Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:I think this is fair. (Score 1) 209

Port addresses are not part of the ISP's business, either. That is an internal matter for the networks/routers at source and destination, not in between.

If the ISP is doing NAT for customer traffic, they need to know the port addresses. The source and destination routers are not the only routers in the network. And if they are providing outbound connections only, they need to know what outbound ports are in use so they can allow the responses to get back while blocking the rest.

My ISP, for example, has absolutely no business knowing (or caring) whether I am doing SSH over port 22 or port 23456.

Knowing what ports are in use does not tell the ISP what kind of traffic is going over the connection. You would have a valid point had you said "whether I'm doing SSH or FTP" and stopped there.

It isn't essential for their services and it's private information.

How is what port you are using "private information"? It is in every outgoing packet you send. And it is essential for some kinds of service.

Further, if they intentionally redirect my packets, in any way that wasn't essential for internet routing, they're interfering with a private communication, which is illegal for a common carrier to do.

Ummm, so if they use a longer route for your packets because it is cheaper for them, it's illegal?

Comment Re:Speaking of crappy ads (paid posts) (Score 1) 210

Speaking of ads, SlashDot, what's with these brain-dead, demographic-curdling "paid posts" you're running?

What's more insidious is /. now logging me out at random, where the probability is about 50%. Often when I've clicked "preview" to make sure something I'm writing has the tags in place correctly. Instead of seeing just my preview, I get an ad-laden page with an amazing top banner ad that expands into a page-filling piece of crap advertising Fred Meyer, which has no visible way of getting away from it.

This is how /. "thanks" people for making the service great and "rewards" them for opting out of ads.

And the bastards did it again when I clicked "preview" for this posting.

Comment Re:quads brought noobs. (Score 1) 191

I don't think that owning a quad will make me become stupid. The craft is not the problem.

The problem is not quad copters making people stupid. Nobody said that someone with a lot of experience in other flight regimes is going to become a moron the day they light up their DJI. What IS the problem is that stupid people are buying and operating quad copters.

You're right, it's not the craft.

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 513

Who, other than the pro-GMO group has been calling for warning labels?

That you think pro-GMO people have called for warning labels on GMO food products tells me you have no clue what this discussion is about.

This entire discussion, from TFA on down, has been about the FDA NOT MANDATING A WARNING LABEL on a GMO product. It's the anti-GMO people who think such a mandate is appropriate, not the pro-GMO "group".

The pro-GMO love to call them warning labels,

Because that is what they would be.

then attack the general idea of warning over something "safe".

Of course. You don't need warning labels on something that isn't harmful. Why would you think you do? "Warning, this chocolate candy bar contains chocolate" is a meaningless warning. "Warning, this chocolate bar was produced on equipment that may have been in contact with peanuts or peanut products" is not, since there are known dangers to people with peanut allergies, and it is not obvious that a chocolate bar would have peanut bits.

But when you talk about farm-raised salmon, you are already talking about something that wasn't grown naturally. Then add in the fact that it had a FISH gene grafted in (into a FISH) to make it grow faster, and there is NO even hypothetical mechanism for harm to humans from consuming it. Requiring a warning label would serve only one purpose -- to help the anti-GMO zealots scare more people and push the company that would DARE to produce the fish out of business through lack of sales.

On a side note, what the hell is wrong with /. today? It keeps logging me out when I try to preview a posting. I have to copy what I've written, log back in -- which takes me to a useless page for me to enter all my deets instead of back to the article I'm replying to. Then I have to go back to the original full discussion to find what I want to reply to again. This is asinine.

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 513

The FDA's current guidance in this area is for companies to avoid a "non-GM" label unless the product can be guaranteed to not have components that were produced using any type of genetic modification *including hybridization or selective breeding*.

Well, yeah, because hybridization and selective breeding are two longstanding means of genetic manipulation. "You call it corn, we call it maize" means more than just what color your corn is, it's a genetically different food.

And the FDA's guidance is for the good of the companies they are recommending this to. You don't want to have to waste money on defending a lawsuit because you claimed "no GMO" and you might have accidentally gotten some GMO corn into something you made. Like Chipotle, which is under the gun in part because they claimed no GMO and they're selling soda pop made with corn syrup that might have come from a GMO source. They cannot control what Coke or Pepsi uses, so they cannot safely claim "no GMO", just like Fritos cannot fully control the farms that it buys corn from.

Avoiding GMO is a fear-based action, so if you want to be fear-free, you have to assume the worst about everything unless there are grounds to believe otherwise. "Non-GMO" labels are such a grounds. Your only safe course of action is to never buy anything without that label.

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 513

and there is almost no way to tell if something labeled "Non-GMO" really is,

If the difference between a GMO and non-GMO food product is undetectable, then what exactly is the issue with GMO food, again?

The truth is, people are ALREADY suing food producers over claims of "natural" and "non-GMO" (here, and here.) It must be possible to detect, and there are enough rabid anti-GMO and anti-corporate people to fund all the testing that anyone could desire.

Don't hold your breath on the FTC doing anything.

Huh? Truth in advertising laws are their jurisdiction, and they've gone after businesses before. You can even look online for enforcement actions.

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 513

You sound like a bigot. Anyone who doesn't want GM must be irrational.

He didn't say that. There is a difference between people who just choose not to eat GM food and those who go out of their way to deliberately spread the misinformation about GMO foods causing birth defects like thalidomide did, or killing all the birds like DDT.

Or maybe those who don't want GM know that GM includes making plants more resistant to pesticides, so more pesticides can be used on them, meaning some GM food may be worse for you.

The same hysteria about pesticide-resistant GMO foods is showing up here in a discussion about a FISH having a FISH gene, so no, the issue is not just fear of increased pesticides.

So you want to be able to know whether it's GM so you can decide if you do or don't want to consume it.

You already can. If it ain't got a "no GMO" label, it gots GMO in it.

Who are you to say that *every* reason someone may choose to reject GM proves that they are illogical?

He's someone who didn't say that.

You are rejecting a true label

We're rejecting a mandated label intended to scare people about a product that has no even hypothetical dangers attached to it. If the company wants to put "GMO" on their label, they can. Nobody is stopping them. Talk to the company.

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 513

Then you're too poor to worry about this issue,

Thanks, you've just proven my point. You think I'm too poor to care about feeding poison to my family. Why should GMO/etc information be hidden behind a technical hurdle I cannot leap, if GMO/etc are such life threatening things? If they aren't an issue, why should there be mandatory warning information behind a QR code, or mandatory QR code to start with?

FYI, if you're that poor, consider applying for a subsidized phone.

Right. I forgot. The government is the solution to every problem.

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 513

So you object to people knowing a useful piece of information because someone might get confused by it?

Nobody has said that. You're confusing "mandatory warning labels for things people are scared of but nobody can prove cause any harm" (this situation) with "prohibiting labeling of foods as containing GMOs" (which nobody is proposing.) The FDA approved a product without mandating a label. They didn't approve the product and prohibit a label.

But may I point out the direct parallel of advertising of prescription drugs to the consumer? Many people in this group staunchly believe that such ads must be banned because ... it will confuse people and might cause them to ask their doctor about something. Hmmm.

I'd prefer people be free to make a choice, even if it's the wrong one,

They are. If they want to buy GMO-free foods, look for the "no GMO" label. Otherwise, you have to assume whatever you are buying has been made with genetically modified ingredients. Given the scary boogeyman of "GMO" and the ability of producers to charge more for "non GMO" food, any producer that does make GMO-free food would be labeling it that way.

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 513

Organic started being labelled because companies performing genetic modification failed to label,

No, organic started being labeled because organic growers realized they could charge a premium price to meet the demand of scared consumers who think that "non-organic" means "poison", or even just "treated with poison". It has everything to do with ungrounded fears of the consumer, just not the fear of GMOs.

and pay tens of millions of dollars every to NOT label.

What? You don't have to pay money not to label organic or GMO products. The only limit on labeling here is the laws that have been passed about ORGANIC labels, because some producers saw the increased profits from calling their non-strict-organic stuff "organic", so the strict organic people paid their legislators for a law. But that's not a law mandating a warning label like this fish GMO thing would be, it's a law defining "organic" so it becomes an issue for the FTC.

If "GMO" was great they should be able to charge extra for the name.

In a sane and rational world, they could. But it's not a significantly different product so GMO would not be a big selling point. It's an issue of production of the food and what that costs versus what the food tastes like. It's enough that a farmer can produce more food using the same resources and that increases supply.

But we don't live in a sane and rational world. We live in a world with people who are scared to death of the boogeyman of GMO products and no amount of science or reason will convince them. Here's the perfect example: a FISH that is still a FISH except it has a gene from a FISH that makes it grow faster. That's all. It's still a FISH. They didn't put an insecticide gene into it, or a resistance to herbicides, or anything non-FISH. It's not grown outdoors, and even if it does escape it is sterile and cannot reproduce. And yet we have people in this discussion claiming that this FISH will change the. entire. world. What idiotic nonsense.

Of course you establish an additional red herring by claiming a label that was never mentioned, never discussed, and has no relation to genetic modification.

Did you miss the entire point of TFA, that the FDA approved a food product and DID NOT REQUIRE IT TO BE LABELED? Sounds like a label that was mentioned, discussed, and has something to do with the fact that this FISH has been "genetically modified" to me.

But please, let's bring up DDT (an artificial chemical never properly tested), or thalidomide (ditto on pregnant women), instead of talking about a food product that has been eaten by millions of people for thousands of years without deleterious effects. If you can name one person who has been harmed by eating the DNA of a FISH, please produce the evidence. Grown gills or a fin or two? I don't know of one. Do you?

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 513

Examine what you are doing. You are arguing against everyone (that includes you) having more information available on their food because...

Examine what you are doing here. You are twisting an argument against mandatory warning labels on a farm-raised GMO fish that has entirely FISH modifications (a Chinook gene in an Atlantic salmon body) into a prohibition on labeling anything "GMO".

There is no prohibition on a company putting "uses GMO" on their label. It would quickly become meaningless since almost everything we eat is GMO -- especially grains and other commercially farmed crops. Cows, pigs, corn, wheat, rice, all modified to be more productive and grow faster. You can assume that unless a product has a "no GMO" label (also voluntary) you are eating something that has GMO components. So, in fact, the lack of a "no GMO" label is the information you are seeking to have mandated by the FDA.

why can't I find this same information for the food I eat?

Because paying for the lab tests on every crop would make the price skyrocket. And that's what you'd have to do to know for sure the levels of lead or Cd in the carrots you just bought. This batch came from Fred's farm, next week they came from Bob's. Different soil, different Cd levels. And God forbid Bob has an old septic system on one corner of his property that nobody knows about but is leaking Cd into the ground, so that the carrots from one end of his field (the one that is tested) are Cd-free but the ones at the other end are heavy with it.

Your tap water comes through one system, and even then you don't know day to day what is in it. You can placate yourself into thinking you know what's in your water with a once-a-year test, but that test only tells you that the municipal water system doesn't have a systemic issue with bad pipes or leeching of stuff into the water supply, not that today's water is safe for you to drink. In fact, since they didn't test the water coming out YOUR specific tap, you don't know for sure that there isn't a lead pipe somewhere in the system and your lead levels are too high.

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 513

Except it doesn't, it contains a Salmon/Ocean Pout hybrid.

No, it doesn't. It contains Atlantic Salmon that has one gene from Chinook pasted in, and a promoter from pout to activate that gene. Current labeling laws would call that "Atlantic Salmon", just as "Orange Juice" is still sold as "Orange Juice" even though it isn't 100% what comes out of an orange when crushed in a big machine.

Now you're going to point to the label requirement that forces manufacturers to put on "reconstituted from concentrated orange juice" when that's how it's made. The difference is, there is no "reconstituted" involved. It's the fish, right off the farm.

but calling it 100% Salmon is false advertising

It is 100% salmon. And if this truly were the issue, it would be the FTC getting involved, not the FDA.

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 513

No, but a QR code on the package could easily link to a site displaying all of that extra information,

I'm poor and don't have a cellphone. Or I do have one but cannot afford a data plan that allows such extravagant use of data. Why do you want to discriminate against poor people? Or I'm old and cannot afford ... now you discriminate against old people.

Or I'm smart enough to know the huge potential for abuse and hacking based on random use of QR codes. It would be trivial for someone to paste a new QR code over the labels on a bunch of products and get viruses onto all kinds of smart devices of dumb people.

You shouldn't need to be a digital "have" to go shopping and not buy poisons for your family.

Use the Force, Luke.