Driving down a highway or interstate is fine - you're just as alert to potential danger, because the part of your brain doing the driving kicks alerts up to the thinking part of your brain immediately when something happens. Cruise control will keep your speed steady, so no worries there. You will miss the occasional exit, though.
Sorry, but if you're missing exists, then you are definitely not concentrating hard enough on driving.
But then all theoretically possible extinction events have an infinite DEGREE OF BADNESS, and so they all carry an equal infinite RISK.
How do you decide which to spend money on?
In reality, the odds of an asteroid hitting us are relatively much higher than the sun suddenly exploding tomorrow, so you would have to base yor decision on the CHANCE and not worry about the (equally infinite) RISK.
The difficulties of GM are that the producer is able to develop a dependency on the product. This dependency should be illegal. It's why pimps get their girls (and boys) hooked on crack or heroin. It's why big tobacco is evil.
What "dependency"? You can switch from GMO to non-GMO any time you like. Of course, you have to live with the lower yields if you do.
This is a tangent, but comparing this response with the typical systemd response yields some insight on both the perceived arrogance of Monsanto and the conjectured hidden agenda of systemd.
We'll call this kind of response the 'systemd defense'
It's a variation on the old Windows defence: you've always been able to switch to another OS, therefore you're freely choosing to use Windows, therefore Windows is the most popular OS because people choose to use it.
I'm still trying to figure out what your claim is. Schmeiser planted his fields with intentionally selected IP protected soybeans, got sued for it, and lost. He's not a victim here who just magically had a field full of Monsanto's soybeans through no fault of his own. If he hadn't done that, he wouldn't have been sued. This was clearly a test case and it didn't work out well for him.
Yes, it's a test case that proves that patents shouldn't be allowed on plants, which I assume was the point.
It's like the test case involving Rosa Parks sitting at the front of a bus in the 1950s. Nobody doubted that she broke the law as it stood.
No, the point is that Monsanto successfully sued because they had the patent. It's irrelevant whether the farmer contaminated his crops accidentally or deliberately, the problem is Monsanto having the patent in the first place.
If they have the ability to sue anyone who infringes their patent, then depending on their goodwill to only go after people who tell them they've done it deliberately is incredibly naive, regardless of any other evidence of what they've actually done.
Once you plant GM crops and their genes spill over to non-GM crops, Monsanto will lay claim to the non-GM seeds and sue the farmer to death.
Can you cite an example of this happening? I'm genuinely curious. I know of only one case where Monsanto has sued a farmer for cross-polination. It was shown in court that the farmer actually was trying to deliberately and surreptitiously acquire GM seeds through a roundabout way.
Why otherwise would Monsanto need to patent the seeds?
the current system in which farmers buy non-GM hybrids from seed companies (upon which they're entirely dependent), pesticides from chemical companies
(upon whom they're entirely dependent), fuel from oil companies (upon whom they're entirely dependent), etc
And who says that's a good thing?
We should nationalise the lot of them and treat the cost like we do Defence, i.e. something everybody has to contribute towards through taxes for our mutual security and safety.
There is plenty of science done that doesn't make a profit, and not just in low cost areas like Computer Science.
Also, all your work is based on thousands of people before you, are you going to let them share in the profits of your discovery?
Finally, if you want to make a profit, find another field to do it in. Become an investment banker, football player or the next Justin Bieber. I don't care, but getting a PhD in science is not supposed to be a guarantee of vast wealth in the future.
If everyone had your attitude, things like the LHC wouldn't exist.
Monsanto hasn't lost a case, which is a pretty good indicator that they're bringing suits only in egregious cases.
If you accept that it is fine to patent plants, then by definition Monsanto will win all their cases.
In the same way, if you accept that record companies are acting within the copyright laws, then when they sue someone for illegally downloading some music, they will win if it goes to court.
Once you switch to Monsanto, you sign a contract that prohibits you from reseeding your own corn.
Hey, dumbass! Guess what? That's what the vast majority of farmers do anyway since most if not all hybrid varieties of corn produce sterile seeds. The only ones who would really be affected are registered seed growers for other companies. They are going to be the ones that have to be careful if their neighbors are growing Monsanto products as their crops are used only as seed.
You make it sound as though people are fine with Big Agriculture with the sole exception of Monsanto. It's not about one company, it's the whole industry that's wrong.
No. No one has been sued for accidental cross-pollination. The case you refer to was a specially designed test case that would have eliminated the ability of any seed company to enforce a patent involving a selectable marker. Dishonesty throws into question the justice of your cause.
Even given that is true, it doesn't affect the principle, which is that seeds shouldn't be patentable in the first place.
In the case of organic, it's simple: Cow shit is well known to have many parasites, salmonella and e. coli among them. Both are known to cause people to get sick, and in some cases kill people, because both excrete chemicals into your intestines that are highly toxic, which your intestines try to flush out, giving you bad diarrhea.
In what bizarre alternative reality do you live where people take vegetables (or pieces of dead cow?) covered in shit and eat them without washing them first?
I'll bet not. I'll bet it's driven by the frankenfood oh noes folks, who are themselves interested in power and selling books.
In any case, if it's not frankenfood fears, it's genetic diversity fears. If not that, fear of lawsuits by Monsanto of poor farmers whose seed got tainted.
A prediction: And if not that, something else.
No, primarily it's about the ridiculous IP stuff and how the world's largest military-industrial complex enforce it.
If this is about saving starving people, why allow Monsanto and whoever to have patents on the products? Let the government pay them compensation (or not) for their patented super golden rice gene and release it in the public domain.
It is the failure to do something like this which makes people extremely suspicious.
It's not the science that people care about. It's the companies who "own" the super-rice when it becomes mixed up with non-GMO rice and tell you you have to destroy your crop and buy only their super-rice.
The problem a lot of US libertarian/free market slashdotters seem to have is that they cannot conceive of anything that makes a profit being bad.
Cross pollination is something that will likely happen in nature as well, and has been happening. GMO (Monsanto's efforts) are absolutely not anything like this process.
Ok. I think the key question is who cares. Houses, cars, airplanes, the internet, twinkies, lightbulbs, cell phones, roads, bacon, hats, speakers, tylenol, vacuum cleaners, scissors, multimeters, cages, cameras, pianos, boxes, nuclear power stations, kettles, pants, chairs, spaceships, windows and video games don't occur naturally either.
Those items will not be let loose in the wild and start to intermingle with other non-patented houses etc so that the patent owner can demand you pay them for copying part of their original house.
I don't follow your argument here at all. Are you saying that GMO foods magically destroy any external contamination, and you can just dig them up and eat them even if they've come from a farm where workers handling diseased livestock then process vegetables, and they're servied in a restaurant by a chef with gastro-entiritis who doesn't bother washing his hands very often?
Keep in mind that this comes after Chipotle just switched from their previous supplier that provided GMO food to one that is all organic. Smart choice, wasn't it?
Anyways let's hear it, tell me the process you use to remove the lettuce from the burrito to then wash it.
You're getting a bit desperate here. If I go to a restaurant, I expect them to observe normal hygience rules too, and this definitely includes washing raw vegetables before serving them.
In fact one more thing to add: If you're truly concerned about food safety and ethics, then you should be lobbying against organic food, which has on numerous occasions caused death by food poisoning, which stems from the fact that it requires using cow shit.
That is an absolutely ridiculous argument. You don't actually eat the cow shit you grow vegetables in. Most normal human beings wash their food first, if only to remove the chemical coating much non-organic food arrives with.
It's like saying you shouldn't keep pets because if you let your dog or cat shit on your floor and your kids eat it, it might make them sick.
Sorry, but if banning GMO foods is the only way to rein-in Monsanto, I'll accept that price.
That's like saying that if banning computers is the only way to reign in Microsoft, you'll accept that price. It's an asshole ideology.
In the EU we have food mountains. We don't actually need genetically modified foods to feed our people. It is not analogous to banning computers to control Microsoft
The real concern is with countries becoming indebted to undemocratic corporations like Monsanto. The fear is that they will make it impossible for anyone to compete with their patented crops. It's really very little to do with GMO foods themselves. Monsanto are the assholes in all this.
When I speak about GMO, I speak only about the science and nothing else.
Outside of the lab, there is no such thing as pure science. You cannot divorce this from economics and politics.
And if you're talking about large US corporations like Monsanto, many people in Europe start from the premise that they are evil unless they can prove otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Driving down a highway or interstate is fine - you're just as alert to potential danger, because the part of your brain doing the driving kicks alerts up to the thinking part of your brain immediately when something happens. Cruise control will keep your speed steady, so no worries there. You will miss the occasional exit, though.
Sorry, but if you're missing exists, then you are definitely not concentrating hard enough on driving.
What's wrong with kids and their parents talking with each other, and sharing experiences when out on a drive . . . ?
You'd have to forcibly remove their headphones and iToys for a start, and therefore have them sulk for the rest of the journey.
How do you decide which to spend money on?
In reality, the odds of an asteroid hitting us are relatively much higher than the sun suddenly exploding tomorrow, so you would have to base yor decision on the CHANCE and not worry about the (equally infinite) RISK.
The difficulties of GM are that the producer is able to develop a dependency on the product. This dependency should be illegal. It's why pimps get their girls (and boys) hooked on crack or heroin. It's why big tobacco is evil.
What "dependency"? You can switch from GMO to non-GMO any time you like. Of course, you have to live with the lower yields if you do.
This is a tangent, but comparing this response with the typical systemd response yields some insight on both the perceived arrogance of Monsanto and the conjectured hidden agenda of systemd. We'll call this kind of response the 'systemd defense'
It's a variation on the old Windows defence: you've always been able to switch to another OS, therefore you're freely choosing to use Windows, therefore Windows is the most popular OS because people choose to use it.
I'm still trying to figure out what your claim is. Schmeiser planted his fields with intentionally selected IP protected soybeans, got sued for it, and lost. He's not a victim here who just magically had a field full of Monsanto's soybeans through no fault of his own. If he hadn't done that, he wouldn't have been sued. This was clearly a test case and it didn't work out well for him.
Yes, it's a test case that proves that patents shouldn't be allowed on plants, which I assume was the point.
It's like the test case involving Rosa Parks sitting at the front of a bus in the 1950s. Nobody doubted that she broke the law as it stood.
If they have the ability to sue anyone who infringes their patent, then depending on their goodwill to only go after people who tell them they've done it deliberately is incredibly naive, regardless of any other evidence of what they've actually done.
Once you plant GM crops and their genes spill over to non-GM crops, Monsanto will lay claim to the non-GM seeds and sue the farmer to death.
Can you cite an example of this happening? I'm genuinely curious. I know of only one case where Monsanto has sued a farmer for cross-polination. It was shown in court that the farmer actually was trying to deliberately and surreptitiously acquire GM seeds through a roundabout way.
Why otherwise would Monsanto need to patent the seeds?
the current system in which farmers buy non-GM hybrids from seed companies (upon which they're entirely dependent), pesticides from chemical companies (upon whom they're entirely dependent), fuel from oil companies (upon whom they're entirely dependent), etc
And who says that's a good thing?
We should nationalise the lot of them and treat the cost like we do Defence, i.e. something everybody has to contribute towards through taxes for our mutual security and safety.
Also, all your work is based on thousands of people before you, are you going to let them share in the profits of your discovery?
Finally, if you want to make a profit, find another field to do it in. Become an investment banker, football player or the next Justin Bieber. I don't care, but getting a PhD in science is not supposed to be a guarantee of vast wealth in the future.
If everyone had your attitude, things like the LHC wouldn't exist.
Monsanto hasn't lost a case, which is a pretty good indicator that they're bringing suits only in egregious cases.
If you accept that it is fine to patent plants, then by definition Monsanto will win all their cases.
In the same way, if you accept that record companies are acting within the copyright laws, then when they sue someone for illegally downloading some music, they will win if it goes to court.
Yeah, I know.
Once you switch to Monsanto, you sign a contract that prohibits you from reseeding your own corn.
Hey, dumbass! Guess what? That's what the vast majority of farmers do anyway since most if not all hybrid varieties of corn produce sterile seeds. The only ones who would really be affected are registered seed growers for other companies. They are going to be the ones that have to be careful if their neighbors are growing Monsanto products as their crops are used only as seed.
You make it sound as though people are fine with Big Agriculture with the sole exception of Monsanto. It's not about one company, it's the whole industry that's wrong.
No. No one has been sued for accidental cross-pollination. The case you refer to was a specially designed test case that would have eliminated the ability of any seed company to enforce a patent involving a selectable marker. Dishonesty throws into question the justice of your cause.
Even given that is true, it doesn't affect the principle, which is that seeds shouldn't be patentable in the first place.
But of course that's anti-capitalist commie talk.
In the case of organic, it's simple: Cow shit is well known to have many parasites, salmonella and e. coli among them. Both are known to cause people to get sick, and in some cases kill people, because both excrete chemicals into your intestines that are highly toxic, which your intestines try to flush out, giving you bad diarrhea.
In what bizarre alternative reality do you live where people take vegetables (or pieces of dead cow?) covered in shit and eat them without washing them first?
I'll bet not. I'll bet it's driven by the frankenfood oh noes folks, who are themselves interested in power and selling books.
In any case, if it's not frankenfood fears, it's genetic diversity fears. If not that, fear of lawsuits by Monsanto of poor farmers whose seed got tainted.
A prediction: And if not that, something else.
No, primarily it's about the ridiculous IP stuff and how the world's largest military-industrial complex enforce it.
It is the failure to do something like this which makes people extremely suspicious.
The problem a lot of US libertarian/free market slashdotters seem to have is that they cannot conceive of anything that makes a profit being bad.
Cross pollination is something that will likely happen in nature as well, and has been happening. GMO (Monsanto's efforts) are absolutely not anything like this process.
Ok. I think the key question is who cares. Houses, cars, airplanes, the internet, twinkies, lightbulbs, cell phones, roads, bacon, hats, speakers, tylenol, vacuum cleaners, scissors, multimeters, cages, cameras, pianos, boxes, nuclear power stations, kettles, pants, chairs, spaceships, windows and video games don't occur naturally either.
Those items will not be let loose in the wild and start to intermingle with other non-patented houses etc so that the patent owner can demand you pay them for copying part of their original house.
I don't follow your argument here at all. Are you saying that GMO foods magically destroy any external contamination, and you can just dig them up and eat them even if they've come from a farm where workers handling diseased livestock then process vegetables, and they're servied in a restaurant by a chef with gastro-entiritis who doesn't bother washing his hands very often?
Do tell me, dear sir, how you intend to wash the lettuce served in a Chipotle burrito?
http://www.startribune.com/twi...
Keep in mind that this comes after Chipotle just switched from their previous supplier that provided GMO food to one that is all organic. Smart choice, wasn't it?
Anyways let's hear it, tell me the process you use to remove the lettuce from the burrito to then wash it.
You're getting a bit desperate here. If I go to a restaurant, I expect them to observe normal hygience rules too, and this definitely includes washing raw vegetables before serving them.
In fact one more thing to add: If you're truly concerned about food safety and ethics, then you should be lobbying against organic food, which has on numerous occasions caused death by food poisoning, which stems from the fact that it requires using cow shit.
That is an absolutely ridiculous argument. You don't actually eat the cow shit you grow vegetables in. Most normal human beings wash their food first, if only to remove the chemical coating much non-organic food arrives with.
It's like saying you shouldn't keep pets because if you let your dog or cat shit on your floor and your kids eat it, it might make them sick.
Sorry, but if banning GMO foods is the only way to rein-in Monsanto, I'll accept that price.
That's like saying that if banning computers is the only way to reign in Microsoft, you'll accept that price. It's an asshole ideology.
In the EU we have food mountains. We don't actually need genetically modified foods to feed our people. It is not analogous to banning computers to control Microsoft
The real concern is with countries becoming indebted to undemocratic corporations like Monsanto. The fear is that they will make it impossible for anyone to compete with their patented crops. It's really very little to do with GMO foods themselves. Monsanto are the assholes in all this.
When I speak about GMO, I speak only about the science and nothing else.
Outside of the lab, there is no such thing as pure science. You cannot divorce this from economics and politics.
And if you're talking about large US corporations like Monsanto, many people in Europe start from the premise that they are evil unless they can prove otherwise.
No, the best argument against GMO food is that it's owned by companies like Monsanto.
I can't tell, is this a parody troll or not?
No, it's completely serious.
FYI, this is sarcasm.
Of course, but to be fair, most of us here wrestle daily with the regret we have over opting out of that quarterback gig.
Mod parent up, funniest thing I've read on slashdot in ages.