Slashdot Mirror

SPECIAL REPORT
The facts versus the frenzy
Unpalata ble truths
A question of breeding
The great divide
Fears for the future
How to price what we put on our plate
Check out our comprehensive international coverage of GM crops
The GM debate: readers' letters
The GM debate: Editor's response

Future shock
Apocalypse when?
Running wild
Strange fruit
Brave new rose
Live and let live
Food for all

For some American work trying to figure what might happen when a GM fish starts competing with its unmodified brethren, see another New Scientist article.

New Scientist is one of the better science magazines, IMO (and I'm not a UK netizen). As you can tell, this is just a sampling from their site.

Another piece, "FARMERS IN THE FIRING LINE," has subtitle "Take a few million suspicious European consumers, a handful of dead caterpillars and what have you got? A crisis of confidence in America's corn belt ." It discusses the (unintended) effect on caterpillars (Monarch Butterfly) of pollen from "bt corn," the GM corn with built-in insecticide, and doubts raised. Elsewhere it's been pointed out that some people are seriously allergic to pollen, and there's no data (unless held by some who'd rather not tell) as to what GM content might do in this context.

In all this, it seems to me, we must not let "safety" be a smokescreen to let legislation pass that will deny us the ability to make informed choices for ouselves. When scientists in whatever employ do their studies, and committes "find" that things are safe enough that you don't need to know what is in your food or environment, be worried about the safety, but be outraged at the attempt to deny your free choice.

You have a right to reduce any small (or whatever size you think it is) risk to zero by making a choice in the marketplace. Nobody has a right to make choices about your body for you without your informed consent. Denying you that choice by misleading labeling is criminal, IMO, and those who put GM food on grocery shelves without identifying GM content in the labeling are setting themselves up for eventual class action suits, again IMO.

To any "scientist" who postures about "insignificant trace amounts with no effect on humans," I say let him swallow that same amount, by weight, of LSD.
--
Corporations should be resources for humans, not vice versa. No matter what the privileges, it is not a privilege to be used, except by God.

SPECIAL REPORT
The facts versus the frenzy
Unpalata ble truths
A question of breeding
The great divide
Fears for the future
How to price what we put on our plate
Check out our comprehensive international coverage of GM crops
The GM debate: readers' letters
The GM debate: Editor's response

Future shock
Apocalypse when?
Running wild
Strange fruit
Brave new rose
Live and let live
Food for all

For some American work trying to figure what might happen when a GM fish starts competing with its unmodified brethren, see another New Scientist article.

New Scientist is one of the better science magazines, IMO (and I'm not a UK netizen). As you can tell, this is just a sampling from their site.

Another piece, "FARMERS IN THE FIRING LINE," has subtitle "Take a few million suspicious European consumers, a handful of dead caterpillars and what have you got? A crisis of confidence in America's corn belt ." It discusses the (unintended) effect on caterpillars (Monarch Butterfly) of pollen from "bt corn," the GM corn with built-in insecticide, and doubts raised. Elsewhere it's been pointed out that some people are seriously allergic to pollen, and there's no data (unless held by some who'd rather not tell) as to what GM content might do in this context.

In all this, it seems to me, we must not let "safety" be a smokescreen to let legislation pass that will deny us the ability to make informed choices for ouselves. When scientists in whatever employ do their studies, and committes "find" that things are safe enough that you don't need to know what is in your food or environment, be worried about the safety, but be outraged at the attempt to deny your free choice.

You have a right to reduce any small (or whatever size you think it is) risk to zero by making a choice in the marketplace. Nobody has a right to make choices about your body for you without your informed consent. Denying you that choice by misleading labeling is criminal, IMO, and those who put GM food on grocery shelves without identifying GM content in the labeling are setting themselves up for eventual class action suits, again IMO.

To any "scientist" who postures about "insignificant trace amounts with no effect on humans," I say let him swallow that same amount, by weight, of LSD.
--
Corporations should be resources for humans, not vice versa. No matter what the privileges, it is not a privilege to be used, except by God.

SPECIAL REPORT
The facts versus the frenzy
Unpalata ble truths
A question of breeding
The great divide
Fears for the future
How to price what we put on our plate
Check out our comprehensive international coverage of GM crops
The GM debate: readers' letters
The GM debate: Editor's response

Future shock
Apocalypse when?
Running wild
Strange fruit
Brave new rose
Live and let live
Food for all

For some American work trying to figure what might happen when a GM fish starts competing with its unmodified brethren, see another New Scientist article.

New Scientist is one of the better science magazines, IMO (and I'm not a UK netizen). As you can tell, this is just a sampling from their site.

Another piece, "FARMERS IN THE FIRING LINE," has subtitle "Take a few million suspicious European consumers, a handful of dead caterpillars and what have you got? A crisis of confidence in America's corn belt ." It discusses the (unintended) effect on caterpillars (Monarch Butterfly) of pollen from "bt corn," the GM corn with built-in insecticide, and doubts raised. Elsewhere it's been pointed out that some people are seriously allergic to pollen, and there's no data (unless held by some who'd rather not tell) as to what GM content might do in this context.

In all this, it seems to me, we must not let "safety" be a smokescreen to let legislation pass that will deny us the ability to make informed choices for ouselves. When scientists in whatever employ do their studies, and committes "find" that things are safe enough that you don't need to know what is in your food or environment, be worried about the safety, but be outraged at the attempt to deny your free choice.

You have a right to reduce any small (or whatever size you think it is) risk to zero by making a choice in the marketplace. Nobody has a right to make choices about your body for you without your informed consent. Denying you that choice by misleading labeling is criminal, IMO, and those who put GM food on grocery shelves without identifying GM content in the labeling are setting themselves up for eventual class action suits, again IMO.

To any "scientist" who postures about "insignificant trace amounts with no effect on humans," I say let him swallow that same amount, by weight, of LSD.
--
Corporations should be resources for humans, not vice versa. No matter what the privileges, it is not a privilege to be used, except by God.

SPECIAL REPORT
The facts versus the frenzy
Unpalata ble truths
A question of breeding
The great divide
Fears for the future
How to price what we put on our plate
Check out our comprehensive international coverage of GM crops
The GM debate: readers' letters
The GM debate: Editor's response

Future shock
Apocalypse when?
Running wild
Strange fruit
Brave new rose
Live and let live
Food for all

For some American work trying to figure what might happen when a GM fish starts competing with its unmodified brethren, see another New Scientist article.

New Scientist is one of the better science magazines, IMO (and I'm not a UK netizen). As you can tell, this is just a sampling from their site.

Another piece, "FARMERS IN THE FIRING LINE," has subtitle "Take a few million suspicious European consumers, a handful of dead caterpillars and what have you got? A crisis of confidence in America's corn belt ." It discusses the (unintended) effect on caterpillars (Monarch Butterfly) of pollen from "bt corn," the GM corn with built-in insecticide, and doubts raised. Elsewhere it's been pointed out that some people are seriously allergic to pollen, and there's no data (unless held by some who'd rather not tell) as to what GM content might do in this context.

In all this, it seems to me, we must not let "safety" be a smokescreen to let legislation pass that will deny us the ability to make informed choices for ouselves. When scientists in whatever employ do their studies, and committes "find" that things are safe enough that you don't need to know what is in your food or environment, be worried about the safety, but be outraged at the attempt to deny your free choice.

You have a right to reduce any small (or whatever size you think it is) risk to zero by making a choice in the marketplace. Nobody has a right to make choices about your body for you without your informed consent. Denying you that choice by misleading labeling is criminal, IMO, and those who put GM food on grocery shelves without identifying GM content in the labeling are setting themselves up for eventual class action suits, again IMO.

To any "scientist" who postures about "insignificant trace amounts with no effect on humans," I say let him swallow that same amount, by weight, of LSD.
--
Corporations should be resources for humans, not vice versa. No matter what the privileges, it is not a privilege to be used, except by God.

SPECIAL REPORT
The facts versus the frenzy
Unpalata ble truths
A question of breeding
The great divide
Fears for the future
How to price what we put on our plate
Check out our comprehensive international coverage of GM crops
The GM debate: readers' letters
The GM debate: Editor's response

Future shock
Apocalypse when?
Running wild
Strange fruit
Brave new rose
Live and let live
Food for all

For some American work trying to figure what might happen when a GM fish starts competing with its unmodified brethren, see another New Scientist article.

New Scientist is one of the better science magazines, IMO (and I'm not a UK netizen). As you can tell, this is just a sampling from their site.

Another piece, "FARMERS IN THE FIRING LINE," has subtitle "Take a few million suspicious European consumers, a handful of dead caterpillars and what have you got? A crisis of confidence in America's corn belt ." It discusses the (unintended) effect on caterpillars (Monarch Butterfly) of pollen from "bt corn," the GM corn with built-in insecticide, and doubts raised. Elsewhere it's been pointed out that some people are seriously allergic to pollen, and there's no data (unless held by some who'd rather not tell) as to what GM content might do in this context.

In all this, it seems to me, we must not let "safety" be a smokescreen to let legislation pass that will deny us the ability to make informed choices for ouselves. When scientists in whatever employ do their studies, and committes "find" that things are safe enough that you don't need to know what is in your food or environment, be worried about the safety, but be outraged at the attempt to deny your free choice.

You have a right to reduce any small (or whatever size you think it is) risk to zero by making a choice in the marketplace. Nobody has a right to make choices about your body for you without your informed consent. Denying you that choice by misleading labeling is criminal, IMO, and those who put GM food on grocery shelves without identifying GM content in the labeling are setting themselves up for eventual class action suits, again IMO.

To any "scientist" who postures about "insignificant trace amounts with no effect on humans," I say let him swallow that same amount, by weight, of LSD.
--
Corporations should be resources for humans, not vice versa. No matter what the privileges, it is not a privilege to be used, except by God.

SPECIAL REPORT
The facts versus the frenzy
Unpalata ble truths
A question of breeding
The great divide
Fears for the future
How to price what we put on our plate
Check out our comprehensive international coverage of GM crops
The GM debate: readers' letters
The GM debate: Editor's response

Future shock
Apocalypse when?
Running wild
Strange fruit
Brave new rose
Live and let live
Food for all

For some American work trying to figure what might happen when a GM fish starts competing with its unmodified brethren, see another New Scientist article.

New Scientist is one of the better science magazines, IMO (and I'm not a UK netizen). As you can tell, this is just a sampling from their site.

Another piece, "FARMERS IN THE FIRING LINE," has subtitle "Take a few million suspicious European consumers, a handful of dead caterpillars and what have you got? A crisis of confidence in America's corn belt ." It discusses the (unintended) effect on caterpillars (Monarch Butterfly) of pollen from "bt corn," the GM corn with built-in insecticide, and doubts raised. Elsewhere it's been pointed out that some people are seriously allergic to pollen, and there's no data (unless held by some who'd rather not tell) as to what GM content might do in this context.

In all this, it seems to me, we must not let "safety" be a smokescreen to let legislation pass that will deny us the ability to make informed choices for ouselves. When scientists in whatever employ do their studies, and committes "find" that things are safe enough that you don't need to know what is in your food or environment, be worried about the safety, but be outraged at the attempt to deny your free choice.

You have a right to reduce any small (or whatever size you think it is) risk to zero by making a choice in the marketplace. Nobody has a right to make choices about your body for you without your informed consent. Denying you that choice by misleading labeling is criminal, IMO, and those who put GM food on grocery shelves without identifying GM content in the labeling are setting themselves up for eventual class action suits, again IMO.

To any "scientist" who postures about "insignificant trace amounts with no effect on humans," I say let him swallow that same amount, by weight, of LSD.
--
Corporations should be resources for humans, not vice versa. No matter what the privileges, it is not a privilege to be used, except by God.

SPECIAL REPORT
The facts versus the frenzy
Unpalata ble truths
A question of breeding
The great divide
Fears for the future
How to price what we put on our plate
Check out our comprehensive international coverage of GM crops
The GM debate: readers' letters
The GM debate: Editor's response

Future shock
Apocalypse when?
Running wild
Strange fruit
Brave new rose
Live and let live
Food for all

For some American work trying to figure what might happen when a GM fish starts competing with its unmodified brethren, see another New Scientist article.

New Scientist is one of the better science magazines, IMO (and I'm not a UK netizen). As you can tell, this is just a sampling from their site.

Another piece, "FARMERS IN THE FIRING LINE," has subtitle "Take a few million suspicious European consumers, a handful of dead caterpillars and what have you got? A crisis of confidence in America's corn belt ." It discusses the (unintended) effect on caterpillars (Monarch Butterfly) of pollen from "bt corn," the GM corn with built-in insecticide, and doubts raised. Elsewhere it's been pointed out that some people are seriously allergic to pollen, and there's no data (unless held by some who'd rather not tell) as to what GM content might do in this context.

In all this, it seems to me, we must not let "safety" be a smokescreen to let legislation pass that will deny us the ability to make informed choices for ouselves. When scientists in whatever employ do their studies, and committes "find" that things are safe enough that you don't need to know what is in your food or environment, be worried about the safety, but be outraged at the attempt to deny your free choice.

You have a right to reduce any small (or whatever size you think it is) risk to zero by making a choice in the marketplace. Nobody has a right to make choices about your body for you without your informed consent. Denying you that choice by misleading labeling is criminal, IMO, and those who put GM food on grocery shelves without identifying GM content in the labeling are setting themselves up for eventual class action suits, again IMO.

To any "scientist" who postures about "insignificant trace amounts with no effect on humans," I say let him swallow that same amount, by weight, of LSD.
--
Corporations should be resources for humans, not vice versa. No matter what the privileges, it is not a privilege to be used, except by God.

SPECIAL REPORT
The facts versus the frenzy
Unpalata ble truths
A question of breeding
The great divide
Fears for the future
How to price what we put on our plate
Check out our comprehensive international coverage of GM crops
The GM debate: readers' letters
The GM debate: Editor's response

Future shock
Apocalypse when?
Running wild
Strange fruit
Brave new rose
Live and let live
Food for all

For some American work trying to figure what might happen when a GM fish starts competing with its unmodified brethren, see another New Scientist article.

New Scientist is one of the better science magazines, IMO (and I'm not a UK netizen). As you can tell, this is just a sampling from their site.

Another piece, "FARMERS IN THE FIRING LINE," has subtitle "Take a few million suspicious European consumers, a handful of dead caterpillars and what have you got? A crisis of confidence in America's corn belt ." It discusses the (unintended) effect on caterpillars (Monarch Butterfly) of pollen from "bt corn," the GM corn with built-in insecticide, and doubts raised. Elsewhere it's been pointed out that some people are seriously allergic to pollen, and there's no data (unless held by some who'd rather not tell) as to what GM content might do in this context.

In all this, it seems to me, we must not let "safety" be a smokescreen to let legislation pass that will deny us the ability to make informed choices for ouselves. When scientists in whatever employ do their studies, and committes "find" that things are safe enough that you don't need to know what is in your food or environment, be worried about the safety, but be outraged at the attempt to deny your free choice.

You have a right to reduce any small (or whatever size you think it is) risk to zero by making a choice in the marketplace. Nobody has a right to make choices about your body for you without your informed consent. Denying you that choice by misleading labeling is criminal, IMO, and those who put GM food on grocery shelves without identifying GM content in the labeling are setting themselves up for eventual class action suits, again IMO.

To any "scientist" who postures about "insignificant trace amounts with no effect on humans," I say let him swallow that same amount, by weight, of LSD.
--
Corporations should be resources for humans, not vice versa. No matter what the privileges, it is not a privilege to be used, except by God.

SPECIAL REPORT
The facts versus the frenzy
Unpalata ble truths
A question of breeding
The great divide
Fears for the future
How to price what we put on our plate
Check out our comprehensive international coverage of GM crops
The GM debate: readers' letters
The GM debate: Editor's response

Future shock
Apocalypse when?
Running wild
Strange fruit
Brave new rose
Live and let live
Food for all

For some American work trying to figure what might happen when a GM fish starts competing with its unmodified brethren, see another New Scientist article.

New Scientist is one of the better science magazines, IMO (and I'm not a UK netizen). As you can tell, this is just a sampling from their site.

Another piece, "FARMERS IN THE FIRING LINE," has subtitle "Take a few million suspicious European consumers, a handful of dead caterpillars and what have you got? A crisis of confidence in America's corn belt ." It discusses the (unintended) effect on caterpillars (Monarch Butterfly) of pollen from "bt corn," the GM corn with built-in insecticide, and doubts raised. Elsewhere it's been pointed out that some people are seriously allergic to pollen, and there's no data (unless held by some who'd rather not tell) as to what GM content might do in this context.

In all this, it seems to me, we must not let "safety" be a smokescreen to let legislation pass that will deny us the ability to make informed choices for ouselves. When scientists in whatever employ do their studies, and committes "find" that things are safe enough that you don't need to know what is in your food or environment, be worried about the safety, but be outraged at the attempt to deny your free choice.

You have a right to reduce any small (or whatever size you think it is) risk to zero by making a choice in the marketplace. Nobody has a right to make choices about your body for you without your informed consent. Denying you that choice by misleading labeling is criminal, IMO, and those who put GM food on grocery shelves without identifying GM content in the labeling are setting themselves up for eventual class action suits, again IMO.

To any "scientist" who postures about "insignificant trace amounts with no effect on humans," I say let him swallow that same amount, by weight, of LSD.
--
Corporations should be resources for humans, not vice versa. No matter what the privileges, it is not a privilege to be used, except by God.

SPECIAL REPORT
The facts versus the frenzy
Unpalata ble truths
A question of breeding
The great divide
Fears for the future
How to price what we put on our plate
Check out our comprehensive international coverage of GM crops
The GM debate: readers' letters
The GM debate: Editor's response

Future shock
Apocalypse when?
Running wild
Strange fruit
Brave new rose
Live and let live
Food for all

For some American work trying to figure what might happen when a GM fish starts competing with its unmodified brethren, see another New Scientist article.

New Scientist is one of the better science magazines, IMO (and I'm not a UK netizen). As you can tell, this is just a sampling from their site.

Another piece, "FARMERS IN THE FIRING LINE," has subtitle "Take a few million suspicious European consumers, a handful of dead caterpillars and what have you got? A crisis of confidence in America's corn belt ." It discusses the (unintended) effect on caterpillars (Monarch Butterfly) of pollen from "bt corn," the GM corn with built-in insecticide, and doubts raised. Elsewhere it's been pointed out that some people are seriously allergic to pollen, and there's no data (unless held by some who'd rather not tell) as to what GM content might do in this context.

In all this, it seems to me, we must not let "safety" be a smokescreen to let legislation pass that will deny us the ability to make informed choices for ouselves. When scientists in whatever employ do their studies, and committes "find" that things are safe enough that you don't need to know what is in your food or environment, be worried about the safety, but be outraged at the attempt to deny your free choice.

You have a right to reduce any small (or whatever size you think it is) risk to zero by making a choice in the marketplace. Nobody has a right to make choices about your body for you without your informed consent. Denying you that choice by misleading labeling is criminal, IMO, and those who put GM food on grocery shelves without identifying GM content in the labeling are setting themselves up for eventual class action suits, again IMO.

To any "scientist" who postures about "insignificant trace amounts with no effect on humans," I say let him swallow that same amount, by weight, of LSD.
--
Corporations should be resources for humans, not vice versa. No matter what the privileges, it is not a privilege to be used, except by God.

SPECIAL REPORT
The facts versus the frenzy
Unpalata ble truths
A question of breeding
The great divide
Fears for the future
How to price what we put on our plate
Check out our comprehensive international coverage of GM crops
The GM debate: readers' letters
The GM debate: Editor's response

Future shock
Apocalypse when?
Running wild
Strange fruit
Brave new rose
Live and let live
Food for all

For some American work trying to figure what might happen when a GM fish starts competing with its unmodified brethren, see another New Scientist article.

New Scientist is one of the better science magazines, IMO (and I'm not a UK netizen). As you can tell, this is just a sampling from their site.

Another piece, "FARMERS IN THE FIRING LINE," has subtitle "Take a few million suspicious European consumers, a handful of dead caterpillars and what have you got? A crisis of confidence in America's corn belt ." It discusses the (unintended) effect on caterpillars (Monarch Butterfly) of pollen from "bt corn," the GM corn with built-in insecticide, and doubts raised. Elsewhere it's been pointed out that some people are seriously allergic to pollen, and there's no data (unless held by some who'd rather not tell) as to what GM content might do in this context.

In all this, it seems to me, we must not let "safety" be a smokescreen to let legislation pass that will deny us the ability to make informed choices for ouselves. When scientists in whatever employ do their studies, and committes "find" that things are safe enough that you don't need to know what is in your food or environment, be worried about the safety, but be outraged at the attempt to deny your free choice.

You have a right to reduce any small (or whatever size you think it is) risk to zero by making a choice in the marketplace. Nobody has a right to make choices about your body for you without your informed consent. Denying you that choice by misleading labeling is criminal, IMO, and those who put GM food on grocery shelves without identifying GM content in the labeling are setting themselves up for eventual class action suits, again IMO.

To any "scientist" who postures about "insignificant trace amounts with no effect on humans," I say let him swallow that same amount, by weight, of LSD.
--
Corporations should be resources for humans, not vice versa. No matter what the privileges, it is not a privilege to be used, except by God.

SPECIAL REPORT
The facts versus the frenzy
Unpalata ble truths
A question of breeding
The great divide
Fears for the future
How to price what we put on our plate
Check out our comprehensive international coverage of GM crops
The GM debate: readers' letters
The GM debate: Editor's response

Future shock
Apocalypse when?
Running wild
Strange fruit
Brave new rose
Live and let live
Food for all

For some American work trying to figure what might happen when a GM fish starts competing with its unmodified brethren, see another New Scientist article.

New Scientist is one of the better science magazines, IMO (and I'm not a UK netizen). As you can tell, this is just a sampling from their site.

Another piece, "FARMERS IN THE FIRING LINE," has subtitle "Take a few million suspicious European consumers, a handful of dead caterpillars and what have you got? A crisis of confidence in America's corn belt ." It discusses the (unintended) effect on caterpillars (Monarch Butterfly) of pollen from "bt corn," the GM corn with built-in insecticide, and doubts raised. Elsewhere it's been pointed out that some people are seriously allergic to pollen, and there's no data (unless held by some who'd rather not tell) as to what GM content might do in this context.

In all this, it seems to me, we must not let "safety" be a smokescreen to let legislation pass that will deny us the ability to make informed choices for ouselves. When scientists in whatever employ do their studies, and committes "find" that things are safe enough that you don't need to know what is in your food or environment, be worried about the safety, but be outraged at the attempt to deny your free choice.

You have a right to reduce any small (or whatever size you think it is) risk to zero by making a choice in the marketplace. Nobody has a right to make choices about your body for you without your informed consent. Denying you that choice by misleading labeling is criminal, IMO, and those who put GM food on grocery shelves without identifying GM content in the labeling are setting themselves up for eventual class action suits, again IMO.

To any "scientist" who postures about "insignificant trace amounts with no effect on humans," I say let him swallow that same amount, by weight, of LSD.
--
Corporations should be resources for humans, not vice versa. No matter what the privileges, it is not a privilege to be used, except by God.

how would it get there? I doubt Earth life could have come from rocks, or from an extremely cold lake. It had to arise somewhere where there was lots of water, energy, and nutrients. It is possible that life could have arrived there by meteor, though. (In fact, some argue that life on Earth probably comes from space because it is so difficult for a planet to create life on its own)

Until machines attain telepathy, I place no faith in these devices.

Machines can capture information, manipulate information and display information, but it doesn't care if the bits form a game of JezzBall or kiddy porn. Likewise in the related article.

What if, for some reason or another, I want to walk through a parking lot, or subway, or airport for no good reason? Should I have to think twice before playfully punching a friend on the shoulder in public?

The computer can only recognize the difference in behavior, not intention.

There are reasonable implementations of this technology (the airport scenario, for example). However, I would feel a bit more comfortable knowing a device is scanning for stray luggage instead of how many times I've entered a bathroom or walked down a terminal.

Personally, I'd rather have my car stolen than worry about if my behavior pleases the computer.

I know, it's a bit off-topic, but am I the only one who saw this note at the bottom of the New Scientist article?

From New Scientist, 4 December 1999

How did they manage to quote an article that will be written the day after tomorrow?

So what are they doing about it?

There are two issues here; firstly that the US population are living an unsustainable lifestyle that is destroying the planet's ability to support life; and secondly, that what benefits the US may not benefit other countries.

It is generally agreed that the best way to stop global warming is to lower emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases; unless we do, we could see the end of the rainforests. Yet the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases is dragging its heels over constructive action because it would damage US industry.

The overall mean surface temperature is predicted to rise by 3 degrees C over the next century; this would mean an environmental preservation bill totalling trillions of dollars, not to mention the partial destruction of low-lying countries like Egypt and the Netherlands and cities like Manhattan.

If, as New Scientist reports this week, global warming 'turns off' the North Atlantic Drift, the mean temperatures in Europe are going to start resembling those in Siberia; which will mean the productivity and fertility of Europe will be badly hit. As a Briton, I'm not exactly thrilled by this possibility!

If the economy of a country is ruined by global warming, it seems only reasonable to press for compensation on the world stage; which means that the largest producers of greenhouse gases and consumers of energy will be making the largest payout.

Compare energy usage among the following five countries;

Electricity consumption per capita

US 13477 kWh
Japan 7523 kWh
France 6966 kWh
UK 5525 kWh
Russia 5397 kWh
(Source: CIA)

It should be pretty obvious that the US is producing rather more than its fair share of carbon dioxide. I'm not pretending that the US is the only overconsumer; but the US consumes a *lot* more than it should - and this isn't sustainable in the long term

>...their overall outlook about the future
>remains optimistic. And technology is the reason.

Technology can be used to provide incalculable benefits; true; the whole of humanity benefits from increased knowledge in fields like medicine and meteorology; but can technology save us from the faulty assumption that we can go on consuming ever-greater amounts of non-renewable natural resources in the hope that we will develop a technofix that will solve the problem.

Necessity is the mother of invention, but there are limits to what you can do. Our entire world runs on a base of non-renewable resources; and we have no workable plans to provide a substitute as yet. It is Panglossian to insist that there's a bright new future up ahead when we've consumed half of the world's estimated reserves of natural resources since World War I and have no real contingency plans in place.

I write this on a machine made from processed oil and silicon and metals; it runs using power generated from burning fossil fuels and the metals were dug out of the ground using fossil fuels. I'm one of the privileged few who can do this. But is it really justifiable to produce more and more computers and assorted gadgetry if we are using scarce resources but aren't adding to the sum assets of humanity by doing so?

Is technology only to be used to bolster the lifestyle of the few who are already rich; or should the free exchange of information be made the platform for building a better life for everyone; a democratic, open and sustainable way of life?

Gideon Hallett

So what are they doing about it?

There are two issues here; firstly that the US population are living an unsustainable lifestyle that is destroying the planet's ability to support life; and secondly, that what benefits the US may not benefit other countries.

It is generally agreed that the best way to stop global warming is to lower emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases; unless we do, we could see the end of the rainforests. Yet the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases is dragging its heels over constructive action because it would damage US industry.

The overall mean surface temperature is predicted to rise by 3 degrees C over the next century; this would mean an environmental preservation bill totalling trillions of dollars, not to mention the partial destruction of low-lying countries like Egypt and the Netherlands and cities like Manhattan.

If, as New Scientist reports this week, global warming 'turns off' the North Atlantic Drift, the mean temperatures in Europe are going to start resembling those in Siberia; which will mean the productivity and fertility of Europe will be badly hit. As a Briton, I'm not exactly thrilled by this possibility!

If the economy of a country is ruined by global warming, it seems only reasonable to press for compensation on the world stage; which means that the largest producers of greenhouse gases and consumers of energy will be making the largest payout.

Compare energy usage among the following five countries;

Electricity consumption per capita

US 13477 kWh
Japan 7523 kWh
France 6966 kWh
UK 5525 kWh
Russia 5397 kWh
(Source: CIA)

It should be pretty obvious that the US is producing rather more than its fair share of carbon dioxide. I'm not pretending that the US is the only overconsumer; but the US consumes a *lot* more than it should - and this isn't sustainable in the long term

>...their overall outlook about the future
>remains optimistic. And technology is the reason.

Technology can be used to provide incalculable benefits; true; the whole of humanity benefits from increased knowledge in fields like medicine and meteorology; but can technology save us from the faulty assumption that we can go on consuming ever-greater amounts of non-renewable natural resources in the hope that we will develop a technofix that will solve the problem.

Necessity is the mother of invention, but there are limits to what you can do. Our entire world runs on a base of non-renewable resources; and we have no workable plans to provide a substitute as yet. It is Panglossian to insist that there's a bright new future up ahead when we've consumed half of the world's estimated reserves of natural resources since World War I and have no real contingency plans in place.

I write this on a machine made from processed oil and silicon and metals; it runs using power generated from burning fossil fuels and the metals were dug out of the ground using fossil fuels. I'm one of the privileged few who can do this. But is it really justifiable to produce more and more computers and assorted gadgetry if we are using scarce resources but aren't adding to the sum assets of humanity by doing so?

Is technology only to be used to bolster the lifestyle of the few who are already rich; or should the free exchange of information be made the platform for building a better life for everyone; a democratic, open and sustainable way of life?

Gideon Hallett

This nugget of information might be of interest to some.

I think I read this in the New Scientist - it basically discussed methods by which paralysed and/or crippled people may be able to walk again. It was discovered that, as opposed to traditional belief that the mind is fully responsible for one's ability to walk at all times, the mind only need send a signal down to the lower region of the body, and from then on, it already knows how to walk somehow.

The details of the discovery, and how accurate certain aspects of it are, I'm sketchy on unfortunately. But doctors were said to be looking into this to find ways that they need only open minor nerve connections to the lower body in order to allow someone to walk again.

The experiments were performed on rats, so there is more research to be done. But basically, the rats spinal cords were severed, and minor reconnections made suggesting that brain plays a smaller part in such operations, once the body has 'learned' them.

An interesting point, I thought, and a reminder that entrenched ideas and concepts are not to be confused with the mythical notion of truth.

After reading this story, it states that, 'Schulman suggests that they may be relics from the far future. This possibility requires that the expanding Universe eventually starts to contract into a "big crunch". In such a situation, the so-called "thermodynamic arrow of time" may reverse during the contraction, creating order out of chaos--an idea first pro- posed by Thomas Gold of Cornell University. "Because of the opposite-running time, anyone around in this phase would actually see the contraction as an expansion," says Schulman.'

Maybe this could help the explanantions of the big bang and expanding universe theories and how the universe actually came in existence. Or does it just go in a continuous loop of expanding and contacting. Any thoughts?

Seeing as there wasn't a link - for more info, look at http://www.newscientist.com /ns/19991127/newsstory3.html

I didn't read it online, so I can't link the article I read about it. It is a little disputed, but somewhat true, especially in tropical climates. By a google search I found this page which has overviews of some reports:

Results show that the selected method of time preference is a key factor in the outcome. For instance, with low annual discount rates (1-2%) the global warming impact of the Tucurui Dam is 3-4 times less than that of fossil fuel, but the situation reverses above a discount rate of 15%.

here is an article in New Scientist that touches on the issue as well.

-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.

Nuclear Power as it stands is a dirty, nasty, dangerous business. We are playing with forces which we know can destroy us all, we are creating toxins and wastes that we hardly know how to deal with, and we are putting trust in that the next generations will solve our problems for us.

Nuclear power is considerably less dirty, nasty and dangerous than most practical alternatives today. A catastrophic failure of a nuclear power plant (and Chernobyl was about as bad as it can get) might kill a few dozen people, but perfectly normal operation of a coal or oil burning power plant kills a lot more people by releasing all sorts of nasty chemicals into the atmosphere, which then cause lung cancer and similar diseases. (I recall seeing a figure of 28,000 deaths per year quoted, but I can't find a reference right not. Oh well.) Then you have coal mine accidents, general pollution, etc. "Forces that can destroy us all" is ludicrous hyperbole, even a loaf of bread is radioactive and it contains those same forces.

Anyone here going to tell me that greenhouse effect is not real?

I will tell you that it is too early to tell. Global temperatures are rising, but not in the way it should be according to the standard global warming thoery. The reason for it may well be unrelated, as the Earth's average temperature goes up and down anyway. Less than 20 years ago there was widespread fear of a new Ice Age, ie. global cooling, based on exactly the same data.

Just the same, if the global warming theory is correct, the problem is fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants produce next to no greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is not ideal, but solar and wind power just aren't going to cut it, now or quite possibly ever, for places like Finland.

And a few links:

• http://www.oneworld.org/energy/
  A neutral view of most types of energy
• http://www.newscientist. com/nsplus/insight/global/faq.html
  The New Scientist's global warming FAQ

Cheers,
-j.

This sounds like a different satellite, but the same general idea.

[...]So NASA's engineers flew the satellite past that point five times, emitting carefully calculated but very tiny squirts of precious hydrazine on each flyby, and persuaded the nearly defunct ISEE-3 to become the vibrant and exciting ICE, the International Cometary Explorer.[...]

Links here and here.

The number tables exhibit a weakness that is best explained by this article on the New Scientist Web Site.

Benford's Law (see the above article) states that given a random assortment of real-world numbers, 30% will start with a 1, 18% start with a 2 and so forth. Because the table lists the same number of values for each number, it follows that the numbers beginning with '1' will be used a lot more. Although unlikely, this may compromise the security of the code if it is used to encrypt numbers extensively.

You can check Benford's Law for yourself. Try it with share prices; career earnings of sportspeople, movie stars or racehorses; areas or populations of countries; all real-world numbers on the first 10 pages of any newspaper; and so on.

Because Benford's Law wasn't discovered until after the cipher was created, it is understandable that the cipher did not allow for this odd property of numbers.
--

The number tables exhibit a weakness that is best explained by this article on the New Scientist Web Site.

Benford's Law (see the above article) states that given a random assortment of real-world numbers, 30% will start with a 1, 18% start with a 2 and so forth. Because the table lists the same number of values for each number, it follows that the numbers beginning with '1' will be used a lot more. Although unlikely, this may compromise the security of the code if it is used to encrypt numbers extensively.

You can check Benford's Law for yourself. Try it with share prices; career earnings of sportspeople, movie stars or racehorses; areas or populations of countries; all real-world numbers on the first 10 pages of any newspaper; and so on.

Because Benford's Law wasn't discovered until after the cipher was created, it is understandable that the cipher did not allow for this odd property of numbers.
--

Alcubierre's homepage (http://www.astro.cf.ac.u k/pub/Miguel.Alcubierre/index.html) has a broken link to the paper itself. I can't find another copy.

The New Scientist has an article about it here.

I'm concerned with the following paragraph from the article:

And keyboards are also troublesome. They rely on a scanning signal, which radiates the pattern of keys being pressed. So the patent suggests using a random number generator to continually distort the scanning signal.

That's one of the the most vague things I've ever read in my life. That's like saying "I didn't want anyone to see me when I robbed the bank, so I used a random number generator to distort the police radio signal." It's apparent that they have some particular application of a random number generator in mind and that it is probably effective, but how on earth it's applied is neither implied nor apparent.

Does any have a clue what they're referring to?

All hand waving and qualitive results.

I want to know the method and intensity of irradiation, the number of rats used in the study etc.

One suggested method to alleviate this problem, would be to have the ariel (sp?) on the bottom of the 'phone. It'd still work, but be further from sensitive brain cells, but the obvious solution is handsfree equipment. Give us decent voice recognition and we're sorted. "Phone bob... *click*click* hi bob, i'm stuck in traffic..." etc.

I think I'll wait for NewScientist Coverage.

Actually, no, and this is one of the areas where the creationists have a very valid point, especially with the acceptance of the punctuated equilibrium theory among the evolutionists.

(Punctuated equilibrium (PE) was added to evolutionary theory to address the concern that there are a distinct lack of in-between forms in the fossil record, particularly w.r.t. the Cambrian explosion, where thousands of new species appeared at once with no transitional fossils. PE says that things remain stable for a long time, then something disturbs the equilibrium, and life rapidly adapts completely new forms.)

If this is true, then species transitions happen relatively quickly, and a very small number of the mutant species would parent an entire family tree. This should, in theory, result in in-breeding/genetic vigor problems. The fact that it doesn't is a point in the creationists favor. On the other hand, an active and perfect Creator would create a perfect example of the species, which would not (at least initially) be subject to the degradations we see as a result of in-breeding today.

I'm open-minded enough to recognize that *WE DON'T KNOW* how things came to be, and I recognize that both the evolutionists and the creationists have some very valid points. The creationists have in thier favor the fact that thier theory does gracefully explain things that otherwise present significant problems, and the universe certainly seems to show evidence of design. Keep an open mind, and you'll find that the creation theories have thier own strength areas that are different, but at least as compelling as, the evolutionary theories.

P.S.: Don't know for sure about the water for the flood came from, but you might want to check out this article from last month's New Scientist about where they may still be receding... (See, those creationists may not be so kooky as you think!)

• End of the Germ Line (28 March 1998)
• Devilish Seed (10 October 1998)

This is bad technology, and needs to be strangled to death in the cradle. If the music industry can kill off Digital Audio Tape, then farmers should kill off sterile seeds in the same way.

Farmers in all parts of the world expect that seeds are fertile and saving seeds from one crop will allow farmers to grow the same type of plants for the next harvest. That's why hybrid seeds are deprecated, and that's why "terminator technology" or "sterile seeds" are not wanted by the farming community.

• End of the Germ Line (28 March 1998)
• Devilish Seed (10 October 1998)

This is bad technology, and needs to be strangled to death in the cradle. If the music industry can kill off Digital Audio Tape, then farmers should kill off sterile seeds in the same way.

Farmers in all parts of the world expect that seeds are fertile and saving seeds from one crop will allow farmers to grow the same type of plants for the next harvest. That's why hybrid seeds are deprecated, and that's why "terminator technology" or "sterile seeds" are not wanted by the farming community.

I think rde means that they make the plants resistant to RoundUp
Not just Roundup. When new genes are spliced into plants, the most effective way to do so is to make the new genes antibiotic resistant, and then use antibiotics to filter out stuff that isn't wanted. They're also used to trace the genes once they've been inserted.
For an example of some of the problems that can ensue, check out this article from New Scientist.

The New Scientist has an article about how the earth is losing water much faster than thought possible - and 5x faster than it's being replenished. I thought this was an interesting discovery when I came upon it the other day. (For those that weren't properly educated, Genesis says the waters came from the "deep" within the earth.)

The fact that they appear to be going back there is enough to make one ponder a bit. I wonder what impact this has on our conjectures about the earth's history when the effect is projected back in time? Does the effect vary with time? Is there a good way to tell?

This is from a New Scientist article on the exact same topic (which was much more informative, by the way):

In 1995, Paul Dixon, a psychologist at the University of Hawaii, picketed Fermilab in Illinois because he feared that its Tevatron collider might trigger a quantum vacuum collapse. Then again in 1998, on a late night talk radio show, he warned that the collider could "blow the Universe to smithereens".

But particle physicists have this covered. In 1983, Martin Rees of Cambridge University and Piet Hut of the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, pointed out that cosmic rays (high-energy charged particles such as protons) have been smashing into things in our cosmos for aeons. Many of these collisions release energies hundreds of millions of times higher than anything RHIC can muster--and yet no disastrous vacuum collapse has occurred. The Universe is still here.

This argument also squashes any fears about black holes or strange matter. If it were possible for an accelerator to create such a doomsday object, a cosmic ray would have done so long ago. "We are very grateful for cosmic rays," says Jaffe.

[emphasis mine]

Before you call someone many different kinds of wrong, you may want to read up on it first. Our friend summed it up very well by saying it is "very old hat indeed."

Where a scientist have made a small "railroad" out of molecules.

I think it is great. We have to use something like this when we build our nanotech assemblers

Where a scientist have made a small "railroad" out of molecules.

I think it is great. We have to use something like this when we build our nanotech assemblers

New Scientist's Feedback column regularly has examples of bemusing labels; some examples that spring to mind (paraphrasing) are the frisbee that wasn't suitable for under threes because it contained small parts and the CD player that said "warning: dangerous warning inside".

I've been reading Slashdot for 6 months now, and this is the first time I've been moved to post.

2030: The world's ecosystem is collapsing under the strain of trying to support 12 billion human beings. New agricultural and animal husbandry techniques are struggling to keep up in the face of strange new diseases and syndromes caused by the amount of genetic engineering having been introduced into the food species and the low tolerance for new diseases because of the amount of domestication away from the original robust strains of food animals and plants.

See http://www.newscientist.com /ns/19991002/newsstory8.html Summary: There's a fair old chance that there will never be 12 billion on the planet. Today's predictions have the population of the world at (only) 8.9 Billion by 2050.Indeed, the real long-term planning that gets done now indicates we may have to content with a long-term world-wide population slump after 2070 or so.

To my way of thinking, such a view would invalidate much if not all of your argument's consequences, although obviously the causes - human nature - still applies.

I had a long tract here on GM and what have you, which I've had to remove because it was rubbish. However, I would urge you to review the literature - popular and otherwise. My personal opinion formed from just this is that we just don't know enough about it, period. To me that suggests an appropriate course of actions: Learn all that can be learned about the technology & it's effects.

I cannot, however, resist a side-swipe at my own country here. Mass-media led knee-jerk reaction leading to not only a ban on commercial exploitation (arguable but reasonable), but also an effective ban on research & development (reference the number of GM crop trials destroyed this year in the UK) is not an approach I can condone. Anyone got any jobs in a more mature society?

I started off by violently disagreeing with your conclusions based on your incorrect premise (12 Billion people by 2030). Having now reread both your post and my response, I see we agree on just about everything but the numbers. Ho hum.

henley

A month later New Scientist published this story, suggesting that the slowing was due to the reaction from heat radiated from the probes RTG power plant.

They still appear to be arguing over whether this effect is big enough. Measurements involving heat are notoriously difficult, as the cold fusion debacle showed.

A month later New Scientist published this story, suggesting that the slowing was due to the reaction from heat radiated from the probes RTG power plant.

They still appear to be arguing over whether this effect is big enough. Measurements involving heat are notoriously difficult, as the cold fusion debacle showed.

This is an interesting article in New Scientist about current developments in electronic paper. If this stuff is as nice as it looks, it could be the answer to many of the problems which prevent electronic media usurping paper. And, being less absorbent, electronic paper should be even better for reading in the bath than wood-pulp :-).

This is an interesting article in New Scientist about current developments in electronic paper. If this stuff is as nice as it looks, it could be the answer to many of the problems which prevent electronic media usurping paper. And, being less absorbent, electronic paper should be even better for reading in the bath than wood-pulp :-).

The New Scientist is carrying it too.

This kind of technology has practical benefits for some too. The sides of Britain's roads are increasingly populated by cameras which aren't there for speed, they recognise number-plates and then, when another camera sees that same plate at some other place it can use that information to help formulate a picture of traffic flows. That's cool. So long as the do as they say and drop the data after 20-30 minutes and only encode the middle few characters and not the whole plate.

If the camera makes the high street safer and the criminal more scared, is it a totally bad thing?

There are a few successful aviation one-man shows. If you look at them, every one of them started small; built something simple, flew it for a long time, then built something else -- perhaps something more revolutionary and complex. In the last fifty years there have been only two people who could have pulled this off, Molt Taylor (of the AirCar) and Burt Rutan (Voyager, Vari-Eze, Boomerang).

Moller has never built anything, to my knowledge, that has flown without being tethered down. The control systems for powered lift are incredibly complex, and he has shown absolutely no ability to produce one. What he has shown is pretty fiberglass sculptures and some slick ads. Unfortunately, these are quite simple to produce in comparison.

Think about it. Did any prototype program that you've ever written come with the equivalent of an inch-deep red paint job? No! Of course not. Prototypes look prototype-y, because you want to be able to make changes, learn from your mistakes, repair your damage, rebuild quickly. Look at the Gossamer Condor in the Smilthsonian next time you are there. The two wings aren't even built the same, as they were destroyed in crashes, and improved, at different times along the development process.

He's a crank, and has every single attribute of cranks, and none of the attributes of engineering. In the New Scientist' article, Moller says that he's never flown the M200 without a cable attached to a crane 'because neither Moller nor the vehicle are licensed to fly.' Right.

Well, he's lovable, anyway. And the history of aviation has many more cranks than people who could follow through. And people want to believe. Hell, I want to believe!

thad

This is from a New Scientist article from May '99. It's a 'SkyCar' developed by Paul Moller, and it's going to be in the air RSN (so they say), and is not manually controlled i.e. requires ATC (not air training corps -- for U.K. readers) above and beyond the current state of the art. This should mean no chance of crashing, (help! it's not running *NIX I hear you shriek...) or shunting your neighbour (not sp, there may be others, but I can spell neighbour (unlike Win 9n UK english edition grumble grumble)). It looks like I won't even need a driving license at this rate - well at least I've got my bike!

After a report in this week's new scientist about rocky planets being formed by gamma ray bursts, I was a wee bit worried. If this is such a planet, there's no need to divide the Drake Equation by a thousand.

I read an article in this week's New Scientist which suggests that Tourette's syndrome twitches are "intentional, coordinated movements made in response to some irresistable urge" rather than involuntary muscular spasms as previously thought. The article actually compares Tourette's to OCD and suggests it's an "extreme variant of a normal thing felt by many people". Interesting, no?

In Last week's NewScientist

New Scientist has a related article .