Likewise nanofactories in the US will plunge the 3rd world into a depression, because the need for cheap labor from overseas will evaporate, and with it drys up the outsourcing of production jobs. I'm not defending sweatshop labor, but that wages that were being sent outside the US to pay for overseas labor, will not longer leave the country. Many people live on the minimalistic wages that the US pays abroad. No longer. And the US will be producing cheap nano-made materials long before anyone else. Only the US will have the wealth to create nanofactories on a mass market scale. Those ultra-cheap goods will crush the markets they compete in. Tariffs will protect some markets, but there will be no race. Nanotechnology will INCREASE the disparity between the haves and have-nots.
But there won't be any race.
Umm, first off, even though the USA has more weaponry as a whole than other nations, there are still a number of industrialized nations that have equivalent or better weaponry, on a smaller scale. That is, in the niches they specialize in.
And since nanotechnology should drop costs a lot, then things like aircraft carriers, which have a huge cost, can then enter into the realm of possibility for more and more nations. Of course, they might still prefer smaller more mobile alternatives.
Do not pretend that the USA is so completely the centre of all technology, as that is simply not the case.
So, there will be a race amongst developed nations, but yes, the undeveloped nations will fall behind even more as our need for them dwindles. But, I think that's a good thing. For far too long, we've stood in the way of their own internal development. Yes, external investment can accelerate development, but no one is ever as responsible with another's money as they are with their own.
But, I worry that these countries which have proven themselves unready for the technologies that we have already given them access to, will again gain access to our newer technologies, to their own detriment. Think of tin pot dictators with missiles and fighter jets, but then with nanotechnology.
A lot of the time, what keeps people's behaviors, and even their thoughts, in check, are their capabilities. If you dramatically increase people's capabilities, then they will start doing things that they never did before, which will include negative actions as well.
That scenario is unlikely to occur, because presumably large corporations would have access to this technology before common consumers do. In which case they could lay off all workers who are not involved in either:
- Designing - Feeding resource inputs into the machinery
(Mining, transporting, etc., which are automatable)
So, everyone would be broke before they could afford to aquire nanotechnology for themselves. Of course then they would revolt and steal that technology... But by that poin the corporations would be bankrupt and gone anyways, since they'd have no one to sell their products to.
In short, there would be a rapid deconstruction of our society, where the struggle for property rights would be focussed on survival, not on patents, copyrights, etc.
Alright, I'll cut you some slack then. But it was your initial "demand" that GM foods be contained for fifty years -- which you admit was hyperbole -- that triggered the neo-luddite detector. Especially since you picked a term that exceeded a human generation or two.
But exactly what risks are you concerned about? You want a moratorium on exploitation of the research done to date, but what are you afraid might be missed? Certainly, as a "computer scientist" you must be familiar with the manipulation of public opinion that comes with FUD, so I'm sure you have something concrete upon which to base your restrictions. After all, we're not talking about a wholesale replacement of all agricultural products at once here. Certainly, the existing organic industry won't be hopping on the GM bandwagon anytime soon!
Part of the reason for a long duration, which is measured in generations, is to ensure that the changes don't cause problems in successive generations.
When things like DDT went on the market it was initially deemed to be safe, but was later found to cause problems in people of all ages, but most particularly in newborns.
And for a more relevant example, Nutrasweet has been shown to be carcinogenic. Hell, even that whole hoopla about trans fats, found in most processed snack foods, shows that just because something's thought to be safe, that might be refuted later. Nutrasweet and potato chips came onto the market and rapidly displaced previous snack options, to become the primary options in their categories. So yes, things can be missed, and they can propogate throughout the market rapidly, and have large effects. At least things like Nutrasweet and potato chips were thought of as kind of bad food anyway, so not everyone was having them all the time. But if we replace our staple dietary intakes with something that's toxic in some small way, then the affects would be much greater. And yes, that is a statement of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. But, the reprocussion isn't a few hundred dollars going to Redmond, but instead millions of people's health.
So, I recommend a temporary moratorium on usage, while independent verification takes place. Then a mandatory labelling regime, so that consumers may choose for themselves what they prefer. And throughout, testing on a continuous basis.
Then, if and when GM food vindicates itself, all humanity will reap the benefits, and have avoided the potential drawbacks that rushing in might have caused.
See, I'm not a luddite, neo or otherwise, I'm simply a pessimist and a skeptic. Which I think are valuable traits for scientists to have.
Oh, I assure you that I did read your post, and if you failed to adequately address anything but a neo-luddite approach to genetic engineering, then that is hardly anyone's fault but your own.
Hehehe... Since I'm employed as a computer scientist, and I am really into technology, I find it amusing being called a neo-luddite. Especially since luddites were against technology because they thought they'd lose their jobs, whereas I am only advocating caution with GM foods because of the risks, and not because of a fear of losing my job.
If you want GM to "be practiced in labs for another 50 years, and the results not be let out into the wild until we know exactly what all the primary, secondary and tertiary affects[sic] are", then what exactly is your motivation other than to assure the technology is safe, and thus to prove a negative?
In most things in life, one can't prove something, but one can, through testing, experience, etc., reach a point of being relatively assured of the thing being true. You're wasting your time trying to make this a binary truth issue, and thereby make it sound like I'm falling into a logical fallacy. I think I've explained that sufficiently.
Because I can assure you, after fifty years of study, there will be a fresh generation of neo-luddites insisting that after fifty years we still don't know how the GM will impact the wild, so we should study it another fifty years.
At no point in the past have we ever placed such a ridiculous burden upon any new technology...even the FDA doesn't mandate protocols that take more than about a decade -- and that's seen by many as egregious already.
I openly admit that the 50 year figure that I pulled out of my ass is excessive, and a hyperbole. The point I was trying to make was that, with most FDA approved products, one can simply incinerate the product and it's gone, so if they make a mistake, then they can recover from that mistake relatively easily. But, with GM crops grown in the wild, which are engineered to grow easier than native crops, and thus would displace the native crops, then if there's a mistake, it's quite hard, if not economically infeasible, to correct. I'm all for people like you being able to buy your labelled GM products in the store well before the 50 years. But, the point that I miscommunicated was, I simply don't want that food growing in the wild before that "50" year period. Maybe in isolated areas, greenhouses, islands, places surrounded by mountains, etc...
But no! You're suggesting we sit on this technology for half a century. And who pays for that research? Because no commercial interest will even glance at something with such a long-range pay-off. Right now, companies are spending millions on that research because they know they are only a few years away from realizing a huge profit. But if they are forced to sit on their results for as long as you suggest, virtually no work would be done unless it was funded by taxpayers. Great. There's another drain on my paycheck that some well-meaning, but shallow-thinker decided is best handled by the Federal government.
I think I've addressed the whole "50" year thing above. But, you did remind me of something else. Companies like Monsanto have gotten into trouble about the environmental and health affects of their products before. Are you in such a rush to hand control of your food supply to them, guided by the proft motive? Don't get me wrong, I'm a capitalist, but increasingly, corporations are taking the stance that if they err, then instead of coming clean and helping those affected, they should instead stonewall or fight you in court. And if they do control the food supply, it's not like we can avoid eating while we sorth the issue out.
And one last thing: We can ALL by no means survive without modern conveniences...particularly those which I cited and you appear to reference. Take away modern transportation, and all the infrastructure that assures you that food gets to your
First off, we all can survive without modern conveniences. But, we cannot survive without food. So, we have more restrictions to protect our food than the other staples of life. For example, the FDA in the USA is much more powerful than the organisation that makes sure products like light bulbs are up to spec. And there is a lot of regulation surrounding modern transportation, so I have no idea what you're trying to prove by using that as an example.
And secondly, I did not state that they would have to prove that the GM food was safe. I know that's impossible, which was why I said that they should keep it in a lab until they had ran more tests and got more information on the side effects. How is that unreasonable?
I did not say that GM research and eventual commercialisation should be halted, I just said that the products should be contained until we know what they do.
I think you had a statement that you wanted to make, and for mysterious reason, just tacked it onto my post, without even really reading it.
Right. One thing people don't seem to understand is that the main difference is a level of indirection.
With GM, you directly tweek the bits.
With selection, you affect a process, which plays out, and itself tweeks the bits.
Obviously, tweeking bits directly takes much more knowledge, and is more error prone. The problem is that those errors can harm us, and other life. That's why GM should be practiced in labs for another 50 years, and the results not be let out into the wild until we know exactly what all the primary, secondary and tertiary affects are.
It's not a technological limitation that keeps us from programming in English. It's limitations of English itself, specifically in linguistic ambiguities.
Common language constantly makes references to implicit social values and histories, with the assumption that the receiving party shares those same values and histories. Many times that is simply not true, and so we have confusion. Of course that would not be acceptable for a computer.
So, even if we could program in English, then it would still be a precise subset that we would have to constrain ourselves to, which pretty much describes many existing programing languages.
Example:
Bob made a tasty snack Does this mean:
Bob, himself, created a snack, which was tasty Or does it mean:
Someone snacked on Bob, and felt Bob was tasty
Since any of those online games can track statistics, and find out who's best, I wonder how long it will be until gamers online are unwittingly controlling drone planes or remote control tanks in actual combat?
How long until someone is unwittingly invading their own country?
The random access time to get data from SDRAM (and DDR) is significantly higher than the time to get consecutively addressed data. In principal, this works fine because programs tend to access data linearly, or at least adjacently. Take arrays and structures, for example.
And long term data storage mechanisms, like hard disks and CDROMs, all have moving parts that have to seek to get non-adjacent data anyway, just like this would.
So, after we're many levels deep into our nested conversation, you're still nitpicking about a statement that's obviously an exaggeration, from the first post?! I'm glad I never said "the sky is falling" or else you'd still be telling me how the atmosphere works. I would have though that maybe you would try to address any of my posts since then?
And you continue to use the life expectancy thing, as if it's relevant. Hint: if I feed all the people who were starving to death, and give medicine to all the people who were dying of TB, etc., but I walk around and slowly poison some people with my super secret poison that takes years to kill them, then life expectancy will still be up, but a lot of people will still be living a hugely painful life.
And finally, I made an assertion that since:
1) Local fallout kills people
2) We've done it a lot
3) Winds carry it around
4) Cancer rates are increasing Then: fallout is a factor in increasing global cancer rates
And so I made the hugely stupid mistake of asking for you to disprove either my conclusion, or even just the first statement, either of which would have been satisfactory to prove me wrong. But, now you're confused because I gave you an option, and for that I am sorry.
And amusingly enough, you keep talking about war, as if I haven't mentionned enough that I'm not debating anything about war at all. In fact, I will take it a step further and say that I fully 100% agree with whatever you've said about how great nukes are at killing, etc. Are you like a WW2 vet or something? I can't think of any other reason why you'd insist on lecturing me on what I already know and agree with.
And you still never gave any links to prove anything wrong.
That is why, I asked if you're trolling, since you haven't just simply directly proved me wrong, but just recycled the same irrelevant dreck. A link, for the love of god! Err, not that I'm religious, but you get the idea.
I think you've had several opportunities to post a single link to any study that would back up any of the two:
- Fallout is irrelevant to local cancer rates - Fallout is irrelevant to global cancer rates
I at least have mentionned well know incidents, that I presumed were beyond question. If I am wrong, please give some shred of proof. Unless I've been feeding a troll for the past few posts.
I have no idea why you wasted all your time explaining that all weapons can kill. That is obvious and had nothing to do with my post.
My post was simply about the global increases of cancer, due to nuclear fallout. The Japanese increases were due to bombs, and the Chernobl increases were due to a reactor incident. I'm making no judgement about war, just saying that it has been proven that nuclear fallout has increased cancer rates in specific incidents, and have then inferred the potential of all the nuclear testing (above ground) in the past of having been a contributing factor to cancer rate increases in general. If you disagree with me there, that is fine with me, although I would recommend learning some introductory biology and physics to avoid embarrasing yourself in the future.
Google for: increased cancer rates
Many sites show increased rates in all demographics, not just smokers. The real question is how much that is due to fallout, or to other things like industrial waste and pollution, etc. For a theoretical example, only to explain my point, are carcinogenic food additives 95% at fault for existing cancer rates, and fallout only 5% at fault? In that case, my assertions are correct, but hardly important, since we should all be talking about food additives instead. I think that this is where the real debate, and real research should focus, not on if fallout is a factor at all, which you seem to say.
Spare me the FUD tutorial. I'm not American, I don't waste my time watching your fearmongering media, and I know everything you said already. To ignore obvious threats, due to some overcompensation against FUD is not exactly more intelligent than falling for the FUD in the first place.
I think the reason why we make the jump from correlation to causation, in regards to nukes and increased cancer rates, is because of the cancer spike in Japan after WWII, and in Iraq after the depleted uranium used in Golf War I, and around Chernobl after the meltdown. These directly causative records have led to a global understanding that nuke testing in the past has caused increased cancer rates.
Since these facts are so well known, one would have hoped you would have known about them too, and not wasted our time talking about eBaying, AIDs, etc. Life expectancy increases are mostly due to nutrition and medicine advances, and in no way cloud the picture re the nukes and cancer.
As well, nuclear fallout has shown to be a global issue, much like acid rain, due to how winds carry particles, so I'm not surprised that people live without cancer within several hundred miles of a blast zone, but are dying a thousand miles away. It all depends on wind patterns, etc.
Scientific research has all pointed to this, so spare me the logic intro about correlation vs causation.
Uhh, no matter what, you have to sync to the vertical interrupt, since otherwise, if you're updating the video bitmap while the frame is being drawn to the screen, you'll have "tears" showing. That is, instead of seeing discrete snapshots of motion, you will see a portion of the screen showing one moment of motion and the rest showing another moment of motion. Ie: it will look like shit.
Puahing the hardware just means counting your CPU cycles so you do the most work between vertical interrupts. For example, one could count loop iterations between two VINTs, and programmatically decide that more work could be done per frame, on a faster system.
Slashdot Mirror
The Canadian content percentage is 35%, which is not a majority at all.
Hi, there. I really think that I'm super spiffy in many ways. Well, I'm at least better than everyone I've ever met.
I was wondering if anyone else here knows what it's like to be so superior? Maybe we could all have a circle jerk together?
*laugh* Ah, but can you count down to zero? :)
:)
Why yes I can... by putting my hands behind my back
Binary geeks can count to 1,023 on their fingers :)
..., 1024
I guess I'm special, since I can count up to 1024 on my fingers! 1, 2,
Or just do what I do: make all optimizations at the design phase.
Hey, if it was already sorted, then you still randomize it!
Likewise nanofactories in the US will plunge the 3rd world into a depression, because the need for cheap labor from overseas will evaporate, and with it drys up the outsourcing of production jobs. I'm not defending sweatshop labor, but that wages that were being sent outside the US to pay for overseas labor, will not longer leave the country. Many people live on the minimalistic wages that the US pays abroad. No longer. And the US will be producing cheap nano-made materials long before anyone else. Only the US will have the wealth to create nanofactories on a mass market scale. Those ultra-cheap goods will crush the markets they compete in. Tariffs will protect some markets, but there will be no race. Nanotechnology will INCREASE the disparity between the haves and have-nots.
But there won't be any race.
Umm, first off, even though the USA has more weaponry as a whole than other nations, there are still a number of industrialized nations that have equivalent or better weaponry, on a smaller scale. That is, in the niches they specialize in.
And since nanotechnology should drop costs a lot, then things like aircraft carriers, which have a huge cost, can then enter into the realm of possibility for more and more nations. Of course, they might still prefer smaller more mobile alternatives.
Do not pretend that the USA is so completely the centre of all technology, as that is simply not the case.
So, there will be a race amongst developed nations, but yes, the undeveloped nations will fall behind even more as our need for them dwindles. But, I think that's a good thing. For far too long, we've stood in the way of their own internal development. Yes, external investment can accelerate development, but no one is ever as responsible with another's money as they are with their own.
But, I worry that these countries which have proven themselves unready for the technologies that we have already given them access to, will again gain access to our newer technologies, to their own detriment. Think of tin pot dictators with missiles and fighter jets, but then with nanotechnology.
A lot of the time, what keeps people's behaviors, and even their thoughts, in check, are their capabilities. If you dramatically increase people's capabilities, then they will start doing things that they never did before, which will include negative actions as well.
Violence is a certainty.
That scenario is unlikely to occur, because presumably large corporations would have access to this technology before common consumers do. In which case they could lay off all workers who are not involved in either:
- Designing
- Feeding resource inputs into the machinery
(Mining, transporting, etc., which are automatable)
So, everyone would be broke before they could afford to aquire nanotechnology for themselves. Of course then they would revolt and steal that technology... But by that poin the corporations would be bankrupt and gone anyways, since they'd have no one to sell their products to.
In short, there would be a rapid deconstruction of our society, where the struggle for property rights would be focussed on survival, not on patents, copyrights, etc.
Alright, I'll cut you some slack then. But it was your initial "demand" that GM foods be contained for fifty years -- which you admit was hyperbole -- that triggered the neo-luddite detector. Especially since you picked a term that exceeded a human generation or two.
But exactly what risks are you concerned about? You want a moratorium on exploitation of the research done to date, but what are you afraid might be missed? Certainly, as a "computer scientist" you must be familiar with the manipulation of public opinion that comes with FUD, so I'm sure you have something concrete upon which to base your restrictions. After all, we're not talking about a wholesale replacement of all agricultural products at once here. Certainly, the existing organic industry won't be hopping on the GM bandwagon anytime soon!
Part of the reason for a long duration, which is measured in generations, is to ensure that the changes don't cause problems in successive generations.
When things like DDT went on the market it was initially deemed to be safe, but was later found to cause problems in people of all ages, but most particularly in newborns.
And for a more relevant example, Nutrasweet has been shown to be carcinogenic. Hell, even that whole hoopla about trans fats, found in most processed snack foods, shows that just because something's thought to be safe, that might be refuted later. Nutrasweet and potato chips came onto the market and rapidly displaced previous snack options, to become the primary options in their categories. So yes, things can be missed, and they can propogate throughout the market rapidly, and have large effects. At least things like Nutrasweet and potato chips were thought of as kind of bad food anyway, so not everyone was having them all the time. But if we replace our staple dietary intakes with something that's toxic in some small way, then the affects would be much greater. And yes, that is a statement of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. But, the reprocussion isn't a few hundred dollars going to Redmond, but instead millions of people's health.
So, I recommend a temporary moratorium on usage, while independent verification takes place. Then a mandatory labelling regime, so that consumers may choose for themselves what they prefer. And throughout, testing on a continuous basis.
Then, if and when GM food vindicates itself, all humanity will reap the benefits, and have avoided the potential drawbacks that rushing in might have caused.
See, I'm not a luddite, neo or otherwise, I'm simply a pessimist and a skeptic. Which I think are valuable traits for scientists to have.
Oh, I assure you that I did read your post, and if you failed to adequately address anything but a neo-luddite approach to genetic engineering, then that is hardly anyone's fault but your own.
Hehehe... Since I'm employed as a computer scientist, and I am really into technology, I find it amusing being called a neo-luddite. Especially since luddites were against technology because they thought they'd lose their jobs, whereas I am only advocating caution with GM foods because of the risks, and not because of a fear of losing my job.
If you want GM to "be practiced in labs for another 50 years, and the results not be let out into the wild until we know exactly what all the primary, secondary and tertiary affects[sic] are", then what exactly is your motivation other than to assure the technology is safe, and thus to prove a negative?
In most things in life, one can't prove something, but one can, through testing, experience, etc., reach a point of being relatively assured of the thing being true. You're wasting your time trying to make this a binary truth issue, and thereby make it sound like I'm falling into a logical fallacy. I think I've explained that sufficiently.
Because I can assure you, after fifty years of study, there will be a fresh generation of neo-luddites insisting that after fifty years we still don't know how the GM will impact the wild, so we should study it another fifty years.
At no point in the past have we ever placed such a ridiculous burden upon any new technology...even the FDA doesn't mandate protocols that take more than about a decade -- and that's seen by many as egregious already.
I openly admit that the 50 year figure that I pulled out of my ass is excessive, and a hyperbole. The point I was trying to make was that, with most FDA approved products, one can simply incinerate the product and it's gone, so if they make a mistake, then they can recover from that mistake relatively easily. But, with GM crops grown in the wild, which are engineered to grow easier than native crops, and thus would displace the native crops, then if there's a mistake, it's quite hard, if not economically infeasible, to correct. I'm all for people like you being able to buy your labelled GM products in the store well before the 50 years. But, the point that I miscommunicated was, I simply don't want that food growing in the wild before that "50" year period. Maybe in isolated areas, greenhouses, islands, places surrounded by mountains, etc...
But no! You're suggesting we sit on this technology for half a century. And who pays for that research? Because no commercial interest will even glance at something with such a long-range pay-off. Right now, companies are spending millions on that research because they know they are only a few years away from realizing a huge profit. But if they are forced to sit on their results for as long as you suggest, virtually no work would be done unless it was funded by taxpayers. Great. There's another drain on my paycheck that some well-meaning, but shallow-thinker decided is best handled by the Federal government.
I think I've addressed the whole "50" year thing above. But, you did remind me of something else. Companies like Monsanto have gotten into trouble about the environmental and health affects of their products before. Are you in such a rush to hand control of your food supply to them, guided by the proft motive? Don't get me wrong, I'm a capitalist, but increasingly, corporations are taking the stance that if they err, then instead of coming clean and helping those affected, they should instead stonewall or fight you in court. And if they do control the food supply, it's not like we can avoid eating while we sorth the issue out.
And one last thing: We can ALL by no means survive without modern conveniences...particularly those which I cited and you appear to reference. Take away modern transportation, and all the infrastructure that assures you that food gets to your
First off, we all can survive without modern conveniences. But, we cannot survive without food. So, we have more restrictions to protect our food than the other staples of life. For example, the FDA in the USA is much more powerful than the organisation that makes sure products like light bulbs are up to spec. And there is a lot of regulation surrounding modern transportation, so I have no idea what you're trying to prove by using that as an example.
And secondly, I did not state that they would have to prove that the GM food was safe. I know that's impossible, which was why I said that they should keep it in a lab until they had ran more tests and got more information on the side effects. How is that unreasonable?
I did not say that GM research and eventual commercialisation should be halted, I just said that the products should be contained until we know what they do.
I think you had a statement that you wanted to make, and for mysterious reason, just tacked it onto my post, without even really reading it.
Right. One thing people don't seem to understand is that the main difference is a level of indirection.
With GM, you directly tweek the bits.
With selection, you affect a process, which plays out, and itself tweeks the bits.
Obviously, tweeking bits directly takes much more knowledge, and is more error prone. The problem is that those errors can harm us, and other life. That's why GM should be practiced in labs for another 50 years, and the results not be let out into the wild until we know exactly what all the primary, secondary and tertiary affects are.
It's not a technological limitation that keeps us from programming in English. It's limitations of English itself, specifically in linguistic ambiguities.
Common language constantly makes references to implicit social values and histories, with the assumption that the receiving party shares those same values and histories. Many times that is simply not true, and so we have confusion. Of course that would not be acceptable for a computer.
So, even if we could program in English, then it would still be a precise subset that we would have to constrain ourselves to, which pretty much describes many existing programing languages.
Example:
Bob made a tasty snack
Does this mean:
Bob, himself, created a snack, which was tasty
Or does it mean:
Someone snacked on Bob, and felt Bob was tasty
Since any of those online games can track statistics, and find out who's best, I wonder how long it will be until gamers online are unwittingly controlling drone planes or remote control tanks in actual combat?
How long until someone is unwittingly invading their own country?
The random access time to get data from SDRAM (and DDR) is significantly higher than the time to get consecutively addressed data. In principal, this works fine because programs tend to access data linearly, or at least adjacently. Take arrays and structures, for example.
And long term data storage mechanisms, like hard disks and CDROMs, all have moving parts that have to seek to get non-adjacent data anyway, just like this would.
Damn, where can I get a cheap $50 iPod?
And would I have to worry about them mugging me?
I'm not sure why you'd have to build from the source, since binaries are available.
Installing X11 and OpenOffice is trivial. Although, I agree that OO.org under X11 is not pretty, but does that matter so much?
So, after we're many levels deep into our nested conversation, you're still nitpicking about a statement that's obviously an exaggeration, from the first post?! I'm glad I never said "the sky is falling" or else you'd still be telling me how the atmosphere works. I would have though that maybe you would try to address any of my posts since then?
And you continue to use the life expectancy thing, as if it's relevant. Hint: if I feed all the people who were starving to death, and give medicine to all the people who were dying of TB, etc., but I walk around and slowly poison some people with my super secret poison that takes years to kill them, then life expectancy will still be up, but a lot of people will still be living a hugely painful life.
And finally, I made an assertion that since:
1) Local fallout kills people
2) We've done it a lot
3) Winds carry it around
4) Cancer rates are increasing
Then: fallout is a factor in increasing global cancer rates
And so I made the hugely stupid mistake of asking for you to disprove either my conclusion, or even just the first statement, either of which would have been satisfactory to prove me wrong. But, now you're confused because I gave you an option, and for that I am sorry.
And amusingly enough, you keep talking about war, as if I haven't mentionned enough that I'm not debating anything about war at all. In fact, I will take it a step further and say that I fully 100% agree with whatever you've said about how great nukes are at killing, etc. Are you like a WW2 vet or something? I can't think of any other reason why you'd insist on lecturing me on what I already know and agree with.
And you still never gave any links to prove anything wrong.
That is why, I asked if you're trolling, since you haven't just simply directly proved me wrong, but just recycled the same irrelevant dreck. A link, for the love of god! Err, not that I'm religious, but you get the idea.
I think you've had several opportunities to post a single link to any study that would back up any of the two:
- Fallout is irrelevant to local cancer rates
- Fallout is irrelevant to global cancer rates
I at least have mentionned well know incidents, that I presumed were beyond question. If I am wrong, please give some shred of proof. Unless I've been feeding a troll for the past few posts.
I have no idea why you wasted all your time explaining that all weapons can kill. That is obvious and had nothing to do with my post.
My post was simply about the global increases of cancer, due to nuclear fallout. The Japanese increases were due to bombs, and the Chernobl increases were due to a reactor incident. I'm making no judgement about war, just saying that it has been proven that nuclear fallout has increased cancer rates in specific incidents, and have then inferred the potential of all the nuclear testing (above ground) in the past of having been a contributing factor to cancer rate increases in general. If you disagree with me there, that is fine with me, although I would recommend learning some introductory biology and physics to avoid embarrasing yourself in the future.
Google for: increased cancer rates
Many sites show increased rates in all demographics, not just smokers. The real question is how much that is due to fallout, or to other things like industrial waste and pollution, etc. For a theoretical example, only to explain my point, are carcinogenic food additives 95% at fault for existing cancer rates, and fallout only 5% at fault? In that case, my assertions are correct, but hardly important, since we should all be talking about food additives instead. I think that this is where the real debate, and real research should focus, not on if fallout is a factor at all, which you seem to say.
Spare me the FUD tutorial. I'm not American, I don't waste my time watching your fearmongering media, and I know everything you said already. To ignore obvious threats, due to some overcompensation against FUD is not exactly more intelligent than falling for the FUD in the first place.
I think the reason why we make the jump from correlation to causation, in regards to nukes and increased cancer rates, is because of the cancer spike in Japan after WWII, and in Iraq after the depleted uranium used in Golf War I, and around Chernobl after the meltdown. These directly causative records have led to a global understanding that nuke testing in the past has caused increased cancer rates.
Since these facts are so well known, one would have hoped you would have known about them too, and not wasted our time talking about eBaying, AIDs, etc. Life expectancy increases are mostly due to nutrition and medicine advances, and in no way cloud the picture re the nukes and cancer.
As well, nuclear fallout has shown to be a global issue, much like acid rain, due to how winds carry particles, so I'm not surprised that people live without cancer within several hundred miles of a blast zone, but are dying a thousand miles away. It all depends on wind patterns, etc.
Scientific research has all pointed to this, so spare me the logic intro about correlation vs causation.
Umm, except for that fact that we're all fucking dying of cancer left right and center.
Uhh, no matter what, you have to sync to the vertical interrupt, since otherwise, if you're updating the video bitmap while the frame is being drawn to the screen, you'll have "tears" showing. That is, instead of seeing discrete snapshots of motion, you will see a portion of the screen showing one moment of motion and the rest showing another moment of motion. Ie: it will look like shit.
Puahing the hardware just means counting your CPU cycles so you do the most work between vertical interrupts. For example, one could count loop iterations between two VINTs, and programmatically decide that more work could be done per frame, on a faster system.
And there could be television commercials with them all together singing YMCA...