If you are working with black and white, and want to try alternate chemistry and aren't afraid of chemistry, get Ansel Adam's book "The Negative".
Though I have some colour C41 for about 10 years I've been using mostly E6 colour slide film. I love chemistry so that's not a problem. As for the book, I'll check it out on Amazon, ah they have 43 book listed from or about him. Amazon also has The Book of Alternative Photographic Processes
For B&W printing, see if you can find 'Oriental' brand 'Seagull' fibre bases paper.
I don't know if they have that paper but there's a Dick Blick art supply store near me that has a bunch of art paper. I'm not sure if they have photography paper or not but for computer printing they have some good paper, and eventually I want to get into that. For now I'll shoot film then scan prints.
Why go through all that work when in 10 years nothing will be able to read it. Paper tapes are used anymore. How many computers come with floppies today? Every couple of years archives should be transferred to new tech. Of course keep the old stuff for two or three generations, as a fail-safe measure. Going through some housekeeping a few days ago I came across some old 100 and 250 MB Zip disks as well as floppies. I've still got an old NT4 PC so I'll keep emergency disks for it, but I'll make sure I transferred what I have on Zip disks to my external HDDs, 3 of which I have.
How long will a digital picture last in archival quality when stored on a hard drive if it isn't accessed very often.
It shouldn't matter how long the hard drive lasts, with improvements in storage technology what's stored should have it's storage tech upgraded. Much as Moore's Law goes, the tech should be replaced every 2 years or so. The problem there is making sure exact copies are made on the new media, bit for bit. That's where tests come in, which some utilities can do. One is rsync for *nix and OSX.
if you knew you needed a particular stock photo that was on Kodachrome photographed and processed thirty plus years ago (but stored that whole time), I would expect the Kodachrome color positive to still be in good shape.
That would depend on how the film is stored, if in film sleeves in cool storage they should last.
Canon camera here. I'd like to get a full-frame DSRL I can use the lenses I have now on, and not have the photos cropped. Either the EOS 1Ds Mark III or EOS 5D Mark II.
Actually I'd like to be able to shoot digital and film at the same tyme.
*sigh* I'm getting old, I had to change the tense of all the verbs in this comment, as there is no more Kodachrome.
I was concerned when I saw TFA title myself. I thought I might have Kodachrome film too but the one roll of Kodak slide film I have left is Elite Chrome, now called Ektachrome.
I have to admit that when I did cross processed photography it was mostly as an experiment/learning experience.
So far all I've done is pushing or pulling film however I want to try other alternative methods of developing film. I'd like to go through Alternative Photography to see what they have. I heard one where orange juice was used. Ah, here's one using lemon juice. I like how the photo turned out.
I wonder how much longer film will be available. Kodak stopped making film based cameras, now this. Though TFA says Kodak stopped making Kodachrome they still make Elite, er, Ektachrome.
Kodachrome is slide film. Seeing TFA title I was concerned, I thought I might have unused Kodachrome film myself. But the one roll of slide film from Kodak I have is Elite Chrome. Guess I'll be using Fuji film, Sensia perhaps, for my slides from now on.
Apple has and always will be a company that prioritizes looks and simplicity over function.
I got my MacBook Pro because of functionality and price not because it looks better. Hell, other than the Apple logo on the cover it looks the same as laptops from other companies. And yes I included "price" above. Before I bought my MBP I compared the prices of a few laptops from different companies at the price of the MBP was only $50 higher than the cheapest laptop but much lower than other prices.
It's the same reason their products have almost no user options.
What user options? Like the option to run X11 and apps for it? Like the option of installing.rpm and apt-get or.deb packages? Like running MS Windows? Though I currently only run Leopard on my Mac when I install Snow Leopard I also plan to install Ubuntu and dualboot. If I wanted to I could install MS Windows as well. BUT I DO NOT!!! And guess what else... I'm typing this in a Firefox tab, I run Thunderbird as my email client, for my office suite I have NeoOiffce, the native Mac port of OpenOffice.org. And while I have XCode installed I also use Eclipse for development.
I'd happily have a dropped call out of every 100 (or out of every 20, really) if I had a phone that never required a reboot and lasted all day. It's more than just a phone, after all -- if we were talking about a RAZR or a simple Nokia it'd be a different matter.
See, that's your uses. I used to only use a phone to make a call. Because my memory is bad now I also use my phone's built in calendar for appointments and such. While I'd miss the calendar, I'd be real pissed if I could not use my phone to make and receive calls. And those are the only things I use the phone for. I don't play music on it. Though I've received text messages, spam, I've never sent one. And the only tymes I used the camera was to take a photo of my callers, when one calls the photo is displayed.
Anyway, here in North America, Blackberry's market share is still more than double that of the iPhone, so I doubt RIM is particularly "galled".
From Forbes: "iPhone Could Overtake BlackBerry Market Share in 2011". iPhone, BlackBerry slip as Android market share surges tells a different story. Personally I don't care who leads in marketshare as long as there is competition in a relatively free market.
It must be particularly galling to RIM that a lot of people prefer even an iPhone that drops calls to a Blackberry that doesn't, even when people are given the option to return their iPhone at no cost to them.
The "reality," as you like to put it, is that Nokia and RIM had the good judgment not to try what Apple did.
And the "tinfoil-hat crowd" is not responsible for that. Using a "tinfoil-hat crowd" is a straw-man argument trying to divert attention away from bad design decisions.
I hereby suggest that everybody who is caught using "gate" as a suffix is made to go outside on a sunny day, to be pommeled into the ground by the awesome force of photons, or to just get a tan ruining the geek cred of slashdot users forever.
And just to think, I'd like to be on the beach if not scuba diving under the water. Key Largo, I'm too far away.
Where there is no demonstrable physical mechanism or repeatable empirical evidence for health effects, the burden of proof should rest firmly with the tinfoil-hat crowd. That's the only way we can move forward as a civilization, scientifically or otherwise. But instead, it's necessary for the wireless manufacturers to prove a negative. What Jobs should have said was, "Even though there is no physical mechanism or explanation for such a phenomenon, we have to assume our device will give you brain cancer if we don't use a really crappy antenna that's designed specifically to send most of the outgoing signal energy into the palm of your hand."
Hello, reality calling. Nokia and RIM don't have Apple's problems, so what you're saying is that Apple has to meet regulations they do not have to meet. Can you back that up with facts? Or did you don your own tin-foil hat?
It's more than just a "relatively minor technical glitch" and has been since Apple and Jobs stated there was no problem. Steve Jobs went so far as to tell one person who had trouble with his own iPhone "You are getting all worked up over a few days of rumors. Calm down. You are most likely in an area with very low signal strength". He tells the person to relax, it's just a phone, then says to get a life.
If Jobs and Apple had never said there was no problem and that it was just rumors, it would have stayed a technical glitch, but they didn't.
Falcon
Oh, and in case readers then I'm saying this because I'm an Apple basher I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro which I think is great. I got it after switching from Windows PC which I bought and used for almost 10 years.
I don't know a single workplace I've ever been in where someone acting like that wouldn't be disciplined or fired.
My boss at the last place I worked at yelled at people frequently, even his bosses and company owners. They let him get away with it because he was effective at his job and he was the go to guy when a problem came up. Those of us who worked for him and put up with it he'd also cut some slack occasionally, it wasn't all yelling. However not many people could put up with his yelling. When I was laid off after 3 years I was the newest guy on the crew, but not because I was the last one hired, a few others were hired after I was but none of them lasted more than a few months.
If that happened now though I may just walk away, depending on how the compensation is and how bad it is.
The last place I worked at, it was unfortunately an every day occurrence.
My last job was like that, he yelled frequently and at everyone. He even yelled at his boss, the company owners, and people from other companies. He was allowed to get away with it because he was the go to guy when there was a problem, he knew his shit. And though he yelled at us, those who worked under him, if you could put up that it then he would also cut you some slack at tymes.
As someone who has run a dedicated server for seven years, I would never grant any unknown third party access to my server. Even as a guest with almost no permissions. That's just inviting trouble into your house. Give them code samples, answer questions, provide references, but keep the digital doors locked unless you don't value the data on the machine.
It may take resources you don't have available but if you do then why don't you set up a test system? Just have the system isolated and populated with made up data. It's not the same but when I get around to it I'll do something like it. Currently I have Leopard running on my Mac but when I can I'll install Snow Leopard on an external HDD and test it before installing it on my Mac. I could hose the test system and still have a functioning system. I'll do the same when I get around to installing Ubuntu on it too.
They also sue if your non-GM crop is contaminated by another's GM crop.
No, they don't. All of the companies and governments involved clearly say that a certain amount of crossbreeding is inevitable, and not a cause for legal action.
First, Monsanto did claim their GE crops will not cross breed years ago. It was only after it was proven crossbreeding does happened that they stopped making the claim. Secondly, many farmers have either been sued or themselves sued GE companies. Monsanto regularly sends out private investigators, Pinkertons, to collect specimens to test for GE genes. They even threatened someone who's neither a farmer nor a seed dealer. Despite having no evidence, and the State of North Dakota Seed Arbitration Board not having found any themselves, Monsanto still threatens a farming family in North Dakota.
You did not sign a contract but you're sued anyway.
Yes, because you've violated someone's patent. And this isn't a Monsanto or even a GM issue - plant breeders have had legal protection for new varieties since 1930.
In other words if your crop is contaminated, which does happen, you're screwed. The above links are a vary small sample of results Google returns for farmers monsanto. Adding sue still leaves more than a million results. Like this one, Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers:
"David Runyon and his wife Dawn put a lifetime of work into their 900-acre Indiana farm, and almost lost it all over a seed they say they never planted."
"'I don't believe any company has the right to come into someone's home and threaten their livelihood,' Dawn said, 'to bring them into such physical turmoil as this company did to us.'"
The Runyons charge bio-tech giant Monsanto sent investigators to their home unannounced, demanded years of farming records, and later threatened to sue them for patent infringement. The Runyons say an anonymous tip led Monsanto to suspect that genetically modified soybeans were growing on their property.
"'I wasn't using their products, but yet they were pounding on my door demanding information, demanding records," Dave said. "It was just plain harassment is what they were doing.'"
As for the Brazil nut soybean, it should go without saying that you can use genetic engineering to make things like that.
Ah, change the rules, just like GE businesses do. First you say "no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to suggest they're dangerous". When I provide evidence that disputes that you change it to the above, "it should go without saying that you can use genetic engineering to make things like that."
You might as well point out that you can put anthrax in an apple if you wanted. You can put arsenic in a cake, doesn't make baking bad.
Now it's misdirection.
And Monsanto, they're not your friends, that's fair to say, but saying that because they're bad GMOs are bad is like saying that because the RIAA are pricks you shouldn't listen to music.
Misdirection again. First you say "Tell that to the farmers who's crops were wiped out by papaya ringspot virus before GMO papayas arrived on the scene". In response I say, yes let's see what farmers say and provide a bunch of links to what farmers do say.
Do we need GMOs? Do we really need agricultural improvements? We could get by without a lot of things, but that's no reason not to use them, and no small amount of people in relevant fields seem to think biotech will be pretty significant.
Misdirection again. I never said anything about not making agricultural improvements. Instead I asked if GE is needed, then answered "no".
And the reason growers want them is because consumers want them. I don't see how that issue relates to genetic engineering, that's something altogether different.
I never said it had anything to do with genetic engineering. You did in the post I replied to. Specifically you said I think heirloom growers should embrace GMOs. Then you explained why, to get hybrids "like Cherokee Purple and White Tomesol" stocked in supermarket stores.
Getting people to think of new or diverse crops as a true part of their diet, just like the foods they're accustomed to, it a task in and of itself.
And that is one of the goals of Slow Food. And guess what they say... Pandemic disease and genetic engineering have wiped out all traditional sources of meat (and many vegetable products) in a matter of decades. "Winona LaDuke, founder of the White Earth Land Recovery Project, which was the recipient of the International Slow Food Award for the Defense of Biodiversity in 2003 said, 'Indigenous people are center to Slow Food International,' because the foods they are talking about have long histories, the very foods Slow Food wants to protect."
I follow exotic pomology too, and it took decades for mangos and kiwis to get to where they are now, and still, people don't see them on the same level as apples and bananas.
And how many people eat kiwis and mangos? I used to take them with me for lunch.
Finally, there is no need for GE crops. All they do is enrich the pockets of big agribusinesses.
Tell that to the farmers who's crops were wiped out by papaya ringspot virus before GMO papayas arrived on the scene.
To say there's no need for them, I don't get that either.
I and others, including experts, have said GE is not needed for food because it is not needed. I dare you prove that wrong. Provide one piece of evidence GE is needed. Then we'll see what reviewers say.
That's like saying there is no need for plant breeding.
You like every other person who tries to justify genetic engineering tries this. Selective breeding and crossbreeding is a hell of a lot different than inserting arctic fish genes into tomatoes. The first happens frequently in nature but the second rarely if ever happens.
We know it works, no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to suggest they're dangerous
My, my, my. How wrong you are. One example we know of is soya with a gene from Brazil nuts. Identification of A Brazil-Nut Allergen in transgenic soybeans[pdf]. The fact the soya was not released does not change the fact that the engineering soya was dangerous to those allergic to Brazil nuts and could cause their deaths.
considering horizontal gene transfer between unrelated species happens all the time
I thought you might bring that up, and I already addressed
Slashdot Mirror
If you are working with black and white, and want to try alternate chemistry and aren't afraid of chemistry, get Ansel Adam's book "The Negative".
Though I have some colour C41 for about 10 years I've been using mostly E6 colour slide film. I love chemistry so that's not a problem. As for the book, I'll check it out on Amazon, ah they have 43 book listed from or about him. Amazon also has The Book of Alternative Photographic Processes
For B&W printing, see if you can find 'Oriental' brand 'Seagull' fibre bases paper.
I don't know if they have that paper but there's a Dick Blick art supply store near me that has a bunch of art paper. I'm not sure if they have photography paper or not but for computer printing they have some good paper, and eventually I want to get into that. For now I'll shoot film then scan prints.
Falcon
Why go through all that work when in 10 years nothing will be able to read it. Paper tapes are used anymore. How many computers come with floppies today? Every couple of years archives should be transferred to new tech. Of course keep the old stuff for two or three generations, as a fail-safe measure. Going through some housekeeping a few days ago I came across some old 100 and 250 MB Zip disks as well as floppies. I've still got an old NT4 PC so I'll keep emergency disks for it, but I'll make sure I transferred what I have on Zip disks to my external HDDs, 3 of which I have.
Falcon
How long will a digital picture last in archival quality when stored on a hard drive if it isn't accessed very often.
It shouldn't matter how long the hard drive lasts, with improvements in storage technology what's stored should have it's storage tech upgraded. Much as Moore's Law goes, the tech should be replaced every 2 years or so. The problem there is making sure exact copies are made on the new media, bit for bit. That's where tests come in, which some utilities can do. One is rsync for *nix and OSX.
if you knew you needed a particular stock photo that was on Kodachrome photographed and processed thirty plus years ago (but stored that whole time), I would expect the Kodachrome color positive to still be in good shape.
That would depend on how the film is stored, if in film sleeves in cool storage they should last.
Falcon
Great song and movie.
*sigh* At least I still have my Nikon camera.
Canon camera here. I'd like to get a full-frame DSRL I can use the lenses I have now on, and not have the photos cropped. Either the EOS 1Ds Mark III or EOS 5D Mark II.
Actually I'd like to be able to shoot digital and film at the same tyme.
Falcon
If you don't shoot it and get it developed before December, it WILL be wasted.
No, not necessarily. GP may have a darkroom or could have the film developed using an alternative process.
Falcon
*sigh* I'm getting old, I had to change the tense of all the verbs in this comment, as there is no more Kodachrome.
I was concerned when I saw TFA title myself. I thought I might have Kodachrome film too but the one roll of Kodak slide film I have left is Elite Chrome, now called Ektachrome.
Fslcon
I have to admit that when I did cross processed photography it was mostly as an experiment/learning experience.
So far all I've done is pushing or pulling film however I want to try other alternative methods of developing film. I'd like to go through Alternative Photography to see what they have. I heard one where orange juice was used. Ah, here's one using lemon juice. I like how the photo turned out.
I wonder how much longer film will be available. Kodak stopped making film based cameras, now this. Though TFA says Kodak stopped making Kodachrome they still make Elite, er, Ektachrome.
Falcon
It figures he would make them into slides.
Kodachrome is slide film. Seeing TFA title I was concerned, I thought I might have unused Kodachrome film myself. But the one roll of slide film from Kodak I have is Elite Chrome. Guess I'll be using Fuji film, Sensia perhaps, for my slides from now on.
Falcon
Apple has and always will be a company that prioritizes looks and simplicity over function.
I got my MacBook Pro because of functionality and price not because it looks better. Hell, other than the Apple logo on the cover it looks the same as laptops from other companies. And yes I included "price" above. Before I bought my MBP I compared the prices of a few laptops from different companies at the price of the MBP was only $50 higher than the cheapest laptop but much lower than other prices.
It's the same reason their products have almost no user options.
What user options? Like the option to run X11 and apps for it? Like the option of installing .rpm and apt-get or .deb packages? Like running MS Windows? Though I currently only run Leopard on my Mac when I install Snow Leopard I also plan to install Ubuntu and dualboot. If I wanted to I could install MS Windows as well. BUT I DO NOT!!! And guess what else... I'm typing this in a Firefox tab, I run Thunderbird as my email client, for my office suite I have NeoOiffce, the native Mac port of OpenOffice.org. And while I have XCode installed I also use Eclipse for development.
Falcon
I'd happily have a dropped call out of every 100 (or out of every 20, really) if I had a phone that never required a reboot and lasted all day. It's more than just a phone, after all -- if we were talking about a RAZR or a simple Nokia it'd be a different matter.
See, that's your uses. I used to only use a phone to make a call. Because my memory is bad now I also use my phone's built in calendar for appointments and such. While I'd miss the calendar, I'd be real pissed if I could not use my phone to make and receive calls. And those are the only things I use the phone for. I don't play music on it. Though I've received text messages, spam, I've never sent one. And the only tymes I used the camera was to take a photo of my callers, when one calls the photo is displayed.
Falcon
Except Steve said LESS THAN 1 call more per 100 calls are dropped on the iPhone 4
Except the "iPhone 4 drops more calls than the older iPhone 3GS -- 'less than one additional dropped call per 100,'Apple CEO Steve Jobs said during a news conference Friday.". See that "older iPhone 3GS"? That is a key phrase.
Falcon
Still wearing you tin-foil hat, are you?
You can't even be bothered to try to offer a counter argument. That or you don't have one.
Falcon
Anyway, here in North America, Blackberry's market share is still more than double that of the iPhone, so I doubt RIM is particularly "galled".
From Forbes: "iPhone Could Overtake BlackBerry Market Share in 2011". iPhone, BlackBerry slip as Android market share surges tells a different story. Personally I don't care who leads in marketshare as long as there is competition in a relatively free market.
Falcon
It must be particularly galling to RIM that a lot of people prefer even an iPhone that drops calls to a Blackberry that doesn't, even when people are given the option to return their iPhone at no cost to them.
Citation?
Falcon
Apple knows their target market backwards and forwards, that market excludes business men.
Except Apple is spending extensive efforts to court IT departments and establish corporate credibility.
Falcon
The "reality," as you like to put it, is that Nokia and RIM had the good judgment not to try what Apple did.
And the "tinfoil-hat crowd" is not responsible for that. Using a "tinfoil-hat crowd" is a straw-man argument trying to divert attention away from bad design decisions.
Falcon
I hereby suggest that everybody who is caught using "gate" as a suffix is made to go outside on a sunny day, to be pommeled into the ground by the awesome force of photons, or to just get a tan ruining the geek cred of slashdot users forever.
And just to think, I'd like to be on the beach if not scuba diving under the water. Key Largo, I'm too far away.
Falcon
Where there is no demonstrable physical mechanism or repeatable empirical evidence for health effects, the burden of proof should rest firmly with the tinfoil-hat crowd. That's the only way we can move forward as a civilization, scientifically or otherwise. But instead, it's necessary for the wireless manufacturers to prove a negative. What Jobs should have said was, "Even though there is no physical mechanism or explanation for such a phenomenon, we have to assume our device will give you brain cancer if we don't use a really crappy antenna that's designed specifically to send most of the outgoing signal energy into the palm of your hand."
Hello, reality calling. Nokia and RIM don't have Apple's problems, so what you're saying is that Apple has to meet regulations they do not have to meet. Can you back that up with facts? Or did you don your own tin-foil hat?
Falcon
It is a relatively minor technical glitch.
It's more than just a "relatively minor technical glitch" and has been since Apple and Jobs stated there was no problem. Steve Jobs went so far as to tell one person who had trouble with his own iPhone "You are getting all worked up over a few days of rumors. Calm down. You are most likely in an area with very low signal strength". He tells the person to relax, it's just a phone, then says to get a life.
If Jobs and Apple had never said there was no problem and that it was just rumors, it would have stayed a technical glitch, but they didn't.
Falcon
Oh, and in case readers then I'm saying this because I'm an Apple basher I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro which I think is great. I got it after switching from Windows PC which I bought and used for almost 10 years.
I don't know a single workplace I've ever been in where someone acting like that wouldn't be disciplined or fired.
My boss at the last place I worked at yelled at people frequently, even his bosses and company owners. They let him get away with it because he was effective at his job and he was the go to guy when a problem came up. Those of us who worked for him and put up with it he'd also cut some slack occasionally, it wasn't all yelling. However not many people could put up with his yelling. When I was laid off after 3 years I was the newest guy on the crew, but not because I was the last one hired, a few others were hired after I was but none of them lasted more than a few months.
If that happened now though I may just walk away, depending on how the compensation is and how bad it is.
Falcon
The last place I worked at, it was unfortunately an every day occurrence.
My last job was like that, he yelled frequently and at everyone. He even yelled at his boss, the company owners, and people from other companies. He was allowed to get away with it because he was the go to guy when there was a problem, he knew his shit. And though he yelled at us, those who worked under him, if you could put up that it then he would also cut you some slack at tymes.
Falcon
As someone who has run a dedicated server for seven years, I would never grant any unknown third party access to my server. Even as a guest with almost no permissions. That's just inviting trouble into your house. Give them code samples, answer questions, provide references, but keep the digital doors locked unless you don't value the data on the machine.
It may take resources you don't have available but if you do then why don't you set up a test system? Just have the system isolated and populated with made up data. It's not the same but when I get around to it I'll do something like it. Currently I have Leopard running on my Mac but when I can I'll install Snow Leopard on an external HDD and test it before installing it on my Mac. I could hose the test system and still have a functioning system. I'll do the same when I get around to installing Ubuntu on it too.
Falcon
They also sue if your non-GM crop is contaminated by another's GM crop.
No, they don't. All of the companies and governments involved clearly say that a certain amount of crossbreeding is inevitable, and not a cause for legal action.
First, Monsanto did claim their GE crops will not cross breed years ago. It was only after it was proven crossbreeding does happened that they stopped making the claim. Secondly, many farmers have either been sued or themselves sued GE companies. Monsanto regularly sends out private investigators, Pinkertons, to collect specimens to test for GE genes. They even threatened someone who's neither a farmer nor a seed dealer. Despite having no evidence, and the State of North Dakota Seed Arbitration Board not having found any themselves, Monsanto still threatens a farming family in North Dakota.
You did not sign a contract but you're sued anyway.
Yes, because you've violated someone's patent. And this isn't a Monsanto or even a GM issue - plant breeders have had legal protection for new varieties since 1930.
In other words if your crop is contaminated, which does happen, you're screwed. The above links are a vary small sample of results Google returns for farmers monsanto. Adding sue still leaves more than a million results. Like this one, Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers:
"David Runyon and his wife Dawn put a lifetime of work into their 900-acre Indiana farm, and almost lost it all over a seed they say they never planted."
"'I don't believe any company has the right to come into someone's home and threaten their livelihood,' Dawn said, 'to bring them into such physical turmoil as this company did to us.'"
The Runyons charge bio-tech giant Monsanto sent investigators to their home unannounced, demanded years of farming records, and later threatened to sue them for patent infringement. The Runyons say an anonymous tip led Monsanto to suspect that genetically modified soybeans were growing on their property.
"'I wasn't using their products, but yet they were pounding on my door demanding information, demanding records," Dave said. "It was just plain harassment is what they were doing.'"
Or this one: Monsanto sues and sues and sues and...
Falcon
As for the Brazil nut soybean, it should go without saying that you can use genetic engineering to make things like that.
Ah, change the rules, just like GE businesses do. First you say "no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to suggest they're dangerous". When I provide evidence that disputes that you change it to the above, "it should go without saying that you can use genetic engineering to make things like that."
You might as well point out that you can put anthrax in an apple if you wanted. You can put arsenic in a cake, doesn't make baking bad.
Now it's misdirection.
And Monsanto, they're not your friends, that's fair to say, but saying that because they're bad GMOs are bad is like saying that because the RIAA are pricks you shouldn't listen to music.
Misdirection again. First you say "Tell that to the farmers who's crops were wiped out by papaya ringspot virus before GMO papayas arrived on the scene". In response I say, yes let's see what farmers say and provide a bunch of links to what farmers do say.
Do we need GMOs? Do we really need agricultural improvements? We could get by without a lot of things, but that's no reason not to use them, and no small amount of people in relevant fields seem to think biotech will be pretty significant.
Misdirection again. I never said anything about not making agricultural improvements. Instead I asked if GE is needed, then answered "no".
Falcon
And the reason growers want them is because consumers want them. I don't see how that issue relates to genetic engineering, that's something altogether different.
I never said it had anything to do with genetic engineering. You did in the post I replied to. Specifically you said I think heirloom growers should embrace GMOs. Then you explained why, to get hybrids "like Cherokee Purple and White Tomesol" stocked in supermarket stores.
Getting people to think of new or diverse crops as a true part of their diet, just like the foods they're accustomed to, it a task in and of itself.
And that is one of the goals of Slow Food. And guess what they say... Pandemic disease and genetic engineering have wiped out all traditional sources of meat (and many vegetable products) in a matter of decades. "Winona LaDuke, founder of the White Earth Land Recovery Project, which was the recipient of the International Slow Food Award for the Defense of Biodiversity in 2003 said, 'Indigenous people are center to Slow Food International,' because the foods they are talking about have long histories, the very foods Slow Food wants to protect."
I follow exotic pomology too, and it took decades for mangos and kiwis to get to where they are now, and still, people don't see them on the same level as apples and bananas.
And how many people eat kiwis and mangos? I used to take them with me for lunch.
Finally, there is no need for GE crops. All they do is enrich the pockets of big agribusinesses.
Tell that to the farmers who's crops were wiped out by papaya ringspot virus before GMO papayas arrived on the scene.
Yea, let's ask farmers about GE:
This post of mine has 8 more links.
To say there's no need for them, I don't get that either.
I and others, including experts, have said GE is not needed for food because it is not needed. I dare you prove that wrong. Provide one piece of evidence GE is needed. Then we'll see what reviewers say.
FAO report reveals GM crops not needed to feed the world.
That's like saying there is no need for plant breeding.
You like every other person who tries to justify genetic engineering tries this. Selective breeding and crossbreeding is a hell of a lot different than inserting arctic fish genes into tomatoes. The first happens frequently in nature but the second rarely if ever happens.
We know it works, no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to suggest they're dangerous
My, my, my. How wrong you are. One example we know of is soya with a gene from Brazil nuts. Identification of A Brazil-Nut Allergen in transgenic soybeans[pdf]. The fact the soya was not released does not change the fact that the engineering soya was dangerous to those allergic to Brazil nuts and could cause their deaths.
considering horizontal gene transfer between unrelated species happens all the time
I thought you might bring that up, and I already addressed