I agree, if I wanted a Digg/Cnet/facebook/ad-driven abomination, I'd be on those sites. Honestly I don't understand what the hell these arseholes are thinking when they take a good site and try to blend it with four other decent sites. It's ridiculous, people watch ESPN because it's the sports channel, people like slashdot because it's "news for nerds", why anyone would think that changing that would lead to anything other than yet another crap-ass-inthered-social-network is beyond me.
dude just stfu about "terrorism" you can't define the fucking word and don't need to be using it at all. You're using it as a scare tactic only. you're a fucking terrorist terrorist, terrorizing me with the word terror. Seriously, having a fur coat painted is quite bit different than watching your 2 year old split in two at the cafe and you really can't seem to make a point without the "T" word.
I think the white house went through a lot of effort to deliver what might be described as a "unified stance on war in iraq" I don't think they really gave a shit about why people wanted to go to Iraq, so long as they went.
Most opensource developers already got good jobs, they do this on the side, because they want too. You are predicting that people will stop their hobby when the economy goes bad? A hobby that doesn't really cost anything except time? You got a weird view of human nature.
I'd like to add that the "hobby" can look "really" good on the resume, as it can often single-handedly demonstrate your class of sophistication. This way you can say I worked on project X, rather than just saying I tended bar for X months.
you *know* what the plan is? holy shit! I never once thought I'd meet the second incarnation of... God's General? Cause it is a war plan right? or was it humanitarian aid? jeez I wish I could get it straight.
I'm inclined to think along those lines also. Seems to me that if Javascript is W3 compliant, as is xml, then we ought to use it to rid ourselves of things like silverlight, flash, or (insert obscure browser plugin here).
so you want to use art as a metric for the quality of education, I don't get it, art is subjective and interpretive. Not to mention the fact that all the great breakthroughs in art today lie in the field of animation rather than still 2d paintings.
now you're just being pedantic, petty, and difficult. Seriously, I get enough of this bullshit from my kids. I think in your case I'd make an exception for genetically modified patented people, you should probably have a sterility gene (oh, wait it's your face). see we can all be childish.
I'm not scared of any killer gene eating my brains, more like concerned that one day everything we eat is going to be spiked with Vitamins A,C,E, and THC. Basically, I have absolutely nothing against GM foods, what I'm against is these large international corporations railroading one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in human history. It's not the scientists it's the scary mad business men. You keep saying I'm some kind of a nut, but I'd probably eat way more genetically modified freaks of nature than you would (imagine a reality show "Eat this Abomination of Nature!"). Now you say you agree that these companies shouldn't be modifying the food chain for profit, but how the hell do you propose we do that without regulation? Hell the regulation and testing should be there just because nobody but Monsanto knows what the hell it is that they are doing.
In fact, we know quite a bit more about what GM plants do than we do traditionally modified plants.
I'd like to see you explain that.
Why are you insisting on more testing for GM plants? Why don't you object to being in the "test group" for traditionally modified plants?
What's to keep me from growing psychedelic corn and letting it cross pollinate? Honestly, I just don't understand why I can't dump antifreeze in my driveway, but my corn can be mixed with (insert designer food fad of the week) and fed to me without my knowing. I want more testing and regulation because I want to know if I'm buying patented corn or not, I want to know if my rice is sterile, I want to know that self-pollination is a misnomer used in defense of experimenting with certain crops, I want to know how many unexpected results these scientists see, I want to know why these agricultural scientists were so damn far off in their estimates for cross-pollination, I would especially like to know how any of these food patents pass the "prior art" test.
nobody that makes GM plants knows EXACTLY(- highly credible) what they're doing, they're just releasing it (- credible it's common knowledge). the things that they are doing on purpose can be confusing (kill gene, in our food supply?) and highly litigious (food patents?).
As long as there is wind, there will be cross pollination that is not accounted for. A good portion of science surrounding GM foods is not being done in accordance with the scientific method, that good portion is the part that can land in your backyard, welcome to test group "A" - hope someone's doing research. BTW almost everyone reading this is in test group A (do you eat vegetables from the grocery store?), now if they feel like they're releasing this DNA into an "ocean" they're probably about right, but someone ought to be gathering good statistical data that proves or disproves their theory - it's not happening.
Now if you could pull me in from the lunatic fringe long enough to eat my GM, Steroid bred, "preserved", irradiated, $2-Super-Fast-Patent-Pending-Cheeseburger, then maybe you could tell me why the logical science isn't being done.
Suddenly I regret calling you a feminine hygiene product, you're more like an anal probe - of the medical kind.
WTF, do you work in marketing? Politics? or what? You're vary good at avoiding my points, calling me names, and avoiding intelligent conversation, if you don't work in politics may I suggest it? Oh, and welcome to the lunatic fringe douchebag.
Why should GM strains be singled out for this sort of treatment?
for the same reasons that fires should be controlled.
My point was that plants that self pollinate are not necessarily safe from contamination. (how does my quote not back my point?)
Please don't quote "contamination" that's what it's actually called.
...it isn't in any way reasonable to demand that it not happen.
So, cross pollination isn't a problem worth looking in to? I think there are some patent holders that would strongly disagree with you.
Anyways, of course my numbers were off, I pulled them out of thin air, but still don't see how you can defend Monsanto's right to destroy neighboring crops at any percentage.
Hadn't realized that book covered GM foods, anyways, my sister's a microbiologist that's been working with invasive plants for the past six years, basically if there were GM versions of "her" plants she would be fucking livid right now. Imagine going out for the tenth year to discover that suddenly your sample data shows even just 6% GM contamination. Suddenly, her "problem" might be solved, compounded, or her data would simply be rendered irrelevant, furthermore she wouldn't exactly be able to collect new data because the GM percentages will likely change. From a scientific point of view alone, Monsanto is pissing in the test tubes we've relied on for thousands of years. It might all balance out in the end, but at the same time it might not, fact is these assholes don't really know what kind of genetic defects they might be introducing into the food chain and they don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, if I wanted a Digg/Cnet/facebook/ad-driven abomination, I'd be on those sites. Honestly I don't understand what the hell these arseholes are thinking when they take a good site and try to blend it with four other decent sites. It's ridiculous, people watch ESPN because it's the sports channel, people like slashdot because it's "news for nerds", why anyone would think that changing that would lead to anything other than yet another crap-ass-inthered-social-network is beyond me.
fine, why don't you enlighten me?
I thought I said shut up. I think you're posting from westin hills and I don't want to talk to you anymore.
dude just stfu about "terrorism" you can't define the fucking word and don't need to be using it at all. You're using it as a scare tactic only. you're a fucking terrorist terrorist, terrorizing me with the word terror. Seriously, having a fur coat painted is quite bit different than watching your 2 year old split in two at the cafe and you really can't seem to make a point without the "T" word.
What the hell are you talking about?
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22peace+terrorists%22Google does not seem to agree with you on this. I kinda get the feeling that you all are making this shit up as you go along.
hey i voted, they counted again
I think the white house went through a lot of effort to deliver what might be described as a "unified stance on war in iraq" I don't think they really gave a shit about why people wanted to go to Iraq, so long as they went.
I'm a bit worried that he wants to keep her from leaving the US
You don't really understand what a LIE is do you?
I'd like to add that the "hobby" can look "really" good on the resume, as it can often single-handedly demonstrate your class of sophistication. This way you can say I worked on project X, rather than just saying I tended bar for X months.
it's all good homie, I'm not really a hater anyways, I just like the game.
Maybe I'll be divine like god for halloween
you *know* what the plan is? holy shit! I never once thought I'd meet the second incarnation of ... God's General? Cause it is a war plan right? or was it humanitarian aid? jeez I wish I could get it straight.
apparently half of them believe his ant farm falls over every now and then and some escape. even though his ant farms are "perfect"
I'm inclined to think along those lines also. Seems to me that if Javascript is W3 compliant, as is xml, then we ought to use it to rid ourselves of things like silverlight, flash, or (insert obscure browser plugin here).
hey, your not "Tom" as in "Tom" from Myspace are you?
so you want to use art as a metric for the quality of education, I don't get it, art is subjective and interpretive. Not to mention the fact that all the great breakthroughs in art today lie in the field of animation rather than still 2d paintings.
not when your parents do it, would have been nice if they had left the gene pool alone. seriously, why do you still argue?
now you're just being pedantic, petty, and difficult. Seriously, I get enough of this bullshit from my kids. I think in your case I'd make an exception for genetically modified patented people, you should probably have a sterility gene (oh, wait it's your face). see we can all be childish.
I'm not scared of any killer gene eating my brains, more like concerned that one day everything we eat is going to be spiked with Vitamins A,C,E, and THC. Basically, I have absolutely nothing against GM foods, what I'm against is these large international corporations railroading one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in human history. It's not the scientists it's the scary mad business men. You keep saying I'm some kind of a nut, but I'd probably eat way more genetically modified freaks of nature than you would (imagine a reality show "Eat this Abomination of Nature!"). Now you say you agree that these companies shouldn't be modifying the food chain for profit, but how the hell do you propose we do that without regulation? Hell the regulation and testing should be there just because nobody but Monsanto knows what the hell it is that they are doing.
I'd like to see you explain that.
Why are you insisting on more testing for GM plants? Why don't you object to being in the "test group" for traditionally modified plants?What's to keep me from growing psychedelic corn and letting it cross pollinate? Honestly, I just don't understand why I can't dump antifreeze in my driveway, but my corn can be mixed with (insert designer food fad of the week) and fed to me without my knowing. I want more testing and regulation because I want to know if I'm buying patented corn or not, I want to know if my rice is sterile, I want to know that self-pollination is a misnomer used in defense of experimenting with certain crops, I want to know how many unexpected results these scientists see, I want to know why these agricultural scientists were so damn far off in their estimates for cross-pollination, I would especially like to know how any of these food patents pass the "prior art" test.
nobody that makes GM plants knows EXACTLY(- highly credible) what they're doing, they're just releasing it (- credible it's common knowledge). the things that they are doing on purpose can be confusing (kill gene, in our food supply?) and highly litigious (food patents?).
As long as there is wind, there will be cross pollination that is not accounted for. A good portion of science surrounding GM foods is not being done in accordance with the scientific method, that good portion is the part that can land in your backyard, welcome to test group "A" - hope someone's doing research. BTW almost everyone reading this is in test group A (do you eat vegetables from the grocery store?), now if they feel like they're releasing this DNA into an "ocean" they're probably about right, but someone ought to be gathering good statistical data that proves or disproves their theory - it's not happening.
Now if you could pull me in from the lunatic fringe long enough to eat my GM, Steroid bred, "preserved", irradiated, $2-Super-Fast-Patent-Pending-Cheeseburger, then maybe you could tell me why the logical science isn't being done.
Suddenly I regret calling you a feminine hygiene product, you're more like an anal probe - of the medical kind.
WTF, do you work in marketing? Politics? or what? You're vary good at avoiding my points, calling me names, and avoiding intelligent conversation, if you don't work in politics may I suggest it? Oh, and welcome to the lunatic fringe douchebag.
for the same reasons that fires should be controlled.
My point was that plants that self pollinate are not necessarily safe from contamination. (how does my quote not back my point?) Please don't quote "contamination" that's what it's actually called.
...it isn't in any way reasonable to demand that it not happen.So, cross pollination isn't a problem worth looking in to? I think there are some patent holders that would strongly disagree with you.
Anyways, of course my numbers were off, I pulled them out of thin air, but still don't see how you can defend Monsanto's right to destroy neighboring crops at any percentage.
Hadn't realized that book covered GM foods, anyways, my sister's a microbiologist that's been working with invasive plants for the past six years, basically if there were GM versions of "her" plants she would be fucking livid right now. Imagine going out for the tenth year to discover that suddenly your sample data shows even just 6% GM contamination. Suddenly, her "problem" might be solved, compounded, or her data would simply be rendered irrelevant, furthermore she wouldn't exactly be able to collect new data because the GM percentages will likely change. From a scientific point of view alone, Monsanto is pissing in the test tubes we've relied on for thousands of years. It might all balance out in the end, but at the same time it might not, fact is these assholes don't really know what kind of genetic defects they might be introducing into the food chain and they don't care.
watch out guys, he's running with the mod squad, in soviet threads russia the trolls mod you! :)