This is a serious comment. While a barking dog can be very annoying, assuming it isn't non-stop all day, if it is affecting you and your wife this much, you might seek professional health to relieve what ever stresses are causing you to be on edge. The reaction to the barking dog is probably just a symptom of something else going on and if the underlying issue isn't addressed, you, yourself, may act out and be the one in trouble. Think of people involved with road-rage. They are the ones who get in trouble, not the slower driver.
Besides, dogs bark for a reason. Either something attracts their attention and they bark or they are bored and they bark. If the latter, yelling at the dog or throwing something at it or any other response, actually gives the attention the dog is looking for and actually reinforces the behavior.
Talk to your neighbor, again, and explain the problem. There are wireless dog bark deterrents that aren't terribly expensive. Maybe the two of you could split the cost.
Seems a bit extreme and you are probably lucky that things didn't backfire and the neighbors and everybody turned against you and you were the one forced out.
You must not understand how H-1B works. Again, the example you give is meaningless, plumbers cannot get H-1B visas. However, let's say you have a brain tumor and you can have a neurosurgen with 25 years experience or a 26 year old H-1B visa. Which would you choose?
You seem to believe that experience doesn't amount to anything. Don't worry, one day you, too, will be downsized and see what the real world is like. Just like all of the Walt Disney programmers who were let go and replaced with H-1B workers that they even had to train.
H-1B has nothing to do with getting needed workers. It is a government sanctioned method to hold down wages and maximize profits. But, hey, you can believe whatever myth you want to. After all, it is a free country, at least for some.
There are legitimate reasons to take in foreign workers, that help fuel the economy and keep other jobs in the country; making the assumption that every visa given is also a displaced worker is just wrong.
Even Ted Cruz isn't asking for a complete stop to the visas, which indirectly is what you are asking for.
Limits its one thing, blocking them is another!
Since the economy is not a full employment, one cannot argue that foreign workers are needed, with the rare exception of truly unique jobs. IT jobs don't qualify as that. For 2013, the last year on record, Computer Science graduates, only 60% were hired in their field. Now, it is possible that the other 40% are worthless misfits, but that is unlikely. It is hard to argue that more IT workers need to be brought into the country when we can't even employee all of those with college degrees.
H-1B visas were originally designed when an somebody with expertise in a field, say a physicist or neurosurgeon wasn't available. Today, however, they are mainly used for general programming and tech support jobs.
I'm not suggesting stopping H-1B visas. I am suggesting that they be used as originally designed - hiring talent when such talent truly isn't available.
Why should employers train/retrain employees in basic skills? Do you expect to 'train' your doctor? Do you expect to 'train' the electrician who you hire to rewire your house?
If you want to get a job programming in R, learn R on your own and then apply.
When an employer brings in a new technology into an existing job, they are generally eager to train valued employees with potential in the new technology (less valued and easily replaced employees, of course, need not apply).
Employers shouldn't need to train employees in basic skills. H-1B visas aren't issued for jobs requiring basic skills. To hire an H-1B visa, one has to show that it is a special skill that is needed.
The problem is not as simple as if you want a job in R learn R. It is if you have been a programmer in X for 10 years for your company and they now switch to Y and lay you off and hire H-1B visa workers.
Your are wrong about companies wanting to retrain existing talent. Existing talent usually means experienced employees. Experienced employees usually are at a higher wage than a new inexperienced employee. Since both are going to need training, the experienced employee is let go and cheaper, younger employees are hired. However, that is still too costly, so the company goes for a foreign worker, because there are no cheap employees with the skill set needed. That is the rational behind H-1B workers and why it is displacing regular workers. It's all about the bottom line, not the skill set of the worker.
Better yet, instead of an artificial minimum wage, have them pay the wages of the displaced worker, PLUS the cost it would take to retrain the displaced worker PLUS the cost of vetting H-1B workers by the government.
Then, a business can determine if there truly are no qualified works, is it in their best interest to import labor or train their existing labor.
Of course businesses, particularly IT ones, will complain that if they train or retrain workers, the workers will just leave and they will still be out the money. The answer to that is simple -- quit treating your workers like shit!
Fuck'em....the needs (and benefits) of the many outweigh the needs (and benefits) of the few.
Wouldn't that apply to the poor, too? What you are really refering to is the common good, but in today's world, that tends to be equated with socialism and wealth redistribution. Is that really what you are proposing?
Besides, the Indians in the US seem to be doing pretty well with all the casinos and all they have now...plenty of money coming in.
Actually, suicide rates, unemployment, and poverty are at very high levels in the Indian nations in the US when compared with the population as a whole. While there is no doubt that the house always wins in a casino, it doesn't seem to equate to the well being of the local population.
Others have pointed out that this site is unique in many ways for this telescope. I don't doubt that. It could be a real boon to the scientific community. I don't doubt that. But what about the local population? If it is such a unique site and needed for the scientific community, should we be bending over backwards, you know, for the common good, to make sure the local people's needs are met and they are treated fairly?
Finally, if you want to include Star Trek morality, then you need to include it all, including the prime directive which in this case would mean, leave the indigenous people alone. Their rights, under the Federation of Planets, outweigh the needs of the many.
I don't disagree with you about the light pollution. My point was that if eminent domain is going to be used to take this land from the tribes in Hawaii, it could also be used to take away the land surrounding existing observatories or other suitable sites that is causing light pollution.
As for the "white oppressor," well, if you look at the growth and distribution of wealth in the Hawaiian Islands, it is evident that somebody is being oppressed, at least economically and it isn't the white people.
As for relocating millions of people, that was, of course, tongue in cheek. The point being that there truly are other suitable sites on the planet for a ground telescope to be built. If this is truly the only site, then it is quite valuable and the native people should be appropriately compensated for the use of their land.
Imminent domain is supposed to only be used when it is going to benefit the local community. While there is much benefit to the world wide scientific community, that does qualify for the State of Hawaii to seize land that was deeded to the local natives, any more than Oklahoma can seize land from the reservations because it was now found to be valuable because of oil.
Any time we start saying that rights don't apply to one group of people, we are effectively saying that we don't have them either.
Finally, and most importantly, since most astronomy is no longer done in the visible light spectrum, what are the cons to not building another ground based visible light telescope? Or what advantage over the existing telescopes, earth bound or not will this provide? If the goal is to further science, would these limited resources be better used for a different project?
The history of native rights in the US is highly speckled, but it has worked out well in the end. My nearest tribe, the Navajo, are aggressive Athabascans who invaded the region, conquering the agrarian Hopi, shortly before the era of white settlement, and have mined uranium on their lands ever since. What they did with it before the coming of Europeans was use the brilliantly colored oxides as pottery glazes. Today, they make a fortune selling uranium to the French. Oh, and the tribe's dispute with the Hopi was finally settled peacefully in the US courts, in 1974. That beats the warpath approach any time.
That's a bit like saying that the Holocaust worked out pretty well for the Jews. After all, they got Israel out of it.
This is ONE instance, that I might actually support the use of it....
You notice how eminent domain is never used against the one-percenters? Eminent domain, today, is only used against those who don't have the resources to fight against it.
I understand that the US has several good locations in the southwest, except for light pollution. Maybe eminent domain can be used for the government to take over those light polluting properties to use the existing telescopes?
This is why humanity needs to get over its reverence for religion, and why the work of people like Hitchens/Dawkins etc. toward that goal is so important. Some group of people who irrationally believe a volcano is a god should not have anything to do with out collectively gaining knowledge by building a telescope on it.
So, if it weren't for religious reasons, it would be alright to force people to give up their land? Regardless, these people have rights to the site in question. But if you need to use religion to force native people onto a reservation that's your choice. For centuries, the US and many nations have not had a problem forcing indigenous people off their land when something of value was found there. Why should the 21st century be any different?
And what of the dumb ass engineers at VW who can't figure out how to handle smog emissions while the car is moving? Does one really believe that VW is the place where fools go to work on cars?
Actually, your point is well taken. It is a general assumption that engineers will always do the right thing as if they are more noble than the rest of us. The reality is they have the same weaknesses as the rest of us and succumb to them just as readily.
One month does not make a trend. If Microsoft can string multiple sequential months together, than this will be news. Until then, it only means that in this particular month, more Microsoft tablets were sold. Interesting, but nothing more than that.
Believe it or not, the engineers designing these things have actually thought about these issues, and done extensive testing. If 1 meter spacing wasn't safe, they wouldn't be doing it.
If only engineers were able to set price points and profit margins. Engineers also wanted to add a $1 shied to the fuel tank of Ford Pintos, but management deemed it too costly. In the end, it isn't the engineers that make safety decisions. They are tasked with estimate how safe it can be at a certain price point. Today's cars could be significantly safer than they are now, but they would be priced out of the reach of most consumers.
Comparing self-driving cars to trains is idiotic. I can't take the train to the grocery store. A stream of self-driving cars may have half the bandwidth of a passing train, but not if you consider the gaps between trains, which are usually far more than the length of the train. A mile of passenger rail costs about $100M. A lane of asphalt costs about $1M per mile.
Actually, construction cost for a mile of high speed railroad track is $1M-$2M. For interstate highway, it is $1M -$5M. Neither of those figures includes land acquisition costs.
In reading the article, they aren't comparing cars to trains for going to the grocery store, but instead for commuting to the workplace, which is the majority of congestion/accident problems they are trying to solve.
"The fact that the cross-pollination takes hold, means that this could have occurred naturally, so we are just mimicking the natural process. On the other splicing the gene from one species of plant (or animal) to another, that could not otherwise occur in nature"....
Wrong. Please go back to school. GMO's are built by mimicking existing "natural" gene splicing processes, usually by mimicking the virus carrier method we observed in nature.
To manufacture a virus to insert a specific gene sequence into a specific species at a specific location is not a natural occurrence. Oh, it might use the same technique as a virus, probably why you chose the word "mimicking," but that doesn't mean it would have occurred naturally. Occurring in nature means that it could occur without human intervention.
Now, if you are saying that they found a naturally occurring virus that just happen to effect both species of fish involved and selects exactly the rich DNA sequence and transplants it into the other,well that is amazing indeed. I have no doubt that viri have played a role in evolution, but all of those viri occurred without human intervention. Put differently, if we have to manufacture the virus in question, then by definition, this could not have occurred in nature.
"Because/. is so full of Republicans. So full of Republicans."
Democrats used to do science too, remember. And they can once again.
Doing science and funding science are two different things. Unless they can increase their numbers in congress, it is unlikely that Democrats will be able to fund science anytime soon.
An orange grown from a orange tree that has been grafted onto the rootstock of another plant is genetically no different than an orange grown for an orange tree that has its own roots.
Irrelevant. I just want to know what I'm buying. I want to know if I'm buying an unnatural Franken-orange. Why are you supporting keeping that hidden from me?
See what I did there? You're partially right, but not entirely, about the genetics, by the way. While actual gene transfer from rootstock to scion shoot is, as far as I know, restricted to to point of tissue contact (although that does indeed happen), grafting has been shown to alter gene expression. Why or why not is that sufficient for labeling? And that's just one example of many I could use. Take bud sports for example, like Gale Gala and Autumn Gala, both naturally occurring somatic mutants of the original Gala apple. Not labeled, and even if they were, the average person has no idea what a bud sport is.
Orange trees are almost universally grafted. However, they are grafted onto -- orange roots and stems. It is my understanding that almost all oranges are hybrids because most orange trees are infertile. So, I guess you could be arguing that oranges that are grafted onto orange tree root stock should be labeled as such compared to oranges not grafted as such, but then again, the non-grafted ones don't exist, so all berries that we call oranges are grafted! However, I am not an expert on oranges, so maybe somebody else can chime in.
As for the apples, you mention. The fact that they are already differentiated as to type. Now, if they were all sold as plain Gala apples, that might be different. Then there are honey crisp apples that are relatively pricey because they are hand pollinated (or something like that). However, that information is readily available. It's not as if there are naturally occurring honey crisp apples and manipulated ones.
With the GMO salmon, however, there is no way to tell what type of salmon you are getting other than wild caught or farm raised. Obviously, the wild caught is not GMO, unless somebody starts releasing them, but the farm raised is still called salmon regardless of natural or modified. Now, if all GMO salmon were called some specific name, so there were differentiation as with apples, then it wouldn't be a problem.
We already do this with other livestock. So, what is so special about salmon to treat it differently?
I'm not categorically opposed to GMO food. However, I also know that just because we don't see a problem immediately does not mean there is a problem. There is a difference between cross-pollinating an apple to produce a different variant than to replacing specific genes. The fact that the cross-pollination takes hold, means that this could have occurred naturally, so we are just mimicking the natural process. On the other splicing the gene from one species of plant (or animal) to another, that could not otherwise occur in nature, "could" be problematic. It doesn't have to be, but without adequate research how does one know? And if adequate research has been completed and the results show it is harmless, then why not label it as such?
Of course, there will be some people who won't choose said product out of fear or ignorance. That is still their choice. However, we don't hide the contents of other products because people might object. When you go to get a vaccination, you are told what is in the vaccine. Yes there are people opposed to vaccinations, but not telling them what is in it won't change that and those who don't take the extreme anti-vaccination approach have the right to know.
If the government says we have the right to know what is in the vaccines that are injected into our arms, all the way down to the cell culture that created the vaccine, then why don't we have the right to know what or how the food we put in our mouths is made?
On a side note, the argument that the fish survive so it is okay is not a good one. First, it is to the best of our knowledge that they survive. Second, and more importantly, survival doesn't equate to no harm. Many people alive today survive even though they have some form of birth effect from some medication their mother took while pregnant -- often because we didn't know the side effects at the time. Survival, by itself, means just that, it survived, it doesn't equate to it being harmless (or harmful). There are many deformed frogs in Europe from all of the estrogen in the water. They, too, have survived and even reproduced. That doesn't mean the estrogen isn't a problem.
I am not actually arguing against GMO products. I am only questioning why the FDA would not have the products labeled? If they are afraid that the population won't accept the products and it will hurt big business, then big business should spend money to educate the public on the products. It's ironic that Monsanto has to tell the farmer that the corn they are buying is GMO and the farmer has to tell the wholesaler, but by the time it makes it to the consumer, we are told that we don't need to know.
It's not the FDAs job to protect the manufacturer. It is their job to protect the consumer. It is difficult to accept an argument that keeping the consumer in the dark about how their food is produced is beneficial to the consumer.
Just because something is labeled does not mean it is somehow worse than the non-labeled version. If I go to the store and purchase steak that is labeled hormone free or grass fed, I am not being told that the product is inferior. Granted, those aren't FDA mandated labels. But, even then, a lot of FDA mandated labeling is neutral. If I am told how many carbs or how much fiber my cereal has, it is neutral, because all other cereals have those ingredients.
It is just informational for the benefit of the consumer, so they know what they are purchasing, so they can make informed decisions about the food they eat. The same is true, or should be, with GMO products. Whether harmful or not, as a consumer, I should know where my food comes from. I'm told if I am buying fortified milk or enriched wheat. Why should I not be told if the food I am purchasing is genetically fortified or enriched?
Assuming the products are indeed safe (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise), shouldn't they be labeled like everything else and those companies wanting to produce them educate the population? After all, if they have nothing to hide with GMO, then why hide that it is GMO?
While that is true, it also suffers from the failings of math. The hypothesis is that life is the transmission of information. Okay, then instead of asking how life began, the question becomes where did the information come from that is being transmitted?
In other words, if life is the transmission of information and there is no information to transmit, then there is no life. Since there is life, there must have been information to transmit, so where did it come from?
If the universe recycles, the laws of nature will be the same, and will output the same universe, any idiot savant knows that information.
If what you say is true, then the universe must not recycle because according to physicists much smarter than me, the laws of nature did change from what they were at the moment the universe came into existence and what they are now (or even a few nanoseconds after it came into existence).
Of course he doesn't because he is an atheist. God created life and it will take a long time for this liberal dumbass to figure that out and start using real science.
I am not an atheist, and while I accept that God started it, I don't have a clue as to how God did it.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a serious comment. While a barking dog can be very annoying, assuming it isn't non-stop all day, if it is affecting you and your wife this much, you might seek professional health to relieve what ever stresses are causing you to be on edge. The reaction to the barking dog is probably just a symptom of something else going on and if the underlying issue isn't addressed, you, yourself, may act out and be the one in trouble. Think of people involved with road-rage. They are the ones who get in trouble, not the slower driver.
Besides, dogs bark for a reason. Either something attracts their attention and they bark or they are bored and they bark. If the latter, yelling at the dog or throwing something at it or any other response, actually gives the attention the dog is looking for and actually reinforces the behavior.
Talk to your neighbor, again, and explain the problem. There are wireless dog bark deterrents that aren't terribly expensive. Maybe the two of you could split the cost.
Seems a bit extreme and you are probably lucky that things didn't backfire and the neighbors and everybody turned against you and you were the one forced out.
You must not understand how H-1B works. Again, the example you give is meaningless, plumbers cannot get H-1B visas. However, let's say you have a brain tumor and you can have a neurosurgen with 25 years experience or a 26 year old H-1B visa. Which would you choose?
You seem to believe that experience doesn't amount to anything. Don't worry, one day you, too, will be downsized and see what the real world is like. Just like all of the Walt Disney programmers who were let go and replaced with H-1B workers that they even had to train.
H-1B has nothing to do with getting needed workers. It is a government sanctioned method to hold down wages and maximize profits. But, hey, you can believe whatever myth you want to. After all, it is a free country, at least for some.
There are legitimate reasons to take in foreign workers, that help fuel the economy and keep other jobs in the country; making the assumption that every visa given is also a displaced worker is just wrong.
Even Ted Cruz isn't asking for a complete stop to the visas, which indirectly is what you are asking for.
Limits its one thing, blocking them is another!
Since the economy is not a full employment, one cannot argue that foreign workers are needed, with the rare exception of truly unique jobs. IT jobs don't qualify as that. For 2013, the last year on record, Computer Science graduates, only 60% were hired in their field. Now, it is possible that the other 40% are worthless misfits, but that is unlikely. It is hard to argue that more IT workers need to be brought into the country when we can't even employee all of those with college degrees.
H-1B visas were originally designed when an somebody with expertise in a field, say a physicist or neurosurgeon wasn't available. Today, however, they are mainly used for general programming and tech support jobs.
I'm not suggesting stopping H-1B visas. I am suggesting that they be used as originally designed - hiring talent when such talent truly isn't available.
Why should employers train/retrain employees in basic skills? Do you expect to 'train' your doctor? Do you expect to 'train' the electrician who you hire to rewire your house?
If you want to get a job programming in R, learn R on your own and then apply.
When an employer brings in a new technology into an existing job, they are generally eager to train valued employees with potential in the new technology (less valued and easily replaced employees, of course, need not apply).
Employers shouldn't need to train employees in basic skills. H-1B visas aren't issued for jobs requiring basic skills. To hire an H-1B visa, one has to show that it is a special skill that is needed.
The problem is not as simple as if you want a job in R learn R. It is if you have been a programmer in X for 10 years for your company and they now switch to Y and lay you off and hire H-1B visa workers.
Your are wrong about companies wanting to retrain existing talent. Existing talent usually means experienced employees. Experienced employees usually are at a higher wage than a new inexperienced employee. Since both are going to need training, the experienced employee is let go and cheaper, younger employees are hired. However, that is still too costly, so the company goes for a foreign worker, because there are no cheap employees with the skill set needed. That is the rational behind H-1B workers and why it is displacing regular workers. It's all about the bottom line, not the skill set of the worker.
Better yet, instead of an artificial minimum wage, have them pay the wages of the displaced worker, PLUS the cost it would take to retrain the displaced worker PLUS the cost of vetting H-1B workers by the government.
Then, a business can determine if there truly are no qualified works, is it in their best interest to import labor or train their existing labor.
Of course businesses, particularly IT ones, will complain that if they train or retrain workers, the workers will just leave and they will still be out the money. The answer to that is simple -- quit treating your workers like shit!
Fuck'em....the needs (and benefits) of the many outweigh the needs (and benefits) of the few.
Wouldn't that apply to the poor, too? What you are really refering to is the common good, but in today's world, that tends to be equated with socialism and wealth redistribution. Is that really what you are proposing?
Besides, the Indians in the US seem to be doing pretty well with all the casinos and all they have now...plenty of money coming in.
Actually, suicide rates, unemployment, and poverty are at very high levels in the Indian nations in the US when compared with the population as a whole. While there is no doubt that the house always wins in a casino, it doesn't seem to equate to the well being of the local population.
Others have pointed out that this site is unique in many ways for this telescope. I don't doubt that. It could be a real boon to the scientific community. I don't doubt that. But what about the local population? If it is such a unique site and needed for the scientific community, should we be bending over backwards, you know, for the common good, to make sure the local people's needs are met and they are treated fairly?
Finally, if you want to include Star Trek morality, then you need to include it all, including the prime directive which in this case would mean, leave the indigenous people alone. Their rights, under the Federation of Planets, outweigh the needs of the many.
I don't disagree with you about the light pollution. My point was that if eminent domain is going to be used to take this land from the tribes in Hawaii, it could also be used to take away the land surrounding existing observatories or other suitable sites that is causing light pollution.
As for the "white oppressor," well, if you look at the growth and distribution of wealth in the Hawaiian Islands, it is evident that somebody is being oppressed, at least economically and it isn't the white people.
As for relocating millions of people, that was, of course, tongue in cheek. The point being that there truly are other suitable sites on the planet for a ground telescope to be built. If this is truly the only site, then it is quite valuable and the native people should be appropriately compensated for the use of their land.
Imminent domain is supposed to only be used when it is going to benefit the local community. While there is much benefit to the world wide scientific community, that does qualify for the State of Hawaii to seize land that was deeded to the local natives, any more than Oklahoma can seize land from the reservations because it was now found to be valuable because of oil.
Any time we start saying that rights don't apply to one group of people, we are effectively saying that we don't have them either.
Finally, and most importantly, since most astronomy is no longer done in the visible light spectrum, what are the cons to not building another ground based visible light telescope? Or what advantage over the existing telescopes, earth bound or not will this provide? If the goal is to further science, would these limited resources be better used for a different project?
The history of native rights in the US is highly speckled, but it has worked out well in the end. My nearest tribe, the Navajo, are aggressive Athabascans who invaded the region, conquering the agrarian Hopi, shortly before the era of white settlement, and have mined uranium on their lands ever since. What they did with it before the coming of Europeans was use the brilliantly colored oxides as pottery glazes. Today, they make a fortune selling uranium to the French. Oh, and the tribe's dispute with the Hopi was finally settled peacefully in the US courts, in 1974. That beats the warpath approach any time.
That's a bit like saying that the Holocaust worked out pretty well for the Jews. After all, they got Israel out of it.
The govt uses eminent domain all the time....
This is ONE instance, that I might actually support the use of it....
You notice how eminent domain is never used against the one-percenters? Eminent domain, today, is only used against those who don't have the resources to fight against it.
I understand that the US has several good locations in the southwest, except for light pollution. Maybe eminent domain can be used for the government to take over those light polluting properties to use the existing telescopes?
The outcome didn't turn out pretty well for the Native Americans, actually quite the opposite for those during those times and even today.
This is why humanity needs to get over its reverence for religion, and why the work of people like Hitchens/Dawkins etc. toward that goal is so important. Some group of people who irrationally believe a volcano is a god should not have anything to do with out collectively gaining knowledge by building a telescope on it.
So, if it weren't for religious reasons, it would be alright to force people to give up their land? Regardless, these people have rights to the site in question. But if you need to use religion to force native people onto a reservation that's your choice. For centuries, the US and many nations have not had a problem forcing indigenous people off their land when something of value was found there. Why should the 21st century be any different?
And what of the dumb ass engineers at VW who can't figure out how to handle smog emissions while the car is moving? Does one really believe that VW is the place where fools go to work on cars?
Actually, your point is well taken. It is a general assumption that engineers will always do the right thing as if they are more noble than the rest of us. The reality is they have the same weaknesses as the rest of us and succumb to them just as readily.
One month does not make a trend. If Microsoft can string multiple sequential months together, than this will be news. Until then, it only means that in this particular month, more Microsoft tablets were sold. Interesting, but nothing more than that.
Believe it or not, the engineers designing these things have actually thought about these issues, and done extensive testing. If 1 meter spacing wasn't safe, they wouldn't be doing it.
If only engineers were able to set price points and profit margins. Engineers also wanted to add a $1 shied to the fuel tank of Ford Pintos, but management deemed it too costly. In the end, it isn't the engineers that make safety decisions. They are tasked with estimate how safe it can be at a certain price point. Today's cars could be significantly safer than they are now, but they would be priced out of the reach of most consumers.
Comparing self-driving cars to trains is idiotic. I can't take the train to the grocery store. A stream of self-driving cars may have half the bandwidth of a passing train, but not if you consider the gaps between trains, which are usually far more than the length of the train. A mile of passenger rail costs about $100M. A lane of asphalt costs about $1M per mile.
Actually, construction cost for a mile of high speed railroad track is $1M-$2M. For interstate highway, it is $1M -$5M. Neither of those figures includes land acquisition costs.
In reading the article, they aren't comparing cars to trains for going to the grocery store, but instead for commuting to the workplace, which is the majority of congestion/accident problems they are trying to solve.
"The fact that the cross-pollination takes hold, means that this could have occurred naturally, so we are just mimicking the natural process. On the other splicing the gene from one species of plant (or animal) to another, that could not otherwise occur in nature"....
Wrong. Please go back to school. GMO's are built by mimicking existing "natural" gene splicing processes, usually by mimicking the virus carrier method we observed in nature.
To manufacture a virus to insert a specific gene sequence into a specific species at a specific location is not a natural occurrence. Oh, it might use the same technique as a virus, probably why you chose the word "mimicking," but that doesn't mean it would have occurred naturally. Occurring in nature means that it could occur without human intervention.
Now, if you are saying that they found a naturally occurring virus that just happen to effect both species of fish involved and selects exactly the rich DNA sequence and transplants it into the other,well that is amazing indeed. I have no doubt that viri have played a role in evolution, but all of those viri occurred without human intervention. Put differently, if we have to manufacture the virus in question, then by definition, this could not have occurred in nature.
I don't get why we need to send meat bags to Mars?
Because it is a way to repay powerful donors who are major shareholders of companies that are otherwise too big to fail.
"Because /. is so full of Republicans. So full of Republicans."
Democrats used to do science too, remember. And they can once again.
Doing science and funding science are two different things. Unless they can increase their numbers in congress, it is unlikely that Democrats will be able to fund science anytime soon.
An orange grown from a orange tree that has been grafted onto the rootstock of another plant is genetically no different than an orange grown for an orange tree that has its own roots.
Irrelevant. I just want to know what I'm buying. I want to know if I'm buying an unnatural Franken-orange. Why are you supporting keeping that hidden from me?
See what I did there? You're partially right, but not entirely, about the genetics, by the way. While actual gene transfer from rootstock to scion shoot is, as far as I know, restricted to to point of tissue contact (although that does indeed happen), grafting has been shown to alter gene expression. Why or why not is that sufficient for labeling? And that's just one example of many I could use. Take bud sports for example, like Gale Gala and Autumn Gala, both naturally occurring somatic mutants of the original Gala apple. Not labeled, and even if they were, the average person has no idea what a bud sport is.
Orange trees are almost universally grafted. However, they are grafted onto -- orange roots and stems. It is my understanding that almost all oranges are hybrids because most orange trees are infertile. So, I guess you could be arguing that oranges that are grafted onto orange tree root stock should be labeled as such compared to oranges not grafted as such, but then again, the non-grafted ones don't exist, so all berries that we call oranges are grafted! However, I am not an expert on oranges, so maybe somebody else can chime in.
As for the apples, you mention. The fact that they are already differentiated as to type. Now, if they were all sold as plain Gala apples, that might be different. Then there are honey crisp apples that are relatively pricey because they are hand pollinated (or something like that). However, that information is readily available. It's not as if there are naturally occurring honey crisp apples and manipulated ones.
With the GMO salmon, however, there is no way to tell what type of salmon you are getting other than wild caught or farm raised. Obviously, the wild caught is not GMO, unless somebody starts releasing them, but the farm raised is still called salmon regardless of natural or modified. Now, if all GMO salmon were called some specific name, so there were differentiation as with apples, then it wouldn't be a problem.
We already do this with other livestock. So, what is so special about salmon to treat it differently?
I'm not categorically opposed to GMO food. However, I also know that just because we don't see a problem immediately does not mean there is a problem. There is a difference between cross-pollinating an apple to produce a different variant than to replacing specific genes. The fact that the cross-pollination takes hold, means that this could have occurred naturally, so we are just mimicking the natural process. On the other splicing the gene from one species of plant (or animal) to another, that could not otherwise occur in nature, "could" be problematic. It doesn't have to be, but without adequate research how does one know? And if adequate research has been completed and the results show it is harmless, then why not label it as such?
Of course, there will be some people who won't choose said product out of fear or ignorance. That is still their choice. However, we don't hide the contents of other products because people might object. When you go to get a vaccination, you are told what is in the vaccine. Yes there are people opposed to vaccinations, but not telling them what is in it won't change that and those who don't take the extreme anti-vaccination approach have the right to know.
If the government says we have the right to know what is in the vaccines that are injected into our arms, all the way down to the cell culture that created the vaccine, then why don't we have the right to know what or how the food we put in our mouths is made?
On a side note, the argument that the fish survive so it is okay is not a good one. First, it is to the best of our knowledge that they survive. Second, and more importantly, survival doesn't equate to no harm. Many people alive today survive even though they have some form of birth effect from some medication their mother took while pregnant -- often because we didn't know the side effects at the time. Survival, by itself, means just that, it survived, it doesn't equate to it being harmless (or harmful). There are many deformed frogs in Europe from all of the estrogen in the water. They, too, have survived and even reproduced. That doesn't mean the estrogen isn't a problem.
I am not actually arguing against GMO products. I am only questioning why the FDA would not have the products labeled? If they are afraid that the population won't accept the products and it will hurt big business, then big business should spend money to educate the public on the products. It's ironic that Monsanto has to tell the farmer that the corn they are buying is GMO and the farmer has to tell the wholesaler, but by the time it makes it to the consumer, we are told that we don't need to know.
It's not the FDAs job to protect the manufacturer. It is their job to protect the consumer. It is difficult to accept an argument that keeping the consumer in the dark about how their food is produced is beneficial to the consumer.
Just because something is labeled does not mean it is somehow worse than the non-labeled version. If I go to the store and purchase steak that is labeled hormone free or grass fed, I am not being told that the product is inferior. Granted, those aren't FDA mandated labels. But, even then, a lot of FDA mandated labeling is neutral. If I am told how many carbs or how much fiber my cereal has, it is neutral, because all other cereals have those ingredients.
It is just informational for the benefit of the consumer, so they know what they are purchasing, so they can make informed decisions about the food they eat. The same is true, or should be, with GMO products. Whether harmful or not, as a consumer, I should know where my food comes from. I'm told if I am buying fortified milk or enriched wheat. Why should I not be told if the food I am purchasing is genetically fortified or enriched?
Assuming the products are indeed safe (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise), shouldn't they be labeled like everything else and those companies wanting to produce them educate the population? After all, if they have nothing to hide with GMO, then why hide that it is GMO?
It's all just mathematics at the end of the day.
While that is true, it also suffers from the failings of math. The hypothesis is that life is the transmission of information. Okay, then instead of asking how life began, the question becomes where did the information come from that is being transmitted?
In other words, if life is the transmission of information and there is no information to transmit, then there is no life. Since there is life, there must have been information to transmit, so where did it come from?
If the universe recycles, the laws of nature will be the same, and will output the same universe, any idiot savant knows that information.
If what you say is true, then the universe must not recycle because according to physicists much smarter than me, the laws of nature did change from what they were at the moment the universe came into existence and what they are now (or even a few nanoseconds after it came into existence).
Of course he doesn't because he is an atheist. God created life and it will take a long time for this liberal dumbass to figure that out and start using real science.
I am not an atheist, and while I accept that God started it, I don't have a clue as to how God did it.