"They are trained for safety and security purposes, including crashes and hijacking."
They exist because of government regulations mandating certain staffing levels and minimal emergency abilities. Sorry, but anyone who wears high heals is not there for safety and security purposes. That apparel in direct opposition to effective safety and security measures is allowed to be worn indicates that their primary purpose lies elsewhere.
"When you add another dimension to a playback medium, the first temptation is to exploit that new dimension to the point of exaggeration. That is where 3-D TV is now."
Which does not bode well for the future of 3D. Because 3D is not new. It seems to have been in this phase for decades.
"But that's never going to happen, so this is the next best solution."
But it is not a solution. It actually rewards those who support the tough on crime initiatives because it removes the negative consequences of those policies.
"I have interviewed lots of people and this kind of thing would get you dumped in my book. I look for three major things in an interview.... 3) Do you know what your resume claims."
And you are part of the problem. He stated a skill that he had. He didn't say he was an expert. You assumed it.
"So if you put something on the resume, I expect you to know it inside and out."
That is absurd. And not realistic. If you want specific skills with specific levels of ability they need to be stated very clearly. They rarely are. For instance, I've seen companies that ask for "knowledge" of something. What the heck does that mean? Well, I covered it in a course once, so yes, I have knowledge of it. Likewise, "experience" doing "y" for "x" years. That too is pretty broad.
"Why would I work days and days, weeks and weeks, perhaps years and years to write a book, and then not be able to profit from it's publishing?"
You realize that prior to copyright and patents people routinely profitted from their works? And despite the fact that people routinely ignore patents and copyrights today, people still profit from their works? That isn't going to change. And there is no reason that digital products can't be treated as a physical good and their penalties for reproduction set the same as taking a physical copy. People will pay for stuff. It serves as an excellent filter.
"They needed a new school, and it had to deal with a number of special issues. For example,
* global raw material shortages caused costs to skyrocket to an average of $600 per square foot in 2006 and 2007 -- triple the price from 2002
* Methane mitigation cost $33 million
* $15 million preserving historic features"
The first issue might be justified. The second and third issues can not. They are reasons to build elsewhere. And you rarely NEED a new school. They could have waited or reduced features. They had many that could had been removed or delayed. Just like many other public projects.
"It is not like they could build it anywhere they want."
They certainly could have built somewhere that would have saved 33 million in methane mitigation, 15 million in historic preservation, 9 million in litigation, etc.
"For example, I am against abortion as birth control (note the difference; sometimes they are medically necessary and then there are cases of rape, etc.) but that has zero to do with any mythical dude in a beard sitting up in the clouds."
Your objection may not be religious but you can rationalize with the best of them. If you support abortion in the cases of rape then you support the use of abortion as birth control. If you support abortions that are medically necessary then you place a higher value on the mother than the fetus. Therefore, you should have no issue with abortion in all cases. Unless of course you are not being rational.
"It's because I think life is precious and if someone without any special circumstances winds up pregnant then that fetus should be allowed the chance to grow to term."
So you think that a woman should be forced to serve as an incubator? Very interesting view considering your next statements. And very contradictory. Not to mention repugnant.
"I'm not necessarily against embryonic stem cell research, but to dismiss the moral arguments as only those of people who cite their religion as the reason is misguided. My main concern with it is that we avoid any slippery slopes that lead to the production of embryos specifically for research. Then we are talking about the farming and harvesting of humans for our own gain."
This is full of fail. There are no good moral arguments against the embryonic stem cell research. There are certainly religious arguments. But appealing to the manufactured wishes of an imaginary deity are by definition poor. There are no slippery slopes except for the surfaces of the strawmen that you create. We already create embryos and discard them for our own gain, we already grow them (IVF, etc). That's the whole point of their creation. But I don't hear anyone complaining about that. But yet you don't have any problem with forcing women who don't want to be pregnant to remain so. You have a very interesting definition of slippery slope.
"So how exactly did the get-paid-for-recycling model fail?"
There are fewer aluminum cans for one. Plastic is everywhere. It has replaced metal. And the metal that remains in cans is much thinner. I could recycle cans and get paid but it just isn't worth it. Not enough material worth recycling, too much time and too much money to spend getting there.
"So it's OK if the rain falls on your lawn, it's fine, but if you collect it, then put it on your lawn a few days later, it's not OK? WTF?!?"
It is actually quite logical. The only difference between a rain barrel and a reservoir is one of scale. So if you don't have the right to store the water, you don't have the right to store the water, regardless of the scale. Because if you allow people to collect rain in a rain barrel that isn't otherwise allowed by the law, why can't they collect it in a reservoir? Of course, just because it is illegal, doesn't mean there are any consequences to violating it. The net effect is that the law needed to be changed. But there is good reason that the law existed as it did and why it had to be deliberately changed.
In Washington, all water belongs to the public. Anyone appropriating water in the state must have the proper water claim, right and/or certificate before using water (legally). Certain uses are exempted from the need to acquire a certificate (very difficult), such as groundwater use under 5000 gallons a day (wells). As there was no provision in law for the collection of rain water without a certificate or preexisting water claim or right, it was by definition illegal. While it may seem absurd, the difference between a rain barrel and a reservoir is a pretty fine line on a large enough scale. Considering that much of the state is arid, relies on rainfall and has more water rights/claims/certificates allocated than water available, stating otherwise would have created a legal nightmare.
"When it becomes naturally profitable to recycle people will do so themselves."
No they won't. Some will but most still won't bother.
"Right now I don't throw away aluminum, stainless steel, brass, copper, lead, steel, some types of glass and several plastics plus newspapers."
And I routinely throw those things away even though I have curbside recycling and/or could profit from them. The common term is laziness. I'm sure there is a technical term for the behavior. But I throw less away because of curbside recycling. And would certainly make more of an effort if the cost was higher (fines or otherwise). The same isn't true if the return for recycling it myself went up.
"For instance, if we want to know how well a football coach is doing, we often measure something about the team he's coaching. It's the same when measuring many managerial and executive positions."
Which, based on the research, is not a good measure. Just because we do it doesn't mean it's correct. We do it because it's easy. Football coaches are easy to replace, the team isn't.
"Teaching seems to me to be another area where that makes perfect sense."
"The value-added tests do also attempt to remove biases such as student selection, as the metric compares those particular students' scores against their scores from the previous year. So the metric measures just the kids in your class, and measures not where they started but how much they improved."
Epic fail. The approach is a good idea but fatally flawed. It assumes that the difference in scores is meaningful without having enough data to ensure that it is. Case in point, I once gave a logical reasoning test to a college class at the beginning and end of a course. They scored higher at the beginning than the end. One of the conclusions could be that I made them less logical. The more likely conclusion is that I should not have given the ending test after their final.... In other words, how do you insure that test differences actually relate to what you are measuring and not to environmental factors? The larger the sample size, the less it might matter. But on a class size population you can get some really strange effects. In the end, standardized tests are just another less useful form of grades which are merely summaries of teacher evaluations of students.
The real problem with these evaluations is that they don't really answer the question(s) we need answered. They can only answer how well a student did on a test. They actually don't tell you about teacher quality. Or its affect on students.
"The reason schools can't tell who's a good teacher and who isn't is that the problem itself is very difficult."
Not really. The problem is that it can't be done quickly based on a set of metrics from test scores. It actually requires time consuming evaluation. Which is rarely done and why unions are routinely opposed.
What people don't realize that there is a significant barrier to entry for teaching. I'm qualified to teach at the college level and have done so but cannot do so at the high school level without at least another year of schooling. And it's not easy to gain entry into those programs (limited space). Not to mention that it would cost at least 15K in tuition (and a years pay) to get a job that starts at 40K with a Master's degree (Washington state). Due to Congress and state legislatures, they couldn't fire a significant portion of teachers and replace them.
South Carolina does not allow teachers to unionize. Over 90% of Georgia and North Carolina teachers are not members of unions. I don't recall those states being used as models of education. I believe they also fire fewer teachers as a percentage than does California.
"In the case of the Teachers Union, it's the kids getting screwed over, and the taxpayer being screwed over."
Exactly what reality do you live in? In the state of Washington, the teachers are prohibited from striking and the base pay and working conditions and job requirements are set by the legislature. I assume it is similar in most states. If taxpayers and kids are getting screwed it's because of the legislature. Which means the taxpayers need to look in the mirror and take responsibility.
"Teacher's Unions are the biggest problem with the US educational system."
No they are not. They are certainly the biggest scapegoat. If they were a problem, then why isn't the state of South Carolina the model of education in the US? What, never heard of them? Teacher unions are prohibited in South Carolina. Yet their schools aren't known for quality.
If you prefer, over 97% of North Carolina teachers are not part of a union. In Georgia the percentage is over 92%. Neither of those states are models of educational acheivement.
And why exactly should highly educated and trained professionals get paid poorly just because they like doing their job?!?
So is a baseball. But I don't think you would want to take one to the head. And soccer balls can reach a significant fraction of the speed of a pitch. Head them wrong and they can cause real damage and broken bones (been there, done that). Done right they still cause damage.
"And while there's contact all the time, soccer players are too fast/agile to do much damage."
Then why is one of my friends suffering permanent brain damage from a concussion suffered in recreational soccer? One player's shoulder contacted my friend's head while attempting a fairly routine header. So much for his career as a medical doctor. Concussions are not unusual in soccer. I've had minor ones myself. Considering the collisions I've had as a keeper, it's amazing I haven't had more. It's the primary reason I no longer play. Soccer is a contact sport.
"Of course, I'm sure the fact that we end up paying people who get imprisoned because the government fucks up had no bearing at all on the government's desire to convince everyone they didn't fuck up."
Actually, probably not. The DA may just not want to admit they made a mistake. It's uncomfortable to process those facts so the DA doesn't. They probably even believe that the person is guilty. Cognitive dissonance and the like is pretty powerful.
"They must have already had pretty substantial evidence to be able to get him, so really the low probability doesn't matter, because 1/13 means that 12/13 chance it would have cleared him by finding someone else's spit on his stick."
It didn't matter in this case because of the witness (and of course witnesses never make mistakes....) But it matters in other cases where the only lab evidence may be DNA. In that case, the difference is reasonable doubt.
I'd say there is a serious problem with DNA evidence. The "experts" don't know, can't decide and/or don't disclose how accurate it is. As a result most people think it's infallable, including the lawyers and judges. That's bad.
"That proportion seems a little high for say, IT workers, who'd probably have little use for customer data outside the job they're in, but I could imagine sales staff however being more likely to do such a thing because having a good network of contacts can be a major benefit when moving into other jobs as a salesman- especially if you're on performance related pay and need to hit sales targets, there is quite high financial motive there for it."
The whole survey is a worthless hatchet job. We have no idea what questions where actually asked and how they were phrased. And some of the things that they consider "bad" are perfectly legal and/or acceptable. For instance, I have taken customer data, electronic files and product information when leaving jobs. It was perfectly acceptable and actually necessary. I have certainly taken office supplies (aka company property) inadvertently. Forget to take that pen out of your pocket? So I would be included in those percentages.
As to confidential information, if you are granted access even inadvertently, you have permission to look at it. If they didn't want just anyone to look at it then they would encrypt it. And it's perfectly legal to disclose salary information in the US. Of course, they didn't provide percentages for those who would disclose that information which likely means it is very low.
"Escorting people out of the building and revoking their access privileges the second they get fired is actually warranted?"
The answer to that question cannot be determined by this survey. The poll was unscientific (conducted online) and as a result its results are meaningless. Even if it was conducted in a proper manner, the questions are not reported nor do we have any idea of the actual group of people it covers. In other words, it is an epic fail. Unless of course you want to promote an agenda or get page hits, then it is an epic win.
"A 1982 model could move itself with just 70 hp and many could get 50 mpg on the highway compared to the Camry's 29. Sounds like we're advancing in the wrong direction to me."
And the 1982 model would not be legal for sale today. In any case, you can buy an entry level Toyota which will get very good mileage and be superior in pretty much every way to that 1982 car (safety, emissions, reliability, performance). Or buy a Prius.
"Obama needs another four years so he can actually do some real socialism."
Obama is never going to do some real socialism. He isn't even progressive. He is a moderate conservative. Always was, always will be. Put another way, he is closer to Bush than Nader or Kucinich.
"There's a difference between cross pollinating compatible species and injecting genetic traits from animals or non compatible species directly into the plants DNA"
No there isn't. Both are genetically modified. We just use different techniques.
Plenty of bad things have resulted from the old methods of genetic modification. All of the problems of current agriculture pretty much flowed from them. But we did it because it had massive benefits. I expect the same from the new methods. At least we do testing now.
Slashdot Mirror
"They are trained for safety and security purposes, including crashes and hijacking."
They exist because of government regulations mandating certain staffing levels and minimal emergency abilities. Sorry, but anyone who wears high heals is not there for safety and security purposes. That apparel in direct opposition to effective safety and security measures is allowed to be worn indicates that their primary purpose lies elsewhere.
"When you add another dimension to a playback medium, the first temptation is to exploit that new dimension to the point of exaggeration. That is where 3-D TV is now."
Which does not bode well for the future of 3D. Because 3D is not new. It seems to have been in this phase for decades.
"But that's never going to happen, so this is the next best solution."
But it is not a solution. It actually rewards those who support the tough on crime initiatives because it removes the negative consequences of those policies.
"I have interviewed lots of people and this kind of thing would get you dumped in my book. I look for three major things in an interview. ... 3) Do you know what your resume claims."
And you are part of the problem. He stated a skill that he had. He didn't say he was an expert. You assumed it.
"So if you put something on the resume, I expect you to know it inside and out."
That is absurd. And not realistic. If you want specific skills with specific levels of ability they need to be stated very clearly. They rarely are. For instance, I've seen companies that ask for "knowledge" of something. What the heck does that mean? Well, I covered it in a course once, so yes, I have knowledge of it. Likewise, "experience" doing "y" for "x" years. That too is pretty broad.
"Why would I work days and days, weeks and weeks, perhaps years and years to write a book, and then not be able to profit from it's publishing?"
You realize that prior to copyright and patents people routinely profitted from their works? And despite the fact that people routinely ignore patents and copyrights today, people still profit from their works? That isn't going to change. And there is no reason that digital products can't be treated as a physical good and their penalties for reproduction set the same as taking a physical copy. People will pay for stuff. It serves as an excellent filter.
"They needed a new school, and it had to deal with a number of special issues. For example,
* global raw material shortages caused costs to skyrocket to an average of $600 per square foot in 2006 and 2007 -- triple the price from 2002
* Methane mitigation cost $33 million
* $15 million preserving historic features"
The first issue might be justified. The second and third issues can not. They are reasons to build elsewhere. And you rarely NEED a new school. They could have waited or reduced features. They had many that could had been removed or delayed. Just like many other public projects.
"It is not like they could build it anywhere they want."
They certainly could have built somewhere that would have saved 33 million in methane mitigation, 15 million in historic preservation, 9 million in litigation, etc.
"For example, I am against abortion as birth control (note the difference; sometimes they are medically necessary and then there are cases of rape, etc.) but that has zero to do with any mythical dude in a beard sitting up in the clouds."
Your objection may not be religious but you can rationalize with the best of them. If you support abortion in the cases of rape then you support the use of abortion as birth control. If you support abortions that are medically necessary then you place a higher value on the mother than the fetus. Therefore, you should have no issue with abortion in all cases. Unless of course you are not being rational.
"It's because I think life is precious and if someone without any special circumstances winds up pregnant then that fetus should be allowed the chance to grow to term."
So you think that a woman should be forced to serve as an incubator? Very interesting view considering your next statements. And very contradictory. Not to mention repugnant.
"I'm not necessarily against embryonic stem cell research, but to dismiss the moral arguments as only those of people who cite their religion as the reason is misguided. My main concern with it is that we avoid any slippery slopes that lead to the production of embryos specifically for research. Then we are talking about the farming and harvesting of humans for our own gain."
This is full of fail. There are no good moral arguments against the embryonic stem cell research. There are certainly religious arguments. But appealing to the manufactured wishes of an imaginary deity are by definition poor. There are no slippery slopes except for the surfaces of the strawmen that you create. We already create embryos and discard them for our own gain, we already grow them (IVF, etc). That's the whole point of their creation. But I don't hear anyone complaining about that. But yet you don't have any problem with forcing women who don't want to be pregnant to remain so. You have a very interesting definition of slippery slope.
"So how exactly did the get-paid-for-recycling model fail?"
There are fewer aluminum cans for one. Plastic is everywhere. It has replaced metal. And the metal that remains in cans is much thinner. I could recycle cans and get paid but it just isn't worth it. Not enough material worth recycling, too much time and too much money to spend getting there.
"So it's OK if the rain falls on your lawn, it's fine, but if you collect it, then put it on your lawn a few days later, it's not OK? WTF?!?"
It is actually quite logical. The only difference between a rain barrel and a reservoir is one of scale. So if you don't have the right to store the water, you don't have the right to store the water, regardless of the scale. Because if you allow people to collect rain in a rain barrel that isn't otherwise allowed by the law, why can't they collect it in a reservoir? Of course, just because it is illegal, doesn't mean there are any consequences to violating it. The net effect is that the law needed to be changed. But there is good reason that the law existed as it did and why it had to be deliberately changed.
In Washington, all water belongs to the public. Anyone appropriating water in the state must have the proper water claim, right and/or certificate before using water (legally). Certain uses are exempted from the need to acquire a certificate (very difficult), such as groundwater use under 5000 gallons a day (wells). As there was no provision in law for the collection of rain water without a certificate or preexisting water claim or right, it was by definition illegal. While it may seem absurd, the difference between a rain barrel and a reservoir is a pretty fine line on a large enough scale. Considering that much of the state is arid, relies on rainfall and has more water rights/claims/certificates allocated than water available, stating otherwise would have created a legal nightmare.
"When it becomes naturally profitable to recycle people will do so themselves."
No they won't. Some will but most still won't bother.
"Right now I don't throw away aluminum, stainless steel, brass, copper, lead, steel, some types of glass and several plastics plus newspapers."
And I routinely throw those things away even though I have curbside recycling and/or could profit from them. The common term is laziness. I'm sure there is a technical term for the behavior. But I throw less away because of curbside recycling. And would certainly make more of an effort if the cost was higher (fines or otherwise). The same isn't true if the return for recycling it myself went up.
"He was wrong."
And your peer reviewed literature source is ?
"For instance, if we want to know how well a football coach is doing, we often measure something about the team he's coaching. It's the same when measuring many managerial and executive positions."
Which, based on the research, is not a good measure. Just because we do it doesn't mean it's correct. We do it because it's easy. Football coaches are easy to replace, the team isn't.
"Teaching seems to me to be another area where that makes perfect sense."
Another example of common sense isn't so common.
"The value-added tests do also attempt to remove biases such as student selection, as the metric compares those particular students' scores against their scores from the previous year. So the metric measures just the kids in your class, and measures not where they started but how much they improved."
Epic fail. The approach is a good idea but fatally flawed. It assumes that the difference in scores is meaningful without having enough data to ensure that it is. Case in point, I once gave a logical reasoning test to a college class at the beginning and end of a course. They scored higher at the beginning than the end. One of the conclusions could be that I made them less logical. The more likely conclusion is that I should not have given the ending test after their final.... In other words, how do you insure that test differences actually relate to what you are measuring and not to environmental factors? The larger the sample size, the less it might matter. But on a class size population you can get some really strange effects. In the end, standardized tests are just another less useful form of grades which are merely summaries of teacher evaluations of students.
The real problem with these evaluations is that they don't really answer the question(s) we need answered. They can only answer how well a student did on a test. They actually don't tell you about teacher quality. Or its affect on students.
"The reason schools can't tell who's a good teacher and who isn't is that the problem itself is very difficult."
Not really. The problem is that it can't be done quickly based on a set of metrics from test scores. It actually requires time consuming evaluation. Which is rarely done and why unions are routinely opposed.
What people don't realize that there is a significant barrier to entry for teaching. I'm qualified to teach at the college level and have done so but cannot do so at the high school level without at least another year of schooling. And it's not easy to gain entry into those programs (limited space). Not to mention that it would cost at least 15K in tuition (and a years pay) to get a job that starts at 40K with a Master's degree (Washington state). Due to Congress and state legislatures, they couldn't fire a significant portion of teachers and replace them.
South Carolina does not allow teachers to unionize. Over 90% of Georgia and North Carolina teachers are not members of unions. I don't recall those states being used as models of education. I believe they also fire fewer teachers as a percentage than does California.
"In the case of the Teachers Union, it's the kids getting screwed over, and the taxpayer being screwed over."
Exactly what reality do you live in? In the state of Washington, the teachers are prohibited from striking and the base pay and working conditions and job requirements are set by the legislature. I assume it is similar in most states. If taxpayers and kids are getting screwed it's because of the legislature. Which means the taxpayers need to look in the mirror and take responsibility.
"Teacher's Unions are the biggest problem with the US educational system."
No they are not. They are certainly the biggest scapegoat. If they were a problem, then why isn't the state of South Carolina the model of education in the US? What, never heard of them? Teacher unions are prohibited in South Carolina. Yet their schools aren't known for quality.
If you prefer, over 97% of North Carolina teachers are not part of a union. In Georgia the percentage is over 92%. Neither of those states are models of educational acheivement.
And why exactly should highly educated and trained professionals get paid poorly just because they like doing their job?!?
"Have you ever headed a soccer ball?"
Yes.
"They're extremely light."
So is a baseball. But I don't think you would want to take one to the head. And soccer balls can reach a significant fraction of the speed of a pitch. Head them wrong and they can cause real damage and broken bones (been there, done that). Done right they still cause damage.
"And while there's contact all the time, soccer players are too fast/agile to do much damage."
Then why is one of my friends suffering permanent brain damage from a concussion suffered in recreational soccer? One player's shoulder contacted my friend's head while attempting a fairly routine header. So much for his career as a medical doctor. Concussions are not unusual in soccer. I've had minor ones myself. Considering the collisions I've had as a keeper, it's amazing I haven't had more. It's the primary reason I no longer play. Soccer is a contact sport.
"Of course, I'm sure the fact that we end up paying people who get imprisoned because the government fucks up had no bearing at all on the government's desire to convince everyone they didn't fuck up."
Actually, probably not. The DA may just not want to admit they made a mistake. It's uncomfortable to process those facts so the DA doesn't. They probably even believe that the person is guilty. Cognitive dissonance and the like is pretty powerful.
"They must have already had pretty substantial evidence to be able to get him, so really the low probability doesn't matter, because 1/13 means that 12/13 chance it would have cleared him by finding someone else's spit on his stick."
It didn't matter in this case because of the witness (and of course witnesses never make mistakes....) But it matters in other cases where the only lab evidence may be DNA. In that case, the difference is reasonable doubt.
I'd say there is a serious problem with DNA evidence. The "experts" don't know, can't decide and/or don't disclose how accurate it is. As a result most people think it's infallable, including the lawyers and judges. That's bad.
"That proportion seems a little high for say, IT workers, who'd probably have little use for customer data outside the job they're in, but I could imagine sales staff however being more likely to do such a thing because having a good network of contacts can be a major benefit when moving into other jobs as a salesman- especially if you're on performance related pay and need to hit sales targets, there is quite high financial motive there for it."
The whole survey is a worthless hatchet job. We have no idea what questions where actually asked and how they were phrased. And some of the things that they consider "bad" are perfectly legal and/or acceptable. For instance, I have taken customer data, electronic files and product information when leaving jobs. It was perfectly acceptable and actually necessary. I have certainly taken office supplies (aka company property) inadvertently. Forget to take that pen out of your pocket? So I would be included in those percentages.
As to confidential information, if you are granted access even inadvertently, you have permission to look at it. If they didn't want just anyone to look at it then they would encrypt it. And it's perfectly legal to disclose salary information in the US. Of course, they didn't provide percentages for those who would disclose that information which likely means it is very low.
"Escorting people out of the building and revoking their access privileges the second they get fired is actually warranted?"
The answer to that question cannot be determined by this survey. The poll was unscientific (conducted online) and as a result its results are meaningless. Even if it was conducted in a proper manner, the questions are not reported nor do we have any idea of the actual group of people it covers. In other words, it is an epic fail. Unless of course you want to promote an agenda or get page hits, then it is an epic win.
"A 1982 model could move itself with just 70 hp and many could get 50 mpg on the highway compared to the Camry's 29. Sounds like we're advancing in the wrong direction to me."
And the 1982 model would not be legal for sale today. In any case, you can buy an entry level Toyota which will get very good mileage and be superior in pretty much every way to that 1982 car (safety, emissions, reliability, performance). Or buy a Prius.
What's your point again?
"Obama needs another four years so he can actually do some real socialism."
Obama is never going to do some real socialism. He isn't even progressive. He is a moderate conservative. Always was, always will be. Put another way, he is closer to Bush than Nader or Kucinich.
"There's a difference between cross pollinating compatible species and injecting genetic traits from animals or non compatible species directly into the plants DNA"
No there isn't. Both are genetically modified. We just use different techniques.
Plenty of bad things have resulted from the old methods of genetic modification. All of the problems of current agriculture pretty much flowed from them. But we did it because it had massive benefits. I expect the same from the new methods. At least we do testing now.