorph without using bitmaps. Flat specifically means that you have no hints of depth (i.e. no shadows, no overlapping objects, no gradients, etc) which lends to the current fisher-price look as you have to do sharp contrasting colors in order to differentiate objects, which gets old really fast.
I don't know about that, it would probably be really slow, not to mention the need to always have some sort of a dock with you. Besides, if that were the case, then Surface tablets would always be used in place of iPads. (Which by the way, I own a Surface Pro 4; wonderful little device, but at least at the moment it doesn't have the business mindshare that iPad has.)
However, I don't profess it to the world, like owners of other phone systems.
Umm...you sure about that? I've both read and seen how Windows Phone fans react when they walk into a carrier store, ask where their Windows Phones are, and then when the staff say something to the effect of "we don't carry those because our customers don't want them" the WP fans suddenly behave like PETA activists at a fur store as if not carrying their brand is a crime against nature.
I know, it's rare because there are so few of their fans, but if you don't believe me go peruse some of the fan forums.
I'm surprised Microsoft hasn't just killed it off already. This is their third reboot, with nothing to indicate that this time will be any better than the last ones. Between R&D costs, marketing costs, the Nokia bribe, the Nokia buyout, and the fact that every phone sold costs them money, they've likely lost upwards of $20 billion on it already. I wonder how much longer the shareholders will tolerate this.
I think they are just showing how inexpensive it is to launch rockets these days. But Mexico already does it for $200.
I dunno about that. The most difficult thing about gaming on Linux is that troubleshooting is HARD. For example, imagine running a game and it doesn't even start, it just spits out the message "segmentation fault". Uh yeah...let me just type that into google...and...nope, just a vague description of a memory error. What could be wrong? Well, a lot of fucking things to be honest.
Don't get me wrong, I use Linux every day (and in fact admin at least 20 of Linux servers) and it's a wonderful kernel for server OSes, but I've just never seen the appeal of running it for anything desktop related. The only way I foresee that is if basically everybody who would like to see Linux on the desktop could all get together and decide on the same software stack for use in practically every desktop environment (kind of like how every Android device runs essentially the same or at least 99.99% compatible stack.) The problem is, coders (and engineers in general) have their own way they like seeing things get done, and don't like doing it anybody else's way, thus when they work on their own and for their own benefit, there's no unified desktop environment that application developers can get behind.
What Valve is doing with SteamOS is a good start (i.e. establishing a common set of libraries that are required,) but IMO they've got a ways to go.
As far as I'm aware, this is already done in most ISPs in the US. It's called Reverse Path Forwarding:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's also useful in that it helps prevent multicast routing loops, so even if you're not trying to prevent spoofing, it's still good to use if you're an ISP, hence most of them do it. Basically every campus and/or service provider grade router supports it, even in hardware/asic so that you don't use high CPU in high traffic conditions. It's pretty much just the most nobody/backwoods ISP's of the world that don't, and fortunately there aren't that many.
That said, most botnet operators don't rely on spoofing anymore. Instead they just straight up syn flood the shit out of them.
However I imagine it will just drive botnet creators to be smarter with their operation. Showing lack of security by exploiting a fundamental weakness that doesn't do anything more than irritate customers is rather pointless. If you want to show customers how little organisations care for their 1s and 0s then the talk talk breach is a nice example (shame about the extortion).
I'm totally fine with that though, because there are countermeasures that you as either an individual or an organization can utilize; you just have to get smarter with your own cybersecurity. However the current status quo is the internet equivalent of terrorism before the Bush Doctrine. That is, people openly DDoS you, you know what systems they are doing it from, and hence you know exactly what systems to block, but there's nothing you can do to forcibly disarm those systems as their owners effectively grant safe harbor to the botnet operators, some don't know it, and some know but pretend to not know (a la LOIC.)
I think what they mean is that the internet as a whole just basically lacks cybersecurity. There really is more we can do to stop it, such as mandatory throttling and/or disconnecting of users that are known to be running compromised systems. Do it on a global scale with i.e. a treaty organization whose sole purpose is to protect the internet infrastructure itself (i.e. no intellectual property trolling, anti-terrorism, anti-fraud, etc, just nothing but an organization that sets rules and standards for making sure that even if Dr. Evil wants to take over the world using the internet and make mankind become slaves to Kodos, that's fine, just so long as the internet itself remains functioning and nobody is subject to having their internet services subject to ransom by DDoS kiddies.)
Oh, and pushing aside your really bad logical fallacy, as for your supposed link to cancer in water bottles, I think it's more likely that you'd get cancer from coffee. Why? Well coffee has over 36 known carcinogens in it (this includes natural/organic coffee.) KNOWN. Not this "fear of the unknown" shit you're appealing to.
If you're going to argue that everything you don't know about is dangerous, then you shouldn't ever eat anything again. Because by your argument, you might die from eating one of the hundreds of ingredients in a raw apple (or anything else) that you've never heard of and don't know what they do. Seriously, you're entire post is one big example of a logical fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Dunno but I could have written everything Bennett said in just one sentence:
"If binge on is unlimited, then why can't we just have unlimited at the same speed for all other content?"
So unless Slashdot is now twitter, then Bennett should just be banished to twitter until he can learn to make his random ramblings more concise.
The simpler fact is that if animals were made to be eaten, you wouldn't have to chase them down
Chase them? Nononono, you got it all wrong. Nobody chases animals. Granted, kids tend to chase animals of course, especially at the petting zoo, but petting zoo animals aren't ready for eating yet. Animals ready for eating get chased by bullets.
The simple fact is that if animals weren't meant to be eaten, then they wouldn't have been made out of food. Besides, there is plenty of evidence that shows that animals are, in fact, delicious.
Your link says that 65% of the time it's caused by "random mutation", which means we don't know what caused it. Was it a cosmic ray? Something you ate? Some toxic perfume you wore?
None of the above. afxgrin already answered this for you.
Something that leached into your bottled water, since all (yes, all) plastic bottles leach toxics into their contents over time? It doesn't support your assertion.
LOL, so now you're believing everything you read in those chain emails? Hate to piss in your cheerios, but those emails are chock full of urban myth:
http://www.cancer.org/aboutus/...
Umm...cancer typically isn't the result of incompetence. In act, 65% of the time it's completely by chance, meaning no action you took caused it, you just got unlucky. Leprosy isn't necessarily either, in fact it can spread by somebody coughing into their hand, touching a doorknob, and you coming up later and touching that same doorknob without ever seeing that person.
Furthermore, fulfilling an economic need isn't trading on someone else's misfortune. If it was, then restaurants would be trading on someones misfortune of being hungry.