but if you want to compel a takedown from the outside because *you* say it's illegal, you need a court order.
And if you want to ask a registrar to review the activities of one of their registrees to see if they're violating the AUP, you don't. I've done it before, I'm not going to start getting a court order to report abusers and spammers and bears, oh my!
Why should he registrar be responsible for content?
Because they have made themselves responsible through their Acceptable Use Policy agreement. For example, EasyDNS includes these conditions upon the registree:
The Applicant warrants to easyDNS that the details submitted by the Applicant to easyDNS are true and correct, and that future modifications or additions to those details will be true and correct.
The Applicant agrees not to use the services provided by easyDNS to conduct any business or activity or solicit the performance of any activity that is prohibited by law.
easyDNS reserves the right to revoke any or all services associated with a domain or user account, for policy abuses. What constitutes a policy abuse is at the sole discretion of easyDNS and includes (but is not limited to) the following:
transmitting Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE)
transmitting bulk email
posting bulk Usenet articles
Denial of Service attacks of any kind
copyright infringement
unlawful or illegal activities of any kind (this includes Ponzi schemes and HYIPs)
promotes net abuse in any manner (providing software, tools or information which enables net abuse)
causing lossage or creating service degradation for other easyDNS users whether intentional or inadvertent.
Is listed in the DNS Providers' Blacklist or in any other blacklist / RBL which easyDNS may reference.
Emphasis mine.
And even more interesting:
No Protection for Abusers: Domains and user accounts determined by easyDNS to be in violation of our Terms of Service are not entitled to privacy protection....
The City of London was well within reason to ask them to look at whether one of their users was violating their terms, and all they had to do was say "no".
(I would say that standing on an overpass and holding something large is, in fact, dangerously interfering with the traffic).
I would say that standing on an overpass holding something large is probably nothing more than someone crossing the freeway on an overpass carrying something large. How that does, "in fact", dangerously interfere with traffic won't come about until all the magical self-driving cars start changing lanes to avoid passing under him and sending hi-res pictures of him crossing the street to the cops, even when a human could tell at a glance that he's not going to drop something into the road. This ability is just another example of the more flexible processing that humans can do because they evolved to do it but is hard for computers because the information they can get is very sparse.
So again, if they can lie about how good they are, lie about how bad everyone else is, then why can't other people lie about how bad they are?
They can. They just can't do it anonymously for the reason I'll elucidate in a second.
I think Libelous speech should be protected, despite the supreme courts previous rulings.
You've got to be kidding. So if I make up scandalous lies about you that cost you your job and your wife and maybe gets you some prison time for good measure, there's nothing you should be able to do about it?
Of course I expect now you'll say that by "protected" you'll mean there can't be limitations on saying something but there can be "consequences" that would be a deterrent to people speaking in the first place. Well, that's what this case also says. The anonymous posters weren't prevented from speaking, but there may be consequences -- which requires knowing who said it so the consequences can be applied.
Oh, by the way, you'll note that this case revolves around commercial speech, upon which different standards apply that are fully constitutional.
If a self-driving car can't avoid an impending incident there is no way I will believe a human could.
We're headed down the freeway. Up ahead I see some teenagers standing on an overpass holding something large and watching cars pass underneath. I recognize a potential dropped rock and change lanes to get away from it. Will the computer do that?
I'm almost home. I see the neighbor kid playing basketball in his driveway. He shoots. He misses. I know as soon as he misses that there is a good chance the ball will roll out into the street, and knowing how oblivious the neighbor kid is I can expect him to follow. Will the computer know this? In fact, I see the kid running towards the street, but he is hidden behind a parked van and will not actually be visible in the street until he's in the street directly in front of me. Will the car track him all the way from the upper end of his driveway?
I'm passing an intersection and there are two people standing on the corner. They are in a position where they might step into the crosswalk. Can the computer read those people's body language to predict that they will or won't step off the sidewalk in front of me?
There are any number of fuzzy logic problems that the computer will never be better at solving as fast and correctly as a human is, simply because the data will be missing. Everyone who claims that the new robotic car overlords will be better and safer at doing everything for us are hopelessly naive.
Any accidents that occur with self-driving cars, initially, I'm sure will be because of human drivers not doing what they should be doing.
Even if the self-driving cars have accidents it will be because the humans, who are not doing anything have done it wrong. And the NTSB is correct for their blanket finding of "pilot error" on every airplane crash, right?
like a piano falling out of the sky landing directly on a car in traffic.
Yes, when I drive, that's exactly what I fear most. And based on your claims that a human couldn't keep an eye on a helicopter with a piano dangling on a thin wire underneath but a computer could ("If a self-driving car can't avoid an impending incident there is no way I will believe a human could") I for one welcome my new robotic masters.
Okay, I'm somewhat off-topic, but I've gotta ask what you have against this?
He didn't say he had anything against this, he just added an exception to his statement that you can open doors from the inside even when locked.
I've personally had the experience of a former GF's 4 yr old opening a back door while I was cruising down the road.
Well then, the stupid-child protection worked, since a stupid child was protected.
But GP was wrong anyway. My 2005 Subaru will not let you open a locked door from inside. There are many times I've parked and tried to get out and nothing happened until I unlocked the doors.
The majority argument in the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, Roe v. Wade, was based on a right to privacy. Since then (1973), the Republican Party has refused to accept that a right to privacy exists, because that would imply that Roe v. Wade is based on a sound principle and therefore abortion has to remain legal.
Your conclusion does not follow from your argument. The "right to privacy" is only one part of the abortion debate and even if one accepts the specific "right to privacy" that the court created to cover Roe V. Wade one can still be opposed to abortion.
Your assumption that Republicans oppose "the right to privacy" as a whole because they oppose the SCOTUS invention of a right to support federally funded abortion is also suspect. There is a fourth amendment that tells us what we have a right to be secure in that creates a significant right to privacy which is not questioned, only the "right to privacy" that results in the right to terminate a pregnancy.
I would juxtapose that with the advertisements these very same businesses often use with "Fake" customers (actors)
"Actor portrayal" or "paid endorsement". The FTC has this covered.
But now, do you have proof that this carpet business hires people to pretend to be customers in ads? If not, then you are condemning them for something they did not do.
I do not see how this is any different that the very same businesses fraudulent claims in advertising.
You have now made a formal accusation of fraudulent advertising against a specific company. You further use this unsupported allegation as proof that their competitors should be able to lie about this company anonymously with impunity in a direct attempt at damaging the business.
The quotes above from the case are spot on. They show a company that has made best effort to discover the truth of the anonymous claims on their own and are seeking information about only seven "people" who have made allegations, much as you have, that cannot be substantiated without knowing who they are. Libel is not protected speech. End of story.
It would require not only some language features, but library changes, and would slow things down (imperceptibly?).
Having dealt with some fascinating FORTRAN code that ran perfectly under one compiler and failed with horrible segfaults under another, I can approve of languages that include bounds checking at execution time -- as long as it can be disabled when desired.
The specific example is a bit of FORTRAN that was processing input parameters from a file, parsing lines of text for colon delimited parameter/value pairs. Ran fine under one compiler (gfortran, as I recall), but died every time when compiled with PGI. The programmer had ignored the case of COMMENTS in the text where no colon was found, and was trying to copy the parameter name from "start of string" through "colon-1" to another variable. No colon, the index is 0, so copying 1 through -1 is, well, a problem. One FORTRAN library caught the invalid parameter and silently ignored the operation, the other passed it on to memcpy directly.
Now, in this case, there was no real speed penalty in checking the input parameters by the library, and it really was the programmer's fault for not checking the return from index. But as a general library function, it could be a serious speed penalty especially when a good programmer already includes a test, and certainly if this is in code that is already a bottleneck.
There is no reason an application developer should ever encounter a segfault in a modern language.
That I disagree with. A segfault is just another error message that shows that something is not being done properly. It would have saved me an ENORMOUS amount of time had the original programmer been forced to write proper code before distributing it to the world and I had to debug why it was failing. I mean, it was my mistake for assuming that someone could parse text properly, but that assumption was made because the code worked even when it was obvious it shouldn't. I mean, it doesn't fail using compiler X so it must be valid, let's look somewhere else for the error.
What SHOULD be a feature of every compiler/runtime library is a switch that says "no runtime bounds checks, please". That would allow compiling code to run as fast as possible (as is required for modelers, e.g.) in production. But then another switch to say "check and report everything" for the initial test runs so that bugs can be found and eliminated more easily. The option of silently ignoring really stupid input parameters to a library call should go away. Crash and burn, or bitch and moan, ok, but "I'll ignore your stupidity so you never learn how to be a better programmer and can show the world how bad you are", no.
Your ignorance is showing. The evidence against transfats is rather damning.
It is simply amazing that all those people who died a horrible, instant death from eating food that had transfats in them didn't make any of the news programs.
There is a significant difference between long term potential harm (at some point in the distant future, you may suffer some harm from eating this, or you may not -- it is a crapshoot, and all the other environmental factors in your life probably play a larger part in deciding who wins and loses) and "deadly poison".
Perhaps in your ignorance you didn't realize that EVERYTHING you eat can cause you harm in the long term, if you eat too much of it. You will almost certainly wind up dead if all you eat is 83 pounds a day of that "gluten free, vegan" (and also 0% trans fats) dried seaweed I've used as an example of ridiculous packaging notices.
Should everything get a label because for some people at some point a decade down the road some scientist may point a finger at it as a distant cause of your heart attack?
Meanwhile, none of the howling about how irreplaceable transfats are
You must be replying to someone else, since you're the first person I've seen howling about trans fats in this thread.
I wonder when wired broadband service providers will do that - as it is, I'm pretty sure Comcast/Xfinity is doing sort of the same thing - I can watch as many things "on demand" on my cable box as I want without touching my bandwidth cap, but if I stream the same movies/shows from Netflix/Hulu, etc... then it does count against my cap (which I will just preach to choir and say "what part of unlimited don't you understand")
You are talking about two different services from two different kinds of sources using two different delivery mechanisms.
"On Demand" uses data from Comcast-internal servers distributed via standard cable television systems to cable television subscribers. It isn't an internet service. The data doesn't cross an internet exchange. In some areas (like mine) if you have a receiver with clearQAM tuner you can actually watch other people's "On Demand". It is fascinating to see what other people watch.
Netflix, etc, is data from external services crossing the exchange and delivered via the (cable) internet to internet subscribers. It uses Comcast internet border gateway and internal router bandwidth. It is routed specifically to one destination. It doesn't use bandwidth in the normal cable television distribution system, it has a different delivery mechanism.
You subscribe to cable (the right packages) you get On Demand as part of that. You subscribe to the Internet but not cable, you don't. Of course On Demand doesn't count against your Internet data cap, because it isn't an Internet service and it isn't provided to you because you are an Internet sub.
And while you can "watch as many things... as [you] want" via On Demand it truly is not unlimited -- you apparently only want to watch one thing at a time because that is a hard-wired limit to On Demand. If there are two people in your household that want to watch two different things, too bad, so sad, you can only watch one at a time with one cable box. You're LIMITED! Thinking that "On Demand" is unlimited is like thinking that McDonalds is an all-you-can-eat buffet because all you ever want to eat there is the one small hamburger and small fries you get in your Happy Meal(TM)
Yes, just like the "deadly poison" boogeyman "transfats" that people have been taught to fear and avoid at all costs. And that some manufacturers trumpet proudly from the front of every package, even for things that wouldn't have trans fats anyway. I'm surprised that the dried seaweed didn't also have "0 trans fats" printed in large letters on the front of the package to go with it's "vegan" and "gluten free" buzzwords. (And yes, it had the "may have been processed on equipment that previously processed nuts" statement to protect themselves legally from the peanut allergy people.)
Clearly you don't do a lot of networking between home computers like a NAS or something.
If your internal home network is so large that you need a router, and you're worried about speed, then you're not going to be buying a SOHO router to manage it. And since you probably don't need a router, you'll buy a full-duplex gigabit managed switch for $100 or so like the HP1810-8g. Then you'll buy a $50 or less wireless access point if you need wireless, and a $50 or less router to the outside, and still be $100 ahead.
I used to live in Michigan. You don't say where you live, but anyone on the west side of the state knows about lake effect and can tell you stories of snows that don't stop. We'd have four or five snow days a year, at least, and that required two or three feet of snow before anything closed because we all knew how to deal with it.
Ummm, you are one of ten, but there is a staff of 150. Huh?
How about this. Label foods GMO, if they have had genes from another species spliced into their genome (like something from a jellyfish into corn).
That's pretty straightforward, no?
No. It displays a lack of knowledge on the subject of genetics and a disingenuous approach to the "problem". First, as someone else has pointed out, genes migrate. One of the main scare accusations regarding GMO is specifically that those genes will migrate into other plants and perhaps create franken-weeds or pollute "pure" crops. You're a buyer from a small food producer. You buy wheat from a farmer whose field was next to a field of GMO wheat. (As if you'll know that information to start with -- you really won't.) Are there icky GMO genes in what you bought? It's straightforward to know, isn't it?
It's already a fearmongering activity. You want companies to be in the position of either telling the truth and going out of business because anti-GMO zealots will target them for scare campaigns, or lying (because they can't know for sure where every kernel of corn or wheat came from) and hoping that some Monsanto-hater doesn't buy a box of their stuff and do the testing to find GMO genes.
You'd happily create the same legalistic atmosphere that the peanut people have. When you have to label essentially every package of food as "was processed somewhere in the vicinity of a peanut or someone who had peanuts for lunch", you know you've reached a hysteria level. And it would all mean just as much as the "vegan" and "gluten free" labels do on the package of dried seaweed I saw yesterday. Dried seaweed. Is there a non-vegan or gluten-containing seaweed? No, that's stupid.
The anti-GMO folks here have already admitted it has nothing to do with health or safety, it's because of Monsanto and their hatred for a company that has IP. That's political, and labeling for political purposes is wrong. At least the peanut folks have a demonstrated danger to at least some tiny percentage of the population to justify the labels, the GMO folks can't do even that.
he'd have to explain why he didn't create immortality for his pet project
He did. And His "pet project" chose the path of mortality by disobeying. Of any of the things that man demands that God explain to him, this one is pretty well covered. You may not believe the explanation, but that's a different issue.
Die out? No. But, whence comes the current genetic diversity of humans, if not Adam and Eve?
Umm, mutations and evolution? Why would someone argue that evolution is sufficient to explain the vast diversity of species on a planet starting from a single cell (or even before), and yet deny that evolution could explain a diversity within a species?
Well, so far, we're not too stupid to have labels required for ingredients, for % of nutrients...
If you look at those labels, most of them contain numbers based on suggested "percent daily values", which is pretty meaningless when it comes to most constituents.
But for those that do want to know..what's the harm? When is having information about your food ever a bad thing?
When that information is for political and not scientific purposes, then forcing a scare label on something is a bad thing. "We want to drive Monsanto out of business so we'll force every manufacturer of every food product to put a 'contains GMO' label on their product unless they can prove it doesn't have even a speck of GMO material..." is a purely political goal. It isn't that you think the GMO content would actually hurt anyone, it's that some big bad company might profit. You'd drive prices of food up as the bookkeeping becomes onerous, and drive smaller companies out of business because they can't compete, all because you want to scare people into an unwitting boycott of a large company you dislike.
All this will do is create another scare like "gluten free" is doing now. It's amazing to see food products that contain the "gluten free" label when they consist only of things that never had gluten to begin with. Gluten free meat, gluten free milk, gluten free green beens... all cashing in on the gluten free scare. And the peanut allergy scare, where a lot of products now contain labels saying "this product may have been produced on equipment where peanut products have been produced, or in a factory where peanuts are used, or somewhere in the vicinity of someone who ate peanut butter for lunch... Boo!"
So when consumers see a bunch of agribusinesses fighting tooth and nail to not label GMO foods, it naturally makes them wonder what they're trying to hide.
And when labelling something with a phrase that people are being misled into believing means "poison inside", any sane business will fight against having to bear that label. There is nothing to hide, it's protection from rampant hysteria. It's happened before. Irradiated foods were going to make people glow in the dark and fearmongers wanted them all labelled so people could be scared away from them, too.
Grammar died from eating GMO Cheerios. It wasn't pretty. The doctor thought it was "old age", but after some helpful discussions with my cousins Vito and Louigi he issued an amended death certificate.
You have to explain why God would say death, which is necessary for evolution, is "good."
And why do you think that death is good? Why do you think that God thinks death is good? Considering that corporeal death is not death of the spirit, you're now arguing that the "death" of the caterpillar is "bad" even if it is a natural part of the birth of the butterfly.
You do realize that the inability of man to define God is what makes them different, don't you? Any argument that hinges on "you have to explain why God..." is doomed to failure from the start.
I think that's called the "no true Scotsman" argument. Yes, you can believe in creation and not believe in absolute literal interpretation and the impossibility of evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
but if you want to compel a takedown from the outside because *you* say it's illegal, you need a court order.
And if you want to ask a registrar to review the activities of one of their registrees to see if they're violating the AUP, you don't. I've done it before, I'm not going to start getting a court order to report abusers and spammers and bears, oh my!
Why should he registrar be responsible for content?
Because they have made themselves responsible through their Acceptable Use Policy agreement. For example, EasyDNS includes these conditions upon the registree:
Emphasis mine. And even more interesting:
The City of London was well within reason to ask them to look at whether one of their users was violating their terms, and all they had to do was say "no".
(I would say that standing on an overpass and holding something large is, in fact, dangerously interfering with the traffic).
I would say that standing on an overpass holding something large is probably nothing more than someone crossing the freeway on an overpass carrying something large. How that does, "in fact", dangerously interfere with traffic won't come about until all the magical self-driving cars start changing lanes to avoid passing under him and sending hi-res pictures of him crossing the street to the cops, even when a human could tell at a glance that he's not going to drop something into the road. This ability is just another example of the more flexible processing that humans can do because they evolved to do it but is hard for computers because the information they can get is very sparse.
So again, if they can lie about how good they are, lie about how bad everyone else is, then why can't other people lie about how bad they are?
They can. They just can't do it anonymously for the reason I'll elucidate in a second.
I think Libelous speech should be protected, despite the supreme courts previous rulings.
You've got to be kidding. So if I make up scandalous lies about you that cost you your job and your wife and maybe gets you some prison time for good measure, there's nothing you should be able to do about it?
Of course I expect now you'll say that by "protected" you'll mean there can't be limitations on saying something but there can be "consequences" that would be a deterrent to people speaking in the first place. Well, that's what this case also says. The anonymous posters weren't prevented from speaking, but there may be consequences -- which requires knowing who said it so the consequences can be applied.
Oh, by the way, you'll note that this case revolves around commercial speech, upon which different standards apply that are fully constitutional.
If a self-driving car can't avoid an impending incident there is no way I will believe a human could.
We're headed down the freeway. Up ahead I see some teenagers standing on an overpass holding something large and watching cars pass underneath. I recognize a potential dropped rock and change lanes to get away from it. Will the computer do that?
I'm almost home. I see the neighbor kid playing basketball in his driveway. He shoots. He misses. I know as soon as he misses that there is a good chance the ball will roll out into the street, and knowing how oblivious the neighbor kid is I can expect him to follow. Will the computer know this? In fact, I see the kid running towards the street, but he is hidden behind a parked van and will not actually be visible in the street until he's in the street directly in front of me. Will the car track him all the way from the upper end of his driveway?
I'm passing an intersection and there are two people standing on the corner. They are in a position where they might step into the crosswalk. Can the computer read those people's body language to predict that they will or won't step off the sidewalk in front of me?
There are any number of fuzzy logic problems that the computer will never be better at solving as fast and correctly as a human is, simply because the data will be missing. Everyone who claims that the new robotic car overlords will be better and safer at doing everything for us are hopelessly naive.
Any accidents that occur with self-driving cars, initially, I'm sure will be because of human drivers not doing what they should be doing.
Even if the self-driving cars have accidents it will be because the humans, who are not doing anything have done it wrong. And the NTSB is correct for their blanket finding of "pilot error" on every airplane crash, right?
like a piano falling out of the sky landing directly on a car in traffic.
Yes, when I drive, that's exactly what I fear most. And based on your claims that a human couldn't keep an eye on a helicopter with a piano dangling on a thin wire underneath but a computer could ("If a self-driving car can't avoid an impending incident there is no way I will believe a human could") I for one welcome my new robotic masters.
Okay, I'm somewhat off-topic, but I've gotta ask what you have against this?
He didn't say he had anything against this, he just added an exception to his statement that you can open doors from the inside even when locked.
I've personally had the experience of a former GF's 4 yr old opening a back door while I was cruising down the road.
Well then, the stupid-child protection worked, since a stupid child was protected.
But GP was wrong anyway. My 2005 Subaru will not let you open a locked door from inside. There are many times I've parked and tried to get out and nothing happened until I unlocked the doors.
The majority argument in the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, Roe v. Wade, was based on a right to privacy. Since then (1973), the Republican Party has refused to accept that a right to privacy exists, because that would imply that Roe v. Wade is based on a sound principle and therefore abortion has to remain legal.
Your conclusion does not follow from your argument. The "right to privacy" is only one part of the abortion debate and even if one accepts the specific "right to privacy" that the court created to cover Roe V. Wade one can still be opposed to abortion.
Your assumption that Republicans oppose "the right to privacy" as a whole because they oppose the SCOTUS invention of a right to support federally funded abortion is also suspect. There is a fourth amendment that tells us what we have a right to be secure in that creates a significant right to privacy which is not questioned, only the "right to privacy" that results in the right to terminate a pregnancy.
I would juxtapose that with the advertisements these very same businesses often use with "Fake" customers (actors)
"Actor portrayal" or "paid endorsement". The FTC has this covered.
But now, do you have proof that this carpet business hires people to pretend to be customers in ads? If not, then you are condemning them for something they did not do.
I do not see how this is any different that the very same businesses fraudulent claims in advertising.
You have now made a formal accusation of fraudulent advertising against a specific company. You further use this unsupported allegation as proof that their competitors should be able to lie about this company anonymously with impunity in a direct attempt at damaging the business.
The quotes above from the case are spot on. They show a company that has made best effort to discover the truth of the anonymous claims on their own and are seeking information about only seven "people" who have made allegations, much as you have, that cannot be substantiated without knowing who they are. Libel is not protected speech. End of story.
It would require not only some language features, but library changes, and would slow things down (imperceptibly?).
Having dealt with some fascinating FORTRAN code that ran perfectly under one compiler and failed with horrible segfaults under another, I can approve of languages that include bounds checking at execution time -- as long as it can be disabled when desired.
The specific example is a bit of FORTRAN that was processing input parameters from a file, parsing lines of text for colon delimited parameter/value pairs. Ran fine under one compiler (gfortran, as I recall), but died every time when compiled with PGI. The programmer had ignored the case of COMMENTS in the text where no colon was found, and was trying to copy the parameter name from "start of string" through "colon-1" to another variable. No colon, the index is 0, so copying 1 through -1 is, well, a problem. One FORTRAN library caught the invalid parameter and silently ignored the operation, the other passed it on to memcpy directly.
Now, in this case, there was no real speed penalty in checking the input parameters by the library, and it really was the programmer's fault for not checking the return from index. But as a general library function, it could be a serious speed penalty especially when a good programmer already includes a test, and certainly if this is in code that is already a bottleneck.
There is no reason an application developer should ever encounter a segfault in a modern language.
That I disagree with. A segfault is just another error message that shows that something is not being done properly. It would have saved me an ENORMOUS amount of time had the original programmer been forced to write proper code before distributing it to the world and I had to debug why it was failing. I mean, it was my mistake for assuming that someone could parse text properly, but that assumption was made because the code worked even when it was obvious it shouldn't. I mean, it doesn't fail using compiler X so it must be valid, let's look somewhere else for the error.
What SHOULD be a feature of every compiler/runtime library is a switch that says "no runtime bounds checks, please". That would allow compiling code to run as fast as possible (as is required for modelers, e.g.) in production. But then another switch to say "check and report everything" for the initial test runs so that bugs can be found and eliminated more easily. The option of silently ignoring really stupid input parameters to a library call should go away. Crash and burn, or bitch and moan, ok, but "I'll ignore your stupidity so you never learn how to be a better programmer and can show the world how bad you are", no.
The code is open source but getting the source "costs extra"?
The On Demand feeds should be encrypted, I think. That's strange you can pick those up.
Well, now that almost the entire cable service, even digital basic, is encrypted, you'd think so, but not in this area. I don't know why.
Your ignorance is showing. The evidence against transfats is rather damning.
It is simply amazing that all those people who died a horrible, instant death from eating food that had transfats in them didn't make any of the news programs. There is a significant difference between long term potential harm (at some point in the distant future, you may suffer some harm from eating this, or you may not -- it is a crapshoot, and all the other environmental factors in your life probably play a larger part in deciding who wins and loses) and "deadly poison".
Perhaps in your ignorance you didn't realize that EVERYTHING you eat can cause you harm in the long term, if you eat too much of it. You will almost certainly wind up dead if all you eat is 83 pounds a day of that "gluten free, vegan" (and also 0% trans fats) dried seaweed I've used as an example of ridiculous packaging notices.
Should everything get a label because for some people at some point a decade down the road some scientist may point a finger at it as a distant cause of your heart attack?
Meanwhile, none of the howling about how irreplaceable transfats are
You must be replying to someone else, since you're the first person I've seen howling about trans fats in this thread.
I wonder when wired broadband service providers will do that - as it is, I'm pretty sure Comcast/Xfinity is doing sort of the same thing - I can watch as many things "on demand" on my cable box as I want without touching my bandwidth cap, but if I stream the same movies/shows from Netflix/Hulu, etc... then it does count against my cap (which I will just preach to choir and say "what part of unlimited don't you understand")
You are talking about two different services from two different kinds of sources using two different delivery mechanisms.
"On Demand" uses data from Comcast-internal servers distributed via standard cable television systems to cable television subscribers. It isn't an internet service. The data doesn't cross an internet exchange. In some areas (like mine) if you have a receiver with clearQAM tuner you can actually watch other people's "On Demand". It is fascinating to see what other people watch.
Netflix, etc, is data from external services crossing the exchange and delivered via the (cable) internet to internet subscribers. It uses Comcast internet border gateway and internal router bandwidth. It is routed specifically to one destination. It doesn't use bandwidth in the normal cable television distribution system, it has a different delivery mechanism.
You subscribe to cable (the right packages) you get On Demand as part of that. You subscribe to the Internet but not cable, you don't. Of course On Demand doesn't count against your Internet data cap, because it isn't an Internet service and it isn't provided to you because you are an Internet sub.
And while you can "watch as many things ... as [you] want" via On Demand it truly is not unlimited -- you apparently only want to watch one thing at a time because that is a hard-wired limit to On Demand. If there are two people in your household that want to watch two different things, too bad, so sad, you can only watch one at a time with one cable box. You're LIMITED! Thinking that "On Demand" is unlimited is like thinking that McDonalds is an all-you-can-eat buffet because all you ever want to eat there is the one small hamburger and small fries you get in your Happy Meal(TM)
Yes, just like the "deadly poison" boogeyman "transfats" that people have been taught to fear and avoid at all costs. And that some manufacturers trumpet proudly from the front of every package, even for things that wouldn't have trans fats anyway. I'm surprised that the dried seaweed didn't also have "0 trans fats" printed in large letters on the front of the package to go with it's "vegan" and "gluten free" buzzwords. (And yes, it had the "may have been processed on equipment that previously processed nuts" statement to protect themselves legally from the peanut allergy people.)
Clearly you don't do a lot of networking between home computers like a NAS or something.
If your internal home network is so large that you need a router, and you're worried about speed, then you're not going to be buying a SOHO router to manage it. And since you probably don't need a router, you'll buy a full-duplex gigabit managed switch for $100 or so like the HP1810-8g. Then you'll buy a $50 or less wireless access point if you need wireless, and a $50 or less router to the outside, and still be $100 ahead.
Ummm, you are one of ten, but there is a staff of 150. Huh?
How about this. Label foods GMO, if they have had genes from another species spliced into their genome (like something from a jellyfish into corn). That's pretty straightforward, no?
No. It displays a lack of knowledge on the subject of genetics and a disingenuous approach to the "problem". First, as someone else has pointed out, genes migrate. One of the main scare accusations regarding GMO is specifically that those genes will migrate into other plants and perhaps create franken-weeds or pollute "pure" crops. You're a buyer from a small food producer. You buy wheat from a farmer whose field was next to a field of GMO wheat. (As if you'll know that information to start with -- you really won't.) Are there icky GMO genes in what you bought? It's straightforward to know, isn't it?
It's already a fearmongering activity. You want companies to be in the position of either telling the truth and going out of business because anti-GMO zealots will target them for scare campaigns, or lying (because they can't know for sure where every kernel of corn or wheat came from) and hoping that some Monsanto-hater doesn't buy a box of their stuff and do the testing to find GMO genes.
You'd happily create the same legalistic atmosphere that the peanut people have. When you have to label essentially every package of food as "was processed somewhere in the vicinity of a peanut or someone who had peanuts for lunch", you know you've reached a hysteria level. And it would all mean just as much as the "vegan" and "gluten free" labels do on the package of dried seaweed I saw yesterday. Dried seaweed. Is there a non-vegan or gluten-containing seaweed? No, that's stupid.
The anti-GMO folks here have already admitted it has nothing to do with health or safety, it's because of Monsanto and their hatred for a company that has IP. That's political, and labeling for political purposes is wrong. At least the peanut folks have a demonstrated danger to at least some tiny percentage of the population to justify the labels, the GMO folks can't do even that.
he'd have to explain why he didn't create immortality for his pet project
He did. And His "pet project" chose the path of mortality by disobeying. Of any of the things that man demands that God explain to him, this one is pretty well covered. You may not believe the explanation, but that's a different issue.
Die out? No. But, whence comes the current genetic diversity of humans, if not Adam and Eve?
Umm, mutations and evolution? Why would someone argue that evolution is sufficient to explain the vast diversity of species on a planet starting from a single cell (or even before), and yet deny that evolution could explain a diversity within a species?
Well, so far, we're not too stupid to have labels required for ingredients, for % of nutrients...
If you look at those labels, most of them contain numbers based on suggested "percent daily values", which is pretty meaningless when it comes to most constituents.
But for those that do want to know..what's the harm? When is having information about your food ever a bad thing?
When that information is for political and not scientific purposes, then forcing a scare label on something is a bad thing. "We want to drive Monsanto out of business so we'll force every manufacturer of every food product to put a 'contains GMO' label on their product unless they can prove it doesn't have even a speck of GMO material..." is a purely political goal. It isn't that you think the GMO content would actually hurt anyone, it's that some big bad company might profit. You'd drive prices of food up as the bookkeeping becomes onerous, and drive smaller companies out of business because they can't compete, all because you want to scare people into an unwitting boycott of a large company you dislike.
All this will do is create another scare like "gluten free" is doing now. It's amazing to see food products that contain the "gluten free" label when they consist only of things that never had gluten to begin with. Gluten free meat, gluten free milk, gluten free green beens ... all cashing in on the gluten free scare. And the peanut allergy scare, where a lot of products now contain labels saying "this product may have been produced on equipment where peanut products have been produced, or in a factory where peanuts are used, or somewhere in the vicinity of someone who ate peanut butter for lunch... Boo!"
So when consumers see a bunch of agribusinesses fighting tooth and nail to not label GMO foods, it naturally makes them wonder what they're trying to hide.
And when labelling something with a phrase that people are being misled into believing means "poison inside", any sane business will fight against having to bear that label. There is nothing to hide, it's protection from rampant hysteria. It's happened before. Irradiated foods were going to make people glow in the dark and fearmongers wanted them all labelled so people could be scared away from them, too.
They may be wrong, but they're not idiots.
citation required.
They've just been lied to far too many times.
That's certainly true.
There is no grammar either.
Grammar died from eating GMO Cheerios. It wasn't pretty. The doctor thought it was "old age", but after some helpful discussions with my cousins Vito and Louigi he issued an amended death certificate.
You have to explain why God would say death, which is necessary for evolution, is "good."
And why do you think that death is good? Why do you think that God thinks death is good? Considering that corporeal death is not death of the spirit, you're now arguing that the "death" of the caterpillar is "bad" even if it is a natural part of the birth of the butterfly.
You do realize that the inability of man to define God is what makes them different, don't you? Any argument that hinges on "you have to explain why God ..." is doomed to failure from the start.
"Not all of them." - not really Creationists then
I think that's called the "no true Scotsman" argument. Yes, you can believe in creation and not believe in absolute literal interpretation and the impossibility of evolution.
- its just that creationists like Ham are tools
If the only tool you have is namecalling ...
Not sure what Islam says about Genesis, but they share the same God.
Not really. When God says "I am" and the muslims say "you are not, you're just a prophet", then clearly they aren't the same.