The thing is that monopoly is not one precise thing it is shades of gray - if it were one succinct definition you wouldn't be moving those goalposts to rationalize how all the other monopolies I've cited fit different requirements. The only difference is you are picking and choosing your requirements to fit what you can't dispute. Hell, you even got standard oil wrong to begin with, then you went and read the article I linked to and now you have another set of goal posts to apply there.
That's the problem with being such a literalist, you can't make the real world fit your literal viewpoint so you have to make exceptions. But once you start picking and choosing your exceptions your whole literalist based argument falls apart.
You completely and totally misunderstand the concept. Substantial equivalence says that if a GE and non-GE plant are found to be the same functionally, they should be treated as such,
Nope. Substantial equivalence only cares about functionality from the original genes sources not any unexpected side-effects that don't exist (or the company is ignorant of) in the original or the gene source.
They still do millions in testing. Why do you think they haven't released the Actric apple or Aqua Advantage salmon, od dicamba resistant corn?
Because the new stuff doesn't work as well they hoped.
Even when there is no way one could selectively breed a gene across species the way GM engineering transplants them
And that matters how? What, because one thing could happen naturally it is safer?
Because living organisms are complex systems - poking them in one area can cause unexpected results in other areas. Genes that occur naturally have had centuries to work out those kinks, transplanted genes have not.
forty years and a wide variety of applications and you have four examples?
What an utterly silly objection. By that same argument your list of precisely zero beneficial developments over the same forty years really shows just how little benefit has come from chemical engineering over the last 40 years...
What are you talking about? They didn't 'grandfather in' any of the genes inserted into crops.
I'm talking about the concept of "substantial equivalence" which presumes that genetic modification is equivalent to selective breeding and thus any significant testing is unnecessary. Even when there is no way one could selectively breed a gene across species the way GM engineering transplants them.
Safety testing is at best limited to comparing changes in the level of certain chemicals that already exist in the original version of the plant with no requirement to look for new substances in the new plant.
While I am sure there are some anecdotal tests that go above and beyond the level of treating genetic modification as selective breeding, the fact that the minimum requirements are basically non-existent is the issue of concern.
My personal experience with "substantial equivalence" is in the software world where many government defense contracts use it as an out to avoid rigorous testing of patches and point-releases but still retain various levels of certification. It only works through sheer luck in that world, I don't expect it to work any better with GM foods.
It means you considered it. If you have trouble with considered, check the dictionary.
BZZT 1) Defining a word with itself - fail. Right there is the root of your problem, you have your own definition in your head that is self-evident only to yourself. My vote is now heavily biased towards mentally unbalanced.
2) Selective misquoting to avoid answering the hard question - fail. When you ignore the meaningful questions, then you know you are on the wrong side of the argument.
Sounds like you read the Forbes article and are just repeating what they said.
Especially fun is that the Rats that they fed the fucking roundup pesticide live longer than any of the other rats.
Just because they didn't get cancer from drinking the pesticide doesn't mean the pesticide-resistant GMO crops are safe.
And that's really the problem with GMO, testing sucks. There are very few, if any, meaningful and rigorous tests. Lots of short term test and tons of grandfathering in genes because they came from other organisms where they were not a problem. But when it comes to comprehensive testing that could reassure the general population of the safety of GMO crops, there just isn't any.
Given the history we have with things like thalidomide, DDT, leaded gasoline, fen-phen, etc it is not unreasonable that people be genuinely concerned about GMO crops, especially given how widespread they've become with such little public notice. Dismissing those concerns as the equivalent of creation science is at least as bad as creationism itself because it is just another misplaced faith.
Just what does "gave consideration" mean and how does that significantly differ from whatever else you think I meant, huh mr dictionary? Those are your words, not mine anyway.
Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you? Are you projecting your own shit here? Are you mentally unbalanced? Do you drive a junker and fantasize about an unattainable new car? Just why is it that you are so focused on telling me about my life when all you've got is a couple of relatively vague statements to go on? It's like a rorschach test that you've failed.
ORLY? When did Apple get a monopoly on music distribution - did the buy out Sony and BMG when no one was looking?
Itunes accounts for nearly 70% of the digital download market. They are at least 3x larger than their nearest competitor. That's a monopoly in the same the RIAA has a monopoly on physical music distribution. Sure you can buy a CD from an unsigned band, just don't expect to do it in any of the stores that carry CDs from signed bands.
Or maybe you're using that word, "monopoly", and it doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means
You seem to be implying that you are one of those literalists who think that the mono in monopoly means "only one" rather than market control by the largest entity. By that definition, the RIAA isn't a monopoly either in which case my comparison of trading the RIAA's monopoly for Apple's monopoly should have twigged you the fact that your definition is insufficient. Great for nerdrage but still not applicable to the discussion.
Overwhelming market advantage. Not unlike what the RIAA has on artists. Itunes has around 70% of the market for music downloads. Sure you can buy an MP3 from Amazon just like you can find music from bands that haven't signed with the RIAA. But Apple and the RIAA are both at least 3x larger than their nearest competitors.
Hey, you are the one who picked the fight not knowing the facts going in.
All that other red herring you shit you just pulled out your ass? Put it back up there - I'm not here to have an open ended discussion with you, those never go anywhere. You started off with one specific and easily nailed down falsehood, I nailed it down and now we are done.
Oh get off it, a 14 year old car is going to have a multitude of problems compared to a new car.
Average age of cars on the road is 11 years. AVERAGE. 14 is no big deal.
You're the one that brought up both the age of the car and the stereotypical old-man reason why you won't get a new one.
Really - no new cars have what I'm looking for is a stereotypical old-man reason? Sounds like you fully embrace that dumbassery. Land Rover is the only other manufacturer with a car that fits my requirements and that model is barely a year old. Tell me, do you also think it is a good idea to buy first year cars because that's whats young people do?
I'm suggesting if you can't find something new of interest and are willing to put up with a broken down 14-year old car because of it, you are the stereotypical old man resistant to change.
The door broke and it took about a month before I found the part in a junk-yard. That ain't "broken down." But man that "change for change's sake" is a stereotypical dumbass thing to say.
In other words, you've gotten old and stuck in a rut.
WTF? Are you seriously telling me to buy something I don't want because it is new? Holy shit, I didn't think that dumbass stereotype really existed in real life.
Which is why they will never be allowed to go mainstream. There is not a single country on Earth that would be ok with allowing its citizens to have the ability to produce weapons.
Once upon a time, not too long ago, encryption was classified as a munition too.
Slashdot Mirror
The definition of monopoly is that one company is so powerful that the can control the supply of a product or good.
Please define "control."
The caved into the owners of the copyright without whose permission they cannot sell their music.
So now the RIAA is not a monopoly. OK. BTW copyright is a monopoly too.
See how that term is really fuzzy? So much for that literalist viewpoint.
The thing is that monopoly is not one precise thing it is shades of gray - if it were one succinct definition you wouldn't be moving those goalposts to rationalize how all the other monopolies I've cited fit different requirements. The only difference is you are picking and choosing your requirements to fit what you can't dispute. Hell, you even got standard oil wrong to begin with, then you went and read the article I linked to and now you have another set of goal posts to apply there.
That's the problem with being such a literalist, you can't make the real world fit your literal viewpoint so you have to make exceptions. But once you start picking and choosing your exceptions your whole literalist based argument falls apart.
You completely and totally misunderstand the concept. Substantial equivalence says that if a GE and non-GE plant are found to be the same functionally, they should be treated as such,
Nope. Substantial equivalence only cares about functionality from the original genes sources not any unexpected side-effects that don't exist (or the company is ignorant of) in the original or the gene source.
They still do millions in testing. Why do you think they haven't released the Actric apple or Aqua Advantage salmon, od dicamba resistant corn?
Because the new stuff doesn't work as well they hoped.
Even when there is no way one could selectively breed a gene across species the way GM engineering transplants them
And that matters how? What, because one thing could happen naturally it is safer?
Because living organisms are complex systems - poking them in one area can cause unexpected results in other areas. Genes that occur naturally have had centuries to work out those kinks, transplanted genes have not.
Hint. It is not illegal to own a monopoly
Hint. I never said it was. Doesn't have to be illegal to be bad for the consumer.
Ma Bell and Standard Oil and MS were monopolies because you couldn't get any other competing product.
Come on, how can you be so ignorant of history? 100% monopolies are so rare that they basically don't exist.
Ma Bell -> MCI (and others)
MS -> Apple
Standard Oil -> 70% of the market when the antitrust suit was filed against them
forty years and a wide variety of applications and you have four examples?
What an utterly silly objection. By that same argument your list of precisely zero beneficial developments over the same forty years really shows just how little benefit has come from chemical engineering over the last 40 years...
I don't think that you understand what a monopoly is. Apple would have a monopoly if the music sold on iTunes wasn't available elsewhere.
Nope. You don't know what a monopoly is. By your definition, Ma Bell was not a monopoly nor was Standard Oil and neither was Microsoft.
Don't worry, a lot of geeks on slashdot are such literalists that you have plenty of company.
What are you talking about? They didn't 'grandfather in' any of the genes inserted into crops.
I'm talking about the concept of "substantial equivalence" which presumes that genetic modification is equivalent to selective breeding and thus any significant testing is unnecessary. Even when there is no way one could selectively breed a gene across species the way GM engineering transplants them.
Safety testing is at best limited to comparing changes in the level of certain chemicals that already exist in the original version of the plant with no requirement to look for new substances in the new plant.
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-26/news/mn-144_1_genetic-engineering
While I am sure there are some anecdotal tests that go above and beyond the level of treating genetic modification as selective breeding, the fact that the minimum requirements are basically non-existent is the issue of concern.
My personal experience with "substantial equivalence" is in the software world where many government defense contracts use it as an out to avoid rigorous testing of patches and point-releases but still retain various levels of certification. It only works through sheer luck in that world, I don't expect it to work any better with GM foods.
It's impossible to "reassure the general population". See the anti-vaccine movement for proof of this.
Well, as long as there is a pre-determined outcome, there is no point in trying, right?
It means you considered it. If you have trouble with considered, check the dictionary.
BZZT
1) Defining a word with itself - fail. Right there is the root of your problem, you have your own definition in your head that is self-evident only to yourself. My vote is now heavily biased towards mentally unbalanced.
2) Selective misquoting to avoid answering the hard question - fail. When you ignore the meaningful questions, then you know you are on the wrong side of the argument.
Sounds like you read the Forbes article and are just repeating what they said.
Especially fun is that the Rats that they fed the fucking roundup pesticide live longer than any of the other rats.
Just because they didn't get cancer from drinking the pesticide doesn't mean the pesticide-resistant GMO crops are safe.
And that's really the problem with GMO, testing sucks. There are very few, if any, meaningful and rigorous tests. Lots of short term test and tons of grandfathering in genes because they came from other organisms where they were not a problem. But when it comes to comprehensive testing that could reassure the general population of the safety of GMO crops, there just isn't any.
Given the history we have with things like thalidomide, DDT, leaded gasoline, fen-phen, etc it is not unreasonable that people be genuinely concerned about GMO crops, especially given how widespread they've become with such little public notice. Dismissing those concerns as the equivalent of creation science is at least as bad as creationism itself because it is just another misplaced faith.
Just what does "gave consideration" mean and how does that significantly differ from whatever else you think I meant, huh mr dictionary? Those are your words, not mine anyway.
Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you? Are you projecting your own shit here? Are you mentally unbalanced? Do you drive a junker and fantasize about an unattainable new car? Just why is it that you are so focused on telling me about my life when all you've got is a couple of relatively vague statements to go on? It's like a rorschach test that you've failed.
And you can continue missing the forest for the trees.
If you wanted to talk about the forest, you should have jumped into some other discussion where the forest was under debate.
Whatever it takes to justify your vote.
Don't be that guy. I've never voted democrat in my life. But I seek truth and you are the one just looking to score political points.
ORLY? When did Apple get a monopoly on music distribution - did the buy out Sony and BMG when no one was looking?
Itunes accounts for nearly 70% of the digital download market. They are at least 3x larger than their nearest competitor. That's a monopoly in the same the RIAA has a monopoly on physical music distribution. Sure you can buy a CD from an unsigned band, just don't expect to do it in any of the stores that carry CDs from signed bands.
Or maybe you're using that word, "monopoly", and it doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means
You seem to be implying that you are one of those literalists who think that the mono in monopoly means "only one" rather than market control by the largest entity. By that definition, the RIAA isn't a monopoly either in which case my comparison of trading the RIAA's monopoly for Apple's monopoly should have twigged you the fact that your definition is insufficient. Great for nerdrage but still not applicable to the discussion.
Please define monopoly
Overwhelming market advantage. Not unlike what the RIAA has on artists. Itunes has around 70% of the market for music downloads. Sure you can buy an MP3 from Amazon just like you can find music from bands that haven't signed with the RIAA. But Apple and the RIAA are both at least 3x larger than their nearest competitors.
So your car is 3 years over the average, and as cars get older they get more problems.
That is nothing more than "old is bad" reasoning. But, whatever, you started off as a big asshole and you just keep stretching it.
you originally said "there hasn't really been another vehicle that has appealed to me since." Now you talk about "requirements".
I think you need to keep stretching that asshole because it doesn't seem to be big enough to fit a thesaurus yet.
You're totally right. I stand corrected.
Hey, you are the one who picked the fight not knowing the facts going in.
All that other red herring you shit you just pulled out your ass? Put it back up there - I'm not here to have an open ended discussion with you, those never go anywhere. You started off with one specific and easily nailed down falsehood, I nailed it down and now we are done.
Oh get off it, a 14 year old car is going to have a multitude of problems compared to a new car.
Average age of cars on the road is 11 years. AVERAGE. 14 is no big deal.
You're the one that brought up both the age of the car and the stereotypical old-man reason why you won't get a new one.
Really - no new cars have what I'm looking for is a stereotypical old-man reason? Sounds like you fully embrace that dumbassery. Land Rover is the only other manufacturer with a car that fits my requirements and that model is barely a year old. Tell me, do you also think it is a good idea to buy first year cars because that's whats young people do?
The real revolution was that Apple became a big enough player with the iPod to force the hand of the big 5
I agree that Apple's battle with the RIAA is the real story, but that's not a revolution, it is just trading one monopoly for another.
USS Yorktown circa 1997
I'm suggesting if you can't find something new of interest and are willing to put up with a broken down 14-year old car because of it, you are the stereotypical old man resistant to change.
The door broke and it took about a month before I found the part in a junk-yard. That ain't "broken down." But man that "change for change's sake" is a stereotypical dumbass thing to say.
To make your car door doohicky, you could use some Polymorph, Instamorph or any Epoxy putty instead.
Dude, not even close. That stuff has nowhere near the precision necessary to replace a part like that.
In other words, you've gotten old and stuck in a rut.
WTF? Are you seriously telling me to buy something I don't want because it is new? Holy shit, I didn't think that dumbass stereotype really existed in real life.
Which is why they will never be allowed to go mainstream. There is not a single country on Earth that would be ok with allowing its citizens to have the ability to produce weapons.
Once upon a time, not too long ago, encryption was classified as a munition too.