Ah, finally, someone with some sort data to back up their rhetoric. I think yours is the 20th response to what I've posted here, and the previous 19 had no basis for their assertions. Reasonable debate at last;-)
New GE plants are tested by the FDA, the NIH, and the EPA.
He seems to be wrong. The NIH has no direct responsibility or authority over foodstuffs. They do regulate gene therapy for humans, but that's completely different thing.
The FDA considers GM foods basically safe, and looks over safety tests performed by the company selling the product to ensure they have not overlooked potential dangers. In cases that new proteins or pesticide resistance the burden of proof is much higher then swapping genes already in foodstuff. The FDA compliance seems to be optional for plants. There was a proposed law to make it mandatory in 2001, but it never went through as far as I can tell. I guess the "war on terror" and economic downturn did it in. It is mandatory for animals however, and companies usually do submit to the FDA, if only for legal protection of following "best practices" if something does go wrong down the road.
The USDA/APHIS regulates new species, and participates in the process from the first stages of testing. Their primary concern is keeping a "superweed" from being created, and their tests and inspections reflect primarily that. Most notably for consumers, they requires data that
A detailed description of the differences in genotype between the regulated article and the nonmodified recipient organism. Include all scientific, common, or trade names, and all designations necessary to identify: the donor organism(s), the nature of the transformation system (vector or vector agent(s)), the inserted genetic material and its product(s), and the regulated article....Describe known and potential differences from the unmodified recipient organism that would substantiate that the regulated article is unlikely to pose a greater plant pest risk than the unmodified organism from which it was derived, including but not limited to: Plant pest risk characteristics, disease and pest susceptibilities, expression of the gene product, new enzymes, or changes to plant metabolism, weediness of the regulated article, impact on the weediness of any other plant with which it can interbreed, agricultural or cultivation practices, effects of the regulated article on nontarget organisms, indirect plant pest effects on other agricultural products, transfer of genetic information to organisms with which it cannot interbreed, and any other information which the Administrator believes to be relevant to a determination.
The EPA regulates any bioengineered plant that has pesticide like properties. They regulate genes/proteins, and not on the individual plant level.
So there you go. In practice, companies do test bioengineered produce more then traditionally engineered produce, but the human health is the least regulated part of the deal. I would be in favor of all new produce lines, no matter the technique in creating them, be required to have basic testing for nutrition and toxicity. The FDA rejects this, saying it is cost prohibitive.
I would draw a distinction between an cautious observer and a argument spewing movement.
There was (and sadly is) an anti-vax movement spreading FUD about vaccines. That FUD has caused real world deaths for no good reason. I know a number of mommies who are very cautious of vaccines now that I wouldn't say are anti-vaxxers. They've heard the FUD and have doubts. That is reasonable. Spreading the FUD is not.
What I have problems with are the people making the arguments for others to repeat who don't understand what genes are, what they do, how they are modified in GM, how traditional breeding works, and other important details.
The movement creates words like "frankenfood" and examples like fish tomatoes (which never made it out of the lab.) People with limited time and caring get a very one sided, bad perception. And we are rightly a risk intolerant species. If one thing has more risks then the other, we tend to avoid it. There are risks in both GM food and traditionally breed food, and people who understand GM the best are the least worried about it.
I consider myself a green, but I'm not an anti-corporate luddite as the "green" movement has become. I'm not the only one who think so: Go ask Patrick Moore (Founder and former president ofGreepeace), Stewart Brand(Whole Earth Catalog, Long now Foundation), and other luminaries.
Older ways are not necessarily better. New is not always less safe then old. Food safety is an important issue, and I'd personally like to see the debate raise above the sound bytes level. That is my personal goal. GM is not bad, but some ways it can be used are bad. Some corporations are more likely to use it to self serving ends, and patent both their discoveries and the basic tools use d to make those discoveries. There are great benefits and potential problems with GM, and we need to move past the initial fear of the unknown stage. Unfortunately, most people are only hearing the FUD.
No, my point is that GM is about making smaller, well understood changes vs other methods.
And monoculture is a problem whether seeds are "GMed" or not. That's an entirely separate issue. If we stopped GM today, monocultures in produce would continue to increase. Farmers all want the best seeds available, which leads to decrease in variety regardless of GM or not.
Linux and Mac only at the moment, I assume Windows 64 bit builds are to follow in later versions. From the greatly improved performance scores, It appears that the tracing JIT is finally enabled on the Linux 64 bit version.
Varieties produced by radiation and chemical mutagens can be and are sold as "organic".
I think most people's problem with GM comes from the misunderstanding of how limited a gene is. We're not talking about putting in a whole chromosome. It's either doing the same thing as cross breeding (manually turning on the expression of certain genes) or putting a particular, very well understood, small piece of code to produce a certain compound in a particular tissue in a particular part of the plant. We have knowledge and control to that level.
What requires study is what that compound might do to humans, but its often a very benign compound found in may other foods.
Often, the whole point of GM is to reduce the need for "chemical enhancements to pesticides, or in fertilizers". GM foods are designed to be more hardy and disease resistant, as well as optimized for better yield. If you want to attack Matasano or Dow Agribusiness, go ahead, but their pesticides are a much better place to attack then GM foods.
GM produce is regulated and tested, non-GM food is not. At the moment yield is king over nutrition and flavor. What I'd like to see is better regulation of nutrition and safety for all new produce varieties, not just GM. That's a rational position I can get behind.
All potatoes have deadly toxins in them, but most have small enough amounts they are harmless. In trying to bring some of the disease resistant properties of a wild potato to the commercial varieties, the Lenape potato was produced by crossing with a Delta Gold. The resulting potato was found years later to produce much higher then average toxicity, and was recalled. Since the potato was produced and made available without licensing cost, 13 other varieties had already been produced from the Lenape.
Because of the known problems with solanine, potatos are one of the few produce items which are routinely screened, and there has probably been little impact.
The point is not that GM foods are safe and traditional varieties are bad, but that all new varieties are potentially dangerous. It can be argued that GM techniques produce more carefully controlled and understood changes, and GM food is safety and nurtitionally tested, while many traditional produce varieties are not.
Should we be careful with GM food? Should there be regulations and controls? Absolutely. But that is true of all of our foodstuffs. The idea of non-"GM" food as natural and traditional is just wrong. "Heirloom" non-engineered produce is hard to come by unless you grow it yourself. And even that is the product of thousands of years of mutations and cross pollination.
The sane thing to do is realize all produce varieties are "frankenfood", and test them all. And that is exactly what we're not doing at the moment.
Yes, we took a gene we understand (in that we understand exactly what compound it produces and how) and added it to a different species. It's not magic. It's much more careful and controlled then random mutations and crossbreeding used for all new crop varieties.
If it's safety we're concerned about, mandate safety testing for all new plant varieties. GM produce already undergoes fairly rigorous testing, which is not true of most non-GM produce produced through mutation and cross breeding. That's something I could get behind.
My point is this: GM is not totally safe. Neither is random mutation, which is often spured on by radiation and chemical means.
All food is frankenfood. It's not pure food vs GM food. Our food will change, and we can be careful about the changes we introduce (that's "GM") or reckless (that's traditional breeding).
If you're worried about safety, campaign for safety testing of all new plant varieties, not just GM ones. GM ones are already safety tested much more then conventional varieties. Testing all plants equally is the rational way forward.
I agree. Patent issues abound in many fields, and Matasano, Dow Agrisciences and other large companies are getting more power and protection then they should in a rapidly expanding research field.
That's an entirely separate issue then what the original article is about, and different from most arguments made by the green movement, even if that fear of big business is probably the genesis of their other complaints.
My goal is to dial back some of the fear of GM foods and put it in better perspective to the practices that preceded GM. Then we can more rationally discuss what are in fact problems and potential problems in the field.
Genes code for proteins. Genes don't care what organism they came from.
Picking specific proteins is much safer then hybridization or mutation. Or would you rather have random changes then specifically chosen ones? Shall I engineer your car that way also? How about the local power plant? My company would be sued out of business for being reckless. Yes, "genetic algorithms" can produce occasional good results with many failures in computing and design, but design on purpose is how we deal with the rest of our safety critical problems.
I'd rather take the careful road, and in this case, that's GM.
The problem is not that GM food is particularly harmful in itself, but moreso the tactics that companies like Monsanto take in order to make themselves fantastically wealthy at the expense of the average farmer.
I agree somewhat that the leagal issues are a problem. However, farmers are choosing genetically engineered seeds for the benefits, and Matasano isn't forcing them on them.
The truth is that most seeds we've used for the past 50 years are single season. You get better crops from buying carefully hybridized seeds whether GM or not then you will get from planting 2nd generation seeds. Pretty much no farmer reuses their seeds for yield reasons. It simply doesn't make economic sense.
My problem with GM food has nothing to do with GM food. It has to do with patents. The large corps involved are getting tons of patents to lock out independant research, including good humanitarian projects.
The problems with Matasano and our patent system are real, but that doesn't mean we should be scared of all GM food or techniques. "Green" campaigns against GM technology that is truely patent and licensing free, created by non-profits for the good of poor nations, is causing people to die of starvation and malnutrition. Dr Wambugu, a Kenyan plant pathologist puts it this way: "You people in the developed world are free to debate the merits of genetically modified foods, but can we please eat first?"
It is a good sign that the people who understand GM techniques are the least scared of GM food. Most arguments against GM seem to largely stem from ignorance and fear.
It also seems like we are playing with fire. We assume a gene has a specific function and only a specific function, based on a few observations, and we start messing with the genetic code to plants that produce our food, which we've eaten for thousands of years.
This is my main problem with the anti-GM movement. There *is* no food which we've eaten for thousands of years. Our history is largely tied to our abiliyt to modify our food, both plant and animal.
All food is constantly being engineered and modified. All food has been chaotically modified over time, thorough mutation and breeding. "GM" produce is carefully modified, tested, and controlled by many government bodies for heath effects. All other produce is not tested or controlled for health effects.
Kevin Kelly put it this way:
Suppose the sequence is reversed. Suppose genetic engineering is what we have done all along. Then some group says, 'No, we’re going to use this new process called breeding. We’ll create all kinds of interesting recombinations, we’ll blast seeds with radiation and chemicals to get lots of mutations, and we’ll grow whatever comes up, pick the ones we like, and hope for the best.' What would people say about the risk of doing it that way?"
The battle is not GM vs non-GM. The push for profit has given us radical increase in agricultural yield over the past 80 years, and we're not likely to stop looking for more soon. The choices we have are careful GM vs reckless GM, which is what we would call traditional breeding techniques if they were invented today.
Here's the rub: We've been genetically engineering food since the dawn of society. Society as we know it came from the ability to improve plants through breeding and mutations.
Before GM, we've been cross breeding and irradiating plants using X-rays or using mutagenic chemicals to increase mutation rate until we get what we're looking for. This is much more potentially harmful then carefully changing only the genes we need to.
All food is GM food. What gets that label is the carefully, methodically changed, safer food, while all of our foodstock has been randomly and chaotically modified over thousands of years. New GE plants are tested by the FDA, the NIH, and the EPA. New conventional crops get no testing. There have been toxic chemicals found in food sold that have been "traditionally" engineered, but none that have been "on purpose" engineered in in what has become known as GE.
GM food is safer then it's counterparts. I'll take the GM food, please..
BTW, for an excellent reading on the topic, I recommend the Whole Earth Discipline. Where he talks about his expertise (he's an ecologist/biologist by training) he's spot on. I don't agree with him on all the topics included in the book, but the arguments he makes on the rest (like urbanization and power generation) are also worth reading, if not the final word. But the GE and other ecological/biological topics he touches on are full of good insights.
"Assault rifles" is a meaningless term in the political sphere. Typically it means a "pistol grip" style rifle with a detachable magazine. Semi-auto fire is common in "hunting rifles" and "assault rifles".
Remove the pistol grip and replace with a butt stock, and it is no longer an "assault weapon". It's purely a political term, playing on fear of military looking weapons, with no basis on actual firepower.
Care to tell me what the difference between "high-powered assault rifles" and hunting guns is? They fire the same ammo, have the same ballistic properties. One has a black plastic stock, the other has a wood or camo plastic stock. Otherwise they're the same functional thing.
I agree with you. China is not ready for democracy.
The point is that if we allow the Chinese government to continue it's broad censorship with no challenge, they never will be.
I know a number of Chinese students who moved to the US on student visas. It takes about 2 years before they see that the Chinese gov't isn't as perfect as they were told, and that freedom of the press might do them some good.
AIFF is uncompressed, ATRAC didn't have publicly available encoders/decoders that I can find record of until 2002 or so. By 2002 Vorbis 1.0 was released, though earlier non-frozen spec software was available.
The first public mp3 encoder was released in 1994. MP3 had a long time of being unchallenged for home use. Musepack, Vorbis, and AAC all started being useful ~2000(+-a year), but by that time MP3 = audio compression to many people.
So if you got into audio compression 1999 or later, you'd think there were always good options. Before that time, it was pretty much MP3 vs uncompressed audio..
PShaw. meetup.com is your friend. If you live in a place of any decent size, there's tons of groups out there for your interests. Like bicycling, software development, sushi, model aircraft, computer security, robotics, anime, knitting, etc? There's probably a meetup group in your area. All of those I've looked at or attented in my own town, and there's tons more out there.
Also, toastmasters and volenteering are always good ways to meet people.
If you can't find any groups that interest you, why not not learn a new skill on your own or at the local community college, and start your own group? It's easier then you think.
Chrome has recently also had the benefit of intensive security tests by both Mark Dowd (as a contractor) and Michal Zalewski (as employee). Of course, the have been tested by many others also, but if I could hire any 2 guys in the world to test my browser, those would be the two I would want. Combined with the security bug bounties (which are small, but notable for existing anyway), I'd give Google props for putting their money where their mouth is, and showing they care.
I actually own both a Kindle (DX) and an IPod Touch, and can testify that the Kindle is much more eye friendly. Having both is awesome, because my iPod is always in my pocket for quick reading, my Kindle is much more eye and battery friendly for serious reading, and the software keeps both in sync. Well, when I buy kindle books anyway, with other DRM free ebooks that make up most of my collection I have to keep in sync myself, but it's not that hard.
And yes, the iPod touch is barely readable outside in the bright sunlight, but the Kindle is gorgeous, and only gets better the more light falls on it.Even indoors, the kindle is much easier to read. . Bottom line: Don't knock the benefits of e-ink until you've used an e-ink device for a few days.
However, we are providing a way to integrate the "icecast directory" that provides an open source equivalent to SHOUTcast. If you know and like a radio station currently listed on the SHOUTcast directory, please make sure this radio is also available on the icecast directory and let the radio owner know about how AOL treats their content.
There's a replacement, it's free and user editable. Sounds like the death of SHOUTcast to me.
Yes, they should have only saved the SSID, location, and signal strength. Instead, they used off the shelf software which saved more data. There is no reason to believe this was intentional.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 > 2511 (g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
(v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.
In the US, if you transmit in the clear on unlicensed spectrum, they can legally pick it up due to two different, non-overlapping legal clauses. ( Note, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, this is but one of possibly relevant laws, etc.)
The problem is they didn't need to do so, and it creeps people in the US out. So even here where it is legal, they probably shouldn't have from a PR point of view.
In some other countries it is not legal to collect that data, and doing so intentionally might lower your penalties, but still does not make it legal.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 > 2511 (g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
(v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.
In the US, if you transmit in the clear on unlicensed spectrum, I can legally pick it up due to two different, non-overlapping legal clauses. I fail to see how forcible sexual assault has anything to do with it.
I'm fairly sure I picked it up at some random site along the way, and I couldn't even tell you when. If you search google for it, you can easily find it in joke emails dating back from 2001 at least, and no attribution in sight. I'd say go ahead and do whatever you want with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, finally, someone with some sort data to back up their rhetoric. I think yours is the 20th response to what I've posted here, and the previous 19 had no basis for their assertions. Reasonable debate at last ;-)
New GE plants are tested by the FDA, the NIH, and the EPA.
I got this from "Whole Earth Discipline" by Stewart Brand, page 127. http://books.google.com/books?ct=result&id=1tTtAAAAMAAJ&dq=stewart+brand+whole+earth&q=national+institutes
He seems to be wrong. The NIH has no direct responsibility or authority over foodstuffs. They do regulate gene therapy for humans, but that's completely different thing.
Here's the real story:
http://www.fda.gov/food/biotechnology/default.htm
The FDA considers GM foods basically safe, and looks over safety tests performed by the company selling the product to ensure they have not overlooked potential dangers. In cases that new proteins or pesticide resistance the burden of proof is much higher then swapping genes already in foodstuff.
The FDA compliance seems to be optional for plants. There was a proposed law to make it mandatory in 2001, but it never went through as far as I can tell. I guess the "war on terror" and economic downturn did it in. It is mandatory for animals however, and companies usually do submit to the FDA, if only for legal protection of following "best practices" if something does go wrong down the road.
The USDA/APHIS regulates new species, and participates in the process from the first stages of testing. Their primary concern is keeping a "superweed" from being created, and their tests and inspections reflect primarily that. Most notably for consumers, they requires data that
A detailed description of the differences in genotype between the regulated article and the nonmodified recipient organism. Include all scientific, common, or trade names, and all designations necessary to identify: the donor organism(s), the nature of the transformation system (vector or vector agent(s)), the inserted genetic material and its product(s), and the regulated article. ...Describe known and potential differences from the unmodified recipient organism that would substantiate that the regulated article is unlikely to pose a greater plant pest risk than the unmodified organism from which it was derived, including but not limited to: Plant pest risk
characteristics, disease and pest susceptibilities, expression of the gene product, new enzymes, or changes to plant metabolism, weediness of the regulated article, impact on the weediness of any other plant with which it can interbreed, agricultural or cultivation practices, effects of the regulated article on nontarget organisms, indirect plant pest effects on other agricultural products, transfer of genetic information to organisms with which it cannot interbreed, and
any other information which the Administrator believes to be relevant to a determination.
Both safety of the plant and transfer of genetic material are important.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/janqtr/7cfr340.6.htm
The EPA regulates any bioengineered plant that has pesticide like properties. They regulate genes/proteins, and not on the individual plant level.
So there you go. In practice, companies do test bioengineered produce more then traditionally engineered produce, but the human health is the least regulated part of the deal. I would be in favor of all new produce lines, no matter the technique in creating them, be required to have basic testing for nutrition and toxicity. The FDA rejects this, saying it is cost prohibitive.
If his expertise is "spot on" why don't yo
I would draw a distinction between an cautious observer and a argument spewing movement.
There was (and sadly is) an anti-vax movement spreading FUD about vaccines. That FUD has caused real world deaths for no good reason. I know a number of mommies who are very cautious of vaccines now that I wouldn't say are anti-vaxxers. They've heard the FUD and have doubts. That is reasonable. Spreading the FUD is not.
What I have problems with are the people making the arguments for others to repeat who don't understand what genes are, what they do, how they are modified in GM, how traditional breeding works, and other important details.
The movement creates words like "frankenfood" and examples like fish tomatoes (which never made it out of the lab.) People with limited time and caring get a very one sided, bad perception. And we are rightly a risk intolerant species. If one thing has more risks then the other, we tend to avoid it. There are risks in both GM food and traditionally breed food, and people who understand GM the best are the least worried about it.
PBS has a decent site with varying points of view. It's probably the least biased piece I've seen on the issue yet.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/arguments.html
I consider myself a green, but I'm not an anti-corporate luddite as the "green" movement has become. I'm not the only one who think so: Go ask Patrick Moore (Founder and former president ofGreepeace), Stewart Brand(Whole Earth Catalog, Long now Foundation), and other luminaries.
Older ways are not necessarily better. New is not always less safe then old. Food safety is an important issue, and I'd personally like to see the debate raise above the sound bytes level. That is my personal goal. GM is not bad, but some ways it can be used are bad. Some corporations are more likely to use it to self serving ends, and patent both their discoveries and the basic tools use d to make those discoveries. There are great benefits and potential problems with GM, and we need to move past the initial fear of the unknown stage. Unfortunately, most people are only hearing the FUD.
No, my point is that GM is about making smaller, well understood changes vs other methods.
And monoculture is a problem whether seeds are "GMed" or not. That's an entirely separate issue. If we stopped GM today, monocultures in produce would continue to increase. Farmers all want the best seeds available, which leads to decrease in variety regardless of GM or not.
4.0 will be the first version with first class 64 bit support from Mozilla.
For some reason, the 64 bit builds aren't on the main download site, but are available here:
http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/4.0b1/
Linux and Mac only at the moment, I assume Windows 64 bit builds are to follow in later versions.
From the greatly improved performance scores, It appears that the tracing JIT is finally enabled on the Linux 64 bit version.
Now where's my 64 bit flash adobe?
Varieties produced by radiation and chemical mutagens can be and are sold as "organic".
I think most people's problem with GM comes from the misunderstanding of how limited a gene is.
We're not talking about putting in a whole chromosome. It's either doing the same thing as cross breeding (manually turning on the expression of certain genes) or putting a particular, very well understood, small piece of code to produce a certain compound in a particular tissue in a particular part of the plant. We have knowledge and control to that level.
What requires study is what that compound might do to humans, but its often a very benign compound found in may other foods.
Often, the whole point of GM is to reduce the need for "chemical enhancements to pesticides, or in fertilizers". GM foods are designed to be more hardy and disease resistant, as well as optimized for better yield. If you want to attack Matasano or Dow Agribusiness, go ahead, but their pesticides are a much better place to attack then GM foods.
GM produce is regulated and tested, non-GM food is not. At the moment yield is king over nutrition and flavor. What I'd like to see is better regulation of nutrition and safety for all new produce varieties, not just GM. That's a rational position I can get behind.
The Lenape potato is the classic example.
All potatoes have deadly toxins in them, but most have small enough amounts they are harmless. In trying to bring some of the disease resistant properties of a wild potato to the commercial varieties, the Lenape potato was produced by crossing with a Delta Gold. The resulting potato was found years later to produce much higher then average toxicity, and was recalled. Since the potato was produced and made available without licensing cost, 13 other varieties had already been produced from the Lenape.
Because of the known problems with solanine, potatos are one of the few produce items which are routinely screened, and there has probably been little impact.
The point is not that GM foods are safe and traditional varieties are bad, but that all new varieties are potentially dangerous. It can be argued that GM techniques produce more carefully controlled and understood changes, and GM food is safety and nurtitionally tested, while many traditional produce varieties are not.
Should we be careful with GM food? Should there be regulations and controls? Absolutely. But that is true of all of our foodstuffs. The idea of non-"GM" food as natural and traditional is just wrong. "Heirloom" non-engineered produce is hard to come by unless you grow it yourself. And even that is the product of thousands of years of mutations and cross pollination.
The sane thing to do is realize all produce varieties are "frankenfood", and test them all. And that is exactly what we're not doing at the moment.
Yes, we took a gene we understand (in that we understand exactly what compound it produces and how) and added it to a different species. It's not magic. It's much more careful and controlled then random mutations and crossbreeding used for all new crop varieties.
If it's safety we're concerned about, mandate safety testing for all new plant varieties. GM produce already undergoes fairly rigorous testing, which is not true of most non-GM produce produced through mutation and cross breeding. That's something I could get behind.
My point is this: GM is not totally safe. Neither is random mutation, which is often spured on by radiation and chemical means.
All food is frankenfood. It's not pure food vs GM food. Our food will change, and we can be careful about the changes we introduce (that's "GM") or reckless (that's traditional breeding).
If you're worried about safety, campaign for safety testing of all new plant varieties, not just GM ones. GM ones are already safety tested much more then conventional varieties. Testing all plants equally is the rational way forward.
I agree. Patent issues abound in many fields, and Matasano, Dow Agrisciences and other large companies are getting more power and protection then they should in a rapidly expanding research field.
That's an entirely separate issue then what the original article is about, and different from most arguments made by the green movement, even if that fear of big business is probably the genesis of their other complaints.
My goal is to dial back some of the fear of GM foods and put it in better perspective to the practices that preceded GM. Then we can more rationally discuss what are in fact problems and potential problems in the field.
Genes code for proteins. Genes don't care what organism they came from.
Picking specific proteins is much safer then hybridization or mutation. Or would you rather have random changes then specifically chosen ones? Shall I engineer your car that way also? How about the local power plant? My company would be sued out of business for being reckless. Yes, "genetic algorithms" can produce occasional good results with many failures in computing and design, but design on purpose is how we deal with the rest of our safety critical problems.
I'd rather take the careful road, and in this case, that's GM.
The problem is not that GM food is particularly harmful in itself, but moreso the tactics that companies like Monsanto take in order to make themselves fantastically wealthy at the expense of the average farmer.
I agree somewhat that the leagal issues are a problem. However, farmers are choosing genetically engineered seeds for the benefits, and Matasano isn't forcing them on them.
The truth is that most seeds we've used for the past 50 years are single season. You get better crops from buying carefully hybridized seeds whether GM or not then you will get from planting 2nd generation seeds. Pretty much no farmer reuses their seeds for yield reasons. It simply doesn't make economic sense.
My problem with GM food has nothing to do with GM food. It has to do with patents. The large corps involved are getting tons of patents to lock out independant research, including good humanitarian projects.
The problems with Matasano and our patent system are real, but that doesn't mean we should be scared of all GM food or techniques. "Green" campaigns against GM technology that is truely patent and licensing free, created by non-profits for the good of poor nations, is causing people to die of starvation and malnutrition. Dr Wambugu, a Kenyan plant pathologist puts it this way: "You people in the developed world are free to debate the merits of genetically modified foods, but can we please eat first?"
It is a good sign that the people who understand GM techniques are the least scared of GM food. Most arguments against GM seem to largely stem from ignorance and fear.
It also seems like we are playing with fire. We assume a gene has a specific function and only a specific function, based on a few observations, and we start messing with the genetic code to plants that produce our food, which we've eaten for thousands of years.
This is my main problem with the anti-GM movement. There *is* no food which we've eaten for thousands of years. Our history is largely tied to our abiliyt to modify our food, both plant and animal.
All food is constantly being engineered and modified. All food has been chaotically modified over time, thorough mutation and breeding. "GM" produce is carefully modified, tested, and controlled by many government bodies for heath effects. All other produce is not tested or controlled for health effects.
Kevin Kelly put it this way:
Suppose the sequence is reversed. Suppose genetic engineering is what we have done all along. Then some group says, 'No, we’re going to use this new process called breeding. We’ll create all kinds of interesting recombinations, we’ll blast seeds with radiation and chemicals to get lots of mutations, and we’ll grow whatever comes up, pick the ones we like, and hope for the best.' What would people say about the risk of doing it that way?"
The battle is not GM vs non-GM. The push for profit has given us radical increase in agricultural yield over the past 80 years, and we're not likely to stop looking for more soon. The choices we have are careful GM vs reckless GM, which is what we would call traditional breeding techniques if they were invented today.
Here's the rub: We've been genetically engineering food since the dawn of society. Society as we know it came from the ability to improve plants through breeding and mutations.
Before GM, we've been cross breeding and irradiating plants using X-rays or using mutagenic chemicals to increase mutation rate until we get what we're looking for. This is much more potentially harmful then carefully changing only the genes we need to.
All food is GM food. What gets that label is the carefully, methodically changed, safer food, while all of our foodstock has been randomly and chaotically modified over thousands of years. New GE plants are tested by the FDA, the NIH, and the EPA. New conventional crops get no testing. There have been toxic chemicals found in food sold that have been "traditionally" engineered, but none that have been "on purpose" engineered in in what has become known as GE.
GM food is safer then it's counterparts. I'll take the GM food, please..
BTW, for an excellent reading on the topic, I recommend the Whole Earth Discipline. Where he talks about his expertise (he's an ecologist/biologist by training) he's spot on. I don't agree with him on all the topics included in the book, but the arguments he makes on the rest (like urbanization and power generation) are also worth reading, if not the final word. But the GE and other ecological/biological topics he touches on are full of good insights.
"Assault rifles" is a meaningless term in the political sphere. Typically it means a "pistol grip" style rifle with a detachable magazine. Semi-auto fire is common in "hunting rifles" and "assault rifles".
Remove the pistol grip and replace with a butt stock, and it is no longer an "assault weapon". It's purely a political term, playing on fear of military looking weapons, with no basis on actual firepower.
Assault rifle should more accurately include selective fire, AKA more then one bullet per trigger pull. Of course, those are already illegal, so polititions need to water down the terms. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon .
Care to tell me what the difference between "high-powered assault rifles" and hunting guns is?
They fire the same ammo, have the same ballistic properties. One has a black plastic stock, the other has a wood or camo plastic stock. Otherwise they're the same functional thing.
I agree with you. China is not ready for democracy.
The point is that if we allow the Chinese government to continue it's broad censorship with no challenge, they never will be.
I know a number of Chinese students who moved to the US on student visas. It takes about 2 years before they see that the Chinese gov't isn't as perfect as they were told, and that freedom of the press might do them some good.
AIFF is uncompressed, ATRAC didn't have publicly available encoders/decoders that I can find record of until 2002 or so. By 2002 Vorbis 1.0 was released, though earlier non-frozen spec software was available.
The first public mp3 encoder was released in 1994. MP3 had a long time of being unchallenged for home use. Musepack, Vorbis, and AAC all started being useful ~2000(+-a year), but by that time MP3 = audio compression to many people.
So if you got into audio compression 1999 or later, you'd think there were always good options. Before that time, it was pretty much MP3 vs uncompressed audio..
PShaw. meetup.com is your friend. If you live in a place of any decent size, there's tons of groups out there for your interests.
Like bicycling, software development, sushi, model aircraft, computer security, robotics, anime, knitting, etc? There's probably a meetup group in your area. All of those I've looked at or attented in my own town, and there's tons more out there.
Also, toastmasters and volenteering are always good ways to meet people.
If you can't find any groups that interest you, why not not learn a new skill on your own or at the local community college, and start your own group? It's easier then you think.
Chrome has recently also had the benefit of intensive security tests by both Mark Dowd (as a contractor) and Michal Zalewski (as employee). Of course, the have been tested by many others also, but if I could hire any 2 guys in the world to test my browser, those would be the two I would want. Combined with the security bug bounties (which are small, but notable for existing anyway), I'd give Google props for putting their money where their mouth is, and showing they care.
I actually own both a Kindle (DX) and an IPod Touch, and can testify that the Kindle is much more eye friendly. Having both is awesome, because my iPod is always in my pocket for quick reading, my Kindle is much more eye and battery friendly for serious reading, and the software keeps both in sync. Well, when I buy kindle books anyway, with other DRM free ebooks that make up most of my collection I have to keep in sync myself, but it's not that hard.
And yes, the iPod touch is barely readable outside in the bright sunlight, but the Kindle is gorgeous, and only gets better the more light falls on it.Even indoors, the kindle is much easier to read.
.
Bottom line: Don't knock the benefits of e-ink until you've used an e-ink device for a few days.
However, we are providing a way to integrate the "icecast directory" that provides an open source equivalent to SHOUTcast. If you know and like a radio station currently listed on the SHOUTcast directory, please make sure this radio is also available on the icecast directory and let the radio owner know about how AOL treats their content.
There's a replacement, it's free and user editable. Sounds like the death of SHOUTcast to me.
Yes, they should have only saved the SSID, location, and signal strength. Instead, they used off the shelf software which saved more data. There is no reason to believe this was intentional.
That's fine and legal to do in the USA, as you have no expectation of privacy using unencrypted broadcast:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 > 2511
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
(v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.
In the US, if you transmit in the clear on unlicensed spectrum, they can legally pick it up due to two different, non-overlapping legal clauses. ( Note, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, this is but one of possibly relevant laws, etc.)
The problem is they didn't need to do so, and it creeps people in the US out. So even here where it is legal, they probably shouldn't have from a PR point of view.
In some other countries it is not legal to collect that data, and doing so intentionally might lower your penalties, but still does not make it legal.
Here in the US, you have no expectation of privacy using unencrypted broadcast:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 > 2511
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
(v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.
In the US, if you transmit in the clear on unlicensed spectrum, I can legally pick it up due to two different, non-overlapping legal clauses. I fail to see how forcible sexual assault has anything to do with it.
I'm fairly sure I picked it up at some random site along the way, and I couldn't even tell you when. If you search google for it, you can easily find it in joke emails dating back from 2001 at least, and no attribution in sight. I'd say go ahead and do whatever you want with it.
A crapload of small random bits of data will contain some interesting data.. This is news?
If you don't want anyone picking up your wifi traffic you encrypt it. Welcome to the year 2000.