No one.
Taleb et. al. claim that GMOs are under the precautionary principle (PP) - something they just invented.. I mean formalized. A nuclear accident is not because its effects are local. GMOs are, I assume because they can spread. They are 'pro-ruin'. I wonder on what time scale they expect this ruin to happen since we have been fucking with plants an animals for thousands of years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... .
There is no accurate estimation of the chances that GMOs will ruin us because they don't understand the risks or lack of risks because they don't understand the technology and biology they are talking about. They don't understand the 'risk' of what might happen when one strain crosses with another and just how much gene mixing is going on without humans doing a single thing to guide it. But let me explain it fatuously... what happens if a naturally occurring drought resistant plant crosses with a nearby fungal resistant plant? MAYBE DEATH GENES!!!! It might spread! And humans don't need to be involved!!! Did I say DEATH??? Why aren't we all dead by now? Is it perhaps because Taleb et al really don't understand what happens when genes mix and spread? Do they not know that genes aren't magic monoliths that have been around for years, unchanging?
More "weird" crossing happens every single day in Spring than mankind is likely to do in the next 50 years of cross breading (and in the next 100 years inside a lab). If they are concerned about the random events that might happen when one plant crosses with another we should immediately slash and burn all sexually reproducing crops whether GMOed or not. I see less fear mongering about Ebola on FOX News. This is appalling.
You know I have to disagree with the "Score:0, Flamebait" on this post. It points out a very relevant point. In poor, third world countries with corrupt policing you see this sort of thing.... and the USA. But not else where. Why is life so cheap in the US? This isn't in Mendellin, Colombia or Waziristan. But I guess for some people it is.
The dead guys daughter would probably disagree with you if she could understand what just happened. In 20 years time she just might come hunt you down for your callousness.
So, GMO is scary, but the fact that Cheerios barely resemble the produce they are derived from, no problem. All that processing couldn't possibly "change" the food in a bad way.
The consumer is an idiot.
Nothing is more trite than comparing the evolution of X to the evolution of Y. But, please, why compare something useful (UNIX) to something useless (Religion)? Its journalistic masturbation. No one enjoys articles like this more than the person who wrote it in the first place.
And in lesson three, we'll learn the age old trick of going down to the local busy Starbucks with a fresh install of *OS and then use the Tor. This might extend the time it takes the feds to knock on your door to over 24 hours!
Two infallible people at the same time would have to agree on everything.
What I don't understand is is he infallible now? I mean, he admits he can't continue - surely a sign he is not infallible. Or does he only project into the future that one day he will no longer be infallible so he better get out now. But even then this is a sign that he is not infallible.
This is the sort of thing that can keep you up at night until you realize what a load of horse shit this all is and you wonder why some people still bother with it. BTW why is he referred to as the "Pope". Other religious groups have popes too. Can we at least always refer to him as the "Catholic Pope".
I think there are many reasons to lump disbelief of global warming with the distrust of vaccines. Both groups of people have these beliefs, despite an overwhelming volume of data that says otherwise. Worse yet, showing these people data that contradicts their beliefs bizarrely reenforces the baseless beliefs. There is a common phenomenon (psychological) going on here, and it is worthy of study.
Its remarkable how many people criticizing this study have concluded the authors are socialists. How do you know? What is your evidence? You have already made up your mind that these researchers are just colluding with other scientists to make a political point that deniers of science are conspiracy nuts.
But you have no evidence at all. How many of you have already run off and read the paper yet... thoroughly? And yet, here you are condemning it. Wow! Good way to prove the authors point but announcing a conspiracy when you see science you don't like (but haven't read). Their work has just been beautifully f*$king demonstrated here in the comments section of/.
There is no equivalence between the biblical story and the scientific evidence. Firstly, one is a story, the other is evidence. Secondly, the bible then goes on to make several incorrect statements about the order of events that happened on earth, not to mention getting the time scale very very wrong. The final nail in the coffin is the story of the Ark. There are more species alive today than could possibly be stuffed into the Ark - and we 'know' the size of the ark well from the bible. Not to mention all these carnivorous animals, once off the ark somehow didn't eat one of the two non-carnivorous animals hence making that line extinct before the waters even receded. Lastly, how on earth did the Koala, which only eats a few species of eucalyptus leaves - only found in Australia - walk the long trek from the middle east, not eating anything along the way, to Australia and promptly wait for the local trees to regrow their leaves so they didn't starve to death?
I am always amazed how people can believe such stories after mankind came to understand the actual diversity of life on earth. It is truly an embarrassment to believe these old stories.
Well, engineers that solve problems in biological systems will use 'that'. But there is an additional problem with your comment. An engineer that accepts electrons can move through a metallic conductor when a voltage is applied because the evidence says so, but refuses to believe evolution despite the overwhelming evidence that it is true, is an engineer acting on faulty principles.
Im a leftie and wear my watch on my left. I remember as a kid wearing it on my right and being called the F word (three letter F word) for doing it. So I wore it on the left and still do to this day. What wrist you have your watch around is not a telltale sign of anything. And to prove a point - to myself - I'm swapping sides for the rest of the day. I wonder if anyone will notice.
hehehe - swapping sides - no pun intended.
Actually, lefties do become righties all the time. At least for certain tasks. As I posted above, left handers are forced to insert their ATM card into an ATM with their right hand, or do so very awkwardly with their left. So most just use their right. I cut paper with my right hand for the same reason.
Im a lefty too and I don't usually have problems in this right handed world - I deal. But then, I am fairly ambidextrous. You may be too.
I have never met a left hander who really had a lot of problems in this right handed world, but I have met many right handers who simply can not use a "left handed" piece of equipment either by using their left hand or by "flipping in their minds" how to use it. I have heard/seen of TV some left handers are also equally unable to do this, perhaps because they are extremely left handed.
I think the thing that is most annoying is when a right hander can not understand why you may be a little slower doing something with a right handed tool. It took me a long time to master using right handed scissors when I was a child. You have to use them with your right hand otherwise you can't see where you are cutting - I wonder how many right handers are aware of that? I no longer have any problem but I was "slower" than my school friends and yes I do remember my teachers and class mates interpreting that negatively - like I was some kind of 'retard'. ATMs are another device that comes to mind. I now get my card in my right hand when I approach, but this is not natural for me. If most right-handers encountered an ATM with the slots on the left, they would not be able to cope well at all (until they learn). Imagine the excuses they would use (like I have used) when they flub it. "Stupid design, who dreamt this up?". Most right handers simply do not understand how the world is designed for them.
On a side note, I once overheard a conversation where a guy was showing off an elaborate computer mouse to a co-worker. When asked by my co-worker if all these features would make it very hard for a left hander to use, this guy just snarked "who cares... who is left handed anyway?". This isn't exactly "handism" but I was pretty pissed off to overhear that. I wonder if that guy ever wonders why I never responded to his 'friend' requests on facebook and linkedin. Its not just because I barely know him.
Well I dont know if you are serious... but an increase in population could be expected for some species due to global warming. The only expected outcome from there being nor global climate change is populations would stay the same.
I think the northern reaches they are referring to are the northern areas of antarctica. Naturally this is where the loss of ice flows is happening first.
That is such a nice weasel word there.... 'real' proof. I'd like to hear what your definition of 'rea' proof is. It seems to me science is never 'real' when it contradicts ideology. This happens on both sides of politics, but IMHO happens on the right more than the left these days. Didn't used to be. This is why I hate politics and cherish the small sectors of society that place importance on science. Politics is too finicky.
Slashdot Mirror
No one. Taleb et. al. claim that GMOs are under the precautionary principle (PP) - something they just invented.. I mean formalized. A nuclear accident is not because its effects are local. GMOs are, I assume because they can spread. They are 'pro-ruin'. I wonder on what time scale they expect this ruin to happen since we have been fucking with plants an animals for thousands of years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... . There is no accurate estimation of the chances that GMOs will ruin us because they don't understand the risks or lack of risks because they don't understand the technology and biology they are talking about. They don't understand the 'risk' of what might happen when one strain crosses with another and just how much gene mixing is going on without humans doing a single thing to guide it. But let me explain it fatuously... what happens if a naturally occurring drought resistant plant crosses with a nearby fungal resistant plant? MAYBE DEATH GENES!!!! It might spread! And humans don't need to be involved!!! Did I say DEATH??? Why aren't we all dead by now? Is it perhaps because Taleb et al really don't understand what happens when genes mix and spread? Do they not know that genes aren't magic monoliths that have been around for years, unchanging? More "weird" crossing happens every single day in Spring than mankind is likely to do in the next 50 years of cross breading (and in the next 100 years inside a lab). If they are concerned about the random events that might happen when one plant crosses with another we should immediately slash and burn all sexually reproducing crops whether GMOed or not. I see less fear mongering about Ebola on FOX News. This is appalling.
You know I have to disagree with the "Score:0, Flamebait" on this post. It points out a very relevant point. In poor, third world countries with corrupt policing you see this sort of thing.... and the USA. But not else where. Why is life so cheap in the US? This isn't in Mendellin, Colombia or Waziristan. But I guess for some people it is.
The dead guys daughter would probably disagree with you if she could understand what just happened. In 20 years time she just might come hunt you down for your callousness.
Completely unproven. It could have been an even bigger bloodbath.
So, GMO is scary, but the fact that Cheerios barely resemble the produce they are derived from, no problem. All that processing couldn't possibly "change" the food in a bad way. The consumer is an idiot.
Nothing is more trite than comparing the evolution of X to the evolution of Y. But, please, why compare something useful (UNIX) to something useless (Religion)? Its journalistic masturbation. No one enjoys articles like this more than the person who wrote it in the first place.
And in lesson three, we'll learn the age old trick of going down to the local busy Starbucks with a fresh install of *OS and then use the Tor. This might extend the time it takes the feds to knock on your door to over 24 hours!
boohoo, you wont be missed
I see you are familiar with the catholic pope, but not the others.
Two infallible people at the same time would have to agree on everything. What I don't understand is is he infallible now? I mean, he admits he can't continue - surely a sign he is not infallible. Or does he only project into the future that one day he will no longer be infallible so he better get out now. But even then this is a sign that he is not infallible. This is the sort of thing that can keep you up at night until you realize what a load of horse shit this all is and you wonder why some people still bother with it. BTW why is he referred to as the "Pope". Other religious groups have popes too. Can we at least always refer to him as the "Catholic Pope".
I think there are many reasons to lump disbelief of global warming with the distrust of vaccines. Both groups of people have these beliefs, despite an overwhelming volume of data that says otherwise. Worse yet, showing these people data that contradicts their beliefs bizarrely reenforces the baseless beliefs. There is a common phenomenon (psychological) going on here, and it is worthy of study.
Its remarkable how many people criticizing this study have concluded the authors are socialists. How do you know? What is your evidence? You have already made up your mind that these researchers are just colluding with other scientists to make a political point that deniers of science are conspiracy nuts.
But you have no evidence at all. How many of you have already run off and read the paper yet... thoroughly? And yet, here you are condemning it. Wow! Good way to prove the authors point but announcing a conspiracy when you see science you don't like (but haven't read). Their work has just been beautifully f*$king demonstrated here in the comments section of /.
False analogy.
There is no equivalence between the biblical story and the scientific evidence. Firstly, one is a story, the other is evidence. Secondly, the bible then goes on to make several incorrect statements about the order of events that happened on earth, not to mention getting the time scale very very wrong. The final nail in the coffin is the story of the Ark. There are more species alive today than could possibly be stuffed into the Ark - and we 'know' the size of the ark well from the bible. Not to mention all these carnivorous animals, once off the ark somehow didn't eat one of the two non-carnivorous animals hence making that line extinct before the waters even receded. Lastly, how on earth did the Koala, which only eats a few species of eucalyptus leaves - only found in Australia - walk the long trek from the middle east, not eating anything along the way, to Australia and promptly wait for the local trees to regrow their leaves so they didn't starve to death?
I am always amazed how people can believe such stories after mankind came to understand the actual diversity of life on earth. It is truly an embarrassment to believe these old stories.
Well, engineers that solve problems in biological systems will use 'that'. But there is an additional problem with your comment. An engineer that accepts electrons can move through a metallic conductor when a voltage is applied because the evidence says so, but refuses to believe evolution despite the overwhelming evidence that it is true, is an engineer acting on faulty principles.
No, I don't trust them.
Please tell me you are some kind of time lord from the past and have just entered our time-line so you could post that comment.
I think I'll spend the rest of the day prying my palm from my forehead.
Never heard of biochemical engineering? Why is this even moded up to a score of 2 already?
Im a leftie and wear my watch on my left. I remember as a kid wearing it on my right and being called the F word (three letter F word) for doing it. So I wore it on the left and still do to this day. What wrist you have your watch around is not a telltale sign of anything. And to prove a point - to myself - I'm swapping sides for the rest of the day. I wonder if anyone will notice. hehehe - swapping sides - no pun intended.
Actually, lefties do become righties all the time. At least for certain tasks. As I posted above, left handers are forced to insert their ATM card into an ATM with their right hand, or do so very awkwardly with their left. So most just use their right. I cut paper with my right hand for the same reason.
Im a lefty too and I don't usually have problems in this right handed world - I deal. But then, I am fairly ambidextrous. You may be too.
I have never met a left hander who really had a lot of problems in this right handed world, but I have met many right handers who simply can not use a "left handed" piece of equipment either by using their left hand or by "flipping in their minds" how to use it. I have heard/seen of TV some left handers are also equally unable to do this, perhaps because they are extremely left handed.
I think the thing that is most annoying is when a right hander can not understand why you may be a little slower doing something with a right handed tool. It took me a long time to master using right handed scissors when I was a child. You have to use them with your right hand otherwise you can't see where you are cutting - I wonder how many right handers are aware of that? I no longer have any problem but I was "slower" than my school friends and yes I do remember my teachers and class mates interpreting that negatively - like I was some kind of 'retard'. ATMs are another device that comes to mind. I now get my card in my right hand when I approach, but this is not natural for me. If most right-handers encountered an ATM with the slots on the left, they would not be able to cope well at all (until they learn). Imagine the excuses they would use (like I have used) when they flub it. "Stupid design, who dreamt this up?". Most right handers simply do not understand how the world is designed for them.
On a side note, I once overheard a conversation where a guy was showing off an elaborate computer mouse to a co-worker. When asked by my co-worker if all these features would make it very hard for a left hander to use, this guy just snarked "who cares... who is left handed anyway?". This isn't exactly "handism" but I was pretty pissed off to overhear that. I wonder if that guy ever wonders why I never responded to his 'friend' requests on facebook and linkedin. Its not just because I barely know him.
Sure, its 1300 kcal/day when you are lucky enough to have to ride uphill, both to and from work. Some of us aren't so lucky.
Well I dont know if you are serious... but an increase in population could be expected for some species due to global warming. The only expected outcome from there being nor global climate change is populations would stay the same.
I think the northern reaches they are referring to are the northern areas of antarctica. Naturally this is where the loss of ice flows is happening first.
high resolution images were taken and used to count the total number of emperor penguin species on the continent
Since emperor penguins are a species, how can they count more than one species of Emperor Penguin?
We demand real proof
That is such a nice weasel word there.... 'real' proof. I'd like to hear what your definition of 'rea' proof is. It seems to me science is never 'real' when it contradicts ideology. This happens on both sides of politics, but IMHO happens on the right more than the left these days. Didn't used to be. This is why I hate politics and cherish the small sectors of society that place importance on science. Politics is too finicky.
However, most of the people who vote in line with this thinking do come from the south.