The only cause of SQLi is gross incompetence. It can never be caused by an accident or failure to do something.
It can only caused by willful and deliberate action to do something you know or should know to be wrong, stupid and dangerous at the time you did it. Unbound query strings don't build themselves.
Former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler proposed new rules that is making the cable companies whine and cry.
They must be wondering what their money got them. I guess Tom plans to retire after this. He is 69 years old, after all. Between this and net neutrality, he's doing a fine job warming his toes with all the bridges he's burning.
T-Mobile is actively selectively rate limiting certain types of traffic. Comcast's IPTV stream service is exempt from bandwidth CAPs even though it is delivered over the top of subscribers Internet connection.
Thus far all Wheeler has done was bring ISPs under Title II and sit on the sidelines while ISPs drive trucks thru "Net Neutrality"... more red tape for small ISPs and real possibility of USF fees for Internet service appearing on already astronomical bills.
What I'm expecting is Cable companies to use this as an excuse to dump support for existing equipment supporting CableCARD and make a new scheme just as unreliable and expensive to replace it. Probably one involving active data collection/spying to boot.
For what little its worth I personally have never had a problem with CableCARD. Sometime in 2008 I visited my local Cable office and asked for a card. One minute later I walked out with one, went home, plugged card into DVR, called Cable company and read off MAC address. It has been working flawlessly ever since and the first one is free so no equipment charge.
Ignoring regulatory capture depending on government to save you from side effects of monopolies rarely ends with the intended outcome. Would much rather FCC focus on forcing a competitive market or at the very least a disaggregated one and let the market bitch slap the Cabletowns into line.
What is so sad Microsoft has elected to do this to themselves intentionally. The underlying technology is quite good yet like metro UI in Windows 8 some assholes within Microsoft just had to fuck it up with their crappy shells and politics in a continually failing and hopeless bid to emulate the financial success of the crappy apple walled garden.
One of the reasons I will never use Windows phone aside from crappy 8-bit UI designed by children is it is openly hostile to the end user. Apple style lock down with Google style spying on steroids.
Even trivial features such as local address books are denied to the end user. Nor can WiFi be used without participating in crowd sourced location spying. If you don't capitulate to untenable demands of the vendor you end up with a worthless brick that doesn't even make a good paper weight.
If the platform would have remained open without endless calling home that cannot be disabled. If it allowed for reasonable personalization / widgets / replaceable shells rather than take it or leave it metro crap developers and in-turn users would have been all over it. The people who would have supported it early on all bailed after WM.
Google is the company that can be least trusted. They are the only company which has the primary business model of collecting as much information from you as possible and selling it to the highest bidder.
Not that it matters Google does not sell their creeptastic spy data to other parties. They use it themselves to make as much money as possible at least that's what they claim publically.
I didn't realize that setting fire to government land because they wouldn't let you use it for grazing was a civil right. I must have missed that clause in the Constitution.
Due to Medias complete and epic inability to provide any useful context as to "why" these people were there in the first place I felt it necessary to waste hours reading legal transcripts of jury and sentencing to try and sort it all out.
It is very easy for someone who lives in cities to make these comments about setting fires portraying the Hammonds as crazed pyromaniacs. Controlled fires are routinely used to control invasive species and pests, reduce potential for dangerous uncontrolled fires, provide for growth of grasses used for grazing. Fires are set regularly to manage public and private lands all over the world. Sometimes controlled fires get out of control and cause unintended damage.
What the Hammonds did was sneaky, dangerous, stupid and illegal. They did not properly get permission to set their fires, they set a fire to cover for illegal deer hunting, trespassing, strong arm a ranger into not telling on him..etc. They were sentenced and did time for their transgressions.
The problem with Hammonds going back to jail has to do with total complete and utter bullshit. A "terrorism" bill invoked by setting of fires even though none of this had anything to do with anything even remotely related to terrorism demands a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence. The Judge who originally handed out the sentence deemed this to be way over the top for crime and refused to invoke the mandatory minimum sentence.
Eventually this argument was lost in a higher court who upheld the mandatory minimum sending Hammonds back to jail. These people are not terrorists, militia members, rebels or freedom fighters they publically stated they don't want Bundy's help, they just wanted to go to jail and do their time.
Text of a totally unrelated terrorism bill is overriding common sense of Judges imposing unnecessarily harsh minimum sentences on an old man who is regarded highly in his local community and all everyone talks about is the stupid assholes with guns occupying little shit buildings in the middle of nowhere.
Finicum isn't a hero, isn't a martyr, he took up arms against the government of the United States. This was a modern day version of the Jon Brown Raid, and those that perpetrated it deserve the same fate as Jon Brown.
Personally I'm waiting for more facts to be known about the circumstances of his death before making a judgment. If he died pointing weapons at law enforcement then he deserves what he got.
What ticks me off more than crazy theories are instances of skeptics invoking many of the same kinds of errors in judgments into debunking conspiracies as was originally required to invent them in the first place.
All I ask if you feel the need to waste your time debunking a conspiracy theory at least do so with evidence and sound reasoning.
In this case making judgments based on statistical inferences of who would "spill the beans" is pretty lame. First off this kind of analysis does nothing to directly address the underlying assertions made by conspiracy theorist. Who is likely to "talk" is a variable based on conspiracy specific human factors I very much doubt can be captured in a formula. Most importantly believers are not going to be swayed by models from "establishment" mathematicians they neither understand or are likely to be willing to take the time to understand.
If someone makes a non-falsifiable claim going further than demonstrating the claim cannot be falsified is unnecessary and counterproductive. In my view the best way to rescue people from conspiracies is to trick them into discovering for themselves the errors in their positions.
You would still need Intel RST to pretend to be a browser and open the website though.
No websites required. Computer does not even need to be turned on.
Even going to the website with evil javascript trusted would still require admin access and need another OS level exploit to execute and then another one through ME to execute the code
All you need is access to broadcast domain of wired or wireless network on which your victim is attached. As my attack strictly uses remote access facilities as intended to be used no exploits are required.
As soon as there's a matter of streaming videos, like YouTube videos at 4k it will not work well with 10Mbps, quirky with 25 and probably decent with 100MBps.
YouTube is TCP. Lost packets are mostly irrelevant there are only massive receive windows with commensurately low probability of tail loss. It would require 4-5 seconds of round trip latency or high packet loss to keep a 25mbit channel from being saturated with any modern operating system.
"UMAX in Korea, for instance, compresses its 4K p60 streams at 32Mbps", but even if the video stream is at half your bandwidth it's an average figure and in some cases it can peak at a higher level which may mean lost packets and a lowered image quality.
I am very much amused by 4k. Look at the crap cable and satellite companies are currently getting away with. How is it people really want 4k when we blissfully tolerate not getting quality anywhere near what is possible with 1080 as is? 4k will be no different people will optimize the heck out of the latest and greatest codecs, quality will eventually settle at the point where few complain to optimize cost and nobody will give a shit.
I don't buy the proposition people are deriving much value from >10megabit pipes. Even with a half dozen people sharing one 10 mbit pipe at once lack of queue management and round trip latency is why your experience will suck long before available bandwidth is a limiting factor.
There are counter examples... 3 people streaming different HD titles at the same time while playing xbox games, bit torrent, using a cloud backup service and talking on VOIP at once. However it is still a mistake to allow policy to be driven by outliers. Broadband definition is supposed to be a baseline not some ultra performance 1337mbit service tier.
The majority of customers are likely better served going forward if a higher priority is given to more useful characteristics such as quality, latency, upstream bandwidth and COST rather than allowing downstream bandwidth to dominate the broadband definition landscape.
I'm not even saying that the IME is necessarily perfect, but conspiracy-theory drivel doesn't do much for me. That goes double for when it seems to be directed at one vendor and one vendor only while pretending that everybody else out there (AMD [which flat-out embeds an ARM processor in its parts to copy the functionality of IME], anything running ARM, etc.) is all magically secure.
I don't understand these types of comments which are made quite often here and elsewhere. Someone says something about Google and there is always a response about Apple or Microsoft doing x, y and z too.
Why can't someone focus on something a specific vendor is or is not doing even if you disagree with their process or conclusions without being obligated to enumerate all other vendors who may or may not be doing the same thing?
Why is there always that implicit assumption failure to talk about what everyone else is doing somehow constitutes acceptance when there is no basis for such a conclusion other than the imagination of the person making it.
Goodie! Fresh meat! You wanted evidence? You can't handle the evidence, And my little chachalaca, I will definitely expect more thasn a one sentence off the cuff dismissal
Oy Vey... lets examine what parent said.
Being anti GMO is every bit as nonsensical as being an anti-vaxer.
This statement is worthless not because of anti-vaxers. The statement is worthless because it dismisses GMO by association without offering any specific supporting evidence.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What I want evidence of is how all GMO can be blanket assumed to be safe when the means of production and amount of tinkering are infinitely diverse carrying varying levels of risk. I am not anti GMO... I am anti people who make blanket assertions about the safety of GMO without specific supporting evidence specific to each strain produced.
The vaccine / autism links while interesting are not relevant.
But that's provable. and Roundup ready crops are no excuse to ban all genetically modified food.
I have never claimed nor desire a ban on all genetically modified food.
but I need to get this straight. You support teh fraudulent use of research as long as it fits with your preconcieved ideas of reality?
Because if you have to fake data in order to be right, you ani't right, spunky.
My only purpose is to object to blanket claims all GMO is safe period. The vaccine links are irrelevant.
Sorry. you answerd my question. You don't accept fraud, you actually applaud it.
You are just an other denier. You are the moral equivalent of a AGW denier, a Creationist evolution denier, and an Aniti vaxxer denier. Your truth matters more than reality. Now dismiss my evidence.
You are responding entirely to straw men and ghost assertions having never been made.
I deny only that the capability exists to blanket assert all GMO is safe. This is objectively true because a showing of safety is required by many governments to bring new strains to market. I only believe every strain must be treated separately from safety standpoint, people should have the right to know what they are getting retaining their ability to make their own decisions.
I'm just going to be brutally honest here: You're an uneducated idiot if you think GMO is all about roundup.
I am an idiot who has never claimed GMO is all about roundup but don't let me stand in the way of your straw man arguments.
Furthermore, the efforts to label it are purely for the purpose of stigmatizing it and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Patiently await evidence all possible strains of GMO ever produced are forever guaranteed to never prove harmful.
And now you've just invoked a massive logical fallacy. Seriously go to school before you come here and try to argue this.
You mean the logical fallacy like "go to school"... Parent made a nonsensical comment about labeling and I responded in kind to highlight how absurd the original comment was.
The rest of your post is equally uneducated, and not worth a response.
Humanity is full of idiots who don't have the capability or means to predict outcomes of their tinkering. This is why trial and error testing is required before bringing new strains to market and why they should be labeled.
This isn't a good standard, because you can't prove this for unmodified crops!
I think every issue should stand or fail on its own merit. I don't buy absolutists arguments about not being able to prove this or that as an excuse not to act.
The basic fact is humans are tinkering with food in ways that cannot possibly occur naturally. There are not hundreds of years of experience to fall back on. This should not be discounted just because mutations exist. Labeling specific human creations is on a relative basis easy.
There's always that chance that there was a mutation in the next potato you eat, perfectly 'organic', that happened to cause it to resume producing Solanine.
As such, GMO foods, properly tested, can be rated to be no more dangerous than non-GMO, and sometimes healthier(they recently produced a GMO potato that's less prone to bruising and also doesn't produce a carcinogen).
Your absolutely correct in that the means of production do not matter. What matters is outcomes. Plenty of "natural" stuff can hurt or kill you, humans have been playing god by selective breeding for thousands of years...etc.. etc. ad nausea.
If it is tractable to label particular notable mutations in a useful way than I'm all for it as well because it would serve the same purpose.
Being anti GMO is every bit as nonsensical as being an anti-vaxer.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
There's all of about zero credible scientific data against it.
You want credible evidence GMO is bad? Go to home depot and buy a bottle of roundup. Read the warning label.
Until someone can explain with a straight face how Roundup ready crops do not by design lead to food with more round up absorbed to save labor costs I elect to take the warning label on the vendors own product at face value.
Furthermore, the efforts to label it are purely for the purpose of stigmatizing it and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Patiently await evidence all possible strains of GMO ever produced are forever guaranteed to never prove harmful. I patiently await evidence all GMO engineering and testing regimes are forever guaranteed to be infallible.
The reason ingredients are labeled is to help people with dietary concerns (such as allergies) however there's no dietary or other concerns with GMO food, hence labeling serves no useful
Labeling strains of GMO is a hedge against the unknown making it easier to isolate and mitigate unexpected problems.
I doubt any of the candidates have much understanding of the encryption issue. Not even people like Rand Paul when you hear them talk about it responses are cringe worthy.
Hillary is either making shit up with her that's not what I heard comments or has inside knowledge of misrepresentations made to the public she has no qualms keeping under wraps. Either way just another reminder of why she does not deserve my vote.
Linux on the desktop has been a good and reliable alternative for both power users and home users for several years now.
Every time I try using Linux for desktop something goes bonkers. The display server craps out, kernel panics... I hope efforts like Wayland help put an end to the most egregious of legacy X11 crap. All Intel processors and chipsets.. Intel and Nvidia video... nothing exotic by any means.
These days the need for using a CLI is zero unless you have some weird hardware or very rare configuration.
Yea, I have some prime Florida real-estate to sell if anyone's interested.
One particularly funny incident happened about a year ago. A pretty slick partition management wizard was used during installation to configure a mirrored volume. One of the disks failed and I spent three days trying to get the replacement to sync up before giving up entirely some catch-22 fake raid bullshit hell that still pisses me off thinking about it. In windows it is point and click and done... total of 15 seconds worth of effort. There is no way to install third party binaries without impossibly specific version requirements or even crappier workarounds. No way to update drivers for previously unknown or unsupported hardware without updating kernel/w impossibly specific version requirements. If Linux is to have any hope of seeing adoption by casual users it must become a heck of a lot less painful to install third party software (e.g. precompiled binaries without source code)
People need to be honest about what is wrong with Linux because if they aint nothing is going to get fixed and more casual users are not going to ever want to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
They just have to create a tech demo that emulates "The Game" from STNG.
The only cause of SQLi is gross incompetence. It can never be caused by an accident or failure to do something.
It can only caused by willful and deliberate action to do something you know or should know to be wrong, stupid and dangerous at the time you did it. Unbound query strings don't build themselves.
What do you think happens after the 1 year anniversary of Windows 10 launch?
Will Microsoft finally stop harassing everyone to get its way?
Will an indefinite extension be announced at the last minute?
Will windows 10 become a critical security update? Will it be installed as an update to windows update? Will the nag screens ever go away?
It isn't a surprise.
But in MS's credit Google and Apple both do the same thing too
How does other people doing "the same thing too" work to Microsoft's credit or speak in any way to merits of underlying issues?
This line of argument is nothing more than bandwagon fallacy. It's completely worthless.
Former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler proposed new rules that is making the cable companies whine and cry.
They must be wondering what their money got them. I guess Tom plans to retire after this. He is 69 years old, after all. Between this and net neutrality, he's doing a fine job warming his toes with all the bridges he's burning.
T-Mobile is actively selectively rate limiting certain types of traffic. Comcast's IPTV stream service is exempt from bandwidth CAPs even though it is delivered over the top of subscribers Internet connection.
Thus far all Wheeler has done was bring ISPs under Title II and sit on the sidelines while ISPs drive trucks thru "Net Neutrality" ... more red tape for small ISPs and real possibility of USF fees for Internet service appearing on already astronomical bills.
What I'm expecting is Cable companies to use this as an excuse to dump support for existing equipment supporting CableCARD and make a new scheme just as unreliable and expensive to replace it. Probably one involving active data collection/spying to boot.
For what little its worth I personally have never had a problem with CableCARD. Sometime in 2008 I visited my local Cable office and asked for a card. One minute later I walked out with one, went home, plugged card into DVR, called Cable company and read off MAC address. It has been working flawlessly ever since and the first one is free so no equipment charge.
Ignoring regulatory capture depending on government to save you from side effects of monopolies rarely ends with the intended outcome. Would much rather FCC focus on forcing a competitive market or at the very least a disaggregated one and let the market bitch slap the Cabletowns into line.
What is so sad Microsoft has elected to do this to themselves intentionally. The underlying technology is quite good yet like metro UI in Windows 8 some assholes within Microsoft just had to fuck it up with their crappy shells and politics in a continually failing and hopeless bid to emulate the financial success of the crappy apple walled garden.
One of the reasons I will never use Windows phone aside from crappy 8-bit UI designed by children is it is openly hostile to the end user. Apple style lock down with Google style spying on steroids.
Even trivial features such as local address books are denied to the end user. Nor can WiFi be used without participating in crowd sourced location spying. If you don't capitulate to untenable demands of the vendor you end up with a worthless brick that doesn't even make a good paper weight.
If the platform would have remained open without endless calling home that cannot be disabled. If it allowed for reasonable personalization / widgets / replaceable shells rather than take it or leave it metro crap developers and in-turn users would have been all over it. The people who would have supported it early on all bailed after WM.
Google is the company that can be least trusted. They are the only company which has the primary business model of collecting as much information from you as possible and selling it to the highest bidder.
Not that it matters Google does not sell their creeptastic spy data to other parties. They use it themselves to make as much money as possible at least that's what they claim publically.
https://privacy.google.com/#go...
I didn't realize that setting fire to government land because they wouldn't let you use it for grazing was a civil right. I must have missed that clause in the Constitution.
Due to Medias complete and epic inability to provide any useful context as to "why" these people were there in the first place I felt it necessary to waste hours reading legal transcripts of jury and sentencing to try and sort it all out.
It is very easy for someone who lives in cities to make these comments about setting fires portraying the Hammonds as crazed pyromaniacs. Controlled fires are routinely used to control invasive species and pests, reduce potential for dangerous uncontrolled fires, provide for growth of grasses used for grazing. Fires are set regularly to manage public and private lands all over the world. Sometimes controlled fires get out of control and cause unintended damage.
What the Hammonds did was sneaky, dangerous, stupid and illegal. They did not properly get permission to set their fires, they set a fire to cover for illegal deer hunting, trespassing, strong arm a ranger into not telling on him..etc. They were sentenced and did time for their transgressions.
The problem with Hammonds going back to jail has to do with total complete and utter bullshit. A "terrorism" bill invoked by setting of fires even though none of this had anything to do with anything even remotely related to terrorism demands a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence. The Judge who originally handed out the sentence deemed this to be way over the top for crime and refused to invoke the mandatory minimum sentence.
Eventually this argument was lost in a higher court who upheld the mandatory minimum sending Hammonds back to jail. These people are not terrorists, militia members, rebels or freedom fighters they publically stated they don't want Bundy's help, they just wanted to go to jail and do their time.
Text of a totally unrelated terrorism bill is overriding common sense of Judges imposing unnecessarily harsh minimum sentences on an old man who is regarded highly in his local community and all everyone talks about is the stupid assholes with guns occupying little shit buildings in the middle of nowhere.
Finicum isn't a hero, isn't a martyr, he took up arms against the government of the United States. This was a modern day version of the Jon Brown Raid, and those that perpetrated it deserve the same fate as Jon Brown.
Personally I'm waiting for more facts to be known about the circumstances of his death before making a judgment. If he died pointing weapons at law enforcement then he deserves what he got.
If you stick with Google Play, you're safe from this.
It is only a problem if you side load apps from untrusted sources.
There is a trusted source for apps?! Where??
Congress should just ask NSA and save everyone the trouble.
Opening up the GPU to random sites on the Internet is going to be quite the gold rush for hax0rs everywhere.
What ticks me off more than crazy theories are instances of skeptics invoking many of the same kinds of errors in judgments into debunking conspiracies as was originally required to invent them in the first place.
All I ask if you feel the need to waste your time debunking a conspiracy theory at least do so with evidence and sound reasoning.
In this case making judgments based on statistical inferences of who would "spill the beans" is pretty lame. First off this kind of analysis does nothing to directly address the underlying assertions made by conspiracy theorist. Who is likely to "talk" is a variable based on conspiracy specific human factors I very much doubt can be captured in a formula. Most importantly believers are not going to be swayed by models from "establishment" mathematicians they neither understand or are likely to be willing to take the time to understand.
If someone makes a non-falsifiable claim going further than demonstrating the claim cannot be falsified is unnecessary and counterproductive. In my view the best way to rescue people from conspiracies is to trick them into discovering for themselves the errors in their positions.
You would still need Intel RST to pretend to be a browser and open the website though.
No websites required. Computer does not even need to be turned on.
Even going to the website with evil javascript trusted would still require admin access and need another OS level exploit to execute and then another one through ME to execute the code
All you need is access to broadcast domain of wired or wireless network on which your victim is attached. As my attack strictly uses remote access facilities as intended to be used no exploits are required.
As soon as there's a matter of streaming videos, like YouTube videos at 4k it will not work well with 10Mbps, quirky with 25 and probably decent with
100MBps.
YouTube is TCP. Lost packets are mostly irrelevant there are only massive receive windows with commensurately low probability of tail loss. It would require 4-5 seconds of round trip latency or high packet loss to keep a 25mbit channel from being saturated with any modern operating system.
"UMAX in Korea, for instance, compresses its 4K p60 streams at 32Mbps", but even if the video stream is at half your bandwidth it's an average figure and in some cases it can peak at a higher level which may mean lost packets and a lowered image quality.
I am very much amused by 4k. Look at the crap cable and satellite companies are currently getting away with. How is it people really want 4k when we blissfully tolerate not getting quality anywhere near what is possible with 1080 as is? 4k will be no different people will optimize the heck out of the latest and greatest codecs, quality will eventually settle at the point where few complain to optimize cost and nobody will give a shit.
I don't buy the proposition people are deriving much value from >10megabit pipes. Even with a half dozen people sharing one 10 mbit pipe at once lack of queue management and round trip latency is why your experience will suck long before available bandwidth is a limiting factor.
There are counter examples... 3 people streaming different HD titles at the same time while playing xbox games, bit torrent, using a cloud backup service and talking on VOIP at once. However it is still a mistake to allow policy to be driven by outliers. Broadband definition is supposed to be a baseline not some ultra performance 1337mbit service tier.
The majority of customers are likely better served going forward if a higher priority is given to more useful characteristics such as quality, latency, upstream bandwidth and COST rather than allowing downstream bandwidth to dominate the broadband definition landscape.
Step 1. Purchase a legitimate certificate from CA trusted by ME
Step 2. Broadcast DHCP announcement with domain name matching your trusted certificate
Step 3. Root dance
I'm not even saying that the IME is necessarily perfect, but conspiracy-theory drivel doesn't do much for me. That goes double for when it seems to be directed at one vendor and one vendor only while pretending that everybody else out there (AMD [which flat-out embeds an ARM processor in its parts to copy the functionality of IME], anything running ARM, etc.) is all magically secure.
I don't understand these types of comments which are made quite often here and elsewhere. Someone says something about Google and there is always a response about Apple or Microsoft doing x, y and z too.
Why can't someone focus on something a specific vendor is or is not doing even if you disagree with their process or conclusions without being obligated to enumerate all other vendors who may or may not be doing the same thing?
Why is there always that implicit assumption failure to talk about what everyone else is doing somehow constitutes acceptance when there is no basis for such a conclusion other than the imagination of the person making it.
Goodie! Fresh meat! You wanted evidence? You can't handle the evidence, And my little chachalaca, I will definitely expect more thasn a one sentence off the cuff dismissal
Oy Vey ... lets examine what parent said.
Being anti GMO is every bit as nonsensical as being an anti-vaxer.
This statement is worthless not because of anti-vaxers. The statement is worthless because it dismisses GMO by association without offering any specific supporting evidence.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What I want evidence of is how all GMO can be blanket assumed to be safe when the means of production and amount of tinkering are infinitely diverse carrying varying levels of risk. I am not anti GMO... I am anti people who make blanket assertions about the safety of GMO without specific supporting evidence specific to each strain produced.
The vaccine / autism links while interesting are not relevant.
But that's provable. and Roundup ready crops are no excuse to ban all genetically modified food.
I have never claimed nor desire a ban on all genetically modified food.
but I need to get this straight. You support teh fraudulent use of research as long as it fits with your preconcieved ideas of reality?
Because if you have to fake data in order to be right, you ani't right, spunky.
My only purpose is to object to blanket claims all GMO is safe period. The vaccine links are irrelevant.
Sorry. you answerd my question. You don't accept fraud, you actually applaud it.
You are just an other denier. You are the moral equivalent of a AGW denier, a Creationist evolution denier, and an Aniti vaxxer denier. Your truth matters more than reality. Now dismiss my evidence.
You are responding entirely to straw men and ghost assertions having never been made.
I deny only that the capability exists to blanket assert all GMO is safe. This is objectively true because a showing of safety is required by many governments to bring new strains to market. I only believe every strain must be treated separately from safety standpoint, people should have the right to know what they are getting retaining their ability to make their own decisions.
I'm just going to be brutally honest here: You're an uneducated idiot if you think GMO is all about roundup.
I am an idiot who has never claimed GMO is all about roundup but don't let me stand in the way of your straw man arguments.
Furthermore, the efforts to label it are purely for the purpose of stigmatizing it and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Patiently await evidence all possible strains of GMO ever produced are forever guaranteed to never prove harmful.
And now you've just invoked a massive logical fallacy. Seriously go to school before you come here and try to argue this.
You mean the logical fallacy like "go to school" ... Parent made a nonsensical comment about labeling and I responded in kind to highlight how absurd the original comment was.
The rest of your post is equally uneducated, and not worth a response.
Humanity is full of idiots who don't have the capability or means to predict outcomes of their tinkering. This is why trial and error testing is required before bringing new strains to market and why they should be labeled.
This isn't a good standard, because you can't prove this for unmodified crops!
I think every issue should stand or fail on its own merit. I don't buy absolutists arguments about not being able to prove this or that as an excuse not to act.
The basic fact is humans are tinkering with food in ways that cannot possibly occur naturally. There are not hundreds of years of experience to fall back on. This should not be discounted just because mutations exist. Labeling specific human creations is on a relative basis easy.
There's always that chance that there was a mutation in the next potato you eat, perfectly 'organic', that happened to cause it to resume producing Solanine.
As such, GMO foods, properly tested, can be rated to be no more dangerous than non-GMO, and sometimes healthier(they recently produced a GMO potato that's less prone to bruising and also doesn't produce a carcinogen).
Your absolutely correct in that the means of production do not matter. What matters is outcomes. Plenty of "natural" stuff can hurt or kill you, humans have been playing god by selective breeding for thousands of years...etc .. etc. ad nausea.
If it is tractable to label particular notable mutations in a useful way than I'm all for it as well because it would serve the same purpose.
First Iranian in space?
Hmm.....First suicide bomber in space?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Being anti GMO is every bit as nonsensical as being an anti-vaxer.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
There's all of about zero credible scientific data against it.
You want credible evidence GMO is bad? Go to home depot and buy a bottle of roundup. Read the warning label.
Until someone can explain with a straight face how Roundup ready crops do not by design lead to food with more round up absorbed to save labor costs I elect to take the warning label on the vendors own product at face value.
Furthermore, the efforts to label it are purely for the purpose of stigmatizing it and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Patiently await evidence all possible strains of GMO ever produced are forever guaranteed to never prove harmful. I patiently await evidence all GMO engineering and testing regimes are forever guaranteed to be infallible.
The reason ingredients are labeled is to help people with dietary concerns (such as allergies) however there's no dietary or other concerns with GMO food, hence labeling serves no useful
Labeling strains of GMO is a hedge against the unknown making it easier to isolate and mitigate unexpected problems.
I doubt any of the candidates have much understanding of the encryption issue. Not even people like Rand Paul when you hear them talk about it responses are cringe worthy.
Hillary is either making shit up with her that's not what I heard comments or has inside knowledge of misrepresentations made to the public she has no qualms keeping under wraps. Either way just another reminder of why she does not deserve my vote.
Forbes had been blocked having become increasingly annoying over period of years until recently reaching the height of becoming perilous to visit.
While there might be information contained within Forbes I remain doubtful I will ever be able to discover it.
Linux on the desktop has been a good and reliable alternative for both power users and home users for several years now.
Every time I try using Linux for desktop something goes bonkers. The display server craps out, kernel panics... I hope efforts like Wayland help put an end to the most egregious of legacy X11 crap. All Intel processors and chipsets.. Intel and Nvidia video... nothing exotic by any means.
These days the need for using a CLI is zero unless you have some weird hardware or very rare configuration.
Yea, I have some prime Florida real-estate to sell if anyone's interested.
One particularly funny incident happened about a year ago. A pretty slick partition management wizard was used during installation to configure a mirrored volume. One of the disks failed and I spent three days trying to get the replacement to sync up before giving up entirely some catch-22 fake raid bullshit hell that still pisses me off thinking about it. In windows it is point and click and done... total of 15 seconds worth of effort. There is no way to install third party binaries without impossibly specific version requirements or even crappier workarounds. No way to update drivers for previously unknown or unsupported hardware without updating kernel /w impossibly specific version requirements. If Linux is to have any hope of seeing adoption by casual users it must become a heck of a lot less painful to install third party software (e.g. precompiled binaries without source code)
People need to be honest about what is wrong with Linux because if they aint nothing is going to get fixed and more casual users are not going to ever want to use it.