It think that there are lot of arguments that can be made against the Fifth Amendment position here, mostly through the fact that the government does indeed have the right to regulate interstate commerce.
Personally I don't believe that Creationism and science are compatible in any way shape or form. But if you want to teach your children in this way that is fine by me.
Let's say you drill a relief well for each producing well. Um well these relief wells can blow out too. So you need a relief well relief well too. But that can blow out too....
people living in industrial countries are much more likely to get cancer.
And people in non-industrial societies have shorter life-spans. So your choice is to die from something other than cancer at a younger age, or live longer and die from cancer.
Another way to look at it is that we could cut the rate of cancer in industrial societies by euthanizing people at age 40.
So we have clear evidence that copyright prevents progress, and a lack of evidence that its promotion is necessary or effective.
We do? Since when? Please present evidence of this claim.
Do you really think the commercial film industry would exist without copyright? Who is going cough up $100 million to make a movie in the absence of copyright?
Not the similar issue with patents. What drug company is going to spend $100 million to bring a new drug to market without patent protection?
The idea seems ludicrous on the face of it.
The fact is that we have a modern explosion of creative works under the existing system. Heck, the start of the industrial revolution is coincident with the adoption of patent law in England.
Do you really want to throw this away and go back to the state of affairs prior to this? Guilds keeping everything they know as trade secrets under contracts? No publication of technological developments? No sources of funding for inventors?
People making assertions should supply evidence for said assertions. Proof is the responsibility of the claimant in every debate. Period.
As for what damage they have done, I doubt there is much disagreement on the facts: they support factory farming, support large monocultures, and create and patent genetically modified organisms.
Factory farming and monocultures existed long before GMO. These are economic and biologically driven trends irrespective of the use of GMOs and were well established trends long before GMOs were brought to market. So again I say what social damage have they done? You have NO evidence of any such and are just whistling out of your butt.
create and patent genetically modified organisms
Again you have NO evidence this causes ANY social damage.
28 people got diarrhea which may or may not have been caused by the Starlink protein. Is that reason to eschew something as critical as a major new crop technology that may end up feeding billions of people?
That cannot possibly be justified as an ethical or rational position.
The purpose of safety testing is to evaluate if a product will be safe for consumers (Lehrer and Bannon 2005; Goodman and others 2008). In this case, when it became clear that the transferred protein with potentially an allergen--remember nobody has ever eaten this soybean or suffered an allergic reaction--the project was stopped. The soybean never made out of early stages in development; it was never submitted to regulators nor was any attempt ever made to market it. This is exactly how the premarket safety assessment is supposed to help developers ensure that only products that are as safe as any other food reach the market. It is a fact that no GM product has ever caused a food allergy (Goodman and others 2008). Ironically, about 10 common foods cause over 95 percent of all food allergies (Bannon and Lehrer 2005). No premarket testing is required for non-GM foods and they are not taken off the market when they cause allergies.
getting sick with dieases like cancer from a contaminated environment
I am getting tired of reading malarkey like this. Very few cancers can be traced to environmental contamination. The primary sources of cancer in humans are:
Smoking. Solar radiation. High fat diets. Diseases like HPV and Hepatitis. Biological changes due to aging. Physical inactivity.
Best available estimates put 6% of cancer levels due to environmental contamination.
Probably. And we are going to find out for sure the way things are going.
2. if so, is it a net bad for the world,
"The World" isn't the issue here. The world will go on just fine regardless. The human race though is a different matter. The economic dislocation will be severe if the world average temperature increases according the available models. Prepare your children for the idea that they will enjoy a markedly reduced standard of living because of this and other reasons.
3. if so, is it worth stopping,
Duh.
4. if so, can we stop it,
Doubtful. The political will to get developing nations to limit economic growth does not exist.
5. if so, should we try to stop it (costs/ethics/potential for worse catastrophes),
This still doesn't change the fact that the AGW argument is supported by insufficient evidence and flawed computer models.
You are entitled to your opinion. However that statement does nothing to refute the current mainstream opinion that AGW is the best explanation of the existing evidence. If you really want to make an impact, research and publish alternative theories that do a better job of explaining the data. Just saying you don't believe X is not an acceptable refutation if you have nothing to offer as a substitute.
As far as Climategate goes, it is simply an ad hominem attack on researchers in the field. It is ridiculous that it has be taken as evidence that the theories are not valid. Not one aspect of Climategate has read to the validity of AGW theory in any way whatsoever.
What is actually happening is the rigs are sailing off to Brazil, the North Atlantic and the Far East where they will be used to develop oil to sell to the US at high prices.
The engineers and workers? Out of work. The local companies that service these exploratory rigs? Out of business.
The economic output of each of these rigs is about $1 million per day. Over the course of 6 months 33 rigs amounts to a $6 billion hit to the Gulf economy. Exactly at the time it is already being hammered.
Well the usual way these sorts of situations are managed is that some global giant mining company comes in and puts the corrupt autocratic government on its payroll. That tends to quiet down the local situation. Infrastructure though will be a big problem. Afghanistan doesn't have anything like what is needed.
Not to mention the fact that the average Indian immigrant has to learn to spell that in 3 languages - English, Hindi and whatever of over 100 local languages he grew up with.
Slashdot Mirror
It think that there are lot of arguments that can be made against the Fifth Amendment position here, mostly through the fact that the government does indeed have the right to regulate interstate commerce.
Both of them are not like the other.
Personally I don't believe that Creationism and science are compatible in any way shape or form. But if you want to teach your children in this way that is fine by me.
We don't have that much uranium lying around. In fact peak uranium not far off.
That was the Coast Guard's estimate.
Let's say you drill a relief well for each producing well. Um well these relief wells can blow out too. So you need a relief well relief well too. But that can blow out too....
I think you get the picture.
people living in industrial countries are much more likely to get cancer.
And people in non-industrial societies have shorter life-spans. So your choice is to die from something other than cancer at a younger age, or live longer and die from cancer.
Another way to look at it is that we could cut the rate of cancer in industrial societies by euthanizing people at age 40.
So we have clear evidence that copyright prevents progress, and a lack of evidence that its promotion is necessary or effective.
We do? Since when? Please present evidence of this claim.
Do you really think the commercial film industry would exist without copyright? Who is going cough up $100 million to make a movie in the absence of copyright?
Not the similar issue with patents. What drug company is going to spend $100 million to bring a new drug to market without patent protection?
The idea seems ludicrous on the face of it.
The fact is that we have a modern explosion of creative works under the existing system. Heck, the start of the industrial revolution is coincident with the adoption of patent law in England.
Do you really want to throw this away and go back to the state of affairs prior to this? Guilds keeping everything they know as trade secrets under contracts? No publication of technological developments? No sources of funding for inventors?
Yes, and after frame rate higher dynamic range. Screen resolution is a distant third.
People making assertions should supply evidence for said assertions. Proof is the responsibility of the claimant in every debate. Period.
As for what damage they have done, I doubt there is much disagreement on the facts: they support factory farming, support large monocultures, and create and patent genetically modified organisms.
Factory farming and monocultures existed long before GMO. These are economic and biologically driven trends irrespective of the use of GMOs and were well established trends long before GMOs were brought to market. So again I say what social damage have they done? You have NO evidence of any such and are just whistling out of your butt.
create and patent genetically modified organisms
Again you have NO evidence this causes ANY social damage.
So those who want a life long profession in the child abduction and rape profession are good to go, right?
For those interested in giving the Direct Marketing (Telemarketers) association feedback on their services their number is:
212 768 7277
and they can be reached by email at:
customerservice@the-dma.org
Enjoy.
Exactly what social damage has Monsanto caused? In detail with citations in peer reviewed literature please.
28 people got diarrhea which may or may not have been caused by the Starlink protein. Is that reason to eschew something as critical as a major new crop technology that may end up feeding billions of people?
That cannot possibly be justified as an ethical or rational position.
The purpose of safety testing is to evaluate if a product will be safe for consumers (Lehrer and Bannon 2005; Goodman and others 2008). In this case, when it became clear that the transferred protein with potentially an allergen--remember nobody has ever eaten this soybean or suffered an allergic reaction--the project was stopped. The soybean never made out of early stages in development; it was never submitted to regulators nor was any attempt ever made to market it. This is exactly how the premarket safety assessment is supposed to help developers ensure that only products that are as safe as any other food reach the market. It is a fact that no GM product has ever caused a food allergy (Goodman and others 2008). Ironically, about 10 common foods cause over 95 percent of all food allergies (Bannon and Lehrer 2005). No premarket testing is required for non-GM foods and they are not taken off the market when they cause allergies.
http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-3/3-1-gm-soybeans-and-allergens/#claims
getting sick with dieases like cancer from a contaminated environment
I am getting tired of reading malarkey like this. Very few cancers can be traced to environmental contamination. The primary sources of cancer in humans are:
Smoking.
Solar radiation.
High fat diets.
Diseases like HPV and Hepatitis.
Biological changes due to aging.
Physical inactivity.
Best available estimates put 6% of cancer levels due to environmental contamination.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7017215
1. is climate change a man-made phenomenon,
Probably. And we are going to find out for sure the way things are going.
2. if so, is it a net bad for the world,
"The World" isn't the issue here. The world will go on just fine regardless. The human race though is a different matter. The economic dislocation will be severe if the world average temperature increases according the available models. Prepare your children for the idea that they will enjoy a markedly reduced standard of living because of this and other reasons.
3. if so, is it worth stopping,
Duh.
4. if so, can we stop it,
Doubtful. The political will to get developing nations to limit economic growth does not exist.
5. if so, should we try to stop it (costs/ethics/potential for worse catastrophes),
We can try. It will be a waste of effort.
6. if so, how should we stop it?
Moot.
This still doesn't change the fact that the AGW argument is supported by insufficient evidence and flawed computer models.
You are entitled to your opinion. However that statement does nothing to refute the current mainstream opinion that AGW is the best explanation of the existing evidence. If you really want to make an impact, research and publish alternative theories that do a better job of explaining the data. Just saying you don't believe X is not an acceptable refutation if you have nothing to offer as a substitute.
As far as Climategate goes, it is simply an ad hominem attack on researchers in the field. It is ridiculous that it has be taken as evidence that the theories are not valid. Not one aspect of Climategate has read to the validity of AGW theory in any way whatsoever.
No, it doesn't. Your estate has to pay.
Well in the USA the way to do that is immunize the guy and then compel him to testify. Since he has immunity he can't use the 5th amendment.
What is actually happening is the rigs are sailing off to Brazil, the North Atlantic and the Far East where they will be used to develop oil to sell to the US at high prices.
The engineers and workers? Out of work. The local companies that service these exploratory rigs? Out of business.
The economic output of each of these rigs is about $1 million per day. Over the course of 6 months 33 rigs amounts to a $6 billion hit to the Gulf economy. Exactly at the time it is already being hammered.
Well the usual way these sorts of situations are managed is that some global giant mining company comes in and puts the corrupt autocratic government on its payroll. That tends to quiet down the local situation. Infrastructure though will be a big problem. Afghanistan doesn't have anything like what is needed.
0.5 PPM is the MAXIMUM concentration found, not the minimum.
The actual report shows average analysis results about 0.2 ppb.
That would mean about 1000 barrels spread out over 1000's of cubic miles.
Here is the link to the original NOAA report.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/noaa_weatherbird_analysis.pdf
The press is totally misrepresenting the results of this report.
There is a lot of research on natural seepage rates. The Gulf is thought to get about 2000 bbl/day from natural sources.
Not to mention the fact that the average Indian immigrant has to learn to spell that in 3 languages - English, Hindi and whatever of over 100 local languages he grew up with.