Objections to it are pure technophobia and should be dismissed out of hand.
This is pure BULLSHIT! A lot of technology can be contained in a lab, but GE companies like Monsanto are using the entire planet as their lab. Once a deadly gene enters the environment there's no way to contain it. Like of like viri and worms, once released onto the net it can become exceedingly difficult to contain them.
Humans have done genetic engineering for thousands of years. For example have you ever wondered why there are so many different kinds of dogs? Or why strawberries or potatoes are that big?
Why is it so hard for people to understand there's a hugh difference between selective breeding and inserting a foreign gene into a species that does not have it?
Just because Monsanto says it's sterile doesn't make it so. It has been shown a number of tymes that GMOs with so called terminator technology has in fact crossbred with wild relatives.
If foreign is bad, and foreign means everything "not naturally occuring in" at a specific moment in time - then I guess you do not believe in evolution?
No, foreign itself is not bad, what's bad is what it causes. And I most certainly believe in evolution, and science. I don't believe in any supreme deity, like a "God", god, or gods. I don't believe in the existence, or non existence of any; I am agnostic: "a" without, and "gnosys" belief.
check up on what the mitochondria
Yes I know what the mitochondria is, and that a person only inherits MtDNA from the mother. Try again yourself
It's good for everyone because if the yield from the Monsanto crop does not exceed its cost no one will grow it. Subsequently, it's likely to reduce the cost of food. Since there is more than one company producing these foods, there will not be a monopoly and thus Monsanto will only be able to charge marginally above what the technology costs to produce.
The bell has tolled. Monsanto has already sued, and won, a Canadian farmer for growing Roundup Ready corn on his farm. Percy Schmeiser, a farmer in Alberta, Canada, was sued by Monsanto for growing Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn on his farm. He did not plant any RR corn, instead he did what farmers throughout the world throughout the history of agriculture did, he saves seeds from one year's crop to plant the following year. Unfortunately for him, what he didn't know was that RR corn from another farm had crossbred with his corn. When Monsanto sued he lost his crop.
Actually, this would be a good thing. Then people wouldn't get in trouble for accidentally growing Monsanto's crops (pollen blew in on the wind and mingled with some unsuspecting farmer's seed crop), and it wouldn't take over from other varieties in the wild. Thus, you could still grow heritage wheat (or whatever) in your backyard.
Ah but that has already happened. A farmer in Alberta, Canada, Percy Schmeiser, was found to have Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn in his field. Corn he did not plant, but it had crossbred with corn he grew. Like farmers throughout the world since the dawn of agriculture, he saved seeds from one year's crop to plant the following year. Even though he didn't steal anything from Monsanto when Monsanto sued him he lost his crop. In another case an organic farmer, which bans GE, in Canada lost a shipment when inspectors in Europe, Germany I think, found alien DNA in his corn.
One argument for GMOs is that they are very heavily tested
DO you have evidence GMOs are heavily tested? How can they be thoroughly tested when they relatively new and it could take generations to test? Are they also test in combinations, tested X, Y, and Z altogether? One thing may seem to be safe and so may another but put them together and they can be deadly.
it also allows farmers to use less weed/pest killers
This is entirely wrong. While some GMOs may cut down on the need for chemical inputs others make is easier to use those inputs. Monsanto created Roundup Ready, RR, crops so even more Roundup, one of those chemical inputs or herbicides, can be used. Whereas before there was Roundup Ready crops, herbicides could not only kill so called weeds but could harm the crop itself, but now with RR crops all the herbicide Roundup can be applied to crops the farmers wants to use. Since RR crops have been used there has been a marked increase in herbicide, those weed killers, usage.
I doubt that the widely grown crops will be making any pollen. Most GMOs are designed to be sterile. Plants can hybridize very easily, and reproduce very quickly. You don't want some random species to acquire the modifications, nor do you want natural selection working with the modifications
Not native, in this case not naturally occuring in corn.
Then study biology.
Though not a biologist I have studied biology. Actually I almost went into biology. In high school some friends of mine and I scuba dived and we were talking to one of the biology teachers who also dived. We asked her about the school offering a class in Marine Biology so she brought it up with the school administration. They told her that if enough students signed a petition to pledge to take the class if it were offered then they'd offer the class. It only took us a few days to get enough students to sign so the following year it was offered. At the same tyme we started a marine science club with the teacher as the adviser. To graduate hs the only science required was one year of bio however I took that, 1 1/2 years of chemistry, the 1/2 year of marine bio, and another 1/2 year of ecology. So I took 3 1/2 tymes as much science, 1 1/2 of which was bio, as was needed. While taking Marine Bio we took a field trip to Mote Marine Lab, where 3 of us including me were offered jobs there. They told us that if we wanted to work there and major in marine biology or science in college they would help us get accepted into college and help pay for it. I wanted to so bad but I also wanted to, and decided to, major in Computer Engineering instead. And while it wasn't required I still took bio in college.
Just imagine this: Five years from release of a few of these new plant lines. Turns out that the tomato doesn't cause cancer.
Just imagine people who are allergic to Brazil nuts, which can cause Anaphylactic shock and thus kill the person. Then imagine a gene from the Brazil nut being inserted into soy and having those allergic to Brazil nut having the same reaction to the new soy. Don't think it won't happen? It already has.
I try to work around this by using "heirloom" seeds in the garden, rather than modern hybrids.
Unfortunately older heirlooms aren't so easy to find. They can be found at places like Seed Savers Exchange along with other exchanges. However I don't think many people know of these. I used to be a member of a group that exchanged seeds or plants, but I left years ago.
a gene of known characteristics introduced to a plant that has to be tested by the FDA, EPA, and USDA before it gets to market
The only federal agency that has to approve of GE or GMO plants is the USDA. FDA approval isn't needed, neither or EPA approval. If you have evidence or proof I'm wrong please share it.
You mean like the hybrids we've been creating since the agricultural revolution?
There's a hell of a big difference between cross breeding and inserting a gene, or in this case a chromosome, that was never there to begin with. Cross breeding occurs naturally, among related species, whereas nature does not insert fish genes into tomatoes, or Brazil Nut genes into soy.
I haven't seen "time" spelled "tyme" (as opposed to "thyme") since some band name in the '60s. Thanks for the flashback:-)
I first came across the spelling of time as "tyme" when I was in high school in the late '70s. I was in the library reading the "Oxford English Dictionary", OED, when I came across it in volume 20 something. I don't know why but when I saw it I loved it and have used that spelling since. Actually within a week or so I used it in a paper for a writing class, composition, American Lit, or some such. When I got the paper back the teacher had taken points off for it as an incorrect spelling. I practically dragged her down to the library where I showed her that spelling in the dictionary, thereafter when I spelt a word she thought was incorrect she'd check the OED first.
That is why rating candidates and then applying all a vote towards the least objectionable candidate is better than either what we have now, or what you propose.
That is exactly what my proposal does, it rates candidates and if you don't want one of them to get any points then you don't give them any. You only give those candidates points you want to give points to.
And the system that makes you choose and vote strategically and make that choice is what is broken.
And my proposal fixes that. I even gave an example: " With my system I can vote #1 for Ron Paul, who I voted for in 1988, then if there's anyone else I find acceptable I can vote #2 and not vote for Clinton or any right winger or neocon, Christian or otherwise, at all. Voting like this also helps third parties, that number #2 I vote for could be a Libertarian."
Are you looking at the approval rating of Congress overall, or of individual congressmen among their constituents? The latter is routinely higher than the former.
This is led by the attitude many people have that their congressional delegation is good, it's all the others that are bad.
I think with Earthlink tech support it sort of depends on the luck of the draw. Some of them are more clueful than others.
The last tyme I called support was the only tyme I had any trouble with it. That last tyme I called was the 5th tyme I called since I signed up almost 10 years ago.
How do you connect to Earthlink, and have you tried the "chat" version of support
I have cable access through Time Warner, now Comcast. I haven't tried chat. Maybe I'll try the next tyme.
I for one, as a veteran, refuse to let my country continue to slide towards socialism quietly. Doing something "for the public good" is an affront to everything the founding fathers put down in the Constitution. Who decides who the "public" is and what is "good" for them?
I too am a vet and I don't like when my government gives the telco companies millions of taxpayer dollars to build out, first the phone lines, then the broadband infrastructure and all they do is cry they can't afford to build it. It's fine to them, and to neocons, if they are given a lot of taxpayer money but they don't want to share. The government gives some aid to a person though and the neocons go apeshit.
Lie. Tell them what they want to hear. "I'm clicking on control panel. ok. tcp/ip settings?" etc. That way they aren't confused ("what did you say?" "linux" "you're running a linksys?") and you get your support.
I don't know enough about OS X to fake I'm running Windows. Even if I did though faking would just be feeding the Windows monopoly. Besides their policy says nothing about not supporting Macs, actually they used to say they supported Un*x, Macs, and Windows.
Normally I try to support local businesses but I signed up with Earthlink because I knew I was going to move, and I did. I moved from Florida to Minnesota which shares a border with Canada. By going with a national provider I was able to keep the same one and not have to change email or anything else.
The support is less than stoopid, they down right suck balls. I had 6 meg DSL from AT&T, and switched to Earthlink (Covad circuit) and they say I can only get 3 megs.
Until I got my MacBook Pro I didn't have any problems with Earthlink. I've only had to call for support 5 tymes in 10 years, 2 tymes was when I moved and another when I had dialup but the phone lines became too bad but I was able to get cable. Another tyme I was having trouble with access. The tech walked me through a few tests then decided my cable modem needed to be replaced. The following day a tech came by with the new modem and installed it. After running some tests he said I should have a faster connection, it looks to me like I do. I've never had a problem with any download limits or being online too much.
I don't agree with the ruling, but I don't see the situation as being as "dire" as some suggest. I can't see a major telco blocking access to certain websites or networks due to this "deregulation". If they do, they'll be creating new markets and new competition in which they would have to compete, and probably loose.
And where is this competition going to come from? If I own the infrastructure, cable or phone lines, and say you can't use it, either you can't offer any service or you have to pay billions of dollars to build your own infrastructure. But you can only build it if you are given permission to use the Right of Way by the government or pay the individual property owners. And there's hardly anyone who will pay the billions of dollars without a good probability of earning more money from it.
Slashdot Mirror
Objections to it are pure technophobia and should be dismissed out of hand.
This is pure BULLSHIT! A lot of technology can be contained in a lab, but GE companies like Monsanto are using the entire planet as their lab. Once a deadly gene enters the environment there's no way to contain it. Like of like viri and worms, once released onto the net it can become exceedingly difficult to contain them.
FalconHumans have done genetic engineering for thousands of years. For example have you ever wondered why there are so many different kinds of dogs? Or why strawberries or potatoes are that big?
Why is it so hard for people to understand there's a hugh difference between selective breeding and inserting a foreign gene into a species that does not have it?
Falconit can't breed.
Just because Monsanto says it's sterile doesn't make it so. It has been shown a number of tymes that GMOs with so called terminator technology has in fact crossbred with wild relatives.
FalconIf foreign is bad, and foreign means everything "not naturally occuring in" at a specific moment in time - then I guess you do not believe in evolution?
No, foreign itself is not bad, what's bad is what it causes. And I most certainly believe in evolution, and science. I don't believe in any supreme deity, like a "God", god, or gods. I don't believe in the existence, or non existence of any; I am agnostic: "a" without, and "gnosys" belief.
check up on what the mitochondria
Yes I know what the mitochondria is, and that a person only inherits MtDNA from the mother. Try again yourself
FalconIt's good for everyone because if the yield from the Monsanto crop does not exceed its cost no one will grow it. Subsequently, it's likely to reduce the cost of food. Since there is more than one company producing these foods, there will not be a monopoly and thus Monsanto will only be able to charge marginally above what the technology costs to produce.
The bell has tolled. Monsanto has already sued, and won, a Canadian farmer for growing Roundup Ready corn on his farm. Percy Schmeiser, a farmer in Alberta, Canada, was sued by Monsanto for growing Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn on his farm. He did not plant any RR corn, instead he did what farmers throughout the world throughout the history of agriculture did, he saves seeds from one year's crop to plant the following year. Unfortunately for him, what he didn't know was that RR corn from another farm had crossbred with his corn. When Monsanto sued he lost his crop.
FalconActually, this would be a good thing. Then people wouldn't get in trouble for accidentally growing Monsanto's crops (pollen blew in on the wind and mingled with some unsuspecting farmer's seed crop), and it wouldn't take over from other varieties in the wild. Thus, you could still grow heritage wheat (or whatever) in your backyard.
Ah but that has already happened. A farmer in Alberta, Canada, Percy Schmeiser, was found to have Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn in his field. Corn he did not plant, but it had crossbred with corn he grew. Like farmers throughout the world since the dawn of agriculture, he saved seeds from one year's crop to plant the following year. Even though he didn't steal anything from Monsanto when Monsanto sued him he lost his crop. In another case an organic farmer, which bans GE, in Canada lost a shipment when inspectors in Europe, Germany I think, found alien DNA in his corn.
FalconOne argument for GMOs is that they are very heavily tested
DO you have evidence GMOs are heavily tested? How can they be thoroughly tested when they relatively new and it could take generations to test? Are they also test in combinations, tested X, Y, and Z altogether? One thing may seem to be safe and so may another but put them together and they can be deadly.
it also allows farmers to use less weed/pest killers
This is entirely wrong. While some GMOs may cut down on the need for chemical inputs others make is easier to use those inputs. Monsanto created Roundup Ready, RR, crops so even more Roundup, one of those chemical inputs or herbicides, can be used. Whereas before there was Roundup Ready crops, herbicides could not only kill so called weeds but could harm the crop itself, but now with RR crops all the herbicide Roundup can be applied to crops the farmers wants to use. Since RR crops have been used there has been a marked increase in herbicide, those weed killers, usage.
I doubt that the widely grown crops will be making any pollen. Most GMOs are designed to be sterile. Plants can hybridize very easily, and reproduce very quickly. You don't want some random species to acquire the modifications, nor do you want natural selection working with the modifications
Yet Super Weeds have been shown to be created by the cross breeding of GMO stock and wild relatives. Genetically-Altered Crops Can Produce Tough, Hard-To-Kill Weeds.
In the case of the farmers, they don't want the surrounding weeds to acquire the herbicide-resistance gene from their crops.
See above.
Falconwould prevent GM crops from crossbreeding with traditional varieties in the field
How does this technique prevent crossbreeding?
FalconDefine "foreign".
Not native, in this case not naturally occuring in corn.
Then study biology.
Though not a biologist I have studied biology. Actually I almost went into biology. In high school some friends of mine and I scuba dived and we were talking to one of the biology teachers who also dived. We asked her about the school offering a class in Marine Biology so she brought it up with the school administration. They told her that if enough students signed a petition to pledge to take the class if it were offered then they'd offer the class. It only took us a few days to get enough students to sign so the following year it was offered. At the same tyme we started a marine science club with the teacher as the adviser. To graduate hs the only science required was one year of bio however I took that, 1 1/2 years of chemistry, the 1/2 year of marine bio, and another 1/2 year of ecology. So I took 3 1/2 tymes as much science, 1 1/2 of which was bio, as was needed. While taking Marine Bio we took a field trip to Mote Marine Lab, where 3 of us including me were offered jobs there. They told us that if we wanted to work there and major in marine biology or science in college they would help us get accepted into college and help pay for it. I wanted to so bad but I also wanted to, and decided to, major in Computer Engineering instead. And while it wasn't required I still took bio in college.
FalconJust imagine this: Five years from release of a few of these new plant lines. Turns out that the tomato doesn't cause cancer.
Just imagine people who are allergic to Brazil nuts, which can cause Anaphylactic shock and thus kill the person. Then imagine a gene from the Brazil nut being inserted into soy and having those allergic to Brazil nut having the same reaction to the new soy. Don't think it won't happen? It already has.
FalconI try to work around this by using "heirloom" seeds in the garden, rather than modern hybrids.
Unfortunately older heirlooms aren't so easy to find. They can be found at places like Seed Savers Exchange along with other exchanges. However I don't think many people know of these. I used to be a member of a group that exchanged seeds or plants, but I left years ago.
Falcona gene of known characteristics introduced to a plant that has to be tested by the FDA, EPA, and USDA before it gets to market
The only federal agency that has to approve of GE or GMO plants is the USDA. FDA approval isn't needed, neither or EPA approval. If you have evidence or proof I'm wrong please share it.
FalconOne without foreign genes or chromosomes inserted.
FalconWithout all the data needed to make informed decisions, which is not logical.
FalconYou mean like the hybrids we've been creating since the agricultural revolution?
There's a hell of a big difference between cross breeding and inserting a gene, or in this case a chromosome, that was never there to begin with. Cross breeding occurs naturally, among related species, whereas nature does not insert fish genes into tomatoes, or Brazil Nut genes into soy.
FalconI haven't seen "time" spelled "tyme" (as opposed to "thyme") since some band name in the '60s. Thanks for the flashback :-)
I first came across the spelling of time as "tyme" when I was in high school in the late '70s. I was in the library reading the "Oxford English Dictionary", OED, when I came across it in volume 20 something. I don't know why but when I saw it I loved it and have used that spelling since. Actually within a week or so I used it in a paper for a writing class, composition, American Lit, or some such. When I got the paper back the teacher had taken points off for it as an incorrect spelling. I practically dragged her down to the library where I showed her that spelling in the dictionary, thereafter when I spelt a word she thought was incorrect she'd check the OED first.
FalconThat is why rating candidates and then applying all a vote towards the least objectionable candidate is better than either what we have now, or what you propose.
That is exactly what my proposal does, it rates candidates and if you don't want one of them to get any points then you don't give them any. You only give those candidates points you want to give points to.
And the system that makes you choose and vote strategically and make that choice is what is broken.
And my proposal fixes that. I even gave an example: " With my system I can vote #1 for Ron Paul, who I voted for in 1988, then if there's anyone else I find acceptable I can vote #2 and not vote for Clinton or any right winger or neocon, Christian or otherwise, at all. Voting like this also helps third parties, that number #2 I vote for could be a Libertarian."
FalconAre you looking at the approval rating of Congress overall, or of individual congressmen among their constituents? The latter is routinely higher than the former.
This is led by the attitude many people have that their congressional delegation is good, it's all the others that are bad.
FalconI think with Earthlink tech support it sort of depends on the luck of the draw. Some of them are more clueful than others.
The last tyme I called support was the only tyme I had any trouble with it. That last tyme I called was the 5th tyme I called since I signed up almost 10 years ago.
How do you connect to Earthlink, and have you tried the "chat" version of support
I have cable access through Time Warner, now Comcast. I haven't tried chat. Maybe I'll try the next tyme.
FalconI for one, as a veteran, refuse to let my country continue to slide towards socialism quietly. Doing something "for the public good" is an affront to everything the founding fathers put down in the Constitution. Who decides who the "public" is and what is "good" for them?
I too am a vet and I don't like when my government gives the telco companies millions of taxpayer dollars to build out, first the phone lines, then the broadband infrastructure and all they do is cry they can't afford to build it. It's fine to them, and to neocons, if they are given a lot of taxpayer money but they don't want to share. The government gives some aid to a person though and the neocons go apeshit.
FalconLie. Tell them what they want to hear. "I'm clicking on control panel. ok. tcp/ip settings?" etc. That way they aren't confused ("what did you say?" "linux" "you're running a linksys?") and you get your support.
I don't know enough about OS X to fake I'm running Windows. Even if I did though faking would just be feeding the Windows monopoly. Besides their policy says nothing about not supporting Macs, actually they used to say they supported Un*x, Macs, and Windows.
FalconNormally I try to support local businesses but I signed up with Earthlink because I knew I was going to move, and I did. I moved from Florida to Minnesota which shares a border with Canada. By going with a national provider I was able to keep the same one and not have to change email or anything else.
The support is less than stoopid, they down right suck balls. I had 6 meg DSL from AT&T, and switched to Earthlink (Covad circuit) and they say I can only get 3 megs.
Until I got my MacBook Pro I didn't have any problems with Earthlink. I've only had to call for support 5 tymes in 10 years, 2 tymes was when I moved and another when I had dialup but the phone lines became too bad but I was able to get cable. Another tyme I was having trouble with access. The tech walked me through a few tests then decided my cable modem needed to be replaced. The following day a tech came by with the new modem and installed it. After running some tests he said I should have a faster connection, it looks to me like I do. I've never had a problem with any download limits or being online too much.
FalconI don't agree with the ruling, but I don't see the situation as being as "dire" as some suggest. I can't see a major telco blocking access to certain websites or networks due to this "deregulation". If they do, they'll be creating new markets and new competition in which they would have to compete, and probably loose.
And where is this competition going to come from? If I own the infrastructure, cable or phone lines, and say you can't use it, either you can't offer any service or you have to pay billions of dollars to build your own infrastructure. But you can only build it if you are given permission to use the Right of Way by the government or pay the individual property owners. And there's hardly anyone who will pay the billions of dollars without a good probability of earning more money from it.
FalconIt's good for those who were being regulated, it's bad for customers and taxpayers.
FalconHow is allowing the monopoly to grow unabated and block competition equal to deregulation? It isn't.
Actually it is equivalent to deregulation if there were regulations disallowing it before. However such a regulation is one I support.
Falcon