Tanath

"You clearly don't. What you claimed of my reasoning is counter to how I think and things I've specifically said in this comment thread." - Tanath

"When it comes to things that can't easily be proven impossible with logic it comes down to evidence, and burden of proof is on the one making the claim. There's no need to claim those things impossible. > Besides that (and corrupted is a pretty strong word, language and meanings change over time, it isn't corruption it's merely different) Fair enough, I consider it corruption because it subverts the meaning and usefulness of the terms. > you can't prove a negative. You most certainly can. Do what I said in the original comment and look it up. Every proof entails proof of a negative in fact. > No experiment (even the ridiculous example I used) could prove that a GMO carrot proved no (additional) danger to every human compared to a regular carrot. Doesn't have to. First of all, that's not a reasonable definition of "safe". Even if you consider that some unknown could come along and render the GMO carrot unsafe, could one not blame the new unknown rather than the carrot? It takes..." - Tanath

"I don't know how you misunderstood me that badly. Or maybe you just missed parts of what you claimed to have read." - Tanath

"> Right, so by your reasoning, Seralini proved... What? No. I could dispute this further but I don't think I will." - Tanath

"Evidence consists of facts that _justify_ a statement." - Tanath

"Proof provides justification, not removal of doubt. One can always doubt, whether rational or not. > you're uselessly pedantic. This got blown way out of proportion. Why are you here?" - Tanath

"Depends on your definition of safe. Science does sometimes prove things by ruling out all other possibilities. Point was they were making a stronger claim than they should have, and that thinking you can't prove a negative ("categorically impossible") is a myth. That's all." - Tanath

"> "Nothing can be proven safe" is a correct statement. Not so, which is the point I originally made. > tried to make an incorrect point. If you think I'm wrong, then that just proves that my comment needed to be made." - Tanath

"Reread it. "Completely safe" is not what was said or implied." - Tanath

"> The argument others are making is that nothing can be proven 100% safe, with 100% confidence That was not stated or implied in the original comment for this thread. Nor is it a reasonable definition of safe. If I missed the point it's 'cause it wasn't made." - Tanath

"But with that definition most food is not safe, which is easily provable. A better definition would involve risk I think." - Tanath

"You realy don't think correct reasoning is useful? It's certainly more useful than correcting spelling and grammar. > If the only conditions that could make something possible involve a multi-year, world-wide experiment with every human being as a subject and with 100% control and accuracy of the experiment Hardly necessary. > they aren't using the word incorrectly when they do. I disagree. The definition of impossible is pretty clear cut. It's not colloquial usage, it's leaving the conditions/context unsaid. Or misuse of the word when you don't actually mean impossible. I did a quick check and it doesn't seem that it's been corrupted in the same way as "literally"." - Tanath

"Hm, can you give an example? Preferrably one which at least has something to do with safety. Seems to me that for any definition of safe it should in principle be possible to prove or disprove. It also seems to me the conversation should not have been derailed. It shouldn't be so difficult to accept my statement." - Tanath

"Yeah, but then there's [this](https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-st...). Just use [qBittorrent](http://www.qbittorrent.org/downloa...) or [Deluge](http://dev.deluge-torrent.org/wiki...)." - Tanath

"In any amount? Then I'm not sure anything is safe by that definition. Also you'd likely need to define "adverse". > proving that is impossible with any current method of testing food safety. Irrelevant. We're not talking about current methods, we're talking about what's possible which allows for any method. > at that level of pedantry It's simple logic which parent got wrong, not mere pedantry. It matters in part because it affects many more situations than just this one. It's basic reasoning which is what we're supposed to be doing better than most. It may require crazy resources we don't have to pull off in the near future, but it needn't be done in the near future." - Tanath

"You specifically said it's a categorical impossibility. I'm merely pointing out the error." - Tanath

"Irrelevant. Once you have a definition you could in principle prove safe or unsafe. It's a matter of logic. A point of order." - Tanath

"Impossible is a strong word and you're misusing it. You can quibble over what safety means, but for a given definition it is, strictly speaking, possible. That's quite different from saying it will ever be done though." - Tanath

"This. A rational person's default is to not assume either way, and to form beliefs or working assumptions based on available evidence. That said, other comments have addressed the safety of GMOs; something we've been doing for thousands of years, really." - Tanath

"Difficult, not impossible. It's not true that you can't prove a negative. Ask any logician." - Tanath

"PSA: Avoid using old software, especially if it involves the internet. The single most important thing you can do in terms of computer security is keep everything up to date. If developers fix bugs and you don't update it doesn't help you." - Tanath

"Just add about 22 vitamins & minerals." - Tanath

"Maybe they should sell [Vector](http://www.kelloggs.ca/en_CA...) outside of Canada." - Tanath

"> downloading unlicensed movies is illegal In some jurisdictions. > Piracy drives content protection, DRM Greed actually. It's more the other way around." - Tanath

"Libraries? Friends? Giveaways? Etc." - Tanath

"I'm suggesting it's ridiculous that libraries should be illegal, which is not much different from saying file sharing should be illegal." - Tanath

"Saying you [can't](https://www.techdirt.com/article...) [compete](https://www.techdirt.com/article...) [with](https://www.techdirt.com/article...) [free](https://hbr.org/2011...) is saying you can't compete at all." - Tanath

"Why would people go to the library instead of paying other than because it's free and easy?" - Tanath

"I've been doing this my whole life. If you're hung up on the big picture, trying to put together a plan for what to learn, you might try reading a variety of introductory stuff and specifically put together the overview you're looking for. Sometimes it's hard to find a good intro to a subject, so look around until you find one or have read enough of them to move on. Then you can break it down and focus on what you need to learn next. Always break down what you're learning into crucial concepts. It helps you build the foundation. First learn the building blocks, then learn how to put them together. As you're reading, simplify things and take notes in your own words until you have a clear picture of what you need to know. Take notes so as to be able to teach someone else with them, or at least your future self after you've forgotten. If your notes require a particular order then I'd question your notetaking method. I organize mine by category/topic with subheadings, and I use text..." - Tanath

"Says ketamine can treat depression for a week, not for good." - Tanath

"Still, citations please." - Tanath

"Yeah, I was really hoping for full functionality. Not going to remap everything. My terminals are transparent so I was hoping to get this working in gvim." - Tanath