"The study came as a blow to environmentalists opposing GMOs as it received backing from the national science academies of all EU member states, plus Norway and Switzerland."
Nice try, but you cherry picked the hell out of the article I cited, and then accused me of cherry picking.
In addition you held a claim by the article that they carefully screen work cited for undue influence to be invalid without doing any research on whether it was true or not, and then went on to claim your conclusion is the result of careful research when in fact it's the result of firmly held cognitive bias.
Complete sophistry of course.
GMO is settled science. It's been in commercial use for long enough that many of the initial patents have expired. That's more than a generation now. Not one peer reviewed article claiming harm has held up while national labs using government money to fund large scale studies have found nothing.
You have to be a complete nutcase to believe there is any reason to not use it. In fact the EASAC article lists a bunch of reasons why the current EU policies are doing a lot of harm.
GMO deniers are just like anti-vaxxers and AGW deniers. Completely irrational or just uneducated idiots.
âoeWe estimate that around 90% of the literature on which the conclusions of the report are based is on non-industry funded, peer-reviewed research,â said Sofie Vanthournout, head of the Brussels office of EASAC.
In other words the claim that it's all paid by Monsanto is an outright lie.
Without technology Britain would not have been able to improve production. Technology pulls production efficiency along behind it.
Also the idea that improving production efficiency is the only thing that counts is missing the point that having new high value things to make, say like modern pharmaceuticals and CPUs and jetliners increases the value of manufacturing processes tremendously.
It isn't just making stuff that more efficiently, it's also about making stuff that has a higher value.
Economics tells us that there are only two real things that cause economic growth.
1. Population growth. 2. Technological progress.
We need as much of the latter as possible, and should address that goal with the full intent of the nation starting with generous public support of math and science education as early as possible in the life of our children.
Furthermore any public constraint or impediment towards that end should be uprooted and eradicated with extreme vigor and prejudice.
The motivation is nothing short of the survival of the human species.
This is what the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was supposed to have done.
TRIPLE MEGA EPIC FAIL.
It's FAR FAR worse than the district courts. It's responsible for a LOT (if not most) of the patent problems we have now including and not restricted to business process patents.
> Software patents, for the most part (I'd wager 99% of the time), are used to STOP someone from selling a product.
Speaking generally, that is all a patent does. ANY kind of patent.
Patent lawyers tell me that a Patent give the right to the holder to prevent others from practicing the covered invention for a limited period of time.
It doesn't give the patent holders the right to practice the invention because the patented material may just be an improvement to technology that somebody else has a patent on.
>Except for the problem that being a single parent is 100% an individual choice for individuals born with their reproductive systems on the inside.
Except that the same people who are suggesting the cuts in food programs are:
1. Fighting abortion and birth control education funding. 2. Fighting mandates that birth control be covered by insurance. 3. Proposing that abortions in case of rape be illegal. 4. Passing laws reducing availability of abortion clinics.
Food stamps have a long history in the US with various small programs starting during the Great Depression, and other programs put in place by Kennedy and Johnson.
However the current comprehensive program really dates from the administration of Richard M Nixon.
Slashdot Mirror
Not the popular view.
It's the view of the world scientific community.
From the article I cited:
"The study came as a blow to environmentalists opposing GMOs as it received backing from the national science academies of all EU member states, plus Norway and Switzerland."
Nice try, but you cherry picked the hell out of the article I cited, and then accused me of cherry picking.
In addition you held a claim by the article that they carefully screen work cited for undue influence to be invalid without doing any research on whether it was true or not, and then went on to claim your conclusion is the result of careful research when in fact it's the result of firmly held cognitive bias.
Complete sophistry of course.
GMO is settled science. It's been in commercial use for long enough that many of the initial patents have expired. That's more than a generation now. Not one peer reviewed article claiming harm has held up while national labs using government money to fund large scale studies have found nothing.
You have to be a complete nutcase to believe there is any reason to not use it. In fact the EASAC article lists a bunch of reasons why the current EU policies are doing a lot of harm.
GMO deniers are just like anti-vaxxers and AGW deniers. Completely irrational or just uneducated idiots.
You really ought to do better investigation of your claims.
For example this article seems to have statements that something like 90% of GMO research is paid for by NON-industry sources.
http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/chief-eu-scientist-backs-damning-news-530693
âoeWe estimate that around 90% of the literature on which the conclusions of the report are based is on non-industry funded, peer-reviewed research,â said Sofie Vanthournout, head of the Brussels office of EASAC.
In other words the claim that it's all paid by Monsanto is an outright lie.
The brain keeps functioning for a while after decapitation.
http://www.guillotine.dk/pages/30sek.html
I think anesthesia is the least painful way.
Australia has the highest per capita level of greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world.
http://takvera.blogspot.com/2011/11/record-increase-in-greenhouse-gas.html
No global temperature increase in 10 years?
I call bullshit.
http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf
10% decline in one year?
30,000 jobs in a nation of 300,000,000 ?
Sure it's not just noise?
What are the confidence intervals on this?
Texas is going to be a purple or even blue state long term. The demographics make it inevitable.
China lives and dies based on its exports, for the US it's a small part of our economy. What the f*ck do you expect.
600 million Chinese live in abject poverty. Of course they are more hungry.
The long term trend is decline in religion in the United States.
News reports like this one are mere anecdotes that don't represent the complete picture.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155690/confidence-organized-religion-low-point.aspx
Your thesis is based on an invalid assumption.
You have the cart before the horse.
Without technology Britain would not have been able to improve production. Technology pulls production efficiency along behind it.
Also the idea that improving production efficiency is the only thing that counts is missing the point that having new high value things to make, say like modern pharmaceuticals and CPUs and jetliners increases the value of manufacturing processes tremendously.
It isn't just making stuff that more efficiently, it's also about making stuff that has a higher value.
Economics tells us that there are only two real things that cause economic growth.
1. Population growth.
2. Technological progress.
We need as much of the latter as possible, and should address that goal with the full intent of the nation starting with generous public support of math and science education as early as possible in the life of our children.
Furthermore any public constraint or impediment towards that end should be uprooted and eradicated with extreme vigor and prejudice.
The motivation is nothing short of the survival of the human species.
Oh SNAP. I always thought it should be defined as Avogadro's number of electrons per second.
Change it to that, please.
Then it would have made the calculations I have to do as an electrochemist much simpler.
The 3rd Straight of Taiwan crisis put a giant butthurt on China.
I would say a LARGE part of their military build has to do with preventing any such humiliation like that from happening again.
Think of what people in the US would be doing if something like that happened off the shores of North America.
The Gerald R Ford construction cost was 12.8 billion.
While it would be a sitting duck in nuclear war between superpowers it wouldn't matter, because everything else would die too.
This is what the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was supposed to have done.
TRIPLE MEGA EPIC FAIL.
It's FAR FAR worse than the district courts. It's responsible for a LOT (if not most) of the patent problems we have now including and not restricted to business process patents.
> Software patents, for the most part (I'd wager 99% of the time), are used to STOP someone from selling a product.
Speaking generally, that is all a patent does. ANY kind of patent.
Patent lawyers tell me that a Patent give the right to the holder to prevent others from practicing the covered invention for a limited period of time.
It doesn't give the patent holders the right to practice the invention because the patented material may just be an improvement to technology that somebody else has a patent on.
The cash component of EBT is a different program than the food assistance that Republicans are attempting to cut.
80% of the bad loans were issued by financial institutions not even subject to the CRA.
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html
The counter evidence is that
1. The CRA was passed in 1977, some 30 years before the collapse.
2. Most of the bad mortgages were issued in the 2 years prior to the collapse.
Sorry, but the meme that the CRA caused the collapse is ridiculous on the face of it.
>Except for the problem that being a single parent is 100% an individual choice for individuals born with their reproductive systems on the inside.
Except that the same people who are suggesting the cuts in food programs are:
1. Fighting abortion and birth control education funding.
2. Fighting mandates that birth control be covered by insurance.
3. Proposing that abortions in case of rape be illegal.
4. Passing laws reducing availability of abortion clinics.
Well, in Alaska you actually can buy bows and arrows with food stamps.
Maybe the next step would be guns and ammo.
Food stamps have a long history in the US with various small programs starting during the Great Depression, and other programs put in place by Kennedy and Johnson.
However the current comprehensive program really dates from the administration of Richard M Nixon.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2038
Nothing to do with the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately the summary does a crappy job of summarizing.
The $15 billion increase in medical care that was extrapolated is for one disease (diabetes) alone. Presumably there will be others as well.
Yes, but at the retail level subsidies are charged to the end user.
Not sure the wholesale price accurately reflects the complete picture.