"My main beef with the anti-GM crowd is that they single out genetic manipulation in the lab, and not other forms of genetic manipulation (like selective breeding)."
I'm afraid there is a monumental difference. Selective breeding of organisms that are, by nature, biologically compatible is hardly the equivalent of splicing fish genes into rose bushes. That's just my wild example, but it's exactly the sort of thing that's being done. I didn't get super concerned about GM foods until I did some research and found out the extent of the "genetic manipulation" that's going on. They are creating mutant species that couldn't possibly occur in nature on a time frame smaller than on the order of millennia.
Think of the problems we're seeing with invasive species all over the world. e.g. someone empties a fish tank in the Mediterranean and one of the plants ends up covering tens of thousands of acres of the sea floor choking off all life in its path. Now, we're introducing these GM species into the environment that have never even been seen anywhere in the world. It's insane.
There is a very delicate balance in the biosphere which was shaped over immense periods of time with the coexistence of slowly evolving species. Adding these mutant freak genes into the mix is a catastrophe waiting to happen. The risk of unintended consequences is simply too great.
I'm open minded, but I'm definitely NOT willing to entertain the hypothesis that genetics has zero influence on obesity.
"What is interesting is . ..that sport . . . is not significant."
I think the suggestion is that formal sports activity offered at school is insignificant, not that "activity" in general is insignificant. I found the observation about BMI to be most interesting.
Practically every "study" I've read about the underlying causes of obesity or other health problems marginalizes the contribution of genetics. We've been collectively brainwashed by well-intended propaganda suggesting that humans are all essentially genetic equals. Therefore, the tacit assumption (bias) in all research is that environment is the predominant factor in any health or behavior observations.
This is not my area of scientific expertise, but the data I've accumulated by personal experience is highly suggestive of major genetic drivers, OR very complex interactions of multiple environment factors that could easily defy simple research methodologies. I'm sure that everyone knows the perfectly fit and healthy person that dies of a cardiac arrest in their '40's and the chain smoking alcoholic that lives to be 90.
The truth is obviously somewhere in the middle, but I think research such as this should at least start out free of the assumption that it must be diet OR exercise and entertain the idea that genetic factors may well be the fundamental determinant.
"Of the people I knew who did well, those who self studied alongside their normal course did things like website design, search algorithms, micro kernel design, robotics and advanced study in certain languages (lisp, c++, C, Object Pascal, assembler)"
Do you mean "did well" financially? If they have the energy and ambition to study robotics and learn C++ in their "spare time" while taking a full CS or engineering course load, it's a small wonder they became successful! Did they have to eat, sleep, and maintain their health as well?
"This wont matter unless somehow a major player in the Linux market does something that makes LINUX more appealing to the masses."
The OEM market not only "matters", it's of critical importance. Linux could be the best operating system in the world:-) and it would hardly matter as long as the vast majority of PCs have Windows pre-installed and working. Seriously, how many machines with pre-installed Windows ever see a different OS?
I'm sure you've seen the web sites of the PC vendors which allow you to select various options and have the price of the system adjust accordingly.
When one of the big companies sets up their site with options for:
Operating System:
Linux
Windows
and the price of the system changes by an amount roughly equivalent to the cost of a Windows OEM license, Linux will be "appealing".
"I often find it funny that very technical people think internet is important to everyone."
Have you ever tried talking to one of your fellow citizens who gets information exclusively from the mainstream media? I cringe to think of what our collective world-view would be if we were still relying on NBC/ABC/CBS as our predominant source of information.
Call me an idealist, but I'm passionate about this, and about Network Neutrality. I think that the free flow of information is critical to any sort of democracy, and is at the foundation of capitalism.
Based on the number and frequency of your posts, it's clear that you've got some major issues with the concept of publicly owned communications infrastructure. Technical issues, risks of poor implementation, spending priorities, etc. All valid points.
It's clear that you have some expertise in the matter however, so let's change the tone of the discussion slightly. If funding broadband with public $$ is inherently flawed and unworkable, what's your proposal for providing access to those of us who currently don't have it and can't get it? If you fail to see lack of access as a problem worth examining, then this discussion is pointless. It's much easier to shoot someone else's proposal full of holes than it is to come up with a workable alternative solution.
"Every time they cut to a new scene, the characters would re-pump their shotguns."
I friggin HATE that! They do the same thing with lever-action rifles. I guess that could be a "Law of Physics"
i.e. "When there is a shell in the chamber of a 12 gauge shotgun, and you work the action, the shell is ejected."
There are plenty of "Laws of Firearms" that Hollywood doesn't obey.
The fact that they have weapons that never need to be reloaded, pistols that can shoot down aircraft or blow up vehicles, and rounds that send the unfortunate victim flying through the air is probably the reason they have such strict gun control laws out there. Not that it matters, because most of the bad guys can't shoot worth a damn anyway.
"Islamic fundamentalists . . . hate our culture. They hate our very existence."
You forgot
"They hate our freedom."
I can't read their minds, but do you think that's enough reason to attack us militarily on our home soil? One of my colleagues summed up this nonsense perfectly. You mean to tell me that some Islamic radical is squatting in a cave near the Pakistani border and just decides that there's too much freedom in America? He also doesn't like our culture or Christianity. SO he assembles a team and decides to start a complex multi-year plot to crash planes into some U.S. buildings?
So that's your honest theory? The U.S. was attacked because someone hates our culture? U.S. foreign policy and our history of meddling in the M.E. had nothing to do with it?
"A teacher could say any crazy thing to pollute the minds of their students," "The guy should have been fired and disbarred from teaching."
Yeah! A long time ago in Tennessee there was a guy named John Scopes that polluted the minds of his students by suggesting that man might have evolved from apes. Fortunately, there were good people "monitoring the curriculum" and laws on the books to protect the minds of the poor children from being corrupted.
Unfortunately, the damage was done. Even to this day, EIGHTY YEARS later, people still believe the lies and propaganda that Scopes spread to his students.
It seems that you never heard about the case of Tomas Winnicki(sp?). The guy was thrown in a Canadian PRISON for posting "hate speech";-( on a message board!
". . . hatemongers target people who don't know better."
So you're saying that 99.9% of your population consists of "laymen" that are too dumb to filter through all of the information they happen to be exposed to? Thank goodness that they have intelligent people like you to protect them and decide what they should and shouldn't be allowed to see/hear/read.
" . ..for insomnia, you take a pill that contains super-diluted coffee."
I obviously knew that the stimulant effect of coffee is diminished as you dilute it, but I had no idea there was a threshold at which it would actually start to put you to sleep.
"Most peopel also know that immigrant workers are good for the US . .."
So truth is now a function of popular opinion?
Illegal immigrants are great for the factories and construction companies that can get them to work for sub-minimum wages. They're just a burden on the rest of us that have to pay taxes to build the public infrastructure and fund the public services that everyone uses(and illegals don't pay for). It's also a documented fact that illegals ship substantial portions of their earnings back to their home countries, so the wealth doesn't even circulate in the rest of the economy. Not to mention the grave security risk of having 20 million illegals that we know nothing about running around our country. That's supposed to be a "benefit to the US"?
Who's a whacko? Somebody that dares to defy the status quo and question insane government policies?
"If I enter your house, without your consent, and see a kilo of heroin on your kitchen table, I can report that to the police. The police can use that information to obtain a search warrant, even though I was a trespasser."
I'm not sure that you're right about that, but if you are, it's WRONG! I find it hard to believe that our judicial system allows a practice that's basically an express lane for circumventing The Constitution. Do you have a link to the law, or a case which sets a legal precedent? What's to prevent you from telling the cops that said evidence exists, even when it's NOT there? Seems like the first question the cops would ask is "How do you know that?" If the answer is "I broke in", you'd have to be report it as AC to avoid getting busted for B&E. An anonymous tip from an admitted burglar is supposed to be "Probable Cause"? If it is, it's BS and should be outlawed.
WTF? This has got to be blatantly illegal. Indeed, arrest the damned cracker! The police can't circumvent the law by using a private citizen as a proxy for illegal gathering of evidence. I would think that using illegally obtained information as "probable cause" would likewise be prohibited. If I read the article carefully enough, why is the situation different from:
1. A person breaking into a home and finding illegal drugs 2. Reporting it to the cops 3. Cops using this as probable cause to search the homeowner's property and workplace
?
I hope the judge (the one presiding over the case, not the accused) determines that the evidence is not admissable and tosses the case.
". ..libertarianism means so many different things to so many different people as to be a meaningless word . . . so talking about it is pointless."
You mean like the terms "liberal" and "conservative"? They have to be the most vaguely defined and frequently abused terms in contemporary political discourse!
No political philosophy has ever been "perfect" in practice, and can't preemptively decide the full array of specific and often complex issues that will naturally arise in a society. Such a philosophy is only a guiding principle, and I would contend that in the case of Libertarianism, the principles are clearly contrary to censorship laws.
"Conservatives like the concept of absolute monitoring of citizens. It's the whole war on terror thing that is their brainchild to begin with. Conservatives brought us the USAPATRIOT Act, etc."
FYI, The USA Patriot Act passed 98-1 in the Senate and had strong bi-partisan support in the House (those evil conservatives!). The President's "Authorization to use Force" in the "War on Terror" also went through Congress and the Senate with strong support from both parties.
The people that are stealing your freedoms are the same ones that have apparently convinced you that there is some real "Liberal vs. Conservative" or "Republican vs. Democrat" political opposition in this country. They've split the nation along some pseudo-ideological line based on a handful of comparatively unimportant issues. While you're busy arguing about issues in your narrow minded black and white "Liberal vs. Conservative" world view, your freedoms are being eroded. It's called "divide and conquer".
Notice that our two major political parties always seem to find the spirit of bi-partisanship and common ground when it comes to giving the government more power and/or screwing over the majority of U.S. citizens?
The only wasted votes are the ones cast for Republicans and Democrats.
" . ..speeding junk that formed more junk would produce "an exponential increase in the number of objects with time, creating a belt of debris around the Earth." "
I guess someone didn't pay attention in Physics class. Speeding junk will coalesce over time because gravity attracts objects together. Of course there will be high energy collision events in which pieces are shattered apart, but there will be low-energy collisions and near misses where the objects stick together. The latter type will eventually dominate as some massive objects form. The idea that we're on some sort of exponential curve of ever increasing junk just because of collisions is silly.
Where did you find out it was judge Posner? I read both links and didn't see his name. If this is judge "Richard A. Posner" he's the same guy that wrote a book which called The Constitution a "suicide pact". He basically claims that our guarantees of personal freedom are "suicidal" because they leave us open to terrorist attack. He specifically stated that we need a NEW "emergency Constitution".
It gives me nightmares to think that we have a judge that is in a position to set legal precedent who admittedly believes we should undermine the Constitution and sacrifice liberty for security.
CMIIW, but I think that the legislative branch can "recall" a Federal judge and remove him from his position. Elected officials who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution should remove him from power immediately.
Slashdot Mirror
"My main beef with the anti-GM crowd is that they single out genetic manipulation in the lab, and not other forms of genetic manipulation (like selective breeding)."
I'm afraid there is a monumental difference. Selective breeding of organisms that are, by nature, biologically compatible is hardly the equivalent of splicing fish genes into rose bushes. That's just my wild example, but it's exactly the sort of thing that's being done. I didn't get super concerned about GM foods until I did some research and found out the extent of the "genetic manipulation" that's going on. They are creating mutant species that couldn't possibly occur in nature on a time frame smaller than on the order of millennia.
Think of the problems we're seeing with invasive species all over the world. e.g. someone empties a fish tank in the Mediterranean and one of the plants ends up covering tens of thousands of acres of the sea floor choking off all life in its path. Now, we're introducing these GM species into the environment that have never even been seen anywhere in the world. It's insane.
There is a very delicate balance in the biosphere which was shaped over immense periods of time with the coexistence of slowly evolving species. Adding these mutant freak genes into the mix is a catastrophe waiting to happen. The risk of unintended consequences is simply too great.
I suggested that one of my relatives look into computer security as a career.
/.ers on a good school for studying this?
Any recommendations from
"Genetics is a maybe . . ."
.that sport . . . is not significant."
I'm open minded, but I'm definitely NOT willing to entertain the hypothesis that genetics has zero influence on obesity.
"What is interesting is . .
I think the suggestion is that formal sports activity offered at school is insignificant, not that "activity" in general is insignificant. I found the observation about BMI to be most interesting.
Practically every "study" I've read about the underlying causes of obesity or other health problems marginalizes the contribution of genetics. We've been collectively brainwashed by well-intended propaganda suggesting that humans are all essentially genetic equals. Therefore, the tacit assumption (bias) in all research is that environment is the predominant factor in any health or behavior observations.
This is not my area of scientific expertise, but the data I've accumulated by personal experience is highly suggestive of major genetic drivers, OR very complex interactions of multiple environment factors that could easily defy simple research methodologies. I'm sure that everyone knows the perfectly fit and healthy person that dies of a cardiac arrest in their '40's and the chain smoking alcoholic that lives to be 90.
The truth is obviously somewhere in the middle, but I think research such as this should at least start out free of the assumption that it must be diet OR exercise and entertain the idea that genetic factors may well be the fundamental determinant.
I think it should have been "-1 Troll".
troll
"Of the people I knew who did well, those who self studied alongside their normal course did things like website design, search algorithms, micro kernel design, robotics and advanced study in certain languages (lisp, c++, C, Object Pascal, assembler)"
Do you mean "did well" financially? If they have the energy and ambition to study robotics and learn C++ in their "spare time" while taking a full CS or engineering course load, it's a small wonder they became successful! Did they have to eat, sleep, and maintain their health as well?
"This wont matter unless somehow a major player in the Linux market does something that makes LINUX more appealing to the masses."
:-) and it would hardly matter as long as the vast majority of PCs have Windows pre-installed and working. Seriously, how many machines with pre-installed Windows ever see a different OS?
The OEM market not only "matters", it's of critical importance. Linux could be the best operating system in the world
I'm sure you've seen the web sites of the PC vendors which allow you to select various options and have the price of the system adjust accordingly.
When one of the big companies sets up their site with options for:
Operating System:
Linux
Windows
and the price of the system changes by an amount roughly equivalent to the cost of a Windows OEM license, Linux will be "appealing".
"I often find it funny that very technical people think internet is important to everyone."
Have you ever tried talking to one of your fellow citizens who gets information exclusively from the mainstream media? I cringe to think of what our collective world-view would be if we were still relying on NBC/ABC/CBS as our predominant source of information.
Call me an idealist, but I'm passionate about this, and about Network Neutrality. I think that the free flow of information is critical to any sort of democracy, and is at the foundation of capitalism.
Based on the number and frequency of your posts, it's clear that you've got some major issues with the concept of publicly owned communications infrastructure. Technical issues, risks of poor implementation, spending priorities, etc. All valid points.
It's clear that you have some expertise in the matter however, so let's change the tone of the discussion slightly. If funding broadband with public $$ is inherently flawed and unworkable, what's your proposal for providing access to those of us who currently don't have it and can't get it? If you fail to see lack of access as a problem worth examining, then this discussion is pointless. It's much easier to shoot someone else's proposal full of holes than it is to come up with a workable alternative solution.
"Every time they cut to a new scene, the characters would re-pump their shotguns."
I friggin HATE that! They do the same thing with lever-action rifles. I guess that could be a "Law of Physics"
i.e. "When there is a shell in the chamber of a 12 gauge shotgun, and you work the action, the shell is ejected."
There are plenty of "Laws of Firearms" that Hollywood doesn't obey.
The fact that they have weapons that never need to be reloaded, pistols that can shoot down aircraft or blow up vehicles, and rounds that send the unfortunate victim flying through the air is probably the reason they have such strict gun control laws out there. Not that it matters, because most of the bad guys can't shoot worth a damn anyway.
"Islamic fundamentalists . . . hate our culture. They hate our very existence."
You forgot
"They hate our freedom."
I can't read their minds, but do you think that's enough reason to attack us militarily on our home soil? One of my colleagues summed up this nonsense perfectly. You mean to tell me that some Islamic radical is squatting in a cave near the Pakistani border and just decides that there's too much freedom in America? He also doesn't like our culture or Christianity. SO he assembles a team and decides to start a complex multi-year plot to crash planes into some U.S. buildings?
So that's your honest theory? The U.S. was attacked because someone hates our culture? U.S. foreign policy and our history of meddling in the M.E. had nothing to do with it?
Well, if you get desperate, you could always breathe them.
"Remind me again why you treadmill people don't just go outside?"
Well, lets' see . . .
below zero(F) temps with high winds
Sunset prior to the end of the work day
Precipitation
Treacherous footing
narrow roads with high snow banks
I love to run outside, but it's not worth frostbite, a twisted knee or ankle, or being hit by a car.
"A teacher could say any crazy thing to pollute the minds of their students,"
"The guy should have been fired and disbarred from teaching."
Yeah! A long time ago in Tennessee there was a guy named John Scopes that polluted the minds of his students by suggesting that man might have evolved from apes. Fortunately, there were good people "monitoring the curriculum" and laws on the books to protect the minds of the poor children from being corrupted.
Unfortunately, the damage was done. Even to this day, EIGHTY YEARS later, people still believe the lies and propaganda that Scopes spread to his students.
LOL.
;-( on a message board!
It seems that you never heard about the case of Tomas Winnicki(sp?). The guy was thrown in a Canadian PRISON for posting "hate speech"
". . . hatemongers target people who don't know better."
So you're saying that 99.9% of your population consists of "laymen" that are too dumb to filter through all of the information they happen to be exposed to? Thank goodness that they have intelligent people like you to protect them and decide what they should and shouldn't be allowed to see/hear/read.
" . . .for insomnia, you take a pill that contains super-diluted coffee."
I obviously knew that the stimulant effect of coffee is diminished as you dilute it, but I had no idea there was a threshold at which it would actually start to put you to sleep.
"Most peopel also know that immigrant workers are good for the US . .
So truth is now a function of popular opinion?
Illegal immigrants are great for the factories and construction companies that can get them to work for sub-minimum wages. They're just a burden on the rest of us that have to pay taxes to build the public infrastructure and fund the public services that everyone uses(and illegals don't pay for). It's also a documented fact that illegals ship substantial portions of their earnings back to their home countries, so the wealth doesn't even circulate in the rest of the economy. Not to mention the grave security risk of having 20 million illegals that we know nothing about running around our country. That's supposed to be a "benefit to the US"?
Who's a whacko? Somebody that dares to defy the status quo and question insane government policies?
"If I enter your house, without your consent, and see a kilo of heroin on your kitchen table, I can report that to the police. The police can use that information to obtain a search warrant, even though I was a trespasser."
I'm not sure that you're right about that, but if you are, it's WRONG! I find it hard to believe that our judicial system allows a practice that's basically an express lane for circumventing The Constitution. Do you have a link to the law, or a case which sets a legal precedent? What's to prevent you from telling the cops that said evidence exists, even when it's NOT there? Seems like the first question the cops would ask is "How do you know that?" If the answer is "I broke in", you'd have to be report it as AC to avoid getting busted for B&E. An anonymous tip from an admitted burglar is supposed to be "Probable Cause"? If it is, it's BS and should be outlawed.
WTF? This has got to be blatantly illegal. Indeed, arrest the damned cracker! The police can't circumvent the law by using a private citizen as a proxy for illegal gathering of evidence. I would think that using illegally obtained information as "probable cause" would likewise be prohibited. If I read the article carefully enough, why is the situation different from:
1. A person breaking into a home and finding illegal drugs
2. Reporting it to the cops
3. Cops using this as probable cause to search the homeowner's property and workplace
?
I hope the judge (the one presiding over the case, not the accused) determines that the evidence is not admissable and tosses the case.
. . .along with the rest of the politicians and their campaigns.
". . .libertarianism means so many different things to so many different people as to be a meaningless word . . .
so talking about it is pointless."
You mean like the terms "liberal" and "conservative"? They have to be the most vaguely defined and frequently abused terms in contemporary political discourse!
No political philosophy has ever been "perfect" in practice, and can't preemptively decide the full array of specific and often complex issues that will naturally arise in a society. Such a philosophy is only a guiding principle, and I would contend that in the case of Libertarianism, the principles are clearly contrary to censorship laws.
"Conservatives like the concept of absolute monitoring of citizens. It's the whole war on terror thing that is their brainchild to begin with. Conservatives brought us the USAPATRIOT Act, etc."
FYI, The USA Patriot Act passed 98-1 in the Senate and had strong bi-partisan support in the House (those evil conservatives!). The President's "Authorization to use Force" in the "War on Terror" also went through Congress and the Senate with strong support from both parties.
The people that are stealing your freedoms are the same ones that have apparently convinced you that there is some real "Liberal vs. Conservative" or "Republican vs. Democrat" political opposition in this country. They've split the nation along some pseudo-ideological line based on a handful of comparatively unimportant issues. While you're busy arguing about issues in your narrow minded black and white "Liberal vs. Conservative" world view, your freedoms are being eroded. It's called "divide and conquer".
Notice that our two major political parties always seem to find the spirit of bi-partisanship and common ground when it comes to giving the government more power and/or screwing over the majority of U.S. citizens?
The only wasted votes are the ones cast for Republicans and Democrats.
" . . .speeding junk that formed more junk would produce "an exponential increase in the number of objects with time, creating a belt of debris around the Earth." "
I guess someone didn't pay attention in Physics class. Speeding junk will coalesce over time because gravity attracts objects together. Of course there will be high energy collision events in which pieces are shattered apart, but there will be low-energy collisions and near misses where the objects stick together. The latter type will eventually dominate as some massive objects form. The idea that we're on some sort of exponential curve of ever increasing junk just because of collisions is silly.
"This is pretty typical of Posner. "
a tch/main2117497.shtml
Where did you find out it was judge Posner? I read both links and didn't see his name. If this is judge "Richard A. Posner" he's the same guy that wrote a book which called The Constitution a "suicide pact". He basically claims that our guarantees of personal freedom are "suicidal" because they leave us open to terrorist attack. He specifically stated that we need a NEW "emergency Constitution".
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/24/opinion/courtw
It gives me nightmares to think that we have a judge that is in a position to set legal precedent who admittedly believes we should undermine the Constitution and sacrifice liberty for security.
CMIIW, but I think that the legislative branch can "recall" a Federal judge and remove him from his position. Elected officials who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution should remove him from power immediately.