Actually they have more to lose than Monsanto or other large companies that could fall back on agriculture to make money. You are not really comparing apples to apples.
I guess you missed what I posted above yours. And the pink goo from McDonald's was just "beef" too right? Are you going to try and convince me that cooked food has the exact same nutritional value as raw foods next? Maybe that whole food processing thing is mind boggling to you.
Sure, if you break everything down chemically and single out the glucose and fructose, they would be the same. The problem is, that we don't eat isolated proteins, sugars, or anything else. We are capable of digesting natural foods, and have how many years of evolution to show that we are pretty successful at it. We are not made to eat a single protein as a diet (for example), even though our bodies will extract one from a particular food.
It's like looking at a massive differential equation and recognizing that X+2=5^3 is a component. That does not resolve the problem, nor does that small part of the equation do you a damn bit of good without the rest of the equation and it's solution.
And the pink goo from McDonald's was just "beef" too right? Are you going to try and convince me that cooked food has the exact same nutritional value as raw foods next? Maybe that whole food processing thing is mind boggling to you.
You can't read and comprehend a single sentence, and question someone else' credibility? I know the word "often" is difficult to understand, do you need someone to find the definition of the word for you?
Skepticism is good, and I do question both titles and content of _any_ articles on the web. I still read to see what their point is, and suggest you do the same. For you though, I'd recommend you read it at least 3 or 4 times so that you catch on to everything.
Not that I am pacifist mind you, but I have not approved of GPS being used in unmanned drones. When you remove the humans from the horrors of war, you don't "fix" things. You tend to make them worse.
My position on criminals is also mixed. If you read something like "5 felonies a day" you may change your mind. The majority of prisoners we have serving hard time are there for possession of small amounts of drugs, drunk driving, and other minor crimes. Do I think a rapist should have DNA extracted? Sure, because it's possible then to link to unsolved crimes. The guy arrested for legally purchasing a small amount of medical marijuana should not. Claiming that "all criminals" deserve something indicates that you are at least somewhat ignorant as to "whom" is in jail and "why" they are in jail. This problem has been increased by the privatization of Prisons, where it's now financially beneficial to keep jails at capacity.
I agree, to a point, that knowledge is not a bad thing and should be pursued. There are ethics involved in gaining certain knowledge that we as a society should absolutely deny and vocally be against.
I'll warn you that I have never investigated this much, there are too many other things going on in the world for me to study everything. That said, it was rumored a few years ago that the US Government was investigating methods of exterminating a certain ethnicity (Asian) using genetic weaponry. While they may not be alone in investigating, or perhaps have had no plans on how to commit genocide, why would we wish to "learn" something so sinister?
Now lets take a "good" example just so you see I'm not a loon claiming everything is bad and get some reasonable perspective (reasonable to me at least).
Guns were invented for many reasons. Hunting became easier and food was more plentiful. Of course some bad people figured out that it's also easier to shoot someone than bludgeon or stab them, so we have used them in wars as well. I'm not anti-gun at all.
A gun can only kill a limited amount of people before the gunman either runs out of bullets or is killed by someone else with a gun. This means that the shittiest person with a gun can cause harm, but what I feel is an acceptable level of harm for the risk and privilege of me being able to own a gun.
The problem with bio-weapons and genetic weapons is that there is risk for massive amounts of casualties before someone catches on. A single flu virus can kill millions and millions. A genetic weapon has similar capability.
Now I do realize also that it's a step from "detecting depression" to "killing people" using genetic code. The morality however, needs very little development. If someone decides to find every person that has a certain genetic trait and jail them, the list is already made.
There is more and more push for all of us to get DNA into massive government databases. Most children at birth today registered without anyone knowing (depending on where you live), and without anyone's permission.
Then you have no idea what eugenics is? I'm guessing that you really did not search too hard for what I stated in this thread. As mentioned previously, search the "whole" thread if for my name, not just this instance.
I agree that there is crossing of boundaries. That said, natural selection would remove bad things from a system in many cases. Where that was no the case, over time we would see what is bad vs. good cross over. GMO foods in particular have very little testing. In addition, natural selection would not remove a toxic trait from something.
When the government or employers start asking for DNA tests, The government has already been doing this. I guess it's okay for "those criminals" though right?
The rest is a false analogy. I can choose to carry a pocket knife or not. I can choose to use a computer or GPS device. I have no choice when it comes to having genetic markers.
When you see videos of crisis actors, I believe it's fair to question what media puts out. As with you, I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying that a healthy dose of skepticism is required today.
Go back and read "why", I was pretty clear on that point. I have elaborated in other areas, so search the thread for my responses if you did not receive enough information in _your_ particular response.
Thank you for the well thought out and intelligent response. I do understand where your thoughts are, but where I have difficulty is in that we can't remove human nature from the picture.
The ability for you to have such tests is fine, but the problem is that historically this information has been used for extremely malicious purposes. Not occasionally mind you, but every single time. The good nature you imply simply fails to match any history. This is where I wonder how much of this is being funded by people with inclinations toward eugenics. Look at some of the responses here where people claim it's necessary to reduce population where natural selection has been removed.
The benefit of genetic detection is extremely questionable. We can measure countless other factors which are not so intrusive and come to the same exact conclusion. We can look at a person's habits, social and economic status, and of course the most important would be their daily behavior and determine much easier that a person has a potential risk of suicide than we can by a genetic predisposition.
Even if we have said testing, and said a person is genetically predisposed to suicide, what is our action? Give them a cushy job they don't deserve? Give them lots of tax payer money? Give them counseling for something they don't necessarily require? The easier answer of "just inform them" does not match historical actions.
If we look at the correct arguments, it's possible. While we quibble about man made vs. natural warming nobody pays attention to what the correct arguments are. Pollution of all kinds is surely a massive contributor to global warming, in addition to causing other more obvious problems. Oceanic dead zones, loss of agriculture, and human illness.
We have fake arguments about why Solar power does not work instead of actually implementing solutions (questionable or not) which would reduce pollution. The same thing can be said about wind power, yet we get clowns like Rush Limbaugh telling you how Wind power kills all the birds.
I think that some of the intentions of the science are good, but unfortunately it's all being used as a sleight of hand trick to keep polluters rolling in money at our expense (and at the expense of the next countless generations).
Hybrid foods are not the same as GMO foods, and making such a claim reeks of either ignorance or willful collusion. GMO foods, the ones that most people have problems with, contain genes that can not happen in nature. Forcing bacteria genes into corn for example to get them to produce insecticides on the stalk (as one of many foreign genes introduced into GMO corn).
Very recently there were a few experiments using both GMO and hybridization to get water resistant rice. They were able to naturally do so with hybridization much cheaper and easier than with GMO. I'm hoping to see toxicology and nutritional studies to see how much difference there is in the final product.
Believing that GMO is safe because some big company told you is ignorant. Not very long ago, cigarettes were touted as a cure for many things and we were told how they were safe. It took years and years of lawsuits to get them to simply admit "Smoking may be dangerous to pregnant women." and a dozen more years to finally admit it was carcinogenic among other things.
HFCS is bad for you, but there's nothing special about it vis-a-vis cane sugar. Or agave nectar, or honey, for that matter.
Independent studies show that the body can process and digest natural sugars (honey, beet, cane) but can not process HFCS. Natural News has reported on numerous studies on the subject. Additive producers "claim" that they are the same, but they obviously have self interest in making such claims.
Let me point out your absolute incorrectness on this subject. So yes, you most certainly should be able to test someone's blood to determine if they are at an increased risk for depression, it's just a question of identifying which genes are responsible.
To believe that genes are the only cause of depression is absolutely idiotic on so many levels that I don't know where to begin. Chemical dependency causes depression, as does changing hormone levels (which is very normal during our life times), and social and economic status play huge roles in our psychological well being.
Do you see how absolutely flawed your argument is? If you don't get it, rate yourself for desire to commit suicide today. Go tell our boss to "f&%k off" and quit your job, and apply only for rocket science positions at NASA. After your unemployment runs out, debt is through the roof, you sell everything you own, and you live on the streets with no family of friends measure your desire to commit suicide again. I'll bet that you feel much more inclined after losing everything you have of value and having small hopes for a future.
Recognizing that our genes do not control every aspect of our lives is common sense. Claiming that everything is genetically controlled is exactly the definition of eugenics. Taking action to those beliefs is secondary to having such a belief.
This is the same person that didn't think a lack of basic physics knowledge was relevant to an opinion disagreeing with physicists on HAARP on a previous story, so I'm sensing a pattern here.
No matter who you were referring to makes no difference. This is just an ad homimen that diverts from the points, instead of offering any countering thought. You sound like a person that can't debate their own opinion so try to get revenge hiding as AC.
My example of yelling is a type of confrontation. You trying to nitpick does not change my point or argue my point. Fallacy, learn to avoid it and actually debate.
Awesome stuff! Now when time allows I need to go back and read. I started to think "wow, this seems like so long ago" and then I realized that it was..
While eugenics is tainted by its association with unfortunate historical happenstance, it doesn't have to be.
That is a terribly naive statement. You ignoring human nature won't take away human nature. The same things we see today were happening in our first records of political history. Read Plato's "The Republic" and "The Dialogues of Plato" for starters.
As you stated, correlation != causation. Humans cope with numerous things very well. Even if you could detect a "suicide" gene, it does not mean that someone will attempt suicide. So what is the benefit of detection? Stop and think about that one for a bit, then go back to what I just said is a naive statement.
What is the alternative? When you remove natural selection pressure (and we have very strongly diluted it, and continue to do so ever more), there is very little selection left; thus, the average genetic fitness of the population will worsen over time, even if you allow a lot of leeway in how you define the fitness function and what weights you assign to its individual factors (this is because mutation without selection would tend to lead to fitness function evaluation that one would get from a random genetic distribution). The only alternative is to replace it with some sort of artificial selection.
Ah ha! So you are for eugenics and not so naive after all!
And yet you confused gene-expression with genetics.
I did no such thing. In the first post I mentioned that there are numerous things to detect and measure, none of them were genes. I really hope you are not trying to claim that the only cause of suicide is genetic disorder.
BTW, the funding is there as always:
According to the referenced article this is a wide field study with 64 references to track down. Funding for certain projects is not always obvious, but harder when you have to research that many connections. Shelters to hide fund sources are not something new or unheard of.
If we could find a molecular basis for them we wouldn't have to rely on diagnosis criteria like "shows signs of anger when confronted" which can be horribly misinterpreted.
Not only can it be misinterpreted, but it is an absolutely normal reaction! Should you be "diagnosed" and forced to take medication for not changing your opinion when someone yells at you? Come now, it's not just a matter of more or less science. It's what the science is attempting to do, and whether or not there is any benefit to society if the "science" runs its full course. Unfortunately Science is not always self-correcting in time to prevent massive harm to society and civilizations.
Solaris 1 implemented System V like init, but it was never truly System V init. That is not the same as an interface definition in my opinion. I agree that with Solaris 1 many things were compliant with System V specs, but many things were still BSD under the hood. The whole point of maintaining/usr/ucb was that many of Sun's own tools failed to work without the BSD binaries. Solaris always did some of their own things that were a hybrid as well, such as pseudo devices.
I'd have to go back and read guides to find the original spec differences between SysV and BSD. They were not massively different since both really came from the same place. The difference was that BSD removed AT&T proprietary code where necessary and reimplemented.
Slashdot Mirror
Pointing at the extremists does not invalidate my point.
Actually they have more to lose than Monsanto or other large companies that could fall back on agriculture to make money. You are not really comparing apples to apples.
I guess you missed what I posted above yours. And the pink goo from McDonald's was just "beef" too right? Are you going to try and convince me that cooked food has the exact same nutritional value as raw foods next? Maybe that whole food processing thing is mind boggling to you.
Sure, if you break everything down chemically and single out the glucose and fructose, they would be the same. The problem is, that we don't eat isolated proteins, sugars, or anything else. We are capable of digesting natural foods, and have how many years of evolution to show that we are pretty successful at it. We are not made to eat a single protein as a diet (for example), even though our bodies will extract one from a particular food.
It's like looking at a massive differential equation and recognizing that X+2=5^3 is a component. That does not resolve the problem, nor does that small part of the equation do you a damn bit of good without the rest of the equation and it's solution.
And the pink goo from McDonald's was just "beef" too right? Are you going to try and convince me that cooked food has the exact same nutritional value as raw foods next? Maybe that whole food processing thing is mind boggling to you.
You can't read and comprehend a single sentence, and question someone else' credibility? I know the word "often" is difficult to understand, do you need someone to find the definition of the word for you?
Skepticism is good, and I do question both titles and content of _any_ articles on the web. I still read to see what their point is, and suggest you do the same. For you though, I'd recommend you read it at least 3 or 4 times so that you catch on to everything.
Not that I am pacifist mind you, but I have not approved of GPS being used in unmanned drones. When you remove the humans from the horrors of war, you don't "fix" things. You tend to make them worse.
My position on criminals is also mixed. If you read something like "5 felonies a day" you may change your mind. The majority of prisoners we have serving hard time are there for possession of small amounts of drugs, drunk driving, and other minor crimes. Do I think a rapist should have DNA extracted? Sure, because it's possible then to link to unsolved crimes. The guy arrested for legally purchasing a small amount of medical marijuana should not. Claiming that "all criminals" deserve something indicates that you are at least somewhat ignorant as to "whom" is in jail and "why" they are in jail. This problem has been increased by the privatization of Prisons, where it's now financially beneficial to keep jails at capacity.
I agree, to a point, that knowledge is not a bad thing and should be pursued. There are ethics involved in gaining certain knowledge that we as a society should absolutely deny and vocally be against.
I'll warn you that I have never investigated this much, there are too many other things going on in the world for me to study everything. That said, it was rumored a few years ago that the US Government was investigating methods of exterminating a certain ethnicity (Asian) using genetic weaponry. While they may not be alone in investigating, or perhaps have had no plans on how to commit genocide, why would we wish to "learn" something so sinister?
Now lets take a "good" example just so you see I'm not a loon claiming everything is bad and get some reasonable perspective (reasonable to me at least).
Guns were invented for many reasons. Hunting became easier and food was more plentiful. Of course some bad people figured out that it's also easier to shoot someone than bludgeon or stab them, so we have used them in wars as well. I'm not anti-gun at all.
A gun can only kill a limited amount of people before the gunman either runs out of bullets or is killed by someone else with a gun. This means that the shittiest person with a gun can cause harm, but what I feel is an acceptable level of harm for the risk and privilege of me being able to own a gun.
The problem with bio-weapons and genetic weapons is that there is risk for massive amounts of casualties before someone catches on. A single flu virus can kill millions and millions. A genetic weapon has similar capability.
Now I do realize also that it's a step from "detecting depression" to "killing people" using genetic code. The morality however, needs very little development. If someone decides to find every person that has a certain genetic trait and jail them, the list is already made.
There is more and more push for all of us to get DNA into massive government databases. Most children at birth today registered without anyone knowing (depending on where you live), and without anyone's permission.
Then you have no idea what eugenics is? I'm guessing that you really did not search too hard for what I stated in this thread. As mentioned previously, search the "whole" thread if for my name, not just this instance.
I agree that there is crossing of boundaries. That said, natural selection would remove bad things from a system in many cases. Where that was no the case, over time we would see what is bad vs. good cross over. GMO foods in particular have very little testing. In addition, natural selection would not remove a toxic trait from something.
When the government or employers start asking for DNA tests, The government has already been doing this. I guess it's okay for "those criminals" though right?
The rest is a false analogy. I can choose to carry a pocket knife or not. I can choose to use a computer or GPS device. I have no choice when it comes to having genetic markers.
When you see videos of crisis actors, I believe it's fair to question what media puts out. As with you, I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying that a healthy dose of skepticism is required today.
Go back and read "why", I was pretty clear on that point. I have elaborated in other areas, so search the thread for my responses if you did not receive enough information in _your_ particular response.
Thank you for the well thought out and intelligent response. I do understand where your thoughts are, but where I have difficulty is in that we can't remove human nature from the picture.
The ability for you to have such tests is fine, but the problem is that historically this information has been used for extremely malicious purposes. Not occasionally mind you, but every single time. The good nature you imply simply fails to match any history. This is where I wonder how much of this is being funded by people with inclinations toward eugenics. Look at some of the responses here where people claim it's necessary to reduce population where natural selection has been removed.
The benefit of genetic detection is extremely questionable. We can measure countless other factors which are not so intrusive and come to the same exact conclusion. We can look at a person's habits, social and economic status, and of course the most important would be their daily behavior and determine much easier that a person has a potential risk of suicide than we can by a genetic predisposition.
Even if we have said testing, and said a person is genetically predisposed to suicide, what is our action? Give them a cushy job they don't deserve? Give them lots of tax payer money? Give them counseling for something they don't necessarily require? The easier answer of "just inform them" does not match historical actions.
adapt
If we look at the correct arguments, it's possible. While we quibble about man made vs. natural warming nobody pays attention to what the correct arguments are. Pollution of all kinds is surely a massive contributor to global warming, in addition to causing other more obvious problems. Oceanic dead zones, loss of agriculture, and human illness.
We have fake arguments about why Solar power does not work instead of actually implementing solutions (questionable or not) which would reduce pollution. The same thing can be said about wind power, yet we get clowns like Rush Limbaugh telling you how Wind power kills all the birds.
I think that some of the intentions of the science are good, but unfortunately it's all being used as a sleight of hand trick to keep polluters rolling in money at our expense (and at the expense of the next countless generations).
Hybrid foods are not the same as GMO foods, and making such a claim reeks of either ignorance or willful collusion. GMO foods, the ones that most people have problems with, contain genes that can not happen in nature. Forcing bacteria genes into corn for example to get them to produce insecticides on the stalk (as one of many foreign genes introduced into GMO corn).
Very recently there were a few experiments using both GMO and hybridization to get water resistant rice. They were able to naturally do so with hybridization much cheaper and easier than with GMO. I'm hoping to see toxicology and nutritional studies to see how much difference there is in the final product.
Believing that GMO is safe because some big company told you is ignorant. Not very long ago, cigarettes were touted as a cure for many things and we were told how they were safe. It took years and years of lawsuits to get them to simply admit "Smoking may be dangerous to pregnant women." and a dozen more years to finally admit it was carcinogenic among other things.
HFCS is bad for you, but there's nothing special about it vis-a-vis cane sugar. Or agave nectar, or honey, for that matter.
Independent studies show that the body can process and digest natural sugars (honey, beet, cane) but can not process HFCS. Natural News has reported on numerous studies on the subject. Additive producers "claim" that they are the same, but they obviously have self interest in making such claims.
Let me point out your absolute incorrectness on this subject. So yes, you most certainly should be able to test someone's blood to determine if they are at an increased risk for depression, it's just a question of identifying which genes are responsible.
To believe that genes are the only cause of depression is absolutely idiotic on so many levels that I don't know where to begin. Chemical dependency causes depression, as does changing hormone levels (which is very normal during our life times), and social and economic status play huge roles in our psychological well being.
Do you see how absolutely flawed your argument is? If you don't get it, rate yourself for desire to commit suicide today. Go tell our boss to "f&%k off" and quit your job, and apply only for rocket science positions at NASA. After your unemployment runs out, debt is through the roof, you sell everything you own, and you live on the streets with no family of friends measure your desire to commit suicide again. I'll bet that you feel much more inclined after losing everything you have of value and having small hopes for a future.
Recognizing that our genes do not control every aspect of our lives is common sense. Claiming that everything is genetically controlled is exactly the definition of eugenics. Taking action to those beliefs is secondary to having such a belief.
This is the same person that didn't think a lack of basic physics knowledge was relevant to an opinion disagreeing with physicists on HAARP on a previous story, so I'm sensing a pattern here.
No matter who you were referring to makes no difference. This is just an ad homimen that diverts from the points, instead of offering any countering thought. You sound like a person that can't debate their own opinion so try to get revenge hiding as AC.
My example of yelling is a type of confrontation. You trying to nitpick does not change my point or argue my point. Fallacy, learn to avoid it and actually debate.
Awesome stuff! Now when time allows I need to go back and read. I started to think "wow, this seems like so long ago" and then I realized that it was..
You deserve this and that's just a start.
Wasn't Solaris 1 when they implemented /etc/init.d/ and /etc/rc?.d/ structures? Testing my memory depths on this one :) Thanks!!
While eugenics is tainted by its association with unfortunate historical happenstance, it doesn't have to be.
That is a terribly naive statement. You ignoring human nature won't take away human nature. The same things we see today were happening in our first records of political history. Read Plato's "The Republic" and "The Dialogues of Plato" for starters.
As you stated, correlation != causation. Humans cope with numerous things very well. Even if you could detect a "suicide" gene, it does not mean that someone will attempt suicide. So what is the benefit of detection? Stop and think about that one for a bit, then go back to what I just said is a naive statement.
What is the alternative? When you remove natural selection pressure (and we have very strongly diluted it, and continue to do so ever more), there is very little selection left; thus, the average genetic fitness of the population will worsen over time, even if you allow a lot of leeway in how you define the fitness function and what weights you assign to its individual factors (this is because mutation without selection would tend to lead to fitness function evaluation that one would get from a random genetic distribution). The only alternative is to replace it with some sort of artificial selection.
Ah ha! So you are for eugenics and not so naive after all!
And yet you confused gene-expression with genetics.
I did no such thing. In the first post I mentioned that there are numerous things to detect and measure, none of them were genes. I really hope you are not trying to claim that the only cause of suicide is genetic disorder.
BTW, the funding is there as always:
According to the referenced article this is a wide field study with 64 references to track down. Funding for certain projects is not always obvious, but harder when you have to research that many connections. Shelters to hide fund sources are not something new or unheard of.
If we could find a molecular basis for them we wouldn't have to rely on diagnosis criteria like "shows signs of anger when confronted" which can be horribly misinterpreted.
Not only can it be misinterpreted, but it is an absolutely normal reaction! Should you be "diagnosed" and forced to take medication for not changing your opinion when someone yells at you? Come now, it's not just a matter of more or less science. It's what the science is attempting to do, and whether or not there is any benefit to society if the "science" runs its full course. Unfortunately Science is not always self-correcting in time to prevent massive harm to society and civilizations.
Solaris 1 implemented System V like init, but it was never truly System V init. That is not the same as an interface definition in my opinion. I agree that with Solaris 1 many things were compliant with System V specs, but many things were still BSD under the hood. The whole point of maintaining /usr/ucb was that many of Sun's own tools failed to work without the BSD binaries. Solaris always did some of their own things that were a hybrid as well, such as pseudo devices.
I'd have to go back and read guides to find the original spec differences between SysV and BSD. They were not massively different since both really came from the same place. The difference was that BSD removed AT&T proprietary code where necessary and reimplemented.