Do you really believe that a company would allow a product to make it all the way to market with a known allergenic protein in it? Monsanto and others have developed potential products that were found to contain allergy-causing proteins. These problems were caught in testing and the products either scrapped or tweaked.
You don't see it mentioned because allergenicity is exactly one of the kinds of things that is tested for before a crop goes anywhere near the marketplace. Any product that produced an allergy response would be scrapped or adjusted to not produce the allergenic protein if possible. What about all the random mutations that happen all the time in non-GMO crops? What if one of those were to suddenly start producing an allergenic protein? Why are you not calling for the extreme testing of every other crop in the world that has this same potential yet isn't tested?
Some of these GMO food producers decide that we need to make poisonous plants to prevent bugs from eating them without actual long-term studies to validate their claims of harmlessness
If by "poisonous" you mean producing their own Cry proteins just like the BT bacteria do, then we have plenty of proof that they're harmless because of how the Cry proteins work. You've likely ingested much Cry protein harmlessly over the course of your life as it is an ingredient in some pesticides as well as being produced naturally by BT bacteria. The proteins bind to specific receptors located in specific insect guts, which is why they are so targeted. The proteins also can only function in an alkaline environment such as that found in insect guts. In acidic environments such as human guts, the proteins are broken down into harmless constituents.
Again, the damage won't be significantly worse than if someone planted a low-yield variety nearby.
Actually, the "damage" would be significantly less worse than if someone planted low-yield varieties that pollinated into your field. With Terminator seeds, that's it: the damage stops there and you lose a small fraction of your yield for this particular planting. If someone's low-yield variety pollinates your crop, and you replant the resulting seeds, that can affect your crop for generations, bringing your yield down more and more over time as those low-yield varieties continue to cross-pollinate from planting to planting.
The answer to this is pretty simple. Latency. There are already computer programs that can send MIDI over the internet (such as Internet MIDI, but the application for this is really limited to instruction (piano lessons, etc) and one-way performance. Because of the precise timing that music requires, internet latency will always ensure that you are always out of sync with the person playing on the other end. This is, of course, barring some kind of quantum, zero latency communication.:P
Instead GMO brought some more hurdless to them as the GMO crops seeds can't be used the next year because they are not fertile
To my knowledge, this simply isn't true, unless you can provide a citation of where this has been done. Also, most all non-GMO crop growers also buy their seeds over again every year anyway.
The general consensus that I've gathered from talking with anti-GMO folks is there there will NEVER be enough testing that will convince them that GMO food is safe, and only any results that would ever show some kind of harm, even if only "maybe", "possible", "potential" would be considered definitive. You see this constantly on pretty much any anti-GMO site (naturalist sites, organic foods, etc). They hype up even the slightest possibility of not 100% safety, regardless of the actual science and papers not making this case or even despite showing that not only is this not the case, but not even possible (such as the BT corn. It isn't possible for the BT Cry proteins to have a toxic effect in a mammalian gut because it is easily broken down, whereas in specific insect guts it causes the stomach to rupture, eliminating the pest).
What separates subjective experience from symbolic computation at the level of the brain? You're trying to make a distinction without a difference. Symbolic computation at the level of the brain IS what subjective experience is made of. Consciousness is what it feels like to have a brain.
The reason people think Kurzweil is a nut is because he has been a part of a field of technology for over 30 years thinking about things that most people don't understand. Then he opens his mouth and talks about things they don't understand and they say "this guy must be crazy!"
But I'm sure once I forward your comment to him, he'll realize that you've got it all figured out and this whole "AI" thing is just a big waste of time.
How is a computer equipped with a myriad of sensory devices that do things like detect photons, detect vibrational air patterns, sense physical contact, and more any different than an AI with these same senses? What makes the brain more than just a biological hierarchical hidden Markov model computer doing symbolic computation?
America: the land of lacking reading comprehension when it doesn't suit your agenda. Nothing about being customizable, widely available, cheap to shoot, or accurate makes the AR-15 a more "powerful" weapon, especially compared to (as the OP said) the M14 which has a higher muzzle energy which would still be legal after this law. But hey, facts: how inconvenient!
But didn't Biden just recently say "If our actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking"? Or did he mean it's only worth it if you do it "our" way? Wouldn't you pay more if it would save your kid's life? Or do you not care how it's done, as long as you don't have to pay for it? If laying off 6-10 teachers results in only saving one life, isn't that worth it?
With the exception of one, all mass shootings have occurred where civilians were prevented from carrying firearms to protect themselves, "gun-free zones". So you probably won't find any of those examples, because they don't exist. Also, if there were a mass shooting that was prevented because of armed civilians, you wouldn't hear about it as a mass shooting. Because it was prevented.
You still don't see how one wounded victim is better than 10 wounded or dead victims, had there not been someone there to stop the shooter? I think that's a damn good case for a better armed population.
That's certainly true, but my point was more that all other things being equal (same types of targets, same numbers of victims, etc), would it be more likely that a gun-free zone would be chosen over one where people are potentially armed, and would these events be more or less deadly when people are prevented from protecting themselves as opposed to when they can? Making them gun-free zones only makes them moreso vulnerable potential victims.
James Holmes didn't choose the nearest theater to him; he chose the one that was a designated gun-free zone over a few other theaters that were showing the same movies, that were closer in proximity, but were not gun-free zones. Was that his only reason for making that decision? I don't know and I don't think anyone knows. I have to imagine that it isn't a coincidence though. Where well-intentioned politicians see gun-free zones as places of safety, many other people see them as easy victim sitting duck zones. That includes criminals that would go to shoot them up.
Would having a few armed citizens have made a difference in the Aurora shooting? We'll never know. Considering the armor he was wearing, the smoke in the theater, it's hard to say what a difference it would have made. Personally, I believe that someone would have been able to stop him much sooner rather than later and had that been the case, we probably would have heard very little about the incident. As someone said elsewhere, you don't hear about massacres that were prevented.
We live in a society where violence is unthinkable and to be prepared for it is just being overly paranoid. And then we're shocked, shocked I tell you! when it actually happens. Then everyone starts the "How could this happen? We have to do something about it so this can never, ever happen again!" That would be a nice world to live in if that could be the case. But it will happen again, inevitably. Taking guns away from people that use them to protect themselves will not take them away from those who want them regardless. Promoting responsible gun ownership will work towards lessening these types of events, but once one is underway, the only thing stopping the bad guy with a gun will be a good guy with a gun. Or you can wait a few minutes for the police to show up.
The biggest problem I see with doing away with gun-free zones is that the next round of psychos will simply start using bombs instead of guns.
Slashdot Mirror
So overwhelming that you cited all of it in your post here, I see.
[citation needed]
Please take your own advice about not spreading lies.
Do you really believe that a company would allow a product to make it all the way to market with a known allergenic protein in it? Monsanto and others have developed potential products that were found to contain allergy-causing proteins. These problems were caught in testing and the products either scrapped or tweaked.
You don't see it mentioned because allergenicity is exactly one of the kinds of things that is tested for before a crop goes anywhere near the marketplace. Any product that produced an allergy response would be scrapped or adjusted to not produce the allergenic protein if possible. What about all the random mutations that happen all the time in non-GMO crops? What if one of those were to suddenly start producing an allergenic protein? Why are you not calling for the extreme testing of every other crop in the world that has this same potential yet isn't tested?
If by "poisonous" you mean producing their own Cry proteins just like the BT bacteria do, then we have plenty of proof that they're harmless because of how the Cry proteins work. You've likely ingested much Cry protein harmlessly over the course of your life as it is an ingredient in some pesticides as well as being produced naturally by BT bacteria. The proteins bind to specific receptors located in specific insect guts, which is why they are so targeted. The proteins also can only function in an alkaline environment such as that found in insect guts. In acidic environments such as human guts, the proteins are broken down into harmless constituents.
Is the Bt Protein Safe for Human Consumption?
Health risk assessment of the adjuvant effects of Cry proteins from genetically modified plants used in food and fodder
So who's painting with a wide brush now?
Great counterargument full of facts and citations.
This strongly suggests that you don't understand thermodynamics the way you think you do...
Holy. Fucking. Shit. o.O
Actually, the "damage" would be significantly less worse than if someone planted low-yield varieties that pollinated into your field. With Terminator seeds, that's it: the damage stops there and you lose a small fraction of your yield for this particular planting. If someone's low-yield variety pollinates your crop, and you replant the resulting seeds, that can affect your crop for generations, bringing your yield down more and more over time as those low-yield varieties continue to cross-pollinate from planting to planting.
The answer to this is pretty simple. Latency. There are already computer programs that can send MIDI over the internet (such as Internet MIDI, but the application for this is really limited to instruction (piano lessons, etc) and one-way performance. Because of the precise timing that music requires, internet latency will always ensure that you are always out of sync with the person playing on the other end. This is, of course, barring some kind of quantum, zero latency communication. :P
To my knowledge, this simply isn't true, unless you can provide a citation of where this has been done. Also, most all non-GMO crop growers also buy their seeds over again every year anyway.
How much testing will ever be enough?
The general consensus that I've gathered from talking with anti-GMO folks is there there will NEVER be enough testing that will convince them that GMO food is safe, and only any results that would ever show some kind of harm, even if only "maybe", "possible", "potential" would be considered definitive. You see this constantly on pretty much any anti-GMO site (naturalist sites, organic foods, etc). They hype up even the slightest possibility of not 100% safety, regardless of the actual science and papers not making this case or even despite showing that not only is this not the case, but not even possible (such as the BT corn. It isn't possible for the BT Cry proteins to have a toxic effect in a mammalian gut because it is easily broken down, whereas in specific insect guts it causes the stomach to rupture, eliminating the pest).
Whoever the fuck marked this as Troll should lose all their mod points for the rest of their natural lives. Fucking idiots.
What separates subjective experience from symbolic computation at the level of the brain? You're trying to make a distinction without a difference. Symbolic computation at the level of the brain IS what subjective experience is made of. Consciousness is what it feels like to have a brain.
The reason people think Kurzweil is a nut is because he has been a part of a field of technology for over 30 years thinking about things that most people don't understand. Then he opens his mouth and talks about things they don't understand and they say "this guy must be crazy!"
But I'm sure once I forward your comment to him, he'll realize that you've got it all figured out and this whole "AI" thing is just a big waste of time.
How is a computer equipped with a myriad of sensory devices that do things like detect photons, detect vibrational air patterns, sense physical contact, and more any different than an AI with these same senses? What makes the brain more than just a biological hierarchical hidden Markov model computer doing symbolic computation?
What do submarines do then? I'd say they swim. Define "swim", then define whatever it is that submarines do and let's see where the differences lie.
America: the land of lacking reading comprehension when it doesn't suit your agenda. Nothing about being customizable, widely available, cheap to shoot, or accurate makes the AR-15 a more "powerful" weapon, especially compared to (as the OP said) the M14 which has a higher muzzle energy which would still be legal after this law. But hey, facts: how inconvenient!
But didn't Biden just recently say "If our actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking"? Or did he mean it's only worth it if you do it "our" way? Wouldn't you pay more if it would save your kid's life? Or do you not care how it's done, as long as you don't have to pay for it? If laying off 6-10 teachers results in only saving one life, isn't that worth it?
With the exception of one, all mass shootings have occurred where civilians were prevented from carrying firearms to protect themselves, "gun-free zones". So you probably won't find any of those examples, because they don't exist. Also, if there were a mass shooting that was prevented because of armed civilians, you wouldn't hear about it as a mass shooting. Because it was prevented.
That... is goddamn fascinating. Thank you for teaching me something new today.
Just checking. I know that the site owner is a Bujinkan ninpo practitioner. Genbukan ninpo here. :) Kudos for you sig link.
You still don't see how one wounded victim is better than 10 wounded or dead victims, had there not been someone there to stop the shooter? I think that's a damn good case for a better armed population.
Is the a-human-right.com site yours?
That's certainly true, but my point was more that all other things being equal (same types of targets, same numbers of victims, etc), would it be more likely that a gun-free zone would be chosen over one where people are potentially armed, and would these events be more or less deadly when people are prevented from protecting themselves as opposed to when they can? Making them gun-free zones only makes them moreso vulnerable potential victims.
James Holmes didn't choose the nearest theater to him; he chose the one that was a designated gun-free zone over a few other theaters that were showing the same movies, that were closer in proximity, but were not gun-free zones. Was that his only reason for making that decision? I don't know and I don't think anyone knows. I have to imagine that it isn't a coincidence though. Where well-intentioned politicians see gun-free zones as places of safety, many other people see them as easy victim sitting duck zones. That includes criminals that would go to shoot them up.
Would having a few armed citizens have made a difference in the Aurora shooting? We'll never know. Considering the armor he was wearing, the smoke in the theater, it's hard to say what a difference it would have made. Personally, I believe that someone would have been able to stop him much sooner rather than later and had that been the case, we probably would have heard very little about the incident. As someone said elsewhere, you don't hear about massacres that were prevented.
We live in a society where violence is unthinkable and to be prepared for it is just being overly paranoid. And then we're shocked, shocked I tell you! when it actually happens. Then everyone starts the "How could this happen? We have to do something about it so this can never, ever happen again!" That would be a nice world to live in if that could be the case. But it will happen again, inevitably. Taking guns away from people that use them to protect themselves will not take them away from those who want them regardless. Promoting responsible gun ownership will work towards lessening these types of events, but once one is underway, the only thing stopping the bad guy with a gun will be a good guy with a gun. Or you can wait a few minutes for the police to show up.
The biggest problem I see with doing away with gun-free zones is that the next round of psychos will simply start using bombs instead of guns.