Apart from that detail, I personally have no problems with GM crops on the health side (*). I do have serious objections though concerning the misuse of legal ways to enforce mono culture and the elimination of small farmer's biodiversity. That is something GM crop companies should not have a right to do.
(*) Since the invention of antibiotics and vaccination, and widespread adoption of hygiene, the general life expectancy has grown very slowly. Our bodies are currently part of a long time experience, which involves exposure to pollution from fossil fuels, radioactive particles from accidents and open-air atom bomb test (yes, until this day), processed fats and sugars, artificial electromagnetic waves of many wavelengths, GM food, and more. Noone knows if one or many of these factors play a role in the ever growing effect of cancer, diabetes, and other deadly desases on our theoretical life expectancy.
Very well said. And in addition to all this, people living outside of the cities are the worst polluters due to the large distances they drive with their own cars (incl. into and out of the city for work/shopping/entertainment/etc.), plus the transport of goods.
To those worrying about farmers: forget it, they're subsidized heavily already.
In the past, the driving force behind technology was war. These days it is the quarterly profit report. There's a lot of technology behind both efforts. The former focuses on dominatiing the enemy, the latter on selling items fast. Choose your poison.
Ubuntu suffers from the longstanding practice of targeting the abstract group of "normals"
Quite true.
A wiser strategy would be a "just works" distro aimed specifically at power users.
We have them already, and they are among the oldest which exist: Debian and Slackware.
Linux on the desktop is good for people who know their way around, and people who have a very limited use spectrum (Mail/Web/Chat/Photos). For all others, Win/Mac is better suited.
Trying to make a desktop system for the consumer masses out of Linux has failed until now because of lack of support from hw and sw vendors. And with the rise of tablets, a general-purpose desktop os will probably be obsolete soon anyway.
One can only hope that they have a C computer which will never be updated, and which can reset the rover to the initial state. Even if updates on A run fine for some time, experience in computing of the last decades shows that Murphy's Law is always lurking.
Well, that's another reason right there. Had all email clients stuck to pure ASCII, no formatting problems would have ever arised, and millions of man-hours wasted by playing with fonts & colours or fighting with unreadable replies would have been saved.
BTW, I understand very well that you can't go back to pure text only. The general public - once used to eyecandy - does not appreciate the advantage of a flawless information flow vs. pretty looks.
Probably. But receiving "rich text" emails is most painful. Because "rich" means lots of colours, images, cruft, and poor content. Instead of selecting different fonts people should try to write several complete sentences in their communication.
If for some reason suddenly all email tools would lack support for "rich text", nobody would miss it after a few days.
Hey, one can dream, right? And I agree with all your other points.
I admit I have no idea about the Usenet issue you mention. But I do know that webpages sent through email suck mostly if you don't happen to have a screen size/resolution that is compatible with the writer's settings. But I guess email is about to return to be a sane communication tool again once commercial communication has migrated completely to Facebook and the like.
A good email has thoughtful text, without spelling or grammar errors, and is in pure ASCII and without line breaks, so that the text is readable and scrollable on all devices which have vastly different resolutions and screen widths.
Slashdot Mirror
You cannot prove a negative.
GMOs 0 deaths
Apart from that detail, I personally have no problems with GM crops on the health side (*). I do have serious objections though concerning the misuse of legal ways to enforce mono culture and the elimination of small farmer's biodiversity. That is something GM crop companies should not have a right to do.
(*) Since the invention of antibiotics and vaccination, and widespread adoption of hygiene, the general life expectancy has grown very slowly.
Our bodies are currently part of a long time experience, which involves exposure to pollution from fossil fuels, radioactive particles from accidents and open-air atom bomb test (yes, until this day), processed fats and sugars, artificial electromagnetic waves of many wavelengths, GM food, and more.
Noone knows if one or many of these factors play a role in the ever growing effect of cancer, diabetes, and other deadly desases on our theoretical life expectancy.
Very well said. And in addition to all this, people living outside of the cities are the worst polluters due to the large distances they drive with their own cars (incl. into and out of the city for work/shopping/entertainment/etc.), plus the transport of goods.
To those worrying about farmers: forget it, they're subsidized heavily already.
In the past, the driving force behind technology was war. These days it is the quarterly profit report. There's a lot of technology behind both efforts. The former focuses on dominatiing the enemy, the latter on selling items fast. Choose your poison.
would welcome complete internet prohibition for minors if it enabled an uncensored, politically incorrect, non-think-of-the-snowflakes mindset.
It's not fair. Other people always seem to have access to much more potent drugs than myself.
Ubuntu suffers from the longstanding practice of targeting the abstract group of "normals"
Quite true.
A wiser strategy would be a "just works" distro aimed specifically at power users.
We have them already, and they are among the oldest which exist: Debian and Slackware.
Linux on the desktop is good for people who know their way around, and people who have a very limited use spectrum (Mail/Web/Chat/Photos). For all others, Win/Mac is better suited.
Trying to make a desktop system for the consumer masses out of Linux has failed until now because of lack of support from hw and sw vendors. And with the rise of tablets, a general-purpose desktop os will probably be obsolete soon anyway.
One can only hope that they have a C computer which will never be updated, and which can reset the rover to the initial state. Even if updates on A run fine for some time, experience in computing of the last decades shows that Murphy's Law is always lurking.
he's wrong
pushing the moon a little faster
Comments on the internet in 2013. Aren't they awesome?
Let's start with something easy: cats vs. dogs.
Dogs can be trained to do a lot of things, and therefore can be very "useful". So people feed them.
Cats almost can't be trained, they sleep or play around the whole day. An yet people feed them as well.
Which is more intelligent, cats or dogs?
Sure, just use:
xterm -geometry 200
Could be decayed rests of a parachute from another mission. But hopefully it's something more exciting.
would have been from orbit.
You know right away the article is BS.
Because during the last 10 years many MS products have finally become as usable as they should have been 10 years ago.
... form of human-computer interaction."
Really? I thought it was JPEGs...
... I would kick Matthew G. out of kernel development for being a butthurt nitpicking lamer.
The world in its completely dumbed-down state has been detailed in the movie Idiocracy.
Well, that's another reason right there. Had all email clients stuck to pure ASCII, no formatting problems would have ever arised, and millions of man-hours wasted by playing with fonts & colours or fighting with unreadable replies would have been saved.
BTW, I understand very well that you can't go back to pure text only. The general public - once used to eyecandy - does not appreciate the advantage of a flawless information flow vs. pretty looks.
Rich text (html) editing is painful
Probably. But receiving "rich text" emails is most painful. Because "rich" means lots of colours, images, cruft, and poor content.
Instead of selecting different fonts people should try to write several complete sentences in their communication.
If for some reason suddenly all email tools would lack support for "rich text", nobody would miss it after a few days.
Hey, one can dream, right? And I agree with all your other points.
I admit I have no idea about the Usenet issue you mention. But I do know that webpages sent through email suck mostly if you don't happen to have a screen size/resolution that is compatible with the writer's settings.
But I guess email is about to return to be a sane communication tool again once commercial communication has migrated completely to Facebook and the like.
writing good looking emails
A good email has thoughtful text, without spelling or grammar errors, and is in pure ASCII and without line breaks, so that the text is readable and scrollable on all devices which have vastly different resolutions and screen widths.
Where is TB lacking here?
I fail
You got that right.
Call me dumb
No, because on this site we try to avoid redundant posts.
It means that it is able to consolidate my complete pr0n collection in a single day!
That's a slippery slope you went on there.
I don't feel one small shred of pity for the director of this camp ground. Sure, it sucks to be him, but that is life.
Reading comments like this make me hope karma has some truth to it.
crappy non-GM seed
What is this? I don't even