That statement in no way 'suggests' that he doesn't beleive in molecular biology. That statement simply means that he is a) not an expert on molecular biology (the 'knowledge' part), and b) does not know enough about the subject to even know if he should believe the information he has been told.
This sort of phrase appears often in legal documents. If you see a phrase like 'on information and belief' it means 'I was given this information, and based on what I know I believe it to be true. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the persons 'beliefs'.
Concentration and alertness are not the same thing. The radio certainly interferes with concentration, and when you are looking for an address you are concentrating. Normal driving does not require concentration, it requires alterness. In fact, concentration interferes with alterness. One reason that beginning drivers are so bad is that they are concentrating so much on the mechanics of driving that they are not alert. There is no indication that the radio interferes with alertness.
Yes, because OTHER IMPROVEMENTS to safety are ongoing. The point which you can't seem to grasp is that they would be declining at a STEEPER RATE if people were not talking on their phones or texting.
If you are engaging in the activities that cause you to get punished at a roadblock, then you are NOT 'otherwise safe'. You just have not yet met the condition for your lack of safety to be exposed.
The main problem with your idea is that it requires someone to actually be harmed before any action is taken. That is just stupid. That harm could have easily been prevented in the first place, and it should have been.
There are causes of accidents other than distracted driving. In the last 20 years many improvements have been made to the cars and roads. There has also been increased focus on DWI. Put those things together, and you have a declining accident rate, EVEN IF the rate of accidents from distracted driving is going up.
You make it sound like there is some acceptable rate of traffic deaths, and as long as we maintain that rate there is no reason to try to improve. The acceptable rate is 0, and once we hit that we can stop improving.
Any driving course will teach you how to avoid 'highway hypnosis'. If you are in a 'sterile driving environment' (ie staring straight ahead) you are doing it wrong. The correct way to fix that is to look at different things (when it is safe to do so). However, you should NOT be dedicating a significant part of your brain to that activity (like by trying to identify a bird or something). If you are texting or phoning you ARE dedicating a significant part of your brain to that activity.
Well, if you can do that, great. Of course that means you have no reactions at all and should not be driving. So the next best thing is proposed - don't generate the interrupt in the first place.
Because they aren't distracting. You probably check the gauges, etc dozens of times during a trip, and never even realize it. If I asked you what the gauge said a few seconds after you looked at it you could probably not even tell me. However, if you got a text or phone call, I bet I could ask you 10 minutes later and you would know exactly who it was from. In the case of gauges no real 'processing' or memory is involved - you are just looking for a quick confirmation of something, and as soon as you have that you can forget about it. Not so with texts and phone calls.
Several ways. First, looking at the clock, radio, speedometer, etc is done at a time convenient for and chosen by the driver. There is no sense of urgency about it - it is not an interrupt. Most drivers are not going to be looking at those things except for when it is relatively safe to do so. On the other hand, many (most?) people treat an incoming phone call or text as something that must be dealt with RIGHT NOW.
Secondly, looking at those other things takes very little thought, and thus causes very little distraction. Reading a phone number or name takes a lot more thought, and distracts you for a longer period of time.
Nowhere does it say anything about downloading. It says he 'travelled with the products', which sort of implies CDs/DVDs. Buying a DVD/CD (even a pirated one) is not copyright infringement since you have not copied (or distributed) anything.
All the water used for the locks was heading towards the ocean to start with. They dammed the Chagras River (which empties into the ocean) to form Gatun Lake, and they release the water from there as needed. They aren't 'wasting' water, the are just delaying it's trip to the ocean. Or is your view that every undammed waterway on the planet is a 'waste' of water?
That link does not say anything about blindfolded people not being able to distiguish red from while wine. It says that when white wine was dyed red, and the tasters were not told that, they described the wine in terms of a red wine. This means that what we see is important to what we perceive, and that we can be fooled by what we think we see (see any number of optical illusions), but it says nothing about what we perceive in the absence of vision. I can pretty much guarantee that if those testers were told one of the wines was a dyed white they would have been able to determine which one it was.
What??? There is no such thing as a 'Miranda right'. Where did you get that idea? The Miranda warning is just a statement of your already-existing constitutional rights, said in a way that is easy to understand. Thus "not shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" becomes "you have the right to remain silent", along with the caution that if you give up that right whatever you say can be used against you.
Also note that the actual right is to not be compelled to be a witness against yourself. If you give up that right by testifying in your defense, then you can be compelled to answer questions, even if they incriminate you.
Nobody said he had to destroy his entire crop (or any part of his crop). Nobody said he was required to know if his crop had been cross-pollinated or not. What they said was that he DID know (because of his actions). There is no indication that had he not intentionally isolated the GM crop he would have been sued. Surely there are many farmers in that situation (cross pollination), yet nobody can find a case where they were sued.
He admitted he intentionally sprayed 3 or 4 acres to see if they were RoundUp ready. Why would he do that? Either he was opposed to GM, in which case he should have voluntarily destroyed the GM crop he found (and possible sue Monsanto and/or his neighbors), or he wanted to use the GM crop, which he knew he was not entitled to.
There are many places where everything hinges on what you did or did not know. That is why so many laws have the phrase 'knew or should have known' in them.
OK, I understand that. But isn't that a farming practices problem, and not a GM problem? GM may have some hidden flaw, but the creation of a monoculture is because farmers did it, and not because of some inherent property of being GM, right?
I admit I don't know, that is why I asked the question (shocking, I know). So instead of giving a non-answer like that, perhaps you could actually answer the question.
And again, he was not 'on the hook' because Monsanto's stuff got into his stuff. he was on the hook because of HIS actions. He knew exactly what he was doing - farmers don't routinely try to kill 3 or 4 acres of their crop without a good reason.
There is a reason that this case is one of the very few that people can find where Monsanto sued a farmer - because it just does not happen like people like to claim. There are NO cases where the actions of the farmer (and not simple cross-pollination) are not the key.
The guy did not get sued (and lose) because his crop was 'accidentally' pollinated by his neighbors plants, he got sued (and lost) because he intentionally killed off all of the non GM crop, and kept the seeds from what was left. That is why the phrase 'knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant' was in there, and that is why he was sued and lost.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean, dumping the desktop? It is the first product listed on the 'Red Hat Linux' page.
That statement in no way 'suggests' that he doesn't beleive in molecular biology. That statement simply means that he is a) not an expert on molecular biology (the 'knowledge' part), and b) does not know enough about the subject to even know if he should believe the information he has been told.
This sort of phrase appears often in legal documents. If you see a phrase like 'on information and belief' it means 'I was given this information, and based on what I know I believe it to be true. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the persons 'beliefs'.
And I forgot to add that looking at texts and talking on the phone takes concentration, which interferes with alertness.
Yes, and if the driver is competent he will NOT be engaging in conversation with those people.
Concentration and alertness are not the same thing. The radio certainly interferes with concentration, and when you are looking for an address you are concentrating. Normal driving does not require concentration, it requires alterness. In fact, concentration interferes with alterness. One reason that beginning drivers are so bad is that they are concentrating so much on the mechanics of driving that they are not alert. There is no indication that the radio interferes with alertness.
Yes, because OTHER IMPROVEMENTS to safety are ongoing. The point which you can't seem to grasp is that they would be declining at a STEEPER RATE if people were not talking on their phones or texting.
If you are engaging in the activities that cause you to get punished at a roadblock, then you are NOT 'otherwise safe'. You just have not yet met the condition for your lack of safety to be exposed.
The main problem with your idea is that it requires someone to actually be harmed before any action is taken. That is just stupid. That harm could have easily been prevented in the first place, and it should have been.
There are causes of accidents other than distracted driving. In the last 20 years many improvements have been made to the cars and roads. There has also been increased focus on DWI. Put those things together, and you have a declining accident rate, EVEN IF the rate of accidents from distracted driving is going up.
You make it sound like there is some acceptable rate of traffic deaths, and as long as we maintain that rate there is no reason to try to improve. The acceptable rate is 0, and once we hit that we can stop improving.
Any driving course will teach you how to avoid 'highway hypnosis'. If you are in a 'sterile driving environment' (ie staring straight ahead) you are doing it wrong. The correct way to fix that is to look at different things (when it is safe to do so). However, you should NOT be dedicating a significant part of your brain to that activity (like by trying to identify a bird or something). If you are texting or phoning you ARE dedicating a significant part of your brain to that activity.
Well, if you can do that, great. Of course that means you have no reactions at all and should not be driving. So the next best thing is proposed - don't generate the interrupt in the first place.
Because they aren't distracting. You probably check the gauges, etc dozens of times during a trip, and never even realize it. If I asked you what the gauge said a few seconds after you looked at it you could probably not even tell me. However, if you got a text or phone call, I bet I could ask you 10 minutes later and you would know exactly who it was from. In the case of gauges no real 'processing' or memory is involved - you are just looking for a quick confirmation of something, and as soon as you have that you can forget about it. Not so with texts and phone calls.
Several ways. First, looking at the clock, radio, speedometer, etc is done at a time convenient for and chosen by the driver. There is no sense of urgency about it - it is not an interrupt. Most drivers are not going to be looking at those things except for when it is relatively safe to do so. On the other hand, many (most?) people treat an incoming phone call or text as something that must be dealt with RIGHT NOW.
Secondly, looking at those other things takes very little thought, and thus causes very little distraction. Reading a phone number or name takes a lot more thought, and distracts you for a longer period of time.
And if you do that IN THAILAND they would indeed have jurisdiction, just like the US has jurisdiction when this guy is on US soil (which he was).
Nowhere does it say anything about downloading. It says he 'travelled with the products', which sort of implies CDs/DVDs. Buying a DVD/CD (even a pirated one) is not copyright infringement since you have not copied (or distributed) anything.
There are CPUs that draw that much. IBMs EC12 draws about 300 watts.
All the water used for the locks was heading towards the ocean to start with. They dammed the Chagras River (which empties into the ocean) to form Gatun Lake, and they release the water from there as needed. They aren't 'wasting' water, the are just delaying it's trip to the ocean. Or is your view that every undammed waterway on the planet is a 'waste' of water?
That link does not say anything about blindfolded people not being able to distiguish red from while wine. It says that when white wine was dyed red, and the tasters were not told that, they described the wine in terms of a red wine. This means that what we see is important to what we perceive, and that we can be fooled by what we think we see (see any number of optical illusions), but it says nothing about what we perceive in the absence of vision. I can pretty much guarantee that if those testers were told one of the wines was a dyed white they would have been able to determine which one it was.
What??? There is no such thing as a 'Miranda right'. Where did you get that idea? The Miranda warning is just a statement of your already-existing constitutional rights, said in a way that is easy to understand. Thus "not shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" becomes "you have the right to remain silent", along with the caution that if you give up that right whatever you say can be used against you.
Also note that the actual right is to not be compelled to be a witness against yourself. If you give up that right by testifying in your defense, then you can be compelled to answer questions, even if they incriminate you.
Nobody said he had to destroy his entire crop (or any part of his crop). Nobody said he was required to know if his crop had been cross-pollinated or not. What they said was that he DID know (because of his actions). There is no indication that had he not intentionally isolated the GM crop he would have been sued. Surely there are many farmers in that situation (cross pollination), yet nobody can find a case where they were sued.
He admitted he intentionally sprayed 3 or 4 acres to see if they were RoundUp ready. Why would he do that? Either he was opposed to GM, in which case he should have voluntarily destroyed the GM crop he found (and possible sue Monsanto and/or his neighbors), or he wanted to use the GM crop, which he knew he was not entitled to.
There are many places where everything hinges on what you did or did not know. That is why so many laws have the phrase 'knew or should have known' in them.
OK, I understand that. But isn't that a farming practices problem, and not a GM problem? GM may have some hidden flaw, but the creation of a monoculture is because farmers did it, and not because of some inherent property of being GM, right?
I admit I don't know, that is why I asked the question (shocking, I know). So instead of giving a non-answer like that, perhaps you could actually answer the question.
And again, he was not 'on the hook' because Monsanto's stuff got into his stuff. he was on the hook because of HIS actions. He knew exactly what he was doing - farmers don't routinely try to kill 3 or 4 acres of their crop without a good reason.
There is a reason that this case is one of the very few that people can find where Monsanto sued a farmer - because it just does not happen like people like to claim. There are NO cases where the actions of the farmer (and not simple cross-pollination) are not the key.
Why is GM more or likely to cross-pollinate?
The guy did not get sued (and lose) because his crop was 'accidentally' pollinated by his neighbors plants, he got sued (and lost) because he intentionally killed off all of the non GM crop, and kept the seeds from what was left. That is why the phrase 'knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant' was in there, and that is why he was sued and lost.
Why is a GM crop more likely to become a monoculture than a non GM crop?