I'd say its more of a technique than a technology, but besides, it's old, and therefore viewed as OK. Try brewing beer with, say, genetically modified yeast, hops, and barley, and then suddenly you're an evil Frankenstein who wants to play god and poison everyone with vague and undefined toxins and cause AIDS or something. Until biotechnology in general becomes an old thing and the current generation dies off, biotechnology will be associated with fear.
From Frankenstein to modern Hollywood B movies, even otherwise rational people have a tendency to lose their head a little when they see the words 'biology' and 'technology' in the same sentence.
I don't want live in a country where you can't feel safe unless you have a gun.
Newsflash: That's all of them. Any country capable of now or in the future descending into some form of fascist or totalitarian or whatever government is a country where you are not safe unless you or the general population is armed. Although you apparently believe that your government is a little lower than the angels, so you don't need to take any prudent precautions and can just fully trust them to always and forever look out for the best interest of the people. However, those us in the real world, unfortunately, need arms.
Yes, and if the vaccine does work, they'll claim that HIV was eliminated by sanitation and that AIDS wasn't really that bad and didn't kill that many people and was going away before the vaccine and that it can easily be cured by natural remedies that 'they' are hiding. Believe it or not, that's what they already say about diseases that have been largely eliminated by vaccines.
How did that get modded troll? Its spot on. The problem with new biotechnology isn't the logical scientific arguments that can be made against it. The problem is the emotional, irrational arguments that can be made repeatedly and loudly and with a few conspiracies thrown in for good measure. That's not to say that all arguments against it are total bullshit that a handful of clueless douchebags pulled out their asses one day, but by and large that is the case, and while it does indeed present potential dangers, the potential benefits are just phenomenal.
The fact is that every living organism is controlled by genes. Just like altering a computer's hardware and software also alters performance accordingly, sufficient genetic alteration to useful organisms could do damn near anything. Those endless possibilities are simply too good to pass up. It's just a shame that we've got to cut through so much popular bullshit about the subject.
There is no such thing as natural. Evolution has produced glowing bugs, plants that shoot pollen faster than sound, berries with taste bud altering chemicals, fish that spontaniously change sex, ect. There are a lot of natural organisms with seemingly unnatural traits. How did they get them? Given time, any trait could appear in any organism. It isn't as if there is some official rule book or list of what organisms are natural because organisms are constantly adding and subtracting and altering their genes. Evolution hasn't been moving towards any particular point. 'Natural' is just a man made construct. Your 'it isn't natural' argument is completely meaningless.
In other words, we should force people to stop doing something because a forwarded email written by some woo-woo kool-aid drinker said that, facts be damned, it's bad? Brilliant health care plan you've got there.
I think the problem is that he's seeing the internet not just as another TV, but something that is much closer to the TV room from Fahrenheit 451, and he doesn't like that. And to a degree, there s some truth to that. However, despite what he's done in the past, his stand on this particular issue is, while possibly not idiotic, undoubtedly ignorant. I don't think he sees it for what it really is. He sees the fluff that people waste their time on, but he's looking selectively at it. He doesn't see all the 'real' content available.
And yet, when you're sick, you take medicine. When you're hungry, you get food. When you're thirsty, you have clean water. That's all preventing a decrease in the population. So, claim we should keep the population down. Prove it. Walk the walk, or you're being hypocritical.
Didn't really think this one through too well, did you?
In other words, you're starting with a conclusion (anti-piracy is teh fascism, pirates are saints) and moving backwards from there, and any facts that doesn't fit that model are a conspiracy to discredit those wonderful pirates. I wish I could say this thought surprised me.
I know you're trolling, but you've inadvertently touched a good point. Not a racial thing of course, but when was the last time we saw one of these stories about some genius kid who clawed their way out of a ghetto to get a college degree at that age? I haven't seen one. Its always that way. We see some story about this uber-genius kid, but when we dig deeper, it almost inevitably turns out that that they had (very) well off parents who pushed and encouraged them, and they got all the right help along the way. Surprise, that can has good results.
I'm not trying to take away from anyone's accomplishments, I'm sure this kid is indeed exceptionally smart, but I really don't think his is cause to be impressed. When I see some kid rise up from some shit hole existence from a ghetto somewhere and get a degree at that age, I'll be impressed. But this, meh. Special, yes, but not fabulously so.
That's why Google needs to recalibrate the differential equation of the search formula. See, if they'd set the limit variable to compensate for misinformation, which can easily be revealed mathematically if you use a derivative variation of the linguistic quantification operator, you can reverse the polarity of your crappy searches and essentially find what you're locking for in reduced time exponential to the search hits of the internet's tangent. Sheesh, its that easy people.
I think a white man, with the richness of his experiences (making the assumption of having had more money and better education), would make a better business person or doctor or scientist than a latina woman who hasn't lived that life.
Was that statement racist? How so? What makes that statement racist, but her's not racist? Why isn't it racist to assume things about any group based on race? Does being of one race or experience make one less just?
That does sound pretty cool. If I had more space I'd be doing that. I've got kiwanos, cassabanana, and lichi tomato going right now that I think would be neat to work with. If I had more room I'd plant a crapload of the seeds from this generation and start selecting for flavor in kiwano, shorter time to maturity in cassabanana, and less seeds in litchi tomato.
Are you joking? Do you know how many varieties of apple there are? Wild apples are barely half the size and aren't nearly as sweet. Think pears just happened? Uncultivated ones are gritty and sand-like. Ever notice how there's no seeds in your banana? Think wild ones are seedless? Corn? Not even naturally occurring. Wild wheat has a fraction of the yield of newer varieties. Look at all the ways humans have improved Brassica oleracea (hint: do you think broccoli, cauliflower, kale, cabbage, and brussels sprouts just happened?). Potatoes, carrots, oranges, nectarines, tomatoes, melons, barley, jeez, this post could go on and on, and that's just common food crops. To act like humans don't improve natural things is just bafflingly ignorant. People should really learn the history of their food sometime.
No ones saying we would, at least not in general. The issues to overcome would be social issues that favor or discriminate against the genetically modified/non-modified people. What do you do about perceived unfair advantage the modified might have? What about the perceived inferior non-modified people, who would more than likely be children of groups already poor? What about pockets of luddites and their children? What about the (unlikely) chance that something goes wrong with the modifications themselves? Sure, genetic engineering hasn't blown up in anyone's face yet, and much to Greenpeace's dismay, it probably never will, but modifying human populations is something that must be taken with much more prudence than crops. Its not about bizarre experiments so much as it is about potential problems, mostly social in nature. I'm not saying these problems can't be overcome, or that modifying humans is necessarily a bad thing (as I said, it could do a whole lot of good), just that I don't think we should be doing gene modifications on humans at this point in time.
Its not an inherent danger. However, at humanity's present level of maturity, so to speak, it certainly could open one massive can of worms. In the short term and at the present time, it would be one bumpy road, but in the long term, in some future time period, it could do a whole lot of good.
As far as this subject goes, there's just as much, if not a lot more, bogus 'ZOMG genetic engineering is teh ebil!!!1!' FUD from the generally left wing groups than right wing groups.
Somebody save me, don't care how you do it just save me... How about some "the ends justify the means, the violence is forgivable, integrity be damned" propaganda?
When someone is in some sort of mortal danger, yes, violence, even lethal violence, is more than justified. sometimes the ends DO justify the means. Weren't there storylines about the fact that Superman could take over the world and eliminate all crime if he wanted to? But those ends didn't justify the means.
A millionaire whose rampant excesses are taking food from the mouth of the poor and oppressed, leaving them desperate and forced into a life of crime, operates above the law and brutalizes those who attempt to operate outside the rigged game with weapons that make the whole thing an exercise in shooting fish in a barrel.
This may come as a shock to you, but in the real world, just because someone is rich does not mean that they got their money unjustly any more than poverty is always a result of laziness. Yeah, it happens, but if memory serves, the Wayne family was actually very charitable and used their money to help Gotham City and its inhabitants.
An amoral scientist who manufactures terrible weapons for the military spends his life on the run attempting to hide from them and not be noticed when they turn on him.
Where in the comics does it condone such weapons? Does it say what Banner was doing was right. Didn't think so. The Hulk isn't meant to be a picture of perfection, that's why he turns into a raging monster. I'd say the Hulk, like most Marvel comics, is actually about imperfection. Spiderman's apathy resulted in his Uncle's death. Wolverine is an angry amnesiac. Iron Man made billions as a weapons dealer. If you don't like it, real Strawberry Shortcake. Perfection is neither realistic nor interesting.
Face it. Your national heros are just as disgusting as your national ideology.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say its more of a technique than a technology, but besides, it's old, and therefore viewed as OK. Try brewing beer with, say, genetically modified yeast, hops, and barley, and then suddenly you're an evil Frankenstein who wants to play god and poison everyone with vague and undefined toxins and cause AIDS or something. Until biotechnology in general becomes an old thing and the current generation dies off, biotechnology will be associated with fear.
From Frankenstein to modern Hollywood B movies, even otherwise rational people have a tendency to lose their head a little when they see the words 'biology' and 'technology' in the same sentence.
I don't want live in a country where you can't feel safe unless you have a gun.
Newsflash: That's all of them. Any country capable of now or in the future descending into some form of fascist or totalitarian or whatever government is a country where you are not safe unless you or the general population is armed. Although you apparently believe that your government is a little lower than the angels, so you don't need to take any prudent precautions and can just fully trust them to always and forever look out for the best interest of the people. However, those us in the real world, unfortunately, need arms.
Yes, and if the vaccine does work, they'll claim that HIV was eliminated by sanitation and that AIDS wasn't really that bad and didn't kill that many people and was going away before the vaccine and that it can easily be cured by natural remedies that 'they' are hiding. Believe it or not, that's what they already say about diseases that have been largely eliminated by vaccines.
How did that get modded troll? Its spot on. The problem with new biotechnology isn't the logical scientific arguments that can be made against it. The problem is the emotional, irrational arguments that can be made repeatedly and loudly and with a few conspiracies thrown in for good measure. That's not to say that all arguments against it are total bullshit that a handful of clueless douchebags pulled out their asses one day, but by and large that is the case, and while it does indeed present potential dangers, the potential benefits are just phenomenal.
The fact is that every living organism is controlled by genes. Just like altering a computer's hardware and software also alters performance accordingly, sufficient genetic alteration to useful organisms could do damn near anything. Those endless possibilities are simply too good to pass up. It's just a shame that we've got to cut through so much popular bullshit about the subject.
There is no such thing as natural. Evolution has produced glowing bugs, plants that shoot pollen faster than sound, berries with taste bud altering chemicals, fish that spontaniously change sex, ect. There are a lot of natural organisms with seemingly unnatural traits. How did they get them? Given time, any trait could appear in any organism. It isn't as if there is some official rule book or list of what organisms are natural because organisms are constantly adding and subtracting and altering their genes. Evolution hasn't been moving towards any particular point. 'Natural' is just a man made construct. Your 'it isn't natural' argument is completely meaningless.
In other words, we should force people to stop doing something because a forwarded email written by some woo-woo kool-aid drinker said that, facts be damned, it's bad? Brilliant health care plan you've got there.
I think the problem is that he's seeing the internet not just as another TV, but something that is much closer to the TV room from Fahrenheit 451, and he doesn't like that. And to a degree, there s some truth to that. However, despite what he's done in the past, his stand on this particular issue is, while possibly not idiotic, undoubtedly ignorant. I don't think he sees it for what it really is. He sees the fluff that people waste their time on, but he's looking selectively at it. He doesn't see all the 'real' content available.
And yet, when you're sick, you take medicine. When you're hungry, you get food. When you're thirsty, you have clean water. That's all preventing a decrease in the population. So, claim we should keep the population down. Prove it. Walk the walk, or you're being hypocritical.
Didn't really think this one through too well, did you?
Yeah, but I'm talking about the one with the DC-8 ;)
Tom Cruise didn't pilot a Boeing. It was Douglas. A DC-8, to be precise.
Yep, but even without physically stealing his identity, one can still do damage.
In other words, you're starting with a conclusion (anti-piracy is teh fascism, pirates are saints) and moving backwards from there, and any facts that doesn't fit that model are a conspiracy to discredit those wonderful pirates. I wish I could say this thought surprised me.
I know you're trolling, but you've inadvertently touched a good point. Not a racial thing of course, but when was the last time we saw one of these stories about some genius kid who clawed their way out of a ghetto to get a college degree at that age? I haven't seen one. Its always that way. We see some story about this uber-genius kid, but when we dig deeper, it almost inevitably turns out that that they had (very) well off parents who pushed and encouraged them, and they got all the right help along the way. Surprise, that can has good results.
I'm not trying to take away from anyone's accomplishments, I'm sure this kid is indeed exceptionally smart, but I really don't think his is cause to be impressed. When I see some kid rise up from some shit hole existence from a ghetto somewhere and get a degree at that age, I'll be impressed. But this, meh. Special, yes, but not fabulously so.
Or, if you're into FPS, it's called "murderous office rampage."
Otherwise referred to as Monday.
That's why Google needs to recalibrate the differential equation of the search formula. See, if they'd set the limit variable to compensate for misinformation, which can easily be revealed mathematically if you use a derivative variation of the linguistic quantification operator, you can reverse the polarity of your crappy searches and essentially find what you're locking for in reduced time exponential to the search hits of the internet's tangent.
Sheesh, its that easy people.
I think a white man, with the richness of his experiences (making the assumption of having had more money and better education), would make a better business person or doctor or scientist than a latina woman who hasn't lived that life.
Was that statement racist? How so? What makes that statement racist, but her's not racist? Why isn't it racist to assume things about any group based on race? Does being of one race or experience make one less just?
That does sound pretty cool. If I had more space I'd be doing that. I've got kiwanos, cassabanana, and lichi tomato going right now that I think would be neat to work with. If I had more room I'd plant a crapload of the seeds from this generation and start selecting for flavor in kiwano, shorter time to maturity in cassabanana, and less seeds in litchi tomato.
I've tried them. Don't waste your money.
Are you joking? Do you know how many varieties of apple there are? Wild apples are barely half the size and aren't nearly as sweet. Think pears just happened? Uncultivated ones are gritty and sand-like. Ever notice how there's no seeds in your banana? Think wild ones are seedless? Corn? Not even naturally occurring. Wild wheat has a fraction of the yield of newer varieties. Look at all the ways humans have improved Brassica oleracea (hint: do you think broccoli, cauliflower, kale, cabbage, and brussels sprouts just happened?). Potatoes, carrots, oranges, nectarines, tomatoes, melons, barley, jeez, this post could go on and on, and that's just common food crops. To act like humans don't improve natural things is just bafflingly ignorant. People should really learn the history of their food sometime.
No ones saying we would, at least not in general. The issues to overcome would be social issues that favor or discriminate against the genetically modified/non-modified people. What do you do about perceived unfair advantage the modified might have? What about the perceived inferior non-modified people, who would more than likely be children of groups already poor? What about pockets of luddites and their children? What about the (unlikely) chance that something goes wrong with the modifications themselves? Sure, genetic engineering hasn't blown up in anyone's face yet, and much to Greenpeace's dismay, it probably never will, but modifying human populations is something that must be taken with much more prudence than crops. Its not about bizarre experiments so much as it is about potential problems, mostly social in nature. I'm not saying these problems can't be overcome, or that modifying humans is necessarily a bad thing (as I said, it could do a whole lot of good), just that I don't think we should be doing gene modifications on humans at this point in time.
Its not an inherent danger. However, at humanity's present level of maturity, so to speak, it certainly could open one massive can of worms. In the short term and at the present time, it would be one bumpy road, but in the long term, in some future time period, it could do a whole lot of good.
As far as this subject goes, there's just as much, if not a lot more, bogus 'ZOMG genetic engineering is teh ebil!!!1!' FUD from the generally left wing groups than right wing groups.
A dead monkey, no, but I hear there's a market for dead parrots.
Somebody save me, don't care how you do it just save me... How about some "the ends justify the means, the violence is forgivable, integrity be damned" propaganda?
When someone is in some sort of mortal danger, yes, violence, even lethal violence, is more than justified. sometimes the ends DO justify the means. Weren't there storylines about the fact that Superman could take over the world and eliminate all crime if he wanted to? But those ends didn't justify the means.
A millionaire whose rampant excesses are taking food from the mouth of the poor and oppressed, leaving them desperate and forced into a life of crime, operates above the law and brutalizes those who attempt to operate outside the rigged game with weapons that make the whole thing an exercise in shooting fish in a barrel.
This may come as a shock to you, but in the real world, just because someone is rich does not mean that they got their money unjustly any more than poverty is always a result of laziness. Yeah, it happens, but if memory serves, the Wayne family was actually very charitable and used their money to help Gotham City and its inhabitants.
An amoral scientist who manufactures terrible weapons for the military spends his life on the run attempting to hide from them and not be noticed when they turn on him.
Where in the comics does it condone such weapons? Does it say what Banner was doing was right. Didn't think so. The Hulk isn't meant to be a picture of perfection, that's why he turns into a raging monster. I'd say the Hulk, like most Marvel comics, is actually about imperfection. Spiderman's apathy resulted in his Uncle's death. Wolverine is an angry amnesiac. Iron Man made billions as a weapons dealer. If you don't like it, real Strawberry Shortcake. Perfection is neither realistic nor interesting.
Face it. Your national heros are just as disgusting as your national ideology.
At least they're not trolls.