Living on a farm you will have noticed how around each field (particularly oil-seed rape) there exists a virtually wild 'mutation' of the stuff that behaves exactly like a weed. People are worried about this stuff. The genetically modified oil-seed rape cross-pollinates with the wild oil-seed rape.
Duh!
P.S. Steve Jones isn't exactly the sort of scientist who will find it hard to get a grant.
There's a fallacy at play here. . . .
on
Gene Leakage
·
· Score: 1
The problem is not that insects will or won't be able to eat. If I plant a field of insect-resistant tomatoes, then I will have several (or many in the US) acres of insect-free land. Thus, bird, rodent, spider and lady-(bird|bug) -free land. And the natural cycle in the area will be destroyed.
Have Americans really not learned the lesson of the mid-western dust-bowl?
So close, and yet so far...
on
Gene Leakage
·
· Score: 1
Your example of the Coyote is totally fallacious. Here in the UK, we have no wolves or bears, and very few medium-sized cats - directly because they were killed off by humans - they have not evolved to be stronger. I'm not trying to say that humans are evil because of this, but that nature is not predictable.
In your last paragraph you essentially trust in hope that nature will overcome anything we throw at it. Indeed you are right, nature will continue, the planet will evolve - but into what? These new bugs; what will they be, how will they behave? Will locusts swarm across places they never swarmed before? Nobody knows. And the fact that we don't and can't know worries me.
Modifications and/or Larger Works may require additional patent licenses from Apple which Apple may grant in its sole discretion. Apple may or may not patent bits of its code and may or may not grant you the right to use that code
or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License. If any other party sues Apple for patent infringement on bits of "Original Code" Apple may completely withdraw all license to use this code
These two specific parts are not compatible with the Open Source Definition - there may be other parts which I cannot identify
Yes, but the duplication of a piece of paper money lessens the worth of the money in existence (indirectly via inflation.) Whereas duplication of a piece of paper with an idea written on it makes sod all difference to anybody - save that more people can read it.
Slashdot Mirror
Living on a farm you will have noticed how around each field (particularly oil-seed rape) there exists a virtually wild 'mutation' of the stuff that behaves exactly like a weed. People are worried about this stuff. The genetically modified oil-seed rape cross-pollinates with the wild oil-seed rape.
Duh!
P.S. Steve Jones isn't exactly the sort of scientist who will find it hard to get a grant.
The problem is not that insects will or won't be able to eat. If I plant a field of insect-resistant tomatoes, then I will have several (or many in the US) acres of insect-free land. Thus, bird, rodent, spider and lady-(bird|bug) -free land. And the natural cycle in the area will be destroyed.
Have Americans really not learned the lesson of the mid-western dust-bowl?
Your example of the Coyote is totally fallacious. Here in the UK, we have no wolves or bears, and very few medium-sized cats - directly because they were killed off by humans - they have not evolved to be stronger. I'm not trying to say that humans are evil because of this, but that nature is not predictable.
In your last paragraph you essentially trust in hope that nature will overcome anything we throw at it. Indeed you are right, nature will continue, the planet will evolve - but into what? These new bugs; what will they be, how will they behave? Will locusts swarm across places they never swarmed before? Nobody knows. And the fact that we don't and can't know worries me.
Apple may or may not patent bits of its code and may or may not grant you the right to use that code
If any other party sues Apple for patent infringement on bits of "Original Code" Apple may completely withdraw all license to use this code
These two specific parts are not compatible with the Open Source Definition - there may be other parts which I cannot identify
Yes, but the duplication of a piece of paper money lessens the worth of the money in existence (indirectly via inflation.) Whereas duplication of a piece of paper with an idea written on it makes sod all difference to anybody - save that more people can read it.