text:
This conversation is closed.
Public Response to GMOs
In today's world when people prefer organic vegetables and ayurvedic medicines as compared to vegetables grown using pesticides and synthetically produced medicines , what response will the public have for Genetically Modified Organisms? Will they carry forward the trend of having customized organisms or will be a hindrance to evolution and prefer the same old stuff?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Oct 29 2013: That my dear friend, is nothing but a myth.
If the world food supply was truly our concern, we would already begin to free its total dependency on limited fossil fuels on which it is exclusively running.
There are many non GMO alternatives at hand which face and solve this problem as well, yet get not promoted, because there is no market control to gain by big corporations.
Lobby work at its best.
Oct 29 2013: .
Afraid not buddy!
Your using the fact that we haven't done anything about something, to justify that something as not being a problem.
In other words you have blind faith in the current system on one hand, and on the other want to go against the industrial GMO trend.
IIf problems are only problems when we have already done something about them, lets just solve all problems before there are any symptoms! It will be much easier (sarcasm).
If you can find real alternatives to pesticides & GMO that produce similar yields then great, were all happy. A lot of people including myself (and the UN) don't believe they exist.
Organic crops have bigger losses and need more space to produce the same amount. Therefore requiring more land and more rainforest to be cut down etc. GMO's could eliminate the need for pesticides in conventional crops and use less land. Win Win.
There is of course the 'lets give half of our food to the poor argument' but that is a whole other debate.
Harald Jezek 50+Oct 29 2013: T Thompson:
well, I'm not per se against GMOs, because genetic modification is a technology as many others. There is nothing inherently bad in the technology. What matters is for what purpose it is used.
That said, I'm not so sure that pesticides and GMOs are the only way to feed our global population.
The problem in current agriculture is that we ignore how nature works and try to do it our way against nature.
We plant huge mono cultures which suck nutrients in an unbalanced way, exhausting the soil quickly requiring constant fertilizing which in return kills the soil micro organisms that live in synergy with the plants. Then we spray herbicides to kill off undesired plants, damaging the soil even further. And to make it worse we need the insecticides to kill off insects that under normal conditions would be controlled by nature, because there are no natural enemies left for them in a mono culture with a soil virtually dead.
This is just a very superficial summary, but I think you can see that what we do is not a winning strategy.
The idea is to work with nature, because nature had billions of years to establish functioning systems that are all interconnected.
Oct 29 2013: As I said, lobby work at its best and therefore whatever I say won't change your believes anyway.
Yet just in case you get interested in alternatives to make up your own mind besides pre-fabricated 'mainstream propaganda', do some research on the term 'terra preta' and/or take a look at this BBC documentary:
I wasn't justifying anything ... just busting the 'we need GMO's to feed the world' mantra.
But I doubt that any additional information will work on you anyway.
Oct 29 2013: Interesting, like a politician, you brush my points aside without replying to any of them.
As a last resort, you now argue that I'm wrong because I just don't get it, I am too narrow minded... I am wrong because I think what a whole bunch of other people think.
I don't mean to offend, but it's irrational arguments like this that set back the environmental movement of which I'd class myself a supporter.
Of course you were making a justification, you used evidence (I use the term loosely) 'we would free dependency on fossil feuls' to back up a statement 'world food supply isn't our concern' - this is what a justification is.
terra preta is compost, how does this solve anything? Sounds like mainstream prefabrication does compost.
Oct 29 2013: What is 'your' point? All I get to hear is the usual lobby talk, so what could I possibly do to make you realize that?
The video alone goes about 48 minutes so you didn't even watch it in between your comments.
And when 'terra preta' is compost to you, it indicates, that you didn't spent much time to research it either. But you talk about yield increase and that it can only be done by GMO's.
So who's the politician here?
Oct 29 2013: Perhaps by putting forward logical, reasoned points... I apologise for not watching the video, I read the blurb instead, 48 minutes is a long time to make a point, that you could probably make in a few sentences.
My point is that GMO's are the best available solution to feeding the world's increasing population, because they can offer higher yields, pest resistance, can be grown closer together, grown faster and can be engineered to produce vitamins, medicine etc... Organic cannot compete
I'm not sure whether your problem with GMO's is with actual GMO as a science or, the use of GMO in business. But I'd bet on the latter.
Terra preta is compost, formed over a long time with some charcoal thrown in. Rather than pointing out how uneducated and lazy I am, how about explaining how that actually rivals GMO for crop production?
Oct 29 2013: Again, lobby work at its best!
You have chosen your believes already, so why should I spend any more time to make up your mind in any other way? Regardless what I would say, you would not take it in. Just as 'terra preta' which remains a compost to you...
GMO is not part of the solution to feed the worlds growing population, it is part of its problem and not even clever to be used as 'bridging' technology to the paradigm shift necessary.
Oct 29 2013: That's a real shame and only stands to highlight what I said earlier, about people that are obviously meaning well, concerned about the environment yet alienating people that have different opinions on those issues rather than debating with them.
A minority movement with that attitude will have no success at all. What your saying to me is personal, and based on assumption, not objective reasoning.
GMO saved the papaya industry in Hawaii. Look that up.
Oct 29 2013: Take the whole picture. Think if the current farming technology inclusive GMO's is scalable and sustainable on the LONG run. In my view it isn't and we could go for weeks to argue about that here.
I don't think GMO's are save. I am aware about the unpredictability in highly complex systems, such as nature is. There are no long term studies on GMO's whatsoever. This technology is just to young to be tinkered with, especially if the main interest is profit.
I just don't trust any industry who praises itself to 'feed the world', yet at the same time is working on genetic use restriction technologies (GURT), aka suicide seeds.
The world food production got to be redesigned, got to be local, got to be free of any 'intellectual property rights' and patents, got to be highly bio-diverse, got to be free of the use of artificial and fossil fuel based fertilizers and pesticides. Mono-culture farming can not be sustained on the long run. Cross pollination of GMO's can not be avoided and thereby endangers the biological and natural haritage we once owned. We did the same with pollution and our climate. If it is about profits, the end always justified the means and it has also always been covered and justified by some 'higher moral goals'.
As I said before, if it was about fighting hunger, we would not have a single individual on this planet today who does not have enough to eat. And as hunger is real and GMO's already in wide use, the 'feed the world' mantra seems to be not working, right?
Therefore and instead of prolonging a not working system, we should not allow GMO's at this stage in progress and instead start the transitional process for a sustainable world food production, which has to be adjusted to the given natural and local environments and based on 'close circles'.
Anything else will sooner or later fail, but for this to see, it takes more than to listen to Monsanto & Co.
But this, I can not make you understand without you wanting it.
Oct 29 2013: From what you are saying you appear more concerned with the business ethics of GMO use, which I agree has been poorly employed by companies like Monsanto, and tarnished what I think is a very promising science.
I think there is no reason why GMO cannot be bio-diverse, free of fertilisers and pesticides when employed in the correct way, in fact GMO crops have been engineered to go without pesticides, as it is now the majority of fertiliser and pesticides are not used on GMO crops.
I have heard the argument before of cross pollination with wild species, but in reality I haven't heard of a single negative case. Our crop plants have co-evolved with us and have been selected by us for the traits we desire. Those traits as it happens, do not fare well in wild ecosystems, and as a result have not survived outside mono-cultures where evolutionary competition applies. Many crop plants are so different (like corn) that they can't physically interbreed with their wild relatives, their GM versions are very much the same.
I'd also agree that monocultures are obviously detrimental to biodiversity, but I would also mention that monoculture system is not a GMO trait, but a trait of 99% of farming systems including organic. The reality is that they exist, but I'd hope through increased yeild through GMO or whatever system, that they need not expand into natural landscapes and cause further damage.
I could also argue as you have with GMO, that organic food has been around a hell of a lot longer than GMO and yet there are still starving people! That argument works both ways, and in my favour. Nevertheless, it is not a productive or logically correct one.
I totally agree that we need a sustainable world system but with ten billion people coming. I find it hard to believe that without scientific enhancement it is possible to cater for so many without destroying all the beautiful natural spaces we have left to plant more crops.
Oct 29 2013: 'I have heard the argument before of cross pollination with wild species, but in reality I haven't heard of a single negative case.'
Look at Mexico, where GMO corn has wildly cross pollinated local corn grades.
'... organic food has been around a hell of a lot longer than GMO and yet there are still starving people! '
Exactly, but it was you who gave the argument that GMO is going to change that - and it didn't, because hunger is not a yield problem, it is a distribution problem.
The upcoming population explosion is no matter of food production either, and has to be dealt with on a complete different level. This growth is exponential and if you know the mathematics behind, you may understand, that even GMO's often mentioned yield increase can't solve any of it at all.
'.. but I would also mention that monoculture system is not a GMO trait,'
No, but so far it is based on exactly this concept. This is what I meant before, that it only prolongs a false system, yet doesn't correct it.
Farming methods without monoculture does not need GMO's, as it uses other principles for yield increase and natural pesticides found in diversity. This combined with clever and local food management, does more than all of us need.
Nobody can foresee the risks in GMO's and it doesn't matter how many studies we produce, as long we have clear data out of long term studies in 100% isolated environments. But this is already to late ...
Oct 29 2013: Regarding your first point, I mentioned 'WILD species', Local Mexican corn grades are not WILD species, they have been cultivated by humans, for humans. Therefore, you are arguing against the use of GMO in business, not as a science in principle, for which I am an advocator.
Yes, I gave the argument that GMO is a solution to food security problems, but you also proposed that 'alternative' methods were also a solution. As neither strategies have managed to curb starvation. I remain fixed that this kind of argument is not a productive one as I said before.
The distribution problem, I have to agree is a big one. The cause has little to do with GMO & food production and more to do with banks, government policy and the WTO. The manipulation of the value of currencies is the killer here.
I get the impression that you hope to revolutionise the current farming system overnight. Of course monocultures are not ideal. But the reality is they will be sticking around for a while. The consumer and the supplier dictates that (don't tell me everything you eat is from a polyculture because that is true for very, very few people).
As for natural pesticides found in diversity, I have travelled extensively in Africa, South America & Europe, I have yet to see a small organic farmer that has not been severely affected by a pest.
GMO's are almost 100% the same as the original plants, with one or a few genes changed. These kind of changes occur in nature every day through viral infection and evolution. GMO speeds up the process in our favour.
Oct 29 2013: WILD species? So we are going into semantics now? What If a consumer can't decide anymore to have neither those 'wild species' nor the 'cultivated species', because GMO's does not differentiate in between them? Come one, this is ridiculous. Do you really believe that 'wild species' are immune against GMO's cross pollination? If so, what makes you certain about this indirect claim?
So you maintain your argument that GMO's is a solution to food security yet you also agree, that hunger is a distribution problem and not a lack of food? Maybe you explain this again, because I don't get it. I proposed alternative' methods to cope with the stats quo, I didn't say, that it could cope with the upcoming population explosion, because it can't, due to its exponential character. At the given moment there is no need for GMO's at all to provide enough and save food for the world.
What gives you the impression, that I rush for an 'overnight' solution when I talk about to finally '...start the transitional process for a sustainable world food production'? And if you wait for 'the consumer and supplier' to face any other realities but short term gain, you'll wait forever until it is finally to late.
This is the same with climate change and the reason why nothing really fundamental happens is the blind believe in the invisible hand of markets, which will do just fine for all of us.
But the scope of a sustainable world food supply is more than just some numbers on a balance sheet, as it will decide about life and death in the future. In fact, I am quite pessimistic about its outcome, yet nevertheless, I do what I can do as a consumer to make a change. In this, the labeling of GMO food becomes a necessity and I leave it to your imagination, why this is no legal requirement in many countries and in whoms interest this may be ... any ideas?
How many garden forests did you visit in Africa, South America & Europe? There is no farming without pests, only reduction to controllable levels
Oct 29 2013: Yes semantics are important, you were saying that wild and cultivated species were essentially the same. If you take a look at pictures of wild and cultivated maize for instance, they most certainly are nothing alike. People can't eat wild maize. I am certain because there are hundreds of peer reviewed articles featured on sciencedirect, on the subject.
As for your second point, the future is important! I did not say the lack of food is entirely down to distribution, you are making that part up. I said distribution is a big problem.
As for your third point, what actions can you take as a generic individual if not buying or supplying? They are both important.
GMO food has to be labelled in democracies, because of consumer pressure. That doesn't mean by necessity that they are right or wrong. You have stated several times, that minorities are correct over 'mainstream' beliefs.
As for how many farms I have visited, hundreds. And GMO can offer increased mitigation of yeild reduction from pests when compared with other methods.
Oct 29 2013: Almost 100% is exactly not 100% and especially in genetic engineering we ought know, that little changes do a lot of changes.
By what you said, that 'these kind of changes occur in nature every day through viral infection and evolution ', people get pay for this within the industry. Especially lobbyists, as it is their job to make things appear to be 'just' and purely natural.
Genetic engineering is exactly NOT a natural process!
Where engineers can't 'convince' a natural virus to smuggle their manipulated DNA into an existing organism, it uses a 'shotgun' method with gold particles coated with manipulated DNA fragments to penetrate the cell structure of the host in hope it will get incorporated somehow.
This way it is easy to overcome natural species barriers to create a fully synthetic and artificial cell- and life-form. Neither evolution nor natural cross-breeding and pollination can do that and we don't know, if there is a good reason for that.
Plying things down, isn't helpful to realize the risks companies are willing to take on us for their products and profits.
The potential of genetics is highly promising, yet not at a level where we are still toddlers in this technology and field, and this will stay this way for many more decades to come.
Oct 30 2013: Have just read your latter comment, no I am not in the GMO business, you couldn't be more far from the truth, I am a biologist & wildlife film maker and I work studying endangered species & conservation in tropical forests. I've visited a handful of garden forests, but on principle the harvest is not economical. Machines do a good job of monocultures but not forests, despite them often being more productive.
The shotgun method is one, the most common is implanting soil agrobacterium with DNA and introducing this to the plant through a cut. Which occurs naturally, all the time. A plant gets damaged by the wind or herbivore and agrobacterium enters and manipulates the host DNA. The two methods achieve the same ends.
You seem to think that natural is good and unnatural is bad, human actions are unnatural and other actions are natural. If this is the case, all human actions are unnatural and therefore bad. I do not agree.
Oct 30 2013: I think it is unarguable that the human species, unlike any other, is known to have a destructive impact on the biosphere. We pollute our air, our soil and our water and this not because we don't know how to do better, but because it is more economical to do so.
The current mechanics of our economy is the dominating benchmark and anything else is totally subordinate to this ruling principle, including the base of our very existence, our ecosphere.
As a biologist you should know, that our knowledge, our understanding about the complexity and interwovenness within nature still is way beyond our grasp and that we don't even understand the mechanics and dependencies withing one cubic meter of rich and healthy soil.
Human actions which constantly damage the dynamic equilibrium within nature out of which we came into existence and upon which we are dependent for our survival HAVE to be considered as BAD actions, as it endangers our very existence at its very core. And here it makes no difference if the damage caused is done by our unawareness or against better knowledge, as the result is the same.
Driven by economic efficiency, we denatured the process in which we grow our food and this worldwide and on industrial scale and on industrial consequences.
Nature creates abundance by biodiversity and closed recycling loops, whereas we do the opposite in mono-culture farming based on continuous feeding of artificial fertilizers, insecticides and GMO's.
Energy wise, the latter does not sustain itself naturally as it constantly spirals out of closed and selfcontained circles, yet instead of re-naturalizing this process, we instead choose to manipulate genes so that we can maintain this sort of overexploitation. And if nature herself did not come up with the plants we need for this, we just make them ourself while no one has any idea about the impact it has today, in mid term and on the long run. Nobody knows this!
Oct 30 2013: The problem is, once GMO's are released into nature, you can't get them out again, never!
It is highly likely, that in 2000 years from now nobody remembers neither Monsanto nor their herbicide product Roundup, yet it is highly likely, that their GMO's out of todays convenience bundle kit will still be around, either as it is today or as it mutated and cross pollinated. Either way, it will be part of the gene-pool upcoming generations have to deal with in their ecosphere.
Do we want our biological heritage spoiled forever by this sort of short term gain thinking?
Today, we 'just' get rid of our old smart-phones we got 3 years ago and replace them with the newest hype. But this 'old' technology fades and just a view phones may 'survive' in retro style collections. Yet those 'old phones' does not cross-pollinate uncontrolled with emerging and new technologies. They just turn history.
GMO's don't do that once they are in the 'wild', they stay, they alter the original biosphere of which they become an inseparable part and building block for further natural mutation.
Genetics and gene engineering to me is the most powerful technology humankind has ever invented and by this it is intrinsically potential do to a lot of damage and this regardless if we are aware about it or not.
It does not naturally occur that nature produces transgenic organisms by a 'cut' in a plant. Nature does not cross certain species barriers on its own, as 'her' mechanics does not allow for this to happen.
How many wild boars have scratched their backs on a tree ever since? And how many trees would we find with wild boar genes implemented in their DNA? None! Why? Because of the species barrier!
But genetics can cross these natural lines and it does and this is the moment where no one knows - NO ONE! - what will come out of it once it is released into the wild. And this is where it becomes highly dangerous, because we are just guessing, hoping and ignoring ...
Oct 30 2013: I am not against genetics per se, on the contrary, but as long this powerful technology is not completely understood in itself and also in relation to a still unknown complex environment we call nature, it got to stay in high security labs until we know what we are doing.
I am no nature romantic who thinks that bees are happy and flowers pretty and therefore good.
Nature to me is a highly dangerous and merciless place just by herself and her driving force we call evolution. Toxins, bacteria, viruses, fungi - you name it, nature got it or may have it soon. This alone is a challenge and race we are constantly facing and I even understand, that this new technology is so tempting to us to finally gain 'control' over all of this one day.
But even though in our hope to do good we have to be aware about what we are playing with here.
Yet once we reach this famous insight that those 'Spirits that I've summoned My commands ignore' it will be to late to get them back again where we made them from ...
We have our hands at the very core of life, like a child who has just unbolted the lid of a computer and that marvels about all those colorful elements inside it. And just like a child, we have no clue about life at all.
At this point in time, we take some 'code' we don't fully understand and put it in even more complex code we don't fully understand and then we watch what happens. In short, we are in a childish trial and error phase to gain the knowledge we don't have. Yet the danger is, that we take the 'survival' of our experiments as justification and validation and this without any understanding of the whole. Neither in detail nor in complex environments - and therefore we as this child may just ruin the whole program and finally break the whole hardware of the computer as well, because we touched the untouchable.
Maybe there is no risk at all, I can picture that, yet this we got to find out first on a backup system within total sealed conditions. Like a sand box.
Oct 30 2013: Yet instead we already got it out for a brand-name weed-killer and tomatoes with extended shelf-life? Is that it?
Are we only thinking with our wallets? This is about life, people, not just some exchangeable commodities!
Yet as I said several times before - Lobby work at its best! The mantra of the prayer wheel. And this wheel comes with a complete different set of morals than the morals needed within this field of powerful science we are talking about!
Sorry folks, this planet is closed, because we screwed it up for a margin ...
Oct 30 2013: I get your frustration,
However, you are wrong. Cross species gene transfer is actually very common in nature.
The agrobacterium that enter plants all the time in nature implant their DNA into the host's. What GM does is implant different DNA into the bacterium which then goes into the host. The difference is, we choose the traits, not some random other organism.
The risk of environmental damage and damage to human health for GM over other crop types has been found to be the same by hundreds of independent researchers.
None of your comments about the science of GMO are actually substantiated by any scientific research. What you are arguing against is the entire economic system, but some how GMO science is to blame.
A knife is tool for one person but in other hands it can be a weapon. What you are saying about GMO is equivalent to saying that knifes are always weapons.
You say that scientists can't act until they know every possible outcome!, that is a totally unrealistic expectation. No-one can ever for see every outcome of an action. Yes lab tests should and are being done before field trials, but fanatics keep ruining the lab trials, even government funded operations!
For example the naive, misinformed idiots that destroyed the government funded trial plots for rice that scientists were modifying to contain vitamin A, to prevent blindness in millions of children in developing countries.
The farming system does need to change. But I can see no reason why GM cant add something to that. If you engineer pest resistance for example, then no more pesticides....
Oct 30 2013: 'cross species gene transfer is actually very common'
Exactly, thats why wild boars grow on trees these days ...
Genetics manipulates eukaryote which are not or just little effected by horizontal gene transfer (HGT) and if you read your linked article, you will find, that it describes it for 'especially more primitive organisms'.
HGT is one way for bacterial antibiotic resistance yet it stays within one group of species.
'The risk of environmental damage and damage to human health for GM over other crop types has been found to be the same by hundreds of independent researchers.'
OK, how long was the testing? Shorter than 100 years? 1000 years?
As I said, it doesn't matter what I tell you, you ignore whatever comes in handy.
No scientist did any long term trial in any realistic proportion to evolutionary time-frames. All they did was a quick shot. No scientist did a holistic environment studies in isolated biospheres which are big enough to simulate the complexity of nature herself. Some small green houses just don't do the same job. Therefore I understand those people who destroy test fields of GMO's because they do what it takes to save their environment.
Any new knife we invented so far we use to kill people and therefore I would not be surprised, if genetics is one of the major research fields for biological weaponry. Wouldn't it be great if we had such weapons who only get triggered if a certain genetic marker was present in the host? A perfect weapon for genocide if the marker is just local enough.
So no, the knife arguments fails as usual, as the history of science and wars tells us.
'You say that scientists can't act until they know every possible outcome!, that is a totally unrealistic expectation.'
Why? What is unrealistic there? Maybe for a market prospective, yet not for science.
If physicist at CERN would calculate a high possibility for a test to turn disastrous, do you think they would still try it out? Just to see?
Oct 31 2013: "Exactly, thats why wild boars grow on trees these days ...
"if you read your linked article, you will find, that it describes it for 'especially more primitive organisms"
Yes so species gene transfer is possible which you now agree to, a minute ago you said it wasn't at all!. What about a mule, a cross between a donkey and a horse... should we isolate mules in bullet proof chambers and test them for 1000 years in case they take over the world because they don't breed in nature! Humans manipulate the DNA of plants and animals constantly!! they have created thousands of breeds of dogs and thousands of hybrid plants and crop plants without GMO that don't occur naturally. GMO is a method to speed up the process of selection for desired traits via human actions.
"OK, how long was the testing? Shorter than 100 years? 1000 years?"
"As I said, it doesn't matter what I tell you, you ignore whatever comes in handy"
As have you, except I have ignored speculation and you have ignored fact. Obviously testing something for 1000 years is totally unrealistic. There is no reason why putting a collection of vitamin A promoting genes into rice would give rice any competetive advantage in nature over its organic version, especially considering that the variety in question doesn't survive in the wild without human care.
"No scientist did a holistic environment studies in isolated biospheres which are big enough to simulate the complexity of nature herself."
Okay lets just find another planet earth and do it there then!
"If physicist at CERN would calculate a high possibility for a test to turn disastrous, do you think they would still try it out? Just to see?"
That's my point, unlike the physicist in your metaphor, no scientist has actually calculated a high possibility of GMO to cause problems. The only people that have is people like you that make speculative remarks without evidence
Oct 31 2013: Eukaryotes? Anything about those? Or is it just natural too?
'What about a mule, a cross between a donkey and a horse... should we isolate mules in bullet proof chambers and test them for 1000 years ...'
'As have you, except I have ignored speculation and you have ignored fact.'
Eukaryotes? Anything about those?
'Obviously testing something for 1000 years is totally unrealistic.'
Why? Or are you just rushing on the market as well?
'Okay lets just find another planet earth and do it there then!'
Why? Only because a high secured, high encapsulated and isolated but fully working ecosphere is expensive and difficult to build? Or are you just rushing on the market as well?
'No scientist has actually calculated a high possibility of GMO to cause problems'
For this scientists need to fully understand what they are doing. In genetics, as I said before, we are doing trial and error, which is no base for any meaningful forecast. Or are you just rushing on the market as well and trying to calm critical customers?
I choose CERN for a reason - maybe you find it.
'GMO is a method to speed up the process of selection for desired traits via human actions. '
This is false and only mentioned to cover the fact that GMO's are not natural. Exactly what corporations need to rush on the markets and to misinform their customers.
Lobby work at its very best.
Oct 31 2013: Yes yes horizontal gene transfer is less common in eukaryotes, first you disagreed that HGT existed, then you said it does in prokaryotes but not eukaryotes, then you said it did in eukaryotes but only a little! we are running out of taxa fast! but you seem to be coming around to the idea that HGT is common.
I have already described how plants (eukaryotes) are subject to HGT in nature via agrobacterium ALL THE TIME.
Your main point about GMO is that animals/plants that don't occur naturally are wrong. You say that such organisms should be tested in biospheres somewhere for 1000 years for them to be safe. A mule does not occur naturally so why do you have no problem with it? Unnatural is not always bad. like GMO the mule is an artificial genetic manipulation by humans. The human population will be ten billion in a decade. We dont have 1000 years to test solutions for food security.
'GMO is a method to speed up the process of selection for desired traits via human actions. '"This is false and only mentioned to cover the fact that GMO's are not natural. Exactly what corporations need to rush on the markets and to misinform their customers".
Its obviously not false, GMO is a method to select for desired traits in organisms. Thats just what it is!! If not, then what the hell are we talking about?
Just because corporations have misused GMO does not mean GMO is intrinsically a bad thing! I don't stand to make any financial gain for supporting GMO, and yet I have found it to be a promising science.
Quit regurgitating opinion from Michael Moore documentaries and make the distinction between GMO and the use of GMO in business.
Oct 31 2013: 'Just because corporations have misused GMO does not mean GMO is intrinsically a bad thing!'
Following your GMO's are all natural mantra how could any corporation misuse it? They didn't do anything which would not have come alive sooner or later anyway, so what is the misusing element here? Or do we have another knife example here? But still, this knife would form itself anyway, so why bother?
Mules are hybrids and would naturally occur if horses and donkeys would have sex which each other, which they usually don't have, probably for species reasons. They are not capable of reproduction and this probably for a reason.
Breeding and cultivation is of course based on the interaction of genes, but both work within their natural restrictions, they don't break those rules. And this is different in genetic engineering.
It comes for a reason why bacteria and viruses are used in genetic engineering to smuggle foreign DNA pass this natural barrier, because bacteria and viruses are masters to break or bypass immune systems as part of their survival strategy. Thats their specialization. Yet also here it makes a difference what comes with their payload because what we inject into them bypasses this natural barrier as well.
In fact we are using this their sneak in ability to exactly bypass these natural hurdles and we justify and misuse their success to describe genetic manipulation as a 'natural' process. On the other side, we are fighting bacteria and viruses as if there was no tomorrow to ensure our health and survival, and this because they have this very dangerous ability to severely harm us. And this because they are natural gene manipulators, which makes them so dangerous to us and also other species.
And yes, we use them too within our organisms. In fact we are symbiotic with them. But this symbiosis is the result of a very long evolution process to gain this stable joint venture and it is most likely, that many individuals on both sides died over this.
Oct 31 2013: I totally agree, GMO's are not natural, I have never said they were, I only argue that similar processes to GM like (HGT) happen naturally. Therefore GM is not quite as new and revolutionary as some might think.
Natural things are not all good... you eat the wrong plant and you die!, any person or corporation or whatever can misuse that. Another prime knife example haha. Imagine that the arbitrary concepts of un-natural and natural did not exist, what would be your argument? I am interested to know.
Some corporations like Monsanto have misused GMO by creating expensive infertile plants, pesticide resistance, suing farmers for the spread of patented genetics into their organic crops etc.. as you know. Its a shame that these actions have set people like you against GMO because it can be used for great things, like curing blindness in developing countries by supplying free, fertile vitamin A enhanced rice.
Although its not GMO per se, check out a guy called Norman Baulag. He is credited with saving a BILLION lives through manipulating plant genetics to create dwarf wheat that does not get damaged in storms. The potential is enormous!
"It comes for a reason why bacteria and viruses are used in genetic engineering to smuggle foreign DNA pass this natural barrier, because bacteria and viruses are masters to break or bypass immune systems as part of their survival strategy"
Yes a proportion of them do this, but what exactly does this mean in regards to GMO?
Oct 31 2013: 'GMO is a method to select for desired traits in organisms. Thats just what it is!! If not, then what the hell are we talking about?'
We are talking about the fact, that GMO's are no classical form of breeding or cultivation and that their technique is bypassing natural restrictions which would not allow those organisms to be breded or cultivated within those natural barriers. We are talking about the fact, that genetic engineering is not 'just' a speed up version of natural evolution, because it is capable to introduce whole DNA segments into organisms which would not occur by random mutation. We are talking about the fact, that the survival of an manipulated organism is not an indicator for its harmlessness. We are talking about the fact, that our knowledge is way to little to foresee any long term behavior of artificially manipulated DNA. We are talking about the risks corporation take for short term profits over long term knowledge and over responsible handling of this powerful technology.
I didn't see any Michael Moore documentaries about this topic, yet I worked within research and know how little we know and how impatient corporate science and R&D processes are. I know about the meaning of 'limited' or 'Ltd' in this context. And I know that short term profit is boosting the hype in genetic engineering.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat that this science is highly potential to be of good use to us, yet I do not rush in a field which is as well of high potential to harm the fundamental building blocks of life itself.
Yes, I would love to grow organs, blood and medicine just as we need them. I would love to grow meat for food in test tubes so that we don't need to kill any more animal. Yet I would also hate to die by my implants, my artificial blood of by my medicine. I would hate to die by my artificial meat. And I would hate to die for some other peoples short term profits.
Evolution is million of years old, yet we do it in decades? Arrogance!
Oct 31 2013: 'I totally agree, GMO's are not natural, I have never said they were, I only argue that similar processes to GM like (HGT) happen naturally. '
This is what I call throwing smoke grenades. This naturalness is as meaningful as to say that 'Little Boy' and 'Fat Man' were only loaded with the natural element of Uranium.
'Natural things are not all good...'
I don't know why you keep circling about this argument, as I answered this already, so let me copy/past this again for you:
I am no nature romantic who thinks that bees are happy and flowers pretty and therefore good.
Nature to me is a highly dangerous and merciless place just by herself and her driving force we call evolution. Toxins, bacteria, viruses, fungi - you name it, nature got it or may have it soon.
'Imagine that the arbitrary concepts of un-natural and natural did not exist, what would be your argument?'
My argument is that not everything that can be done should be done.
I would not give a fife year old a loaded gun to play with. I could do it and then leave the room, but why would I do that? Why would I provoke the process of natural selection? I think my reasons are based on my morals and knowledge and also on my ability to foresee certain risks in this situation. But other than this I can not give you any better justification or reason, which you could rightly name arbitrary.
Yet how would any other arbitrariness help the child not to shoot or hurt itself?
There is no 'cosmic law' for me not to give the gun to this child. So what is your point? Would you give this gun to this child? Nothing will keep you from doing so. What is your choice? And why?
'misused GMO by creating expensive infertile plants, pesticide resistance, suing farmers for the spread of patented genetics into their organic crops etc.'
Actually, no. Monsanto did exactly the right thing according to the given mechanics in our economy. They followed only what 'we' agreed on in our markets. So why do you think of misuse?
Oct 31 2013: Because tis 'market mechanics' is arbitrary as well? What is your 'moral code' against which you decide what is considered 'misuse' of this technology and what would be 'good use'?
At what exact point spreads this distinction? As you have no 'natural' and 'un-natural' vocabulary, how are you drawing your line? What enables your 'judgment' your 'concerns'? Laws? Well, that would just be another arbitrary thing. Morals? Also highly exchangeable. So what makes you think of misuse at all?
The problem in science to me is, that it does not come with any morals. That is what makes it so dangerous at times, because it only takes one scientist to do what can be done, to get it done.
This is what brings us the given and growing variety in biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. This is what brings us land-mines, booby-traps, uranium depleted ammunition, drones, cluster bombs, napalm, orange agent, etc. ...
This is what will bring us nano swarm killing bots, autonomous killing machines and intelligent biological killer organisms. As they will be done because they can be done.
Due to the current and mostly worldwide financial crisis, fundamental research gets more and more mangled towards short term marketable results, as otherwise they they get no more funding out of austerity budget cuts. But this 'rushing' environment is exactly what kills fundamental research in its core. This is the environment in which loaded guns get handed over to fife year olds, as there is no more time left for any reflected foresight or any morals. And as long as we don't take our time to really understand what we are doing, genetic engineering remains a highly potential threat to me and Monsanto's researcher are just the tip of an growing iceberg.
On this the 'I told you so' phrase is not going to come with its usual inner triumph, as it is no fun to clean the room and to remove the corpses of little ones.
Oct 31 2013: 'Its a shame that these actions have set people like you against GMO because it can be used for great things, like curing blindness in developing countries by supplying free, fertile vitamin A enhanced rice.'
What is this for an argument?
Why don't we just give free carrots, corn salad, fennel, mangos, spinach, red pepper, eggs, tuna, soft cheese and pork? All of this is naturally rich in vitamin A and already available on this planet without any use of genetic engineering. And we already know that variety in diets is the most healthy thing we can provide against malnutrition.
And just because we don't give this for free you are accepting blindness in developing countries?
Even our supermarkets are full with vitamin enriched nutritional supplements, they come in all shapes, colors and sizes and although many of those are questionably in their use, it would still be better than doing nothing to give them for free if the other things are to complicated or whatever to get there.
Maybe it would also be a good idea to enable developing countries to grow the variety of food they need to properly feed their people.
Or are you just seeking for guinea pigs for our latest GMO's as a live experiment?
Its a shame that people like you promote 'quick fix' solutions without any need to fake the necessity for GMO's. You throw smoke grenades again to cover the given reality, that malnutrition in developing countries is already tolerated by first world countries, as we already have everything what it takes to fight it and this by purely biological food with no need for any artificial gene manipulation.
You mix politics and market mechanics with science, which is not to be confused at all, as it does not justify any risks related to this research.
It is the same that propaganda does to bring nations to war. We are shown pictures of killed woman and children, as killed man or even soldiers won't do much to convince us...
You would certainly make a good lobbyist!
Oct 31 2013: 'Its a shame that these actions have set people like you against GMO because it can be used for great things, like curing blindness in developing countries by supplying free, fertile vitamin A enhanced rice.'
What is this for an argument?
Why don't we just give free carrots, corn salad, fennel, mangos, spinach, red pepper, eggs, tuna, soft cheese and pork? All of this is naturally rich in vitamin A and already available on this planet without any use of genetic engineering. And we already know that variety in diets is the most healthy thing we can provide against malnutrition.
And just because we don't give this for free you are accepting blindness in developing countries?""""
Oct 31 2013: Are you screaming or unknowingly caps-locked?
'... its cheap and allows them to meet the problems themselves.'
So 'cheap' is the key here, aka market mechanics? We have been there before and I told you, that given the power of this science, market mechanics should not be allowed to drive it.
It is a 'cheap' and quick fix solution to remain ignorant about our general behavior and what we do to our fellow humans and our planet. Its done on a balance sheet, running a view numbers. How much does it take to manipulate this rice and to give it for free compared to reflect on our first-world waste of food, which we throw away each day in large quantities. No, thinking this way is just uncomfortable, so lets manipulate some genes for gods sake and let 'them' grow it so that they stop getting on our conscience by turning blind ... Thats the typical logic of a self-righteous first world attitude. Behavior seems to be more difficult to change than genes, right?
'... Teach a man to fish and hes sorted for life'
Exactly, so let us help them to grow vitamin A rich biological food without the use of GMO's and they'll do just as fine and even better, because their diet grows in variety as well.
Nov 4 2013: Mr T - forgive me, but the only way I can credibly reconcile your extremely vigorous stance in favour of GMO's, together with your self-proclaimed role as a biologist, is that you work for that industry...?
If you are a biologist and given that there is much that we do not know about the impact of GMO's in the wider scheme, then I fear that your ethical responsibilities towards natural biological systems and ecology appear somewhat compromised by this frankly ridiculous anthropocentric stance you are taking.
'Feeding the world' with GMO's might well be successful initially - until the myriad of natural systems which have evolved over millions of years get breached and contaminated by chemically-induced genetics. As a biologist, I'd like to ask what do you seriously think would happen then?
MR TNov 5 2013: I do not work for that industry, I work studying endangered species in tropical forests.
"until the myriad of natural systems which have evolved over millions of years get breached and contaminated by chemically-induced genetics"
Before you state that this can and will happen, please explain how and why it will happen!!.
My stance towards GMO is substantiated with evidence, what I am tired of is hearing prophecies of apocalyptic scenarios, much like the one you just gave which are based on nothing but speculation. Yes GMO requires careful consideration and research as to the effects, yet leehan is expecting ridiculous and impossible tests based on speculation alone.
Why is it that everyone expects that I have some invested corporate interest in GMO?. (Which I don't). I support the science because it has great potential to curb many environmental and human problems. I ask that you take a step back and really think & research about exactly how and why GMO could bring about such negative consequences as you proclaim. If you do this and come back with the same views then I would love to know what it is you have discovered.
Nov 5 2013: Let me get this straight - you have one hand busily working on studying endangered species in one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world, untouched by human hand, while the other hand is busy vigorously supporting genetically modified organisms?
Do you hope to combine the two in some sort of grotesque synthesis of what you and your minority think nature should be? Or perhaps some other motive?
I have thought about it thanks, and I am coming back with the same views. Not least because in an Independent Science Panel Report, released June 2003 in which the case against GMO is irrefutable:
Speculation? let's dissect that a bit. I would suggest firstly that the pro GMO stance is more speculative than those who stand against it. Is it 'speculation' that in order for a plant to be resistant to the herbicide Glyphosate, there is measurable suppression of enzymes and amino acids? What are the implications of that on modern diseases of the gut? Is it 'speculation' that Glyphosate-resistance in crops has been proven to cause mutation in weeds, which go on to become Glyphosate-resistant "Superweeds"? Not only would the crop gene pool be contaminated by GMO, but by implication, so would the weeds. Back to square one again, only this time with contaminated genes in the entire arable landscape.
Séralini G. E., Clair E., Mesnage R., Gress S., Defarge N., Malatesta M., Hennequin D., de Vendômois J.S. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize; Food and Chemical Toxicology Vol. 50 ( 11), 2012, 4221–4231.
Need more evidence?
Nov 5 2013: Yes precisely.
I have stated in previous comments that most of the arguments against the use of GM revolve around a particular use of GM, the one you have put forward.. engineering herbicide tolerance, I totally agree is bad.
What I am trying to say is that I can see many ways in which GM can be used for very good purposes. We currently spray our plants with terrible insecticides for instance, engineering resistance to pests in some of our crop plants could therefore decrease the use of pesticides and improve species richness.
I don't think that GM is the be all and end all solution to everything. But used well it can certainly play a major role in the transition to a sustainable world.
Many of the other problems that you and that report cite are to do with GM crops spreading into nature. This is something that is generally highly unlikely, of course depending upon the type of modification and the type of plant. This is a an issue that I think can be resolved and I have given some reasons as to why it is unlikely in previous comments.
Nov 5 2013: Thanks for your response. I'm glad you are not an advocate of the worst excesses of GM!
Using GM well in order to play a major role in the transition to a sustainable world would depend also on what the market economy is doing at the time. It's quite possible that the profit motive might override the ethical element of that transition. One only needs to look at Monsanto's track record in that department to see where that could lead.
Can I ask what role you think pollinators would have in your vision of GM assisted species richness? How would that affect GM spreading into nature? Would it matter if an organic farmer had crops in close proximity to a GM crop? Could his produce still legitimately be referred to as "organic"?
Nov 5 2013: Your first point is why I believe such technologies should be government regulated.
As for your second points, lets take wheat for an example. If we take a look around, in a wild place we just don't see our crop varieties of wheat growing around everywhere, wheat normally self fertilises, and any pollen that does escape and get wind bourne will only remain viable for a couple of hours at best. Animals do not pollinate wheat. Since cases of interbreeding (not under lab conditions) between crop wheat and wild wheat is anecdotal then it is reasonable to assume that crop wheat does not pose a danger of spreading into nature and ruining everything. I mean, it hasn't done so far and its been around for a very long time...
Now lets genetically modify that same wheat, lets say with some gene from another plant to produce stronger stems to prevent storm damage, and heavier seeds, to increase yield. Neither of these attributes affect pollen dispersal significantly over the normal variety so it should not stand to cause any more problems than does conventional wheat, if there are any.
Moving on to GM spreading into organic crops, its a difficult issue and it does already happen. It really depends on your definition of organic, if that is free from GM then no GM crops can be organic. Although personally I would happily buy GM crops branded as organic, if it meant that no fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides etc were used or the yield was higher so less land had to be used for crops. Our crop plants are constructed by us for us, I think for many people the word organic is synonymous with the word 'natural', which under my definition, no crop plant is. It could be possible to engineer plants that will not breed without human intervention.
Despite the opposition to them, I would be surprised if GM foods were not the norm in 50, 100 years.
Oct 30 2013: lejan I would not say natural or organic food is 100% safe in some cases it is worse! the all natural fertilizers and sprays used in this practice can contain some pretty nasty natural compounds. eg arsenic in high levels but it natural so it has to be safe. You all so have to factor in animal welfare on organic farms if you do not have a second control farm to move sick animals to for treatment.
all so we do need to intensify farming if the sea level are rising a lot of prime farming land is going to be lost in the future so we need to work on a intensive but sustainable farming future this will come by thinking out side the square in farming technology's and monitoring of nutrient budgets which are all ready in practice in my farming systems in my country put in place by big corporations that want to still have clients in the future.
Oct 30 2013: Off track a little, but still worthy of noting, are cleaning agents.........soap is wonderful......so is vinegar and baking soda......but all the big companies promote chemical cleaners like they're going out of style.
Many housewives have developed allergies due to these toxic cleaners that fill rooms with toxic fumes.
You do not see many commercials for using good old salt or vinegar or baking soda.......
I think when it comes to our health and nutrition, common sense and an educated consumer should not be underestimated.
My 2 cents worth. :)
Oct 30 2013: Your 2 cents worth is highly appreciated!
I recently rediscovered concentrated vinegar as a toilet cleaner and it works just perfect. All the other specialized products I used before didn't do even half the job. They were all fancy, colorful and even viscous, so that they stayed longer on sloped surfaces. Yet all the buzz didn't help much. And now just 2 spoons of vinegar concentrate and within minutes everything is clean as new.
Salt I use to capture liquid red wine on textiles before I do any further rubbing and it works perfect as well. I haven't tried baking soda yet, what is it good for?
Oct 31 2013: Baking soda is great as a disinfectant.
I use it in combination with hydrogen peroxide to scrub surfaces that I need to clean.....kitchen and bathroom tiles, sinks, bathtub.
I also put baking soda down the drain to eliminate odors.
It absorbs odors really well, so sprinkling it on kitchen sponges, and putting a box of it in the refrigerator is wonderful too.
I have used salt to disinfect my cutting board, especially after I've handled raw meat on it......I run hot water on the board, then sprinkle salt and rub the palm of my hands on the board.......I get a spa treatment on my hands, and clean the board too.....it feels so good to run your hands on the salt crystals which are on the wet board........you need to try it.....it's like a massage for your tired hands.
I don't know if we have concentrated vinegar in our markets.......
When I lived overseas I also used to be able to get pure vitamin C in powder form......here they don't sell it. Some things just don't make it into the US market.
Oct 31 2013: Kitchen and bathroom tiles have to be cleaned? Oh ... ;o)
But thank you for your explanation, I will try this out and also the salt peeling and spa treatment. Would my cat like this too? I will try this out today and if she gets scared we just blame Halloween ... :o)
Concentrated vinegar is my word creation, which, once I looked it up, now changed to 'vinegar essence'. Maybe this is available in your stores?
Vitamin C powder is available in Germany and I am very surprised that this is not common in the US, especially because you have way less regulations on certain nutritional supplements than we have. Interesting... but fruits are more fun anyway!
Happy Halloween!
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.


text:
September 2006
Choose the most effective password
Which of the following is the most effective password?
- XH#4@r4$8
- Kate1980
- Asterixh@sgoneHome
The correct answer is (3) Asterixh@sgoneHome. Let's see why it is the most effective password.
The password XH#5@r4$8 is a complex password that includes alphanumeric characters and symbols with a combination of uppercase and lowercase alphabets. E.g. Many a times, applications enforce the users to set a complex password. A complex password is usually difficult to crack but at the same time is also difficult to remember as they are random. Due to this nature, users often scribble it down in their diaries or use the remember feature or stick a note with the password on the monitor. These passwords are also sometimes vulnerable to attacks against the password generating algorithm. Though it's difficult to crack a complex password, still it cannot be considered as an effective password because it's difficult for a user to remember it. We had discussed about the use of complex passwords here.
Kate1980 is an example of a Simple Password. Users often like to use passwords that are easy to remember. A user may use a password which could be names of his/her child, spouse, or pet, or even the userid itself if the application allows to do so. It is not very difficult to crack such passwords as they are vulnerable to dictionary attacks and are also easy to guess.
So what then is the answer to having an effective password? Having a long and strong password will help. Let's see how this is possible.
When we use a phrase as a password, it can be easier to remember and almost impossible to crack. These type of passwords are known as Passphrases. As in case of a complex password, a passphrase consists of a proper combination of upper and lower case letters, numbers and special characters. But unlike complex passwords, passphrases form a meaningful phrase making them easier to remember for the users. For e.g. a passphrase like Asterixh@sgoneHome is easy to remember. In this case the password may be long but it is easy to remember as the sequence of characters are not random.
Hence an effective password is one that is not easily guessable but still easy to remember.
by Runa Dwibedi.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Welcome! You are viewing an archived issue of SaskSecrets, Tourism Saskatchewan's Online Newsletter, from September 2013. To read the current issue of SaskSecrets, click here
September 2013
Aaahhh Saskatchewan in the fall, one of the best times of year; no bugs, changing leaves, cooler days, but still some heat, harvest is in full swing and the sunsets are always outstanding. There's so much to enjoy during this time of year, so let's get started:
There's lots more fun to be had this season, so keep an eye on our social media feeds so you don't miss a thing!


text:
Grasshoppers Marabelle Sport Flat
Compare at $42.00
Find It In Store
Item # 271610
This Grasshoppers Marabelle slip-on will make your feet feel like they are walking on air! Specifically designed for your health and wellness, the thickly cushioned foot bed pampers your feet for ultimate comfort while being a perfect finishing touch to any casual outfit.
- Plaid fabric upper
- Elastic straps for flexible fit
- Round toe
- Comfort cushioned insole
- Synthetic sole
- Imported
- View more Women's Grasshoppers Shoes
By: RonaFL
Location: FL
August 03, 2014
Super Comfy!!!
"I work on a college campus needless to say I do a TON of walking. Good quality shoes are important to me. I love the front cross straps because it keeps them secure on my foot, great for when I'm running up and down the stairs doing errands.These are really very comfortable plus I think they are cute and go with everything. I would buy them again in a heartbeat. My daughter recently asked me for a pair so they must be even cuter than I thought!. :)"
By: Naureen
Location: D.C.
July 30, 2014
Took a few days of breaking in
"But then they were great! I still wear with thin socks if I'm going to be on my feet all day, but for a couple of mile walk, these are great! I'm looking for them in other colors, I love them so much!"
By: Liki
Location: GA
July 22, 2014
So comfy!
"I bought these twice!"
By: Nannyrae80
Location: Linden, Michigan
June 13, 2014
Sleek, athletic and ladylike
"I need something for work that is closed toe, casual, comfortable and stylish. This little black sneaker thinks it is a ballet flat, but shhhh, don't tell. It's really an on-your-feet-all-day shoe that keeps me looking pulled together. Lots of cushion and support inside. Sizing was weird...I'm always an 8.5 but needed an 8 in this one."
Click anywhere to close this.


text:
Grape harvest season
taste it like never before
The best wine festivalsAutumn is also the time of the grape harvest, and towns with a wine tradition celebrate festivals where wine, gastronomy and music are the main attractions. We let you know where and when you can enjoy these festivals.
Cariñena Wine
Wineries and artistic treasures come and greet us on every step of this route from Zaragoza to the Iberian mountain range.
Vinos de Pago
The landscape of the Alcaraz mountain range becomes the set of this route along the towns that produce two of Albacete's best-known Vinos de Pago wines.
A must-see
Atrio, reinventing Extremaduran cuisine.
Chef Toño Pérez has managed to convert his restaurant, with three Repsol Suns, into a leader in Extremaduran cuisine. A creative and artistic menu are what makes this chef stand out.
La Jayona, a journey to the centre of the mine
Losing yourself amidst the nooks and crannies of this abandoned mine, just five kilometres from Fuente del Arco, is a sure way of enjoying nature, history and adventure.
Day routes
Let's go for a hike!
Wineries and La Rioja traditions
One day is enough to enjoy the many attractions that surround Logroño. Not only you can visit many wineries with history, but also visit a dozen potteries in Navarrete and the amazing Museo Würth.
From Cáceres to the natural paradise
Less than an hour away from Cáceres, we find one of Spain's most impressive natural environments: Monfragüe National Park. We can walk along the Castillo trail, a four-hour route from which we get the best view of river Tiétar.
Get in shape
and enjoy the landscape
The best parks for runningThe expense of a gym is no excuse for not getting into shape, as many of the cities in Spain have ideal locations for running. Discover them and join the runner community, the best way to get rid of the weight gained during the summer.
Safety on the road
Prepare your autumn getaway
Create and save plans using our planner
You can add to them or change them whenever you want and you can also print them out or share them with friends. A simple and practical way of organising all your plans.
Subscribe to our newsletter
You'll know what the Repsol Guide has in store for you each week. Subscribe now! (Only available in Spanish)


text:
Shaw, 22, college graduate
language, literature, linguistics, musicals, film, fandom things, Nerdfighter, majored in Spanish Lang & Lit, also studying Brazilian Portuguese & Italian.
 Fandoms: Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Hannibal, Game of Thrones, Star Trek, Twin Peaks, Adventure Time, anything Joss Whedon touches.
Currently reading: The Shining by Stephen King
Currently watching: Dexter
Catching Elephant is a theme by Andy Taylor
Old English (Anglo-Saxon): Eft he axode, hu ðære ðeode nama wære þe hi of comon. Him wæs geandwyrd, þæt hi Angle genemnode wæron. Þa cwæð he, "Rihtlice hi sind Angle gehatene, for ðan ðe hi engla wlite habbað, and swilcum gedafenað þæt hi on heofonum engla geferan beon."
Middle English: In þat lond ben trees þat beren wolle, as þogh it were of scheep; whereof men maken clothes, and all þing þat may ben made of wolle. In þat contree ben many ipotaynes, þat dwellen som tyme in the water, and somtyme on the lond: and þei ben half man and half hors, as I haue seyd before; and þei eten men, whan þei may take hem.
Early Modern English: But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun. Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon, Who is already sick and pale with grief, That thou her maid art far more fair than she Be not her maid, since she is envious; Her vestal livery is but sick and green And none but fools do wear it; cast it off. It is my lady, O, it is my love!
Modern English: Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you'd expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn't hold with such nonsense.
Pointless dribble: Omg, lol, def totes ridic, c u ltr


text:
[ main index ]
There has been some understandable user confusion about Process Lasso, so first let's clear up a few common misconceptions. If your question isn't answered here, then see the FAQ below.Misconception #1: Process Lasso is supposed to make my computer faster
ProBalance doesn't necessarily make your PC faster, instead it helps to retain your PC's responsiveness during high loads. Perhaps it might prevent a case where your keyboard and mouse input would freeze for a few seconds. You can see this with the CPU Eater demo app, or create your own high CPU load to test. You definitely won't see anything run faster, just with fewer potential micro-lags.Misconception #2: Process Lasso is yet another super-charged task manager
NO! Process Lasso is NOT a task manager at all. It has some task management capabilities, but its not meant to replace a task manager. Its meant to act in the background, automatically enforcing rules upon processes in order to improve your system responsiveness (or for whatever other purpose you desire).Misconception #3: A user needs to set default priorities on their processes to rank their importance
NO, PLEASE DON'T DO THIS. The idea isn't to re-prioritize all your processes, rating them in importance to you. Doing that is risky and harmful to your PC performance. Just let Process Lasso do its job, UNLESS you know what you are doing.Misconception #4: Process Lasso is only for older computers
It may be true that older computers get the most benefit from Process Lasso's ProBalance, but ProBalance is helpful to brand new 'top of the line' PCs, and especially useful for new mobile devices whose CPU power is limited.
Additionally, Process Lasso's ancillary features are quite handy for anyone (such as anti-sleep processes and High Performance Power processes). Lastly, those with a lot of CPU cores may also enjoy the default CPU affinty feature, where they can limit programs to specific CPUs - keeping the others free for use by other processes.
First, its worth noting that there's a real problem here with jargon. Non-technical users may seem overwhelmed. I'll try to switch between technical jargon and layman terms to help give some contextual reference that may aid in deducing the meaning of jargon.
If the question you have isn't here, or isn't answered well enough here, send an email to Bitsum Technologies.
You need to check the menu items 'Main / Manage processes of all users' and 'Main / Run Process Lasso with elevated rights'. Checking 'manage all users' should also turn on elevation.
Yes, home and academic users can freely use it for as long as they want. However, after the product has been installed a while, a couple features are disabled and some nags are shown to encourage the user to upgrade to Process Lasso Pro. These nags are tolerable, as they are meant to be reminders, not to annoy. Even after this point, the software is still quite usable and not by any means crippled. These actions help us to continue to publish a free edition. We encourage you to give Process Lasso a try. It may be just what you need, and the Pro build may be well worth the price of a couple cheese burgers.
The differences are described here.
Please see the 'Help' menu or About box. If you do not see options to Activate there, then the product is already activated.
When you run a program on your computer, it creates a process. Every program you have running is represented by a process. When you have multiple copies of a program running, it has multiple processes. For instance, if you were to run Microsoft Word, it would create a process named 'msword.exe'. Each process has its own memory and threads (you can think of threads as tasks for your CPU to execute). Furthermore, each process is isolated from other processes, so that a crash in one program won't cause a crash in another.
Process Lasso shows the total amount of usable RAM available to the OS. If this is less than you have installed, it may be because some is dedicated to your on-chip graphics adapter and/or your system can not address all avaialble RAM (e.g. a 32-bit Windows edition not having enough address space). You can verify this in the Windows Task Manager (Ctrl+Shift+Esc). In the 'Performance' tab, check to see the Total amount of physical memory it says you have. That should match what Process Lasso shows. We figured that you know what you have installed, and it would be better to tell you how much is actually available for use by Windows.
So you want to keep a process limited to using a certain amount of CPU time or percent of available total CPU time? If you have a single core processor, forget it. Although advanced options like Process Lasso's Hard Throttling are available, they are not recommended at all! There is no way to 'toss out' instructions that need executed. In a best case scenario, you can suspend the threads of a process for a short period of time before resuming them. However, they would then continue to work on whatever they didn't get finished before being suspended. Further, this is very unnatural behavior and can cause all sorts of problems. Applications simply are not designed to be paused and resumed, and it does not even end up reducing the overall workload that *must* be accomplished.
Fortunately, there IS something you can do. If you have a multicore CPU, you can limiting a process's CPU affinity to specific cores. This limits the amount of CPU resources available to a process. On a quad core system, if you were to limit a process to a single core, you would limit it to approximately 25% of the total CPU use at any given time. When changing affinities, to be careful, apply them selectively, and test your changes. Some system components may respond badly to CPU affinity changes, though most user mode applications do fine.
There is a setting that EXCLUDES the active foreground process (the one you are using, that has keyboard and mouse focus) from ProBalance restraint. It is in Options / ProBalance options. It could be the application was not restrained because it was in the foreground? If this is NOT the case and the process WAS lowered in priority, then there is some other bottleneck that Process Lasso can not address.
You may also wish to try a Default Priority of Below Normal for the offending process. This is often very successful, safe, and effective. It does not typically diminish performance of the application UNLESS you have a lot of other stuff going on as well (a lot of contention for the CPU).
During our real-world research, we discovered that some anti-virus software has tamper detection mechanisms that are 'triggered' by simply 'looking at' their process. Yes, simply looking at them - something I've verified with their own engineers. We are working on some work-arounds so that these are listed again for v6, but the thing is that these processes should not be *touched* by the end user. This would not be a problem, BUT these software emit not one 'tamper detection' log event, but thousands and thousands -- to the point of slowing down some PCs. Don't ask me why they emit thousands of duplicate tamper detection events, you can ask them that . Anyway, to AVOID this, we do not even touch certain processes.
You may say, but my security software uses a lot of CPU resources, I need to tame it!
Indeed, it does use a lot of CPU and I/O resources, *BUT* it should NEVER be tamed. By design the real time scanners run at the highest available priority already - even if their priority class doesn't show that, the thread priority is surely real-time or highest. Why? Because you WANT whatever the scanner has to do to be completed as quickly as possible. Other processes must WAIT for the 'scan' to complete. Thus, you never want to interfere with this process, NOR do you want to try 'optimize' it yourself, as you can seriously jeopardize the synergy of your PC.
Remember, Process Lasso was *never* meant to be a full-fledged task manager. It is an automation and optimization tool. Thus, we focus on THAT, and that alone.
The good news? ProBalance has been reported by many to help a bit with system responsiveness, *even when* your security software is acting as a counter-weight against it. In other words, it does improve the situation, it just can't magically fix the overhead inherent in your security software.
I would forget about the exact % CPU utilization and focus more on the perceived problems you see with its CPU utilization. With a lowered priority (as ProBalance would do dynamically or a default priority would do), *IF* something else needs the CPU, then its CPU usage will drop MORE than it would have otherwise. It is a matter of contention between processes for the CPU(s). In other words, no reason to let the CPU cycles go underutilized if nothing else needs them. So, in my opinion, I would forget about the exact % CPU utilization and focus more on the perceived problems you see with its CPU utilization. You should find those effects mitigated with priority and affinity adjustments. And, like I said, it should use less CPU as other processes need the CPU.
You may instead focus on CPU affinities. These allow you to limit the breadth of a processor, so that it can only consumer x/Y CPU cores available. This will, in effect, limit it's CPU % as a total of avaialble CPU cycles. It will not, however, limit the CPU allocation on the processors under which it is placed. This may not also always end up as optimal as you think, and definitely do NOT try this on a large scale basis (e.g. trying to categorize all processes on specific cores). The OS Scheduler does this, and is pretty smart, so should be left to its work. It knows to keep a thread on a core as long as possible, but sometimes move it to prevent too much load on one core for too long (causing excessive thermal problems). That said, there is room for optimization, but be careful.
We do offer actual 'hard' CPU throttling within Process Lasso, but it is very unnatural for Windows and for Windows applications. Therefore, it only works in limited cases.
Ah, the ever-so-confusing virtual memory defintions. Even programmers are sometimes confused by them. Here I'll try to clear them up. I haven't much time, so its just a quick explanation. You will need to know the basics of virtual memory to understand it.
Virtual memory is an abstraction layer, allowing what you (and processes) think of as 'memory' to be stored in any combination of phsyical media and shared between processes. It has numerous benefits. For one, it lets you have a very large amount of memory, since virtual memory is limited only by the space available on the page files' storage medium (hard drives or SSDs). Secondly, it is easily shared since duplicated memory can simply 'point' to the first copy of it. There are many sother benefits as well.
When virtual memory is accessed (a hard page fault), it is moved into RAM (page in or swapped in). When it is unused for a long period, or RAM is needed elsewhere, it is moved to the SWAP file (paged out). All this is transparent to the process. The process simply sees and accesses memory at address X, and the OS makes sure it is in RAM (if not already). Ideally, you WANT all frequently accessed virtual memory to be in RAM, so it doesn't have to be read from the much slower page file.
Commit Charge can be best defined as the amount of virtual memory committed to that application (whether it resides in RAM on the page file). This in in contrast to the 'Working set', which excludes memory that is swapped out.
Working Set is the amount of virtual memory actively in RAM, excluding the portion swapped out to the page file.
Private Bytes is the amount of virtual memory in the process space that is not shared from some other process. When virtual memory pages are duplicated, they can be shared between different processes in memory.
Private Working Set is the amount of RAM used exclusively by this process. This value is normally equal to the Commit Charge, but could vary if the process is sharing a lot of its memory with another process (i.e. another instance of itself). Google Chrome is an example where this will vary a lot. This metric requires more CPU cycles to compute, and is therefore not recommended to use unless you absolutely must know it. You will see a warning when enabling it.
Total Virtual Memory Usage is the sum of all virtual memory mapped into a process's address space. This value will seem huge, but it includes stack space and other reserved virtual memory that isn't used. Most users should ignore this field.
During the install, you are asked if you want to run Process Lasso with 'elevated' rights, and also if you wish to have your instance of Process Lasso manage the processes of all users. Both options are in the last configuration dialog. Simply check these boxes during install and any instance of Process Lasso will manage the processes of all users.
However, this is not normally recommended. The default configuraton concept is that each user should get an instance of the governor (core engine) running that manages his or her own processes.
Install version 4. It will properly create a new login task in the revamped Task Scheduler present in Vista+. This will allow it to start with UAC elevated permissions without any UAC elevation dialog. To manage or change the entries it creates, goto the 'Task Scheduler'.
The 'core engine' (processgovernor.exe) is what actually 'does the work'. It applies ALL automated process rules, including ProBalance, default priorities, default affinities, disallowed processes.. everything. So, you can use the GUI (processlasso.exe) to create/edit process and settings, then close it completely when not needed. This minimizes resource usage. The core engine is silent though (not even a system tray icon), but it does write all its actions to a log you can view later with the GUI.
When shutting down Process Lasso, you are asked if you also want to stop the core engine. So, shutting down allows you to either close only the GUI, or both the GUI and core engine.
For Gaming and similar tasks it can be useful, but YMMV. This puts your PC in a high performance Power Profile and tweaks ProBalance settings to help give the foreground process as much attention as it can. Now, it also does a temporary foreground boost, but only to Above Normal priority class. For this reason, I recommend simply trying it out. It may work great to avoid micro-lags, but that isn't guaranteed as interoperability issues with the priority class change could theoretically exist in rare cases. If it doesn't work, it won't cause any big problems.. For the vast majority for which it does work, it is just another little optimization to improve their PC gaming experience ;).
Process Lasso's ProBalance doesn't tame anything, it just reprioritizes the importance of the processes (the threads of them) in the view of the Windows CPU scheduler. This allows it to give CPU cycles to preferred threads in periods of high CPU contention.
Virtual memory usage is NEVER changed/tweaked/adjusted. Now, for Vista, Win7, Win8, and Win2013, the SuperFectch priority of memory pages can be partially derived from the process priority class. Therefore, in an indirect way I suppose it might also aid that.. lol. That'd be a huge market-sleeze type claim there, and I won't make that one ;).
Process Lasso does have optional features to do things similar to those 'memory cleaners', but will see strong advice agaisnt utilizing them.
While there isn't a built in shortcut key to show the Process Lasso main window, you can easily add one yourself. To do this, right click on the Process Lasso start menu shortcut and select 'Properties'. There is a field 'shortcut key'. Using that field, you can assign Process Lasso a shortcut key (e.g. CTRL+ALT+K). Now when you press that shortcut combination, you'll see Process Lasso's main window pop up.
Since anti-virus software processes are sensitive to priority adjustments, many common anti-virus softwares are excluded from restraint. Consider the real-time scanner of your anti-virus software. Whenever a file is opened, the process opening the file must WAIT for the scanning to complete. So, you don't want to lower the priority of the real-time scanner, as that would not make things happen quicker. In fact, it would have just the opposite effect. Other software isn't as careful as Process Lasso, but we wanted to DO THINGS RIGHT! .. even if it means sometimes people think that the product isn't not working because it skips a process that is using a lot of CPU.
If your anti-virus software isn't on our hard-coded exclusion list, that's no big deal because it probably would never get acted on anyway. However, if you see Process Lasso's ProBalance acting upon it, then you may want to exclude it from restraint. Most of the time, this isn't an issue since ProBalance would only act on a non-excluded critical process of anti-virus software under rare conditions. In the majority of cases, the default settings themselves implicitly exclude critical anti-virus processes.
This line represents the CPU history of the process(es) you have currently selected. Yes, this is not indicated on the graph legend.
For more information, see How Does Process Lasso's Restraint Work?
CD/DVD Burners typically don't use enough of the processor to be restrained, as they are usually waiting on disk or optical drive I/O. It is actually more likely that a buffer underrun would be prevented by Process Lasso because if you were in such a high-load situation, the other offending processes would have their priorities lowered, there-by giving the burning application more access to CPU cycles. Even if the burning process itself got lowered in priority, it'd be no worse off than without Process Lasso since the other active processes would surely have been lowered as well, there-by giving it equal footing, as it had originally.
Also, some burners raise their own priority and Process Lasso will NOT lower the priority of processes that have raised their own priorities, depending on the configuration of Process Lasso.
The bottom line is: Process Lasso is most likely to HELP, and even in a worst case scenario it shouldn't make things worse. That said, adding Optical Burning apps to the Process Restraint Exclusions list is probably a good idea, but far from necessary.
Process Lasso was designed to, above all, 'do no harm'.
Process Lasso supports completely unattended installation. All necessary settings can be supplied on the command line, including the license key. Please see this page for more info.
Automatically managing process/thread priorities without interferring with system and application operation, and effectively increasing system responsiveness is a delicate business. It could be done in a dumb sort of way that 'just does it'. That's not Process Lasso. Process Lasso was designed to interfere as little as possible with the Windows scheduler. In fact, it is designed to compliment and work along-side the Windows scheduler. Unfortunately, many other products that have a less sophisticated approach may not be so elegant. However, in some cases alternate products may be desireable. Our product is free. We invite you to find what's right for you.
RAM is your fastest storage medium. You generally want to keep as much data in it as possible, not force pages out to the page file so you have more 'free' RAM for the system cache or new application launches. When you force pages out, they simply have to be reloaded again later as page faults occur on them (see other answer for explanation of page faults). For more information, try this (very old) article.
It represents the ability of the thread messages subsystem to keep up with thread/window message demand. The exact way we calculate this we don't publish, but its a pretty simple and accurate measurement.
If your settings are the default, that means a process priority was automatically lowered via the process restraint mechanism, AND/OR it means your system is having a sustained 100% CPU load period (giving all it can give).
Sometimes applications like to control their own priorities. Process Lasso doesn't try to fight with them, instead only making a single attempt to set the default priority and/or affinity for the process. If you want Process Lasso to aggressively and forcibly enforce your default priorities and affinities, forced mode will do that. If you have a process that isn't staying at the default priority or affinity, you can use this option. It should be noted though that application that set their own priorities or affinities may be doing so for a good reason.
In another way to describe it: Forced Mode reapplies default priorities, affinities, and power profile settings. Let us say you have a default priority of 'Above Normal' on a process. However, you then change that priority manually to Normal. Or perhaps the program itself changes its priority to Normal. Process Lasso does not want to 'fight' with this program, or your manual change, so will let it be. If Forced Mode is on, it forces the priority back to Above Normal.
When this is enabled for a process, Windows temporarily boosts the priority of threads for that process under certain conditions (when it leaves a wait state). For specific information, see this MSDN page about Windows dynamic thread priority boosting. Turning this off can severely impact the performance of applications that have a graphical user interface (a window). For background applications, this setting is not usually important.
That indicates whether or not Windows dynamic thread priority boosting is enabled for that process (see other question about thread priority boosting for explanation).
New in v4.1 (v4.09 beta), Process Lasso has explicit current and default I/O priority settings available those who require them. This only applies to NT6+ (Vista,Win7,...).
HOWEVER, Vista's I/O prioritization is based on the priority of the thread doing the I/O, which is dependent on the priority class of the process doing the I/O. There are actually only two levels of priority usable by applications, Normal and Very Low. Although there are technically 5, only these two are implemented or usable by processes.
Therefore, adjustment of the thread priorities will propagate to the I/O of that thread. In this way, Process Lasso already does I/O prioritization. Microsoft recommends applications adjust their I/O priority based by setting the calling thread's priority (directly or by adjustment of the process priority base class).
For some reason the core engine of Process Lasso, named ProcessGovernor.exe, is not running. This is the part of Process Lasso that actually takes action. To Start the core engine, right click on the system tray (or Main menu of Process Lasso), and select 'Start Core Engine'.
Yes, please see our case studies (under construction).
Yes, Process Lasso is designed to work with Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 2013. It will have the same benefits as it does under XP. Furthermore, Process Lasso has some specific features that compliment the newer Microsoft CPU and I/O scheduler enhancements.
Alternatively, you could chose to run the Process Lasso core engine as a system service, instead of a service under a specific user account.
For most other editions of Windows, run 'secpol.msc' and edit "Local Security Policies \ User Rights Assignment \ Logon as a service".


text:
- At 300 CFM, this unique feature allows the KOBE range hood to operate at a reduced sound level of 40 decibels (1.0 sone). Other hoods operate between 6 to 8 sones at a comparable cfm level.
Powerful Twin Motors
- QuietMode 300 CFM (1.0 sone)
- Low 510 CFM (3.0 sones)
- High 680 CFM (5.0 sones)
Multi Exhaust
Our revolutionary multi exhaust system is one of a kind. Three ducting options all on the same hood:
- Vertical (top) 6" Round
- Vertical (top) 3-1/4" x 10" Rectangular
- Horizontal (rear) 3-1/4" x 10" Rectangular
Attractive Appearance
- The 18-Gauge frame and seamless design allow the hood to be installed over any cooking system.
- 3-Speed / Five mechanical button control, Power Control (On/Off), QuietMode, Low Speed, High Speed and Light Control.
Bright Halogen Light
- The hood is equipped with 3W LED lights.
Easy to Clean
- KOBE's unique design, which includes easy to empty catch areas and smooth hood surface, lets you clean the fans without disassembling the hood.
Baffle Filters
- Dishwasher safe professional baffle filters allow for easy cleaning.
- Parts are checked for defects and designed for trouble free long term use.
Easy to Install
- Our special design makes installation fast and easy.
Save 10% on any Kobe major products
Simply apply promo code at checkout for your 10% off.
Promo Code: kobe24
Simply apply promo code at checkout for your 10% off.
Promo Code: kobe24


text:
This week on Leading Edge, Jerry sits down with Ohio Lieutenant Governor Mary Taylor to talk jobs, health care and even the Toledo mayor's race.
Later in the show, Toledoan Michael Huggins joins Jerry to talk about a bus trip to Washington D.C. to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. A bus will leave the Secor Road Home Depot at 11 p.m. on August 23. The bus will arrive in D.C. Sunday morning in time to hear President Obama, Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton speak. Visitors will also have time to explore the national mall and local landmarks. The bus will leave D.C. at 5 p.m. on August 24 and arrive back in Toledo late that evening. For more information or to purchase tickets, contact Michael Huggins at 419-932-5460 or email firstname.lastname@example.com.
Finally, Jerry speaks with Bob Kneisley And Clint Mauk about a new way to explore the history of the Toledo area – just pop a CD into your car's stereo. For more information on tours of the Fallen Timbers battlefield, Fort Meigs and more, contact Bob at 419-727-3483 or email firstname.lastname@example.com.
Don't miss Leading Edge, every Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on WTOL 11 and 10:30 p.m. on FOX Toledo.
Copyright 2013 Toledo News Now. All rights reserved.
730 North Summit Street
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2014 Worldnow and WTOL. All Rights Reserved.
For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.


text:
Soooo my dad works at Lowes and supposedly he sold Dean Norris Christmas trees tonight! >.<
Get a chance to win this awesome, one of a kind poster!
- MUST be following Hellyeahaaronpaul.tumblr.com
- Reblog this post! But you can only reblog it ONCE
- Likes don't count
- TO GET YOUR NAME IN THE DRAWING TWICE: You simply have to find your all time favorite picture of Aaron Paul and submit it to us! Your picture will be published on our blog and you get not one, but TWO chances to win!
- We'd reallllyyy like it if you submitted your favorite picture to us!
It's real!


text:
Here's something that could make anyone's day better: a trip to see the Fall Flower Carpets. We have two in our area right now. One is in downtown Elkhart. The other is in Nappanee. They each take up an entire city block. Combined, the are made of more than 14,000 mums.
Sonya Nash, the Project Manager says, "It's beautiful, It's breathtaking and we're celebrating the arts and what better way here in the fall than to do it with the Queen of the Flowers of Fall, which is the mum and showcasing art and color, beauty and telling the stories of each community."
Elkhart's flower carpet celebrates the Ruthmere Mansion. Nappanee pays tribute to the city's woodworking heritage.
WSJV-TV FOX 2858096 County Road 7, SouthElkhart, IN 46517
Switchboard: 574.679.9758News Phone: 574.679.4545Station Fax: 574.294.1267Email: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Your username and password gives you access to your Lincoln Land Community College web-based email, the campus' wireless network, classroom and lab workstations, library computers and databases.
If you have forgotten your password or would like to change it, please click on the appropriate link below. ITS does not keep a record of user passwords nor can we reset passwords for you. You will need your seven-digit LLCC ID Number, Social Security Number and last name to reset or change your password.
Your LLCC ID Number can be found on your class schedule, billing or Student ID card. If you cannot locate your LLCC ID Number you can obtain it from a Registration Representative at any LLCC location by presenting a valid government-issued photo ID. We cannot give you this information over the phone or by email.
By connecting to the Lincoln Land Community College network you agree to abide by Lincoln Land Community College's Computer Acceptable Use Policy. It can be read online at http:/www.llcc.edu/tabid/7975/Default.aspx
If you have not activated your LLCC User Account, please do so by following the steps outlined HERE.
There are no current network or telephone problems or outages.


text:
Lulu Guinness 50:50 Fifi Clutch Bag
Style Notes
Exude a timeless aesthetic with the 50:50 Fifi clutch bag from renowned British handbag designer Lulu Guinness. The brand's trade mark red lips feature as the clasp whilst a two tone monochrome design is seen throughout the clutch bag in premium leather. Add some playful character to any ensemble this season with this Lulu Guinness bag.
Jules B proudly presents the Lulu Guinness Sale
Lulu Guinness 50100507 50:50 FIFI CLUTCH sale
- 50:50 Fifi clutch bag
- Two tone
- Gold and red enamel lips clasp
- Detachable gold shoulder chain
- Embossed logo to back
- Red grosgrain lining
- Interior pocket with branded metal hardware
- 100% leather
- Lining: 100% cotton
Size & Fit
- Size: H 13 cm x W 21cm x D 3cm
- One size
1. Next Working Day Delivery (UK Mainland) with DPD for £4.50
2. Tracked 2 - 3 Day Delivery (UK Mainland) with DPD for £2.50
3. Tracked 4 - 5 Day Delivery (UK Mainland) with DPD for Free
4. Tracked 4 - 5 Day Economy (UK Mainland) with Royal Mail for Free
5. Saturday Delivery (UK Mainland) for £7.99
6. DPD Specific Day Delivery (UK Mainland) for £7.99
7. Click and Collect, Available in Jesmond (Newcastle), Kendal and Yarm
8. International Shipping Rates (Click Here)
B Rewarded
From the very first time you shop at Jules B online you will be automatically included into the Jules B Rewarded scheme. The scheme allows you to receive a point for every pound you spend online. When you reach 500 points you will automatically receive a £20 voucher via email.
Benefits include exclusive access to Season Launches and Sale Previews, Promotions, Offers and Free UK Delivery on your birthday.To view your points or start earning them either 'Login' or 'Register'.