When Joe Graduate hears how "basic" and "easy" this securing software stuff is, from people like you that have no clue, they go off and do it themselves
No that is not even close to a major problem. The big problem with software security is that it is usually an afterthought. Poor security does not impeded the normal operation of software, so it is extremely common for management to de-emphasize or even ignore it completely. And then once the software is up and running, retrofitting security into a system is super-expensive so the mindset becomes something like, "why fix a leaky roof if it isn't raining."
So no, the problem is rarely a case of security being deceptively easy, it is a case of bean-counters not assigning enough beans to the effort.
Your flaw is comparing corps to people. They're not people, and should be compared to other corps.
Maybe in some other context you might be have a pint, but not when it comes to government representation. Politicians are not supposed to represent corps, only people since elections are by the people. Lobbying is a way for corps to purchase representation, therefore it is not acceptable no matter how many corps do it.
Lobbying is more like speeding. If all the traffic around you is going ten miles over the limit, you are NOT contributing to the greater good by adhering to the law. You're making yourself an obstacle.
Doing the right thing can be complex.
You keep digging that hole. Now corporations have a moral imperative to lobby in order to not endanger everyone else? WTF is wrong with you?
You keep missing the key point - corps are a tiny minority, if that, of the citizenry. This isn't a case of all the traffic speeding and them just keeping up, it is a case of 99.99% of the traffic moving at walking speed and this handful of aholes going at 100mph.
I see, so expecting one and only one telco to opt out of the lobbying process is normal behavior, then, is it?
It is truly stunning how you've missed the point. I sincerely believe you are a psychopath now. I'll spell it out... when a specific group decides to do something bad that doesn't make it neutral just because they are all doing it. Your argument is akin to saying, if a gang requires each member to commit a murder in order to be inducted, then that's not bad, its neutral because everybody in the gang did it -- totally normal behavior for gangs.
If that's the terms the government wants, they can set those terms.
Since AT&T's lobbyists were responsible for most of the terms, I'm comfortable with Vanderhoth's original assessment. Just because our government representatives were corrupted doesn't mean AT&T is in the right.
What part of "normal conditions" do you fail to understand? Sunlight is fatal to people who have erythropoietic protoprohphrya. By your logic, sunlight is fatal too.
You show me that scientific proof that there is no why what so ever that DNA from one organism can transferred to another.
What part of "cross-breeding" do you fail to understand?
Except that it *is* the same audience NOW because now everyone has a cell phone. When the choice was console or portable, consoles won big. But now the choice is portable or portable and console. The experience isn't the same, but it isn't wholly different either. It is close enough for some people to decide that gaming on their phone is good enough and skip buying a console.
How large will the number of people be? I don't know, but in the past that number was zero so drawing comparisons between the past and present isn't so simple.
You could have read the fine article, which nicely mentions "overuse of pesticides". The current reason to use GMO is raised pesticide/herbicide resistance,
It is also worth noting that the Hawaiian islands have one of the most unique and fragile ecosystems in the world due to the isolation of being in the center of the pacific ocean. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of species unique to the islands and many of them have gone extinct since man showed up, especially western man.
We've already lost hundreds of unique bird species due to the misguided introduction of mongooses to hunt rats -- rats are nocturnal, mongooses are diurnal so that didn't work, instead the mongooses raided indigenous birds' nests which had evolved in the absence of such predators so they had no protection.
Hawaii's got a sad history of this sort of thing and, for one reason or another, the GMO corps have made Hawaii one of their most popular testing grounds. It is no surprise that many of these "hippies" are paranoid.
So no, stock is not an issue here, at least not any more than somebody selling stuff on eBay or Amazon. This is not the penny stock markets and has nothing to do with actual securities being exchanged, unless you think of a DVD or Blu-Ray disc as something of an investment tool?
You spent all that time writing that bullshit when you could have just RTFA and realized you utterly misunderstood the situation. Congrats.
My next kickstarter was going to promise selling shares in the company to major backers!
Surprises me nobody has done that yet. Or at least I haven't noticed it.
Nobody has done it yet because it has been illegal all this time. These are the rules the SEC was instructed to create by congress in the JOBS Act of 2012 (Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act) which made it legal to shell shares via crowdfunding.
I appreciate that, it is pretty rare. I just wanted to say that I don't have any problem with the concept of GMO's - I just think that they've been literally forced down our throats without a level of testing proportional to the level of risk.
The reason I'm distrustful of the theory of substantial equivalence is because I've seen the same concept fail in software testing on government projects. They use exactly the same name for it too. For reasons of cost, patches to delivered software are not required to go through a full Q&A cycle, only an abbreviated one specific to the patch.
Most of the time it works out fine. But every once in a while a patch has unintended side-effects that the abbreviated testing does not catch. Maybe that's OK for a non-critical software system, but in a case where human lives are at stake I do not think it is an appropriate way to do business. It isn't like we here in the US are facing a food shortage without GMOs. People won't die of starvation just because a product is delayed for 10-15 years for comprehensive testing.
This is a convenient way to rationalize poor choices, that's all.
No, it is a function of not having perfect knowledge of the market. No one has perfect knowledge of the market. These guys look to make sure that what knowledge you do have is warped in their favor. That's what putting more expensive hotels at the top of list does - you only have so much time to evaluate your choices and for every over-priced hotel they get on your mental list that's one less slot available for a better deal.
Ultimately, I've never been compelled to spend a single dollar by a merchant..
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. There is a name for people who think they are immune to manipulation - suckers. People like you make the best marks because over-confidence born of ignorance means you aren't even guarding against the techniques they use.
Then why has Monsanto/Dow not released their 2,4-D and dicamba tolerant crops? Why did it take so long to release DroughtGard?
I don't know. Are you trying to imply something? How about outright stating your claim and backing it up with a meaningful citation?
Another ridiculous Monsanto conspiracy about how everyone in plant & agricultural science are evil/paid off? We eat the same food you do you know,
No one ever thinks they are doing evil. They always have some sort of rationalization to believe that their actions are good, true, positive, etc. The concept of the evil villain rubbing his hands in glee is just fiction. Just as I believe that many in the NSA are utterly convinced that they are the good guys and that what they do is really important and necessary so am I sure that most of the people working for Monsanto (apparently you are included in that list) are utterly convinced that they are making the world a better place. But that doesn't necessarily make it so.
Yes, this is how I detect morons and liars now. They cite articles instead of studies.
That sort of thing is blatant. But the MLM guys make a big deal of "peer-reviewed" studies. They've latched on to the phrase and tend to only cite actual studies from actual journals (some of the journals are a little sketchy, but many are legit). It's just that the studies rarely have anything relevant to say about the benefits of whatever the MLMs are pushing.
Same thing here, I'm sure that list has lots of good science in it, it's just that most of the science there is not relevant as to whether or not specific crops have dangerous long-term effects. And I'm pretty sure it isn't that way out of malice, it's more convenient neglect. It is really expensive and slow to do research like that and the guys with the serious money don't really want to know anyway. So facing all that inertia very little pertinent research gets done.
at least consider that long term use on humans has happened and we aren't all dead yet.
Forgot to respond to that statement.
What a fucking stupid thing to say. Lead in paint and gasoline didn't kill everybody, it barely killed a tiny minority. Same thing with DDT, fen-phen, asbestos, cigarette smoking and nearly every other dangerous substance known to man.
That kind of thinking is thousands of times less rational than anything I've written here.
"Nutritional and Safety Assessments of Foods and Feeds Nutritionally Improved through Biotechnology" sounds rather on point.
No it doesn't. It sounds like a survey -- not actual testing of specific crops. And guess what? It is just a survey.
I only cherry-picked in that the articles were obviously pointless. But I only saw maybe two that looked like they were probably real testing based on the fact that they mentioned a specific crop (alfalfa) in the title. I'm sure there were more, but I'm also sure that it is a tiny fraction of the ~2000 listed.
So I read that article and all I could think of was advertising for pyramid schemes selling "superfoods" - those superfood MLM guys love to throw out hundreds of citations to studies that "prove" that superfoods really are super. Sounds super impressive. But it all falls apart once you go look at the actual studies and see that they don't support the MLM's claims, they are just a list of keyword matches for whatever the MLM is selling.
Same thing with that article - they cite 2000 studies as proof that GM foods are "highly analyzed." But when you go look at the studies themselves it isn't analysis of specific foods, instead it is reports with names like "Five years of Bt cotton in China - the benefits continue," "Action needed to harmonize regulation of low-level presence of biotech traits" and "Swedish farmers attitudes, expectations and fears in relation to growing genetically modified crops."
By citing that article what you actually did was affirm my point. I mean if that list of studies is representative of the kind of testing GM crops actually get, then they are barely getting tested at all.
I don't understand why that is such a big deal anyway. They are going to spam me with ads one way or the other; at least if I find value in the product or service being advertised, it's less of a waste of my time and perhaps it's even a valuable proposition.
That's because targeted ads are failures. You research and then buy a pair of shoes online and they spam you with shoe ads for the next month when you are no longer interested.
What we need to be worried about are not ads that try (and miserably fail) at showing you stuff you might want to buy. We need to be worried about them using all of that personal information to manipulate you into wasting money.
One recent example is how Orbitz puts higher priced hotels at the top of the list for people using macintoshes. The real risk to each and every one of us is their ability to figure out your mental weaknesses and use them against you so that you spend more money than you should. It is the Big Data version of bikini models in beer commercials. Lots of people like to think they are immune to advertising - but nobody is 100% immune to millions of dollars worth of research on manipulation of the human mind.
Slashdot Mirror
When Joe Graduate hears how "basic" and "easy" this securing software stuff is, from people like you that have no clue, they go off and do it themselves
No that is not even close to a major problem. The big problem with software security is that it is usually an afterthought. Poor security does not impeded the normal operation of software, so it is extremely common for management to de-emphasize or even ignore it completely. And then once the software is up and running, retrofitting security into a system is super-expensive so the mindset becomes something like, "why fix a leaky roof if it isn't raining."
So no, the problem is rarely a case of security being deceptively easy, it is a case of bean-counters not assigning enough beans to the effort.
Even worse, corporations are subject to summary execution. (Google involuntary dissolution.)
Not even remotely the same.
Since corporations are equally beholden to the law, so should they have an interest in modifying it.
Equally beholden my ass. Corps exist specifically as a shield against the law. The day a corp gets a life sentence in prison you'll have a point.
Your flaw is comparing corps to people. They're not people, and should be compared to other corps.
Maybe in some other context you might be have a pint, but not when it comes to government representation. Politicians are not supposed to represent corps, only people since elections are by the people. Lobbying is a way for corps to purchase representation, therefore it is not acceptable no matter how many corps do it.
Lobbying is more like speeding. If all the traffic around you is going ten miles over the limit, you are NOT contributing to the greater good by adhering to the law. You're making yourself an obstacle.
Doing the right thing can be complex.
You keep digging that hole. Now corporations have a moral imperative to lobby in order to not endanger everyone else? WTF is wrong with you?
You keep missing the key point - corps are a tiny minority, if that, of the citizenry. This isn't a case of all the traffic speeding and them just keeping up, it is a case of 99.99% of the traffic moving at walking speed and this handful of aholes going at 100mph.
I see, so expecting one and only one telco to opt out of the lobbying process is normal behavior, then, is it?
It is truly stunning how you've missed the point. I sincerely believe you are a psychopath now. I'll spell it out ... when a specific group decides to do something bad that doesn't make it neutral just because they are all doing it. Your argument is akin to saying, if a gang requires each member to commit a murder in order to be inducted, then that's not bad, its neutral because everybody in the gang did it -- totally normal behavior for gangs.
Nor does it mean AT&T is in the wrong. In a world where every telco lobbies, those who employ lobbyists are 'in the neutral'.
Wow. Are you a psychopath?
If that's the terms the government wants, they can set those terms.
Since AT&T's lobbyists were responsible for most of the terms, I'm comfortable with Vanderhoth's original assessment. Just because our government representatives were corrupted doesn't mean AT&T is in the right.
Peanuts
What part of "normal conditions" do you fail to understand? Sunlight is fatal to people who have erythropoietic protoprohphrya. By your logic, sunlight is fatal too.
You show me that scientific proof that there is no why what so ever that DNA from one organism can transferred to another.
What part of "cross-breeding" do you fail to understand?
Oh, I get it, you are a nut.
Except that it *is* the same audience NOW because now everyone has a cell phone. When the choice was console or portable, consoles won big. But now the choice is portable or portable and console. The experience isn't the same, but it isn't wholly different either. It is close enough for some people to decide that gaming on their phone is good enough and skip buying a console.
How large will the number of people be? I don't know, but in the past that number was zero so drawing comparisons between the past and present isn't so simple.
For millions of years non GMO crops have been killing people.
If EVER there was a "citation needed" that bullshit is it. Name one widely consumed food that has been shown to kill people under normal conditions.
Response: No amount of selective breeding will transfer genes between incompatible species.
Citation needed
No, that is the definition of incompatible. The day you can demonstrate cross-breeding between oranges and corn is the day you'll have a point.
In reality we have few long term studies of non GMO effects on humans also.
False equivalency. We have millions of years of evolution.
Cue: Selective breeding is the same as GMO.
Response: No amount of selective breeding will transfer genes between incompatible species.
You could have read the fine article, which nicely mentions "overuse of pesticides". The current reason to use GMO is raised pesticide/herbicide resistance,
It is also worth noting that the Hawaiian islands have one of the most unique and fragile ecosystems in the world due to the isolation of being in the center of the pacific ocean. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of species unique to the islands and many of them have gone extinct since man showed up, especially western man.
We've already lost hundreds of unique bird species due to the misguided introduction of mongooses to hunt rats -- rats are nocturnal, mongooses are diurnal so that didn't work, instead the mongooses raided indigenous birds' nests which had evolved in the absence of such predators so they had no protection.
Hawaii's got a sad history of this sort of thing and, for one reason or another, the GMO corps have made Hawaii one of their most popular testing grounds. It is no surprise that many of these "hippies" are paranoid.
These has never been a single reputable study by anyone anywhere that has shown GMO anything to be unhealthy.
Just down that path yesterday.
have been intensely studies by people with a vested interest in keeping them out.
OK, lets see all these studies. Note in the thread linked to above the one citation of ~2000 such studies turned out to be a dude.
So no, stock is not an issue here, at least not any more than somebody selling stuff on eBay or Amazon. This is not the penny stock markets and has nothing to do with actual securities being exchanged, unless you think of a DVD or Blu-Ray disc as something of an investment tool?
You spent all that time writing that bullshit when you could have just RTFA and realized you utterly misunderstood the situation. Congrats.
My next kickstarter was going to promise selling shares in the company to major backers!
Surprises me nobody has done that yet. Or at least I haven't noticed it.
Nobody has done it yet because it has been illegal all this time. These are the rules the SEC was instructed to create by congress in the JOBS Act of 2012 (Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act) which made it legal to shell shares via crowdfunding.
I appreciate that, it is pretty rare. I just wanted to say that I don't have any problem with the concept of GMO's - I just think that they've been literally forced down our throats without a level of testing proportional to the level of risk.
The reason I'm distrustful of the theory of substantial equivalence is because I've seen the same concept fail in software testing on government projects. They use exactly the same name for it too. For reasons of cost, patches to delivered software are not required to go through a full Q&A cycle, only an abbreviated one specific to the patch.
Most of the time it works out fine. But every once in a while a patch has unintended side-effects that the abbreviated testing does not catch. Maybe that's OK for a non-critical software system, but in a case where human lives are at stake I do not think it is an appropriate way to do business. It isn't like we here in the US are facing a food shortage without GMOs. People won't die of starvation just because a product is delayed for 10-15 years for comprehensive testing.
There is no reasonable evidence that GMOs have had a negative effect.
See my original post.
This is a convenient way to rationalize poor choices, that's all.
No, it is a function of not having perfect knowledge of the market. No one has perfect knowledge of the market. These guys look to make sure that what knowledge you do have is warped in their favor. That's what putting more expensive hotels at the top of list does - you only have so much time to evaluate your choices and for every over-priced hotel they get on your mental list that's one less slot available for a better deal.
Ultimately, I've never been compelled to spend a single dollar by a merchant..
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. There is a name for people who think they are immune to manipulation - suckers. People like you make the best marks because over-confidence born of ignorance means you aren't even guarding against the techniques they use.
Then why has Monsanto/Dow not released their 2,4-D and dicamba tolerant crops? Why did it take so long to release DroughtGard?
I don't know. Are you trying to imply something? How about outright stating your claim and backing it up with a meaningful citation?
Another ridiculous Monsanto conspiracy about how everyone in plant & agricultural science are evil/paid off? We eat the same food you do you know,
No one ever thinks they are doing evil. They always have some sort of rationalization to believe that their actions are good, true, positive, etc. The concept of the evil villain rubbing his hands in glee is just fiction. Just as I believe that many in the NSA are utterly convinced that they are the good guys and that what they do is really important and necessary so am I sure that most of the people working for Monsanto (apparently you are included in that list) are utterly convinced that they are making the world a better place. But that doesn't necessarily make it so.
Yes, this is how I detect morons and liars now. They cite articles instead of studies.
That sort of thing is blatant. But the MLM guys make a big deal of "peer-reviewed" studies. They've latched on to the phrase and tend to only cite actual studies from actual journals (some of the journals are a little sketchy, but many are legit). It's just that the studies rarely have anything relevant to say about the benefits of whatever the MLMs are pushing.
Same thing here, I'm sure that list has lots of good science in it, it's just that most of the science there is not relevant as to whether or not specific crops have dangerous long-term effects. And I'm pretty sure it isn't that way out of malice, it's more convenient neglect. It is really expensive and slow to do research like that and the guys with the serious money don't really want to know anyway. So facing all that inertia very little pertinent research gets done.
at least consider that long term use on humans has happened and we aren't all dead yet.
Forgot to respond to that statement.
What a fucking stupid thing to say. Lead in paint and gasoline didn't kill everybody, it barely killed a tiny minority. Same thing with DDT, fen-phen, asbestos, cigarette smoking and nearly every other dangerous substance known to man.
That kind of thinking is thousands of times less rational than anything I've written here.
"Nutritional and Safety Assessments of Foods and Feeds Nutritionally Improved through Biotechnology" sounds rather on point.
No it doesn't. It sounds like a survey -- not actual testing of specific crops. And guess what? It is just a survey.
I only cherry-picked in that the articles were obviously pointless. But I only saw maybe two that looked like they were probably real testing based on the fact that they mentioned a specific crop (alfalfa) in the title. I'm sure there were more, but I'm also sure that it is a tiny fraction of the ~2000 listed.
So I read that article and all I could think of was advertising for pyramid schemes selling "superfoods" - those superfood MLM guys love to throw out hundreds of citations to studies that "prove" that superfoods really are super. Sounds super impressive. But it all falls apart once you go look at the actual studies and see that they don't support the MLM's claims, they are just a list of keyword matches for whatever the MLM is selling.
Same thing with that article - they cite 2000 studies as proof that GM foods are "highly analyzed." But when you go look at the studies themselves it isn't analysis of specific foods, instead it is reports with names like "Five years of Bt cotton in China - the benefits continue," "Action needed to harmonize regulation of low-level presence of biotech traits" and "Swedish farmers attitudes, expectations and fears in relation to growing genetically modified crops."
By citing that article what you actually did was affirm my point. I mean if that list of studies is representative of the kind of testing GM crops actually get, then they are barely getting tested at all.
I don't understand why that is such a big deal anyway. They are going to spam me with ads one way or the other; at least if I find value in the product or service being advertised, it's less of a waste of my time and perhaps it's even a valuable proposition.
That's because targeted ads are failures. You research and then buy a pair of shoes online and they spam you with shoe ads for the next month when you are no longer interested.
What we need to be worried about are not ads that try (and miserably fail) at showing you stuff you might want to buy. We need to be worried about them using all of that personal information to manipulate you into wasting money.
One recent example is how Orbitz puts higher priced hotels at the top of the list for people using macintoshes. The real risk to each and every one of us is their ability to figure out your mental weaknesses and use them against you so that you spend more money than you should. It is the Big Data version of bikini models in beer commercials. Lots of people like to think they are immune to advertising - but nobody is 100% immune to millions of dollars worth of research on manipulation of the human mind.