Everyone would ignore it regardless, that's why we have the FDA regulating this crap instead of making it voluntary.
Ag lobby + Trump administration vs. FDA regulation. Wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
However, this is not a false alarm: these substances, like acrylamide, are
It's a FUD alarm.
known carcinogens in large doses.
So are basically all fruits and virtually everything else you eat or drink. Tap water is allowed to contain 10 ppb arsenic a known carcinogen. Lead is also allowed up to 15 ppb again a known carcinogen. In large doses any water available for anyone to drink is a known carcinogen.
I can go on and on all day long with this BS. Unless you can provide substantive information quantifying meaningful risk of doing x, y and z in terms that warrant public attention please speak up. Simply stating x is a known carcinogen in large doses means nothing substantive to me or anyone else.
It's entirely reasonable to think that small doses might also have this effect.
There are millions of Coffee drinkers. People have been studying the issue for decades. When you are able to cite substantive research linking coffee to increased cancers let me know. There *IS* substantive research showing negative influence on some types of cancers among coffee drinkers.
The problem is that this is not established. This assumes the threshold model, while California has decided to play it safe and go with the no-threshold model. We don't know which is correct.
I applaud California for sticking to their guns on their labeling law, in the face of all the guff they get. The no-threshold model makes things easier, and a whole lot more profitable, but disguising a potential health hazard for those reasons is not well justified.
Playing it safe is not the same thing as being safe. What happens when something really causes cancer and everyone ignores it? False alarms are not harmless.
Yes, we charged the same whether the customer installed it or we did. We installed using very well-defined procedure, mostly handled by a Perl script in the end, which always did it right - it never forgot a step. Customers trying to install it themselves fucked it all up more often than not, frequently causing damage we would have to clean up later. Customers doing it themselves wasn't good for them or us.
This is a universal sentiment across all trades. I suspect much of it is consequence of relying on negative and or selection biases to inform bogus conclusions.
You only visit the fuckups therefore all you see is fuckups.
Or more common only fuckups would bother to call you in the first place therefore all you know is fuckups.
You don't remember the people you had no issues with. You remember the fuckups who royally fucked up.
If 1 out of 10 botched an install or otherwise did something stupid to piss you off would you really see the situation from perspective of 9 out of 10 getting it right? I doubt I would. Doubt most would. Policy intended to save outliers from themselves at the expense of everyone else after all can be quite effective, prudent and rational.
We are surrounded on all sides by the fruits of leaving Comcast installers operate power tools unsupervised. I would pass if I were you.
There is no reason for this. There is no analog signal on the line any more. You have to have Comcast cable box or a cable modem they recognize by MAC to get service.
So there is no functional reason to disconnect the lines like this Except. They make $60 off the installer visit that doesn't need to happen.
Ingress from unterminated connection is reason enough to disconnect.
Window border, scroll bars, single tab wasting space, address bar row, bookmarks bar. Lots of wasted screen space. And then the video playing site would waste more space with its own UI. Plus, no always-on-top option.
All anyone can do is hope those advocating for a windowless context free area outside the browser window simply to avoid "wasting space" are either kidding or trolling.
To be fair "This specification was published by the Web Platform Incubator Community Group. It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track."
If this ever changes and W3C is willing to pursuit such a blatantly anti-user misfeatures the organization will have lost all remaining respect and legitimacy with me for what little that's worth.
He is not wrong. How many times did your e-mail get forwarded and you go I didn't want that e-mail to be shared. There is nothing stopping from recipient post your e-mail on the internet. Same way company internal e-mail get release in the newspaper.
There are two issues.
The first is this thread got side tracked by Dog-Cow's mischaracterization of the issue. It isn't about a recipient doing something it was about a non-recipient (e.g. Google) using content intended for delivery to the intended recipient.
The original context of message I quoted was "I have to agree. Google has actually always informed in their agree to terms that they WILL be collecting and analyzing data about you. And I'm not talking about it being hidden either, they straight up say it."
To which I replied "What about those who send you email? Are they expected to read and agree to a service they don't even use? Were they warned ahead of time? Do you have a legal or ethical duty to warn them?"
Dog-Cow then recast the issue as "email you receive" which in fact has nothing to do with anything. It was a concept he invented out of thin air. This was about what Google is doing with messages not what the recipient is doing.
Depending on scenario an administrator rummaging through emails that don't belong to them and posting them on the front page of the New York times *is* a federal wiretapping felony in every state of the union.
Some states have laws requiring both parties to agree to disclosure. In these states even Dog-Cow's recast of the issue as "email you receive" makes you legally liable. Ignorance of law is an inadvisable legal strategy.
Same way company internal e-mail get release in the newspaper.
While the press is often shielded from liability for reporting on what they are given those doing the stealing or leaking of information in the first place are often not so lucky.
There are services that don't read your mail, like ProtonMail, by all means use them if you really want privacy. However, as a trade off, you don't get full text search, advanced spam filtering, and all the little things GMail offers. It is just technically impossible.
When normal people talk about "reading your email" this isn't what comes to mind. It's not what they are talking about. It's not about physical read operations users are oblivious to anyway.
If user controlled grep counts as reading an email then surely loading portions of email from a persistent data store into main memory or an RA receiving email from network also constitutes "reading your email". It would seem by this same definition every provider "reads your email". Therefore Google deserves a pass because "everyone does it".
There is nothing stopping you from taking every email you receive and displaying the contents on a billboard, or posting them on a public blog for anyone to read. If you send someone an email, you can't expect the contents to remain private unless you have a specific agreement with the party (e.g. NDA). And in that case, encrypt the secret stuff.
Your ignorance of wiretapping law as it applies to email amuses me.
Statements which cannot be falsified are indeed pointless.
Other companies tell you nothing. Both could be doing more than what they tell you. So any complaint against Google could either be swatted away or answered with "of course they do, it's right there in their policy."
The phrase "Now seriously, when I send an e-mail to somebody@somedomain.com, how do I know for sure their administrator isn't looking at all e-mails stored there?"
Is an appeal to FUD. It begs the reader to prove a negative about something they cannot possibly know anything about in advance because somedomain can be any domain. It's impossible to falsify.
I have to agree. Google has actually always informed in their agree to terms that they WILL be collecting and analyzing data about you. And I'm not talking about it being hidden either, they straight up say it.
What about those who send you email? Are they expected to read and agree to a service they don't even use? Were they warned ahead of time? Do you have a legal or ethical duty to warn them?
And it's perfectly fine to make jokes between colleagues. Just that, when your colleagues become millions of people from all around the world, you might want to remove some private jokes from the doc as it's no longer funny.
If millions of people have read the man page for abort we're all doomed.
Only fools who don't know how to properly handle process lifecycle would ever dream of being stupid enough to call this function in the first place.
This is a joke that makes multiple developers uncomfortable for various reasons, and rather than just saying, "get over it,"
Non thread safe C library functions using internal static variables and ellipsis make multiple developers uncomfortable for various reasons, and rather than just saying "get over it", the professional thing to do would be to excise these features immediately.
Stallman is hopelessly out of touch for championing this of all things.
Out of touch? Does that imply your in-touch? I don't want to be touched..... I'm scared and afraid now... I don't feel safe.
According to reports a man could be heard yelling the phrase "Alexa open the front door" shortly before the TV was noticed missing.
A suspect was later apprehended with missing TV found in Frunk of his self-driving get away vehicle after it autonomously allided with an inanimate barrier.
Think wood and nitro methane. Your car will treat them very differently. You body handles sugar very differently than fat. And the order of eating fat, sugars and protein makes a big difference in how the body handles those.
So? It all gets turned into sugar/ATP one way or another.
I haven't heard a single argument as of of why the US is suddenly withdrawing this deal. Trump, who most of the time at least tries to mumble himself out of an answer, couldn't even do that over the press conference yesterday.
There seems to be no explanation for this, nor plan moving forward.
It's the same reason the hawks were against it from the start. They don't care about nukes or have any rational argument to make to the effect the deal is effective on that front.
What they care about is keeping Iran down and poor as much as they can. They want all the sanctions in the world to accomplish their aims no matter what.
Saudi Arabia is our "friend". A backwards inbred oil cursed friend who until recently wouldn't even let women drive and of course fund and export terrorist training schools around the world. Yes the very same schools responsible for nutcase terrorists of all stripes including ISIS and the Taliban who have been killing US soldiers in Afghanistan for approaching two decades. Unsurprisingly 15/19 people who executed 9/11 were... drumroll... also Saudi nationals.
Killing the Iran deal ensures The United States of America continues to do its part in supporting KSA in its proxy war with Iran like it should because the Saudi's are our dear friends.
It never was a treaty - President Obama never presented it to the Senate for approval (as must be done for all treaties), so it was a simple "gentleman's agreement" at best. President Trump is right to withdraw on this basis alone -
No. Simply having the power to do something doesn't make it right.
let alone whether or not Iran is violating their agreement. We should not bind ourselves by agreements made dictatorially by a single person.
Reality doesn't give a flying fuck about political masturbation.
If you break something you broke it. It doesn't matter whether you think you are justified in doing something based on some bullshit abstract philosophical conceptualization.
It's still broke. You still broke it. You still own the consequences of your actions.
Tell me, what of my personal data beyond billing and shipping data for my most recent order would a Mom and Pop shop need?
Personal data in EU parlance means a lot more than it does in the US. Your web servers access log is subject to GDPR because IP is personal data. Your customers can demand all of their data from you including everything in your access logs related to them.
Someone who just wants to sell shit and not spy on their customers or misuse data is negatively affected by GDPR.
This is the usual right-wing talking point about 'onerous regulation' and it is bullshit. It is not about the small businesses, unless they are merely a bait-and-switch operation trying to gain my data to sell it on to unscrupulous marketeers.
Laws that define what you can or can't do are different from laws that create compliance rackets. Naming protection officers, process and record keeping mandates and requiring of an EU interface all point to "onerous" compliance requirements.
At the end of the day the GDPR won't accomplish anything because it focuses on the handling of data and policy transparency. It doesn't address the root issue of limiting the front end collection and using of data in the first place which is the real problem.
It doesn't provide customers with real choices that don't devolve into take it or leave it demands. There is no special GDPR compliant version of Windows 10 free of data collection spyware just for the EU. Instead there is a data transparency tool that shows a non-exhaustive list of some of your data as it is transmitted to Microsoft regardless of whether you want it to or not.
EU websites still have tracking bugs and connections to all of the major data collection firms including Google, Facebook and Twitter same as US websites.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone would ignore it regardless, that's why we have the FDA regulating this crap instead of making it voluntary.
Ag lobby + Trump administration vs. FDA regulation. Wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
However, this is not a false alarm: these substances, like acrylamide, are
It's a FUD alarm.
known carcinogens in large doses.
So are basically all fruits and virtually everything else you eat or drink. Tap water is allowed to contain 10 ppb arsenic a known carcinogen. Lead is also allowed up to 15 ppb again a known carcinogen. In large doses any water available for anyone to drink is a known carcinogen.
I can go on and on all day long with this BS. Unless you can provide substantive information quantifying meaningful risk of doing x, y and z in terms that warrant public attention please speak up. Simply stating x is a known carcinogen in large doses means nothing substantive to me or anyone else.
It's entirely reasonable to think that small doses might also have this effect.
There are millions of Coffee drinkers. People have been studying the issue for decades. When you are able to cite substantive research linking coffee to increased cancers let me know. There *IS* substantive research showing negative influence on some types of cancers among coffee drinkers.
What? It has a far better display?
Your opinion. I disagree.
The problem is that this is not established. This assumes the threshold model, while California has decided to play it safe and go with the no-threshold model. We don't know which is correct.
I applaud California for sticking to their guns on their labeling law, in the face of all the guff they get. The no-threshold model makes things easier, and a whole lot more profitable, but disguising a potential health hazard for those reasons is not well justified.
Playing it safe is not the same thing as being safe. What happens when something really causes cancer and everyone ignores it? False alarms are not harmless.
What's wrong with the display?
Reliability and daylight visibility.
No MicroSD slot.
No removable battery.
No IPS display.
Ridiculous price.
No sale.
Yes, we charged the same whether the customer installed it or we did. We installed using very well-defined procedure, mostly handled by a Perl script in the end, which always did it right - it never forgot a step. Customers trying to install it themselves fucked it all up more often than not, frequently causing damage we would have to clean up later. Customers doing it themselves wasn't good for them or us.
This is a universal sentiment across all trades. I suspect much of it is consequence of relying on negative and or selection biases to inform bogus conclusions.
You only visit the fuckups therefore all you see is fuckups.
Or more common only fuckups would bother to call you in the first place therefore all you know is fuckups.
You don't remember the people you had no issues with. You remember the fuckups who royally fucked up.
If 1 out of 10 botched an install or otherwise did something stupid to piss you off would you really see the situation from perspective of 9 out of 10 getting it right? I doubt I would. Doubt most would. Policy intended to save outliers from themselves at the expense of everyone else after all can be quite effective, prudent and rational.
We are surrounded on all sides by the fruits of leaving Comcast installers operate power tools unsupervised. I would pass if I were you.
There is no reason for this. There is no analog signal on the line any more. You have to have Comcast cable box or a cable modem they recognize by MAC to get service.
So there is no functional reason to disconnect the lines like this Except. They make $60 off the installer visit that doesn't need to happen.
Ingress from unterminated connection is reason enough to disconnect.
Window border, scroll bars, single tab wasting space, address bar row, bookmarks bar. Lots of wasted screen space. And then the video playing site would waste more space with its own UI. Plus, no always-on-top option.
All anyone can do is hope those advocating for a windowless context free area outside the browser window simply to avoid "wasting space" are either kidding or trolling.
To be fair "This specification was published by the Web Platform Incubator Community Group. It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track."
If this ever changes and W3C is willing to pursuit such a blatantly anti-user misfeatures the organization will have lost all remaining respect and legitimacy with me for what little that's worth.
He is not wrong. How many times did your e-mail get forwarded and you go I didn't want that e-mail to be shared. There is nothing stopping from recipient post your e-mail on the internet. Same way company internal e-mail get release in the newspaper.
There are two issues.
The first is this thread got side tracked by Dog-Cow's mischaracterization of the issue. It isn't about a recipient doing something it was about a non-recipient (e.g. Google) using content intended for delivery to the intended recipient.
The original context of message I quoted was "I have to agree. Google has actually always informed in their agree to terms that they WILL be collecting and analyzing data about you. And I'm not talking about it being hidden either, they straight up say it."
To which I replied "What about those who send you email? Are they expected to read and agree to a service they don't even use? Were they warned ahead of time? Do you have a legal or ethical duty to warn them?"
Dog-Cow then recast the issue as "email you receive" which in fact has nothing to do with anything. It was a concept he invented out of thin air. This was about what Google is doing with messages not what the recipient is doing.
Depending on scenario an administrator rummaging through emails that don't belong to them and posting them on the front page of the New York times *is* a federal wiretapping felony in every state of the union.
Some states have laws requiring both parties to agree to disclosure. In these states even Dog-Cow's recast of the issue as "email you receive" makes you legally liable. Ignorance of law is an inadvisable legal strategy.
Same way company internal e-mail get release in the newspaper.
While the press is often shielded from liability for reporting on what they are given those doing the stealing or leaking of information in the first place are often not so lucky.
There are services that don't read your mail, like ProtonMail, by all means use them if you really want privacy. However, as a trade off, you don't get full text search, advanced spam filtering, and all the little things GMail offers. It is just technically impossible.
When normal people talk about "reading your email" this isn't what comes to mind. It's not what they are talking about. It's not about physical read operations users are oblivious to anyway.
If user controlled grep counts as reading an email then surely loading portions of email from a persistent data store into main memory or an RA receiving email from network also constitutes "reading your email". It would seem by this same definition every provider "reads your email". Therefore Google deserves a pass because "everyone does it".
There is nothing stopping you from taking every email you receive and displaying the contents on a billboard, or posting them on a public blog for anyone to read. If you send someone an email, you can't expect the contents to remain private unless you have a specific agreement with the party (e.g. NDA). And in that case, encrypt the secret stuff.
Your ignorance of wiretapping law as it applies to email amuses me.
Your comment has no point.
Statements which cannot be falsified are indeed pointless.
Other companies tell you nothing. Both could be doing more than what they tell you. So any complaint against Google could either be swatted away or answered with "of course they do, it's right there in their policy."
The phrase "Now seriously, when I send an e-mail to somebody@somedomain.com, how do I know for sure their administrator isn't looking at all e-mails stored there?"
Is an appeal to FUD. It begs the reader to prove a negative about something they cannot possibly know anything about in advance because somedomain can be any domain. It's impossible to falsify.
I have to agree. Google has actually always informed in their agree to terms that they WILL be collecting and analyzing data about you. And I'm not talking about it being hidden either, they straight up say it.
What about those who send you email? Are they expected to read and agree to a service they don't even use? Were they warned ahead of time? Do you have a legal or ethical duty to warn them?
Now seriously, when I send an e-mail to somebody@somedomain.com, how do I know for sure their administrator isn't looking at all e-mails stored there?
This isn't a falsifiable statement.
Google can do literally anything with your email and that concern could be just as easily swatted away by stating "how do I know for sure".
The Constitution of the United States of America and its treaties with other nations? Mere political masturbation!
-sexconker
I don't understand the basis for this. Why are you dismissing the constitution and its treaties as mere political masturbation?
I want one of those shirts with the UN emblem /w phrase "THE EARTH IS FLAT" under it.
By far my favorite and most interesting phrase from the whole article "So [becoming a flat earther] made me more skeptical, and more aware."
And it's perfectly fine to make jokes between colleagues. Just that, when your colleagues become millions of people from all around the world, you might want to remove some private jokes from the doc as it's no longer funny.
If millions of people have read the man page for abort we're all doomed.
Only fools who don't know how to properly handle process lifecycle would ever dream of being stupid enough to call this function in the first place.
This is a joke that makes multiple developers uncomfortable for various reasons, and rather than just saying, "get over it,"
Non thread safe C library functions using internal static variables and ellipsis make multiple developers uncomfortable for various reasons, and rather than just saying "get over it", the professional thing to do would be to excise these features immediately.
Stallman is hopelessly out of touch for championing this of all things.
Out of touch? Does that imply your in-touch? I don't want to be touched..... I'm scared and afraid now... I don't feel safe.
Freedom comes with responsibility to not ruin freedom for others.
Freedom comes with responsibility to tolerate the sensibilities of others.
According to reports a man could be heard yelling the phrase "Alexa open the front door" shortly before the TV was noticed missing.
A suspect was later apprehended with missing TV found in Frunk of his self-driving get away vehicle after it autonomously allided with an inanimate barrier.
Think wood and nitro methane. Your car will treat them very differently.
You body handles sugar very differently than fat. And the order of eating fat, sugars and protein makes a big difference in how the body handles those.
So? It all gets turned into sugar/ATP one way or another.
I haven't heard a single argument as of of why the US is suddenly withdrawing this deal. Trump, who most of the time at least tries to mumble himself out of an answer, couldn't even do that over the press conference yesterday.
There seems to be no explanation for this, nor plan moving forward.
It's the same reason the hawks were against it from the start. They don't care about nukes or have any rational argument to make to the effect the deal is effective on that front.
What they care about is keeping Iran down and poor as much as they can. They want all the sanctions in the world to accomplish their aims no matter what.
Saudi Arabia is our "friend". A backwards inbred oil cursed friend who until recently wouldn't even let women drive and of course fund and export terrorist training schools around the world. Yes the very same schools responsible for nutcase terrorists of all stripes including ISIS and the Taliban who have been killing US soldiers in Afghanistan for approaching two decades. Unsurprisingly 15/19 people who executed 9/11 were ... drumroll... also Saudi nationals.
Killing the Iran deal ensures The United States of America continues to do its part in supporting KSA in its proxy war with Iran like it should because the Saudi's are our dear friends.
It never was a treaty - President Obama never presented it to the Senate for approval (as must be done for all treaties), so it was a simple "gentleman's agreement" at best. President Trump is right to withdraw on this basis alone -
No. Simply having the power to do something doesn't make it right.
let alone whether or not Iran is violating their agreement. We should not bind ourselves by agreements made dictatorially by a single person.
Reality doesn't give a flying fuck about political masturbation.
If you break something you broke it. It doesn't matter whether you think you are justified in doing something based on some bullshit abstract philosophical conceptualization.
It's still broke.
You still broke it.
You still own the consequences of your actions.
Tell me, what of my personal data beyond billing and shipping data for my most recent order would a Mom and Pop shop need?
Personal data in EU parlance means a lot more than it does in the US. Your web servers access log is subject to GDPR because IP is personal data. Your customers can demand all of their data from you including everything in your access logs related to them.
Someone who just wants to sell shit and not spy on their customers or misuse data is negatively affected by GDPR.
This is the usual right-wing talking point about 'onerous regulation' and it is bullshit. It is not about the small businesses, unless they are merely a bait-and-switch operation trying to gain my data to sell it on to unscrupulous marketeers.
Laws that define what you can or can't do are different from laws that create compliance rackets. Naming protection officers, process and record keeping mandates and requiring of an EU interface all point to "onerous" compliance requirements.
At the end of the day the GDPR won't accomplish anything because it focuses on the handling of data and policy transparency. It doesn't address the root issue of limiting the front end collection and using of data in the first place which is the real problem.
It doesn't provide customers with real choices that don't devolve into take it or leave it demands. There is no special GDPR compliant version of Windows 10 free of data collection spyware just for the EU. Instead there is a data transparency tool that shows a non-exhaustive list of some of your data as it is transmitted to Microsoft regardless of whether you want it to or not.
EU websites still have tracking bugs and connections to all of the major data collection firms including Google, Facebook and Twitter same as US websites.