But the native ancestor to corn (and maybe rice?) would be considered a weed in any farmer's field. It wouldn't do very well competing against whatever cultivated crop is planted there, and all domesticated crops are going to pose the same danger of crossbreeding and weakening to the native species - domesticated corn can't even reproduce by itself.
Not only that, but in the case of GMO corn, there simply is no such thing as "native" teosinte in most of the places that corn is grown. Even if you did harm the resistance of native teosinte, I'm not sure it would make future generations any worse off - is anyone really going to roll the clock back a couple of thousand years and reboot the corn domestication process? Ironically, there might be some benefit in splicing teosinte genes back into modern corn to gain some features of the native plant - but that would be a (drumroll) GMO crop!
Anyway, I find it kind of hilarious that we can take something like teosinte, manipulate it's genes so thoroughly over thousands of years that we end up with corn, and then we drop in a single change for herbicide resistance and people go ape shit. Yes, evolution will kick in and eventually Roundup will be useless for weed control... so what? That has been happening ever since herbicides were first introduced. Yet here we are, continuously inventing new ways to kill weeds.
A second point: raising more foods always ends up with more humans, leading to starvation. The only limit on human population is food, so growing more just delays the trouble.
I think perhaps you should look at countries with modern, high yield agriculture - where 1-2% of the population is involved with farming - and look at their birth rates. Now look at developing countries where most of the population is involved with low-yield subsistence farming, and glance at their birth rate.
Now come back to this site and tell me that high-yield crops will lead to overpopulation with a straight face.
Feel free to correct me, but every case I've read about Monsanto taking a farmer to court for using cross-pollinated seed involved the farmer allegedly selecting for the Monsanto trait. For instance, dousing their field with Roundup and then taking seed from the survivors.
While I still think that's something that should be legal and I dislike Monsanto's tactics, it is far different from being expected to actively prevent contamination.
It's amazing how little research people do. If they did a simple Google search and clicked on the first link, they would have seen what it was all about.
Whenever you introduce something that outcompetes the natives, the natives die.
The "natives" in question are so dependent on man to plant them that this is a non-issue. If people continue to plant the "native" crops, they will continue to grow. Un-natural selection, if you will.
OTOH, do you really want to go through something like that with grains?
FUD. Genetically modified corn is not a disease, and it is not smallpox. Hell, corn is native to the Americas, so corn growing anywhere else is an invasive species. Even GMO corn will not last more than one generation without man planting it. Want to stop the GMO scourge should it become a problem? Don't put the seeds in the ground during the next growing cycle.
I suppose it depends what you mean by "native". If you mean derived from a native species, fine. Almost all grain crops (maybe all?) have been heavily bred to be quite different from their wild ancestors.
If we want our crops to survive the coming changes, then we need to mine the native stuff to bring in genes and alleles which are capable and adaptable.
I think many genetic engineers would agree with you.
That is why we need to preserve the native stuff and not contaminate it with GMOs.
How would the GMOs displace the native traits if the native plants are superior? You should welcome the "contamination" just as you should welcome random mutation - if the contamination/mutation survives and spreads in the wild, that means it is more fit for the given environment.
1) Growing Food crops that are 100% genetically identical is so stupid, it borders on idiocy.
Who is talking about that? You can still have a mix of crops: genetically modified from several suppliers and conventional from several suppliers. There is even the potential for genetically modified crops to only fill in where conventional crops fail (such as saline environments), thus displacing no conventional crops.
but if you want to wipe out native species of grains and destroy the gene pool,
Native species of grains? What agriculturally useful grain is this you see growing out in the wild? Rice, wheat, and especially corn are all dependent on man to cultivate the soil and plant them.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have reservations about GMOs, but the discussion should be based on some form of reality.
That is definitely midtown, and I'm trying to figure out what bus lane you were in! LOL:)
The irony is that, having lived there, I'm probably less familiar with the Times Square area than most tourists - I avoided it at all costs and while I used Port Authority a lot, I always came in from underneath.
So I found a pdf describing this system, and it says the sensor is 1/1.2", which is quite large for a phone. Nevertheless, I'm quite skeptical that the sensor is the limiting factor - though it looks like they bulked up the lens quite a bit, too. The lens is f/2.4, which is the same as an iPhone, but has to be much larger to accommodate the larger sensor.
So I don't doubt that this camera will take better pictures than other phones - I just doubt that the resolution is useful. I bet a camera with a sensor of the same size but with 1/2 the number of pixels would take equivalent pictures in all but the most perfect of conditions, and would actually do better in low light. A Rebel with an APS-C sized sensor only has 18 megapixels. That a much larger sensor (almost 4x larger) with a much better optical path, and Canon sees fit to limit it to 18 megapixels.
What are you talking about? Where in the "OP" (original post, right?) does it say the sensor is so huge? It doesn't even mention the sensor size in TFA. Even if the sensor were the size of a football field, it wouldn't get more light through the lens.
Yeah, you are right about the subways - few have elevators. Forgot about that. The buses all have lifts at least, but that's not the quick way to get around.
Wait, you lost me - weren't they talking about NYC? I'm not handicapped and can't really comment on the Anonymous Coward's situation, but the public transit is awesome in NYC, and you'd have to be handicapped in the head to drive an F150 there.
Of course you will get less oversampling, and finally only the actual pixels, but at least there's no digital zoom involved.
Agreed, but have you ever seen a pocket shooter (let alone a cell phone camera) that isn't lens-limited? Maybe they can make this useful with full-daylight landscape shots with lots of midtones and highlights, but there is no way that you can take a picture of like a family reunion group shot and get usable portraits by digitally zooming. And for a typical 4x6 or computer monitor or MMS, there is plenty of oversampling already even with a 4 megapixel camera.
Exactly. All "Mastered for iTunes" does is provide the supplier of the music with a PDF document describing best practices and an AAC encoding tool so that they can preview how the file will sound when available on iTunes. A supplier may already be using best-practices, or they may sign up for the program but ignore the PDF. Apparently this is the case with the example track he uses (Red Hot Chili Peppers).
Um, all "Mastered for iTunes" does is allow producers to preview how the final file will sound when placed on iTunes, so that they can make changes to the master file. Not sure what the point of the story is, and it definitely has nothing to do with CDs or FLAC.
Nokia says that the phone has “superior” low-light performance,
Now to be fair, they do go on to add:
“People will inevitably focus on the 41 megapixel sensor, but the real quantum leap is how the pixels are used to deliver breath-taking image quality at any resolution and the freedom it provides to choose the story you want to tell.”
Translating the horrid marketing speak - they are saying that you can also use it for digital zoom. But I'll believe that when they show me an image that isn't a brightly lit sky scene, lacking any shadows - every point-and-shoot I've owned since the 1.3 megapixel days has been limited by it's lens in all but the best conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
But the native ancestor to corn (and maybe rice?) would be considered a weed in any farmer's field. It wouldn't do very well competing against whatever cultivated crop is planted there, and all domesticated crops are going to pose the same danger of crossbreeding and weakening to the native species - domesticated corn can't even reproduce by itself.
Not only that, but in the case of GMO corn, there simply is no such thing as "native" teosinte in most of the places that corn is grown. Even if you did harm the resistance of native teosinte, I'm not sure it would make future generations any worse off - is anyone really going to roll the clock back a couple of thousand years and reboot the corn domestication process? Ironically, there might be some benefit in splicing teosinte genes back into modern corn to gain some features of the native plant - but that would be a (drumroll) GMO crop!
Anyway, I find it kind of hilarious that we can take something like teosinte, manipulate it's genes so thoroughly over thousands of years that we end up with corn, and then we drop in a single change for herbicide resistance and people go ape shit. Yes, evolution will kick in and eventually Roundup will be useless for weed control... so what? That has been happening ever since herbicides were first introduced. Yet here we are, continuously inventing new ways to kill weeds.
and made more milk, which was tainted with the same "substantially equivalent" hormone that killed them.
You had me until that statement. When you invent a test that can actually measure this hormone that you claim is there, let me know.
A second point: raising more foods always ends up with more humans, leading to starvation. The only limit on human population is food, so growing more just delays the trouble.
I think perhaps you should look at countries with modern, high yield agriculture - where 1-2% of the population is involved with farming - and look at their birth rates. Now look at developing countries where most of the population is involved with low-yield subsistence farming, and glance at their birth rate.
Now come back to this site and tell me that high-yield crops will lead to overpopulation with a straight face.
Feel free to correct me, but every case I've read about Monsanto taking a farmer to court for using cross-pollinated seed involved the farmer allegedly selecting for the Monsanto trait. For instance, dousing their field with Roundup and then taking seed from the survivors.
While I still think that's something that should be legal and I dislike Monsanto's tactics, it is far different from being expected to actively prevent contamination.
It's amazing how little research people do. If they did a simple Google search and clicked on the first link, they would have seen what it was all about.
Whenever you introduce something that outcompetes the natives, the natives die.
The "natives" in question are so dependent on man to plant them that this is a non-issue. If people continue to plant the "native" crops, they will continue to grow. Un-natural selection, if you will.
OTOH, do you really want to go through something like that with grains?
FUD. Genetically modified corn is not a disease, and it is not smallpox. Hell, corn is native to the Americas, so corn growing anywhere else is an invasive species. Even GMO corn will not last more than one generation without man planting it. Want to stop the GMO scourge should it become a problem? Don't put the seeds in the ground during the next growing cycle.
LOL, yeah wild rice does exist. That's not what China lives on, though.
I suppose it depends what you mean by "native". If you mean derived from a native species, fine. Almost all grain crops (maybe all?) have been heavily bred to be quite different from their wild ancestors.
If we want our crops to survive the coming changes, then we need to mine the native stuff to bring in genes and alleles which are capable and adaptable.
I think many genetic engineers would agree with you.
That is why we need to preserve the native stuff and not contaminate it with GMOs.
How would the GMOs displace the native traits if the native plants are superior? You should welcome the "contamination" just as you should welcome random mutation - if the contamination/mutation survives and spreads in the wild, that means it is more fit for the given environment.
I'm no expert, but I can tell you aren't either.
1) Growing Food crops that are 100% genetically identical is so stupid, it borders on idiocy.
Who is talking about that? You can still have a mix of crops: genetically modified from several suppliers and conventional from several suppliers. There is even the potential for genetically modified crops to only fill in where conventional crops fail (such as saline environments), thus displacing no conventional crops.
but if you want to wipe out native species of grains and destroy the gene pool,
Native species of grains? What agriculturally useful grain is this you see growing out in the wild? Rice, wheat, and especially corn are all dependent on man to cultivate the soil and plant them.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have reservations about GMOs, but the discussion should be based on some form of reality.
opening the gate to genetic experiments with staple crops
You know, like most of the corn we produce in North America...
That is definitely midtown, and I'm trying to figure out what bus lane you were in! LOL :)
The irony is that, having lived there, I'm probably less familiar with the Times Square area than most tourists - I avoided it at all costs and while I used Port Authority a lot, I always came in from underneath.
All Signs Point To Yes explains their crazy building layouts.
LOL, yes you can - on the side streets in the residential parts. Not in midtown. I presume you were visiting someone?
So I found a pdf describing this system, and it says the sensor is 1/1.2", which is quite large for a phone. Nevertheless, I'm quite skeptical that the sensor is the limiting factor - though it looks like they bulked up the lens quite a bit, too. The lens is f/2.4, which is the same as an iPhone, but has to be much larger to accommodate the larger sensor.
So I don't doubt that this camera will take better pictures than other phones - I just doubt that the resolution is useful. I bet a camera with a sensor of the same size but with 1/2 the number of pixels would take equivalent pictures in all but the most perfect of conditions, and would actually do better in low light. A Rebel with an APS-C sized sensor only has 18 megapixels. That a much larger sensor (almost 4x larger) with a much better optical path, and Canon sees fit to limit it to 18 megapixels.
What are you talking about? Where in the "OP" (original post, right?) does it say the sensor is so huge? It doesn't even mention the sensor size in TFA. Even if the sensor were the size of a football field, it wouldn't get more light through the lens.
Yes, NYC is expensive - but someone driving and parking an F-150 every day in Manhattan isn't really worried financially, right? :)
Yeah, you are right about the subways - few have elevators. Forgot about that. The buses all have lifts at least, but that's not the quick way to get around.
Wait, you lost me - weren't they talking about NYC? I'm not handicapped and can't really comment on the Anonymous Coward's situation, but the public transit is awesome in NYC, and you'd have to be handicapped in the head to drive an F150 there.
No, I don't understand how they overcome the small lens with smaller pixels and math. I'd love a link to that!
Right, the lens has to be smaller than a point-and-shoot, which is why this scheme is nuts. They are super-sampling a fuzzy picture.
And few people would consider Human-Vampire sex bestiality...
Ewwww, bats.
Of course you will get less oversampling, and finally only the actual pixels, but at least there's no digital zoom involved.
Agreed, but have you ever seen a pocket shooter (let alone a cell phone camera) that isn't lens-limited? Maybe they can make this useful with full-daylight landscape shots with lots of midtones and highlights, but there is no way that you can take a picture of like a family reunion group shot and get usable portraits by digitally zooming. And for a typical 4x6 or computer monitor or MMS, there is plenty of oversampling already even with a 4 megapixel camera.
Exactly. All "Mastered for iTunes" does is provide the supplier of the music with a PDF document describing best practices and an AAC encoding tool so that they can preview how the file will sound when available on iTunes. A supplier may already be using best-practices, or they may sign up for the program but ignore the PDF. Apparently this is the case with the example track he uses (Red Hot Chili Peppers).
Um, all "Mastered for iTunes" does is allow producers to preview how the final file will sound when placed on iTunes, so that they can make changes to the master file. Not sure what the point of the story is, and it definitely has nothing to do with CDs or FLAC.
[ahem]
Now to be fair, they do go on to add:
Translating the horrid marketing speak - they are saying that you can also use it for digital zoom. But I'll believe that when they show me an image that isn't a brightly lit sky scene, lacking any shadows - every point-and-shoot I've owned since the 1.3 megapixel days has been limited by it's lens in all but the best conditions.