The end of privacy, that is! Whether one is for or against it, privacy is soon to be a relic, unless working methods to counter nano-surveillence devices are devised.
When virtually invisible, and atmospherically pervasive nano "motes" wirelessly transmit all they see and hear (and it won't be that long!), to say nothing of monitoring the minutia of our individual brain activity emanations, you won't even be able to keep your thoughts private. Forget the foil hats unless you can seal yourself up in one hermetically!
The end of privacy will mark a tectonic shift in society. It will not be safe to "think outside the box", and the box will close in on us, getting smaller every year.
If you can Google up a cubic 1mm computer, completely self-contained with solar cells, memory and radio transmitter, made to be implanted in your eye and available today - what do you suppose already exists out there when the rule of thumb is that the military is actually 10-15 years ahead of the public domain? That hummingbird drone thing is a joke!
Maybe I shouldn't be beating them 25% of the time!;o)
Actually, my kids are older now, and didn't cry that much either back then. But I do recall the figure being about that high, and that the release of stress hormones is a prime factor. Like they say, "your mileage may vary"!
If I recall correctly, babies cry about 25% of the time. Their tears are the primary mechanism which allows them to shed excess hormones created by stress. It's no surprise to me that a woman's tears would also contain some sort of hormone(s), any of which, if inhaled, would likely temporarily interfere with hormone production in the inhaler.
If the government sector continues to increase it's percentage of the total employment pie, soon there will be nobody outside of government to leak to. Problem solved!
If Google really wanted to live up to the 'Don't be Evil' brand, then this is what it would be doing.... Google just wants to be a corporate version of the NSA.
Robert David Steele, intelligence veteran and CEO of OSS.Net, Inc. told HSToday.us that “Google is being actively hypocritical and deceptive in playing up its refusal to help the Department of Justice when all along it has been taking money and direction for elements of the US Intelligence Community, including the Office of Research and Development at the Central Intelligence Agency, In-Q-Tel, and in all probability, both the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command.”
Steele added, “I have no doubt that Google, in its arrogance, decided it could make a deal with the devil and not get caught.” — HSToday.us
Google has much deeper ties to intelligence than is generally acknowledged, so I'd say not "wants to be a corporate version" but rather, "is a corporate arm" of the NSA. (I Googled around to find that out! But they know that!)
I've been avoiding photos for as long as I can remember. It's unlikely that there were more than a dozen taken (analog and digital combined) over the past 20 years...
I doubt that they need 14 photos, better to assume identification could be achieved with fewer than 6 images (probably only 2 or 3 in most cases).
I never made the claim that GM food is especially toxic, just that the claimed safety of it is unproven, that it is suspect and that it's being shoved down our throats with the aid of captured regulatory agencies. Of course it's highly doubtful someone will be immediately (acutely) poisoned by eating an ear of GMO corn, though over time there may well be significant immune system or organ damage that may or may not get traced to GM food. But I'll rise to the challenge and yet again further attempt to convince you to be more wary:
My original post is in support of those who prefer to wait and see before just swallowing everything companies like Monsanto offer. I find they have pretty valid reasons to be cautious, especially if their immune system is already compromised. If nothing in those links moves you to rethink your position I can't really help you.
I must admit, for lack of time I grabbed an older bookmark thinking Biointegrity's heading:
"INDEX:
KEY FDA DOCUMENTS REVEALING
(1) HAZARDS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS--AND
(2) FLAWS WITH HOW THE AGENCY MADE ITS POLICY"
(I'm not yelling it's their caps!) would be backed up with better documents.
As to your first link, that's specifically an "antibiotic resistant marker gene". And did you miss "Memorandum from Dr. Murray Lumpkin to Dr. Bruce Burlington. Subject: "The tomatoes that will eat Aron." Those same GM tomatoes were later removed from the market.
Also, I wasn't planning to single-handedly prove GM foods are toxic. Just don't have the time right now and it wasn't my intent today. For now, how about these quotes from a PBS inquiry:
"Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history."
--Dr. Martha R. Herbert, pediatric neurologist
"With genetic engineering, familiar foods could become metabolically dangerous or even toxic. Even if the transgene itself is not dangerous or toxic, it could upset complex biochemical networks and create new bioactive compounds or change the concentrations of those normally present. In addition, the properties in proteins may change in a new chemical environment because they may fold in new ways. Further, the potential toxic or carcinogenic effects could have substantial latency periods."
--from The Need for Greater Regulation and Control of Genetic Engineering: A Statement by Scientists Concerned About Trends in the New Biotechnology
"Lots and lots of people -- virtually the entire population -- could be exposed to genetically engineered foods, and yet we have only a handful of studies in the peer-reviewed literature addressing their safety. The question is, do we assume the technology is safe based on an argument that it's just a minor extension of traditional breeding, or do we prove it? The scientist in me wants to prove it's safe."
--Dr. Margaret Mellon, director of the agricultural and biotechnology program, Union of Concerned Scientists
Those millions of people in the United States are not exactly the healthiest group the world has known. I think it's a safe bet GM foodstuffs will eventually be shown to be part of the problem. If industry assurances and government regulatory agencies stacked with industry cronies satisfy you, you're living in a dreamworld not I.
I've posted a few links (amongst the comments here) that I had bookmarked some time ago, admittedly they may not be the best to back up the argument - but it's a start. I will provide better when time permits.
For now, how about these quotes from a PBS inquiry:
"Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history."
--Dr. Martha R. Herbert, pediatric neurologist
"With genetic engineering, familiar foods could become metabolically dangerous or even toxic. Even if the transgene itself is not dangerous or toxic, it could upset complex biochemical networks and create new bioactive compounds or change the concentrations of those normally present. In addition, the properties in proteins may change in a new chemical environment because they may fold in new ways. Further, the potential toxic or carcinogenic effects could have substantial latency periods."
--from The Need for Greater Regulation and Control of Genetic Engineering: A Statement by Scientists Concerned About Trends in the New Biotechnology
"Lots and lots of people -- virtually the entire population -- could be exposed to genetically engineered foods, and yet we have only a handful of studies in the peer-reviewed literature addressing their safety. The question is, do we assume the technology is safe based on an argument that it's just a minor extension of traditional breeding, or do we prove it? The scientist in me wants to prove it's safe."
--Dr. Margaret Mellon, director of the agricultural and biotechnology program, Union of Concerned Scientists
I wouldn't recommend giving Monsanto the benefit of the doubt when it comes to your best interests. Better to err on the side of public safety.
When cattle broke into a GM trial of maize in the United Kingdom, they did not eat any of it. Cattle have been known to break down a fence to reach and feed on non-GM maize, having waded through a field of GM maize to reach it. -- http://www.sgr.org.uk/GenEng/CaseAgainstGMcrops.html#SafeToEat
Cattle don't need citations to know what's up! That's a-maize-ing.
I merely intended to point out this particular sly propaganda method used to forward the onslaught of "Frankenfood."
The message you send with your "sly" style of fact-free innuendo and loaded terms like "Frankenfood" is that you're pretty good on the propaganda front yourself.
I'll take that as a compliment!
...
Because I believe the refutations to be common knowledge at this point. It is in no way obscure, and we're not covering any new ground here.
Just reading through the Slashdot community's comments proves my point - educated people are aware of the issues already.
It's common knowledge that some people are afraid of GM foods. I haven't heard any sensible reason myself. Too bad you can't be bothered to explain your reasoning.
... So , if I don't agree with you, I'm just uninformed?
Sure, GM food COULD be bad, and 9/11 COULD have been perpetrated by the US government. But, having looked at all the claims, they are all wrong in both cases. And thus, the valid comparison between them.
Get out your reading glasses and look again Myopic, here's Biointegrity's list of some FDA documents with which you should be more familiar: http://biointegrity.org/list.html
GM food might be 100% harmless! What do you suppose those chances are?
Everyone here - especially those clamoring for citations - should follow this link to a list of some of the FDA's internal documents on the subject: http://biointegrity.org/list.html
I'm afraid that "debunked numerous times all over the net" isn't a persuasive argument....Why didn't this guy actually cite some SCIENTIFIC refutations instead of a scaremongering blog?
Because I believe the refutations to be common knowledge at this point. It is in no way obscure, and we're not covering any new ground here. My post is aimed at the already (at least partially) informed regarding the known problems of GM foods, and I merely intended to point out this particular sly propaganda method used to forward the onslaught of "Frankenfood." GM food has not had the rigorous quality independent testing it should receive before being allowed to dominate the world market. Instead companies, primarily Monsanto, invade the regulatory apparatus and weaken it so proper testing can be circumvented and competition otherwise weakened.
Slashdot Mirror
When virtually invisible, and atmospherically pervasive nano "motes" wirelessly transmit all they see and hear (and it won't be that long!), to say nothing of monitoring the minutia of our individual brain activity emanations, you won't even be able to keep your thoughts private. Forget the foil hats unless you can seal yourself up in one hermetically!
The end of privacy will mark a tectonic shift in society. It will not be safe to "think outside the box", and the box will close in on us, getting smaller every year.
If you can Google up a cubic 1mm computer, completely self-contained with solar cells, memory and radio transmitter, made to be implanted in your eye and available today - what do you suppose already exists out there when the rule of thumb is that the military is actually 10-15 years ahead of the public domain? That hummingbird drone thing is a joke!
sheds. (oops, left the Death Ray in that last one!)
I'm sure they'll just breed with the natives. That's what colonists always have done.
Perhaps I should say, "I do recall reading somewhere the figure..."
Actually, my kids are older now, and didn't cry that much either back then. But I do recall the figure being about that high, and that the release of stress hormones is a prime factor. Like they say, "your mileage may vary"!
Please, no more steps toward Orwellian society! (Or should I say: Another step or two and you'll pass it right by!)
If I recall correctly, babies cry about 25% of the time. Their tears are the primary mechanism which allows them to shed excess hormones created by stress. It's no surprise to me that a woman's tears would also contain some sort of hormone(s), any of which, if inhaled, would likely temporarily interfere with hormone production in the inhaler.
Arrr, jes ye wait 'til that beam 'o thar's shines on my chrome plated pirate ship! Hope they've got thar $20 shades on. Arrr!
If the government sector continues to increase it's percentage of the total employment pie, soon there will be nobody outside of government to leak to. Problem solved!
Nah, I'm betting that the guy was taking some form of legal psycho pharmaceutical, like Prozac.
... welcome our new Dolphin overlords! I mean, really, how much worse could they be than the ones we already have?
If Google really wanted to live up to the 'Don't be Evil' brand, then this is what it would be doing. ... Google just wants to be a corporate version of the NSA.
Robert David Steele, intelligence veteran and CEO of OSS.Net, Inc. told HSToday.us that “Google is being actively hypocritical and deceptive in playing up its refusal to help the Department of Justice when all along it has been taking money and direction for elements of the US Intelligence Community, including the Office of Research and Development at the Central Intelligence Agency, In-Q-Tel, and in all probability, both the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command.”
Steele added, “I have no doubt that Google, in its arrogance, decided it could make a deal with the devil and not get caught.” — HSToday.us
Google has much deeper ties to intelligence than is generally acknowledged, so I'd say not "wants to be a corporate version" but rather, "is a corporate arm" of the NSA. (I Googled around to find that out! But they know that!)
I've been avoiding photos for as long as I can remember. It's unlikely that there were more than a dozen taken (analog and digital combined) over the past 20 years...
I doubt that they need 14 photos, better to assume identification could be achieved with fewer than 6 images (probably only 2 or 3 in most cases).
The chicken's father.
Size ...it's a Big Deal.
Gee, I thought it meant size doesn't matter!
I think these fish will be just fine.
Yeah, just fine until security teams spot them trespassing in BP's Gulf!
My original post is in support of those who prefer to wait and see before just swallowing everything companies like Monsanto offer. I find they have pretty valid reasons to be cautious, especially if their immune system is already compromised. If nothing in those links moves you to rethink your position I can't really help you.
I must admit, for lack of time I grabbed an older bookmark thinking Biointegrity's heading: "INDEX: KEY FDA DOCUMENTS REVEALING (1) HAZARDS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS--AND (2) FLAWS WITH HOW THE AGENCY MADE ITS POLICY" (I'm not yelling it's their caps!) would be backed up with better documents.
As to your first link, that's specifically an "antibiotic resistant marker gene". And did you miss "Memorandum from Dr. Murray Lumpkin to Dr. Bruce Burlington. Subject: "The tomatoes that will eat Aron." Those same GM tomatoes were later removed from the market.
Also, I wasn't planning to single-handedly prove GM foods are toxic. Just don't have the time right now and it wasn't my intent today. For now, how about these quotes from a PBS inquiry:
This link also indicates areas of concern: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html
That's all I have time for now. Just go on unconcerned if you must.
Those millions of people in the United States are not exactly the healthiest group the world has known. I think it's a safe bet GM foodstuffs will eventually be shown to be part of the problem. If industry assurances and government regulatory agencies stacked with industry cronies satisfy you, you're living in a dreamworld not I.
I've posted a few links (amongst the comments here) that I had bookmarked some time ago, admittedly they may not be the best to back up the argument - but it's a start. I will provide better when time permits.
For now, how about these quotes from a PBS inquiry:
I wouldn't recommend giving Monsanto the benefit of the doubt when it comes to your best interests. Better to err on the side of public safety.
Wow, that's a-maize-ing.
When cattle broke into a GM trial of maize in the United Kingdom, they did not eat any of it. Cattle have been known to break down a fence to reach and feed on non-GM maize, having waded through a field of GM maize to reach it. -- http://www.sgr.org.uk/GenEng/CaseAgainstGMcrops.html#SafeToEat
Cattle don't need citations to know what's up! That's a-maize-ing.
I merely intended to point out this particular sly propaganda method used to forward the onslaught of "Frankenfood."
The message you send with your "sly" style of fact-free innuendo and loaded terms like "Frankenfood" is that you're pretty good on the propaganda front yourself.
I'll take that as a compliment!
... Because I believe the refutations to be common knowledge at this point. It is in no way obscure, and we're not covering any new ground here.
Just reading through the Slashdot community's comments proves my point - educated people are aware of the issues already.
It's common knowledge that some people are afraid of GM foods. I haven't heard any sensible reason myself. Too bad you can't be bothered to explain your reasoning.
... So , if I don't agree with you, I'm just uninformed?
It's possible you could be better informed. Try this: http://www.sgr.org.uk/GenEng/CaseAgainstGMcrops.html
Sure, GM food COULD be bad, and 9/11 COULD have been perpetrated by the US government. But, having looked at all the claims, they are all wrong in both cases. And thus, the valid comparison between them.
Get out your reading glasses and look again Myopic, here's Biointegrity's list of some FDA documents with which you should be more familiar: http://biointegrity.org/list.html
GM food might be 100% harmless! What do you suppose those chances are? Everyone here - especially those clamoring for citations - should follow this link to a list of some of the FDA's internal documents on the subject: http://biointegrity.org/list.html
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/csf/27/4/27_173/_article/-char/en Are you sure GM food is good for humanity? Without enough unbiased testing, how can you know?
I'm afraid that "debunked numerous times all over the net" isn't a persuasive argument....Why didn't this guy actually cite some SCIENTIFIC refutations instead of a scaremongering blog?
Because I believe the refutations to be common knowledge at this point. It is in no way obscure, and we're not covering any new ground here. My post is aimed at the already (at least partially) informed regarding the known problems of GM foods, and I merely intended to point out this particular sly propaganda method used to forward the onslaught of "Frankenfood." GM food has not had the rigorous quality independent testing it should receive before being allowed to dominate the world market. Instead companies, primarily Monsanto, invade the regulatory apparatus and weaken it so proper testing can be circumvented and competition otherwise weakened.