Unfortunately, in actuality, it was 20 groups of 10 mice each. The researchers who published the flawed study you are trying to defend reviewed, in a paper published in 2009, the Monsanto study and wholly criticized the use of groups containing only 10 mice. Yet instead of doing a better study, they chose to merely return tit for tat. Oh, and they released the results to the media in a totally manipulative fashion.
If they really were interested in discovering the actual truth about this strain of GM corn, one would assume they would have done the study in a better fashion.
> 1) The fact that the control group contained 10 mice. That's right. 10 mice.
Thanks for listing some of the problems. In addition to all of your other points, there is the distinct possibility that the results were "cherry-picked" (having a small control group would make this easier). Since the researchers aren't releasing all of the data (including how many times they may have run this experiment before obtaining this particular result), there is no way we can evaluate whether this is at all interesting.
A lot of people don't understand that because science is, for the large part, a self-correcting system on large time scales, the peer review process is not actually designed to totally eliminate wrong research results from being published. In fact, one can make the analogy to the optimization algorithm of simulated annealing, where, while trying to optimize a function with many local minima, it is beneficial to sometimes progress in directions which make the result less optimal, so that overall the minimum attained is more likely to be the global one.
The "not remembering opening the door" makes it seem more like a hypnagogic halucination which, by now, has been converted into a false memory. OTOH, I don't doubt about the lack of security during that era which has been talked about by other posters, so it could equally be a true memory. There isn't enough evidence to decide the truth about this matter.
> which only makes crap for the least common denominator
Kind of like Hollywood, then? The point wasn't that Portuguese movies are earth-shattering masterpieces, it's that (especially when correct for population differences), the Portuguese film industry is far from "non-existent".
In 2011, there were a total of 19 feature films produced.[3][1] The most commercially successful Portuguese film of the year was Blood of My Blood by João Canijo with 20,953 admissions and grossing €97,784.72.[4] The share of Portuguese cinema in the Portuguese box office was 0.7%.[5] On the artistic side, one of the most successful films was Joaquim Sapinho's This Side of Resurrection, premiered at the Visions programme at the Toronto International Film Festival with a United States premiere at the Harvard Film Archive.
At the 62nd Berlin International Film Festival, in 2012, Tabu, directed by Miguel Gomes, was in competition for the Golden Bear and Rafa, directed by João Salaviza, won the Golden Bear for Best Short Film.
As of 9 September 2012, the highest grossing Portuguese film of the year is Morangos com Açúcar – O Filme with €869,102,19.[6] The Lines of Wellington will be in competition for the Golden Lion at the 69th Venice International Film Festival. [7]
Just because Americans don't hear about foreign films doesn't mean they don't exist, or even thrive (like all other film industries, including the American one).
Don't kid us. No one reads the full Terms of Service agreements (and I noticed that you didn't claim to, either) --- at least, not for each and every website. So you can't possibly know that you aren't breaking your precious "rules". The fact that you are so sure about being "right" when you merely are assuming you "know" how the websites you visit are intended to be used --- it says a lot about you.
QKD is a solution to a non-problem. Even if the current public key algorithms would be broken (via a revolutionary advance in the the field of quantum computing, or in some other, yet unknown way), there exist backup algorithms for which there are no known quantum algorithms which break them.
> It's not just the laws that we need to change, it's our entire attitude towards child pornography.
I agree. Especially since any digital file you download could contain child pornography without your knowing it. Making possession of child pornography a heinous crime (and society looking upon it as an unforgivable offense) is just fodder for enabling an easy way to discredit, well, anyone you desire.
In addition, recently technology has advanced to the point where it is possible to produce child pornography without actually involving any real children (even in jurisdictions where text cannot be child pornography). Actually, this has been possible in most jurisdictions for a very long time (since, in most jurisdictions, drawings and other graphics can be child pornography).
> Only when the general public stop demonizing child pornographers can this problem be approached rationally.
People who abuse real children, either sexually or otherwise, are criminals and need to be stopped. Your statement that they shouldn't be demonized is equally applicable to all criminals, and therefore is devoid of real content in this discussion.
Borax was added to the Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC) candidate list on 16 December 2010. The SVHC candidate list is part of the EU Regulations on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals 2006 (REACH), and the addition was based on the revised classification of Borax as toxic for reproduction category 1B under the CLP Regulations. Substances and mixtures imported into the EU which contain Borax are now required to be labelled with the warnings "May damage fertility" and "May damage the unborn child".
Probably still less toxic than most pesticides, but not quite as innocuous as previously thought...
> The comments in this article has to be one of the biggest double standards I've seen in a while.
You're simply confused.
> How many panties would be in a twist on this site if some company was brazenly raking in >$100k/year in misappropriated GPL code
But that's not what TPB does. For your comparison to be correct, TPB would have to be a service which streamed infringing content directly to consumers in return for payment. What TPB actually does is empower people with the ability to personally choose to infringe on copyright. There's a difference.
In an investigation in 2006, the police concluded that The Pirate Bay brings in 1.2 million SEK (US$169,000) per year from advertisements.
> for things that you'd wet yourself with indignaton if somebody was doing to your beloved GPL stuff.
Actually, my guess is that very, very little of the content distributed via torrents available from TPB and elsewhere are derivative works rather than straight-out copies.
Double fail. Sorry, to get epic you'll have to, in addition, shill for Windows and add an ad hominem attack against RMS.
I would think that he'd be able to raise at least half the costs of the decision by starting a some kind of Internet donation thing (there are precedents, albeit for a much smaller amount). I suppose that Kickstarter wouldn't want to be associated with that, but probably some kind of similar platform, based in Europe, might be OK.
> 9. When looking at the common law rules the judge did not feel the case was inequitable under the circumstances.
Welcome to the US, where, it seems, the penalty for copyright infringement is totally dependent on which judge you happen to get. With this judge being in the minority, 1 against 2.
> suggesting a plan for murder is a really, really poor choice
From the website explanation:
Such circumstantial evidence, placing a staff member in the room at the time of death, could be damning in a murder trial, and at least would make that staff member a prime suspect. While other factors (e.g. closed circuit cameras, eyewitnesses, etc) could be used to support the staff member's case, there's no way we can know whether or not the audit report is false.
Unless you believe that Brocious can somehow know the details of every murder trial currently going on anywhere in the world at this time, this fact is actually an excellent defense for justifying immediate disclosure.
And anyway, if your interesting legal theory was correct, the broadcast of every Columbo episode, for example, would have exposed {N,A}BC to criminal charges or civil liability. Not likely.
> They need the commodity to be artificially scarce
Scarcity does not necessarily equate to value --- for example, samples of my urine from a particular morning are very scarce, but are unlikely to have any real value (and not totally because they are urine: I'm sure I could get hundreds or even perhaps thousands of dollars from some national intelligence agency for a fresh sample of Ali Khamenei's urine).
I'm not even sure that scarcity is even a necessary condition for value.
Anyway, as others have already stated here, the IP cartels are just doing it wrong. They have become addicted to a particular business model where they can manipulate the public to give their product value, and the viability of this model is vanishing like sand through the hourglass, even as I type.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he meant better things, but it didn't have the same linguistic punch.
You claim (in the subject of your post):
> 10 mice was all that Monsato used to pass.
Unfortunately, in actuality, it was 20 groups of 10 mice each. The researchers who published the flawed study you are trying to defend reviewed, in a paper published in 2009, the Monsanto study and wholly criticized the use of groups containing only 10 mice. Yet instead of doing a better study, they chose to merely return tit for tat. Oh, and they released the results to the media in a totally manipulative fashion.
If they really were interested in discovering the actual truth about this strain of GM corn, one would assume they would have done the study in a better fashion.
> 1) The fact that the control group contained 10 mice. That's right. 10 mice.
Thanks for listing some of the problems. In addition to all of your other points, there is the distinct possibility that the results were "cherry-picked" (having a small control group would make this easier). Since the researchers aren't releasing all of the data (including how many times they may have run this experiment before obtaining this particular result), there is no way we can evaluate whether this is at all interesting.
A lot of people don't understand that because science is, for the large part, a self-correcting system on large time scales, the peer review process is not actually designed to totally eliminate wrong research results from being published. In fact, one can make the analogy to the optimization algorithm of simulated annealing, where, while trying to optimize a function with many local minima, it is beneficial to sometimes progress in directions which make the result less optimal, so that overall the minimum attained is more likely to be the global one.
The research methods used in that article have been criticised by a lot of people. Not all published scientific articles are correct.
Alas, if only we had a world where Retief was totally in charge of global IP policy....
The "not remembering opening the door" makes it seem more like a hypnagogic halucination which, by now, has been converted into a false memory. OTOH, I don't doubt about the lack of security during that era which has been talked about by other posters, so it could equally be a true memory. There isn't enough evidence to decide the truth about this matter.
> which only makes crap for the least common denominator
Kind of like Hollywood, then? The point wasn't that Portuguese movies are earth-shattering masterpieces, it's that (especially when correct for population differences), the Portuguese film industry is far from "non-existent".
From Wikipedia:
Just because Americans don't hear about foreign films doesn't mean they don't exist, or even thrive (like all other film industries, including the American one).
Don't kid us. No one reads the full Terms of Service agreements (and I noticed that you didn't claim to, either) --- at least, not for each and every website. So you can't possibly know that you aren't breaking your precious "rules". The fact that you are so sure about being "right" when you merely are assuming you "know" how the websites you visit are intended to be used --- it says a lot about you.
> and nothing can possibly go wrong.
Let me guess. Considering how scared you are of this possibility, I suppose you're one of the people who believe that the TSA are doing a good job?
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
> while the rest of us don't break rules
Right. Tell me that you read (and understand) the Terms of Service agreements of each and every website you visit.
No? How on earth, then, are you so righteously convinced that you don't break "rules"?
QKD is a solution to a non-problem. Even if the current public key algorithms would be broken (via a revolutionary advance in the the field of quantum computing, or in some other, yet unknown way), there exist backup algorithms for which there are no known quantum algorithms which break them.
You forgot one of the best selling points for me:
-it isn't mainstream enough to be a lucrative target for malware
> It's not just the laws that we need to change, it's our entire attitude towards child pornography.
I agree. Especially since any digital file you download could contain child pornography without your knowing it. Making possession of child pornography a heinous crime (and society looking upon it as an unforgivable offense) is just fodder for enabling an easy way to discredit, well, anyone you desire.
In addition, recently technology has advanced to the point where it is possible to produce child pornography without actually involving any real children (even in jurisdictions where text cannot be child pornography). Actually, this has been possible in most jurisdictions for a very long time (since, in most jurisdictions, drawings and other graphics can be child pornography).
> Only when the general public stop demonizing child pornographers can this problem be approached rationally.
People who abuse real children, either sexually or otherwise, are criminals and need to be stopped. Your statement that they shouldn't be demonized is equally applicable to all criminals, and therefore is devoid of real content in this discussion.
I thought so too, but recently saw:
@ URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borax#Toxicity
Probably still less toxic than most pesticides, but not quite as innocuous as previously thought...
This has to be the first time my brain has ever associated Tony Orlando with Marooned Off Vesta.
> and a year in jail sounds a lot better than being forever on the run.
It's not clear to me that with a $1.1M judgment against him, the Swedish authorities would ever let him leave the country again.
> The comments in this article has to be one of the biggest double standards I've seen in a while.
You're simply confused.
> How many panties would be in a twist on this site if some company was brazenly raking in >$100k/year in misappropriated GPL code
But that's not what TPB does. For your comparison to be correct, TPB would have to be a service which streamed infringing content directly to consumers in return for payment. What TPB actually does is empower people with the ability to personally choose to infringe on copyright. There's a difference.
In an investigation in 2006, the police concluded that The Pirate Bay brings in 1.2 million SEK (US$169,000) per year from advertisements.
> for things that you'd wet yourself with indignaton if somebody was doing to your beloved GPL stuff.
Actually, my guess is that very, very little of the content distributed via torrents available from TPB and elsewhere are derivative works rather than straight-out copies.
Double fail. Sorry, to get epic you'll have to, in addition, shill for Windows and add an ad hominem attack against RMS.
What? You missed the conspiracy theory site which claims that Cutting Sword of Justice is actually an organization of self-aware androids?
> It doesn't get much nerdier that Slackware (except perhaps OpenBSD).
Oh, yeah? I run Plan 9 inside of a virtual machine running on Haiku!
I would think that he'd be able to raise at least half the costs of the decision by starting a some kind of Internet donation thing (there are precedents, albeit for a much smaller amount). I suppose that Kickstarter wouldn't want to be associated with that, but probably some kind of similar platform, based in Europe, might be OK.
> 9. When looking at the common law rules the judge did not feel the case was inequitable under the circumstances.
Welcome to the US, where, it seems, the penalty for copyright infringement is totally dependent on which judge you happen to get. With this judge being in the minority, 1 against 2.
> suggesting a plan for murder is a really, really poor choice
From the website explanation:
Unless you believe that Brocious can somehow know the details of every murder trial currently going on anywhere in the world at this time, this fact is actually an excellent defense for justifying immediate disclosure.
And anyway, if your interesting legal theory was correct, the broadcast of every Columbo episode, for example, would have exposed {N,A}BC to criminal charges or civil liability. Not likely.
Seems to me that you flunked Eco 101.
> They need the commodity to be artificially scarce
Scarcity does not necessarily equate to value --- for example, samples of my urine from a particular morning are very scarce, but are unlikely to have any real value (and not totally because they are urine: I'm sure I could get hundreds or even perhaps thousands of dollars from some national intelligence agency for a fresh sample of Ali Khamenei's urine).
I'm not even sure that scarcity is even a necessary condition for value.
Anyway, as others have already stated here, the IP cartels are just doing it wrong. They have become addicted to a particular business model where they can manipulate the public to give their product value, and the viability of this model is vanishing like sand through the hourglass, even as I type.