No, IP should absolutely have some protections. Invent a hot new thing and giant-corp immediately out markets and produces you into oblivion. With zero protections innovation would be completely stamped out. Totally gone, not just harmed. No more new things because it would be immediately stolen so why bother.

That said, current IP laws are absolute BS and need to be cut back tenfold. None of this century of protection BS. For the lifetime of the creator, non-transferable. You can sell rights to use it but you cannot relinquish your ownership and creator status. Those are my hills but I’m not willing to die on them either.

No, just no. If you want strangers to take what you say seriously then you should show the simplest respect by supporting your claims with the reason(s) you have them. Laziness is flapping your mouth off and expecting to not have to back it up.

If you were in the wilderness with only 1 dose of Narcan and you had to choose between administering it to a drug addict dying from a bender, or their 8 year old that accidentally got into what was causing their parent to OD who would you give the single dose to? That is the kind of decision being made here.

Nice to see my curiosity helped others :D

Almost anything can be carcinogenic with a high enough exposure. You can pump a rat full of water until it dies and declare that water kills people. But, that doesn’t prove anything or serve a point.

This is how science is done friend. You make no assumptions. You have reason to believe a theory predicts a testable outcome? You test it. Not everything causes cancer. Pure air doesn’t… Clean water doesn’t… The research shows us Aspartame does indeed have carcinogenic effects in rats. Now we know this, and the result can be used to support applications for more costly research using subjects much more similar to our anatomy because if it is carcinogenic in one mammal, it probably is carcinogenic in others.

You call the study flawed when it looks perfectly fine to me for the purpose it was designed for. It shows it is carcinogenic in the mammal it was tested on at dosage levels that translate to non-‘massive’, quite reasonable consumption rates for humans. As such, it warrants concern and all these claims by the European and US Food Agencies saying ‘we did 100s of studies decades ago and it is fine trust me bro’ is not enough. I’m not arguing this one study proves Aspartame causes cancer in humans. I’m saying your particular criticisms of it are unfounded as is your confidence that Aspartame is non-carcinogenic. You cite FDA claims ‘Aspartame is safe’ but show no research that supports this conclusion. Looking at the provided links I noticed things like “don’t feed to pregnant mothers because phenylalanine”, “methanol is a metabolite - nothing concerning there”, and ‘we plan on doing a systemic revaluation of aspartame as the research is over a decade old (the whole time with the biggest corporations in the world breathing down our necks)’ https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/factsheetaspartame.pdf

Looks to me like somebody did more research and found contradictory results otherwise why would WHO say they are going to do this?

Not quite, and for 2 reasons:

1. I’m not sure if it is the same in Canada, but in the US it is only a ‘precedent’ if ruled by an appeals court, and
2. The Judge found the Defendant had a history of tersely accepting agreed upon (by later full completion of) contracts. If, for example you had texted me a similar contract and historically when you did I typically answered “yes, I agree to these contract details. Expect Flax in the Fall”, but one time I texted 👍and then a day later said “nah, I don’t agree to this contract” you’d have a case but I’d almost certainly win under the same Judge because now the argument ‘the 👍 was just confirming receipt but not approval of the contract’ holds water.

I disagree with the ‘massive’ exposure ‘needed’ to observe these effects exaggeration. First, the point of the study was to show it can be carcinogenic, not to parse at exactly what level in humans. Second, effects are seen at the 400ppm level which equates to 20mg/kg. This is 1600mg/day or 8 cans of Diet Coke (@200mg/can) for an 80kg male. That is NOT an impossible level of daily consumption for many.

I suspect further research was done to confirm your linked studies and refine exactly at what minimum levels of daily consumption elicit carcinogenic effects. That will likely be in the full report once released. Until then, you sound like you don’t want it to be true, rather than an impartial evaluator of the research.

$82000CAD

Interesting. NAL, but I wonder if you are in legal trouble for game piracy if you could motion to dismiss due to their lack of standing due to this report…

As such, to decide what the thumbs up emoji meant in this case, Justice Keene of the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench considered how the farmer had communicated with the grain buyer in the past. Typically, the grain buyer would text a photo of the contract to the farmer and ask him to confirm the contract. The farmer would then text back, saying “looks good”, “ok”, or “yup”. The grain buyer and farmer would then proceed on the basis they had a contract. The farmer’s brief affirmative responses therefore meant agreement, not mere acknowledgement of receipt.

Justice Keene found that “👍” [thumbs up] was equivalent to the farmer’s previous responses like “looks good”, “ok”, and “yup”, which all signified agreement. As such, the farmer had entered into a valid and binding contract with the grain buyer. https://www.mckercher.ca/resources/rule-of-thumb-can-an-emoji-be-a-signature

People, the defendant had a history of using 👍to accept a contract with the aggrieved. Had done it NP a dozen times before. He was trying to use a technicality to weasel out of breaching a contract he obviously agreed to when he couldn’t fulfill it.

Don’t make snap judgements about rulings. Especially just on article titles. In this particular case the defendant had a history of using 👍to accept a contract. Had done it NP a dozen times before. He was trying to use a technicality to weasel out of breaching a contract when he couldn’t fulfill it.