Maybe you've been at the feminism or something for too long...:)
Last time I checked, sex ratios were fairly balanced. That means that there really can be someone for everyone.
Yes, but how well matched will these people be for each other? Even if there was an "ideal" person for everybody, and even if they matched, how many of these would find each other and then get together? Not that many I'd assume, not with 250 million people in the US alone.
As far as "denying your partner to everyone else," did it ever occur to you that your partner is a person and not a commodity? They choose to stay with you - you don't own them.
See, you're misinterpreted what I said again. For some reason you seem to think that I am physically restraining my partner from being with other people as well. One would hope that if they are with you they do not want to be with anyone else. If they did, then they shouldn't be with you, and probably won't be after a while either.
As for experiance with relationships? Well, not that it's any of your business, but I'm perfectly happy with my wife of six years thank you. But nice try missy.
If you choose a partner based upon criteria where the selection you make will cause a certain number of others to be unable to find their ideal mate, you are reducing the sum. (For example if you choose someone who is ideal to you, but you are not ideal to them)
But you aren't just either not suited or ideal, there's a spectrum of appeal between the two... So by taking your "ideal" partner, you could be denying another thousand people the chance for a "75% ideal" partner... And if there is also a "90% ideal partner" for you but only a "5% ideal" partner for them, then only by taking the 90% ideal partner and giving your ideal partner to them do we benefit as a whole...
Think of 100 people. The first finds a parter slightly better suited to them than the average. The next then does the same, etc, etc. It is cetainly possible (and in reality likely) that the total happiness is higher than if no one evey matched up.
In an ideal world maybe. But one thing I read recently was a statistical study of the effects of societal ideals for attractiveness on whether or not people end up with partners they are suited for. And what was found was that when a society has a high ideal for attractiveness (as we do given the media's fascination with "beautiful" people) more people ended up with people that were less than averagely suited to each other.
So in that sense, the sum is negative, because most people don't end up with someone better suited to them than the average.
Yeah, that's what it is. Everyone wants to eliminate competition in the world.
Strawman. I never claimed everyone wanted to, just that some do. Take a look at the decline in competitive sports in schools in the UK for instance. And there are groups who agree with this position here in the US. Of course as long as football brings in as much money for colleges as it does here, competitive sports are hear to stay along with things like sports scholarships and other such BS.
F'in trolls...
Oooh, I'm hurt. An opinion you don't like! Quick, must be a troll!
Not positive sum eh? No wonder you're failing at it.
Well no, it's not. If you find yourself a partner then you have denied that partner to everyone else (assuming fidelity of course). You win, they lose, hence it is a zero-sum situation. Of course if you're polyamorous it's different and you can have a postive-sum situation since by having someone you aren't denying them to anyone else...
Oh and thanks for the ad hominem attack. Very big of you.
Is there something wrong with the idea of competition and having someone win and others lose? After all many of the challenges people face in their lives will be zero-sum ones - either you win or you lose, and not everyone can come out ahead. Finding a partner is not a positive-sum game for instance, and that's about the most important thing there is.
There does seem to be certain people that seem to think that competition is bad, and that it is somehow "unfair" to those that aren't as good. Peronally, I think it's unfair to cosset these people and make them believe that things are going to be easy when they hit the outside world.
At least losing in school will prepare them for losing outside of it. Harsh, yes, but better sooner rather than later.
Still, the game sounds interesting and I may have to have a go. Hopefully managing the world's resources won't turn out to be a zero sum game, even though America seems to think it is, and if they don't actively try and scupper all attempts to curb our excesses we will somehow "lose".
Re:What about the anti-genetic backlash?
on
Genetic Stone Soup
·
· Score: 2
No they cannot because that would loose them the market share that they have gained. They want those big profits that growing corn at twice the natural rate gives.
As I said, they did not study the consequences of their actions. Either the company is playing by the rules they impose, in which case the farmers are at fault, or they aren't, in which case Monsanto has no case.
Special fertilizers must be used (GM food requires more and different fertalizers then are required for "normal" food)Also they do not have any seeds because Mansanto forces them to buy new seeds and they cannot hold their seeds to replant the next year.
How does your link he help your case? As it says they had a contract for 800 acres but were found with 1261 acres of soya with the Roundup Ready gene. If they are breaking the contract they signed voluntarily, then they should be sued for breach of contract.
This is just a ridiculous argument. Your trying to tell me that an extremely poor rice farmer in china can decunstruct the patented and trade secreted mansanto golden rice's genome to determine if it will survive in China or not.
No, the Chinese government should be doing that. Your example of tyres is a perfect case - there are minimum safety standards for this sort of thing imposed by the government. If it's just farmers buying this stuff with no idea then unfortunately it's their problem.
. If Mansanto (or any company) releases a product that does not work as advertised then that company is responcible.
If they advertised falsely then yes, it may be their fault. But did they actually advertise it as being resistant to Chinese diseases? If not, then they're not to blame.
Re:What about the anti-genetic backlash?
on
Genetic Stone Soup
·
· Score: 2
Ignore them.
Easier said than done, when the media has jumped all over the anti-GM bandwagon in order to sell more through selective reporting and outright scare tactics.
Having companies such as Monsanto, General Electric or the Royal Dutch Shell Company subvert governments to push their own economic agendas is hardly democracy either. Having governments NOT MANDATE compulsory informative product labelling, to insure that consumers CANNOT make an informed choice whilst shopping in grocery aisles, DESPITE the fact that the public IS ASKING FOR IT is not democracy either.
This is just another example of over-regulation by governments all too willing to impose yet more control on corporations. If the public wants GM-free foods then they'll get it thanks to the free market, and indeed there are so-called "organic" products on the market.
At least, with protesting zealots, you have the choice of not listening to them. But corporate behemoths cannot be moved aside nor ignored.
They can be ignored quite easily, by choosing not to buy their products. In a capitlist society your purchasing power is your weapon, and by denying companies your money you send a clear message to them about their products and actions.
Or is it that fact that people don't really seem to care that's bothering you? After all, despite all the hype and backlash, people still seem to be buying modified foods rather than the organic varieties. They have the choice, and how they exercise it is telling.
Democracy CANNOT exist when the people are ignorant; therefore, those who go to great lengths to make sure that the people stay ignorant are hijacking democracy.
Exactly, and this is what the anti-GM zealots are doing by spreading their scare stories and misinformation to the public. The hysteria they are raising does nobody any good, and means that rational debate on the subject is subverted.
I live in a city where EVERY private Mom&Pop coffee shop has been replaced with a Starbucks... do you not understand this whole "Market" economy thing?
*sigh* Totally different situation. The farmer can order his grain from suppliers who will then deliver it to him. If coffee shops delivered cups of coffee nationally, then it wouldn't matter if every coffee shop in your town was a Starbucks, would it.
That's the beauty of a market economy.
The only thing that could force these people into buying from Monsanto is their own free choice to do so, and any contracts that they have signed of their own free will! If you sign a bad contract, it's your own fault and whining about it won't help anyone.
Re:What about the anti-genetic backlash?
on
Genetic Stone Soup
·
· Score: 2
What happens is they set up one or two of the richest farm owners with thier patented grow twice as fast corn or wheat. These farmers then have a large advantage over all of the family farms that did not get the mansanto handout. The monsanto farmer then buys out the smaller farmers. When the mansanto farmers own most of the farmland mansanto then raises the price of thier grain (which by the way cannot reproduce) and the large farmers are forced to sell out to a large agricorp.
Why? They could always buy their grain from a different supplier. And if they've managed to get themselves locked in to a contract which allows Monsanto to raise their prices at their whim then that's a foolish move and these farmers are reaping what they have sown.
Whole crops were wiped out in china because the GE food had disease immunities from the western world. China has a slightly different set of crop diseases and *poof* there goes the rice.
Another strawman argument. You're blaming the GM food when it's obviously the people buying it who are at fault for not doing their research properly. If they were buying huge amounts of GM crops to replace their normal crops then you would think they would investiate things like disease resistance, which one would assume is why they bought it in the first place...
They wanted to make seeds that couldn't reproduce, ostensibly to control genetically modified plants and keep them from taking over.
Well you can't have it both ways can you? Either you want seeds that reproduce, in which case you'd be whining about cross-contamination with other crops, or you have seeds that don't produce, in which case you whine about "holding nations' food supplies hostage". Come on, which way do you want it?
Quite frankly there hasn't been a single conclusive study showing that there is any risk from GM crops. It's all just scare stories and psuedo-science.
What about the anti-genetic backlash?
on
Genetic Stone Soup
·
· Score: 3
Now that the entire genome is sequenced and work is underway on finding the individual genes and their functions, what advances are we going to see? Well plenty really, from screening and treatments for genetic illnesses, to modified organisms that are better and can survive in more extreme conditions. There's the potential to change almost everything as we begin to work out the sequences of more and more living beings.
But what concerns me is that the whole backlash against anything with the world "genetic" in it will slow or even stop the flow of scientific advancement. We've already seen how companies like Montesanto can have their research attacked, spoiled and subjected to the worst kind of slanderous publicity, and as we get the capacity to do more, these attacks will likely get worse, fueled by an ever more virulent group of protesters and environmentalists.
These people are true zealots which make RMS look like an apologist. They think nothing of resorting to intimidation, violance and criminal damage, whilst at the same time engaging in a war of words which admits no logic and no compromise. In some cases, the very lives of researchers who labour to increase our knowledge is at risk, and we cannot afford to let this happen, not with the problems of population growth looming large over humanity.
These people are dangerous, and their actions need to be curbed. No longer should they be able to get away with their lies and violent behaviour, no more than any common thug. They can claim moral superiority, but in truth it seems as though these people are as bigoted as any racist, and just as determined to further their cause.
We can't allow research to the thwarted because of the voices of a small bunch of extremists. That's not democracy at all.
Computer games as a genre are neutral, but it seems as though game companies are rushing to produce the most bloody and violent games that they possibly can without any concern for the young lives that they are polluting. And I for one would be glad to see these games toned back down to levels at which they are not so brutal, because children sure as hell don't need to see that kind of thing.
It all started with Mortal Kombat, but today that is tame compared to some of the blood and death games out there, where children are desensitised to death in the same way that soldiers are trained to be. How can this be right? Children are innocent, and that time in their lives is unique and should be cherished, not thrown away watching people having their entrails ripped out.
There's enough violence in the world without bringing it into the front room. All I can say is thank God for Nintendo, who realise that you can have a great game without blood and guts.
Sure you CAN use HTML 4 for creating plain pages, but if that was the case then why bother creating the specification at all? After all, plain old HTML 1 could do that just as well.
Let's face it folks, the <B> and <I> tags are there for a reason.
It seems to me as though this is a piece of legislation that has been passed to make people happy rather than to actually be implemented in full. Sure you should make some of your more critical web pages compliant, but if I were you I'd prepare a time study detailing exactly how long it'll take you to get all these changes implemented, and watch how fast they decide it falls into an "Undue Burden" category...
If you really need to do so at some later point it can be done then, but as it is it's a lot of effort for no real gain. This sounds harsh, but sometimes it's just not worth the time to cater for such a small part of your audience - just look at how many sites are giving up on supporting Netscape because it's dead and there's so little point in spending the time to keep a site compliant for different audiences...
This is a pretty interesting application of technology to solve one of the problems of long-term space travel, but the trouble is that if you're staying for long terms in orbit then there are a whole host of problems which need to be tackled in order to stay fit and able to function again when you come back down to Earth and its one gee of gravity.
The trouble with all of this kind of thing is that whilst it may work it's expensive, time-consuming and often just not effective. If we're going to look towards the future of the race out in the stars, we need to take a more fundamental look at the problem.
The fact is humans aren't designed for space, and we need to change that.
But thankfully we are now coming to and era when we can change our design, and scientists and biotech companies are aggressively moving foward with our understanding of our genetic code. Soon we will be able to manipulate ourselves in order to maximise our potential rather than wasting it on flawed designs. And what better way of using this technology than to prepare ourselves for our glorious leap to space?
We should begin thinking about mass programs of genetic alterations to able us to function better in outer space and under low gravity situations. Things like a more efficient oxygenation system or perhaps even extended our visual range could make a vast difference to our hopes of survival, and by doing it to the germ plasm itself we avoid clunky cybernetic solutions that are unnatural and inefficient.
Whilst I'm sure this idea will be greeted with outrage from people with an emotional attachment to their biological makeup, it makes perfect sense in the long run. And you can bet that if we don't go ahead and do it a culture with less hangups about their physical bodies will do it in order to get ahead. I'd imagine the Chinese would love the idea...
I spent many of my early years in front of beloved Tandy 1000, which was my only computer until 1994 BTW. And I seem to be in perfect health, able to carry on a conversation with someone and happily married.
Well there you go then, the exception that proves the rule. Statistically speaking there's always somebody that turns out differently from the norm...
As fond as I am for the odd game or two it sort of disturbs me to see that some people take their game playing to such obsessive levels. When people started creating computer games back in the 70s I wonder if they ever realised quite how profoundly they would change society, and for the worse in many cases?
I feel that whilst computer games can be beneficial and relaxing when they're part of a normal live, they have an addictive quality which makes people spend far too much time playing them, to the detriment of their social skills. We're seeing it now - too many people here on/. seem to know more about how to win a Quake deathmatch than how to deal with the opposite sex for instance. Spending all of your formative years in front of a computer leads to a level of social skills rivalling autism. Indeed, many of the symptoms seem eerily similar.
Unfortunately, with recent statistics showing that computer gaming is an industry worth twice as much as Hollywood this trend seems to be accelerating. And parents nowadays seem more concerned with keeping their children quiet than fostering their social skills, which leaves them crippled when they finally have to enter the real world! How can this be right?
Personally I think that children shouldn't be allowed to play computer games while they're young. Things like this and television do them no good - did you know obesity is on the increase in the under fives? My kids will be encouraged to play and have fun instead, and when they deserve a treat I'll get out something wholesome like Mary Poppins that we can all watch as a family.
It's just not right to let your kids grow up knowing nothing other than Tekken Tag.
Quit your whining, biotch. Linux can't be taken away from us, it's GPL'd (for the most part).
Do you honestly think Linux can't be taken away from us? I think that's a naive point of view, and overly trusting of corporate business practices, which we see on/. everyday exposed for what they are.
For a start the GPL hasn't been tested in a court of law so far, and so its viability as a protective mechanism is uncertain. So far the only reason it's worked is that no company wants to stick their necks out and be the first. If current trends continue though, it may become worth doing, and corporations can afford to hire good lawyers.
Secondly you've heard of "embrace and extend" right? The kernel may be GPLed but if it is surrounded by enough non-GPL stuff then it may come to the point where it might as well not be - you need loads of non-GPL stuff to run it. Borland's Kylix is a prime example of that, and I hope it doesn't succeed, because it could be the start of a long decline...
But you missed one thing. Linux is big now and needs some full time developers, to keep track.
But most of these new features seem to be aimed at the business end of the market rather than at the core community of Linux users. So if we need full time developers (which I doubt anyway) it is only because of the demands being placed on Linus and co from business organisations that want to turn Linux into CorpLinux.
At some point in the last few years it seems as though I went to the kitchen for a cup of coffee and when I came back, Linux was a hotbed of corporate activity. What on Earth happened?
The whole point of Linux was never commercial success or brand-name recognition, it was to provide a high-quality operating system under a free license. Back in those days we didn't care about whether or not we could come up with a case study of success stories in order to drum up more corporate users, hell the corporate users were geeks hidden in darkened corners.
Why should we care that a bunch of greedy corporate suits want to promote Linux as if it's their baby? To be quite frank, I find all this corporatism an affront to the ideals that RMS stands for, and it's not why I starting using Linux in the first place. Software should be free, not exploited for the bottom line.
At this rate I expect to see "Bullet Proof Linux", "Fortune 500 Linux" and a whole host of other business-friendly distributions. Corel was bad enough, this sort of thing with its "Collaborative Marketing Programs" is worse.
Linux is not about money, it's about freedom. Don't let the corporations take it away from us.
As with everything it all depends on the circumstances. Smaller companies are (in general) far better at customer relations because they have more resources to spend per customer in this department, and the people running them depend on this for their livlihood so they're motivated to help. But a larger company can pass on economies of scale to it's customers in the form of reduced prices, special deals and so on.
It's all a matter of what kind of service you want - cheap or good. And let's face it, most people prefer to have a cheap service that they can then bitch about to one where they pay a lot more but get help. As a culture we're used to waiting half an hour on the phone for some support person who has no more idea about your problem than you do, so we've in a sense become inured to such treatment.
So I think that smaller ISPs aren't really a hugely viable concern. If they could work, I'd say it would be by catering to areas where a lot of help is needed that a large company won't provide - to nursing homes for instance. Otherwise people will try and save a few dollars everytime.
This means that now everywhere can be covered in wonderful moving adverts! Just think, rather than having those boring old billboards everywhere around town, they can slap up a roll of this stuff and actually play stuff for you to admire! Yay!
We do seem to be moving towards "active" materials which rather than just being lumps of solid stuff in fact contain their own processors, memories and so on. Sooner or later we'll get to the stage where absolutely everything it made from computing material, and every brick and tile has its own IP address and can become part of a distributed computer running your house, doing SETA@home and so on.
Heh, just imagine your toilet patiently searching for alien life whilst you're sitting on it:)
There are still differences in the DNA, otherwise we'd all have the same range of colouration, right? Even people in places which have very little outside contact show marked differences in their DNA over time, due to having a smaller gene pool.
So there are differences despite their not being different species.
And yes, wasp chemistry and human chemistry are different. But that doesn't mean it's not possible, and now that there's a working example it gives researchers something to work from and towards...
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you've been at the feminism or something for too long... :)
Last time I checked, sex ratios were fairly balanced. That means that there really can be someone for everyone.
Yes, but how well matched will these people be for each other? Even if there was an "ideal" person for everybody, and even if they matched, how many of these would find each other and then get together? Not that many I'd assume, not with 250 million people in the US alone.
As far as "denying your partner to everyone else," did it ever occur to you that your partner is a person and not a commodity? They choose to stay with you - you don't own them.
See, you're misinterpreted what I said again. For some reason you seem to think that I am physically restraining my partner from being with other people as well. One would hope that if they are with you they do not want to be with anyone else. If they did, then they shouldn't be with you, and probably won't be after a while either.
As for experiance with relationships? Well, not that it's any of your business, but I'm perfectly happy with my wife of six years thank you. But nice try missy.
If it's not a positive-sum game, you're not looking for a partner, you're looking for a servant.
It's not I win, my partner loses.
If I start a relationship with someone, nobody else can. There's the zero-sum.
If you choose a partner based upon criteria where the selection you make will cause a certain number of others to be unable to find their ideal mate, you are reducing the sum. (For example if you choose someone who is ideal to you, but you are not ideal to them)
But you aren't just either not suited or ideal, there's a spectrum of appeal between the two... So by taking your "ideal" partner, you could be denying another thousand people the chance for a "75% ideal" partner... And if there is also a "90% ideal partner" for you but only a "5% ideal" partner for them, then only by taking the 90% ideal partner and giving your ideal partner to them do we benefit as a whole...
Think of 100 people. The first finds a parter slightly better suited to them than the average. The next then does the same, etc, etc. It is cetainly possible (and in reality likely) that the total happiness is higher than if no one evey matched up.
In an ideal world maybe. But one thing I read recently was a statistical study of the effects of societal ideals for attractiveness on whether or not people end up with partners they are suited for. And what was found was that when a society has a high ideal for attractiveness (as we do given the media's fascination with "beautiful" people) more people ended up with people that were less than averagely suited to each other.
So in that sense, the sum is negative, because most people don't end up with someone better suited to them than the average.
Yeah, that's what it is. Everyone wants to eliminate competition in the world.
Strawman. I never claimed everyone wanted to, just that some do. Take a look at the decline in competitive sports in schools in the UK for instance. And there are groups who agree with this position here in the US. Of course as long as football brings in as much money for colleges as it does here, competitive sports are hear to stay along with things like sports scholarships and other such BS.
F'in trolls...
Oooh, I'm hurt. An opinion you don't like! Quick, must be a troll!
Not positive sum eh? No wonder you're failing at it.
Well no, it's not. If you find yourself a partner then you have denied that partner to everyone else (assuming fidelity of course). You win, they lose, hence it is a zero-sum situation. Of course if you're polyamorous it's different and you can have a postive-sum situation since by having someone you aren't denying them to anyone else...
Oh and thanks for the ad hominem attack. Very big of you.
Is there something wrong with the idea of competition and having someone win and others lose? After all many of the challenges people face in their lives will be zero-sum ones - either you win or you lose, and not everyone can come out ahead. Finding a partner is not a positive-sum game for instance, and that's about the most important thing there is.
There does seem to be certain people that seem to think that competition is bad, and that it is somehow "unfair" to those that aren't as good. Peronally, I think it's unfair to cosset these people and make them believe that things are going to be easy when they hit the outside world.
At least losing in school will prepare them for losing outside of it. Harsh, yes, but better sooner rather than later.
Still, the game sounds interesting and I may have to have a go. Hopefully managing the world's resources won't turn out to be a zero sum game, even though America seems to think it is, and if they don't actively try and scupper all attempts to curb our excesses we will somehow "lose".
No they cannot because that would loose them the market share that they have gained. They want those big profits that growing corn at twice the natural rate gives.
As I said, they did not study the consequences of their actions. Either the company is playing by the rules they impose, in which case the farmers are at fault, or they aren't, in which case Monsanto has no case.
Special fertilizers must be used (GM food requires more and different fertalizers then are required for "normal" food)Also they do not have any seeds because Mansanto forces them to buy new seeds and they cannot hold their seeds to replant the next year.
How does your link he help your case? As it says they had a contract for 800 acres but were found with 1261 acres of soya with the Roundup Ready gene. If they are breaking the contract they signed voluntarily, then they should be sued for breach of contract.
This is just a ridiculous argument. Your trying to tell me that an extremely poor rice farmer in china can decunstruct the patented and trade secreted mansanto golden rice's genome to determine if it will survive in China or not.
No, the Chinese government should be doing that. Your example of tyres is a perfect case - there are minimum safety standards for this sort of thing imposed by the government. If it's just farmers buying this stuff with no idea then unfortunately it's their problem.
. If Mansanto (or any company) releases a product that does not work as advertised then that company is responcible.
If they advertised falsely then yes, it may be their fault. But did they actually advertise it as being resistant to Chinese diseases? If not, then they're not to blame.
Ignore them.
Easier said than done, when the media has jumped all over the anti-GM bandwagon in order to sell more through selective reporting and outright scare tactics.
Having companies such as Monsanto, General Electric or the Royal Dutch Shell Company subvert governments to push their own economic agendas is hardly democracy either. Having governments NOT MANDATE compulsory informative product labelling, to insure that consumers CANNOT make an informed choice whilst shopping in grocery aisles, DESPITE the fact that the public IS ASKING FOR IT is not democracy either.
This is just another example of over-regulation by governments all too willing to impose yet more control on corporations. If the public wants GM-free foods then they'll get it thanks to the free market, and indeed there are so-called "organic" products on the market.
At least, with protesting zealots, you have the choice of not listening to them. But corporate behemoths cannot be moved aside nor ignored.
They can be ignored quite easily, by choosing not to buy their products. In a capitlist society your purchasing power is your weapon, and by denying companies your money you send a clear message to them about their products and actions.
Or is it that fact that people don't really seem to care that's bothering you? After all, despite all the hype and backlash, people still seem to be buying modified foods rather than the organic varieties. They have the choice, and how they exercise it is telling.
Democracy CANNOT exist when the people are ignorant; therefore, those who go to great lengths to make sure that the people stay ignorant are hijacking democracy.
Exactly, and this is what the anti-GM zealots are doing by spreading their scare stories and misinformation to the public. The hysteria they are raising does nobody any good, and means that rational debate on the subject is subverted.
I live in a city where EVERY private Mom&Pop coffee shop has been replaced with a Starbucks... do you not understand this whole "Market" economy thing?
*sigh* Totally different situation. The farmer can order his grain from suppliers who will then deliver it to him. If coffee shops delivered cups of coffee nationally, then it wouldn't matter if every coffee shop in your town was a Starbucks, would it.
That's the beauty of a market economy.
The only thing that could force these people into buying from Monsanto is their own free choice to do so, and any contracts that they have signed of their own free will! If you sign a bad contract, it's your own fault and whining about it won't help anyone.
What happens is they set up one or two of the richest farm owners with thier patented grow twice as fast corn or wheat. These farmers then have a large advantage over all of the family farms that did not get the mansanto handout. The monsanto farmer then buys out the smaller farmers. When the mansanto farmers own most of the farmland mansanto then raises the price of thier grain (which by the way cannot reproduce) and the large farmers are forced to sell out to a large agricorp.
Why? They could always buy their grain from a different supplier. And if they've managed to get themselves locked in to a contract which allows Monsanto to raise their prices at their whim then that's a foolish move and these farmers are reaping what they have sown.
Whole crops were wiped out in china because the GE food had disease immunities from the western world. China has a slightly different set of crop diseases and *poof* there goes the rice.
Another strawman argument. You're blaming the GM food when it's obviously the people buying it who are at fault for not doing their research properly. If they were buying huge amounts of GM crops to replace their normal crops then you would think they would investiate things like disease resistance, which one would assume is why they bought it in the first place...
They wanted to make seeds that couldn't reproduce, ostensibly to control genetically modified plants and keep them from taking over.
Well you can't have it both ways can you? Either you want seeds that reproduce, in which case you'd be whining about cross-contamination with other crops, or you have seeds that don't produce, in which case you whine about "holding nations' food supplies hostage". Come on, which way do you want it?
Quite frankly there hasn't been a single conclusive study showing that there is any risk from GM crops. It's all just scare stories and psuedo-science.
Now that the entire genome is sequenced and work is underway on finding the individual genes and their functions, what advances are we going to see? Well plenty really, from screening and treatments for genetic illnesses, to modified organisms that are better and can survive in more extreme conditions. There's the potential to change almost everything as we begin to work out the sequences of more and more living beings.
But what concerns me is that the whole backlash against anything with the world "genetic" in it will slow or even stop the flow of scientific advancement. We've already seen how companies like Montesanto can have their research attacked, spoiled and subjected to the worst kind of slanderous publicity, and as we get the capacity to do more, these attacks will likely get worse, fueled by an ever more virulent group of protesters and environmentalists.
These people are true zealots which make RMS look like an apologist. They think nothing of resorting to intimidation, violance and criminal damage, whilst at the same time engaging in a war of words which admits no logic and no compromise. In some cases, the very lives of researchers who labour to increase our knowledge is at risk, and we cannot afford to let this happen, not with the problems of population growth looming large over humanity.
These people are dangerous, and their actions need to be curbed. No longer should they be able to get away with their lies and violent behaviour, no more than any common thug. They can claim moral superiority, but in truth it seems as though these people are as bigoted as any racist, and just as determined to further their cause.
We can't allow research to the thwarted because of the voices of a small bunch of extremists. That's not democracy at all.
Computer games as a genre are neutral, but it seems as though game companies are rushing to produce the most bloody and violent games that they possibly can without any concern for the young lives that they are polluting. And I for one would be glad to see these games toned back down to levels at which they are not so brutal, because children sure as hell don't need to see that kind of thing.
It all started with Mortal Kombat, but today that is tame compared to some of the blood and death games out there, where children are desensitised to death in the same way that soldiers are trained to be. How can this be right? Children are innocent, and that time in their lives is unique and should be cherished, not thrown away watching people having their entrails ripped out.
There's enough violence in the world without bringing it into the front room. All I can say is thank God for Nintendo, who realise that you can have a great game without blood and guts.
Sure you CAN use HTML 4 for creating plain pages, but if that was the case then why bother creating the specification at all? After all, plain old HTML 1 could do that just as well.
Let's face it folks, the <B> and <I> tags are there for a reason.
It seems to me as though this is a piece of legislation that has been passed to make people happy rather than to actually be implemented in full. Sure you should make some of your more critical web pages compliant, but if I were you I'd prepare a time study detailing exactly how long it'll take you to get all these changes implemented, and watch how fast they decide it falls into an "Undue Burden" category...
If you really need to do so at some later point it can be done then, but as it is it's a lot of effort for no real gain. This sounds harsh, but sometimes it's just not worth the time to cater for such a small part of your audience - just look at how many sites are giving up on supporting Netscape because it's dead and there's so little point in spending the time to keep a site compliant for different audiences...
This is a pretty interesting application of technology to solve one of the problems of long-term space travel, but the trouble is that if you're staying for long terms in orbit then there are a whole host of problems which need to be tackled in order to stay fit and able to function again when you come back down to Earth and its one gee of gravity.
The trouble with all of this kind of thing is that whilst it may work it's expensive, time-consuming and often just not effective. If we're going to look towards the future of the race out in the stars, we need to take a more fundamental look at the problem.
The fact is humans aren't designed for space, and we need to change that.
But thankfully we are now coming to and era when we can change our design, and scientists and biotech companies are aggressively moving foward with our understanding of our genetic code. Soon we will be able to manipulate ourselves in order to maximise our potential rather than wasting it on flawed designs. And what better way of using this technology than to prepare ourselves for our glorious leap to space?
We should begin thinking about mass programs of genetic alterations to able us to function better in outer space and under low gravity situations. Things like a more efficient oxygenation system or perhaps even extended our visual range could make a vast difference to our hopes of survival, and by doing it to the germ plasm itself we avoid clunky cybernetic solutions that are unnatural and inefficient.
Whilst I'm sure this idea will be greeted with outrage from people with an emotional attachment to their biological makeup, it makes perfect sense in the long run. And you can bet that if we don't go ahead and do it a culture with less hangups about their physical bodies will do it in order to get ahead. I'd imagine the Chinese would love the idea...
I spent many of my early years in front of beloved Tandy 1000, which was my only computer until 1994 BTW. And I seem to be in perfect health, able to carry on a conversation with someone and happily married.
Well there you go then, the exception that proves the rule. Statistically speaking there's always somebody that turns out differently from the norm...
As fond as I am for the odd game or two it sort of disturbs me to see that some people take their game playing to such obsessive levels. When people started creating computer games back in the 70s I wonder if they ever realised quite how profoundly they would change society, and for the worse in many cases?
I feel that whilst computer games can be beneficial and relaxing when they're part of a normal live, they have an addictive quality which makes people spend far too much time playing them, to the detriment of their social skills. We're seeing it now - too many people here on /. seem to know more about how to win a Quake deathmatch than how to deal with the opposite sex for instance. Spending all of your formative years in front of a computer leads to a level of social skills rivalling autism. Indeed, many of the symptoms seem eerily similar.
Unfortunately, with recent statistics showing that computer gaming is an industry worth twice as much as Hollywood this trend seems to be accelerating. And parents nowadays seem more concerned with keeping their children quiet than fostering their social skills, which leaves them crippled when they finally have to enter the real world! How can this be right?
Personally I think that children shouldn't be allowed to play computer games while they're young. Things like this and television do them no good - did you know obesity is on the increase in the under fives? My kids will be encouraged to play and have fun instead, and when they deserve a treat I'll get out something wholesome like Mary Poppins that we can all watch as a family.
It's just not right to let your kids grow up knowing nothing other than Tekken Tag.
Quit your whining, biotch. Linux can't be taken away from us, it's GPL'd (for the most part).
Do you honestly think Linux can't be taken away from us? I think that's a naive point of view, and overly trusting of corporate business practices, which we see on /. everyday exposed for what they are.
For a start the GPL hasn't been tested in a court of law so far, and so its viability as a protective mechanism is uncertain. So far the only reason it's worked is that no company wants to stick their necks out and be the first. If current trends continue though, it may become worth doing, and corporations can afford to hire good lawyers.
Secondly you've heard of "embrace and extend" right? The kernel may be GPLed but if it is surrounded by enough non-GPL stuff then it may come to the point where it might as well not be - you need loads of non-GPL stuff to run it. Borland's Kylix is a prime example of that, and I hope it doesn't succeed, because it could be the start of a long decline...
But you missed one thing. Linux is big now and needs some full time developers, to keep track.
But most of these new features seem to be aimed at the business end of the market rather than at the core community of Linux users. So if we need full time developers (which I doubt anyway) it is only because of the demands being placed on Linus and co from business organisations that want to turn Linux into CorpLinux.
At some point in the last few years it seems as though I went to the kitchen for a cup of coffee and when I came back, Linux was a hotbed of corporate activity. What on Earth happened?
The whole point of Linux was never commercial success or brand-name recognition, it was to provide a high-quality operating system under a free license. Back in those days we didn't care about whether or not we could come up with a case study of success stories in order to drum up more corporate users, hell the corporate users were geeks hidden in darkened corners.
Why should we care that a bunch of greedy corporate suits want to promote Linux as if it's their baby? To be quite frank, I find all this corporatism an affront to the ideals that RMS stands for, and it's not why I starting using Linux in the first place. Software should be free, not exploited for the bottom line.
At this rate I expect to see "Bullet Proof Linux", "Fortune 500 Linux" and a whole host of other business-friendly distributions. Corel was bad enough, this sort of thing with its "Collaborative Marketing Programs" is worse.
Linux is not about money, it's about freedom. Don't let the corporations take it away from us.
As with everything it all depends on the circumstances. Smaller companies are (in general) far better at customer relations because they have more resources to spend per customer in this department, and the people running them depend on this for their livlihood so they're motivated to help. But a larger company can pass on economies of scale to it's customers in the form of reduced prices, special deals and so on.
It's all a matter of what kind of service you want - cheap or good. And let's face it, most people prefer to have a cheap service that they can then bitch about to one where they pay a lot more but get help. As a culture we're used to waiting half an hour on the phone for some support person who has no more idea about your problem than you do, so we've in a sense become inured to such treatment.
So I think that smaller ISPs aren't really a hugely viable concern. If they could work, I'd say it would be by catering to areas where a lot of help is needed that a large company won't provide - to nursing homes for instance. Otherwise people will try and save a few dollars everytime.
This means that now everywhere can be covered in wonderful moving adverts! Just think, rather than having those boring old billboards everywhere around town, they can slap up a roll of this stuff and actually play stuff for you to admire! Yay!
We do seem to be moving towards "active" materials which rather than just being lumps of solid stuff in fact contain their own processors, memories and so on. Sooner or later we'll get to the stage where absolutely everything it made from computing material, and every brick and tile has its own IP address and can become part of a distributed computer running your house, doing SETA@home and so on.
Heh, just imagine your toilet patiently searching for alien life whilst you're sitting on it :)
There are still differences in the DNA, otherwise we'd all have the same range of colouration, right? Even people in places which have very little outside contact show marked differences in their DNA over time, due to having a smaller gene pool.
So there are differences despite their not being different species.
And yes, wasp chemistry and human chemistry are different. But that doesn't mean it's not possible, and now that there's a working example it gives researchers something to work from and towards...