The act does not mention the NSA anywhere in the bill. The only organization that is mentioned is the FBI, which means really business as usual. The FBI restrictions are non-existent with the fact that we have "fusion" centers that all of the other people can dump data into without any restriction.
USA FREEDOM Act - Title I: FISA Business Records Reforms - (Sec. 101) Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to establish a new process to be followed when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) submits an application to a FISA court for an order requiring the production of tangible things (commonly referred to as business records, including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
Emphasis mine. Nowhere does the bill mention that the amount of data is going to be reduced or curtailed. Everything being collected illegally today will still be illegally collected even if this bill passes and becomes law. The bill is a waste of time and provides zero reform.
Stamping Kosher is like stamping something non-GMO. Stamping GMO is like stamping non-Kosher.
Absolutely backward. Kosher is a process done to food, just like Genetic engineering is a process done to food (at lower level). Those processes are costly and require time to accomplish, GMO seed makers patent foods so that nobody else can make the same modifications. It should be a case where the company stands being their efforts and work, but with GMO they don't.
The fact that these have spent billions of dollars fighting labels should cause concern, or at leas be reason enough for suspicion. I would not buy a part for my car where the manufacturer was not known and the part was in a plain white box. Not only do I not know where it came from, but I don't know who to complain about if and when the part fails. Often times a part failure causes much more damage than the replacement part that failed. You may be a completely trusting person who would purchase a part in a white box. Usually this changes when people get ripped off or suffer and have no recourse, but certainly people like this are out there.
As a drummer I love Zappa. Bozzio is incredible, and the jerk can sing while playing (intended as affectionate not insulting). Yeah, I know.. Frank and all, but so many talented people were involved in his work.
They made the promise in the board room so they had to cross their ankles to make the "swear" null and void. Putting your hand behind your back while in a chair is way too obvious, and these people are so much smarter than you.
The only person in this branch of thread that mentioned 4H is you, and you are the only person that mentions a 'conspiracy theory'. Are facts so frightening to you that you can't debate the points provided and you make your only defense " but a conspiracy theory"? These problems are not restricted to Ghana, these problems exist in many countries in Africa and even developing areas of India (Notice that the title for the article is How 4H Is Helping Big Ag Take Over Africa). You accuse others of not using facts or common sense, but fail to do so yourself.
Go up and answer my questions, demonstrate to me that an economy can exist and thrive on agriculture alone especially when all other natural resources are being exploited. I doubt you can do what everyone from Socrates to Milton Friedman says can't be done, but I'll await your attempt at great wisdom.
How do you get this surplus of food? I gave you the scenario, show me where a surplus could possibly come from. These are not conglomerates that can grow an overabundance, it is small farms with low yield lands (hence the more expensive seeds). Even with the customized seeds these people need assistance. You don't only need to explain where the surplus comes from, but you also need to explain how these countries start transporting their surplus for sale lacking the infrastructure to do so. These people don't own pickup trucks that they can load up and drive down the freeway to the packaging and shipping facilities. Even you gave them a pickup truck they lack freeways and lack the packaging and shipping facilities.
Next, why do you restrict the economy to either Agriculture (your first claim) and now add a restriction to only heavy industry? There are countless other jobs in between the two. Those jobs would exist in a natural growth pattern, but in this case we have people influencing only one industry (Ag) so natural economic growth does not exist. (technically incorrect, see next paragraph)
You also ignore the facts regarding exploitation of other segments of their economy. Sure, a village that had a diamond mine would have money to afford food and growth which would be translated over time to other markets. We have companies supporting people with guns who rob these villagers of their natural resources so they can get a better price.
Do you truly believe that a society and economy can exist with a few farmers alone? I seriously doubt you can be that daft so are intentionally missing the obvious.
Go ahead and start your own society, take 100 people out to a plot of flat land and make 10 people farmers. Ask them to sell their food when it's ready and see who can purchase the food. Remember that while those plants are growing the everyone is going to have to survive, so will be living on sustenance activities. The only people with food at the harvest will be the farmers, because nobody has any money to buy their food. Now add in the twist that the farmers have to purchase their next batch of seeds for the next crop. How many seeds can they afford to buy for their next crop?
The expectation from companies like Monsanto and Dupont is that when the crops come in the 90 people that didn't grow get credit to buy the food, so those 90 people are in debt. If they can't get credit, then the farmers have to get credit and go into debt for the next crop. And when the second crop comes in and they try to sell their food, how much money are they going to make? Do you think they can pay for a third crop of seeds or pay off their debts?
These are not overly complex thoughts. Economies and societies function by having numerous sources of income. The one thing these people could use for money (resources) is being robbed from the land so that the people see no revenue. How much dirt are you going to purchase from a person so that they can pay for their seeds and be debt free? In some cases they don't even have dirt to trade, because they went into debt the first time to purchase food and defaulted without a source of income so now don't own land either.
Correction: There is no confusion regarding homeopathic treatment on my part, you are stuck on the historical description of homeopathy instead of looking at the current definition and use of the term. Current actually goes back to when I was a kid, which could easily be before you were born. is not correct on it's own. Homeopathic in many of those links is simply home cures based on herbal medicine. This is how I grew up with the term, so my usage is dated and not yours. The links simply show that this usage is not uncommon, but should not imply it's proper.
For at least the last 40 years (about the time I was cognizant of a difference between home remedy and doctor) homeopathic has been synonymous with "home remedy" mainly consisting of "herbal cures". My mom has a library of magazines and books with various herbal remedies all called homeopathic cures. You can search for it and find it, so while it may not have been proper I'm not alone in that particular usage (I provided a list of sites to someone else above you in the thread).
We didn't have "herbalism" or "naturopathy", just "homeopathy" or "go to the doctor".
That said, it looks like I'm behind in my terminology for home remedies so need to do some catching up:)
There is no confusion regarding homeopathic treatment on my part, you are stuck on the historical description of homeopathy instead of looking at the current definition and use of the term. Current actually goes back to when I was a kid, which could easily be before you were born.
I won't argue the next points because instead of addressing my points you make a false dichotomy and a fairy tale about people not caring what milk they buy, which is absolutely detached from reality.
In fact, let me change that and address the portion about milk. People read the labels on milk all the time, and in fact if people started selling "Milk" without specifying whether it was from a Cow, Pig, Goat, or Cat people would have an absolute fit. If the grocery store is out of someone's brand of milk, you will see them read label after label until they are comfortable with what they are purchasing. Milk _is_ labelled for all kinds of information, as is just about everything else I can find in a store.
In fact we have seen companies intentionally over label in order to trick people into purchasing their products. People wanting to avoid HFCS have had to learn all of the various names used for HFCS just to avoid unwanted sugar in their diet. There are numerous ways for salt to be labelled, and MSGs are another tricky one. Yet with GMO, people are not given the information. Since Monsanto can spend a few billion dollars over a few years lobbying, this can't be an issue of just money. That should make you suspicious at a minimum.
I'm extremely skeptical that we are worse off, but I'm willing to hear more
Well you seem to be a skeptic about a lot of things that concern most people, but I'll bite. Are the super pests only after the GMO foods or do they attack the non-GMO foods as well? GMO foods produce more so are not impacted as much as their natural counterparts who can't survive super pests. Super pests are a byproduct of the GMO foods, not a natural occurrence. Similarly super viruses are a byproduct of overuse of antibiotics. Science backs both of those stances.
The money does not exist without other forms of income. If you want to get them working on our terms for agriculture start building tractor plants, repair facilities, shops to build and maintain irrigation equipment, textile plants to turn fiber into clothes, etc...
Cooperative farming already exists in most of these areas, but it's done at a sustenance level because there are few means for generating revenue in these areas..
Lets not neglect the fact that most of these same countries are exploited for their natural resources. Slave labor at gunpoint is a common event, and lets not take the bullshit stance that the situation is all their fault. These governments are bought and paid for by wealthy corporations, the people running the slavery operations get paid for what they collect, and there is no shortage of people trying to buy these materials even knowing the immoral and unethical means with which they are collected.
The Ag side is a single facet of a very large and systemic problem. The answer has to be at a lower level than mucking with the local agriculture, in addition to everything else that is already mucked with (all at the expense of the common people)
Kosher labeling is required by the Jewish community, and a Kosher Jew can't purchase anything not stamped and certified Kosher. People pay for the Kosher labeling and won't purchase anything else. The Jewish inspectors that stamp approval take pride in their ability and don't try and hide the Kosher label. They stand by the label and it's prominently displayed on _every_ package. Culturally speaking "Kosher" means "up front", "on the up and up", "open and honest"
You are really trying to compare that to a group that is so afraid of stamping their label on a product that they spend billions of dollars lobbying and advertising to hide what they are doing? If there is no harm, and no fear of harm, Monsanto and Dupont should be proud to stamp the box with their logo and "GMO MADE FOOD!" for all the world to see.
The Government does not have to force Jewish Rabbi's to stamp things Kosher, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY STAMP THE PACKAGE! When companies try to hide ingredients you are damn right people should be concerned and yes the Government should force them to label the package.
Lets see if we can hold a rational discussion without the bullshit. Since the sock puppets are out censoring everything not proGMO and bolstering everything proGMO I'm not confident, but lets give it a try.
Problem with your statement: Invalid generalization. Centuries of study show us that many homeopathic cures do work. As an example, I have a medical doctor who suggested drinking camomile tea to help me sleep, and it works. He could have prescribed a man made chemical to do the same thing with much worse side effects, but he's a great doctor. As another example, Willow bark is a known pain reliever and anti inflammation herb. It's so good in fact that we created a mimic called Aspirin. Scientists look to nature all the time and try to mimic properties we find naturally, and try to synthesize those natural things. So yeah, homeopathic cures are very well proven in the general sense. Natural remedies and poisons are so good that we try very hard to synthesize them for mass consumption and use as well as monetize them.
At the same time, your generalization attempts to claim that GMO foods are proven to be perfectly safe, and we have no equivalent studies compared to homeopathic remedies. Hybridization is not the same thing as Genetically modified where foreign genes are spliced into seeds and foods. People constantly try to claim that because we have hybridized for thousands of years, we know and understand the impact of splicing fungus genes into corn, or insect genes into tomatoes. Which is wrong, the latter techniques are very new and we don't have long term studies. We do know that sometimes things go terribly wrong (and if you don't like that one there are plenty).
People want to know where GMO in terms of these odd gene splices happen, and quite frankly if there is no proven harm there should be no harm in a label. At the same time, since society has become the lab experiment with many of these modifications it should be made easy to track where things go wrong.
Lets not forget that a large reason for GMO seeds is to increase yields by protecting plants from pests. We are already seeing super pests that can bypass the built in GMO protection and creating a much larger threat to agriculture than existed previously.
This post is spot on, because many of the people impacted by the influx of GMO seeds are sustenance farmers, not profit based farms. Attempting to convert them to a money making agriculture system does not work very well because the people have little to no income sources to go buy food that people are selling. The few jobs these companies create do not support the economy, and the pay is so low that it can't support the economy.
The current reality is that these small governments must subsidize what used to be sustenance based economies. Until manufacturing, repair facilities, etc.. are functional in the country there is no choice, because there are no income sources. And lets face it, there are no plans to bolster anything else in these economies
In other words, the only people currently gaining from these programs are the people pushing the programs. There is plenty of information out there on the subject, you can start with this one, or this one, or this one (get the point? There is plenty of information). Sure, Dupont is not the same company but a new face on a same exact problem.
There is no deflection, you asked a loaded question (Little Grey Aliens). Now that you have added some clarity my answer can be more clear. Media companies have owners which you can easily track down. You can then read documents released by other groups those owners are affiliated with, or own, to determine what is propaganda and what direction propaganda will take. Social engineering is anything but a new phenomenon. Broadcast media, including the Internet, has simply made it easier to perform social engineering. You can read what the CFR releases and who it's members are, and read reports from various privately run "think tank" institutes who suggest and even recommend various forms of social engineering.
I have no problem answering inquiry, but you need to ensure that you are asking questions that at least appear to be exploratory. I don't know you or your goal in inquiry, and your first post makes me suspicious. The loaded question (again Little Green Men) from my point of view is dismissive, and perhaps you intended the post as humorous, but I can't see facial expression to know the difference.
You redefine discrimination to include the trolling that this article specifies focuses on tech areas of employment, and then claim that since it's just discrimination, there must be other reasons women avoid IT since women are discriminated against in other fields.
I don't minimize the combination as you claim, I say for the sake of debate to focus on the single term instead of both because there is no benefit of arguing two prongs of the same fork. There is no benefit to muddying waters with two terms that are covered by a single definition.
This comment also hints pretty strongly that you are simply trolling, and if you do so again I'll have no further part of the conversation. You simply repeat there must be other reasons women avoid IT since women are discriminated against in other fields. as if the answer was not provided twice already. Thus far, I have provided that answer in three separate paragraphs and you simply ignore them. Either argue against what I wrote or stop pretending that written thoughts do not exist.
See your second sentence? Are you suggesting that this propaganda war is not run by women, and is run by . . . who, men? Little grey aliens?
Are you really asking for clarification or are you simply arguing reductio ad absurdum? The former is answered in the post, so I'm thus far not sensing you wish to debate rationally. You seem to isolate the thought to just women as victims of propaganda wars, but I mention two other groups as well. You are not discussing the complete thought, you are marginalizing thought to only want you wish. That is not how rational discourse works.
that the abuse and harassment keeps women out of the tech field; are you obtuse enough to believe that the only reason women don't enter the field is the prescience and universal self-knowledge to know that the eventual desire to start a family will interfere with their career advancement? I do not disagree that some women avoid the field for that reason
This seems like the start a slightly different version of the same straw man you already said and were called out for using. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at this point and simply say that the label of obtuse is meaningless since it's perspective based.
Trolling is a specific form of discrimination, so lets lump the two in the same category for our discussion purposes. Discrimination is certainly a factor, but is not the primary factor in why a woman may choose not to work in IT. Discrimination happens in _ALL_ jobs, there is no magical barrier that restricts those things to only IT. If this was true, it would also mean that women don't become doctors because of discrimination, or Lawyers because of discrimination, etc... And women do become doctors and lawyers despite the fact that discrimination occurs in those fields as well.
When looking at "What career I want to have?" there are countless factors involved. Sure, discrimination is one of the factors but when Hours + Progression + Pay + Investment + LongTermStability + ImpactToFamilyLife + FreeTimeAfterWork + (I think you get the point) Discrimination is only one of all of these factors. Any two or three of these things without discrimination can make a person choose a different career. Pulling out one factor and claiming it's a magic variable that can solve the equation is not simply disingenuous, but a flat out lie.
I never claimed that discrimination does not happen, in fact I said it does happen. Discrimination is not fixed by perpetuating a lie that it's the "ONLY" variable in a very complex equation. In fact it exacerbates the problem and makes it more pronounced because real issues get ignored. The "real" issues in the above equation impact every ethnic group, race, religion, and sex. It also happens to suite trolls, who are mostly people wanting attention and get it because media is focused exclusively on them and their actions.
I state that women are responsible for the propaganda against women where in my statement exactly? That was your claim, and it was false. That was one of two straw man arguments you gave. "but it's actually a propaganda war by women to make themselves seem oppressed?"
Your second straw man was that trolls are the reason women don't work in the tech field, which is another completely false statement. You can go back and read what you wrote, no need to quote that one too. I gave numerous other reasons why women don't work in the tech field, and you didn't debate any of my points but rather repeated a fabrication.
You did not, nor can you argue against any of my points as complete thoughts. You stood up two straw man to make a false claim.
The ad hominem was intentional, I did not miss it at all and it was not a mistake. You are deserving considering your lack of courtesy in standing up straw men instead of debating any of my thoughts. Had you even attempted to address any of my thoughts instead of making false claims, I would not have done so.
So now, if you would care to debate specific thoughts from the post that you responded to please address them completely and provide a rational discourse with valid logic on why you disagree. I prefer rational discourse, but can return what you give without any problems. Let us see if you are capable or rational dialogue.
I can't determine if your post is sarcasm or not, but I'm pretty sure it's sarcasm. This post is really for the next guy assuming sarcasm was correct.
How many times do people have to read history to determine that prohibition does not work? The "War on Drugs" is a failure, alcohol prohibition was a failure, and Opium prohibition was another failure. How can anyone in good faith know history and claim that the answer is punishing consumers and/or bystanders? Simple, it can't be done in good faith because they are basing their claim on a lie.
Making a site like Silk Road illegal does nothing to address the problem. People may as well try to make back alleys illegal, whispering illegal, and sound proof board rooms illegal.
Bad guys exist because there is a segment of society who's only opportunity for advancement is through illegal activities, and another segment who's only method of survival is illegal activities.
Smart cops use alleys to determine what's going on, they don't fight to fill them with concrete or arrest anyone driving through the alley. When the not so smart cops find an alley and start arresting everyone inside, the bad guys just move.
You really should pick opponents more carefully, I have exceptional knowledge of rhetoric and logic. Standing up a straw man was a horrible idea, I can knock them down as quickly as you can stand them up. Show me where I claim that women are responsible for the propaganda. At least as important, demonstrate that trolling in a general sense is not about inciting response but driving people away from jobs.
It is my hope that you hold your breath while you are looking, oxygen starvation can't hurt a mind like yours very much but may help everyone else.
Do you by chance have any links to Cosby saying these things? I'm not doubting in this case, merely curious. I have read and listened to Professor Griff talk about these things, but only know Mr. Cosby for his standup routines.
In this case, I don't think the argument is simply that the request is overbroad. There are resource requirements related to accomplishing the task which make the request not feasible. For example, the requester claims "I want all 30 Petabytes of information" and does not provide a medium the request can not be accepted. Another example is "I want all 50Gb of that data on my trusty ole Zip drive".
IANAL but don't see this as a difficult decision by a judge, or a difficult amendment to add to the current legislation. Private infrastructure, like "Youtube" can not be used to fulfill these requests and the request must be technically feasible.
For clarity, the 30 Petabytes and 50Gb numbers were pulled from the air and not technically correct.
Like you, I found the investigation to be interesting. I have read a lot previously on this infection and the virus itself since it was very unique (kernel can load and unload modules on the fly, polymorphic and encrypted traffic), etc.. This just make it even more interesting in my opinion.
You are either a shill, or an idiot. You can't counter my points so resort to ad hominem for anyone that does not agree with your delusional opinion. Either way, you are pathetic and the problem, not I.
It is a Straw man argument, but it does not seem like you took the time to investigate what a Straw Man is. The purpose of the argument is what you stated, which matches what therealkevinkretz stated in different words.
While surely video requests need to be reasonable and not "give me everything" there must be a method for people to request this information. Otherwise the information is useless, and the whole point of "watching the watchers" is once again lost.
As you, and therealkevinkretz, stated that is the point of TFA. The obvious answer is to refuse the request for _everything_ and make the person give specifics. E.G. I need all data from December 20th 2013 from Officer X. No purpose is necessary, and the request is reasonable. Nope, it does not have to be on Youtube either, which is another straw man argument from the chief.
The problem in reality is that people in the top 1% (really more like the top.01%) income brackets want us to be pitted against each other. They pay good money to generate propaganda, pay people like Sharpten to spread hate, pay agent provocateurs to infiltrate groups they see as a risk to their propaganda campaigns. The fact that you can't see this is not surprising or uncommon. But your blame is in the exact wrong place.
Sadly there are plenty of people that buy into the lie and do what Sharpten does for free, because they can't see beyond the messenger. Listen to black community members like Professor Griff, or if you prefer history listen to MLK and MalcomX. They will all tell you the shape of the world. People need to stop believing everything they are told and actually "look" at the world to see it..
Slashdot Mirror
The act does not mention the NSA anywhere in the bill. The only organization that is mentioned is the FBI, which means really business as usual. The FBI restrictions are non-existent with the fact that we have "fusion" centers that all of the other people can dump data into without any restriction.
USA FREEDOM Act - Title I: FISA Business Records Reforms - (Sec. 101) Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to establish a new process to be followed when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) submits an application to a FISA court for an order requiring the production of tangible things (commonly referred to as business records, including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
Emphasis mine. Nowhere does the bill mention that the amount of data is going to be reduced or curtailed. Everything being collected illegally today will still be illegally collected even if this bill passes and becomes law. The bill is a waste of time and provides zero reform.
Stamping Kosher is like stamping something non-GMO. Stamping GMO is like stamping non-Kosher.
Absolutely backward. Kosher is a process done to food, just like Genetic engineering is a process done to food (at lower level). Those processes are costly and require time to accomplish, GMO seed makers patent foods so that nobody else can make the same modifications. It should be a case where the company stands being their efforts and work, but with GMO they don't.
The fact that these have spent billions of dollars fighting labels should cause concern, or at leas be reason enough for suspicion. I would not buy a part for my car where the manufacturer was not known and the part was in a plain white box. Not only do I not know where it came from, but I don't know who to complain about if and when the part fails. Often times a part failure causes much more damage than the replacement part that failed. You may be a completely trusting person who would purchase a part in a white box. Usually this changes when people get ripped off or suffer and have no recourse, but certainly people like this are out there.
As a drummer I love Zappa. Bozzio is incredible, and the jerk can sing while playing (intended as affectionate not insulting). Yeah, I know.. Frank and all, but so many talented people were involved in his work.
They made the promise in the board room so they had to cross their ankles to make the "swear" null and void. Putting your hand behind your back while in a chair is way too obvious, and these people are so much smarter than you.
The only person in this branch of thread that mentioned 4H is you, and you are the only person that mentions a 'conspiracy theory'. Are facts so frightening to you that you can't debate the points provided and you make your only defense " but a conspiracy theory"? These problems are not restricted to Ghana, these problems exist in many countries in Africa and even developing areas of India (Notice that the title for the article is How 4H Is Helping Big Ag Take Over Africa). You accuse others of not using facts or common sense, but fail to do so yourself.
Go up and answer my questions, demonstrate to me that an economy can exist and thrive on agriculture alone especially when all other natural resources are being exploited. I doubt you can do what everyone from Socrates to Milton Friedman says can't be done, but I'll await your attempt at great wisdom.
How do you get this surplus of food? I gave you the scenario, show me where a surplus could possibly come from. These are not conglomerates that can grow an overabundance, it is small farms with low yield lands (hence the more expensive seeds). Even with the customized seeds these people need assistance. You don't only need to explain where the surplus comes from, but you also need to explain how these countries start transporting their surplus for sale lacking the infrastructure to do so. These people don't own pickup trucks that they can load up and drive down the freeway to the packaging and shipping facilities. Even you gave them a pickup truck they lack freeways and lack the packaging and shipping facilities.
Next, why do you restrict the economy to either Agriculture (your first claim) and now add a restriction to only heavy industry? There are countless other jobs in between the two. Those jobs would exist in a natural growth pattern, but in this case we have people influencing only one industry (Ag) so natural economic growth does not exist. (technically incorrect, see next paragraph)
You also ignore the facts regarding exploitation of other segments of their economy. Sure, a village that had a diamond mine would have money to afford food and growth which would be translated over time to other markets. We have companies supporting people with guns who rob these villagers of their natural resources so they can get a better price.
Do you truly believe that a society and economy can exist with a few farmers alone? I seriously doubt you can be that daft so are intentionally missing the obvious.
Go ahead and start your own society, take 100 people out to a plot of flat land and make 10 people farmers. Ask them to sell their food when it's ready and see who can purchase the food. Remember that while those plants are growing the everyone is going to have to survive, so will be living on sustenance activities. The only people with food at the harvest will be the farmers, because nobody has any money to buy their food. Now add in the twist that the farmers have to purchase their next batch of seeds for the next crop. How many seeds can they afford to buy for their next crop?
The expectation from companies like Monsanto and Dupont is that when the crops come in the 90 people that didn't grow get credit to buy the food, so those 90 people are in debt. If they can't get credit, then the farmers have to get credit and go into debt for the next crop. And when the second crop comes in and they try to sell their food, how much money are they going to make? Do you think they can pay for a third crop of seeds or pay off their debts?
These are not overly complex thoughts. Economies and societies function by having numerous sources of income. The one thing these people could use for money (resources) is being robbed from the land so that the people see no revenue. How much dirt are you going to purchase from a person so that they can pay for their seeds and be debt free? In some cases they don't even have dirt to trade, because they went into debt the first time to purchase food and defaulted without a source of income so now don't own land either.
Correction: There is no confusion regarding homeopathic treatment on my part, you are stuck on the historical description of homeopathy instead of looking at the current definition and use of the term. Current actually goes back to when I was a kid, which could easily be before you were born. is not correct on it's own. Homeopathic in many of those links is simply home cures based on herbal medicine. This is how I grew up with the term, so my usage is dated and not yours. The links simply show that this usage is not uncommon, but should not imply it's proper.
For at least the last 40 years (about the time I was cognizant of a difference between home remedy and doctor) homeopathic has been synonymous with "home remedy" mainly consisting of "herbal cures". My mom has a library of magazines and books with various herbal remedies all called homeopathic cures. You can search for it and find it, so while it may not have been proper I'm not alone in that particular usage (I provided a list of sites to someone else above you in the thread).
We didn't have "herbalism" or "naturopathy", just "homeopathy" or "go to the doctor".
That said, it looks like I'm behind in my terminology for home remedies so need to do some catching up :)
There is no confusion regarding homeopathic treatment on my part, you are stuck on the historical description of homeopathy instead of looking at the current definition and use of the term. Current actually goes back to when I was a kid, which could easily be before you were born.
http://homeopathyusa.org/homeo...
http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/AR...
http://abchomeopathy.com/r.php...
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.co...
And I even have a link to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
I won't argue the next points because instead of addressing my points you make a false dichotomy and a fairy tale about people not caring what milk they buy, which is absolutely detached from reality.
In fact, let me change that and address the portion about milk. People read the labels on milk all the time, and in fact if people started selling "Milk" without specifying whether it was from a Cow, Pig, Goat, or Cat people would have an absolute fit. If the grocery store is out of someone's brand of milk, you will see them read label after label until they are comfortable with what they are purchasing. Milk _is_ labelled for all kinds of information, as is just about everything else I can find in a store.
In fact we have seen companies intentionally over label in order to trick people into purchasing their products. People wanting to avoid HFCS have had to learn all of the various names used for HFCS just to avoid unwanted sugar in their diet. There are numerous ways for salt to be labelled, and MSGs are another tricky one. Yet with GMO, people are not given the information. Since Monsanto can spend a few billion dollars over a few years lobbying, this can't be an issue of just money. That should make you suspicious at a minimum.
I'm extremely skeptical that we are worse off, but I'm willing to hear more
Well you seem to be a skeptic about a lot of things that concern most people, but I'll bite. Are the super pests only after the GMO foods or do they attack the non-GMO foods as well? GMO foods produce more so are not impacted as much as their natural counterparts who can't survive super pests. Super pests are a byproduct of the GMO foods, not a natural occurrence. Similarly super viruses are a byproduct of overuse of antibiotics. Science backs both of those stances.
The money does not exist without other forms of income. If you want to get them working on our terms for agriculture start building tractor plants, repair facilities, shops to build and maintain irrigation equipment, textile plants to turn fiber into clothes, etc...
Cooperative farming already exists in most of these areas, but it's done at a sustenance level because there are few means for generating revenue in these areas..
Lets not neglect the fact that most of these same countries are exploited for their natural resources. Slave labor at gunpoint is a common event, and lets not take the bullshit stance that the situation is all their fault. These governments are bought and paid for by wealthy corporations, the people running the slavery operations get paid for what they collect, and there is no shortage of people trying to buy these materials even knowing the immoral and unethical means with which they are collected.
The Ag side is a single facet of a very large and systemic problem. The answer has to be at a lower level than mucking with the local agriculture, in addition to everything else that is already mucked with (all at the expense of the common people)
Kosher labeling is required by the Jewish community, and a Kosher Jew can't purchase anything not stamped and certified Kosher. People pay for the Kosher labeling and won't purchase anything else. The Jewish inspectors that stamp approval take pride in their ability and don't try and hide the Kosher label. They stand by the label and it's prominently displayed on _every_ package. Culturally speaking "Kosher" means "up front", "on the up and up", "open and honest"
You are really trying to compare that to a group that is so afraid of stamping their label on a product that they spend billions of dollars lobbying and advertising to hide what they are doing? If there is no harm, and no fear of harm, Monsanto and Dupont should be proud to stamp the box with their logo and "GMO MADE FOOD!" for all the world to see.
The Government does not have to force Jewish Rabbi's to stamp things Kosher, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY STAMP THE PACKAGE! When companies try to hide ingredients you are damn right people should be concerned and yes the Government should force them to label the package.
Lets see if we can hold a rational discussion without the bullshit. Since the sock puppets are out censoring everything not proGMO and bolstering everything proGMO I'm not confident, but lets give it a try.
Problem with your statement: Invalid generalization. Centuries of study show us that many homeopathic cures do work. As an example, I have a medical doctor who suggested drinking camomile tea to help me sleep, and it works. He could have prescribed a man made chemical to do the same thing with much worse side effects, but he's a great doctor. As another example, Willow bark is a known pain reliever and anti inflammation herb. It's so good in fact that we created a mimic called Aspirin. Scientists look to nature all the time and try to mimic properties we find naturally, and try to synthesize those natural things. So yeah, homeopathic cures are very well proven in the general sense. Natural remedies and poisons are so good that we try very hard to synthesize them for mass consumption and use as well as monetize them.
At the same time, your generalization attempts to claim that GMO foods are proven to be perfectly safe, and we have no equivalent studies compared to homeopathic remedies. Hybridization is not the same thing as Genetically modified where foreign genes are spliced into seeds and foods. People constantly try to claim that because we have hybridized for thousands of years, we know and understand the impact of splicing fungus genes into corn, or insect genes into tomatoes. Which is wrong, the latter techniques are very new and we don't have long term studies. We do know that sometimes things go terribly wrong (and if you don't like that one there are plenty).
People want to know where GMO in terms of these odd gene splices happen, and quite frankly if there is no proven harm there should be no harm in a label. At the same time, since society has become the lab experiment with many of these modifications it should be made easy to track where things go wrong.
Lets not forget that a large reason for GMO seeds is to increase yields by protecting plants from pests. We are already seeing super pests that can bypass the built in GMO protection and creating a much larger threat to agriculture than existed previously.
This post is spot on, because many of the people impacted by the influx of GMO seeds are sustenance farmers, not profit based farms. Attempting to convert them to a money making agriculture system does not work very well because the people have little to no income sources to go buy food that people are selling. The few jobs these companies create do not support the economy, and the pay is so low that it can't support the economy.
The current reality is that these small governments must subsidize what used to be sustenance based economies. Until manufacturing, repair facilities, etc.. are functional in the country there is no choice, because there are no income sources. And lets face it, there are no plans to bolster anything else in these economies
In other words, the only people currently gaining from these programs are the people pushing the programs. There is plenty of information out there on the subject, you can start with this one, or this one, or this one (get the point? There is plenty of information). Sure, Dupont is not the same company but a new face on a same exact problem.
There is no deflection, you asked a loaded question (Little Grey Aliens). Now that you have added some clarity my answer can be more clear. Media companies have owners which you can easily track down. You can then read documents released by other groups those owners are affiliated with, or own, to determine what is propaganda and what direction propaganda will take. Social engineering is anything but a new phenomenon. Broadcast media, including the Internet, has simply made it easier to perform social engineering. You can read what the CFR releases and who it's members are, and read reports from various privately run "think tank" institutes who suggest and even recommend various forms of social engineering.
I have no problem answering inquiry, but you need to ensure that you are asking questions that at least appear to be exploratory. I don't know you or your goal in inquiry, and your first post makes me suspicious. The loaded question (again Little Green Men) from my point of view is dismissive, and perhaps you intended the post as humorous, but I can't see facial expression to know the difference.
You redefine discrimination to include the trolling that this article specifies focuses on tech areas of employment, and then claim that since it's just discrimination, there must be other reasons women avoid IT since women are discriminated against in other fields.
I don't minimize the combination as you claim, I say for the sake of debate to focus on the single term instead of both because there is no benefit of arguing two prongs of the same fork. There is no benefit to muddying waters with two terms that are covered by a single definition.
This comment also hints pretty strongly that you are simply trolling, and if you do so again I'll have no further part of the conversation. You simply repeat there must be other reasons women avoid IT since women are discriminated against in other fields. as if the answer was not provided twice already. Thus far, I have provided that answer in three separate paragraphs and you simply ignore them. Either argue against what I wrote or stop pretending that written thoughts do not exist.
See your second sentence? Are you suggesting that this propaganda war is not run by women, and is run by . . . who, men? Little grey aliens?
Are you really asking for clarification or are you simply arguing reductio ad absurdum? The former is answered in the post, so I'm thus far not sensing you wish to debate rationally. You seem to isolate the thought to just women as victims of propaganda wars, but I mention two other groups as well. You are not discussing the complete thought, you are marginalizing thought to only want you wish. That is not how rational discourse works.
that the abuse and harassment keeps women out of the tech field; are you obtuse enough to believe that the only reason women don't enter the field is the prescience and universal self-knowledge to know that the eventual desire to start a family will interfere with their career advancement? I do not disagree that some women avoid the field for that reason
This seems like the start a slightly different version of the same straw man you already said and were called out for using. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at this point and simply say that the label of obtuse is meaningless since it's perspective based.
Trolling is a specific form of discrimination, so lets lump the two in the same category for our discussion purposes. Discrimination is certainly a factor, but is not the primary factor in why a woman may choose not to work in IT. Discrimination happens in _ALL_ jobs, there is no magical barrier that restricts those things to only IT. If this was true, it would also mean that women don't become doctors because of discrimination, or Lawyers because of discrimination, etc... And women do become doctors and lawyers despite the fact that discrimination occurs in those fields as well.
When looking at "What career I want to have?" there are countless factors involved. Sure, discrimination is one of the factors but when Hours + Progression + Pay + Investment + LongTermStability + ImpactToFamilyLife + FreeTimeAfterWork + (I think you get the point) Discrimination is only one of all of these factors. Any two or three of these things without discrimination can make a person choose a different career. Pulling out one factor and claiming it's a magic variable that can solve the equation is not simply disingenuous, but a flat out lie.
I never claimed that discrimination does not happen, in fact I said it does happen. Discrimination is not fixed by perpetuating a lie that it's the "ONLY" variable in a very complex equation. In fact it exacerbates the problem and makes it more pronounced because real issues get ignored. The "real" issues in the above equation impact every ethnic group, race, religion, and sex. It also happens to suite trolls, who are mostly people wanting attention and get it because media is focused exclusively on them and their actions.
I state that women are responsible for the propaganda against women where in my statement exactly? That was your claim, and it was false. That was one of two straw man arguments you gave. "but it's actually a propaganda war by women to make themselves seem oppressed?"
Your second straw man was that trolls are the reason women don't work in the tech field, which is another completely false statement. You can go back and read what you wrote, no need to quote that one too. I gave numerous other reasons why women don't work in the tech field, and you didn't debate any of my points but rather repeated a fabrication.
You did not, nor can you argue against any of my points as complete thoughts. You stood up two straw man to make a false claim.
The ad hominem was intentional, I did not miss it at all and it was not a mistake. You are deserving considering your lack of courtesy in standing up straw men instead of debating any of my thoughts. Had you even attempted to address any of my thoughts instead of making false claims, I would not have done so.
So now, if you would care to debate specific thoughts from the post that you responded to please address them completely and provide a rational discourse with valid logic on why you disagree. I prefer rational discourse, but can return what you give without any problems. Let us see if you are capable or rational dialogue.
I can't determine if your post is sarcasm or not, but I'm pretty sure it's sarcasm. This post is really for the next guy assuming sarcasm was correct.
How many times do people have to read history to determine that prohibition does not work? The "War on Drugs" is a failure, alcohol prohibition was a failure, and Opium prohibition was another failure. How can anyone in good faith know history and claim that the answer is punishing consumers and/or bystanders? Simple, it can't be done in good faith because they are basing their claim on a lie.
Making a site like Silk Road illegal does nothing to address the problem. People may as well try to make back alleys illegal, whispering illegal, and sound proof board rooms illegal.
Bad guys exist because there is a segment of society who's only opportunity for advancement is through illegal activities, and another segment who's only method of survival is illegal activities.
Smart cops use alleys to determine what's going on, they don't fight to fill them with concrete or arrest anyone driving through the alley. When the not so smart cops find an alley and start arresting everyone inside, the bad guys just move.
You really should pick opponents more carefully, I have exceptional knowledge of rhetoric and logic. Standing up a straw man was a horrible idea, I can knock them down as quickly as you can stand them up. Show me where I claim that women are responsible for the propaganda. At least as important, demonstrate that trolling in a general sense is not about inciting response but driving people away from jobs.
It is my hope that you hold your breath while you are looking, oxygen starvation can't hurt a mind like yours very much but may help everyone else.
Do you by chance have any links to Cosby saying these things? I'm not doubting in this case, merely curious. I have read and listened to Professor Griff talk about these things, but only know Mr. Cosby for his standup routines.
In this case, I don't think the argument is simply that the request is overbroad. There are resource requirements related to accomplishing the task which make the request not feasible. For example, the requester claims "I want all 30 Petabytes of information" and does not provide a medium the request can not be accepted. Another example is "I want all 50Gb of that data on my trusty ole Zip drive".
IANAL but don't see this as a difficult decision by a judge, or a difficult amendment to add to the current legislation. Private infrastructure, like "Youtube" can not be used to fulfill these requests and the request must be technically feasible.
For clarity, the 30 Petabytes and 50Gb numbers were pulled from the air and not technically correct.
Like you, I found the investigation to be interesting. I have read a lot previously on this infection and the virus itself since it was very unique (kernel can load and unload modules on the fly, polymorphic and encrypted traffic), etc.. This just make it even more interesting in my opinion.
You are either a shill, or an idiot. You can't counter my points so resort to ad hominem for anyone that does not agree with your delusional opinion. Either way, you are pathetic and the problem, not I.
It is a Straw man argument, but it does not seem like you took the time to investigate what a Straw Man is. The purpose of the argument is what you stated, which matches what therealkevinkretz stated in different words.
While surely video requests need to be reasonable and not "give me everything" there must be a method for people to request this information. Otherwise the information is useless, and the whole point of "watching the watchers" is once again lost.
As you, and therealkevinkretz, stated that is the point of TFA. The obvious answer is to refuse the request for _everything_ and make the person give specifics. E.G. I need all data from December 20th 2013 from Officer X. No purpose is necessary, and the request is reasonable. Nope, it does not have to be on Youtube either, which is another straw man argument from the chief.
The problem in reality is that people in the top 1% (really more like the top .01%) income brackets want us to be pitted against each other. They pay good money to generate propaganda, pay people like Sharpten to spread hate, pay agent provocateurs to infiltrate groups they see as a risk to their propaganda campaigns. The fact that you can't see this is not surprising or uncommon. But your blame is in the exact wrong place.
Sadly there are plenty of people that buy into the lie and do what Sharpten does for free, because they can't see beyond the messenger. Listen to black community members like Professor Griff, or if you prefer history listen to MLK and MalcomX. They will all tell you the shape of the world. People need to stop believing everything they are told and actually "look" at the world to see it..