Either way, using the "corporations with patents" issue to condemn GMO is both absurd and a red herring. Anybody who advocates or otherwise desires getting rid of GMO just because of Monsanto or because of gene patents is a fucking moron. Why are they a moron? Because there's no sense at all in condemning any particular technology just because the modern patent system is hideously broken. As I'm sure many on slashdot have witnessed, patents are also the bane to software development. Yet I don't see anybody advocating an end to information technology, nor do I see anybody making similar arguments about Apple or Microsoft, both of whom are well known to abuse the patent system.
If you have an issue with Monsanto or gene patents, you should be shouting to your local politicians about the patent system and corporate ethics, NOT shouting demands to stigmatize GMO with food labels or asking for it to be outright banned it entirely.
And by the way, we need to stop with this nonsense about having it labeled. You may as well tell the government that they should require non-kosher foods to be labeled as such. Any sane person would easily realize that even though a "non-kosher" label is otherwise meaningless (unless you happen to be Jewish,) it stigmatizes the product and encourages food producers to make more kosher products. With all of the benefits that GMO can offer, the last thing we need is for food producers to abandon it.
Actually compared to some of the stuff found in plants naturally that you consume every day, glyphosate is rather safe, especially in the very tiny quantities that might end up on your plate (though typically none at all does.) And yes, natural and "organic" food products that you eat every day contain numerous toxins ranging from heavy metals to carcinogens, including wild plants that are otherwise considered healthy to eat.
GP has a point because literally everything that lives on this planet has genes from other species transferred into it. It happens quite often. The human genome alone has over 100,000 foreign sequences inserted into it, without at least one of which, human reproduction would be much less efficient, and in fact we may have gone extinct long ago without it.
We are talking about him because his case in an example of prosecutorial misconduct [oxfordscholarship.com] and the forced application of intense sentences due to legislation that takes the discretion on sentence length away from the judge
If this is the case, then why is there an actual published book with his collective writings? I rarely comment on anything on Aaron Schwartz, but it occurs to me that some people seem to deify him, where from what I understand he was kind of a douchebag IRL.
And my own skepticism. Genetically modifying food on the molecular level is not the same as breeding. You will never see in nature where mechanical and chemical means are used to cross species like it's done in the lab.
Actually this is 100% false. Not only do genes cross from species to species in nature, but it actually happens all the time. In fact the human genome -- your genome -- has some 100,000 gene fragments from some other species inserted into it. Three of those genes spliced into you are actually complete gene sequences, one of which is responsible for the human placenta.
The logical argument against GMOs is not that there is anything wrong with modifying genomes
No, it is and always has been exactly that. Where do you think the whole "frankenfood" argument comes from? Stop being so naive.
which is to be raised in soils heavily laden with chemicals
If chemicals are bad, then quite honestly, you should just stop eating period. Every plant that exists is made up of thousands of chemicals. In fact you should stop drinking and breathing too for the same reason. You should probably stop existing too, because your body has thousands of chemicals within it as well.
This has caused a massive increase of such chemicals in our diet. They have been linked to cancer, autism, and a slew of gastrointestinal problems.
No, they haven't. Glyphosate in particular has only been found dangerous to those who handle massive quantities of it at a time, just like many other chemicals, including ones that reside within your body and are supposed to be there. And autism? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you have any idea what autism even is? No, of course you don't; you listen to whatever bro science you find on AlexJones.com and believe it's fact without bothering to cross check it. And besides, your claim is complete bullshit:
People like you are the reason so many hipster douches are horribly wrong on this issue. You are seriously exactly the type of person who would have followed Hitler just because he made a bunch of populist (yet very incorrect) arguments about why Jews are ruining the world. Think as an individual for once in your life. If a bunch of your friends or some "really cool dude" you know makes an incredible claim, view it with a critical eye until you've done your own research. Pamphlets handed around and random "nature is best" blogs don't count as research, in case you had to ask.
Having GMO labeling is every bit as pointless as saying what particular state and county it was grown in, or whether it's kosher or halal. Really, it is.
The reason food has an ingredient list is so consumers can identify possible allergens prior to consumption. If it's not listed on the label, then it is immaterial to the food.
On behalf of every British Columbian who can't stand seeing your stupid language printed on everything, hurry up, please.
Ours is the furthest province from yours and we should be the least accommodating of your bastardized fronglish bullshit.
See, this is exactly why you wildlings will never make it south of the 49th parallel; you're always fighting amongst one another. And guess what? Winter is coming again and you'll be trapped in the frozen wasteland.
Does UK enjoy the same amount of Freedom that America has?
Not even close!
***AMERICA!***
Significantly more when you look at the details.
How so? If the local government wants to censor you in a European country, they just have to label what you said as hate speech, regardless of whether or not it actually is. For example, it's illegal to collect WWII memorabilia in Germany, because it's considered "hateful" to do so, along with walking in any manner resembling a goose step.
In the US meanwhile, so long as you aren't calling for somebody to be physically injured or killed, you can do or say whatever you want without fear of adverse government action against you.
Let's also not get into the fact that pretty much everywhere you go in a populated area, your actions are likely being recorded on camera, and you have no right to defend yourself in the event of a home invasion.
Another thing to consider is that US carriers (except Sprint; Verizon currently doesn't but it was just leaked that they plan to do so to catch up with AT&T and T-Mobile very soon in this regard) now cover practically every area in the entire North American continent that isn't in the middle of BFE, and with T-mobile (and soon Verizon) there is no extra cost to do so. Meaning, you can roam to anywhere in North America and call to anywhere in North America, including data usage, at no extra cost.
Meanwhile, European carriers typically only cover a small fraction of the landmass, and if you want to go from i.e. Portugal to Italy, you either have to pay roaming costs or buy another sim card and plan for another carrier.
The "deactivator" (kill switch) will be mandated on all phones sold in the US. And rather than use infrared the signal will come from the cell tower.
No, it won't. The mere fact that it could be used to stop filming of police brutality means it would never fly. At best what would happen is some group like members of the MPAA could apply industry pressure by requiring that all apps that play their content must support such a device, but that would hurt their sales more than anything, because I guarantee you that the Chinese smartphone companies wouldn't give a shit, and Samsung likely wouldn't either.
Besides, as mentioned earlier, a simple IR lens filter would defeat this. You can file this invention in the "worthless to everybody" bin, because everybody that *might* benefit from it probably won't even bother with it.
If I were to guess, I would say that this is probably just intended for Apple preventing their own fans from taking videos at Apple press events.
That's only true if they give the records to you, the patient. However you always have the right to have them transferred to another practitioner without charge.
- Listening to Trump - Seeing every fucking internet forum and news source full of jackasses that love talking about how much they hate Trump, but in reality they're so obsessed with him that they should just go have sex with him already.
Actually no, that's easy, it's definitely the later. Why? Trump is dead simple to ignore: If you see an article that has his name in it, then you don't click on it. It's that fucking easy. (That is, unless you actually watch live television, in which case you're past your prime.) But the later category insists on always posting comments to articles and threads about shit that has nothing at all to do with Trump, making them much more annoying than Trump himself. And what's especially annoying is that they almost always use terms like "racist" to describe shit that doesn't have a damn thing to do with anything at all, making them look even more disingenuous than Trump can ever be.
Because you inevitably have to be able to transfer those records to another health care provider (and/or the patient himself) when the patient either requests it or authorizes it, as per the law. Sure, you can keep it within a secure network, but there is basically no such thing as perfect security.
Remember, the employees are typically the weakest link. No CIO in the world (or anybody else for that matter) can 100% guarantee the security of any system that has more than one authorized user, no matter the circumstances.
What? As somebody with a chronic disease, I see lots of doctors and haven't had this once. If they do something like this then they're blatantly breaking the law, because HIPAA explicitly guarantees you the right to have access to your own records, in addition to you being allowed to control who else can or can't access them.
I'm pretty sure that's illegal. Under HIPAA, you as a patient have the final say in who has access to your medical records, and I'm fairly certain that it's an ethics violation for your doctor to deny you the ability to get a second opinion. In fact, if you run into a doctor that hates second opinions then you should find a new one anyways, as every good doctor is willing to accept that sometimes they're wrong and even appreciates a second opinion, and their ultimate goal is your health, not their ego.
There is a saying that only way to truly secure your server is to disconnect it from the network. However HIPAA requires EMR, so that's not an option.
So I have to ask, why are you calling for the victim to be executed and replaced with somebody who is known for less than ethical behavior?
This is similar to how Islamic countries give lashings to raped women for adultery and then let the rapist go scott free because it wasn't his fault that the woman's looks were tempting.
No, what makes Trump dangerous is that nobody knows what his actual agenda is for his presidency, because nobody sane can believe the constant stream of lies he's spewing. That suggests to me that his agenda is something that would not get him elected if people actually knew anything about it.
Captcha: Damning
It really doesn't matter what kind of "agenda" he has. This isn't a communist country; the president doesn't have unlimited power.
You'd better hope the US doesn't decay too much or too far. One of the hallmarks of failed republics is to become an aggressor-state to prop up the failing system, and Canada would be a tempting and convenient target for US annexation and subsequent plundering of it's wealth and resources.
Hmm...No, I think we already have plenty of maple syrup.
The US has the very real potential to become the greatest threat to the world since Nazi Germany if it goes full-fascist/socialist-oligarchy, which is a distinct possibility if/when the US economy and currency collapses, particularly if there's a 'cult of personality' populist-demagogue type of leader like Trump in charge at the time.
That's quite an if. Europe is much closer to that than the US is. Hell, in the bugger EU nations some 25% of their voters vote for actual self proclaimed fascists. And for all of the things you can say about Trump, fascist just doesn't fit at all. Sure, he's a loudmouth blowhard, and some people think that makes him dangerous, but it really doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Either way, using the "corporations with patents" issue to condemn GMO is both absurd and a red herring. Anybody who advocates or otherwise desires getting rid of GMO just because of Monsanto or because of gene patents is a fucking moron. Why are they a moron? Because there's no sense at all in condemning any particular technology just because the modern patent system is hideously broken. As I'm sure many on slashdot have witnessed, patents are also the bane to software development. Yet I don't see anybody advocating an end to information technology, nor do I see anybody making similar arguments about Apple or Microsoft, both of whom are well known to abuse the patent system.
If you have an issue with Monsanto or gene patents, you should be shouting to your local politicians about the patent system and corporate ethics, NOT shouting demands to stigmatize GMO with food labels or asking for it to be outright banned it entirely.
And by the way, we need to stop with this nonsense about having it labeled. You may as well tell the government that they should require non-kosher foods to be labeled as such. Any sane person would easily realize that even though a "non-kosher" label is otherwise meaningless (unless you happen to be Jewish,) it stigmatizes the product and encourages food producers to make more kosher products. With all of the benefits that GMO can offer, the last thing we need is for food producers to abandon it.
Actually compared to some of the stuff found in plants naturally that you consume every day, glyphosate is rather safe, especially in the very tiny quantities that might end up on your plate (though typically none at all does.) And yes, natural and "organic" food products that you eat every day contain numerous toxins ranging from heavy metals to carcinogens, including wild plants that are otherwise considered healthy to eat.
GP has a point because literally everything that lives on this planet has genes from other species transferred into it. It happens quite often. The human genome alone has over 100,000 foreign sequences inserted into it, without at least one of which, human reproduction would be much less efficient, and in fact we may have gone extinct long ago without it.
http://www.isciencemag.co.uk/f...
We are talking about him because his case in an example of prosecutorial misconduct [oxfordscholarship.com] and the forced application of intense sentences due to legislation that takes the discretion on sentence length away from the judge
If this is the case, then why is there an actual published book with his collective writings? I rarely comment on anything on Aaron Schwartz, but it occurs to me that some people seem to deify him, where from what I understand he was kind of a douchebag IRL.
And my own skepticism. Genetically modifying food on the molecular level is not the same as breeding. You will never see in nature where mechanical and chemical means are used to cross species like it's done in the lab.
Actually this is 100% false. Not only do genes cross from species to species in nature, but it actually happens all the time. In fact the human genome -- your genome -- has some 100,000 gene fragments from some other species inserted into it. Three of those genes spliced into you are actually complete gene sequences, one of which is responsible for the human placenta.
http://www.isciencemag.co.uk/f...
The logical argument against GMOs is not that there is anything wrong with modifying genomes
No, it is and always has been exactly that. Where do you think the whole "frankenfood" argument comes from? Stop being so naive.
which is to be raised in soils heavily laden with chemicals
If chemicals are bad, then quite honestly, you should just stop eating period. Every plant that exists is made up of thousands of chemicals. In fact you should stop drinking and breathing too for the same reason. You should probably stop existing too, because your body has thousands of chemicals within it as well.
This has caused a massive increase of such chemicals in our diet. They have been linked to cancer, autism, and a slew of gastrointestinal problems.
No, they haven't. Glyphosate in particular has only been found dangerous to those who handle massive quantities of it at a time, just like many other chemicals, including ones that reside within your body and are supposed to be there. And autism? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you have any idea what autism even is? No, of course you don't; you listen to whatever bro science you find on AlexJones.com and believe it's fact without bothering to cross check it. And besides, your claim is complete bullshit:
http://www.snopes.com/medical/...
People like you are the reason so many hipster douches are horribly wrong on this issue. You are seriously exactly the type of person who would have followed Hitler just because he made a bunch of populist (yet very incorrect) arguments about why Jews are ruining the world. Think as an individual for once in your life. If a bunch of your friends or some "really cool dude" you know makes an incredible claim, view it with a critical eye until you've done your own research. Pamphlets handed around and random "nature is best" blogs don't count as research, in case you had to ask.
Having GMO labeling is every bit as pointless as saying what particular state and county it was grown in, or whether it's kosher or halal. Really, it is.
The reason food has an ingredient list is so consumers can identify possible allergens prior to consumption. If it's not listed on the label, then it is immaterial to the food.
Even if that were the case (which it's not; not yet anyways,) the EU is tiny compared to North America. Hell, the US alone dwarfs the EU.
Same for server hardware and network gear in the form of virtualization.
On behalf of every British Columbian who can't stand seeing your stupid language printed on everything, hurry up, please.
Ours is the furthest province from yours and we should be the least accommodating of your bastardized fronglish bullshit.
See, this is exactly why you wildlings will never make it south of the 49th parallel; you're always fighting amongst one another. And guess what? Winter is coming again and you'll be trapped in the frozen wasteland.
Does UK enjoy the same amount of Freedom that America has?
Not even close!
***AMERICA!***
Significantly more when you look at the details.
How so? If the local government wants to censor you in a European country, they just have to label what you said as hate speech, regardless of whether or not it actually is. For example, it's illegal to collect WWII memorabilia in Germany, because it's considered "hateful" to do so, along with walking in any manner resembling a goose step.
In the US meanwhile, so long as you aren't calling for somebody to be physically injured or killed, you can do or say whatever you want without fear of adverse government action against you.
Let's also not get into the fact that pretty much everywhere you go in a populated area, your actions are likely being recorded on camera, and you have no right to defend yourself in the event of a home invasion.
Another thing to consider is that US carriers (except Sprint; Verizon currently doesn't but it was just leaked that they plan to do so to catch up with AT&T and T-Mobile very soon in this regard) now cover practically every area in the entire North American continent that isn't in the middle of BFE, and with T-mobile (and soon Verizon) there is no extra cost to do so. Meaning, you can roam to anywhere in North America and call to anywhere in North America, including data usage, at no extra cost.
Meanwhile, European carriers typically only cover a small fraction of the landmass, and if you want to go from i.e. Portugal to Italy, you either have to pay roaming costs or buy another sim card and plan for another carrier.
The "deactivator" (kill switch) will be mandated on all phones sold in the US. And rather than use infrared the signal will come from the cell tower.
No, it won't. The mere fact that it could be used to stop filming of police brutality means it would never fly. At best what would happen is some group like members of the MPAA could apply industry pressure by requiring that all apps that play their content must support such a device, but that would hurt their sales more than anything, because I guarantee you that the Chinese smartphone companies wouldn't give a shit, and Samsung likely wouldn't either.
Besides, as mentioned earlier, a simple IR lens filter would defeat this. You can file this invention in the "worthless to everybody" bin, because everybody that *might* benefit from it probably won't even bother with it.
If I were to guess, I would say that this is probably just intended for Apple preventing their own fans from taking videos at Apple press events.
That's only true if they give the records to you, the patient. However you always have the right to have them transferred to another practitioner without charge.
I'm not sure what's more annoying:
- Listening to Trump
- Seeing every fucking internet forum and news source full of jackasses that love talking about how much they hate Trump, but in reality they're so obsessed with him that they should just go have sex with him already.
Actually no, that's easy, it's definitely the later. Why? Trump is dead simple to ignore: If you see an article that has his name in it, then you don't click on it. It's that fucking easy. (That is, unless you actually watch live television, in which case you're past your prime.) But the later category insists on always posting comments to articles and threads about shit that has nothing at all to do with Trump, making them much more annoying than Trump himself. And what's especially annoying is that they almost always use terms like "racist" to describe shit that doesn't have a damn thing to do with anything at all, making them look even more disingenuous than Trump can ever be.
Because you inevitably have to be able to transfer those records to another health care provider (and/or the patient himself) when the patient either requests it or authorizes it, as per the law. Sure, you can keep it within a secure network, but there is basically no such thing as perfect security.
Remember, the employees are typically the weakest link. No CIO in the world (or anybody else for that matter) can 100% guarantee the security of any system that has more than one authorized user, no matter the circumstances.
What? As somebody with a chronic disease, I see lots of doctors and haven't had this once. If they do something like this then they're blatantly breaking the law, because HIPAA explicitly guarantees you the right to have access to your own records, in addition to you being allowed to control who else can or can't access them.
http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-p...
I'm pretty sure that's illegal. Under HIPAA, you as a patient have the final say in who has access to your medical records, and I'm fairly certain that it's an ethics violation for your doctor to deny you the ability to get a second opinion. In fact, if you run into a doctor that hates second opinions then you should find a new one anyways, as every good doctor is willing to accept that sometimes they're wrong and even appreciates a second opinion, and their ultimate goal is your health, not their ego.
There is a saying that only way to truly secure your server is to disconnect it from the network. However HIPAA requires EMR, so that's not an option.
So I have to ask, why are you calling for the victim to be executed and replaced with somebody who is known for less than ethical behavior?
This is similar to how Islamic countries give lashings to raped women for adultery and then let the rapist go scott free because it wasn't his fault that the woman's looks were tempting.
Send them a strongly worded letter about how angry you are with them!
You're from Canada, eh?
No, what makes Trump dangerous is that nobody knows what his actual agenda is for his presidency, because nobody sane can believe the constant stream of lies he's spewing. That suggests to me that his agenda is something that would not get him elected if people actually knew anything about it.
Captcha: Damning
It really doesn't matter what kind of "agenda" he has. This isn't a communist country; the president doesn't have unlimited power.
You'd better hope the US doesn't decay too much or too far. One of the hallmarks of failed republics is to become an aggressor-state to prop up the failing system, and Canada would be a tempting and convenient target for US annexation and subsequent plundering of it's wealth and resources.
Hmm...No, I think we already have plenty of maple syrup.
The US has the very real potential to become the greatest threat to the world since Nazi Germany if it goes full-fascist/socialist-oligarchy, which is a distinct possibility if/when the US economy and currency collapses, particularly if there's a 'cult of personality' populist-demagogue type of leader like Trump in charge at the time.
That's quite an if. Europe is much closer to that than the US is. Hell, in the bugger EU nations some 25% of their voters vote for actual self proclaimed fascists. And for all of the things you can say about Trump, fascist just doesn't fit at all. Sure, he's a loudmouth blowhard, and some people think that makes him dangerous, but it really doesn't.
The only truthful comment you made in your post was this one:
sorry, no idea at all
It's easy to say malware is there (in the absence of any evidence of widespread malware)
Actually, there is:
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.c...