Nature is a balance, and GM plants threaten that balance. One example is the so called insect resistant cotton. In a few generations, they expect the now insect resistant cotton to not be so insect resistant anymore. Why. Because they manage to kill all the weak pests, and leave the strong ones. Then the strong ones multiply rapidly, and you have a whole breed of pests which are more resistant to whatever schemes you concoct in the future. Us humans are making a pretty good job of accelerating the 'evolution' of new species of pests that give us trouble later.
Trouble also is, this stupid notion that a company can own IP on something people grow in their fields. Think the Microsoft of farms. Imagine a world where all the seed you have cannot be used again next season because it is someone's IP. It is easy for them to say, 'this is an opt in technology', but when they have succeeded in removing all 'natural' seed from the market, (Trust me, they can), this will not be a choice anymore. You will be forced to use what they give you.
I for one, think we are far from needing GM foods. Look at Europe. They routinely throw away food because they do not want to depress prices for farmers. We can produce more than enough to go round, and in some places especially like Africa, we could produce even more. We could produce less tobacco if need be to produce more food. There is no real argument in favour of GM plants from the perspective of adequacy for feeding the planet. Let us face the facts, the real reason some people are motivated to do this is to make more money, and that counts before anything else. I can take people competing to sell cars, but I think this might be an example of a failure of the free market system. In free markets, when abnormal profits have been wiped, people tend to try to unbalance the market by introducing an unneeded dependency, and that is one we can do without.
Yeah, but are you willing to risk dying to have a feature that is supposed to protect your car from theft. If there was a way, I would totally rmove the wheel lock from my car because truth be told, it the thieves come for your car, they are going to get it, wheel locking or none. Besides, you should just buy one of those nice contraptions to lock your gear shift and wheel if you want to protect it from theft. But then again, it can be beaten.
And a black piece of papaer to cover the barcode would now be a circumvention device, and thus all those making blank pieces of paper could be prosecuted under the INDUCE act.
"Out of the box" is the catch phrase here. With its aggressive release cycle, you always have new hardware drivers being included in the kernel, although I wish they would kind of separate the kernel proper from the drivers.
I remember some hardware not working on windows because windows 2000 was out before the Geforce 2 was out. And also that Linux runs on so many different processors.
The ipod also goes faster the longer you scroll. I had not seen or touched an ipod, but without ever looking at the manual, I figured it out in 2 minutes. That interface is truly intuitive. I had been thinking of getting a player than can play ogg files, but I may have to reconsider. The ipod is that good.
Actually, both fission and fusion bombs are nuclear. A fusion bomb needs a fission bomb to start the fusion 'reaction'.
I do not hink there is much in terms of radioactive materials to salvage. Besides, I am sure bombs nowadays use much higher yield uranium and so on. The only reason to get this baby is probably to decomisson it properly so that Osama can not get his hands off it. I for one would like all nuclear weapons accounted for. It is worrying that there may be some lying around somewhere waiting for the next terrorist to find it.
Just after Hitler lost his war int Russia do you think you could have strolled in and taken it. The Russians bombed their own city to smoke Hitler's army out. Real smoke them out of their holes stuff.
You are deluded if you think you could have defeated the Russians easily. They could have given you quite a spanking. Truman was wise to not attempt such a move.
Some people here seem to be of the opinion that paypal is doing this on a moral tangent. This is not so. They just do not want the hassle of following up with internet porn people for claims that may become bothersome.
The most important thing is the fine. They said they could fine you up to 500. They may just fine you whatever your transaction cost was. It costs money to go after bad transactions, and as a business trying to keep cocts down, probably the best way to do this is to make it such that those bothersome transactions do not cause a loss. By charging a fine they can avoid having to follow up disputes involving porn sites at all.
This may be because it is swapped out, in which case, this has nothing to do with the browser, but the OS swapping out unused portions of the memory. Hence the reason it does it after a while.
You seem to use couples to mean families here. Unless one or both of them is bringing children from prior heterosexual relationships into this homosexual relationship, there is now way they are going to get children. Of all things homosexuals fight about. this is either the silliest, or the one that smacks most of having an agenda.
The title of the book says, "Heather has two mommies", which is impossible. A person can only have one mother and one father. So it is meant to be provocative at the outset. Until a child, especially mine, when I get one (by making love to a beautiful woman and producing one), I do not want them to be grappling with how on earth some people have a mommy and a daddy, when some have two mommies and some have two daddies, because until I feel they are ready for it, I just want them to know that having a mommy and a daddy is just the way it is. There are better things to be teaching young children in Primary school than complex things such as homosexual families. In fact, I do not want my child to be getting taught about that in school. I want them to know communication, and maths and science, and I will teach them life.
And I feel parents should have a say as to what goes into their school libraries. And if a parent feels strongly that theri child should be exposed to how to be a homosexual family, then they should buy them the books themselves. I suspect it is not the thing most parents want to do with their kids, so this problem dissapears once you make it the parents problem. Which brings us back to where this all started.
Why are homosexual people (who, incidentally, cannot have children) so worried about what other people's children learn? This bugs me. Why not leave such decision to people who have chosen to have children. This is why some people begin to believe that there is a homosexual agenda.
You have chosen not to have kids by choosing to 'mate' with someone of the same sex, and yet you want people to be taught about homosexual parenthood. This doesn't exist, so stop forcing it. I think there should be limits to what people can and should learn in school. What study is ther that shows that some perfect strangers know what is best for children. I would not trust teachers to give my children instruction. If they were that good, we would have less problems with discipline in schools. Some people seem to want to usurp parents responsibilities and this smacks of having an agenda. When I do get kids, they go to school to be taught Maths and English and Physics and I will teach them about life.
And someone can be asked to tone down speech that can be taken to be offensive. In my view, it was a convenient way to block publishing of something that could have been pretty interesting. And as the poster above puts it, all that was needed was a review process.
I have read all seven Narnia books, and I think the stories were far more interesting. The tales of Narnia were famous enough to merit scrutiny if there was an issue.
I thought the whole premise of something like OpenGL was that you would have software fallback for the functions that your graphics hardware can't handle, or functionality is missing. So you could still use the open source drivers, and you would incur a speed cost, but seriously, it is much easier and mosr cost effective to buy a tnt card and use it to accelerate your desktop. I am sure you will find a video card with good coverage with an open source driver in any case.
The question was if you could store data at the molecular level, and I think the answer is no. You cannot. You would have a problem reading the data without changing it too. It would be too fragile.
Data storage involves a lot of redundancy already, which is why you can recover stuff you have overwritten. If you have single molecules you just flipped, then there could be no memory. There are definite limits to how much you can store. Theoretically, you can store a bit, say, in each molecule, but practical considerations bring the limit way down by orders of magnitude. Think of a CD. Small scratches hardly affect readability of data, but at the molecular level, even light falling on the writing surface could affect the data and scramble it truly randomly.
I think owing property entails it being possible for someone to deny your use of it. Which is why intellectual property is a misnomer to me.
If I have land, someone may come on it and cause disruptions, and according to hte law, my recourse is to seek law enforcement to stop them. I cannot shoot them off my land unless they are posing a threat to my life etc. Exactly the same with the Spectrum. However, I think the spectrum should be available to use, within limits, by everyone. I think this is where multiplexing comes in.
You are deliberately lying or hopelessly misinformed when you say 'EVERYONE' thought Iraq had WMDs. The people on the ground in Iraq, the weapons inspectors said there was nothing to suggest Iraq had them, or that it was planning to make them.
Your arguments show nothing unfortunately.
The USA would have looked stupid sending its troops without chemical when it was claiming Iraq had chemical weapons. That they wore them does not prove that they believed there were chemical weapons there.
USA, and its ally UK, where the only countries that 'believed' Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The weapons inspectors were asking for more time, because they couldn't find anything, because there was nothing.
We know that Israel is nuclear. Why do you not want Iran to be nuclear? What sort of a world is it where one enemy believes they have a right to stop others arming themselves. Iran biggest justification for arming themselves is that there are countries likewise armed. Actually, I think all countries should acquire nuclear weapons. Right down to Zimbabwe. If for no better reason than that there are countries like USA with them.
It is not up to anyone to prove that Iraq sent their weapons to Iran. You have to prove they did if you suspect they did so. Why would any right thinking person ship his weapons away on the eve of being attacked. It does not make sense. It is now face saving to suggest that.
Lybia gave up their program because they were threatened. sometimes the only thing you can do when faced by an obviously stronger BULLY is to give in, because you have your people you lead to think about. Lybians like Gaddafi actually, he is a 'benevolent' dictator, and gives to the poor rather than takes from them, which is what your 'elected leaders' seem more liekly to do in the US.
If you look at the build up to the second world war, yo uwill find that people were generally unwilling to declare war on Hitler until it became obvious that he was bringing the war to them. You do not attack someone who is sufficiently powerful to beat the crap out of you. You reason with them. The only reason US attacked Saddam was because they knew he couldn't offer resistance, and they would roll over him. No WMDs, that meant it was safe to go in.
A few tips for getting permanently rid of data on a hard drive.
1. Volunteer your hard drive to be part of the payload on Pakistan's next nuclear test (Or India)
2. Take a trip across the ocean on the line, and at some random point across the Altantic, throw your HD platter by platter overboard. Do this with a drive with useless info, like 100 copies of "bowling for columbine". If they recover that, they deserve to know what your sick twisted mind was up to.
3. At NASAs next launch, place you HD platters bared under the rockets.
4. Send your HD to the sun.
5. Dissolve your HDs in suplhuric acid. I would like to see them recover that. (Damn, this A level chemistry is actually useful.
6. Take a trip from cape to cairo with your HD being pulled along on the tarmac. You should leave a line a couple of thousand kilomtres long of all your magnetic bits. Recover that US govt/FBI/Homeland Security.
7. Use your "noodle".
Now that was the epitome of bad movie making. It seems the director wanted to deliver as much shock value as possible, and have it passed off as art. The stain lives on my memory to this day. Its one of those things for which I wish I could erase some memories.
I think Titanic is one of those "its now fashionable to hate it" movies. Seriously, who was watching it when it made 1.8 billion dollars at the box office.
I watched it, I liked it. I have actually hearc criticism from people who haven't watched it. Damn.
There is no harm done if a 10 year old encounters Stephen Hawking's book in a library. He would just realize it is not very interesting for him, and move on. How many would like people showing their children pornography because it is allowed in USA. heck, if you are a real human being, this would rightly alarm you. Public places like libraries should be governed by rules that protect the interests of the minority and the majority. Whilst I listen to OutKast, I think it is ok for someone entrusted with the power the rule that it is inappropriate in a place where my child may be, if I do get a child in the future.
Give the libraries vouchers redeemable at certain music stores, then allow them to get whatever they wish. This solves two issues, RIAA giving people crap music, and the censorship issue.
The other thing is that RIAA should not be allowed to provide CDs which they can produce for next to nothing to meet antitrust punishments.
Slashdot Mirror
GM plants are dangerous for many reasons.
Nature is a balance, and GM plants threaten that balance. One example is the so called insect resistant cotton. In a few generations, they expect the now insect resistant cotton to not be so insect resistant anymore. Why. Because they manage to kill all the weak pests, and leave the strong ones. Then the strong ones multiply rapidly, and you have a whole breed of pests which are more resistant to whatever schemes you concoct in the future. Us humans are making a pretty good job of accelerating the 'evolution' of new species of pests that give us trouble later.
Trouble also is, this stupid notion that a company can own IP on something people grow in their fields. Think the Microsoft of farms. Imagine a world where all the seed you have cannot be used again next season because it is someone's IP. It is easy for them to say, 'this is an opt in technology', but when they have succeeded in removing all 'natural' seed from the market, (Trust me, they can), this will not be a choice anymore. You will be forced to use what they give you.
I for one, think we are far from needing GM foods. Look at Europe. They routinely throw away food because they do not want to depress prices for farmers. We can produce more than enough to go round, and in some places especially like Africa, we could produce even more. We could produce less tobacco if need be to produce more food. There is no real argument in favour of GM plants from the perspective of adequacy for feeding the planet. Let us face the facts, the real reason some people are motivated to do this is to make more money, and that counts before anything else. I can take people competing to sell cars, but I think this might be an example of a failure of the free market system. In free markets, when abnormal profits have been wiped, people tend to try to unbalance the market by introducing an unneeded dependency, and that is one we can do without.
Yeah, but are you willing to risk dying to have a feature that is supposed to protect your car from theft. If there was a way, I would totally rmove the wheel lock from my car because truth be told, it the thieves come for your car, they are going to get it, wheel locking or none. Besides, you should just buy one of those nice contraptions to lock your gear shift and wheel if you want to protect it from theft. But then again, it can be beaten.
Makes you wonder why the steering should lock when the car is in motion. That os dangerous, or has no one in the auto industry thought of that.
And a black piece of papaer to cover the barcode would now be a circumvention device, and thus all those making blank pieces of paper could be prosecuted under the INDUCE act.
Mr Gates is shaping the industry alright.
Try strangling yourself and see if the shape of your throat doesn't change.
"Out of the box" is the catch phrase here. With its aggressive release cycle, you always have new hardware drivers being included in the kernel, although I wish they would kind of separate the kernel proper from the drivers. I remember some hardware not working on windows because windows 2000 was out before the Geforce 2 was out. And also that Linux runs on so many different processors.
The ipod also goes faster the longer you scroll. I had not seen or touched an ipod, but without ever looking at the manual, I figured it out in 2 minutes. That interface is truly intuitive. I had been thinking of getting a player than can play ogg files, but I may have to reconsider. The ipod is that good.
Actually, both fission and fusion bombs are nuclear. A fusion bomb needs a fission bomb to start the fusion 'reaction'.
I do not hink there is much in terms of radioactive materials to salvage. Besides, I am sure bombs nowadays use much higher yield uranium and so on. The only reason to get this baby is probably to decomisson it properly so that Osama can not get his hands off it. I for one would like all nuclear weapons accounted for. It is worrying that there may be some lying around somewhere waiting for the next terrorist to find it.
Just after Hitler lost his war int Russia do you think you could have strolled in and taken it. The Russians bombed their own city to smoke Hitler's army out. Real smoke them out of their holes stuff. You are deluded if you think you could have defeated the Russians easily. They could have given you quite a spanking. Truman was wise to not attempt such a move.
Some people here seem to be of the opinion that paypal is doing this on a moral tangent. This is not so. They just do not want the hassle of following up with internet porn people for claims that may become bothersome.
The most important thing is the fine. They said they could fine you up to 500. They may just fine you whatever your transaction cost was. It costs money to go after bad transactions, and as a business trying to keep cocts down, probably the best way to do this is to make it such that those bothersome transactions do not cause a loss. By charging a fine they can avoid having to follow up disputes involving porn sites at all.
This may be because it is swapped out, in which case, this has nothing to do with the browser, but the OS swapping out unused portions of the memory. Hence the reason it does it after a while.
You seem to use couples to mean families here. Unless one or both of them is bringing children from prior heterosexual relationships into this homosexual relationship, there is now way they are going to get children. Of all things homosexuals fight about. this is either the silliest, or the one that smacks most of having an agenda.
The title of the book says, "Heather has two mommies", which is impossible. A person can only have one mother and one father. So it is meant to be provocative at the outset. Until a child, especially mine, when I get one (by making love to a beautiful woman and producing one), I do not want them to be grappling with how on earth some people have a mommy and a daddy, when some have two mommies and some have two daddies, because until I feel they are ready for it, I just want them to know that having a mommy and a daddy is just the way it is. There are better things to be teaching young children in Primary school than complex things such as homosexual families. In fact, I do not want my child to be getting taught about that in school. I want them to know communication, and maths and science, and I will teach them life.
And I feel parents should have a say as to what goes into their school libraries. And if a parent feels strongly that theri child should be exposed to how to be a homosexual family, then they should buy them the books themselves. I suspect it is not the thing most parents want to do with their kids, so this problem dissapears once you make it the parents problem. Which brings us back to where this all started.
People knew sex, and its intricacies, but were discrete about it. It wasn't something they depicted on television, or explicitly in leisure books.
Why are homosexual people (who, incidentally, cannot have children) so worried about what other people's children learn? This bugs me. Why not leave such decision to people who have chosen to have children. This is why some people begin to believe that there is a homosexual agenda. You have chosen not to have kids by choosing to 'mate' with someone of the same sex, and yet you want people to be taught about homosexual parenthood. This doesn't exist, so stop forcing it. I think there should be limits to what people can and should learn in school. What study is ther that shows that some perfect strangers know what is best for children. I would not trust teachers to give my children instruction. If they were that good, we would have less problems with discipline in schools. Some people seem to want to usurp parents responsibilities and this smacks of having an agenda. When I do get kids, they go to school to be taught Maths and English and Physics and I will teach them about life.
And someone can be asked to tone down speech that can be taken to be offensive. In my view, it was a convenient way to block publishing of something that could have been pretty interesting. And as the poster above puts it, all that was needed was a review process.
I have read all seven Narnia books, and I think the stories were far more interesting. The tales of Narnia were famous enough to merit scrutiny if there was an issue.
I thought the whole premise of something like OpenGL was that you would have software fallback for the functions that your graphics hardware can't handle, or functionality is missing. So you could still use the open source drivers, and you would incur a speed cost, but seriously, it is much easier and mosr cost effective to buy a tnt card and use it to accelerate your desktop. I am sure you will find a video card with good coverage with an open source driver in any case.
The question was if you could store data at the molecular level, and I think the answer is no. You cannot. You would have a problem reading the data without changing it too. It would be too fragile. Data storage involves a lot of redundancy already, which is why you can recover stuff you have overwritten. If you have single molecules you just flipped, then there could be no memory. There are definite limits to how much you can store. Theoretically, you can store a bit, say, in each molecule, but practical considerations bring the limit way down by orders of magnitude. Think of a CD. Small scratches hardly affect readability of data, but at the molecular level, even light falling on the writing surface could affect the data and scramble it truly randomly.
I think owing property entails it being possible for someone to deny your use of it. Which is why intellectual property is a misnomer to me.
If I have land, someone may come on it and cause disruptions, and according to hte law, my recourse is to seek law enforcement to stop them. I cannot shoot them off my land unless they are posing a threat to my life etc. Exactly the same with the Spectrum. However, I think the spectrum should be available to use, within limits, by everyone. I think this is where multiplexing comes in.
You are deliberately lying or hopelessly misinformed when you say 'EVERYONE' thought Iraq had WMDs. The people on the ground in Iraq, the weapons inspectors said there was nothing to suggest Iraq had them, or that it was planning to make them. Your arguments show nothing unfortunately. The USA would have looked stupid sending its troops without chemical when it was claiming Iraq had chemical weapons. That they wore them does not prove that they believed there were chemical weapons there. USA, and its ally UK, where the only countries that 'believed' Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The weapons inspectors were asking for more time, because they couldn't find anything, because there was nothing. We know that Israel is nuclear. Why do you not want Iran to be nuclear? What sort of a world is it where one enemy believes they have a right to stop others arming themselves. Iran biggest justification for arming themselves is that there are countries likewise armed. Actually, I think all countries should acquire nuclear weapons. Right down to Zimbabwe. If for no better reason than that there are countries like USA with them. It is not up to anyone to prove that Iraq sent their weapons to Iran. You have to prove they did if you suspect they did so. Why would any right thinking person ship his weapons away on the eve of being attacked. It does not make sense. It is now face saving to suggest that. Lybia gave up their program because they were threatened. sometimes the only thing you can do when faced by an obviously stronger BULLY is to give in, because you have your people you lead to think about. Lybians like Gaddafi actually, he is a 'benevolent' dictator, and gives to the poor rather than takes from them, which is what your 'elected leaders' seem more liekly to do in the US. If you look at the build up to the second world war, yo uwill find that people were generally unwilling to declare war on Hitler until it became obvious that he was bringing the war to them. You do not attack someone who is sufficiently powerful to beat the crap out of you. You reason with them. The only reason US attacked Saddam was because they knew he couldn't offer resistance, and they would roll over him. No WMDs, that meant it was safe to go in.
A few tips for getting permanently rid of data on a hard drive. 1. Volunteer your hard drive to be part of the payload on Pakistan's next nuclear test (Or India) 2. Take a trip across the ocean on the line, and at some random point across the Altantic, throw your HD platter by platter overboard. Do this with a drive with useless info, like 100 copies of "bowling for columbine". If they recover that, they deserve to know what your sick twisted mind was up to. 3. At NASAs next launch, place you HD platters bared under the rockets. 4. Send your HD to the sun. 5. Dissolve your HDs in suplhuric acid. I would like to see them recover that. (Damn, this A level chemistry is actually useful. 6. Take a trip from cape to cairo with your HD being pulled along on the tarmac. You should leave a line a couple of thousand kilomtres long of all your magnetic bits. Recover that US govt/FBI/Homeland Security. 7. Use your "noodle".
Now that was the epitome of bad movie making. It seems the director wanted to deliver as much shock value as possible, and have it passed off as art. The stain lives on my memory to this day. Its one of those things for which I wish I could erase some memories.
I think Titanic is one of those "its now fashionable to hate it" movies. Seriously, who was watching it when it made 1.8 billion dollars at the box office. I watched it, I liked it. I have actually hearc criticism from people who haven't watched it. Damn.
There is no harm done if a 10 year old encounters Stephen Hawking's book in a library. He would just realize it is not very interesting for him, and move on. How many would like people showing their children pornography because it is allowed in USA. heck, if you are a real human being, this would rightly alarm you. Public places like libraries should be governed by rules that protect the interests of the minority and the majority. Whilst I listen to OutKast, I think it is ok for someone entrusted with the power the rule that it is inappropriate in a place where my child may be, if I do get a child in the future.
Give the libraries vouchers redeemable at certain music stores, then allow them to get whatever they wish. This solves two issues, RIAA giving people crap music, and the censorship issue. The other thing is that RIAA should not be allowed to provide CDs which they can produce for next to nothing to meet antitrust punishments.