Sorry, but no, you can't. Those test would need to be the same that are used to test a new drug, unless you can show that all molecular forms present are exactly the same as those in the unmutated food. Including double-blind studies of large populations.
So while tests are theoretically possible, they aren't simple, and they are never done.
FWIW, the people who got salmonella from lettuce didn't get it from organic lettuce. I think your prejudices are contorting your judgment.
That said, properly composted cow shit is reasonably safe on food. You won't get parasites. Raw cow shit has all the problems you mentioned. I *believe* that most organic farmers know proper composting procedures, and that most of them use them, but this is a belief, not a study. (OTOH, you didn't mention any studies either.)
That said, I *was* surprised recently to learn that there's a endoparasite of rice that can live through the drying, storing, and cooking of rice to multiply if the rice is left unrefrigerated. But this doesn't seem to distinguish between organic and regular rice.
Eee...ahhh.... sorry. I hate to argue when I basically agree with you, but there's a strong similarity. And there's also the historical cross-species gene transfer that's been managed by viruses and parasites. So GMO is not qualitatively new, only quantitatively. But that *is* an important difference.
Now sexual recombination *is* different from GMO, so the example of the tangelo isn't strictly to the point, nor is the nectarine. Nor even hybrid corn. But GMO isn't new, it's just been an extremely low frequency natural phenomenon. But frequency is significant.
GMO organisms should undergo rigorous testing to prove that they are safe, such testing being done by parties that have NO stake in the outcome. This isn't being done. Traditional foods hat were created through natural GMO have had centuries of testing to allow people to decide whether they are worth it or not, starting with small populations so there wasn't a large initial exposure. This doesn't happen with commercial GMO foods. And the pharmaceutical companies have shown us how much we can rely on testing by those whose profits stand at risk.
Even that, however, isn't my real objection. My real objection is that GMO foods centralize control over the food supply. This is a real, clear, and present danger.
Sorry, but if banning GMO foods is the only way to rein-in Monsanto, I'll accept that price. And banning GMO labeling is just authoritarian bullshit. Now requiring GMO labeling might be unreasonable. *MIGHT*.
I'll agree that people make a lot of silly choices, but as long as they aren't hurting anyone else its abuse of power to stop them. As an earlier poster wrote, if they want to wear a tin-foil hat, let them.
My main argument against GMO foods has to do the the centralization of power that it encourages. And because of that I am *almost* totally against them. Golden rice is pretty much an exception. (If I understand the license to that one correctly, you aren't allowed to sell it for profit. I could well be wrong, as I only looked at it once.)
What you say may be true, but this kind of error isn't one of advanced technology. This is more like the Mars probe that hard impacted because of a units mix-up. And that wasn't the first. Using high tech doesn't get you away from low tech errors. (Even with just metric you can mix-up cm and mm, though it's more difficult.)
Not sure about that. The constitution itself says that treaties with foreign governments are the highest law of the land. Of course, the US also has a long history of breaking treaties whenever it found it convenient. (Ask any Amerindian. Mexico and Canada might also have something to say, though they are relatively a bit more powerful, and thus more difficult to stiff.)
This is not war. There has not been a declaration by the Senate with a 2/3 majority that a state of war exists. This is rather military adventurism, and probably unconstitutional even though it has a long tradition behind it.
Do you make a large distinction between intentional homicide and murder? What distinction do you see, and how does it apply in this case?
This is a possible accident. Otherwise I have no difficulty in calling it murder, and the perpetrators murders. (And if it were to be an accident, then it would still be manslaughter, which in a non-criminal context is usually called murder.)
Now you may be calling is justifiable homicide. E.g. self defense or proper defense of another. It would take a bit of proving before I'd accept that as the most reasonable interpretation in this case, but it's possible.
Yes, he was ruling himself out as unable to answer. So am I. And it would take a *LOT* more than a Google search to answer. I lean towards agreeing with the people who cite bus speed as the limiting factor, but I'm not sure, and there could certainly be special circumstances where something else was the limit.
I *do* know that it's not an easy question to answer, and that any answer is going to depend for its correctness on a presumed workload. (Some things are CPU bound, and don't even use much RAM. Other things are IO bound, and make you think your disks are thrashing. Most things are somewhere in between.)
But the original question was "has the gap between fast-small memory and slow-large memory gotten larger, smaller, or stayed the same. Even that's an oversimplified question, as it doesn't deal with persistent RAM. (I'm dubious about the value of that, but some people used it to advantage in the days of core-memory.) Also ignored were the questions of relative cost. If you pay ENOUGH there are lots of exotic technologies...and I have no idea of the tradeoffs.
So much better to get the answer from somebody who actually knows the area. It's not simple.
I don't have a lawyer on retainer, so suing them would have cost me quite a bit. And it did, eventually, get straightened out. (I *was* thinking of suing them before we finally straightened things out, though. But collection agencies are in a different state...if they tell you where they are. They intentionally don't make things easy, as if you just pay them off they win.)
Really? I though he had the reputation of being a visionary prick with strong aesthetic ideas, who tried, not always successfully, to demand technological perfection.
I can't think of a single place where I've run across someone lauding his friendly nature in business practices.
HP made a *really* stupid agreement. It wasn't the only one, and at least this one was legal, but it sure doesn't make Fionna look good. She'd have been better off to not cause this idiocy to be brought back to light.
The hideous thing is that identity theft doesn't even need to be intentional. My wife got hit with the bill for a MAN who died in a hospital in a different city. They had the same name, but no other similar characteristics. And it STILL took years to fight through. The bank the hospital used sold the debt to a collection agency (well, more than one, actually) who wouldn't even take a death certificate as proof that she wasn't him.
Say something bad about the financial credit system and I'll believe it without checking, after that experience. Say something good, and you'll need to prove exactly what you mean and the limits of your claim and provide very good evidence as to why I should believe you.
The problem is, if they can transmit the validating information, it can be stored and copied...and thus lost. That's the real reason all biometrics are an inherently bad idea.
FWIW, AA does not have a high success rate, despite their claims. Other groups have equivalent or better success rates.
Most of the places listed as having low rates of gun crimes combined with banning guns also have easily controlled borders (any island, e.g.). But this clearly doesn't apply to Canada.
One may be pardoned for suspecting that rates of violent crime are related to something else, perhaps income disparity, and that violent crime combined with access to guns tends to produce gun crimes....but this may well be oversimplified.
Being a moderate would require being to the left of most elected Democrats. If you'd said he was a mean politician, however, it would be hard to argue.
(Possibly median, but it seems to me to be closer to the mean. And by politician I'm only considering elected legislators in the Federal Government.)
You might read this month's Scientific American. There's an article in it about the evolution of the "lazy gene" which specifically points the finger at fructose, and points out a similar adaption in most primates, which suggests that the adaptation occurred quite awhile back. A few references to paleontology and suggestive fossils. A specific metabolic pathway. A suggestion that eating meat reinforces the effect of a diet high in fructose. Some associated effects (gout, high blood pressure, etc.). Some experiments on rats to validate the hypothesis.
Quite interesting. And it points a finger directly at fructose, combined with a story about why it used to be adaptive.
I'm not totally convinced, but it's a pretty compelling picture. But do note that this is a fairly new study, and not yet totally mainstream. So don't throw too many bricks at those who don't yet accept its implications.
FWIW, I'm nearly certain that Coke(tm) has some affect on the rise of cancer levels, and I doubt that it's slowing it. That said, it certainly isn't the only factor. And aging population is one clear factor, as is more frequent diagnosis of early cancers.
The question is "How significant an effect?". AFAIK, information isn't available to answer that question, but it seems clear that they have been acting to increase their significance in that field.
IIUC, while the calories are bad, fructose is specific in increasing the storage of fat and susceptibility to high blood pressure, diabetes, gout, etc. via several channels including degradation into uric acid. (See this month's Scientific American.)
IOW, fructose is much worse at the same level of calories than sucrose. (To be honest, this last deduction is an extrapolation from the article, not something explicitly stated.)
Experiments with rats have shown that a diet that would otherwise lead to high blood pressure can be ameliorated if you reduce the amount of uric acid in the blood stream. (Alopurinol is supposed to be specific for that, but some people have an adverse reaction to it. [It's also used to treat gout, and my wife has an adverse reaction.])
Slashdot Mirror
IIUC, traffic on twitter has been used to measure the spread of epidemics, so it's not totally worthless.
Sorry, but no, you can't. Those test would need to be the same that are used to test a new drug, unless you can show that all molecular forms present are exactly the same as those in the unmutated food. Including double-blind studies of large populations.
So while tests are theoretically possible, they aren't simple, and they are never done.
FWIW, the people who got salmonella from lettuce didn't get it from organic lettuce. I think your prejudices are contorting your judgment.
That said, properly composted cow shit is reasonably safe on food. You won't get parasites. Raw cow shit has all the problems you mentioned. I *believe* that most organic farmers know proper composting procedures, and that most of them use them, but this is a belief, not a study. (OTOH, you didn't mention any studies either.)
That said, I *was* surprised recently to learn that there's a endoparasite of rice that can live through the drying, storing, and cooking of rice to multiply if the rice is left unrefrigerated. But this doesn't seem to distinguish between organic and regular rice.
Eee...ahhh.... sorry. I hate to argue when I basically agree with you, but there's a strong similarity. And there's also the historical cross-species gene transfer that's been managed by viruses and parasites. So GMO is not qualitatively new, only quantitatively. But that *is* an important difference.
Now sexual recombination *is* different from GMO, so the example of the tangelo isn't strictly to the point, nor is the nectarine. Nor even hybrid corn. But GMO isn't new, it's just been an extremely low frequency natural phenomenon. But frequency is significant.
GMO organisms should undergo rigorous testing to prove that they are safe, such testing being done by parties that have NO stake in the outcome. This isn't being done. Traditional foods hat were created through natural GMO have had centuries of testing to allow people to decide whether they are worth it or not, starting with small populations so there wasn't a large initial exposure. This doesn't happen with commercial GMO foods. And the pharmaceutical companies have shown us how much we can rely on testing by those whose profits stand at risk.
Even that, however, isn't my real objection. My real objection is that GMO foods centralize control over the food supply. This is a real, clear, and present danger.
Sorry, but if banning GMO foods is the only way to rein-in Monsanto, I'll accept that price. And banning GMO labeling is just authoritarian bullshit. Now requiring GMO labeling might be unreasonable. *MIGHT*.
I'll agree that people make a lot of silly choices, but as long as they aren't hurting anyone else its abuse of power to stop them. As an earlier poster wrote, if they want to wear a tin-foil hat, let them.
My main argument against GMO foods has to do the the centralization of power that it encourages. And because of that I am *almost* totally against them. Golden rice is pretty much an exception. (If I understand the license to that one correctly, you aren't allowed to sell it for profit. I could well be wrong, as I only looked at it once.)
What you say may be true, but this kind of error isn't one of advanced technology. This is more like the Mars probe that hard impacted because of a units mix-up. And that wasn't the first. Using high tech doesn't get you away from low tech errors. (Even with just metric you can mix-up cm and mm, though it's more difficult.)
Do you prefer furlongs or rods as a measure of distance? Imperial or US gallons as a measure of liquid volume?
Etc.
I wish that was funny. But it wouldn't be the NRA that could sue, it would be whatever they call the association of weapons manufacturers.
Not sure about that. The constitution itself says that treaties with foreign governments are the highest law of the land. Of course, the US also has a long history of breaking treaties whenever it found it convenient. (Ask any Amerindian. Mexico and Canada might also have something to say, though they are relatively a bit more powerful, and thus more difficult to stiff.)
This is not war. There has not been a declaration by the Senate with a 2/3 majority that a state of war exists. This is rather military adventurism, and probably unconstitutional even though it has a long tradition behind it.
Do you make a large distinction between intentional homicide and murder? What distinction do you see, and how does it apply in this case?
This is a possible accident. Otherwise I have no difficulty in calling it murder, and the perpetrators murders. (And if it were to be an accident, then it would still be manslaughter, which in a non-criminal context is usually called murder.)
Now you may be calling is justifiable homicide. E.g. self defense or proper defense of another. It would take a bit of proving before I'd accept that as the most reasonable interpretation in this case, but it's possible.
Yes, he was ruling himself out as unable to answer. So am I. And it would take a *LOT* more than a Google search to answer. I lean towards agreeing with the people who cite bus speed as the limiting factor, but I'm not sure, and there could certainly be special circumstances where something else was the limit.
I *do* know that it's not an easy question to answer, and that any answer is going to depend for its correctness on a presumed workload. (Some things are CPU bound, and don't even use much RAM. Other things are IO bound, and make you think your disks are thrashing. Most things are somewhere in between.)
But the original question was "has the gap between fast-small memory and slow-large memory gotten larger, smaller, or stayed the same. Even that's an oversimplified question, as it doesn't deal with persistent RAM. (I'm dubious about the value of that, but some people used it to advantage in the days of core-memory.) Also ignored were the questions of relative cost. If you pay ENOUGH there are lots of exotic technologies...and I have no idea of the tradeoffs.
So much better to get the answer from somebody who actually knows the area. It's not simple.
I don't have a lawyer on retainer, so suing them would have cost me quite a bit. And it did, eventually, get straightened out. (I *was* thinking of suing them before we finally straightened things out, though. But collection agencies are in a different state...if they tell you where they are. They intentionally don't make things easy, as if you just pay them off they win.)
Really? I though he had the reputation of being a visionary prick with strong aesthetic ideas, who tried, not always successfully, to demand technological perfection.
I can't think of a single place where I've run across someone lauding his friendly nature in business practices.
HP made a *really* stupid agreement. It wasn't the only one, and at least this one was legal, but it sure doesn't make Fionna look good. She'd have been better off to not cause this idiocy to be brought back to light.
Because it goes into your credit history...and to get them to stop calling every half hour. (I exaggerate, but that's what it felt like.)
The hideous thing is that identity theft doesn't even need to be intentional. My wife got hit with the bill for a MAN who died in a hospital in a different city. They had the same name, but no other similar characteristics. And it STILL took years to fight through. The bank the hospital used sold the debt to a collection agency (well, more than one, actually) who wouldn't even take a death certificate as proof that she wasn't him.
Say something bad about the financial credit system and I'll believe it without checking, after that experience. Say something good, and you'll need to prove exactly what you mean and the limits of your claim and provide very good evidence as to why I should believe you.
But what are you suggesting?
The problem is, if they can transmit the validating information, it can be stored and copied...and thus lost. That's the real reason all biometrics are an inherently bad idea.
FWIW, AA does not have a high success rate, despite their claims. Other groups have equivalent or better success rates.
Most of the places listed as having low rates of gun crimes combined with banning guns also have easily controlled borders (any island, e.g.). But this clearly doesn't apply to Canada.
One may be pardoned for suspecting that rates of violent crime are related to something else, perhaps income disparity, and that violent crime combined with access to guns tends to produce gun crimes....but this may well be oversimplified.
That's too extreme. Even politicians occasionally do something good. Some of them even frequently try to represent their constituency.
Being a moderate would require being to the left of most elected Democrats. If you'd said he was a mean politician, however, it would be hard to argue.
(Possibly median, but it seems to me to be closer to the mean. And by politician I'm only considering elected legislators in the Federal Government.)
Off topic. It's at least partially true, but it's off topic.
You might read this month's Scientific American. There's an article in it about the evolution of the "lazy gene" which specifically points the finger at fructose, and points out a similar adaption in most primates, which suggests that the adaptation occurred quite awhile back. A few references to paleontology and suggestive fossils. A specific metabolic pathway. A suggestion that eating meat reinforces the effect of a diet high in fructose. Some associated effects (gout, high blood pressure, etc.). Some experiments on rats to validate the hypothesis.
Quite interesting. And it points a finger directly at fructose, combined with a story about why it used to be adaptive.
I'm not totally convinced, but it's a pretty compelling picture. But do note that this is a fairly new study, and not yet totally mainstream. So don't throw too many bricks at those who don't yet accept its implications.
FWIW, I'm nearly certain that Coke(tm) has some affect on the rise of cancer levels, and I doubt that it's slowing it. That said, it certainly isn't the only factor. And aging population is one clear factor, as is more frequent diagnosis of early cancers.
The question is "How significant an effect?". AFAIK, information isn't available to answer that question, but it seems clear that they have been acting to increase their significance in that field.
IIUC, while the calories are bad, fructose is specific in increasing the storage of fat and susceptibility to high blood pressure, diabetes, gout, etc. via several channels including degradation into uric acid. (See this month's Scientific American.)
IOW, fructose is much worse at the same level of calories than sucrose. (To be honest, this last deduction is an extrapolation from the article, not something explicitly stated.)
Experiments with rats have shown that a diet that would otherwise lead to high blood pressure can be ameliorated if you reduce the amount of uric acid in the blood stream. (Alopurinol is supposed to be specific for that, but some people have an adverse reaction to it. [It's also used to treat gout, and my wife has an adverse reaction.])