Ah! A well thought out and reasonable objection! Thank you sir! Your points make sense. I suppose that some of this could be countered by other bio-tech firms making comperable (although genetically distinct, and thus hopefully not suceptible to whatever might kill a different strain) products to compete with ones already in use. If they were able to price them competitively, then I imagine that they would see use, thus reducing the monoculture problem possibilities and eliminating the monopoly conditions. Again, this all depends on some company stepping up to the plate. Like the problems that many GM products were designed to help solve, the answer isn't an easy one to follow through on.
Another possibility is that those same companies that developed the now-vulnerable strain could then modify it to be resistant or immune to whatever menace may rear its ugly head in some kind of biological tit-for-tat game, but that's not a quick solution. Just thinking (typing) out loud here though.
Not all makers of genetically modified foods are doing so strictly in the interest of money. I suggest you read up on Norman Borlaug. Due to his work in the field of crop modification, he is widely credited with saving over a billion lives. Yes, a BILLION. WITH A "B". He is quite possibly the greatest man to ever live.
Very well then, I am humble enough to recognize when one point has been refuted. However, one point does not refute my entire arguement, and you still have yet to demonstrate that GM foods cause a health risk.
What I'm saying is, without an explicit mechanism for either our digestive systems to start reading the rapidly-decaying DNA floating outside its protective cell walls, or for that DNA to suddenly and spontaneously exhibit bacterial or viral infection vectors, there is no place where things can go wrong on a genetic level. The rest of the plant matter that we can't absorb at that stage of digestion is passed on for further break-down, or excreeted at the final stage. I'm sure you've seen those bits of corn that you couldn't digest, and they're no more dangerous now than before.
There's a great deal of unwarranted fear-mongering going on behind the anti-GM food movement. They're scared of change, and of the pace that change comes at. They yell and scream loudly about it, and stick to their "organic" foods (which is a rather misleading title in itself, as the title of "organic" technically means that it need only contain carbon to be accurate - there's no regulation on this label in most places). Meanwhile, they offer no evidence that anything is wrong, just a lot of FUD. If you wish to say that something is dangerous, that's fine. Give me proof that its dangerous, and I might start listening to you. No "maybe"s or "what if"s. Solid facts, statistically relevant samples, and long term studies. GM foods have been around for roughly 12 years, and in that time over 100 studies have been done and no health risks have been found. I'll source this if you want, although I'm certain you have access to Google too. Until you can show me a reason to be concerned, stop crying wolf. Meanwhile the benefits such as increased yields, decreased maintenance and pesticide reliance, decreased irrigation requirements, and many others are here, real, tested and shown.
I bet that a lot of what they're talking about isn't so much "work" as having the automatic update option set to "on" by default, and most users not knowing or caring about it. And still, most users won't care about this issue either, as it too will be automatically fixed when the patch is released and downloaded by the updating service that they may not even aware they have running.
I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, I'm just saying.
Ah, the "frankenfood" arguement. The idea that genetic manipulation of foodcrops can create foods that will turn us all into gibbering zombies.
Apparantly, the parent poster doesn't realize that we've been doing this since time immemorial, through a process called "selective breeding". Different DNA in the corn doesn't make a difference once its in your system, all of it will still be broken down for individual sugars and proteins, etc. The DNA won't suddenly become hostile and start mutating you. Its still just corn. Genetically modified? Certainly. Just like any corn you could buy from anywhere, but this modification was done in a lab instead of through several generations of selective breeding. Also, its great with butter and salt!
...ask many well water drinters from the southwest about flouride in the water, they have too much in many places from natural ground water.
Side effects also include an unusual mental disorder, whose primary symptom involves an insatiable desire to mount large falling bombs while wearing a cowboy hat, whooping and hollering all the way to ground zero.
How is testing anti-virus software against things it has no definitions for in any way useful? How is this any more real-world than, say, throwing a dozen different variations of the Blaster worm at it? I'm no fan of the anti-virus software companies, but a test like the one you describe is just a contrived situation designed to make them all fail. What you describe would be akin to throwing an SQL injection attack against a MySQL server that has not been properly configured and updated to withstand such things, when you ALREADY KNOW what the outcome will be. I conceed that their testing methodology may be flawed, but your proposed method would be just as bad, if not worse.
This is a very good idea, IMO. I mean, for years the major security companies have been using fear tactics to push their software. For an almost equal amount of time, security-concious geeks have been critical of this software. Having a trusted, disinterested third-party like Consumer Reports put it to the test sounds like the perfect solution to this situation.
Its been a long time since someone outside of Norton has talked about how good a Norton product is, but they've been in the game for such a long time that they are trusted by the general public to do their job. I wonder how many would uninstall if Consumer Reports said that their product was utter crap? Or rather, how many would try to uninstall only to find that the uninstaller is broken too?
Your answer is accurate, but the reasoning goes beyond mere referential clumsiness on our parts. Think of the concept of spacetime, ie. space = time (yes, its more complex than that, but stay with me for a moment). Before the Big Bang, there was no space, thus, no time. Therefore, there was nothing before, since there was no before.
With all the fleshy pink things gone, there will be no more Net Neutrality problems. The problem would still be solved, but this is more of Final Solution.
I for one welcome our new mechanical man-slaying overlords.
Actually, I recall reading somewhere that this is the case in some municipalities. In order for this to work properly, the camera has to a) show your licenseplate, b) show your face, and c) show that the light was infact red. Too lazy to look up a source, but I recall also reading in the same place that people were getting off on traffic charges due to the fact that the camera was positioned properly to get those 3 items, but the timing was off so it was showing yellow lights instead of red. Local laws may vary on this or have been amended since the incident, so don't take my word for it.
PeerGuardian is a useful tool, but it is not infallible. Yes, you're somewhat safer by using it, but don't think you're secure. At best, its only as good as the people keeping the IP listings up to date.
Maybe I didn't read the same article as you, but where did you get the idea that this was about praising Bill Gates? This article is about the possibilities of modchips, and the fact that MS may be looking into the possibilities of allowing this kind of functionality as a feature.
Slashdot Mirror
Hold on, they said it was ES&S, not Diebold.
Ah! A well thought out and reasonable objection! Thank you sir! Your points make sense. I suppose that some of this could be countered by other bio-tech firms making comperable (although genetically distinct, and thus hopefully not suceptible to whatever might kill a different strain) products to compete with ones already in use. If they were able to price them competitively, then I imagine that they would see use, thus reducing the monoculture problem possibilities and eliminating the monopoly conditions. Again, this all depends on some company stepping up to the plate. Like the problems that many GM products were designed to help solve, the answer isn't an easy one to follow through on.
Another possibility is that those same companies that developed the now-vulnerable strain could then modify it to be resistant or immune to whatever menace may rear its ugly head in some kind of biological tit-for-tat game, but that's not a quick solution. Just thinking (typing) out loud here though.
Not all makers of genetically modified foods are doing so strictly in the interest of money. I suggest you read up on Norman Borlaug. Due to his work in the field of crop modification, he is widely credited with saving over a billion lives. Yes, a BILLION. WITH A "B". He is quite possibly the greatest man to ever live.
Very well then, I am humble enough to recognize when one point has been refuted. However, one point does not refute my entire arguement, and you still have yet to demonstrate that GM foods cause a health risk.
What I'm saying is, without an explicit mechanism for either our digestive systems to start reading the rapidly-decaying DNA floating outside its protective cell walls, or for that DNA to suddenly and spontaneously exhibit bacterial or viral infection vectors, there is no place where things can go wrong on a genetic level. The rest of the plant matter that we can't absorb at that stage of digestion is passed on for further break-down, or excreeted at the final stage. I'm sure you've seen those bits of corn that you couldn't digest, and they're no more dangerous now than before.
There's a great deal of unwarranted fear-mongering going on behind the anti-GM food movement. They're scared of change, and of the pace that change comes at. They yell and scream loudly about it, and stick to their "organic" foods (which is a rather misleading title in itself, as the title of "organic" technically means that it need only contain carbon to be accurate - there's no regulation on this label in most places). Meanwhile, they offer no evidence that anything is wrong, just a lot of FUD. If you wish to say that something is dangerous, that's fine. Give me proof that its dangerous, and I might start listening to you. No "maybe"s or "what if"s. Solid facts, statistically relevant samples, and long term studies. GM foods have been around for roughly 12 years, and in that time over 100 studies have been done and no health risks have been found. I'll source this if you want, although I'm certain you have access to Google too. Until you can show me a reason to be concerned, stop crying wolf. Meanwhile the benefits such as increased yields, decreased maintenance and pesticide reliance, decreased irrigation requirements, and many others are here, real, tested and shown.
I bet that a lot of what they're talking about isn't so much "work" as having the automatic update option set to "on" by default, and most users not knowing or caring about it. And still, most users won't care about this issue either, as it too will be automatically fixed when the patch is released and downloaded by the updating service that they may not even aware they have running.
I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, I'm just saying.
Ah, the "frankenfood" arguement. The idea that genetic manipulation of foodcrops can create foods that will turn us all into gibbering zombies.
Apparantly, the parent poster doesn't realize that we've been doing this since time immemorial, through a process called "selective breeding". Different DNA in the corn doesn't make a difference once its in your system, all of it will still be broken down for individual sugars and proteins, etc. The DNA won't suddenly become hostile and start mutating you. Its still just corn. Genetically modified? Certainly. Just like any corn you could buy from anywhere, but this modification was done in a lab instead of through several generations of selective breeding. Also, its great with butter and salt!
...ask many well water drinters from the southwest about flouride in the water, they have too much in many places from natural ground water.
Side effects also include an unusual mental disorder, whose primary symptom involves an insatiable desire to mount large falling bombs while wearing a cowboy hat, whooping and hollering all the way to ground zero.
That's no moon...
How is testing anti-virus software against things it has no definitions for in any way useful? How is this any more real-world than, say, throwing a dozen different variations of the Blaster worm at it? I'm no fan of the anti-virus software companies, but a test like the one you describe is just a contrived situation designed to make them all fail. What you describe would be akin to throwing an SQL injection attack against a MySQL server that has not been properly configured and updated to withstand such things, when you ALREADY KNOW what the outcome will be. I conceed that their testing methodology may be flawed, but your proposed method would be just as bad, if not worse.
Homer: Shut up brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip!
I would have pegged it as a firewall personally...
This is a very good idea, IMO. I mean, for years the major security companies have been using fear tactics to push their software. For an almost equal amount of time, security-concious geeks have been critical of this software. Having a trusted, disinterested third-party like Consumer Reports put it to the test sounds like the perfect solution to this situation.
Its been a long time since someone outside of Norton has talked about how good a Norton product is, but they've been in the game for such a long time that they are trusted by the general public to do their job. I wonder how many would uninstall if Consumer Reports said that their product was utter crap? Or rather, how many would try to uninstall only to find that the uninstaller is broken too?
Great, Wi-Fi all over N.O. Does this mean that I can maybe surf somewhere that doesn't smell of stale urine?
No, that'd mean I'd have to get that kind of access *outside* of N.O. too.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
-Benjamin Franklin
Your answer is accurate, but the reasoning goes beyond mere referential clumsiness on our parts. Think of the concept of spacetime, ie. space = time (yes, its more complex than that, but stay with me for a moment). Before the Big Bang, there was no space, thus, no time. Therefore, there was nothing before, since there was no before.
"It takes two to make peace, but only one to make war" This is the reason pure pacifism cannot work.
Forget clicks... parent poster still needs to learn to use the keyboard before I'd trust him with a mouse.
With all of the fleshy pink things gone, there will be no more need for, or traffic on, the internet.
See? Problem Solved!
With all the fleshy pink things gone, there will be no more Net Neutrality problems. The problem would still be solved, but this is more of Final Solution. I for one welcome our new mechanical man-slaying overlords.
So, about this GoogleNet...
Will it be invitation only?
Actually, I recall reading somewhere that this is the case in some municipalities. In order for this to work properly, the camera has to a) show your licenseplate, b) show your face, and c) show that the light was infact red. Too lazy to look up a source, but I recall also reading in the same place that people were getting off on traffic charges due to the fact that the camera was positioned properly to get those 3 items, but the timing was off so it was showing yellow lights instead of red. Local laws may vary on this or have been amended since the incident, so don't take my word for it.
PeerGuardian is a useful tool, but it is not infallible. Yes, you're somewhat safer by using it, but don't think you're secure. At best, its only as good as the people keeping the IP listings up to date.
Maybe I didn't read the same article as you, but where did you get the idea that this was about praising Bill Gates? This article is about the possibilities of modchips, and the fact that MS may be looking into the possibilities of allowing this kind of functionality as a feature.
And only one mouse button! How do I right click?!? ITS LIKE BEING BORN WITH ONLY ONE NIPPLE!