There are different versions of genetic modification. Taking a specific gene and transferring it into another organism is not a heck of a lot different from breeding for a trait. In some ways, more predictable since you know what protein you're going to produce, whereas breeding can have all sorts of odd pleiotropic effects, selection for major things like paedomorphism, etc. The other kind of genetic modification is the "shotgun" method; chop the total DNA of these insecticidal bacteria into manageable pieces, mix it up with plant embryos, grow a zillion of them up and grab any which have incorporated the insecticides. And who knows what else.....
"Uh, what's your point?" See also: "we need to develop newer antibiotics for all the bacteria who have developed resistance to our old antibiotics, but they don't come cheap"
1) Pharmacology actually paved the way for Big Medicine; before anesthesia and antibiotics, going to old Doc Sawbones was not much better than just toughing things out. And the quality of many of the doctors at the time matched that status. And the unregulated patent medicines sold from medicine shows... well, we don't call them snake oil for nothing. 2) As soon as effective drugs began to be developed and they became regulated, the "practice of medicine" became the gateway to prescription pharmaceuticals, which made one huge change in the status or doctors. Meanwhile, with anesthesia now available, surgery became something that could possibly be not worse than death, and technical developments were rapid. 3) "Western" medicine prides itself on being scientific as distinct from alternative medicine, but again and again we see how treatments are based on nothing more than "just common sense". Surgery for back pain, for a giant example. So now there's a newer movement that has to call itself evidence-based medicine. 4) The whole vast field of mind over body, psychosomatics, placebos, hypochondria, biofeedback, etc. is about as unexplored at this point as the bottom of the ocean.
Has your cardiologist mentioned diet, exercise, stress before? Most doctors have the same experience; talk to the patient about heart disease, patient waves off meds, promises lifestyle changes. Next year, repeat. Meanwhile, the patient's circulatory system has suffered another year's cumulative damage from cholesterol and high blood pressure. At some point, the responsible thing to do is tell the patient to take the damn meds, and if he/she should get going on the lifestyle changes, then great, we'll reconsider then.
Could you imagine how many jobs would be lost if they released the cure for cancer?
Thats bad business
All the jobs involved in putting out carcinogenic chemicals, mainly, Ironically, cancer is one of the few diseases that can be fully cured these days, in many cases, like infections. Unlike diabetes, asthma, arthritis, depression, lupus, sickle cell, migraine, atherosclerosis, alzheimer's, etc etc etc. You don't hear about people being treated for cancer for 40 years; it's either cured or fatal, although sometimes it takes a couple of rounds of therapy for one or the other.
True! Those nanny states that are forcing children to be vaccinated are preventing evolution from creating new improved human beings who are naturally immune to virii. That's why our freedom will win in the end.[/more sarcasm]
Well, that's the news media these days. Two sides to every question, fair and balanced, blah blah. Controversy sells papers. Or video time. I'm looking forward to headlines in the paper any day now "New debate on flatness of earth".
And in a related note, let's hear from all the folks who want to abolish the FDA for interfering with all the advances we could have if we didn't have to prove drugs actually didn't kill people, let alone worked.
As they say: The novice programmer comments what he did. The intermediate programmer comments why he did it. The expert programmer comments why he did not do it the obvious way.
Back in the 80s(? maybe?) Porsche tried to do the same thing. (Surveys frequently report that customers rate the dealer as the worst part of buying a car). The dealerships ganged up and stopped them them, too. Hey, remember when Daewoo tried to get student sales reps to sell their cars on university campuses? That worked well...
Actually, around 50/50 is as good a breakdown of the normal variance as any, given the standard error of our current measures. (And as with any such, that's dependent on the distribution of both in the population; obviously, looking at the breakdown of the variance in schizoid alcoholics would give you a different result). For a given individual, of course, the ability of change mortality/morbidity is entirely due to environment/lifestyle.
"I am against nationalism but in favor of Zionism. The reason has become clear to me today. When a man has both arms and he is always saying I have a right arm, then he is a chauvinist. However, when the right arm is missing, then he must do something to make up for the missing limb. Therefore, I am, as a human being, an opponent of nationalism. But as a Jew I am from today a supporter of the Jewish Zionist efforts."
Being opposed to nationalism is one thing. Being opposed specifically to Zionism (or reserving one's public opposition specifically to Zionism) is another. Being opposed specifically to Zionism because the existence of Israel would be violently rejected by followers of pan-Arabic nationalism (qawmiyya) is most definitely another.
He also abhorred the violent creation of the Israeli nation, and was actively anti-Zionist.
Yet his work has been captured by the Hebrew University, and is used to glorify a nation who's creation he saw as tragic, and who's establishment he repudiated.
Yet he was offered the Presidency of Israel in 1952, and though he turned them down, he posed it as a matter of his own abilities and interests, rather than an "abhorrence of the violent creation of the Israeli nation" or "active anti-Zionism". He may have abhorred the violence, as many Jews and non-Jews are without pinning the entire abhorrence onto Israel, but apparently not enough to make a public statement; perhaps the phrase you are looking for is "was saddened by the violent creation of the Israeli nation, and was actively against violence by either party, or any group in general".
Still and all, you do get the Revisionist Godwin Award, for embodying the law that as any online discussion progresses, the probability of somebody making a covertly anti-Semitic rant completely unrelated to the subject at hand approaches 1, quite rapidly.
"The reason laws against covert photography were missing " was because the law lags behind technology quite a bit, generally. There have certainly been plenty of laws against covert voice recording, despite your (not untrue) belief that "such laws would also apply to people working for the State, and governments did NOT want their own people limited by such laws." Agents of the state could not willy-nilly listen in to phone calls (legally anyway) without demonstrating to the judiciary that you were in pursuit of specific information related to a specific criminal case. Of course, all that goes out the window now that we realize that Arabs and/or Muslims are having conversations freely behind our backs.
My random reading of the newspaper for the past few years encountered several cases where a camera hidden in a bathroom or somewhere could not result in prosecution of the pervert involved, since there was no law against it, and they could only be prosecuted if there was an audio track so that the anti-eavesdropping laws applied.
"Nearly all audio recording without consent of one or all parties is unlawful. Recording audio is very different from video, and there are definite federal and state laws prohibiting surreptitious recording and monitoring of audio interactions. These laws are taken extremely seriously by authorities and failure to adhere to them could result in serious consequences." http://www.jlmmerchandise.com/...
Well, at least this time they took pains to make it gender neutral, it is now equally illegal to take upskirt photos of an adult male. Probably looking for the Scottish tourist business.
Slashdot Mirror
we learned that if we don't live in mining states, we can close our eyes, or at most go "tsk tsk" and turn the page, and nothing will happen to us.
Until we can GMO a weed that produces beef, our problems will continue.
There are different versions of genetic modification. Taking a specific gene and transferring it into another organism is not a heck of a lot different from breeding for a trait. In some ways, more predictable since you know what protein you're going to produce, whereas breeding can have all sorts of odd pleiotropic effects, selection for major things like paedomorphism, etc.
The other kind of genetic modification is the "shotgun" method; chop the total DNA of these insecticidal bacteria into manageable pieces, mix it up with plant embryos, grow a zillion of them up and grab any which have incorporated the insecticides. And who knows what else.....
"Uh, what's your point?"
See also: "we need to develop newer antibiotics for all the bacteria who have developed resistance to our old antibiotics, but they don't come cheap"
1) Pharmacology actually paved the way for Big Medicine; before anesthesia and antibiotics, going to old Doc Sawbones was not much better than just toughing things out. And the quality of many of the doctors at the time matched that status. And the unregulated patent medicines sold from medicine shows... well, we don't call them snake oil for nothing.
2) As soon as effective drugs began to be developed and they became regulated, the "practice of medicine" became the gateway to prescription pharmaceuticals, which made one huge change in the status or doctors. Meanwhile, with anesthesia now available, surgery became something that could possibly be not worse than death, and technical developments were rapid.
3) "Western" medicine prides itself on being scientific as distinct from alternative medicine, but again and again we see how treatments are based on nothing more than "just common sense". Surgery for back pain, for a giant example. So now there's a newer movement that has to call itself evidence-based medicine.
4) The whole vast field of mind over body, psychosomatics, placebos, hypochondria, biofeedback, etc. is about as unexplored at this point as the bottom of the ocean.
Has your cardiologist mentioned diet, exercise, stress before?
Most doctors have the same experience; talk to the patient about heart disease, patient waves off meds, promises lifestyle changes. Next year, repeat. Meanwhile, the patient's circulatory system has suffered another year's cumulative damage from cholesterol and high blood pressure. At some point, the responsible thing to do is tell the patient to take the damn meds, and if he/she should get going on the lifestyle changes, then great, we'll reconsider then.
Could you imagine how many jobs would be lost if they released the cure for cancer?
Thats bad business
All the jobs involved in putting out carcinogenic chemicals, mainly,
Ironically, cancer is one of the few diseases that can be fully cured these days, in many cases, like infections. Unlike diabetes, asthma, arthritis, depression, lupus, sickle cell, migraine, atherosclerosis, alzheimer's, etc etc etc. You don't hear about people being treated for cancer for 40 years; it's either cured or fatal, although sometimes it takes a couple of rounds of therapy for one or the other.
Doctors are stealing our foreskins and appendixes and selling them to rich Arab sheikhs.
" it makes me have the same symptoms as the flu the few times I did get it"
Except for death, I presume.
True! Those nanny states that are forcing children to be vaccinated are preventing evolution from creating new improved human beings who are naturally immune to virii. That's why our freedom will win in the end.[/more sarcasm]
Well, that's the news media these days. Two sides to every question, fair and balanced, blah blah. Controversy sells papers. Or video time.
I'm looking forward to headlines in the paper any day now "New debate on flatness of earth".
And in a related note, let's hear from all the folks who want to abolish the FDA for interfering with all the advances we could have if we didn't have to prove drugs actually didn't kill people, let alone worked.
As they say:
The novice programmer comments what he did.
The intermediate programmer comments why he did it.
The expert programmer comments why he did not do it the obvious way.
Yeah, I guess I'll take that promotion, I've always wanted to become a manager, I'll probably be good at it once I get the hang of it.
Back in the 80s(? maybe?) Porsche tried to do the same thing. (Surveys frequently report that customers rate the dealer as the worst part of buying a car). The dealerships ganged up and stopped them them, too.
Hey, remember when Daewoo tried to get student sales reps to sell their cars on university campuses? That worked well...
stick with Lynx.
Deploy: to remove the ploy from something.
"Hey, I got too much ploy, who wants to deploy me?"
Everyone dies, you dumbfuck.
I haven't.
Neither has the original poster, I would guess.
Actually, around 50/50 is as good a breakdown of the normal variance as any, given the standard error of our current measures. (And as with any such, that's dependent on the distribution of both in the population; obviously, looking at the breakdown of the variance in schizoid alcoholics would give you a different result).
For a given individual, of course, the ability of change mortality/morbidity is entirely due to environment/lifestyle.
Maybe you should read another book, any of many:
"I am against nationalism but in favor of Zionism. The reason has become clear to me today. When a man has both arms and he is always saying I have a right arm, then he is a chauvinist. However, when the right arm is missing, then he must do something to make up for the missing limb. Therefore, I am, as a human being, an opponent of nationalism. But as a Jew I am from today a supporter of the Jewish Zionist efforts."
http://books.google.com/books?...
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/arch...
http://books.google.com/books?...
http://books.google.com/books?...
http://books.google.com/books?...
Being opposed to nationalism is one thing. Being opposed specifically to Zionism (or reserving one's public opposition specifically to Zionism) is another. Being opposed specifically to Zionism because the existence of Israel would be violently rejected by followers of pan-Arabic nationalism (qawmiyya) is most definitely another.
He also abhorred the violent creation of the Israeli nation, and was actively anti-Zionist.
Yet his work has been captured by the Hebrew University, and is used to glorify a nation who's creation he saw as tragic, and who's establishment he repudiated.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/einstein-on-palestine-and-zionism/
Yet he was offered the Presidency of Israel in 1952, and though he turned them down, he posed it as a matter of his own abilities and interests, rather than an "abhorrence of the violent creation of the Israeli nation" or "active anti-Zionism". He may have abhorred the violence, as many Jews and non-Jews are without pinning the entire abhorrence onto Israel, but apparently not enough to make a public statement; perhaps the phrase you are looking for is "was saddened by the violent creation of the Israeli nation, and was actively against violence by either party, or any group in general".
Still and all, you do get the Revisionist Godwin Award, for embodying the law that as any online discussion progresses, the probability of somebody making a covertly anti-Semitic rant completely unrelated to the subject at hand approaches 1, quite rapidly.
"The reason laws against covert photography were missing " was because the law lags behind technology quite a bit, generally. There have certainly been plenty of laws against covert voice recording, despite your (not untrue) belief that "such laws would also apply to people working for the State, and governments did NOT want their own people limited by such laws." Agents of the state could not willy-nilly listen in to phone calls (legally anyway) without demonstrating to the judiciary that you were in pursuit of specific information related to a specific criminal case. Of course, all that goes out the window now that we realize that Arabs and/or Muslims are having conversations freely behind our backs.
My random reading of the newspaper for the past few years encountered several cases where a camera hidden in a bathroom or somewhere could not result in prosecution of the pervert involved, since there was no law against it, and they could only be prosecuted if there was an audio track so that the anti-eavesdropping laws applied.
"No matter how intrusive, they say, video voyeurism is typically not illegal." [ca. 1998] http://articles.courant.com/19...
"Nearly all audio recording without consent of one or all parties is unlawful. Recording audio is very different from video, and there are definite federal and state laws prohibiting surreptitious recording and monitoring of audio interactions. These laws are taken extremely seriously by authorities and failure to adhere to them could result in serious consequences." http://www.jlmmerchandise.com/...
Of course, both parties can agree that when done by a corporation, any degree of intrusion into a person's privacy of any sort is quite acceptable.
“History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark.”
Well, at least this time they took pains to make it gender neutral, it is now equally illegal to take upskirt photos of an adult male.
Probably looking for the Scottish tourist business.