How is it any way comparable to a fire? You neo luddites love to wave your hands about the "dangers" of GM food, but you never actually point to them.
No one outside of the lunatic fringe uses words like "contamination" or "frankenfood".
If you want to make charges about specific instances of GM, I'll listen. If you just go off the deep end and rant about the practise in general, which we've been doing for longer than recorded history, I'll just write you off as a nutbag.
Anyone in the developed world can get access to the internet at negligible cost through net cafes, or just asking a neighbour nicely. They can't necessarily do so on a machine with input methods for their language.
I'm not arguing for disallowing Unicode everywhere, just in areas where doing so would restrict access. Just as there are areas of the Autobahn with speed limits, (and everywhere for large vehicles and buses as far as I could tell), we should restrict essential services to the lowest common denominator; ascii.
Whether a particular server constitutes an essential service should be left up to the operator, but the DNS system should remain available to everyone.
It devotes a full one of three sections to the rise of agriculture. While it isn't the main topic of the book, it's a far sight better than an offhand Wikipedia stub (population of African elphants, et cetera) which doesn't even back your point. The Wikipedia entry does say that most plants don't self pollinate, but most plants aren't commercial crops. Of the examples for self pollination it gives, all of them are commercial crops.
While I'd sympathize with your sister if she was trying to study non-GM crops close enough to GM farms for cross pollination, it isn't in any way reasonable to demand that it not happen. Why should GM strains be singled out for this sort of treatment? Wouldn't your sister be just as annoyed if she was trying to study a GM crop and found it "contaminated" with non-GM cross pollination?
I'm amused, as I wasn't aware simians had been taught to type.
You've made my point for me. Just as someone who wanted gay-grown food to be labelled would need to demonstrate a negative effect, so should we require neo-luddites to demonstrate a negative effect with GMO foods.
It only takes place in both jurisdictions if both jurisdictions agree to that. Sales tax, for example, generally takes place in magical internet land, unless both buyer and seller are in the same state/country.
But I'm really getting sick of the luddite lobby's convenient blinders.
One of his hired hands testified that he helped Schmeiser spray one of the adjacent fields with Roundup, gather the seeds and send them off for treatment to be planted the next year.
Now, personally I think he should have every right to do that, but he didn't "accidentally" use the GMO crop, he specifically gathered it.
Percy Schmeiser did in fact specifically plant RR canola (not corn, you illiterate fuckwit).
He sprayed his farm with roundup and gathered seed from everything it didn't kill. You can argue about whether or not he should have the right to do that, but the law says he can't.
I would like to know if my food was grown by a gay man, because I don't want my children to catch teh ghey. What do they have to fear if gay farmers are safe?
It's not fucking relevant. If you really want non-GMO food, pay someone to guarantee that it's not.
1. Grows crops naturally pollinated (or, in the case of many food crops, self pollinates) 2. Harvests seeds, eats some, plants others 3. Rinse, repeat
Backward farmer with GMO neighbours
1. Grows crops... 2. Harvests seeds, eats some, plants others 3. Grows crops who, by definition, have fertile seeds. Monsanto chemical dependant seeds don't sprout, and don't make it into next years seed.
It could only take over from wild varieties if the manipulation gave an evolutionary advantage in the wild.
We've been genetically modifying our domesticated plants and animals for at least 10,000 years, and that doesn't really happen. Our modifications, such as making plants retain their seeds rather than drop them, is in fact a disadvantage in the wild. The same is true for pesticide resistance; those chemicals aren't present in the wild, so resistance is a waste of energy.
I've never bought season tickets to anything, so I don't know if they make you sign something, but they don't for one off tickets. Sure, there's an agreement printed on the back, but that's shown *after* you buy the ticket, and isn't signed anyway.
You could make the (rather flimsy) argument that they agree when they use the ticket, but these people obviously aren't doing that.
Besides, it isn't StubHub's responsibility to enforce or even cooperate with the venue's agreements with it's customers.
While I agree with you in principle, there's more to it than that.
The venue has every right to revoke these tickets. However, what's at issue is whether or not StubHub has any obligation to tell the venue which tickets are being sold. If they're not based in Massachusetts, the fact that what they're doing violates Massachusetts law is entirely irrelevant. Unless there's a federal law (or state law in the state they do operate in), they have every right to tell the venue to figure it out on their own.
If a state banned football (or whatever sport it is that the Patriots play), should that require them to snitch on residents of that state?
Without informing anyone. External entities should be free to *request* specific support software, but the user should always have the right to override that request.
Slashdot Mirror
The last guy only got 20 silver pieces, and he had to kiss a dude.
How is it any way comparable to a fire? You neo luddites love to wave your hands about the "dangers" of GM food, but you never actually point to them.
No one outside of the lunatic fringe uses words like "contamination" or "frankenfood".
If you want to make charges about specific instances of GM, I'll listen. If you just go off the deep end and rant about the practise in general, which we've been doing for longer than recorded history, I'll just write you off as a nutbag.
Anyone in the developed world can get access to the internet at negligible cost through net cafes, or just asking a neighbour nicely. They can't necessarily do so on a machine with input methods for their language.
I'm not arguing for disallowing Unicode everywhere, just in areas where doing so would restrict access. Just as there are areas of the Autobahn with speed limits, (and everywhere for large vehicles and buses as far as I could tell), we should restrict essential services to the lowest common denominator; ascii.
Whether a particular server constitutes an essential service should be left up to the operator, but the DNS system should remain available to everyone.
It devotes a full one of three sections to the rise of agriculture. While it isn't the main topic of the book, it's a far sight better than an offhand Wikipedia stub (population of African elphants, et cetera) which doesn't even back your point. The Wikipedia entry does say that most plants don't self pollinate, but most plants aren't commercial crops. Of the examples for self pollination it gives, all of them are commercial crops.
While I'd sympathize with your sister if she was trying to study non-GM crops close enough to GM farms for cross pollination, it isn't in any way reasonable to demand that it not happen. Why should GM strains be singled out for this sort of treatment? Wouldn't your sister be just as annoyed if she was trying to study a GM crop and found it "contaminated" with non-GM cross pollination?
I'm amused, as I wasn't aware simians had been taught to type.
You've made my point for me. Just as someone who wanted gay-grown food to be labelled would need to demonstrate a negative effect, so should we require neo-luddites to demonstrate a negative effect with GMO foods.
Do not use it as a citation.
I was basing my assertion on claims made in Guns, Germs, and Steel.
That it would out compete local flora. We're just not that good at it.
It only takes place in both jurisdictions if both jurisdictions agree to that. Sales tax, for example, generally takes place in magical internet land, unless both buyer and seller are in the same state/country.
As I said, many crop plants self pollinate, and even those that don't will tend to pollinate from nearby plants.
I tend to agree with you about hobbling agriculture for intellectual property reasons, but that's hardly a good reason to throw out GM as a whole.
I'm pretty sure Monsanto isn't working on canola that can get up and eat you.
That was one of my favourite childhood books though, along with The Chrysalids.
But I'm really getting sick of the luddite lobby's convenient blinders.
One of his hired hands testified that he helped Schmeiser spray one of the adjacent fields with Roundup, gather the seeds and send them off for treatment to be planted the next year.
Now, personally I think he should have every right to do that, but he didn't "accidentally" use the GMO crop, he specifically gathered it.
Exactly.
A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.
But don't let that detract from your loom smashing.
Percy Schmeiser did in fact specifically plant RR canola (not corn, you illiterate fuckwit).
He sprayed his farm with roundup and gathered seed from everything it didn't kill. You can argue about whether or not he should have the right to do that, but the law says he can't.
The only difference is that we're actively producing the mutations we want, rather than sitting idly by and hoping they come along.
Anything "dangerous" about GMO could also happen spontaneously. Objections to it are pure technophobia and should be dismissed out of hand.
I would like to know if my food was grown by a gay man, because I don't want my children to catch teh ghey. What do they have to fear if gay farmers are safe?
It's not fucking relevant. If you really want non-GMO food, pay someone to guarantee that it's not.
Backyard farmer now:
1. Grows crops naturally pollinated (or, in the case of many food crops, self pollinates)
2. Harvests seeds, eats some, plants others
3. Rinse, repeat
Backward farmer with GMO neighbours
1. Grows crops...
2. Harvests seeds, eats some, plants others
3. Grows crops who, by definition, have fertile seeds. Monsanto chemical dependant seeds don't sprout, and don't make it into next years seed.
It could only take over from wild varieties if the manipulation gave an evolutionary advantage in the wild.
We've been genetically modifying our domesticated plants and animals for at least 10,000 years, and that doesn't really happen. Our modifications, such as making plants retain their seeds rather than drop them, is in fact a disadvantage in the wild. The same is true for pesticide resistance; those chemicals aren't present in the wild, so resistance is a waste of energy.
I've never bought season tickets to anything, so I don't know if they make you sign something, but they don't for one off tickets. Sure, there's an agreement printed on the back, but that's shown *after* you buy the ticket, and isn't signed anyway.
You could make the (rather flimsy) argument that they agree when they use the ticket, but these people obviously aren't doing that.
Besides, it isn't StubHub's responsibility to enforce or even cooperate with the venue's agreements with it's customers.
Their selling pieces of paper to people on the internet.
Are their offices in Massachusetts? Do they have any presence in Massachusetts?
If China bans baseball, should patriots.com be required to hand over a list of Chinese IPs which visited the site?
While I agree with you in principle, there's more to it than that.
The venue has every right to revoke these tickets. However, what's at issue is whether or not StubHub has any obligation to tell the venue which tickets are being sold. If they're not based in Massachusetts, the fact that what they're doing violates Massachusetts law is entirely irrelevant. Unless there's a federal law (or state law in the state they do operate in), they have every right to tell the venue to figure it out on their own.
If a state banned football (or whatever sport it is that the Patriots play), should that require them to snitch on residents of that state?
This is a green light for corporate regulation of the internet.
At least government regulation is, at some level, accountable by democratic process. Corporate regulation is not. (Wallet voting is not democratic.)
Without informing anyone. External entities should be free to *request* specific support software, but the user should always have the right to override that request.
It was just 98 warmed over.