One of the major difficulties with this telescope doesn't have anything to do with the telescope itself, but how to handle the 30 Terabytes of data gathered each clear night. How many of us have 30 TB of storage at all, let alone storing and analyzing an additional 30 TB of data a night.
You just have one small problem. Their is no incentive for the content holder to make the content public. The content holder must be able to make a living. The conent holder should be the artist who created the work. But their is nothing in you business model for the artist to survive on.
What makes you think Iraqi people didn't want to be free or considered themselves captive? The opinion polls I have seen indicate the Iraqi people are glad Saddam no longer rules them and they want democracy. They also belive the Americans are occupiers.
While I am not as cynical as you, I agree it will take a decade before we can really hazard a good guess as to whether the liberation was a good idea or not. Too many people, in America and the rest of the world, expect instant results and if they don't get them assume things are going badly.
Apparently, you have never heard of FAR. No not the Federal Aviation Regulations, the Federal Acquisition Regulations. These regs set up how the government buys things. From multimillion dollar jets to paperclips, if you work for the government you got to follow those rules. And if it ain't in the regs, you can't do it unless you get a waiver. Who decides who gets a waiver depends upon how much money gets spent. The more money is spent, the higher up the food chain you got to go to get the waiver. And in regards to money, Congress, not the President, is king. So the prizes NASA would like to offer are probably in the area where Congress likes to play and NASA, nor President Bush can change that. So if you really want NASA to be able to award these prizes, convince your congressman.
And I guess France's $100 Billion contract to develop Oil Fields in Iraq had nothing to do with their reluctance to support the US? And don't forget Russia's contracts as well. And Canada's Premeir during the Gulf War son-in-law was on the board of the French company that had the $100 Billion contract.
It has also been argued, based off of French statements, that they trying to set themselves, with Germany and possibly Russia as the counterpart to the US in the post cold war.
And enormous financial and diplomatic pressures were put on many countries by opponents of the war as well.
In otherwords, just normal diplomatic maneuvering the the world.
It is being worked on, and you might be able to use it. The Astronomical League has a group working to put a telescope on the ISS. From what I know, about 50% of the time will be dedicated for educational purposes (schools) and the other 50% will be for the public at large. Google for ISS-AT and check out what you see.
Also, scientist have developed ways to minimize the effects of the atmosphere. They can't eliminate it to the point where the differences between the major observatories and Hubble aren't as much as before. Google for "adaptive optics".
We have already designed devices to survive uncontrolled reentry. The RPG most deep space probes use for power are designed not only for surviving launch accidents, they are also designed to survive accidental reentry. Now of course the problem is slightly different but this particular problem probably can be solved.
I work for the government so I looked it up in the Federal Acquisition Regulations, based on the law. If a patent results as a result of a government funded research program, the person or corporation who performed the research gets the patent. The government has an unlimited license to use the patent for government purpose. If someone or some corporation has an interest in the patent, they need to contact the patent holder for a license.
It is my belief the intent of this is for the government to hold a minimum number if any of patents. I'm not sure if a government employee gets a patent if he created the patent on government time with goverment resources (I didn't look this up). I do know the government employee will get money if the patent has commercial uses. The government is not in the business of holding patents. If a patent with commercial potential is created with government money, the government will not get in the way of the patent holder. This is typical of how the government deals with Intellectual Property. The government will want free use of Intellectual Property for government uses but otherwise it doesn't care.
Don't forget a patent, (just to show my government background) unless the patent deals with classified information, is public information.
My own personal viewpoint on Corporate-Sponsored Reasearch is it has been around as long as science has. Very few scientists or inventors have been rich enough to fund their own research. To say this is a new phenomenon is to be ignorant of scientific history. One astronomical bit of history showing this point is the planet Uranus was originally named after the King of England by the discoverer, William Herschel. I would say he was trying to curry favor. As it was, the King was at least cognizant of the Herschel and named him Royal Astronomer or so I believe.
I'm not intentionally trying to be a troll so bear with me.
From what I can tell the majority of the pro-GPL arguments seems to be the owner of the copyright chooses the license by which distribution and use of the copyrighted material is controlled. Now the argument in this particular case is the vendor is violating the GPL by only providing the modified GPL source material while keeping the rest of the code propietary. The argument goes since the GPL'ed code is central to the overall program, the rest of the code should fall under the GPL.
Now here goes the potential troll section.
The originator of the GPL'ed code is controlling the distribution of the GPL'ed code by dictating the terms by which the code can be used. If I were to write a license so the material can only be viewed by an approved viewer, according to the main argument expressed in the comments written by pro-GPL commentators, how could a user view the material by an unapproved viewer? The fact the viewer may not be used with the user's favorite tool is immaterial. The user can always get an approved viewer. Fair Use would not necessarily apply because the user has access to an approved viewer, not necessarily a convient one.
For those who haven't figured it out, IANAL and the case I'm talking about involves the MPAA. Personally, I think what the MPAA is doing is stupid and things like the CSS and the regional codes should go away. I don't think I like the viral nature of the GPL because I think it overly restricts the options of the developer. By dictating the terms by which code associated with GPL'ed may be distributed, the GPL is forcing the software to be open not by the superiority of Open Software Process but because of strong arm tactics. Open Software should stand on it's own not be propped up by methods by which Open Software proponents would ordinarily decry.
So just because Microsoft was unethical, the Judge can be unethical? Judges are supposded to try to maintain at least the appearance of impartiality throughout the case including appeals. By making the statements he has thrown the Statements of Fact into question, leading to the possibility the Court of Appeals will remand the case to a lower court for a FULL retrial, not just a new verdict. The Judge also said the Appeals court was wrong in an earlier case. Generally, lower court judges base their opinions not only on the facts of the case but prior rulings, especially rulings by a higher court. Without a change in the facts of the case, for a lower court judge to overturn a higher court decision is probably unheard of. And when I read the statements of fact, I got the impression he was disrespectful of the higher court. That is not a recipe for having a decision upheld.
As a US government employee I thought I would illuminate people on US Government policies on buying software.
As a starting point, there are several default clauses the Government uses in buying software.
For all software the government pays for the development for they get "unlimited use." This means they can do whatever they want with the software. This does not mean the company that wrote the software can't sell it. What it does mean that if company A wrote the software and is selling it, the government can, if it thinks it is in the government's best interest, set up company B as a competitor.
If the government pays for part of the development and a private company pays for the rest, the government gets "limited rights." This means the government can do whatever it wants to the software inside the government and for government contracts. If company A writes the software the government can give software to company B to work on a government contract. However company B can't sell the software without a contract with company A.
If the government buys off-the-shelf software, like Microsoft Word, they are limited just like everyone else to the EULA.
The above rights can be negotiated away for the proper exchange of services or money. Say if company A wants to sell the software it writes for the government and not let the government set up a competitor it can accept less money for the contract and the contract will use the "limited use" clause.
By the way, I know for a fact some government agencies use Linux. There is no requirement that all government computers run Microsoft Windows. Some computers the government uses can't run Microsoft Windows;).
Of course the people he raped and murdered were also rapists and murderers themselves, so who was more evil, the one's who won or the ones who lost.
In the amount of "evilness" or "goodness" in races or cultures, all people and cultures are created equal. No one race or culture is "inocent". All have their good guys and bad guys. In some cases, the good guys won. In some others, the bad guys. But most of the time, neither of the sides is any more evil or more good than the other. They just have a different viewpoint.
Just because there is no Big Bad Bogeyman doesn't mean there aren't problems in the world where the US military might do some good. The US military has been deployed more times in the last 8 years than since the cold war started. Maybe since the US began! Many of the aircraft are older than the pilots who fly them. In some cases, they are flying the same aircraft their grandfather could have flown. Promising programs which might fit tomorrows world better are canceled to pay for parts and gas to keep today's equipment going. People are leaving the military in record numbers because the strain on them and their families is too great. Rules are being changed to make the former administration look good.
Unfortunately, the military for the last 8 years was asked to do more with less. It may not hurt us today. But it will tomorrow unless it is changed.
Note I'm not asking for a huge budget increase. What I do want is a realistic budget (and force size) for the operations being conducted without the future being mortgaged.
And if you are a madman who has killed millions of your own people why would you care? What if you were a religious fanatic who thought it was a good idea to steal a nuke and start the Armaggedon? Of course, they may not use a missile but why not shut off one avenue. Especially since it looks like the technology might work.
Bush rescinded a Hate Crimes Bill? When? When did he get the power? He did sign one. He didn't sign another one which was favored by the Byrd family. For this he was basically accused of murder. I guess he thought killing people twice was a little much.
But the money the US gives them allows them to free up other money for abortions. So in a sense we do pay for it. Sort of like using the money not spent on Microsoft products for prank phone calls to Bill;)
Our educational system is bad? Washington D.C. was burned by the British in the War of 1812 (As we US Citizens called the war). They came by sea not land. The only thing Canada had to do with it is maybe the ships carrying the troops started their last leg of the journey in Canada. The colonials in the land now known as the USA also had a lot to do with Canada being run by the British. The French and Indian War had a lot of colonial action in it. Seems it taught people like George Washington how to fight wars.
I was in Canada recently and people I was with complained how most doctors who are trained there end up in the US. They see a problem coming up where there might not be enough doctors to man your universal health care.
From what I understand, they have consistently upheld state's rights except when a federal law or constitutional issue is at stake. Seven judges held the Florida Supreme Court's decision violated a Constitutional right so the state's rights issue didn't matter.
Now whether their political philosophy, such as who they favored for President, played any role in deciding if there was a fedral issue at stake is another story. That is entirely possible. Just as it possible the Florida Supreme Court decided based on who they favored for President not what a reasonable interpretation of the Florida law or if there interpretation violated any US constitutional issue.
Just imagine, a man, with many influential friends, who makes millions by speculating in the stock market (he obviously rigged the system in his own favor). From what I gather, this is the sort of man Ralph Nader is running against.
Except, this man IS Ralph Nader.
According to the Washington Post, Ralph Nader is a rich man, probably in the top 1% in the US in wealth. He owns stock in companies like Cisco. Do you think he made his money by researching public records, like most ordinary citizens would have to do? That question is for you to answer.
I just thought this was interesting.
By the way, none of the candidates fully represents all my opinions. Not voting is a cop-out. If you don't vote, the politicians most likely will ignore you completely. If you do vote, you are participating in the system and can help make it better. Choose the person who best represents your thoughts and opinions, whether it is George Bush, Al Gore, Ralph Nader, or Mickey Mouse, it doesn't matter. Voting is the way people speak in a republic (The US is a republic, not a democracy. Pure democracy would cause more problems than they would solve.). The people you elect become your voice in the government. If you don't speak, how are people going to listen to you?
They solve the tracking problem by moving the secondary. The effect is to make the main mirror effectively smaller than it really is. An example of a radio telescope like this is the Arecebo (sp?) telescope. The Hoberly-Edderly (sp?) telescope in Texas is similar as well. I not sure the primary moves, but it doesn't move very much. They do most of the tracking with the secondary. Makes for a cheaper telescope but you can't see parts of the sky. Always got to be some sort of tradeoff. Personally I can't wait for the OWL telescope to be built. Imagine a mirror 100 meters in diameter (for those metrically challenged, wider than a football field).
It isn't hard to get much better accuracy than 20 meters. By establishing a standard reference somewhere on the airport where they have accurately know the position. Since the accuracy of GPS is fairly constant over the distances involved in airports, they probably can figure out the distances to within a meter or two at the worst.
Uh, regarding atomic energy. The reason the first use was by the military was the timing. Seems we were in a global war with this madman when the technology was developed. We reasoned we would rather have it first. Also, Japan's goverment during the war never wanted to surrender. They were overulled by their Emperor. Some of them even tried to overthrow their Emperor. The best estimates of casulties for the invasion of Japan were around 2 million for the allies (read mostly Americans). Just imagine how high they would have been for the Japanese. After the hot war (World War II) ended, a Cold War among the former allies started. Two competing ideologies managed to keep their hawks in check and just fought mainly through subsidiaries till the late 1980's. Again many more people lived than would have died.
The reason atomic energy never reached it potential here on earth had nothing to do with the technology or the science, it had more to do with bureacrats and politics. In the US in particular the paperwork costs and politics demanding no risk had more to do with atomic energy dying than the science or the technology. Oh and by the way we can't get rid of all nuclear reactors. We don't know how. Besides, I'm a little to fond of the sun and the stars to do that.
So it seems the problem isn't in the science it's in the people. Maybe the Biotech people can fix that;).
Of course, the reason it is unsafe is because, some people said so. From what I understand, every time this "unsafe" meat is studied they can't find anything unsafe about it. Including the European Union own scientists. It really makes you wonder if the problem really is about the beef?
Slashdot Mirror
One of the major difficulties with this telescope doesn't have anything to do with the telescope itself, but how to handle the 30 Terabytes of data gathered each clear night. How many of us have 30 TB of storage at all, let alone storing and analyzing an additional 30 TB of data a night.
George Bush got almost 33%???? The election had to be rigged!!
You just have one small problem. Their is no incentive for the content holder to make the content public. The content holder must be able to make a living. The conent holder should be the artist who created the work. But their is nothing in you business model for the artist to survive on.
What makes you think Iraqi people didn't want to be free or considered themselves captive? The opinion polls I have seen indicate the Iraqi people are glad Saddam no longer rules them and they want democracy. They also belive the Americans are occupiers.
While I am not as cynical as you, I agree it will take a decade before we can really hazard a good guess as to whether the liberation was a good idea or not. Too many people, in America and the rest of the world, expect instant results and if they don't get them assume things are going badly.
Apparently, you have never heard of FAR. No not the Federal Aviation Regulations, the Federal Acquisition Regulations. These regs set up how the government buys things. From multimillion dollar jets to paperclips, if you work for the government you got to follow those rules. And if it ain't in the regs, you can't do it unless you get a waiver. Who decides who gets a waiver depends upon how much money gets spent. The more money is spent, the higher up the food chain you got to go to get the waiver. And in regards to money, Congress, not the President, is king. So the prizes NASA would like to offer are probably in the area where Congress likes to play and NASA, nor President Bush can change that. So if you really want NASA to be able to award these prizes, convince your congressman.
And I guess France's $100 Billion contract to develop Oil Fields in Iraq had nothing to do with their reluctance to support the US? And don't forget Russia's contracts as well. And Canada's Premeir during the Gulf War son-in-law was on the board of the French company that had the $100 Billion contract.
It has also been argued, based off of French statements, that they trying to set themselves, with Germany and possibly Russia as the counterpart to the US in the post cold war.
And enormous financial and diplomatic pressures were put on many countries by opponents of the war as well.
In otherwords, just normal diplomatic maneuvering the the world.
It is being worked on, and you might be able to use it. The Astronomical League has a group working to put a telescope on the ISS. From what I know, about 50% of the time will be dedicated for educational purposes (schools) and the other 50% will be for the public at large. Google for ISS-AT and check out what you see.
Also, scientist have developed ways to minimize the effects of the atmosphere. They can't eliminate it to the point where the differences between the major observatories and Hubble aren't as much as before. Google for "adaptive optics".
We have already designed devices to survive uncontrolled reentry. The RPG most deep space probes use for power are designed not only for surviving launch accidents, they are also designed to survive accidental reentry. Now of course the problem is slightly different but this particular problem probably can be solved.
I work for the government so I looked it up in the Federal Acquisition Regulations, based on the law. If a patent results as a result of a government funded research program, the person or corporation who performed the research gets the patent. The government has an unlimited license to use the patent for government purpose. If someone or some corporation has an interest in the patent, they need to contact the patent holder for a license.
It is my belief the intent of this is for the government to hold a minimum number if any of patents. I'm not sure if a government employee gets a patent if he created the patent on government time with goverment resources (I didn't look this up). I do know the government employee will get money if the patent has commercial uses. The government is not in the business of holding patents. If a patent with commercial potential is created with government money, the government will not get in the way of the patent holder. This is typical of how the government deals with Intellectual Property. The government will want free use of Intellectual Property for government uses but otherwise it doesn't care.
Don't forget a patent, (just to show my government background) unless the patent deals with classified information, is public information.
My own personal viewpoint on Corporate-Sponsored Reasearch is it has been around as long as science has. Very few scientists or inventors have been rich enough to fund their own research. To say this is a new phenomenon is to be ignorant of scientific history. One astronomical bit of history showing this point is the planet Uranus was originally named after the King of England by the discoverer, William Herschel. I would say he was trying to curry favor. As it was, the King was at least cognizant of the Herschel and named him Royal Astronomer or so I believe.
I'm not intentionally trying to be a troll so bear with me.
From what I can tell the majority of the pro-GPL arguments seems to be the owner of the copyright chooses the license by which distribution and use of the copyrighted material is controlled. Now the argument in this particular case is the vendor is violating the GPL by only providing the modified GPL source material while keeping the rest of the code propietary. The argument goes since the GPL'ed code is central to the overall program, the rest of the code should fall under the GPL.
Now here goes the potential troll section.
The originator of the GPL'ed code is controlling the distribution of the GPL'ed code by dictating the terms by which the code can be used. If I were to write a license so the material can only be viewed by an approved viewer, according to the main argument expressed in the comments written by pro-GPL commentators, how could a user view the material by an unapproved viewer? The fact the viewer may not be used with the user's favorite tool is immaterial. The user can always get an approved viewer. Fair Use would not necessarily apply because the user has access to an approved viewer, not necessarily a convient one.
For those who haven't figured it out, IANAL and the case I'm talking about involves the MPAA. Personally, I think what the MPAA is doing is stupid and things like the CSS and the regional codes should go away. I don't think I like the viral nature of the GPL because I think it overly restricts the options of the developer. By dictating the terms by which code associated with GPL'ed may be distributed, the GPL is forcing the software to be open not by the superiority of Open Software Process but because of strong arm tactics. Open Software should stand on it's own not be propped up by methods by which Open Software proponents would ordinarily decry.
RSwan
So just because Microsoft was unethical, the Judge can be unethical? Judges are supposded to try to maintain at least the appearance of impartiality throughout the case including appeals. By making the statements he has thrown the Statements of Fact into question, leading to the possibility the Court of Appeals will remand the case to a lower court for a FULL retrial, not just a new verdict. The Judge also said the Appeals court was wrong in an earlier case. Generally, lower court judges base their opinions not only on the facts of the case but prior rulings, especially rulings by a higher court. Without a change in the facts of the case, for a lower court judge to overturn a higher court decision is probably unheard of. And when I read the statements of fact, I got the impression he was disrespectful of the higher court. That is not a recipe for having a decision upheld.
As a US government employee I thought I would illuminate people on US Government policies on buying software.
;).
As a starting point, there are several default clauses the Government uses in buying software.
For all software the government pays for the development for they get "unlimited use." This means they can do whatever they want with the software. This does not mean the company that wrote the software can't sell it. What it does mean that if company A wrote the software and is selling it, the government can, if it thinks it is in the government's best interest, set up company B as a competitor.
If the government pays for part of the development and a private company pays for the rest, the government gets "limited rights." This means the government can do whatever it wants to the software inside the government and for government contracts. If company A writes the software the government can give software to company B to work on a government contract. However company B can't sell the software without a contract with company A.
If the government buys off-the-shelf software, like Microsoft Word, they are limited just like everyone else to the EULA.
The above rights can be negotiated away for the proper exchange of services or money. Say if company A wants to sell the software it writes for the government and not let the government set up a competitor it can accept less money for the contract and the contract will use the "limited use" clause.
By the way, I know for a fact some government agencies use Linux. There is no requirement that all government computers run Microsoft Windows. Some computers the government uses can't run Microsoft Windows
Of course the people he raped and murdered were also rapists and murderers themselves, so who was more evil, the one's who won or the ones who lost.
In the amount of "evilness" or "goodness" in races or cultures, all people and cultures are created equal. No one race or culture is "inocent". All have their good guys and bad guys. In some cases, the good guys won. In some others, the bad guys. But most of the time, neither of the sides is any more evil or more good than the other. They just have a different viewpoint.
Just because there is no Big Bad Bogeyman doesn't mean there aren't problems in the world where the US military might do some good. The US military has been deployed more times in the last 8 years than since the cold war started. Maybe since the US began! Many of the aircraft are older than the pilots who fly them. In some cases, they are flying the same aircraft their grandfather could have flown. Promising programs which might fit tomorrows world better are canceled to pay for parts and gas to keep today's equipment going. People are leaving the military in record numbers because the strain on them and their families is too great. Rules are being changed to make the former administration look good.
Unfortunately, the military for the last 8 years was asked to do more with less. It may not hurt us today. But it will tomorrow unless it is changed.
Note I'm not asking for a huge budget increase. What I do want is a realistic budget (and force size) for the operations being conducted without the future being mortgaged.
And if you are a madman who has killed millions of your own people why would you care? What if you were a religious fanatic who thought it was a good idea to steal a nuke and start the Armaggedon? Of course, they may not use a missile but why not shut off one avenue. Especially since it looks like the technology might work.
Bush rescinded a Hate Crimes Bill? When? When did he get the power? He did sign one. He didn't sign another one which was favored by the Byrd family. For this he was basically accused of murder. I guess he thought killing people twice was a little much.
But the money the US gives them allows them to free up other money for abortions. So in a sense we do pay for it. Sort of like using the money not spent on Microsoft products for prank phone calls to Bill ;)
Hey, we lived through 8 years of this already, what's 4 more.
Our educational system is bad? Washington D.C. was burned by the British in the War of 1812 (As we US Citizens called the war). They came by sea not land. The only thing Canada had to do with it is maybe the ships carrying the troops started their last leg of the journey in Canada. The colonials in the land now known as the USA also had a lot to do with Canada being run by the British. The French and Indian War had a lot of colonial action in it. Seems it taught people like George Washington how to fight wars.
I was in Canada recently and people I was with complained how most doctors who are trained there end up in the US. They see a problem coming up where there might not be enough doctors to man your universal health care.
From what I understand, they have consistently upheld state's rights except when a federal law or constitutional issue is at stake. Seven judges held the Florida Supreme Court's decision violated a Constitutional right so the state's rights issue didn't matter.
Now whether their political philosophy, such as who they favored for President, played any role in deciding if there was a fedral issue at stake is another story. That is entirely possible. Just as it possible the Florida Supreme Court decided based on who they favored for President not what a reasonable interpretation of the Florida law or if there interpretation violated any US constitutional issue.
Just imagine, a man, with many influential friends, who makes millions by speculating in the stock market (he obviously rigged the system in his own favor). From what I gather, this is the sort of man Ralph Nader is running against.
Except, this man IS Ralph Nader.
According to the Washington Post, Ralph Nader is a rich man, probably in the top 1% in the US in wealth. He owns stock in companies like Cisco. Do you think he made his money by researching public records, like most ordinary citizens would have to do? That question is for you to answer.
I just thought this was interesting.
By the way, none of the candidates fully represents all my opinions. Not voting is a cop-out. If you don't vote, the politicians most likely will ignore you completely. If you do vote, you are participating in the system and can help make it better. Choose the person who best represents your thoughts and opinions, whether it is George Bush, Al Gore, Ralph Nader, or Mickey Mouse, it doesn't matter. Voting is the way people speak in a republic (The US is a republic, not a democracy. Pure democracy would cause more problems than they would solve.). The people you elect become your voice in the government. If you don't speak, how are people going to listen to you?
They solve the tracking problem by moving the secondary. The effect is to make the main mirror effectively smaller than it really is. An example of a radio telescope like this is the Arecebo (sp?) telescope. The Hoberly-Edderly (sp?) telescope in Texas is similar as well. I not sure the primary moves, but it doesn't move very much. They do most of the tracking with the secondary. Makes for a cheaper telescope but you can't see parts of the sky. Always got to be some sort of tradeoff. Personally I can't wait for the OWL telescope to be built. Imagine a mirror 100 meters in diameter (for those metrically challenged, wider than a football field).
It isn't hard to get much better accuracy than 20 meters. By establishing a standard reference somewhere on the airport where they have accurately know the position. Since the accuracy of GPS is fairly constant over the distances involved in airports, they probably can figure out the distances to within a meter or two at the worst.
Uh, regarding atomic energy. The reason the first use was by the military was the timing. Seems we were in a global war with this madman when the technology was developed. We reasoned we would rather have it first. Also, Japan's goverment during the war never wanted to surrender. They were overulled by their Emperor. Some of them even tried to overthrow their Emperor. The best estimates of casulties for the invasion of Japan were around 2 million for the allies (read mostly Americans). Just imagine how high they would have been for the Japanese. After the hot war (World War II) ended, a Cold War among the former allies started. Two competing ideologies managed to keep their hawks in check and just fought mainly through subsidiaries till the late 1980's. Again many more people lived than would have died.
;).
The reason atomic energy never reached it potential here on earth had nothing to do with the technology or the science, it had more to do with bureacrats and politics. In the US in particular the paperwork costs and politics demanding no risk had more to do with atomic energy dying than the science or the technology. Oh and by the way we can't get rid of all nuclear reactors. We don't know how. Besides, I'm a little to fond of the sun and the stars to do that.
So it seems the problem isn't in the science it's in the people. Maybe the Biotech people can fix that
Of course, the reason it is unsafe is because, some people said so. From what I understand, every time this "unsafe" meat is studied they can't find anything unsafe about it. Including the European Union own scientists. It really makes you wonder if the problem really is about the beef?