Humm... So according to you, current GMO crops have absolutely no disadvantages and is the only way to solve all the problem. There is absolutely no other possible solution than full GMO only in your mind.
You have to realize that you are precisely the kind of person that make many peoples (including me) afraid of some evil company and lobby: you see only a single solution and you completely deny the disadvantage of that solution.
A open discussion is simply impossible with you.
About your points:
GMO require a so big amount of pesticide that nothing but the GMO modified crop survives in the short therm. In the long therm, the evolution of bugs and illness will adapt to it and since the GMO is the only resource at this place, there will specifically target it.
Current GMO do not "work faster" (whenever your try to tell here) than selective breeding, this is just marketing bullshit sentence. Future GMO will maybe probably be able to adapt more quickly, this is precisely why the Malus Sieversii gain interest. But current GMO is absolutely nothing like that !!!! Current GMO is to produce in large quantity the exact same seed. Looking at your question, It seem that you finally understand the importance of the adaptation process. Good, now you can probably archive the next stage: understanding the importance of the diversity of the adaptation process.
No, cheap GMO food is not the only solution for starving people. Food are not necessary in the right location and buying it is anyway a problem if you don't have money at all. I have never hear of a food quantity problem related to the face that there is no more land. Did you know that in a lot of country the production yield is limited to not overproduce ?
Current GMO is a no way for the future, this is just a large extortion with disastrous effect in the long term . Future GMO could be an option, but in a half century maybe. But there is large improvement in the food production and distribution to solve many of the current starvation problems.
So if you agree to every points that I have exposed, you should now understand the non sense of your question.
a+b) Your oversimplify the problem. Growing food will not magically reduce starvation, because the distribution of the food is by itself a major problem. Never hear about overproduction ? Secondly a lot of pores peoples are still able to growing food for themselves without any money. Introducing money to them is extremely sensible as there is a high risk to collapse there stability in a way that there are far below there initial state. There a lot of agencies concerned about this kind of problems. GMO is not the only option to increase the food that peoples in a particular region are able to eat. Finally, dramatic situation like dryness is not likely to be solved by GMO anyway.
c) GMO still need fertilizer and pesticides. Product like Roundup is a major concern in the long term. The overall problem is at it base not specific to GMO. Pesticides need to be used in a more responsible way, witch imply to accept a lower average yield than the maximal possible. But having a few more food in exchange of illness induced by pesticides is more and more understand as a wrong option. Advanced farmers have now understand that and have successfully reduced a lot of pesticide usage. This trend is likely to be generalized.
d) Taking money from the pores is actually the major motivation of introducing GMO. Are you feeling ok with this ?
I understand where you are coming from: you feel like corporations are evil, that capitalism is a failed and corrupt enterprise, and that only the state can save the average citizen from the abuses perpetrated by the 1%? Right?
No, because this depend of the corporations you are talking about. There exists some responsible one, there exists some really evil one.
Back to your points:
1) Yes you do the search but I still don't understand why you are so focused on a single result. The way you seek information in not rational. Ask yourself the motivations behind each publication. I don't see the point to copy-past the others results you pretend that you already have found. I can just encourage you to read them.
2) Ask yourself why "anti-GMO" publication exists in the first place. It's just strange that you see a "study" that explicitly refute a claim, but that you deny the existence of this specific claim. You are irrational, especially given the large offset in the source range. You maybe don't ask enough yourself the motivation why a publication exists; what is the goal. I can't for you on that, but encourage you to do so.
3) Yes, I back my claim: current GMO reduce biodiversity in a dangerous way. Before there introduction, the was already a degradation in the biodiversity, but there was still some major differences between seeds at large distances. The differences exists because the seeds was the result of selections of seeds that are still not exactly the same if you compare distant regions. Since the production and selections of seeds can be done locally at low cost, there never spread too much outside of there region of origin. But it's more subtle that just that. Seeds always change, evolve in some sense, and that grant, if maybe not the highest yield, the best resistance in the long term. There is not a such thing like a magic unique seed that will resist to everything in the long term. Quite the opposite, the resistance cam from the ability to change fast, to adapt by being different. The actual GMO are two time the wrong way: first it spread the whole world with the most exact same seed as possible; second by required to buy each year from as single source, the local evolution process is completely destroyed. So, absolutely yes, current GMO destroy biodiversity like nothing before it. In a long term future, GMO technique will certainly be able to "help" each local species in function of there specific thread of the year, but you really have to understand that the current GMO is absolutely not that. Current GMO technique, as I have say many time, is a completely irresponsible. I bet and hope that this will be forbidden by regulation some day.
4) Don't confuse the two. If you actually read some articles about it, you will have notice that Malus Sieversii gain interest from scientists precisely because of his resistance (or resilience, depend of the jargon). Please understand that those scientist are actually looking at his genetic characteristics, because this specie is actually way more powerful that the existing GMO technique available today. There know that on the long term the bugs and illness will adapt to the current "static" GMO. Changing is vital in the long term and it's why understanding why a specie is more able than an other to evolve is important. Current GMO product is selected to b the stable as possible. This will fail for sure in the long term. Now back to Malus Sieversii, his resistance can nothing to the human destruction. I have the chance to visit Almaty 17 years ago and the problem was already know: the fast growing population cut trees for there needs and others agriculture extension. The problem is now so large that the specie is not far from the extinction. Note that, if this example is now know, there was for sure in the history some valuable species that have disappear because human failed to recognize his value for him. Current GMO, by replacing some local species without study, just accelerate the damage. Biodiversity IS
And what the point to cite one of the only study that deny the problem ? This particular study is not only outdated but published by a the International Food Policy Research Institute witch is know to be part of the GMO lobby. Not that serious if you look about the large amount of sources that show the problem. If you still deny the problem you can travel to India and see by yourself what there are talking about.
For your culture about biodiversity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malus_sieversii This species is incredibly resistant because it can change at a fast rate. Completely the opposite of the today GMO technology.
Today GMO is absolutely not the same process used by farmers and ranchers for thousands of years !!! #1 Selective breeding don't require to pay a company each year because the specie is unable to reproduce or not allowed by the license. #2 Selective breading don't need the insane amount of poison (Roudup and co.) that kill everything, human included. #3 Selective breading is a well know process with accepted risk, GMO is too new with a too high risk.
The only reason GMO is used today is to make money extortion from the peoples that have no choice. This make some company hyper rich, but ask yourself from where there get so big amount of money.
And no, definitely no, current GMO product don't create more biodiversity. You are just completely undocumented about this subject. Stop to spread completely false claim ! GMO will maybe archive to kind of goal, but not before at least a half century and not before a strong regulation are in place. Current GMO is just a crap that destroy the planet for making money of a few cynical lobby. Don't be blind.
Nuclear and GMO are really sensible questions for many peoples. You will never make a point by reducing the problem into a such simple view as you do. And even less by the kind of argument you uses. There is a large amount of improvement possible in how the energy is used and in how the food are distributed to address the problem with an other point of view.
Just an example: In Switzerland, until last year, food waste from restaurants was collected and processed into food for pigs. The process was well regulated and nobody was afraid of it. Then have come the prion and the H1N1 flu. Despite years of record without any glitch, fear have spread that something bad could happens. UE regulation changed to forbid the process. Even if the Switzerland in not part of the EU, the massive commercial implication have forced the regulation to change here as well. Now to give food to the pigs, we have in one side to import a lot of food, some with OGM, and in other side to burn energy to destroy waste from restaurants. In the EU, the debate is closed, but not here. Many peoples are now testing ideas on how we can safely go back to the previous state, saving energy and reducing importation.This will not be without risk. But wasting food and energy as well as importing GMO food for pigs is not without risk either.
Sometimes the risk is over evaluated by some parties, sometimes it is under evaluated. It's fact of life and it's very challenging to predict what risk will be the main source of fear in a distant future. This is at this level that the political process play a big role, because to accept a risk, people have to chose it. And peoples choice are based on all different perception that are all important for each single individual. This is why you can't win by reducing the view of a problem. The only solution is to try to address every points that all peoples could ever imagine. If someone have fear about a risk, you will make no progress by deny the risk or the fear that this person have. The solution is to learn and to understand why the risk is acceptable without deny the critic that something bad could happens.
Going back to your nuclear vs coal argumentation: of course there is risk from using coal, but this do not make nuclear safe. Put in a other way, aircraft are not safe simply because there is more fatality with cars. Like nuclear and GMO, aircraft are inherently more risky than cars. This is why aircraft are strongly regulated, from the conception to the exploitation, and why each accident is analysed. This process have successfully lower the risk to the point that it's now usually safer to travel on a aircraft than on a car. But this take time. A lot of time. I don't say that nuclear must not be used. I am saying that it must be experimented with extreme care, with an open concern about every risk that can be identified by anyone. Still, there will be inevitably human error that will cause some catastrophe.
Now you try to make me personally responsible for the dead of people. How disturbing are you ? If you feel so concerned about the starving of peoples, you can probably be a lot more effective by sharing your resource with them. The way you look at the problem is particularly vicious because you fail to understand that GMO business is actually making farmer even more pore than before, making them even less capable to survive. The astonish amount of money that this business actually make is coming from somewhere. Try to understand from where this money are really coming. If you can answer this question you will know why GMO is absolutely not about lowering the price of food to solve starving. It's only about taking money from peoples without choice: extortion. It's not an hazard if GMO is used in country with less or corrupted regulation and rejected in country with a working regulation. GMO is simply too new and in the hand of cynical lobbies. This make them unacceptable and unethical. Maybe in a half on century, the risk will be more acceptable and the regulation strong enough to make GMO an usable solution.
You are simply out of argument against the evidence.
I am far from the position to be against new technologies. But some of them are too risky to be deployed quickly or without a very strong regulation. Nuclear power will maybe only get a safe enough operation with the next generation of reactors, but this will be know only after there have archived there full life cycle and proved stable in all there incidents in there life, that's about 60 to 80 years in the future. As for GMO, contamination is already a proven evidence, as well as adaptation of the environment to them.
Note: As a Swiss citizen, I fully play my role in the political process by voting many times per year on a width range of constitutional changes, GMO and nuclear included. And yes, it's a very important political point to engage the potential risk for many thousand of peoples.
There is already a large chunk of data that are very alarming, especially for the long term. GMO are not as stable as the marketing suggest. There is already samples of hybrid organism almost everywhere experiments or productions have used GMO. Bugs and illness evolve, some of theme faster than expected, alienating the GMO initial advantage.
But the most problematic aspect of GMO is the pressure of there lobby to gain control of government decision, and there systematic deny of the problematic aspects of GMO. All in the only goal to grab as much money as possible. And yes I am very afraid of this kind of lobby. There is a urgent needs of regulation to keep them under control.
GMO is far far too new to be used safely now. Nuclear reactor is about a half century old and is still not safe a many would expect. Every new technology bring new risks. Some of them are only detected many years after there introduction. The GMO technology is even more risky than anything done before, because this is not a relative static setup in a confined plant like a nuclear reactor with a lot of controlling devices, but a dynamic process (life) into a completely open environment full of others organisms that inevitably will react with the GMO without any way to keep control.
The "not based on data" argument is a well know one. It have been abused already a lot of time in the history from peoples that simply wants to deny the reality of a risk. A risk in not a data, this is a possibility that could raise as long as a impossibility is proved. How much catastrophe have already existed and will exists with the very same comment from there promoters : "We could not believe that has happened, we have done everything possible to assert this will never happens !".
Actually there is data that show high concern about GMO in the long term. Even if you chose to deny them. But the most urgent aspect of the GMO is the money extortion business done by his lobby.
Let the peoples (=public) decides themselves what are in there interest. This is not the role of a lobby to decide this kind of question. I am very confidant that most European are in favor of requirement that make mandatory the inscription of GMO origin of food. In fact, many society around Europe that protect the consumers already asking for that since many years.
Food and goods composition is becoming an increasingly more important issues for more and more consumers. Not only because there want to protect themselves, but also because there are more and more educated about the consequences of the food and goods productions to the environment. And yes, even if actually only a minority, a few already chose there foods and goods to not give money to some too arrogant companies.
The ban is on IMPORTING GMO foods -- I said nothing about growing them in Europe. Your argument about biodiversity is a complete non-sequitor.
India grows no GMO foods -- if the farmers there are devastated then it has nothing to do with GMO. Perhaps GMO would be a benefit to those farmers.
Biodiversity is something that you can look individually for each country. Even if a country don't produce GMO, this imply than an other country will be damaged to produce them. This is a global problem, like CO2 or mining. For the peoples in the comfortable position in the game, it's way to easy to get the advantage and deny any problem.
As for India, even if this was mainly cotton instead of food, the disaster is there for real. Search the web with the words "GM genocide" and read.
It is simple Supply and Demand -- an economic law that you may or may not be aware of. The Demand for food is pretty much constant. By going organic you reduce the Supply. Any first year economics student can tell you that decreasing Supply without decreasing Demand will result in higher prices. Higher food prices means more people starve.
You prove that you are seeing only the financial side of the story. Of course the supply and demand is a well know mechanism in fixing the price of goods. But not all things on the planet are goods only waiting to be exploited as fast as possible for the money of a few. Biodiversity and food diversity are two of them. We better have to take care of the starving by others ways than destroying the planet with GMO and the associated pesticide. The problem is that instead of making money for the richest, others ways imply sharing from the richest.
Protecting the biodiversity is becoming more and more a priority. Peoples and governments must clearly regulate the market to protect those values. Unless you don't care about the generations that will lives after you...
You are choking me, really. You just prove that your definition of capitalism is to hide and lie as much as possible to extend the profitability to the maximum.
Many, many, and even more scandals are about hiding to the consumer the real nature of what there expect to buy. This is a constant thread. Every single day. And you expect that by just asking, a consumer will get the real answer ? Are you so naive ? The reality is that even with regulation that require careful tracing of the food, there is is still fraud.
Not only label is a basic requirement, but tracing and control, in addition to anti-corruption force are all absolutely a necessity to have a chance to get the food you have pay for, instead of cheap relabeled crap.
Keep this in mind: when you buy non-GMO food produced organically it has the direct effect of raising the cost of food for the starving.
No, this is just marketing bullshit. The companies that produces GMO are just looking about money, nothing to do with staving, especially in Europe. A normal nutrition need few ration from a large range of food, not a large supply of a few pesticide resistant junk that will simply poisoning peoples in the long term, directly by consuming it, and indirectly by the water pollution.
Europe enjoy a large biodiversity and this is something that definitely need to be absolutely protected. Cheap GMO food is nothing comparable: this is just a tools to grab as much money as possible by destructing almost everything, human including in the long term. WTO in just about money, nothing more. But governments and peoples need to protect the biodiversity of there lands. Europe can still afford to protect that. Look at India where poor farmer have no choice to be devastated and ruined.
I think that more European peoples than US peoples enjoy having the choice of a very large variation of food. It's in the culture and probably give larges benefits to the health, and to the biodiversity. I hope that the capitalism point of view will not trash all of this, because this is only profitable for a small subset of companies that grab as much revenue as possible. If you look more globally, this benefit for only a few have big negatives consequences on local market, biodiversity and health. The profitable companies will just deny the problem and let the community pay the damage. Look at the situation in India.
I only get my driving licence a year ago (I am 41 year old), so I don't have years of history driving cars. From the beginning I drive about half of the time a conventional manual car and half of the time a Prius III. To me the conventional manual car look like a obsolete crap compared to the Prius experience. The most interesting observation I made about myself driving the two cars, is that the Prius give to me a completely different feedback on the energy used for the propulsion.
It's far more easy to drive the Prius in a efficient way that the conventional manual car. In a conventional manual car, the noise of the engine depend almost only on the speed for a given gears ratio, and this noise is almost linear on the speed. Accelerating a such car without changing the gears ratio make just a bit more noise. This give the false feedback that accelerating is a cheap operation, from the energy point of view. On the Prius, the engine is almost silent at stable speed. But when you accelerate it, you immediately notice the engine noise due to his effort to deliver the energy required to accelerate the car. As soon as you finish the acceleration, the engine return almost silent.
The feedback is very different and give you a more correct information of the real energy it take to the engine to respond to you driving style. With such a good feedback, I take a few days to drive a Prius in a efficient way. But it have taken me months to learn how to drive the conventional manual car in a efficient way. This is possible, but you have to be far more attentive on what you do, especially with the gears ratio. Interestingly, as more as I successfully drive efficiently the conventional manual car, as more his engine make noise like the Prius do automatically.
Unfortunately, since the Prius don't have a fixed set of gears ratio but a extremely efficient planetary gears with a couple of electrical motor and associated computed that continuously use the best possible settings, it's not possible to match his performance with a manual gears boxes, and I think with most of the automatic gears boxes. In a city, the electrical propulsion and the computed management of the energy of the Prius in way too advanced to get anything close with a manual gears box. In a standard way with a stable speed you get some chance to get something comparable to the Prius, but it's easy to make mistake. On a highway, it's just impossible to match the Prius because of the lack of gears ratios on the conventional manual car would permit to lower the engine speed (I have a standard 5 ratios box).
This is why more and more new cars get 6 or even 7 gears ratios. But you have to be attentive on how you use them to get a good result. The whole point of the Prius is that all is automatic. You don't have to worry, not only you will automatically get a better consumption because of the technology that continually use the best setting, but the engine noise feedback make it more easy to drive in a efficient way.
From an engineer point of view, I think that the most advanced part of the Prius is his planetary gears system without a fixed ratio. His ability to adjust the ratio without discontinuity give many advantages: the computer can many time par second fine tune the ratio to set the combustion engine at his lower possible rate (if not disabling it completely is case no power is required or stored electrical energy is enough) and there is no need anymore for a clutch with the associated quick change of the combustion engine speed. This give a far more linear and precise system that is more easy to manage in a efficient way with a computer. Now to get this planetary gears system working this way, with the additional requirement that you want to be able to recycle breaking energy, you end up with a couple of electrical motors/generators in both the internal gear and in the external gear of the planetary system. There is different possible configurations, like those used on the Lexus range, but the basic structure is the same: you need a coupl
I was confused by the earlier post that pointed out the problem while using tools with the root privilege. This is not same that the user privilege that root can gain by using 'su'.
Anyway, I am pretty certain that this can be fixed into the gvfs-fuse-daemon, witch is only a small and optional part of GVFS.
Sorry but I disagree: "su -username" was never intended to provides root access to private filed on a *OTHER* system. For local files, ok, but this not the case here.
Now, if you really wants to let root access our private remote files, you can just change the FUSE mount settings. Maybe the only problem is the default FUSE mount options with GVFS, not the whole concept.
GVFS is mainly for accessing *remote* filesystem, so it's logic that the root of the local system cannot access them: it's not files on this system.
I actually like GVFS + FUSE because it permit to mount a remote filesystem like an ordinary one. You can then use your standard tools to manage it, even if this is on a remote host that don't have a proper file transfer protocol.
Sorry, I don't see any real argument why our system can't scale. The federal administration here is so tiny compared to the cantons (states) administration that I can't see why it can't scale from the 26 cantons in CH to the 50 states you have in the USA. Your communism argument is difficult, given the fact that it has scaled to the size of the URSS and of China, that was not exactly smalls. The first collapsed but the second is actually very strong. I can list a bunch of capitalist countries that are actually in very big trouble. Anyway, I don't see a extreme difference between a communism system with, in effect, an unique party and a capitalism system with, in effect, only two parties that fight each against the other. In both case you only have a small group of peoples that take all the power. In the first case there are so out of control that there don't care about the real job to be done, in the second case there are too stressed about winning and defending that there don't have time for the real job to be done.
The healthcare debate is very strong here. I am sure that you can ask any Swiss citizen about that without any doubt. The actual system is probably a intermediate state that will continue to evolve.
The "governmental gridlock" is a good description of the feeling we mostly get from the USA politics news. A bunch of others country in Europe face a very similar situation. The absolute world record is without contest the Belgium witch is now more than a full year without a working government ! Wherever it is, those situations are always the same: two parties have each about half of the suffrage and are so deeply in trouble that there can't work normally. Now you have to realize that this is the only stable state without a proportional representation. Without a proportional representation, only the majority get the control. But not only on there part, there take control of all the parts. And the others have nothing. This automatically make an absolute requirement to put all the effort in order to win. Because without winning the whole effort is basically just for nothing. In this context, the only possibility to win is to be the bigger. And to be the bigger, the only possibility is to get alliance by promise things (lies) to the maximum of peoples. Of course those promises never get any reality, especially because the winning party is basically the one that was successful at making the biggest lies. Peoples then can either react by keeping there choice (because there can't change there choice) and continue with the same party, or vote next time for the other party (because there are too frustrated). This is an individual decision based on an emotion. There is at this stage absolutely no more decision based of the country concern. Only emotion. And this is very clear in each USA party show that the emotion is the only thing that count to get suffrage. In fine, each people take an arbitrary decision based on his own emotion, and each of the possibly only two big parties try there best to bias his emotion. At the end you get a system that systematically avoid anything but the emotion and in fine tune himself to match exactly 50% of the citizens. This can only bring a "governmental gridlock" is case the government is composed of more than a single legislative body. The probability that the legislative bodies can't agree is maximal because there is only two parties with half the suffrage. And you are right, in this situation, you only get a decision when the situation is very uncomfortable to say at least. The consequence is that you get a nation that mostly tend to be uncomfortable up to the limit in a number of area.
Now, how that can be fixed ? Well of course I am biased, but, the Swizerland political stability is maybe a sign that something different can actually bring some advantage. The proportional representation up to the head of state is, I think, the biggest features in that direction. The citizens elect the peoples at the two legislatives chambers (states and peoples) in a proportional
In Switzerland we have 4 officials languages and 26 cantons (states) with a great dependency. Not exactly a easily situation to manage either. We also have big differences in density, with city, rural and mountains area.
A nation is composed of all those differences, why not using a political system that take in account all of those differences ? If you can't believe that a political system can satisfy a majority of the citizens, then what the purpose to have a nation ? To have a minority imposing his view to a majority ?
Slashdot Mirror
Humm... So according to you, current GMO crops have absolutely no disadvantages and is the only way to solve all the problem. There is absolutely no other possible solution than full GMO only in your mind.
You have to realize that you are precisely the kind of person that make many peoples (including me) afraid of some evil company and lobby: you see only a single solution and you completely deny the disadvantage of that solution.
A open discussion is simply impossible with you.
About your points:
GMO require a so big amount of pesticide that nothing but the GMO modified crop survives in the short therm. In the long therm, the evolution of bugs and illness will adapt to it and since the GMO is the only resource at this place, there will specifically target it.
Current GMO do not "work faster" (whenever your try to tell here) than selective breeding, this is just marketing bullshit sentence. Future GMO will maybe probably be able to adapt more quickly, this is precisely why the Malus Sieversii gain interest. But current GMO is absolutely nothing like that !!!! Current GMO is to produce in large quantity the exact same seed. Looking at your question, It seem that you finally understand the importance of the adaptation process. Good, now you can probably archive the next stage: understanding the importance of the diversity of the adaptation process.
No, cheap GMO food is not the only solution for starving people. Food are not necessary in the right location and buying it is anyway a problem if you don't have money at all. I have never hear of a food quantity problem related to the face that there is no more land. Did you know that in a lot of country the production yield is limited to not overproduce ?
Current GMO is a no way for the future, this is just a large extortion with disastrous effect in the long term . Future GMO could be an option, but in a half century maybe. But there is large improvement in the food production and distribution to solve many of the current starvation problems.
So if you agree to every points that I have exposed, you should now understand the non sense of your question.
a+b) Your oversimplify the problem. Growing food will not magically reduce starvation, because the distribution of the food is by itself a major problem. Never hear about overproduction ? Secondly a lot of pores peoples are still able to growing food for themselves without any money. Introducing money to them is extremely sensible as there is a high risk to collapse there stability in a way that there are far below there initial state. There a lot of agencies concerned about this kind of problems. GMO is not the only option to increase the food that peoples in a particular region are able to eat. Finally, dramatic situation like dryness is not likely to be solved by GMO anyway.
c) GMO still need fertilizer and pesticides. Product like Roundup is a major concern in the long term. The overall problem is at it base not specific to GMO. Pesticides need to be used in a more responsible way, witch imply to accept a lower average yield than the maximal possible. But having a few more food in exchange of illness induced by pesticides is more and more understand as a wrong option. Advanced farmers have now understand that and have successfully reduced a lot of pesticide usage. This trend is likely to be generalized.
d) Taking money from the pores is actually the major motivation of introducing GMO. Are you feeling ok with this ?
First you must read and understand all my previous explanations that already contain part of the response.
I understand where you are coming from: you feel like corporations are evil, that capitalism is a failed and corrupt enterprise, and that only the state can save the average citizen from the abuses perpetrated by the 1%? Right?
No, because this depend of the corporations you are talking about. There exists some responsible one, there exists some really evil one.
Back to your points:
1) Yes you do the search but I still don't understand why you are so focused on a single result. The way you seek information in not rational. Ask yourself the motivations behind each publication. I don't see the point to copy-past the others results you pretend that you already have found. I can just encourage you to read them.
2) Ask yourself why "anti-GMO" publication exists in the first place. It's just strange that you see a "study" that explicitly refute a claim, but that you deny the existence of this specific claim. You are irrational, especially given the large offset in the source range. You maybe don't ask enough yourself the motivation why a publication exists; what is the goal. I can't for you on that, but encourage you to do so.
3) Yes, I back my claim: current GMO reduce biodiversity in a dangerous way. Before there introduction, the was already a degradation in the biodiversity, but there was still some major differences between seeds at large distances. The differences exists because the seeds was the result of selections of seeds that are still not exactly the same if you compare distant regions. Since the production and selections of seeds can be done locally at low cost, there never spread too much outside of there region of origin. But it's more subtle that just that. Seeds always change, evolve in some sense, and that grant, if maybe not the highest yield, the best resistance in the long term. There is not a such thing like a magic unique seed that will resist to everything in the long term. Quite the opposite, the resistance cam from the ability to change fast, to adapt by being different. The actual GMO are two time the wrong way: first it spread the whole world with the most exact same seed as possible; second by required to buy each year from as single source, the local evolution process is completely destroyed. So, absolutely yes, current GMO destroy biodiversity like nothing before it. In a long term future, GMO technique will certainly be able to "help" each local species in function of there specific thread of the year, but you really have to understand that the current GMO is absolutely not that. Current GMO technique, as I have say many time, is a completely irresponsible. I bet and hope that this will be forbidden by regulation some day.
4) Don't confuse the two. If you actually read some articles about it, you will have notice that Malus Sieversii gain interest from scientists precisely because of his resistance (or resilience, depend of the jargon). Please understand that those scientist are actually looking at his genetic characteristics, because this specie is actually way more powerful that the existing GMO technique available today. There know that on the long term the bugs and illness will adapt to the current "static" GMO. Changing is vital in the long term and it's why understanding why a specie is more able than an other to evolve is important. Current GMO product is selected to b the stable as possible. This will fail for sure in the long term. Now back to Malus Sieversii, his resistance can nothing to the human destruction. I have the chance to visit Almaty 17 years ago and the problem was already know: the fast growing population cut trees for there needs and others agriculture extension. The problem is now so large that the specie is not far from the extinction. Note that, if this example is now know, there was for sure in the history some valuable species that have disappear because human failed to recognize his value for him. Current GMO, by replacing some local species without study, just accelerate the damage. Biodiversity IS
I was also surprised to to discover that even in a simple JPEG compression, the Huffman codec take a big part of the time.
And what the point to cite one of the only study that deny the problem ? This particular study is not only outdated but published by a the International Food Policy Research Institute witch is know to be part of the GMO lobby. Not that serious if you look about the large amount of sources that show the problem. If you still deny the problem you can travel to India and see by yourself what there are talking about.
For your culture about biodiversity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malus_sieversii
This species is incredibly resistant because it can change at a fast rate. Completely the opposite of the today GMO technology.
Today GMO is absolutely not the same process used by farmers and ranchers for thousands of years !!!
#1 Selective breeding don't require to pay a company each year because the specie is unable to reproduce or not allowed by the license.
#2 Selective breading don't need the insane amount of poison (Roudup and co.) that kill everything, human included.
#3 Selective breading is a well know process with accepted risk, GMO is too new with a too high risk.
The only reason GMO is used today is to make money extortion from the peoples that have no choice. This make some company hyper rich, but ask yourself from where there get so big amount of money.
And no, definitely no, current GMO product don't create more biodiversity. You are just completely undocumented about this subject. Stop to spread completely false claim ! GMO will maybe archive to kind of goal, but not before at least a half century and not before a strong regulation are in place. Current GMO is just a crap that destroy the planet for making money of a few cynical lobby. Don't be blind.
Are using your brain sometimes ?
Nuclear and GMO are really sensible questions for many peoples. You will never make a point by reducing the problem into a such simple view as you do. And even less by the kind of argument you uses. There is a large amount of improvement possible in how the energy is used and in how the food are distributed to address the problem with an other point of view.
Just an example: In Switzerland, until last year, food waste from restaurants was collected and processed into food for pigs. The process was well regulated and nobody was afraid of it. Then have come the prion and the H1N1 flu. Despite years of record without any glitch, fear have spread that something bad could happens. UE regulation changed to forbid the process. Even if the Switzerland in not part of the EU, the massive commercial implication have forced the regulation to change here as well. Now to give food to the pigs, we have in one side to import a lot of food, some with OGM, and in other side to burn energy to destroy waste from restaurants. In the EU, the debate is closed, but not here. Many peoples are now testing ideas on how we can safely go back to the previous state, saving energy and reducing importation.This will not be without risk. But wasting food and energy as well as importing GMO food for pigs is not without risk either.
Sometimes the risk is over evaluated by some parties, sometimes it is under evaluated. It's fact of life and it's very challenging to predict what risk will be the main source of fear in a distant future. This is at this level that the political process play a big role, because to accept a risk, people have to chose it. And peoples choice are based on all different perception that are all important for each single individual. This is why you can't win by reducing the view of a problem. The only solution is to try to address every points that all peoples could ever imagine. If someone have fear about a risk, you will make no progress by deny the risk or the fear that this person have. The solution is to learn and to understand why the risk is acceptable without deny the critic that something bad could happens.
Going back to your nuclear vs coal argumentation: of course there is risk from using coal, but this do not make nuclear safe. Put in a other way, aircraft are not safe simply because there is more fatality with cars. Like nuclear and GMO, aircraft are inherently more risky than cars. This is why aircraft are strongly regulated, from the conception to the exploitation, and why each accident is analysed. This process have successfully lower the risk to the point that it's now usually safer to travel on a aircraft than on a car. But this take time. A lot of time. I don't say that nuclear must not be used. I am saying that it must be experimented with extreme care, with an open concern about every risk that can be identified by anyone. Still, there will be inevitably human error that will cause some catastrophe.
Now you try to make me personally responsible for the dead of people. How disturbing are you ? If you feel so concerned about the starving of peoples, you can probably be a lot more effective by sharing your resource with them. The way you look at the problem is particularly vicious because you fail to understand that GMO business is actually making farmer even more pore than before, making them even less capable to survive. The astonish amount of money that this business actually make is coming from somewhere. Try to understand from where this money are really coming. If you can answer this question you will know why GMO is absolutely not about lowering the price of food to solve starving. It's only about taking money from peoples without choice: extortion. It's not an hazard if GMO is used in country with less or corrupted regulation and rejected in country with a working regulation. GMO is simply too new and in the hand of cynical lobbies. This make them unacceptable and unethical. Maybe in a half on century, the risk will be more acceptable and the regulation strong enough to make GMO an usable solution.
You are simply out of argument against the evidence.
I am far from the position to be against new technologies. But some of them are too risky to be deployed quickly or without a very strong regulation. Nuclear power will maybe only get a safe enough operation with the next generation of reactors, but this will be know only after there have archived there full life cycle and proved stable in all there incidents in there life, that's about 60 to 80 years in the future. As for GMO, contamination is already a proven evidence, as well as adaptation of the environment to them.
Note: As a Swiss citizen, I fully play my role in the political process by voting many times per year on a width range of constitutional changes, GMO and nuclear included. And yes, it's a very important political point to engage the potential risk for many thousand of peoples.
Just an example how important it's to protect the biodiversity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malus_sieversii
This specific specie is resistant because it vary quickly. Quit the opposite compared to the current GMO technology goal.
I am not irrational at all.
There is already a large chunk of data that are very alarming, especially for the long term. GMO are not as stable as the marketing suggest. There is already samples of hybrid organism almost everywhere experiments or productions have used GMO. Bugs and illness evolve, some of theme faster than expected, alienating the GMO initial advantage.
But the most problematic aspect of GMO is the pressure of there lobby to gain control of government decision, and there systematic deny of the problematic aspects of GMO. All in the only goal to grab as much money as possible. And yes I am very afraid of this kind of lobby. There is a urgent needs of regulation to keep them under control.
GMO is far far too new to be used safely now. Nuclear reactor is about a half century old and is still not safe a many would expect. Every new technology bring new risks. Some of them are only detected many years after there introduction. The GMO technology is even more risky than anything done before, because this is not a relative static setup in a confined plant like a nuclear reactor with a lot of controlling devices, but a dynamic process (life) into a completely open environment full of others organisms that inevitably will react with the GMO without any way to keep control.
The "not based on data" argument is a well know one. It have been abused already a lot of time in the history from peoples that simply wants to deny the reality of a risk. A risk in not a data, this is a possibility that could raise as long as a impossibility is proved. How much catastrophe have already existed and will exists with the very same comment from there promoters : "We could not believe that has happened, we have done everything possible to assert this will never happens !".
Actually there is data that show high concern about GMO in the long term. Even if you chose to deny them. But the most urgent aspect of the GMO is the money extortion business done by his lobby.
Let the peoples (=public) decides themselves what are in there interest. This is not the role of a lobby to decide this kind of question. I am very confidant that most European are in favor of requirement that make mandatory the inscription of GMO origin of food. In fact, many society around Europe that protect the consumers already asking for that since many years.
Food and goods composition is becoming an increasingly more important issues for more and more consumers. Not only because there want to protect themselves, but also because there are more and more educated about the consequences of the food and goods productions to the environment. And yes, even if actually only a minority, a few already chose there foods and goods to not give money to some too arrogant companies.
The ban is on IMPORTING GMO foods -- I said nothing about growing them in Europe. Your argument about biodiversity is a complete non-sequitor.
India grows no GMO foods -- if the farmers there are devastated then it has nothing to do with GMO. Perhaps GMO would be a benefit to those farmers.
Biodiversity is something that you can look individually for each country. Even if a country don't produce GMO, this imply than an other country will be damaged to produce them. This is a global problem, like CO2 or mining. For the peoples in the comfortable position in the game, it's way to easy to get the advantage and deny any problem.
As for India, even if this was mainly cotton instead of food, the disaster is there for real. Search the web with the words "GM genocide" and read.
It is simple Supply and Demand -- an economic law that you may or may not be aware of. The Demand for food is pretty much constant. By going organic you reduce the Supply. Any first year economics student can tell you that decreasing Supply without decreasing Demand will result in higher prices. Higher food prices means more people starve.
You prove that you are seeing only the financial side of the story. Of course the supply and demand is a well know mechanism in fixing the price of goods. But not all things on the planet are goods only waiting to be exploited as fast as possible for the money of a few. Biodiversity and food diversity are two of them. We better have to take care of the starving by others ways than destroying the planet with GMO and the associated pesticide. The problem is that instead of making money for the richest, others ways imply sharing from the richest.
Protecting the biodiversity is becoming more and more a priority. Peoples and governments must clearly regulate the market to protect those values. Unless you don't care about the generations that will lives after you...
You are choking me, really. You just prove that your definition of capitalism is to hide and lie as much as possible to extend the profitability to the maximum.
Many, many, and even more scandals are about hiding to the consumer the real nature of what there expect to buy. This is a constant thread. Every single day. And you expect that by just asking, a consumer will get the real answer ? Are you so naive ? The reality is that even with regulation that require careful tracing of the food, there is is still fraud.
Not only label is a basic requirement, but tracing and control, in addition to anti-corruption force are all absolutely a necessity to have a chance to get the food you have pay for, instead of cheap relabeled crap.
Keep this in mind: when you buy non-GMO food produced organically it has the direct effect of raising the cost of food for the starving.
No, this is just marketing bullshit. The companies that produces GMO are just looking about money, nothing to do with staving, especially in Europe. A normal nutrition need few ration from a large range of food, not a large supply of a few pesticide resistant junk that will simply poisoning peoples in the long term, directly by consuming it, and indirectly by the water pollution.
Europe enjoy a large biodiversity and this is something that definitely need to be absolutely protected. Cheap GMO food is nothing comparable: this is just a tools to grab as much money as possible by destructing almost everything, human including in the long term. WTO in just about money, nothing more. But governments and peoples need to protect the biodiversity of there lands. Europe can still afford to protect that. Look at India where poor farmer have no choice to be devastated and ruined.
I think that more European peoples than US peoples enjoy having the choice of a very large variation of food. It's in the culture and probably give larges benefits to the health, and to the biodiversity. I hope that the capitalism point of view will not trash all of this, because this is only profitable for a small subset of companies that grab as much revenue as possible. If you look more globally, this benefit for only a few have big negatives consequences on local market, biodiversity and health. The profitable companies will just deny the problem and let the community pay the damage. Look at the situation in India.
I only get my driving licence a year ago (I am 41 year old), so I don't have years of history driving cars. From the beginning I drive about half of the time a conventional manual car and half of the time a Prius III. To me the conventional manual car look like a obsolete crap compared to the Prius experience. The most interesting observation I made about myself driving the two cars, is that the Prius give to me a completely different feedback on the energy used for the propulsion.
It's far more easy to drive the Prius in a efficient way that the conventional manual car. In a conventional manual car, the noise of the engine depend almost only on the speed for a given gears ratio, and this noise is almost linear on the speed. Accelerating a such car without changing the gears ratio make just a bit more noise. This give the false feedback that accelerating is a cheap operation, from the energy point of view. On the Prius, the engine is almost silent at stable speed. But when you accelerate it, you immediately notice the engine noise due to his effort to deliver the energy required to accelerate the car. As soon as you finish the acceleration, the engine return almost silent.
The feedback is very different and give you a more correct information of the real energy it take to the engine to respond to you driving style. With such a good feedback, I take a few days to drive a Prius in a efficient way. But it have taken me months to learn how to drive the conventional manual car in a efficient way. This is possible, but you have to be far more attentive on what you do, especially with the gears ratio. Interestingly, as more as I successfully drive efficiently the conventional manual car, as more his engine make noise like the Prius do automatically.
Unfortunately, since the Prius don't have a fixed set of gears ratio but a extremely efficient planetary gears with a couple of electrical motor and associated computed that continuously use the best possible settings, it's not possible to match his performance with a manual gears boxes, and I think with most of the automatic gears boxes. In a city, the electrical propulsion and the computed management of the energy of the Prius in way too advanced to get anything close with a manual gears box. In a standard way with a stable speed you get some chance to get something comparable to the Prius, but it's easy to make mistake. On a highway, it's just impossible to match the Prius because of the lack of gears ratios on the conventional manual car would permit to lower the engine speed (I have a standard 5 ratios box).
This is why more and more new cars get 6 or even 7 gears ratios. But you have to be attentive on how you use them to get a good result. The whole point of the Prius is that all is automatic. You don't have to worry, not only you will automatically get a better consumption because of the technology that continually use the best setting, but the engine noise feedback make it more easy to drive in a efficient way.
From an engineer point of view, I think that the most advanced part of the Prius is his planetary gears system without a fixed ratio. His ability to adjust the ratio without discontinuity give many advantages: the computer can many time par second fine tune the ratio to set the combustion engine at his lower possible rate (if not disabling it completely is case no power is required or stored electrical energy is enough) and there is no need anymore for a clutch with the associated quick change of the combustion engine speed. This give a far more linear and precise system that is more easy to manage in a efficient way with a computer. Now to get this planetary gears system working this way, with the additional requirement that you want to be able to recycle breaking energy, you end up with a couple of electrical motors/generators in both the internal gear and in the external gear of the planetary system. There is different possible configurations, like those used on the Lexus range, but the basic structure is the same: you need a coupl
Oups. Yes you are right on that.
I was confused by the earlier post that pointed out the problem while using tools with the root privilege. This is not same that the user privilege that root can gain by using 'su'.
Anyway, I am pretty certain that this can be fixed into the gvfs-fuse-daemon, witch is only a small and optional part of GVFS.
Sorry but I disagree: "su -username" was never intended to provides root access to private filed on a *OTHER* system. For local files, ok, but this not the case here.
Now, if you really wants to let root access our private remote files, you can just change the FUSE mount settings. Maybe the only problem is the default FUSE mount options with GVFS, not the whole concept.
GVFS is mainly for accessing *remote* filesystem, so it's logic that the root of the local system cannot access them: it's not files on this system.
I actually like GVFS + FUSE because it permit to mount a remote filesystem like an ordinary one. You can then use your standard tools to manage it, even if this is on a remote host that don't have a proper file transfer protocol.
I can see my house on the video at 1:49.
I remember having see the two Breitling jets flying low, I think this was early last week.
Yep. And you will get a preferential rate if you agree to watch advertisements while the car drive for you.
Sorry, I don't see any real argument why our system can't scale. The federal administration here is so tiny compared to the cantons (states) administration that I can't see why it can't scale from the 26 cantons in CH to the 50 states you have in the USA. Your communism argument is difficult, given the fact that it has scaled to the size of the URSS and of China, that was not exactly smalls. The first collapsed but the second is actually very strong. I can list a bunch of capitalist countries that are actually in very big trouble. Anyway, I don't see a extreme difference between a communism system with, in effect, an unique party and a capitalism system with, in effect, only two parties that fight each against the other. In both case you only have a small group of peoples that take all the power. In the first case there are so out of control that there don't care about the real job to be done, in the second case there are too stressed about winning and defending that there don't have time for the real job to be done.
The healthcare debate is very strong here. I am sure that you can ask any Swiss citizen about that without any doubt. The actual system is probably a intermediate state that will continue to evolve.
The "governmental gridlock" is a good description of the feeling we mostly get from the USA politics news. A bunch of others country in Europe face a very similar situation. The absolute world record is without contest the Belgium witch is now more than a full year without a working government ! Wherever it is, those situations are always the same: two parties have each about half of the suffrage and are so deeply in trouble that there can't work normally. Now you have to realize that this is the only stable state without a proportional representation. Without a proportional representation, only the majority get the control. But not only on there part, there take control of all the parts. And the others have nothing. This automatically make an absolute requirement to put all the effort in order to win. Because without winning the whole effort is basically just for nothing. In this context, the only possibility to win is to be the bigger. And to be the bigger, the only possibility is to get alliance by promise things (lies) to the maximum of peoples. Of course those promises never get any reality, especially because the winning party is basically the one that was successful at making the biggest lies. Peoples then can either react by keeping there choice (because there can't change there choice) and continue with the same party, or vote next time for the other party (because there are too frustrated). This is an individual decision based on an emotion. There is at this stage absolutely no more decision based of the country concern. Only emotion. And this is very clear in each USA party show that the emotion is the only thing that count to get suffrage. In fine, each people take an arbitrary decision based on his own emotion, and each of the possibly only two big parties try there best to bias his emotion. At the end you get a system that systematically avoid anything but the emotion and in fine tune himself to match exactly 50% of the citizens. This can only bring a "governmental gridlock" is case the government is composed of more than a single legislative body. The probability that the legislative bodies can't agree is maximal because there is only two parties with half the suffrage. And you are right, in this situation, you only get a decision when the situation is very uncomfortable to say at least. The consequence is that you get a nation that mostly tend to be uncomfortable up to the limit in a number of area.
Now, how that can be fixed ? Well of course I am biased, but, the Swizerland political stability is maybe a sign that something different can actually bring some advantage. The proportional representation up to the head of state is, I think, the biggest features in that direction. The citizens elect the peoples at the two legislatives chambers (states and peoples) in a proportional
But are those differences really matters ?
In Switzerland we have 4 officials languages and 26 cantons (states) with a great dependency. Not exactly a easily situation to manage either. We also have big differences in density, with city, rural and mountains area.
A nation is composed of all those differences, why not using a political system that take in account all of those differences ? If you can't believe that a political system can satisfy a majority of the citizens, then what the purpose to have a nation ? To have a minority imposing his view to a majority ?