You have never needed an MS email account to use Messenger (or at least not for over a decade). Their Passport service (now Live ID IIRC) let you register any address; I've used my GMail for something like 7 years.
And then China blocks Google from sending the banned word lists to you. And then Google works around it and gets banned totally! No, they'll play nice to keep their market.
If you're saying "Actually some cultural practices are pretty terrible" then I totally agree.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I was complaining that your comment was just some AC on/. "saying so". Provide some modicum of proof for people to get educated if you're really so concerned about it. Right now you might as well be claiming UFOs are real and that "the proof is out there".
Yeah, pointing out that unsupported claims are unsupported is highly ignorant of me. Why don't you actually provide some support for your claims so as to alleviate my ignorance, AC?
Genetics and industrial power are different because humans and landscapes are different. Besides that though WallfeMonster is didn't say that wielding massive industrial power to affect the environment isn't also "playing god" or hasn't been involved in fucked up geopolitics. Both should be used carefully.
Just because plants can naturally evolve to be toxic doesn't mean that GMOs shouldn't be thoroughly studied or that their interactions with humans can't be significantly different from plants we've spent centuries or millenia evolving alongside.
He didn't actually mention any real pro-GMO studies to look at, but tells you to buy his book where they are mentioned. So he's certainly in it for the money, whether or not he actually believes it. Not so farfetched to think that he might be paid by them as well. Though of course if he was upfront about everything he'd probably still be accused of being a shill.
Lol, nice backpedalling; it's clear from your original comment that you thought it was valid or at least were trying to trick people into thinking it was, stating it as a fact like that. I do agree that obviously GMOs could be dangerous and obviously they could be beneficial and as such each should be studied well.
Popper-falsifiability is rarely possible for much of scientific research and Popper has said that it should not be a strict requirement for scientific claims. Just because the nature of the universe is such that not everything fits into the nice little boxes we've made up far doesn't mean that it's not possible to investigate and make determinations about.
What does it break down into? Also I don't think you know what a half-life is, it doesn't guarantee the breakdown of all of it. In all probability there will be a minuscule amount left.
Lynas' original talk/webpage don't reference any specific pro-GMO science either. It cuts both ways. All he has is the usual kook approach of labeling anyone who disagrees an anti-science greenie, apparently. Of course he claims that his books has references, if only we'd just go buy it....
Just because type 2 crops avoid the problems of type 1 crops don't mean they don't introduce other problems. Just because the issues are in the IP domain doesn't mean you can safely promote GMOs -- to avoid the negative consequences you need to prevent the spread of GMOs until the IP issues are resolved. Some getting sued by GMO Corp X or alternatively getting locked into 20 years of licensing fees isn't going to be helped by saying "technically it's an IP issue".
Unfortunately that's simply untrue. GMOs are a tool in Monsanto's arsenal. If you remove GMOs from the equation then they will be immediately hindered and have to invest in other areas which are quite possible less negative to their competitors. In other words, just because banning GMOs would not be addressing the problem does not mean that it would have no impact on the symptoms.
So you say. Anyone can say that, or the opposite. Here, watch: "Research has shown some GMOs are beneficial." Oh, and one more thing: "Research has shown some naturally occurring (non-GMO) organisms cause agonizing death."
Slashdot Mirror
You have never needed an MS email account to use Messenger (or at least not for over a decade). Their Passport service (now Live ID IIRC) let you register any address; I've used my GMail for something like 7 years.
And then China blocks Google from sending the banned word lists to you. And then Google works around it and gets banned totally! No, they'll play nice to keep their market.
Hey, capitalism.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Or we could blame the people in charge, you know, rather than your uneducated friends making minimum wage (or whatever the hell it is).
I was complaining that your comment was just some AC on /. "saying so". Provide some modicum of proof for people to get educated if you're really so concerned about it. Right now you might as well be claiming UFOs are real and that "the proof is out there".
Yeah, pointing out that unsupported claims are unsupported is highly ignorant of me. Why don't you actually provide some support for your claims so as to alleviate my ignorance, AC?
Genetics and industrial power are different because humans and landscapes are different. Besides that though WallfeMonster is didn't say that wielding massive industrial power to affect the environment isn't also "playing god" or hasn't been involved in fucked up geopolitics. Both should be used carefully.
Just because plants can naturally evolve to be toxic doesn't mean that GMOs shouldn't be thoroughly studied or that their interactions with humans can't be significantly different from plants we've spent centuries or millenia evolving alongside.
Excellent and informative post, I do wish there was a reference however.
He didn't actually mention any real pro-GMO studies to look at, but tells you to buy his book where they are mentioned. So he's certainly in it for the money, whether or not he actually believes it. Not so farfetched to think that he might be paid by them as well. Though of course if he was upfront about everything he'd probably still be accused of being a shill.
You left in the bit where it says no one seems to have been harmed, that kind of undercuts your "evil" title.
Lol, nice backpedalling; it's clear from your original comment that you thought it was valid or at least were trying to trick people into thinking it was, stating it as a fact like that. I do agree that obviously GMOs could be dangerous and obviously they could be beneficial and as such each should be studied well.
Popper-falsifiability is rarely possible for much of scientific research and Popper has said that it should not be a strict requirement for scientific claims. Just because the nature of the universe is such that not everything fits into the nice little boxes we've made up far doesn't mean that it's not possible to investigate and make determinations about.
What does it break down into? Also I don't think you know what a half-life is, it doesn't guarantee the breakdown of all of it. In all probability there will be a minuscule amount left.
Lynas' original talk/webpage don't reference any specific pro-GMO science either. It cuts both ways. All he has is the usual kook approach of labeling anyone who disagrees an anti-science greenie, apparently. Of course he claims that his books has references, if only we'd just go buy it....
Some people would definitely be interested in not needing to shave there again.
I'm sure they'll keep their guards well fed if it comes to that.
Just because type 2 crops avoid the problems of type 1 crops don't mean they don't introduce other problems. Just because the issues are in the IP domain doesn't mean you can safely promote GMOs -- to avoid the negative consequences you need to prevent the spread of GMOs until the IP issues are resolved. Some getting sued by GMO Corp X or alternatively getting locked into 20 years of licensing fees isn't going to be helped by saying "technically it's an IP issue".
I bet you were paid $50 by Greenpeace to post this! Haha all facts that exist are now invalid, SUCK IT
Spending money entitles you to legal protection? Really?
Unfortunately that's simply untrue. GMOs are a tool in Monsanto's arsenal. If you remove GMOs from the equation then they will be immediately hindered and have to invest in other areas which are quite possible less negative to their competitors. In other words, just because banning GMOs would not be addressing the problem does not mean that it would have no impact on the symptoms.
Nuclear weapons have never been in a commercial product. SO FAR.
So you say. Anyone can say that, or the opposite. Here, watch: "Research has shown some GMOs are beneficial." Oh, and one more thing: "Research has shown some naturally occurring (non-GMO) organisms cause agonizing death."
Citation needed.