I was lucky to be one year senior to Linus at Lunds Tekniska Högskola (Lund University's tech faculty). He's done a lot of crazy things, his project where he implements a VM running Conway's Game of Life using symlinks is really out-there. Here's a link: http://www.linusakesson.net/programming/symlinks/index.php
I fully agree. Bureaucrats would most likely end up with that conclusion. That still doesn't make it correct that the total taxation revenue level would be 30%. It would still be 15% on each transfer. I mean, it's not the bureaucrats' fault that the stupid companies insist on sending photons both ways. Stupid companies!
Another fact that colours the whole thing just a shade darker: the modified seeds might not actually contribute anything positive to the original seed.
This report reviews the results of over 8,200 university-based soybean varietal trials in 1998 and reaches the following conclusions regarding the magnitude of the RR soybean yield drag -
* The yield drag between top RR varieties compared to top conventional varieties averages 4.6 bushels per acre, or 6.7 percent.
* When comparing average yields across the top 5 varieties tested in 8 states, the yield drag averages 4.1 bushels, or 6.1 percent.
* Across all varieties tested, the yield drag averages 3.1 bushels, or 5.3 percent.
* In some areas of the Midwest, the best conventional variety sold by seed companies produces yields on average 10 percent or more higher than comparable Roundup Ready varieties sold by the same seed companies.
It is important to place the RR soybean yield drag in perspective. From 1975 to 1994 soybean yields rose on average about 0.5 bushels per year. In 1999 the RR soybean yield drag could result in perhaps a 2.0 to 2.5 percent reduction in national average soybean yields, compared to what they would likely have been if seed companies had not dramatically shifted breeding priorities to focus on herbicide tolerance. If not reversed by future breeding enhancements, this downward shift in soybean yield potential could emerge as the most significant decline in a major crop ever associated with a single genetic modification..2
On whether RR soybean systems reduce pesticide use and increase grower profits, our analysis shows that -
* RR soybean systems are largely dependent on herbicides and hence are not likely to reduce herbicide use or reliance. Claims otherwise are based on incomplete information or analytically flawed comparisons that do not tell the whole story.
* Farmers growing RR soybeans used 2 to 5 times more herbicide measured in pounds applied per acre, compared to the other popular weed management systems used on most soybean fields not planted to RR varieties in 1998. RR herbicide use exceeds the level on many farms using multitactic Integrated Weed Management systems by a factor of 10 or more.
* There is clear evidence that Roundup use by farmers planting RR soybeans has risen markedly in 1999 because of the emergence of a degree of tolerance to Roundup in several key weed species, shifts in weeds toward those less sensitive to Roundup, price cuts and aggressive marketing.
* Roundup use on soybeans may well double from 1998 levels within the next few years. But if current trends continue in the way RR technology is used, the efficacy and market share of Roundup may then fall just as quickly.
* The RR soybean yield drag and technology fee impose a sizable indirect tax on the income of soybean producers, ranging from a few percent where RR varieties work best to over 12 percent of gross income per acre.
Yes, great argument. A non-optimal genetical hill-climbing algorithm, that tends to lock itself into local optima, has made our bodies what they are over the last several million years, and this somehow makes the result less discountable?
Just because something is "natural" doesn't make it better, or do you think dying from a curable disease or an infection is preferrable to recieving a cure? Another example, a high infant mortality percentage (I don't know if this is the correct term in english) is perfectly natural. Is this better than today's much lower one?
Remember, evolution is hardly perfect, nor in anyway really tuned to keeping us alive for longer than it takes to rear and protect our offspring.. I see no real difference between death through aging and all other forms of sicknesses that assault us.
It's sad to see how fast the posts went from "discussion" to almost pure sexism.
Come on, what kind of people do you want us to be seen as?
So she's pretty hot, so what? I don't see a lot of "hot chick"-articles on/. normally. Focus on the relevant part. She proved a part of an unsolved problem at the age of 22. Give her some respect. Kudos to Elin!
Wish we were all as smart her, here in southern Sweden as well.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I was lucky to be one year senior to Linus at Lunds Tekniska Högskola (Lund University's tech faculty). He's done a lot of crazy things, his project where he implements a VM running Conway's Game of Life using symlinks is really out-there. Here's a link: http://www.linusakesson.net/programming/symlinks/index.php
I fully agree. Bureaucrats would most likely end up with that conclusion. That still doesn't make it correct that the total taxation revenue level would be 30%. It would still be 15% on each transfer. I mean, it's not the bureaucrats' fault that the stupid companies insist on sending photons both ways. Stupid companies!
A qoute from http://www.mindfully.org/GE/RRS-Yield-Drag.htm
Yes, quite, sorry. I must have misread your post something horrible. My apologies.
Yes, great argument. A non-optimal genetical hill-climbing algorithm, that tends to lock itself into local optima, has made our bodies what they are over the last several million years, and this somehow makes the result less discountable?
Just because something is "natural" doesn't make it better, or do you think dying from a curable disease or an infection is preferrable to recieving a cure?
Another example, a high infant mortality percentage (I don't know if this is the correct term in english) is perfectly natural. Is this better than today's much lower one?
Remember, evolution is hardly perfect, nor in anyway really tuned to keeping us alive for longer than it takes to rear and protect our offspring..
I see no real difference between death through aging and all other forms of sicknesses that assault us.
It's sad to see how fast the posts went from "discussion" to almost pure sexism.
/. normally. Focus on the relevant part. She proved a part of an unsolved problem at the age of 22. Give her some respect. Kudos to Elin!
:)
Come on, what kind of people do you want us to be seen as?
So she's pretty hot, so what? I don't see a lot of "hot chick"-articles on
Wish we were all as smart her, here in southern Sweden as well.