The worst thing that can happen to crops is that they become easier to farm. To date, the biggest legal case involving the spread of genes was a case where a farmer was re-selling herbicide-resistant seeds patented by Monsanto; pollen from a neighbouring field had spread over to his. But it's not like this affects you, the grocery-buyerâ"if Monsanto had contract terms saying they can sue their customers' customers, no one would do business with them!
Of course, this affects me, the grocery buyer. The increased monopolization and mono-culture of agriculture created by companies like Monsanto does affect me. A great many of the foods I buy are from a limited number of lines which gives companies like Monsanto power over my food choices as they actively work to suppress the growth of other lines. All in the name of profit.
Monsanto doesn't have to have a specific clause saying they can sue their customers' customers. The fact that they have a patent on one particular gene means they can sue anyone who uses that gene without their permission. Which means they can sue their customers' customers for patent enfringement and they have. Over and over again. Suing smaller farmers who can't afford to defend themselves allows Monsanto to put competitors out of business and allows the to get a larger market share of the famland by confiscation of farmland which belongs to people who "infringed their patent."
This affects me by limiting my choices of food products and by creating a powerful monopoly over food which allows them to influence future production and restrict the actions of others. It also creates a very real danger because creating a single monoculture of a certain crop opens up the danger to future diseases for which we don't have a resistance. Monsanto is directly impacting agricultural biodiversity in the name of profit.
I do not have a problem with GMO foods. I have a problem with companies getting a monopoly and then using that monopoly to beat down other producers.
It's to create a sustainable society which is capable of doing those things.
You are kidding right. The Fiscal Libertarian methodology cannot create a sustainable society. It doesn't matter what the Objectivist pipe dreamers say. Any system based solely on the premise of "as long as I get mine" isn't sustainable in the long term because everything becomes an externality. It especially isn't suitable for a space faring civilization.
Think about a long space journey. A couple of years long or longer. Each person is only concerned with his own profit and his own survival. What happens when the water system does down and the people needed to fix it decide to extort major profit from the situation. I know how to fix it and if you don't put me in charge then I won't help you fix it. They can take care of the their own repairs, but they don't have to do a thing to help you with yours. After all they have what they need. My favorite example is from the media. The scene in the original Total Recall movie where Cohaagan turns off the air machines because they belong to him.
Sorry, but space exploration requires a high level of cooperation and interdependence which is something Libertarians can't handle. The Libertarian pipe dream is an illusion based on ease of resources and the opportunity to pass the buck to someone else. Won't work when you are in a closed space colony.
Well, first off the oil companies would love them and pay them handsomely. We know this because this is what the oil companies have done to people in their pocket. You might want to look into how much money the oil companies have invested in keeping the debate down. The amount they spend dwarfs anything a scientist gets and just because your side is willing to prostitute themselves for money doesn't mean that real scientist are. This is definitely a case of pot calling the kettle black.
It is so sad. It is no wonder we can't get anywhere and this thread has been a great example why. For every we can do it comment there are 10-20 we can't comments. On what is supposed to be a tech mecca, too.
If she is so opposed to the wearing of ID based on her religious beliefs then perhaps she shouldn't be in science and engineering. She is eventually going to have to deal with a lot of stuff that violates her religious beliefs. Of course, that is only the case if they actually teach her science.
Lawyer and politician is pretty much synonymous. The vast majority of politicians are lawyers. As I tell people. Being a lawyer is the only career where you get to create your own jobs and then get paid to argue with people about them.
If you want to stand up for something then you should be willing to let people know who you are. Otherwise your just another slacktivist pretending to be outraged.
If I try to submit a paper claiming that global warming is being caused by the hot breath of Galactus as he eats a planetary burrito is there anything wrong with refusing to allow it to be peer reviewed. Part of the peer review process is to keep stupid ideas from wasting the time of scientist.
When I read that the National Geographic had lost all respectability by asking people this question and whether "The Hulk" or "Batman" would be the best solution. A sad day indeed.
Some communities. How about the entire state of Tennessee which recently passed laws allowing creationism equal time in all science curriculum's and made it possible to fire teachers if they even mention "gateway sexual activities" in any area.
What this country needs is a national curriculum which would apply to every state, city and town whether that town was in California or Tennessee. It also needs national textbooks with the subjects overseen by professionals in the field instead of local school boards deciding that "little Johnny Reb" needs to be told that America is a God Based nation like they did in Texas.
The fact that most schools have become nothing more than sports star mills might have something to do with the state of education, too.
but if areas do proper watershed management it's just fine.
True. However, no one does. None of the agricultural methods used in large scale agriculture use any kind of watershed management. They just keep draiing the water from the aquifers and not worrying about replenishment rates. It isn't about rain. Its about water access to provide more food than rain can do.
Rainfall isn't reliable for large scale agriculture. In many areas where agriculture thrives rainfall is completely insufficient for crop growth. Especially for places like China and India. The solution is to dig into the aquifers for supplies. The problem is that we are past the replenishment level for most of them and are draining water from locations where it was deposited millenia ago. The hydrologic cycle isn't capable of replacing at the level we are draining. If we stop draining aquifers and rely on rainfall for all production then production decreases to the point where it isn't sufficient to provide the level of food required.
Simple fact. We are withdrawing water faster than the natural system works. The water in the aquifers is limited. Once they are depleted we are faced with the more expensive alternatives. Price of food skyrockets and production falls. Only the rich can afford food and the rest of the people starve.
No, they wouldn't. The introduction of that much Platinum would make Platinum cheaper than Copper. Too much supply + too little demand = worthless. They can only truly profit by keeping supplies scarce. The same reason the corporations oppose sustainable fuels and support intellectual property rules.
I am not saying its a bad thing. I am saying that Obama told the truth on that matter. He is correct.
The question is really what are you going to do with all the people who don't have jobs anymore simply because technology took the jobs. Eventually, it is going to bring the economic system we have to its knees because people are necessary for the greatest majority of the system. You can't simply teach them all to create the systems because everyone isn't meant to be a technician, a programmer, an engineer or a scientist. The end of the system equals most people without productive employment and a system where they don't have a place. Either you just let them die or you accept the full impact. The full impact being millions, if not billions, of people without anything to do, but still needing food, shelter, clothing, education, medical care and all the rest. Capitalism simply isn't designed to deal with it and shouldn't be expected to. After all, its roots are from a time period when none of these things were possible and humans were the source of all the labor and energy which went into production.
Obama Said it and its the truth. The rise of ATM's and other kiosh hardware/software are having a detrimental effect on employment. It is only going to get worse. The same thing happened with agriculture and the same thing happened/is happening with manufacturing. As machines take on more ability the need for human workers is decreased. The bank where I go has 10 teller windows in the building and only two tellers working. It was all they needed to take care of the 2-3 people who had to come inside. A lot of people use automatic deposit and debit cards/computers for access to their funds. No people needed.
This is one of the "secret" factors which are causing higher levels of unemployment. It is not all because people dont' want to work or because companies aren't hiring. A lot of positions simply don't esist any more. They have been superseded by technology.
For the record Obama wasn't bemoaning anything. He was simply stating a fact and then followed up with the corrolary. SInce those jobs are gone where are the next jobs coming from and what do people need to know to be employed.
The next big technological hit coming for workers. Automated fast food.
http://news.foodfacts.info/2006/02/automated-ordering-at-taco-bellkfc.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7335351.stm
Sure, man on the moon, capitalism vs communism, it's all true.
Except that it's not. The Lunar program wasn't a capitalist program. It was a socialist (government) project which relied on taxation for funding. The only capitalist involved were the companies which leached the money from the program in the form of contracts. We didn't go to the moon in the name of profit.
NASA is a socialist program just like the military.
If we assume the first step as true, then cars are not the only thing that emit CO2, and in fact they're not even in the top 10. There are lots of other things that will make more difference to the climate if we cut them than cars.
Have you ever actually looked at the amount of CO2 and other pollutants released by automobiles. I have. I tallied the numbers back in 2008.
34,254,000 Tons of Hydrocarbons, 260,462,000 Tons of Carbon Monoxide, 30,707,400 Tons of Oxides of Nitrogen and 5,086,605,000 Tons of Carbon Dioxide. These numbers are from just one year and only from automobiles and light trucks. It doesn't include trains, ships, airplanes or factories.
The religious don't want to keep their beliefs private. They never have and never will. They want to make their beliefs laws and have everyone follow them. Any religious person who tells you different is just trying to sneak it in.
Yeah, those rational and reasonable Catholics who recenty (2003) said that condoms were made intentionally with microscopic holes to allow for the transmission of the AIDS virus.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids
Slashdot Mirror
The worst thing that can happen to crops is that they become easier to farm. To date, the biggest legal case involving the spread of genes was a case where a farmer was re-selling herbicide-resistant seeds patented by Monsanto; pollen from a neighbouring field had spread over to his. But it's not like this affects you, the grocery-buyerâ"if Monsanto had contract terms saying they can sue their customers' customers, no one would do business with them!
Of course, this affects me, the grocery buyer. The increased monopolization and mono-culture of agriculture created by companies like Monsanto does affect me. A great many of the foods I buy are from a limited number of lines which gives companies like Monsanto power over my food choices as they actively work to suppress the growth of other lines. All in the name of profit.
Monsanto doesn't have to have a specific clause saying they can sue their customers' customers. The fact that they have a patent on one particular gene means they can sue anyone who uses that gene without their permission. Which means they can sue their customers' customers for patent enfringement and they have. Over and over again. Suing smaller farmers who can't afford to defend themselves allows Monsanto to put competitors out of business and allows the to get a larger market share of the famland by confiscation of farmland which belongs to people who "infringed their patent."
This affects me by limiting my choices of food products and by creating a powerful monopoly over food which allows them to influence future production and restrict the actions of others. It also creates a very real danger because creating a single monoculture of a certain crop opens up the danger to future diseases for which we don't have a resistance. Monsanto is directly impacting agricultural biodiversity in the name of profit.
I do not have a problem with GMO foods. I have a problem with companies getting a monopoly and then using that monopoly to beat down other producers.
It's to create a sustainable society which is capable of doing those things.
You are kidding right. The Fiscal Libertarian methodology cannot create a sustainable society. It doesn't matter what the Objectivist pipe dreamers say. Any system based solely on the premise of "as long as I get mine" isn't sustainable in the long term because everything becomes an externality. It especially isn't suitable for a space faring civilization.
Think about a long space journey. A couple of years long or longer. Each person is only concerned with his own profit and his own survival. What happens when the water system does down and the people needed to fix it decide to extort major profit from the situation. I know how to fix it and if you don't put me in charge then I won't help you fix it. They can take care of the their own repairs, but they don't have to do a thing to help you with yours. After all they have what they need. My favorite example is from the media. The scene in the original Total Recall movie where Cohaagan turns off the air machines because they belong to him.
Sorry, but space exploration requires a high level of cooperation and interdependence which is something Libertarians can't handle. The Libertarian pipe dream is an illusion based on ease of resources and the opportunity to pass the buck to someone else. Won't work when you are in a closed space colony.
Well, first off the oil companies would love them and pay them handsomely. We know this because this is what the oil companies have done to people in their pocket. You might want to look into how much money the oil companies have invested in keeping the debate down. The amount they spend dwarfs anything a scientist gets and just because your side is willing to prostitute themselves for money doesn't mean that real scientist are. This is definitely a case of pot calling the kettle black.
It is so sad. It is no wonder we can't get anywhere and this thread has been a great example why. For every we can do it comment there are 10-20 we can't comments. On what is supposed to be a tech mecca, too.
If she is so opposed to the wearing of ID based on her religious beliefs then perhaps she shouldn't be in science and engineering. She is eventually going to have to deal with a lot of stuff that violates her religious beliefs. Of course, that is only the case if they actually teach her science.
Lawyer and politician is pretty much synonymous. The vast majority of politicians are lawyers. As I tell people. Being a lawyer is the only career where you get to create your own jobs and then get paid to argue with people about them.
If you want to stand up for something then you should be willing to let people know who you are. Otherwise your just another slacktivist pretending to be outraged.
If I try to submit a paper claiming that global warming is being caused by the hot breath of Galactus as he eats a planetary burrito is there anything wrong with refusing to allow it to be peer reviewed. Part of the peer review process is to keep stupid ideas from wasting the time of scientist.
Who? Me?
Someone needs to go back to Ninja school. The word Sasuke has a long tradition related to the ninja. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarutobi_Sasuke
When I read that the National Geographic had lost all respectability by asking people this question and whether "The Hulk" or "Batman" would be the best solution. A sad day indeed.
Some communities. How about the entire state of Tennessee which recently passed laws allowing creationism equal time in all science curriculum's and made it possible to fire teachers if they even mention "gateway sexual activities" in any area. What this country needs is a national curriculum which would apply to every state, city and town whether that town was in California or Tennessee. It also needs national textbooks with the subjects overseen by professionals in the field instead of local school boards deciding that "little Johnny Reb" needs to be told that America is a God Based nation like they did in Texas. The fact that most schools have become nothing more than sports star mills might have something to do with the state of education, too.
It was the Saga of the Pliocene Exile.
I'll second, third and fourth Jhereg Novels. Vlad is the biggest smartass of all time and lets not forget Loiosh....
Can I eat him boss? Can I, Please.
If processed correctly.
but if areas do proper watershed management it's just fine.
True. However, no one does. None of the agricultural methods used in large scale agriculture use any kind of watershed management. They just keep draiing the water from the aquifers and not worrying about replenishment rates. It isn't about rain. Its about water access to provide more food than rain can do. Rainfall isn't reliable for large scale agriculture. In many areas where agriculture thrives rainfall is completely insufficient for crop growth. Especially for places like China and India. The solution is to dig into the aquifers for supplies. The problem is that we are past the replenishment level for most of them and are draining water from locations where it was deposited millenia ago. The hydrologic cycle isn't capable of replacing at the level we are draining. If we stop draining aquifers and rely on rainfall for all production then production decreases to the point where it isn't sufficient to provide the level of food required. Simple fact. We are withdrawing water faster than the natural system works. The water in the aquifers is limited. Once they are depleted we are faced with the more expensive alternatives. Price of food skyrockets and production falls. Only the rich can afford food and the rest of the people starve.
Sure it would. It would pay for itself so well that it wouldn't be worth it. There just wouldn't be any profit in it.
No, they wouldn't. The introduction of that much Platinum would make Platinum cheaper than Copper. Too much supply + too little demand = worthless. They can only truly profit by keeping supplies scarce. The same reason the corporations oppose sustainable fuels and support intellectual property rules.
I am not saying its a bad thing. I am saying that Obama told the truth on that matter. He is correct.
The question is really what are you going to do with all the people who don't have jobs anymore simply because technology took the jobs. Eventually, it is going to bring the economic system we have to its knees because people are necessary for the greatest majority of the system. You can't simply teach them all to create the systems because everyone isn't meant to be a technician, a programmer, an engineer or a scientist. The end of the system equals most people without productive employment and a system where they don't have a place. Either you just let them die or you accept the full impact. The full impact being millions, if not billions, of people without anything to do, but still needing food, shelter, clothing, education, medical care and all the rest. Capitalism simply isn't designed to deal with it and shouldn't be expected to. After all, its roots are from a time period when none of these things were possible and humans were the source of all the labor and energy which went into production.
Obama Said it and its the truth. The rise of ATM's and other kiosh hardware/software are having a detrimental effect on employment. It is only going to get worse. The same thing happened with agriculture and the same thing happened/is happening with manufacturing. As machines take on more ability the need for human workers is decreased. The bank where I go has 10 teller windows in the building and only two tellers working. It was all they needed to take care of the 2-3 people who had to come inside. A lot of people use automatic deposit and debit cards/computers for access to their funds. No people needed.
This is one of the "secret" factors which are causing higher levels of unemployment. It is not all because people dont' want to work or because companies aren't hiring. A lot of positions simply don't esist any more. They have been superseded by technology.
For the record Obama wasn't bemoaning anything. He was simply stating a fact and then followed up with the corrolary. SInce those jobs are gone where are the next jobs coming from and what do people need to know to be employed.
The next big technological hit coming for workers. Automated fast food.
http://news.foodfacts.info/2006/02/automated-ordering-at-taco-bellkfc.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7335351.stm
Unless your in porn.
Sure, man on the moon, capitalism vs communism, it's all true.
Except that it's not. The Lunar program wasn't a capitalist program. It was a socialist (government) project which relied on taxation for funding. The only capitalist involved were the companies which leached the money from the program in the form of contracts. We didn't go to the moon in the name of profit. NASA is a socialist program just like the military.
If we assume the first step as true, then cars are not the only thing that emit CO2, and in fact they're not even in the top 10. There are lots of other things that will make more difference to the climate if we cut them than cars.
Have you ever actually looked at the amount of CO2 and other pollutants released by automobiles. I have. I tallied the numbers back in 2008.
34,254,000 Tons of Hydrocarbons, 260,462,000 Tons of Carbon Monoxide, 30,707,400 Tons of Oxides of Nitrogen and 5,086,605,000 Tons of Carbon Dioxide. These numbers are from just one year and only from automobiles and light trucks. It doesn't include trains, ships, airplanes or factories.
http://deesuniverse.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-our-vehicles-leave-behind.html
We put out more carbon dioixide in three-five days than the entirely of volcanoes do in a year. http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2827
Would you like to rethink your statement.
The religious don't want to keep their beliefs private. They never have and never will. They want to make their beliefs laws and have everyone follow them. Any religious person who tells you different is just trying to sneak it in.
Yeah, those rational and reasonable Catholics who recenty (2003) said that condoms were made intentionally with microscopic holes to allow for the transmission of the AIDS virus. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids