On top of that, glyphosphate is one of the least toxic herbacides out there that generally breaks down relatively quickly in the environment.
Sorry, that's just not true. Higher levels of it have been found in the internal organs of chronically ill people.
1. Which is irrelevant to the point that it breaks down faster than most other herbicides.
2. It's also irrelevant to the fact that it really is less toxic as well.
2. Chronically ill people have higher concentrations of lots of things, because they excrete it more slowly. So again, irrelevant.
We have many, many negative ecological/human impacts that have no known cause, that correspond roughly to the time that various kinds of GMO techniques and species came into use.
By that logic, GMOs cause people to be more accepting of gay marriage. We should do research to find the causes of these things, of course, but there's no reason to pick on whatever random tech/group/idea has an image problem at the moment.
the GMO companies have nicely prevented that, by making it impossible to determine precisely when and where different populations were exposed to different GMO species or techniques.
First, we have the US and Europe.
Second, it isn't any different than any other industry - what was the sulfur content of the oil used to make your keyboard?
If the GMO companies believed their products were safe, they would have proudly labeled them.
First, Monsanto et al do 'proudly' label their products, advertise them, even explain in great detail what all their varieties do - but you aren't buying large quantities of seed, so you don't see it.
Second, as long as people are freaking out about GMOs keeping quiet makes more sense than making yourself a target for anti-GMO activists. You really think it makes financial sense to be the only company with a 'Frankenfood' sticker on their products?
But if I could put a question to you - why this tech? Out of the thousand of fairly new techs that go into billions of products, why this one and not, say, cell phone radiation, hormone analogues in plastic,...?
I am worried that we will have some low level carcinogen accidentally get incorporated in our GMO wheat supply, and voila we have half the world's population getting stomach cancer decades later.
Why aren't you worried about the same thing happening with "conventionally bred" varieties? Running seed through an X-ray machine will cause huge numbers of all sorts of random mutations (as opposed to a single, controlled insertion), and they don't get tested nearly as thoroughly.
Modern gene splicing is mostly about ensuring farmers must buy seeds annually because they can't simply take the seeds from their crops and replant them
No. For existing varieties it's about lowering costs to the farmer.
they are mostly designed to produce only sterile seeds or worse to produce sterile offspring 2-3 generations down the line
That's from being hybridized, not from being genetically modified.
they are designed to exploit those mechanisms to make competing heirloom strains of crops sterile and gain market share
it is remarkably difficult to refute the latter by any means
Of course it is, it's based on inverting the burden of proof. It's trivial (and absurd) to invent something vague and non-detectable, and then shout "You haven't disproved it!!!" to anyone who isn't convinced.
You may as well demand an explanation of broken legs impeding movement if one takes the position that motor movement is controlled by the brain.
That's a perfectly valid request if you have no prior understanding of biology - e.g. it wasn't believed by ancient cultures. We had to do actual research to demonstrate the connection.
the brain is not synonymous with or exhaustive in explaining consciousness
Ok. Exactly what part of consciousness can't possibly be explained by the brain? It may seem rude to put the bar that high, but when the only evidence for X is that "nothing else can explain it", you have to be pretty certain that nothing else can explain it.
Which is to say, the statement was entirely correct. It's curious how people who are enamored with one interpretation see neutrally stated clarification as desperation.
What good does it do me that there is a copy of me with my memories on a different planet? If my consciousness does not go to the copy (and how would it?), it is rather pointless as well as creepy.
At the very least the same benefits as sending a machine (knowledge, pride) or other people (knowing that the future of mankind is more secure, etc).
And from a philosophical perspective it doesn't make sense to think of one of your future selves differently than the other if they're 100% physically identical. i.e. you'd have the exact same situation if you were magically taken to the other planet and a duplicate was made here.
Western society has only allowed women to own property... relatively recently
Right, when you can't send women to prison (often hard-labor) for not paying taxes or debts or sue them for violating a contract it wouldn't make sense to let them get into a position where they could abuse that power. Horrible and stupid, yes, but not exactly one-sided.
Oddly enough, in several countries women gained the right to control their own money while men were still responsible for the taxes on that income. This lead to men serving prison time for not paying taxes on money that they had no legal right to access.
"In the 19th century women in the US and Europe regularly had clitoridectomy operations as it was seen as a way of stopping the evils of masturbation-induced madness.
Quite right. But it's hard to call that misogyny when those same people pushed for circumcision and anti-erection devices for the exact same reason, as well as chastity belts, ultra-low-fiber diets, and a whole host of useless, freakish "treatments" for all sorts of non-illnesses. It's even harder to call it misogyny when clitoridectomy (and everything similar) is illegal nearly everywhere (barring rare cancer cases, etc), while circumcision is still not only legal but frequently preformed on healthy children in the US.
Objects whiz by at tens of thousands of miles per hour. By the time you focus the telescope, will it and shade already be out of sync?
The shade only has to cover the star, not aim directly at the plant. So this is more like blocking out the sun to see a baseball than tracking a baseball with a camera.
If an ordinance read: "A pack of rabid wolves being situated near our town, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.", would that imply that having rabies is a prerequisite to having this right?
Why do you think that "militia" and "the people" are referring to the same thing? And why does "the people" in every other amendment always mean "people in general" - why does this mention need to be interpreted differently?
Flip it around ; the implication is that women aren't expected to pay because they aren't able to, because they are either incapable of earning money, or not entitled to hold their own finances.
Sure. The male-only draft insults women's ability to fight, and the longer prison sentences men get implies that women aren't mature enough to handle themselves responsibly. Those poor women!
But if we're going that route, why not say that the wage gap (at least whatever part of it might be real) is an insult to men. It implies (and acts as a justification for) the idea that finances are the man's responsibility. It's a cruel reminder of the bad old days when men were thrown into debtor's prison because of debts that their wife owed - how cruel is that?
People are so used to women getting stuff for free that it's surprising when a woman actually pays for something - and that's one of your top three examples of misogyny?
i.e. One of your bigger complaints in life is: "Other people are expected to support me, and never vice-versa. It's so unfair!"
The amount of earned income of women who work full-time is smaller than that of similarly situated men. On the other hand, for every choice a person can make between higher income and some other benefit (flexible hours, commute time, safety, stress, physical effort, etc) men are more likely to chose the extra money than women are. This alone eliminates at least 2/3 of the difference. And just as importantly, almost every type of unearned income - from dating and spouses supporting each other and inheritance to government programs and charities - gives more money to women. The net effect is that women make 80% of consumer choices and own 60% of all the wealth in the US. While I do believe that there are workplace issues women face that need to be resolved, I don't think our income distribution is as bizarrely one-sided as some people want to believe.
hold 90% or more of the political positions, and head up most corporations
In a similar vein, why would we want to? Sure, some women really want to do that, and they really should be able to, but why do the hard work of fighting to the top when you can just marry a coworker and pressure him to do it? And politically, women are the majority of voters, anything that gets labeled as a "women's issue" gets extra attention, and Joe Biden will happily go on TV and shame men into helping women. When's the last time you heard a politician talk about helping men?
dictate what men must look like with fashion magazines
Why would women care about pressuring men to look a particular way if we can get them to act in a particular way? If our society can pressure men to do most of the dirty, dangerous, and uncomfortable work, why worry about their fashion? Think about that next time you're shoveling a driveway, changing a tire, or carrying something heavy to help out a member of the "weaker" sex.
""00000000 is just as random as any other code""
"Except that you can lean on the button pad and enter it by mistake. Bye Bye world."
Or a short develops - in a button that's used underground or on a submarine.
So yeah, I find it offensive that you want to let people lose that before you'll even consider helping them.
I not only would consider helping them, I would consider it an obligation. But part of that obligation is to actually help, not just a simpleminded "icky -> outlaw it".
And that is why your argument is fallacious. Like the guy [bleeding to death] by the side of the road, the person in a bad position who needs a job doesn't have the luxury to shop around.
And your solution to this horrific situation is to tell the "Bad Samaritan" than they can either help for free, or they should just keep driving? You need to understand that your solution would almost certainly get people killed. So why not look at a reward system for people who do help, a better emergency response system,... something that is likely to actually make the situation better?
I did hiring for fast food back when I was in my university years... we were very likely to pass over an applicant living out of his car...
I've been in similar situations. I've known several people who lived for years in broken-down vehicles, people with untreated mental illness, etc. The most important lesson I learned apart from "holy fuck is life unfair" was that you have to be careful how you help. Giving money to the homeless might feel right, but if they use it to drink themselves to death you haven't really done any good.
And just look at the situation - you get all the good feelings of helping the poor (yay me!), people you don't like bear all of the costs (evil corporations), and if things don't turn out well you're unlikely to have to face that fact (unemployment increased as a result? evil corp's fault). That's pretty much a perfect storm for knee-jerk legislation that might do more harm than good.
contracts that both parties deem as mutually beneficial
Right. Because the unemployed guy with a mortgage and family; he's on an equal footing when negotiating his wage with Walmart.
So if someone is in a bad position, they don't really benefit from having a job? And even stranger, someone who can get a mortgage [i.e. probably in the top 2% of the world] is still in such an overwhelmingly bad situation that he can't fight his own battles?
Let just be clear here. If I'm in a bad situation, and have found a way to improve it, you can stop me from improving my own life because some third person in a better position benefits even more, and you find that offensive?
So the question is, if a GMO does not provide better yields than a traditional crop, why do farmers purchase them?
Just in case this wasn't rhetorical, it's to reduce input costs. Take the Bt trait - if the corn/cotton makes its own pesticide, you don't have to buy it separately and drag several tons of diesel-powered equipment around in circles to spray it.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Which is irrelevant to the point that it breaks down faster than most other herbicides.
2. It's also irrelevant to the fact that it really is less toxic as well.
2. Chronically ill people have higher concentrations of lots of things, because they excrete it more slowly. So again, irrelevant.
By that logic, GMOs cause people to be more accepting of gay marriage. We should do research to find the causes of these things, of course, but there's no reason to pick on whatever random tech/group/idea has an image problem at the moment.
First, we have the US and Europe.
Second, it isn't any different than any other industry - what was the sulfur content of the oil used to make your keyboard?
First, Monsanto et al do 'proudly' label their products, advertise them, even explain in great detail what all their varieties do - but you aren't buying large quantities of seed, so you don't see it.
Second, as long as people are freaking out about GMOs keeping quiet makes more sense than making yourself a target for anti-GMO activists. You really think it makes financial sense to be the only company with a 'Frankenfood' sticker on their products?
But if I could put a question to you - why this tech? Out of the thousand of fairly new techs that go into billions of products, why this one and not, say, cell phone radiation, hormone analogues in plastic, ...?
Why aren't you worried about the same thing happening with "conventionally bred" varieties? Running seed through an X-ray machine will cause huge numbers of all sorts of random mutations (as opposed to a single, controlled insertion), and they don't get tested nearly as thoroughly.
No. For existing varieties it's about lowering costs to the farmer.
That's from being hybridized, not from being genetically modified.
Citation needed.
it is remarkably difficult to refute the latter by any means
Of course it is, it's based on inverting the burden of proof. It's trivial (and absurd) to invent something vague and non-detectable, and then shout "You haven't disproved it!!!" to anyone who isn't convinced.
You may as well demand an explanation of broken legs impeding movement if one takes the position that motor movement is controlled by the brain.
That's a perfectly valid request if you have no prior understanding of biology - e.g. it wasn't believed by ancient cultures. We had to do actual research to demonstrate the connection.
the brain is not synonymous with or exhaustive in explaining consciousness
Ok. Exactly what part of consciousness can't possibly be explained by the brain? It may seem rude to put the bar that high, but when the only evidence for X is that "nothing else can explain it", you have to be pretty certain that nothing else can explain it.
Which is to say, the statement was entirely correct. It's curious how people who are enamored with one interpretation see neutrally stated clarification as desperation.
Technically, Bell's Theorem only rules out local hidden variables.
What good does it do me that there is a copy of me with my memories on a different planet? If my consciousness does not go to the copy (and how would it?), it is rather pointless as well as creepy.
At the very least the same benefits as sending a machine (knowledge, pride) or other people (knowing that the future of mankind is more secure, etc).
And from a philosophical perspective it doesn't make sense to think of one of your future selves differently than the other if they're 100% physically identical. i.e. you'd have the exact same situation if you were magically taken to the other planet and a duplicate was made here.
Western society has only allowed women to own property ... relatively recently
Right, when you can't send women to prison (often hard-labor) for not paying taxes or debts or sue them for violating a contract it wouldn't make sense to let them get into a position where they could abuse that power. Horrible and stupid, yes, but not exactly one-sided.
Oddly enough, in several countries women gained the right to control their own money while men were still responsible for the taxes on that income. This lead to men serving prison time for not paying taxes on money that they had no legal right to access.
"In the 19th century women in the US and Europe regularly had clitoridectomy operations as it was seen as a way of stopping the evils of masturbation-induced madness.
Quite right. But it's hard to call that misogyny when those same people pushed for circumcision and anti-erection devices for the exact same reason, as well as chastity belts, ultra-low-fiber diets, and a whole host of useless, freakish "treatments" for all sorts of non-illnesses. It's even harder to call it misogyny when clitoridectomy (and everything similar) is illegal nearly everywhere (barring rare cancer cases, etc), while circumcision is still not only legal but frequently preformed on healthy children in the US.
Objects whiz by at tens of thousands of miles per hour. By the time you focus the telescope, will it and shade already be out of sync?
The shade only has to cover the star, not aim directly at the plant. So this is more like blocking out the sun to see a baseball than tracking a baseball with a camera.
If an ordinance read: "A pack of rabid wolves being situated near our town, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.", would that imply that having rabies is a prerequisite to having this right?
Why do you think that "militia" and "the people" are referring to the same thing? And why does "the people" in every other amendment always mean "people in general" - why does this mention need to be interpreted differently?
Flip it around ; the implication is that women aren't expected to pay because they aren't able to, because they are either incapable of earning money, or not entitled to hold their own finances.
Sure. The male-only draft insults women's ability to fight, and the longer prison sentences men get implies that women aren't mature enough to handle themselves responsibly. Those poor women!
But if we're going that route, why not say that the wage gap (at least whatever part of it might be real) is an insult to men. It implies (and acts as a justification for) the idea that finances are the man's responsibility. It's a cruel reminder of the bad old days when men were thrown into debtor's prison because of debts that their wife owed - how cruel is that?
Homeless women are typically in a LOT more danger than men on the street.
Is that an actual fact, or just something that feels right to you because of your world view?
Because having said all of the above, men and women are NOT the same. They do have SOME differences!?
Ah, modern feminism. Equality when I want it, not when I don't.
People are so used to women getting stuff for free that it's surprising when a woman actually pays for something - and that's one of your top three examples of misogyny?
i.e. One of your bigger complaints in life is: "Other people are expected to support me, and never vice-versa. It's so unfair!"
Thanks, I needed a laugh.
Cancer can absolutely be categorized as one disease. As you say, it's the pathological replication of a cell.
Viral infection can absolutely be categorized as one disease. As you say, it's the pathological replication of viruses.
Sorry, HIV isn't that much like the common cold, and skin cancer isn't that much like leukemia. Clarifying that to laypeople is probably a good idea.
The meme that "cancer is a whole spectrum of diseases" is just that, a meme.
Just like "human beings are primates" and "Pluto isn't a planet".
Study any topic deeply enough and almost any label will come up short. That doesn't mean the label is wrong.
It also doesn't mean the different labeling schemes aren't better than others for certain uses.
That's why they make more money than men
The amount of earned income of women who work full-time is smaller than that of similarly situated men. On the other hand, for every choice a person can make between higher income and some other benefit (flexible hours, commute time, safety, stress, physical effort, etc) men are more likely to chose the extra money than women are. This alone eliminates at least 2/3 of the difference. And just as importantly, almost every type of unearned income - from dating and spouses supporting each other and inheritance to government programs and charities - gives more money to women. The net effect is that women make 80% of consumer choices and own 60% of all the wealth in the US. While I do believe that there are workplace issues women face that need to be resolved, I don't think our income distribution is as bizarrely one-sided as some people want to believe.
hold 90% or more of the political positions, and head up most corporations
In a similar vein, why would we want to? Sure, some women really want to do that, and they really should be able to, but why do the hard work of fighting to the top when you can just marry a coworker and pressure him to do it? And politically, women are the majority of voters, anything that gets labeled as a "women's issue" gets extra attention, and Joe Biden will happily go on TV and shame men into helping women. When's the last time you heard a politician talk about helping men?
dictate what men must look like with fashion magazines
Why would women care about pressuring men to look a particular way if we can get them to act in a particular way? If our society can pressure men to do most of the dirty, dangerous, and uncomfortable work, why worry about their fashion? Think about that next time you're shoveling a driveway, changing a tire, or carrying something heavy to help out a member of the "weaker" sex.
""00000000 is just as random as any other code""
"Except that you can lean on the button pad and enter it by mistake. Bye Bye world."
Or a short develops - in a button that's used underground or on a submarine.
So yeah, I find it offensive that you want to let people lose that before you'll even consider helping them.
I not only would consider helping them, I would consider it an obligation. But part of that obligation is to actually help, not just a simpleminded "icky -> outlaw it".
And that is why your argument is fallacious. Like the guy [bleeding to death] by the side of the road, the person in a bad position who needs a job doesn't have the luxury to shop around.
And your solution to this horrific situation is to tell the "Bad Samaritan" than they can either help for free, or they should just keep driving? You need to understand that your solution would almost certainly get people killed. So why not look at a reward system for people who do help, a better emergency response system, ... something that is likely to actually make the situation better?
I did hiring for fast food back when I was in my university years ... we were very likely to pass over an applicant living out of his car ...
I've been in similar situations. I've known several people who lived for years in broken-down vehicles, people with untreated mental illness, etc. The most important lesson I learned apart from "holy fuck is life unfair" was that you have to be careful how you help. Giving money to the homeless might feel right, but if they use it to drink themselves to death you haven't really done any good.
And just look at the situation - you get all the good feelings of helping the poor (yay me!), people you don't like bear all of the costs (evil corporations), and if things don't turn out well you're unlikely to have to face that fact (unemployment increased as a result? evil corp's fault). That's pretty much a perfect storm for knee-jerk legislation that might do more harm than good.
contracts that both parties deem as mutually beneficial
Right. Because the unemployed guy with a mortgage and family; he's on an equal footing when negotiating his wage with Walmart.
So if someone is in a bad position, they don't really benefit from having a job? And even stranger, someone who can get a mortgage [i.e. probably in the top 2% of the world] is still in such an overwhelmingly bad situation that he can't fight his own battles?
Let just be clear here. If I'm in a bad situation, and have found a way to improve it, you can stop me from improving my own life because some third person in a better position benefits even more, and you find that offensive?
So the question is, if a GMO does not provide better yields than a traditional crop, why do farmers purchase them?
Just in case this wasn't rhetorical, it's to reduce input costs. Take the Bt trait - if the corn/cotton makes its own pesticide, you don't have to buy it separately and drag several tons of diesel-powered equipment around in circles to spray it.
For the same reason as GMOs in the USA do: the farmers are being convinced that it is beneficial.
I see you've chosen "controlled by the Illuminati" - good luck with that.
it has been found that the yield of GMO crops is not better then that of classical crops
And why would it be better? The purpose of most GMOs is to lower input costs - fewer herbicides and pesticides, no need to till, etc.
That's like ignoring fuel efficiency when comparing cars - "Same top speed, so it's not any better!".
If it's science you want, here's some for you Precautionary principle [wikipedia.org].
That isn't science, it's a general policy position.
Then who selects for the 'right' crops?
People with the job title "Breeder".
Do you infest the field with the herbicide that you want your crop to be resistant to and hope for the best?
Pretty much.
If you get crap yields, you might get hungry / broke pretty fast.
*facepalm*