Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Who would have thought... (Score 1) 252

Yes, there is a "presumption of innocence" for chemicals used in food and elsewhere, which is wrong, imho. Any new poison can be legally used, and when it is found it is really a poison, it takes 20 years to prove scientifically and then another 10 years legally, which is way too long for a given person - he's likely be dead by the time. It used to be different - there were legally "natural" foods and "artificial" and it had to be marked as such on the label. Corporations fought it and won (that's how we got ingredients list, instead of a simple one word - artificial). Sure, it's impossible to go back as there are too many people on earth to feed naturally - most will have to eat falsified foods. We know that nature always finds a way to kill overpopulated species (one either find a way to control it's own population or disappear) and I think food poisons, not nuclear weapons, is the way to be used on us.

Comment Re:Thanks Slashdot! (Score 2) 142

This is exactly why I personally try to avoid any paid software and such like a plague and use free source. It's not because I mind paying - I actually want to pay people for their work - but because I feel that if I bought something, it is unconditionally mine to do whatever I want with it. Yes, the law is currently different; yes we shell try to change it. Meantime, I just don't buy that kind of products unless absolutely unavoidable. For example, I'd love to have iPad - it's great - but I will not buy it ever.

Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.