We use what's cheap 'til it ain't cheap no more. By that point, something else is the new cheapest, and we use that. Not just with energy, but with any good or commodity. Believe me, I'm not saying you're wrong in believing there's a limit. I just can't come to believe that centuries of technological breakthrough are ready to just come to a halt.
With all due respect, you claim to be an economist . . . surely your familiar with the SEC's required disclaimer on a investment prospectus that reads something like (paraphrasing) "past performance is no indication of future performance."
But I find it interesting that you don't apply this axiom to science and engineering . . . you indicate that you don't beleive that centuries of technological breakthrough are ready to just coem to a halt . . . there are physical laws and limits that can grind us to a halt . . . even though the lack of a new energy source may cause huge destabilization in markets, economies and societies (as previous posters have already identified, higher cost of shipping, higher cost of packaging, higher cost of transportation, which leads to a higher cost of almost everything).
An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being: "The mechanism of oral learning is largely that of continuous repetition" (T.G.E. Powell).
To be quite honest with you the press release doesn't seem to make a definite distinction between these two very real and different concepts. I think that they are studying mechanisms, because the article compares human mechanisms and the robotic mechanisms and claims that studying the robot will help us understand human mechanisms better. . . and they are using kinematics to do this. But to say that the kinematics is the study of mechanisms is a gross mistake unworthy of even a seventh grade English student.
I can think of many mechanisms (mental mechanisms for example) that have no kinematic element to them.
Actually, I think it might happen the other way around, make it proprietary and from a big target like Microsoft, and your asking for the system to be hacked . . . Proprietary solutions from huge companies are irresistable targets for hacking.
Float it under the radar as open source, encourage peer review and you may have something that would be hackers contribute to rather than destroy.
Most email currently goes through Apache . . . I think that the open sorce community has done a pretty good job of creating the email server of choice. I think that they're probably the right group to also make it more secure.
Quoted from the article:
"Human beings are mechanisms," Balkcom said. "We're very complicated mechanisms and we don't even understand ourselves."
A gross oversimplication of humanity . . . were simply a mechanism that doesnt understand ourself? . . . isnt this a better description of a robot than a person? . . . sounds almost Freudian . . . perhaps this fellow feels more cofortable in the company of robots than people.
I stand corrected . . . I did some snooping around the web after reading your posts . . .
But does that mean that I can record a live concert and sell the recording of the performance as long as I have permission from the songwriter (who owns a copyright on the music/lyrics/etc) and I was not under a contractual ban from recording (like a recording ban listed on the ticket purchase)? That would imply that I wouldn't need any permission from the performer . . . (unless I'm missing something here . ..)
Literature is one of the five prize areas mentioned in Alfred Nobel's will. The will was, however, partly incomplete. Nobel simply stated that prizes be given to those who, during the preceding year, "shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and that one part be given to the person who "shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction."
Though this statement is somewhat subjective, based on Nobel's will, can anyone put together a compelling argument that any scientific publication fits Nobel's critieria for the prize in Literature? I am doubtful . . . remember, for the prize in Literature, the way that it is written is probably more important than the science that is presented . . .
I hate to rain on the parade but when has scientific writing ever taken literature in an ideal direction?
Before I sit around and watch the comments pile up, there have been "devices" available for years that allow you to record a concert legally -- they're called tape recorders
Uh . . . hate to rain on the parade, but a tape recorder does not allow you to record a concert legally . The copyright owner allows or disallows you to record his/her/their performance legally. As the performer owns the copyright (and has an agreement with the music writers if the writers are not the same as the performers), they can allow or disallow one to record the concert legally (with respect to copyright excluding fair use). Your web link cites example of copyright holders (performers) permitting this, but the use of a tape recorder in itself does not allow one to record a performance legally. Tape recorders record can record performances, but the use of a tape recorder has little to do with the issue of copyright legality.
A piece of music can be copyrighted, but so can a performance. For example, Mozart's music is all public domain (because its so old that any claim to copyright (if that existed back then) would have long expired), but a performance of a work by Mozart by an orchestra today is protected by copyright (just the performance is protected. Not the music).
You can ban people from recording a performance because the performers own a copyright on the performance . . . this can get more difficult if the written music is also still under copyright, because then there is a copyright holder for the music and the performance . . . if these guys get into a fight, there can be significant distribution issues.
There was a contract that allowed them to remain somewhat autonomous . . . the ex-hippies (Ben and Jerry) would sell unless the buyer was contractually obligated to continue some the socially concious initiatives that they started.
And its probably good marketing . . . keeps the "socially concious" brand reputation.
Hubble is far from obsolete . . . even if the James Webb Telescope was launched today, Hubble can do things James Webb can't and vice versa. One is not a drop in replacement for the other. Hubble's optics and sensors are optimized for shorter wavelength light than the James Webb telescope, so the two are looking at different part of the spectrum. The News Hour has an article here
One key difference between the two telescopes is that the new one will have better instruments for seeing infrared light, which has a longer wavelength and is seen at the far reaches of the universe. Meanwhile, Hubble is better at detecting the shorter wavelengths of light that can be seen with the human eye. Because of these differences between the two telescopes, the NASA panel recommended that the two telescopes' operations overlap so scientists can study both types of images from certain objects.
What's next? Microsoft patents the double click? Maybe the Qwerty keyboard? How about a special way of moving the hand with a plastic tracking device to indicate which part of the screen is being used by the user . . . I don't think that anyone's thought of that yet . . .
I good piece of art is one where you can look back on it and say "this depicts how people were back then" or something. It speaks for them.
By that definition everything outside the realists is probably not good art
Perhaps a little art history would broaden your definition of good art a bit. For example, the impressionists did what they did because they were pushed out of realism by the science and art of photography. It was no longer relevant to try to capture reality because reality was better captured by photos . . . so the artists went further and found impressionism. . . though impressionism does not represent the people of the time, the movement is highly representative of the context of the new technology of photography which actually helped kick off a revolution in art.
Personally I find Picasso facinating . . . a representation of three dimensions on a two dimensional medium . . . I like to think that if Picasso were a physicist he would have created a wonderful representation of a four dimensional hypercube using a three dimesional medium (this is the geek in me coming out). . . though none of this actaully speaks for them (him)
And what about someone more modern and minimalist like Piet Mondrain . . . his reductionism encompasses an understanding of color and balance that is unparalelled (Many of his works are nothing more than a few colored lines, but they express balance . . . a large yellow line balances a thin black line etc.). This says little about the people back then, but it says volumes about the human mind . . . never before had someone reduced the balance of color and proportion to such an extent that one could begin to understand what drives people to say that looks nice, I like that versus that is ugly because it is out of balance, out of proportion . . .
I could go on . . . the are many many more examples, but art is much more than this depicts how people were back then It encompasses much more of our humanity and sheds tremendous understanding on ourselves. To say otherwise suggests at best misunderstanding and at worst ignorance.
The DMCA may protect their protocols if the tried to protect their protocols using encryption or other means. But with respect to this argument, the DMCA only protects the copyrighted work and only if it has been protected (encrypted etc.). . .
If it is encrypted one can reverse engineers it by replicating the functionality with respect to inputs and outputs. If Sharman did not include any attempt to protect their copyrighted work (such as encryption), then the DMCA would not apply (though other laws might) and one could legally look at the code. (Note that the DMCA does not apply to unencrypted CD's but it does apply to encrypted DVD's . . . an important difference)
If one never clicks the EULA or AUP, then one is not bound by it . . . granted, that means you can't install it, but there are legal ways around that. Do you really need to install the software to learn how it works? Not always (though installation may make it easier).
I've long complained about science museums as childish, not giving science its full credit, and not giving the patrons a good understanding of the intricacies, complexity, and beauty of the scientific world. Of course I don't expect a museum to explain quantum mechanics in detail, but I do expect some idea of the evidence and data and perhaps a bit of the process that led us to the conclusion that we commonly accept as fact (After all we do call that the Scientific method).
So many museums have pretty diagrams showing "facts" but not much of the thinking that shows how we discovered and got to those facts (or conclusions or theories as the case may be).
Science is not facts. It's not bullets. It's not a list of terms describing a cross section of the earth. It's problem solving, experimentation, cross examination, peer review, drawing conclusions, making inferences, designing experiements . . . it encompasses higher thought processes than memorization of facts. Why don't most of the museums make an effort to show this?
Are there any reviewable court cases that indicate whether a company like Kazaa owns the FastTrack network or not?
The FastTrack network doesn't use Kazaa's servers or other resources. It does use Kazaa's technology. Which can be reverse engineered legally (see Nolo's article on trade secrets.
If the trade secret/network can be reverse engineered and this is legal and interoperating causes no impact on Kazaa's equipment etc., does Kazaa have the right to prevent other clients from using what is only the same protocol and network standards which were legally reverse engineered?
My gut feeling is no . . . but I wonder if the courts have already ruled on this . . .
Actually, Patent holders probably don't care too much about reverse engineering because their invention is disclosed and open to review in the patent application. They cannot keep the functionality secret or legally they wouldn't get a patent. The patent gives them monopolistic protection for a limited period of time in exchange for disclosing the "secrets" of their invention.
(Disclaimer: This only applies when the patent process works the way it was intended . . . the silly patents of late may not apply)
Reverse engineering is legal; right is an awfully strong term to apply to it . . . but correct (IANAL . . . standard disclaimers apply).
Nolo has an article on trade secrets that discusses reverse engineering. Quoted:
There is one group of people that cannot be stopped from using information protected under trade secret law. These are people who discover the secret independently, that is, without using illegal means or violating agreements or state laws. For example, it is not a violation of trade secret law to analyze (or "reverse engineer") any lawfully obtained product and determine its trade secret.
EXAMPLE
XCEL glue is comprised of a trade secret protected formula. Phil, a chemist, analyzes the contents of XCEL glue, determines its composition and recreates the formula. Phil can legally use this information to make and sell his own glue.
Isn't this a lot like the battles for rights to connect to online chat networks a couple of years ago? I remember folks going after trillian because they didn't want to have third party chat clients connecting in and not letting the chat networks' proprietary client deliver adware/spyware . . .
Sounds like Kazaa is fighting the same sort of thing for the same sort of reason except that in the case of chat, one must connect to the central servers of the chat netowrk. Can Kazaa really claim ownership-like rights to a network that doesn't depend on their servers for functionality? It would seem that Kazaa has created a Frankenstein monster . . . that perhaps they cannot wholly control . . .
You speak of a near impossibility possible maybe, probable, depending on the specific case, possibly no. The number of mutations needed to create a gene that is not a modification of another existing gene is astronomical. The number of other statisically probable mutations (occuring in the rest of the genome) during the mutagenic evolutionary pathway that you propose would very likely change the species into something unrecognizable as corn.
You also make the assumption that during the mutation process to arrive at a Bt expressing gene, there will not be a fatal mutation that would block the mutatgenic evolutionary pathway that you speak of. I've seen firsthand the effects of a single missense (very small mutation) mutation in a naturally occuring gene changing a normally expressed enzyme into the expression of a lethal protein.
The postulate is perhaps possible but virtually improbable event. The argument smells a lot like the age old statement that if an infinite number of of monkeys banged on an infinite number of typewriters, eventually one would bang out the complete works of Shakespere . . . True but for the real world essentially irrelevent.
Additioanlly,
A GMO is just an organism that we have pushed to express a particular gene sequence that we did not feel like waiting for mutation to develop.
That statement is based on the postulate that all possible mutations will eventually develop or express themselves. This is not true due to environmental selective pressures, evlolutionary pathways, fatal phenotypes, and also the fact that certain genes actually cannot be combined because one gene creates a protein or enzyme that attacks and destroys the protein expressed by another gene. This is one of the biggest challenges that genetic engineers face . . . is understanding how one gene can mask or block or otherwise interfere with the expression of another . . .
Breeding does not modify genes . . . when genes mutate, that has nothing to do with the breeding. Breeding may select for a mutated gene, but that is independent of the cause of the mutation. When one breeds for a mutated gene, one increases the genotype (and hopefully phenotype) in a population. So breeding does not cause or create mutation, but it may select for them and increase the percentage of a population that carries the mutated gene.
Yes, natural transposons among other things are suspected spreading genes for antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
In fact it is theorized that longterm use of antibiotics causes natural good bacteria found in the body that are selected for antibody resistance to pass this resistance on to infectious disease bacteria in the body through transposons.
Transposons are natural . . . but that doesn't mean that they don't cause problems.
Additionally transposons in multicellular organisms are limited to the same species and are subject to natural selection before a large population is released to the environment. This is a natural buffer that limits the ability of transposons to maniplulate a species' genotype. GM foods are not subject to these natural limits on transposons.
Laboratory GM is not the same as the effect of transposons in nature. To say otherwise suggests a gross misunderstanding of transposons.
Additionally, breeding is not the introduction of desired genes or variations thereof into an organism. Breeding does not introduce genes into a population. It also does not introduce variations of the gene into the population. This is the falacy that many GM fans seem to believe. They are convinced that breeding somehow creates genes or modifies them . . . this is absolutely untrue.
Breeding selects for desirable genes that already exist in the population. Genetic modification introduces desired genes or variations thereof. Breeding and introducing genes into a population are not at all the same thing
Furthermore, these new bioengineered food also have other socioeconomic consequences. Namely that farmers are not allowed to save portions of their harvest for future planting, instead, they are forced to go to Monsanto every year to get "eyes" for their planting. Monsanto is even planning to make the potato seeds sterile through bioengineering.
You bring up a very good point . . . I read an article that proposed the question:
If a natural famer plants crops that cross breed with his neighbor's GM crops and the natural farmer saves his seeds for next year and many of them express the GM trait when planted, does the natural farmer owe the GM patent holder royalties? The natural farmer has "benefited" from the GM . . . even though he wasn't interested in doing so. The article didn't have a solution (suggested that a nasty lawsuit would happen sometime in the future).
If the GM organism's genes are dominant and infect the wild population, perhaps we won't be able to eat (Insert favorite farm raised food here) without paying a royalty to Monsanto and friends.
Small engine, fast cars but what about airplanes?
on
The Bugatti Veyron
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Small engines fast cars. . . what about airplanes?
Reminds me of a conversation with a friend that just bought the Mazda RX-8 (Wenkel Rotary Engine) . . . do cars push the envelope on internal combustion engines? or do airplanes?
60 years ago when internal combustion propellor planes were the standard, I'm guessing that the prop plane defined the hi-tech, high powered, low weight internal combustion engine. Anyone know if that's still true?
The question from the orginal conversation was "has anyone used a wenkel rotary (it has a low weight to power ratio) in a plane?" Why/Whynot . . .
That's exactly why farmers don't use their own seeds for next year's crop. Hybrid varieties are bred in controlled in environments to maximize the recessive phenotype (the expression of the recessive trait). They are intentionally isolated from the wild type (the naturally occuring form of the same organism) so that your get more offspring with the desired recessive trait.
This is why farmers (that can afford them) buy need seeds/seedlings from Monsanto and friends . . . to make sure that they have a type that is genetically predisposed to express certain desired but uncommon traits.
Slashdot Mirror
With all due respect, you claim to be an economist . . . surely your familiar with the SEC's required disclaimer on a investment prospectus that reads something like (paraphrasing) "past performance is no indication of future performance."
But I find it interesting that you don't apply this axiom to science and engineering . . . you indicate that you don't beleive that centuries of technological breakthrough are ready to just coem to a halt . . . there are physical laws and limits that can grind us to a halt . . . even though the lack of a new energy source may cause huge destabilization in markets, economies and societies (as previous posters have already identified, higher cost of shipping, higher cost of packaging, higher cost of transportation, which leads to a higher cost of almost everything).
So now worms come with hooks for third party plug-in's?
The branch of mechanics that studies the motion of a body or a system of bodies without consideration given to its mass or the forces acting on it.
Mechanisms are defined as (dictionary.com again):
An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being: "The mechanism of oral learning is largely that of continuous repetition" (T.G.E. Powell).
To be quite honest with you the press release doesn't seem to make a definite distinction between these two very real and different concepts. I think that they are studying mechanisms, because the article compares human mechanisms and the robotic mechanisms and claims that studying the robot will help us understand human mechanisms better. . . and they are using kinematics to do this. But to say that the kinematics is the study of mechanisms is a gross mistake unworthy of even a seventh grade English student.
I can think of many mechanisms (mental mechanisms for example) that have no kinematic element to them.
Float it under the radar as open source, encourage peer review and you may have something that would be hackers contribute to rather than destroy.
Most email currently goes through Apache . . . I think that the open sorce community has done a pretty good job of creating the email server of choice. I think that they're probably the right group to also make it more secure.
A gross oversimplication of humanity . . . were simply a mechanism that doesnt understand ourself? . . . isnt this a better description of a robot than a person? . . . sounds almost Freudian . . . perhaps this fellow feels more cofortable in the company of robots than people.
But does that mean that I can record a live concert and sell the recording of the performance as long as I have permission from the songwriter (who owns a copyright on the music/lyrics/etc) and I was not under a contractual ban from recording (like a recording ban listed on the ticket purchase)? That would imply that I wouldn't need any permission from the performer . . . (unless I'm missing something here . . .)
Literature is one of the five prize areas mentioned in Alfred Nobel's will. The will was, however, partly incomplete. Nobel simply stated that prizes be given to those who, during the preceding year, "shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and that one part be given to the person who "shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction."
Though this statement is somewhat subjective, based on Nobel's will, can anyone put together a compelling argument that any scientific publication fits Nobel's critieria for the prize in Literature? I am doubtful . . . remember, for the prize in Literature, the way that it is written is probably more important than the science that is presented . . .
I hate to rain on the parade but when has scientific writing ever taken literature in an ideal direction?
Uh . . . hate to rain on the parade, but a tape recorder does not allow you to record a concert legally . The copyright owner allows or disallows you to record his/her/their performance legally. As the performer owns the copyright (and has an agreement with the music writers if the writers are not the same as the performers), they can allow or disallow one to record the concert legally (with respect to copyright excluding fair use). Your web link cites example of copyright holders (performers) permitting this, but the use of a tape recorder in itself does not allow one to record a performance legally. Tape recorders record can record performances, but the use of a tape recorder has little to do with the issue of copyright legality.
You can ban people from recording a performance because the performers own a copyright on the performance . . . this can get more difficult if the written music is also still under copyright, because then there is a copyright holder for the music and the performance . . . if these guys get into a fight, there can be significant distribution issues.
And its probably good marketing . . . keeps the "socially concious" brand reputation.
One key difference between the two telescopes is that the new one will have better instruments for seeing infrared light, which has a longer wavelength and is seen at the far reaches of the universe. Meanwhile, Hubble is better at detecting the shorter wavelengths of light that can be seen with the human eye. Because of these differences between the two telescopes, the NASA panel recommended that the two telescopes' operations overlap so scientists can study both types of images from certain objects.
What's next? Microsoft patents the double click? Maybe the Qwerty keyboard? How about a special way of moving the hand with a plastic tracking device to indicate which part of the screen is being used by the user . . . I don't think that anyone's thought of that yet . . .
By that definition everything outside the realists is probably not good art
Perhaps a little art history would broaden your definition of good art a bit. For example, the impressionists did what they did because they were pushed out of realism by the science and art of photography. It was no longer relevant to try to capture reality because reality was better captured by photos . . . so the artists went further and found impressionism. . . though impressionism does not represent the people of the time, the movement is highly representative of the context of the new technology of photography which actually helped kick off a revolution in art.
Personally I find Picasso facinating . . . a representation of three dimensions on a two dimensional medium . . . I like to think that if Picasso were a physicist he would have created a wonderful representation of a four dimensional hypercube using a three dimesional medium (this is the geek in me coming out). . . though none of this actaully speaks for them (him)
And what about someone more modern and minimalist like Piet Mondrain . . . his reductionism encompasses an understanding of color and balance that is unparalelled (Many of his works are nothing more than a few colored lines, but they express balance . . . a large yellow line balances a thin black line etc.). This says little about the people back then, but it says volumes about the human mind . . . never before had someone reduced the balance of color and proportion to such an extent that one could begin to understand what drives people to say that looks nice, I like that versus that is ugly because it is out of balance, out of proportion . . .
I could go on . . . the are many many more examples, but art is much more than this depicts how people were back then It encompasses much more of our humanity and sheds tremendous understanding on ourselves. To say otherwise suggests at best misunderstanding and at worst ignorance.
If it is encrypted one can reverse engineers it by replicating the functionality with respect to inputs and outputs. If Sharman did not include any attempt to protect their copyrighted work (such as encryption), then the DMCA would not apply (though other laws might) and one could legally look at the code. (Note that the DMCA does not apply to unencrypted CD's but it does apply to encrypted DVD's . . . an important difference)
If one never clicks the EULA or AUP, then one is not bound by it . . . granted, that means you can't install it, but there are legal ways around that. Do you really need to install the software to learn how it works? Not always (though installation may make it easier).
So many museums have pretty diagrams showing "facts" but not much of the thinking that shows how we discovered and got to those facts (or conclusions or theories as the case may be).
Science is not facts. It's not bullets. It's not a list of terms describing a cross section of the earth. It's problem solving, experimentation, cross examination, peer review, drawing conclusions, making inferences, designing experiements . . . it encompasses higher thought processes than memorization of facts. Why don't most of the museums make an effort to show this?
If the trade secret/network can be reverse engineered and this is legal and interoperating causes no impact on Kazaa's equipment etc., does Kazaa have the right to prevent other clients from using what is only the same protocol and network standards which were legally reverse engineered?
My gut feeling is no . . . but I wonder if the courts have already ruled on this . . .
(Disclaimer: This only applies when the patent process works the way it was intended . . . the silly patents of late may not apply)
There is one group of people that cannot be stopped from using information protected under trade secret law. These are people who discover the secret independently, that is, without using illegal means or violating agreements or state laws. For example, it is not a violation of trade secret law to analyze (or "reverse engineer") any lawfully obtained product and determine its trade secret.
EXAMPLE
XCEL glue is comprised of a trade secret protected formula. Phil, a chemist, analyzes the contents of XCEL glue, determines its composition and recreates the formula. Phil can legally use this information to make and sell his own glue.
Sounds like Kazaa is fighting the same sort of thing for the same sort of reason except that in the case of chat, one must connect to the central servers of the chat netowrk. Can Kazaa really claim ownership-like rights to a network that doesn't depend on their servers for functionality? It would seem that Kazaa has created a Frankenstein monster . . . that perhaps they cannot wholly control . . .
You also make the assumption that during the mutation process to arrive at a Bt expressing gene, there will not be a fatal mutation that would block the mutatgenic evolutionary pathway that you speak of. I've seen firsthand the effects of a single missense (very small mutation) mutation in a naturally occuring gene changing a normally expressed enzyme into the expression of a lethal protein.
The postulate is perhaps possible but virtually improbable event. The argument smells a lot like the age old statement that if an infinite number of of monkeys banged on an infinite number of typewriters, eventually one would bang out the complete works of Shakespere . . . True but for the real world essentially irrelevent.
Additioanlly,
A GMO is just an organism that we have pushed to express a particular gene sequence that we did not feel like waiting for mutation to develop.
That statement is based on the postulate that all possible mutations will eventually develop or express themselves. This is not true due to environmental selective pressures, evlolutionary pathways, fatal phenotypes, and also the fact that certain genes actually cannot be combined because one gene creates a protein or enzyme that attacks and destroys the protein expressed by another gene. This is one of the biggest challenges that genetic engineers face . . . is understanding how one gene can mask or block or otherwise interfere with the expression of another . . .
Breeding does not modify genes . . . when genes mutate, that has nothing to do with the breeding. Breeding may select for a mutated gene, but that is independent of the cause of the mutation. When one breeds for a mutated gene, one increases the genotype (and hopefully phenotype) in a population. So breeding does not cause or create mutation, but it may select for them and increase the percentage of a population that carries the mutated gene.
In fact it is theorized that longterm use of antibiotics causes natural good bacteria found in the body that are selected for antibody resistance to pass this resistance on to infectious disease bacteria in the body through transposons.
Transposons are natural . . . but that doesn't mean that they don't cause problems. Additionally transposons in multicellular organisms are limited to the same species and are subject to natural selection before a large population is released to the environment. This is a natural buffer that limits the ability of transposons to maniplulate a species' genotype. GM foods are not subject to these natural limits on transposons.
Laboratory GM is not the same as the effect of transposons in nature. To say otherwise suggests a gross misunderstanding of transposons.
Additionally, breeding is not the introduction of desired genes or variations thereof into an organism. Breeding does not introduce genes into a population. It also does not introduce variations of the gene into the population. This is the falacy that many GM fans seem to believe. They are convinced that breeding somehow creates genes or modifies them . . . this is absolutely untrue.
Breeding selects for desirable genes that already exist in the population. Genetic modification introduces desired genes or variations thereof. Breeding and introducing genes into a population are not at all the same thing
You bring up a very good point . . . I read an article that proposed the question:
If a natural famer plants crops that cross breed with his neighbor's GM crops and the natural farmer saves his seeds for next year and many of them express the GM trait when planted, does the natural farmer owe the GM patent holder royalties? The natural farmer has "benefited" from the GM . . . even though he wasn't interested in doing so. The article didn't have a solution (suggested that a nasty lawsuit would happen sometime in the future).
If the GM organism's genes are dominant and infect the wild population, perhaps we won't be able to eat (Insert favorite farm raised food here) without paying a royalty to Monsanto and friends.
60 years ago when internal combustion propellor planes were the standard, I'm guessing that the prop plane defined the hi-tech, high powered, low weight internal combustion engine. Anyone know if that's still true?
The question from the orginal conversation was "has anyone used a wenkel rotary (it has a low weight to power ratio) in a plane?" Why/Whynot . . .
This is why farmers (that can afford them) buy need seeds/seedlings from Monsanto and friends . . . to make sure that they have a type that is genetically predisposed to express certain desired but uncommon traits.