True. Sweden coordinated its defences with NATO in secret during the cold war era (and probably still is).
Swedish soldiers were trained to shoot at the tanks with a red star on them, not to stop and think about who the enemy was.
And at the same time Sweden was oficcially neutral, which is part of the ongoing hypocrisy that is Swedish foreign policy.
Sweden was officially neutral during WW2 also, but still allowed German troop transports through Swedish territory. This was partly out of fear of being invaded, but it may also have been because a lot of Swedes, including politicians and businessmen, were sympathetic with Nazism and hoped for a German victory.
The decline in record sales has nothing to do with piracy. It's roughly outweighed by an increase in sales of downloadable music. The only difference is that the revenues end up with other companies such as Apple (or directly with the artists), instead of with the record companies.
Really, this is nothing new. Just comparing the raw numbers is likely to mislead you if you don't have knowledge about the music market.
It's still bullshit of course. Books are over 60-85 years old and the man has been dead since 73'. Copyrights are rather disgusting when abused like this. His children can go out and get their own fucking jobs and write their own fucking novels.
And trademarks can be valid indefinitely, as long as they're used to sell a product. Even with no changes in copyright law, Tolkien's successors may still get a cut from every sale of Bilbo role-playing games, Bilbo coffee mugs, Bilbo wedding rings, and so on, in 500 years.
Tthink about it, how in the world is a beneficial gene supposed to make a plant yield less? Yield is a complex feature which is a function of soil nutrition, insect & pathogen attack, climate, water, ect. It would be quite interesting if you could explain how reducing insect attack or improving nutrient acquisition actually decreased yield.
This is my personal theory:
The same improvements in yield and pest resistance can be achieved as efficiently (or even more efficiently) by conventional breeding.
However, GM is very useful when you want to make a range of crops resistant to a specific, patented chemical.
But most changes to the genome have both desired and undesired effects; when you select for something as specific as resistance to a specific chemical, your options are limited, and you have to accept whatever side effects the gene has.
Making the crop and the herbicide dependent on each other allows the company to sell the GM crops to corrupt or ignorant governments in third world countries, and letting the farmers pay the rest of the bill (since they're "locked in" to using expensive herbicides from the same company). This leads to disaster when the yields are much lower than advertised or the herbicide far less efficient against the local weeds than advertised.
In general, making two products dependent on each other is bad for the customer, since it reduces their options and obscures costs.
I have to admit I haven't read the report myself, but according to Wikipedia, the net yield increased because the same crops contained both naturally occuring yield genes and modified genes. If I understand it correctly, the modified genes didn't contribute to the net increase.
In 2009 the Union of Concerned Scientists summarized numerous peer-reviewed studies on the yield contribution of genetic engineering in the United States. This report examined the two most widely grown engineered crops—soybeans and maize (corn). Unlike many other studies, this work separated the yield contribution of the engineered gene from that of the many naturally occurring yield genes in crops.
The report found that engineered herbicide tolerant soy and maize did not increase yield at the national, aggregate level. Maize engineered with Bt insect resistance genes increased national yield by about 3 to 4 percent. Engineered crops increased net yield in all cases.
The main application of genetic modification seems to be to create crops which are resistant to a specific, patented pesticide, so they can be sold together. It's similar to how printer manufacturers come up with new, patented ink cartridges so they can sell cheap printers to consumers and earn money on the cartridges. Their goal isn't to design a better printer, it's to lock the customer into a proprietary solution so they can get more money from them down the road.
Because they won't be worse off. As long as they can afford to raise two kids, they'll be better off in their old age, as they have two kids to take care of them.
That's one of the basic problem in poor, developing countries: having children is the only available pension system.
There was actually a lot of scientific research on racial differences, and clearly established that different races fared differently on physical and mental tests. And it wasn't just in Nazi Germany; it was scientists all over the Western world. It's only in hindsight "everyone" agrees the research was wrong.
Of course, the scientists of today wouldn't make such a mistake... would they? I mean, our universities and the corporations and government agencies that give them grants are more free from bias than ever before in history... aren't they?
I'd say screwing with nature, including with genetic engineering, is a great solution, just not with humans. Make crops that get the most out of the soil with less fertilizers (for example by producing enzymes like phytases or by having more efficient root architecture)
Genetically engineered crops yield less than their conventionally bred counterparts.
That isn't just a concept in US law, it is one of those things made explicit by the constitution.
And internationally considered to be one of the cornerstones of a free and democratic society.
But some of the things that led up to the financial crises *were* illegal, such as fraudulent loans. It's just very hard to prove the CEOs knew what the people under them were doing.
I don't think hippies would've been very popular in Nazi Germany. The National Socialists (Nazis) were for law and order, planning, and doing your duty towards society. They people who advocated individuality and freedom were considered decadent.
The idea that both Nazis and Communists shared was central planning. Both ideologies believed society could be made better if the state coordinated the production and distribution of goods and services, controlled the education of the young, and so on. That's also the idea that today's left has inherited (usually in a watered-down form). But the Nazis would've scoffed at most of the other ideas of today's left, such as supporting the disabled and mentally ill, letting children develop their individuality and creativity, having liberal sexual morals, following international law, and so on.
STOP REMIXING OLD CRAP. It won't be good, ever. You can't put lipstick on a pig.
I disagre... putting new special effects in the original trilogy, like Lucas did, is like putting lipstick on a pig. But re-editing a film can make the story and pacing different, and make it considerably better or worse. Plus, when you trim three films down to one, you have more options.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got it all wrong. Cheney isn't Darth Vader. Karl Rove is the Emperor, Cheney is Grand Moff Tarkin, and George Bush is Darth Vader.
True. Sweden coordinated its defences with NATO in secret during the cold war era (and probably still is).
Swedish soldiers were trained to shoot at the tanks with a red star on them, not to stop and think about who the enemy was.
And at the same time Sweden was oficcially neutral, which is part of the ongoing hypocrisy that is Swedish foreign policy.
Sweden was officially neutral during WW2 also, but still allowed German troop transports through Swedish territory. This was partly out of fear of being invaded, but it may also have been because a lot of Swedes, including politicians and businessmen, were sympathetic with Nazism and hoped for a German victory.
The decline in record sales has nothing to do with piracy. It's roughly outweighed by an increase in sales of downloadable music. The only difference is that the revenues end up with other companies such as Apple (or directly with the artists), instead of with the record companies.
Really, this is nothing new. Just comparing the raw numbers is likely to mislead you if you don't have knowledge about the music market.
He's got experience from a (serious) competitor, so I'm guessing Microsoft offered him really good conditions if he came back.
It's still bullshit of course. Books are over 60-85 years old and the man has been dead since 73'. Copyrights are rather disgusting when abused like this. His children can go out and get their own fucking jobs and write their own fucking novels.
And trademarks can be valid indefinitely, as long as they're used to sell a product. Even with no changes in copyright law, Tolkien's successors may still get a cut from every sale of Bilbo role-playing games, Bilbo coffee mugs, Bilbo wedding rings, and so on, in 500 years.
A farmer is still allowed to save his seed. In fact, it may soon become the only allowed method of contraception.
Tthink about it, how in the world is a beneficial gene supposed to make a plant yield less? Yield is a complex feature which is a function of soil nutrition, insect & pathogen attack, climate, water, ect. It would be quite interesting if you could explain how reducing insect attack or improving nutrient acquisition actually decreased yield.
This is my personal theory:
The same improvements in yield and pest resistance can be achieved as efficiently (or even more efficiently) by conventional breeding.
However, GM is very useful when you want to make a range of crops resistant to a specific, patented chemical.
But most changes to the genome have both desired and undesired effects; when you select for something as specific as resistance to a specific chemical, your options are limited, and you have to accept whatever side effects the gene has.
Right, I meant herbicide.
Making the crop and the herbicide dependent on each other allows the company to sell the GM crops to corrupt or ignorant governments in third world countries, and letting the farmers pay the rest of the bill (since they're "locked in" to using expensive herbicides from the same company). This leads to disaster when the yields are much lower than advertised or the herbicide far less efficient against the local weeds than advertised.
In general, making two products dependent on each other is bad for the customer, since it reduces their options and obscures costs.
I have to admit I haven't read the report myself, but according to Wikipedia, the net yield increased because the same crops contained both naturally occuring yield genes and modified genes. If I understand it correctly, the modified genes didn't contribute to the net increase.
In 2009 the Union of Concerned Scientists summarized numerous peer-reviewed studies on the yield contribution of genetic engineering in the United States. This report examined the two most widely grown engineered crops—soybeans and maize (corn). Unlike many other studies, this work separated the yield contribution of the engineered gene from that of the many naturally occurring yield genes in crops.
The report found that engineered herbicide tolerant soy and maize did not increase yield at the national, aggregate level. Maize engineered with Bt insect resistance genes increased national yield by about 3 to 4 percent. Engineered crops increased net yield in all cases.
The main application of genetic modification seems to be to create crops which are resistant to a specific, patented pesticide, so they can be sold together. It's similar to how printer manufacturers come up with new, patented ink cartridges so they can sell cheap printers to consumers and earn money on the cartridges. Their goal isn't to design a better printer, it's to lock the customer into a proprietary solution so they can get more money from them down the road.
Hm... why not just genetically engineer people to be able to eat grass?
Maybe I shouldn't give them ideas...
Because they won't be worse off. As long as they can afford to raise two kids, they'll be better off in their old age, as they have two kids to take care of them.
That's one of the basic problem in poor, developing countries: having children is the only available pension system.
I bet you believe economics professors have good economy too :p
There was actually a lot of scientific research on racial differences, and clearly established that different races fared differently on physical and mental tests. And it wasn't just in Nazi Germany; it was scientists all over the Western world. It's only in hindsight "everyone" agrees the research was wrong.
Of course, the scientists of today wouldn't make such a mistake... would they? I mean, our universities and the corporations and government agencies that give them grants are more free from bias than ever before in history... aren't they?
I'd say screwing with nature, including with genetic engineering, is a great solution, just not with humans. Make crops that get the most out of the soil with less fertilizers (for example by producing enzymes like phytases or by having more efficient root architecture)
Genetically engineered crops yield less than their conventionally bred counterparts.
No, don't lock him up. Show him up as a deterring example.
Research and testing isn't enough. It doesn't tell us much about the social or personal implications.
And I thought the government had to follow the law, and only the people who actually committed a crime could get punished for it.
If the government can mess with people because they choose to, then the checks on the government aren't working properly.
That isn't just a concept in US law, it is one of those things made explicit by the constitution.
And internationally considered to be one of the cornerstones of a free and democratic society.
But some of the things that led up to the financial crises *were* illegal, such as fraudulent loans. It's just very hard to prove the CEOs knew what the people under them were doing.
You aren't even following your own thoughts to their logical conclusions.
So whenever we have manpower to spare for other things, it should be diverted to more serious crimes.
Maybe not divert ALL resources to the most serious crime, but divert resources in proportion to the severity.
I also think piracy should be legalised, and hacking should still be illegal.
I don't think hippies would've been very popular in Nazi Germany. The National Socialists (Nazis) were for law and order, planning, and doing your duty towards society. They people who advocated individuality and freedom were considered decadent.
The idea that both Nazis and Communists shared was central planning. Both ideologies believed society could be made better if the state coordinated the production and distribution of goods and services, controlled the education of the young, and so on. That's also the idea that today's left has inherited (usually in a watered-down form). But the Nazis would've scoffed at most of the other ideas of today's left, such as supporting the disabled and mentally ill, letting children develop their individuality and creativity, having liberal sexual morals, following international law, and so on.
Seriously... pwnsauce? How many 10 year olds out there have that name online? Worse than when people showed up with persona names like "Zerocool".
In my mind it automatically brings up the question, "what are you, 12?"
Ah, but that's what the hacker wants you to believe. :-p
I said "the philosophy"... not "the science".
Very interesting.
Just because the first movie was bad, it doesn't mean the individual *scenes* were bad. The same scene can be part of very different stories.
STOP REMIXING OLD CRAP. It won't be good, ever. You can't put lipstick on a pig.
I disagre... putting new special effects in the original trilogy, like Lucas did, is like putting lipstick on a pig. But re-editing a film can make the story and pacing different, and make it considerably better or worse. Plus, when you trim three films down to one, you have more options.