How about you spend a half an hour thinking about your preconceptions and their logical consequences before running your mouth off (keyboard off?).
I've worked for years in both conventional and organic farms.
Besides, if these 'poisons' as you put it were actually 'poisons' for humans, don't you think people would have started getting sick by now?
I know both farm owners and workers who have had terrible health consequences from the use of agricultural chemicals. Properly medically diagnosed problems, not just some vague suspicion on my part. I've applied chemicals to crops myself, I know the proper safe working practices. Have you ever read the label on any agricultural chemicals? Have you ever read a MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet)? Do you understand why they require various levels of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) depending on toxicity, from gloves to full body suits? Do you know what a withholding period is? Do you realize that agricultural chemicals sometimes get banned for being too dangerous, sometimes after years of widespread use?
How about you spend half an hour thinking yourself before spouting of nonsense that is easily refuted by the relevant science, as recognised by legislation and the companies that produce those chemicals. Maybe I can recommend some commonly used agricultural chemicals for you to ingest. You can take up the issue with your biochemistry teacher if you survive. Do you think they put warning labels on the drums for fun?
Use of these chemicals is regulated and has specific use instructions based on the science. I have seen the blatant disregard for those instructions and laws by food producers. As for people getting sick, well, they do. Tell me, what do you think is the reason they have withholding periods for sprays? It's to prevent people being poisoned by those chemicals. That's ok, because no farmers disregard the withholding periods. Ever. Right?
FYI, organic production does allow for fertlizers and pesticides. They are limited to those derived from plants. The plant derived pesticides are older, less effective, and require HEAVIER & MORE FREQUENT application rates than their more modern peers.
You don't really seem to have done much research on this topic. As I said, I worked in the industry. Replacement of artificial chemicals with organic alternatives is only one method of dealing with crop weeds, pests and diseases. Flame weeding http://www.industrysearch.com.au/Products/Flame_Weeding_using_Elgas_LPG-22464 is the first thing off the top of my head because I use it in my garden, even though I am not in agriculture any more, but there are many other methods used to reduce or eliminate the need for spraying.
Not many people get sick eating poison-sprayed foods. Think about how many millions of people in the US eat processed food. We're talking several hundred million people, yet the danger footprint is so small. That's almost better than a study.
How many get cancer now? I've heard 1/3 will get it in their lifetime, this article concurs (I didn't read the whole thing, just the first couple of paragraphs http://www.physorg.com/news151840958.html I know, I know correlation is not causation but something is going wrong. Surely our food is an obvious (though possibly wrong) place to look.
I don't have the references currently available, but several studies have shown that with about 50% of crops "organically" grown crops have more harmful toxins than those that use modern pesticides.
I'd be interested to see those studies and who did them. If the tested crops were grown for the study, I wouldn't consider it valid because I know chemicals are applied over recommended concentration, too often and too close to harvest by some farmers.
Certain crops are subject to insect pests that leave behind toxins inside the food as opposed to on the outside (the way pesticides are applied).
It is quite common for agricultural chemicals to be systemic. They are applied on the outside but are absorbed into the plant. Glyphosate is a good example, but there are plenty of others. You don't want to use glyphosate around pineapples, you'll get it in the fruit.
Additionally, the crop yield per acre of organically grown food is significantly less than using chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
That is conditional. Intensive farming can produce very high yields organically, conventional broadacre farming can cause soil degradation that makes continued high yields impossible. Set up a garden well and you can whip the pants of industrial farming in yield/acre, you'll never come close to matching overall output though.
Personally I'm not a big fan of poisons sprayed on my food regardless of what this study says.
People trusting their gut instincts over scientific evidence. Welcome to the 16th century
Did you consider the possibility that I had spent years in agriculture, both conventional and organic, and trust the certain knowledge of my own experience over the assertions of a group of people I neither know nor trust?
I know poisons are sprayed on foods above recommended concentrations. I know crops are picked within the withholding period of chemicals they are sprayed with. I know they reach the market within those withholding periods in certain circumstances. I don't think it, I don't suspect it, I know it, I have seen it happen. I've seen workers with skin cancers all over areas that have been exposed to agricultural chemicals, even skin that doesn't see much sun. That doesn't provide you with an easy snide comment though, does it.
HA HA, organic milk. Laughed my arse off!... Just exactly how does organic milk differ from the "other" type? I have visions of a star trek "Borg" cow somehow hooked up to a milking cube.
You got a troll mod, but I suspect you are asking a genuine question. The whole system of production is relevant. If you use artificial fertilizers etc on your pasture, you don't produce organic milk. Although it doesn't appear this way to a customer reading a "Certified Organic" label on a product, essentially it is the farm that is certified organic, not the product. The product is organic by virtue of being produced on an organic farm.
In Australia, it takes years to achieve certification for your farm. Any prohibited chemicals can't be used on that block of land at all or no produce from that land can be sold as certified organic. If you wish to produce some organic goods and other non-organic goods, you need two separate blocks of land. IIRC you can't even have chemicals stored on your organic block. For livestock, even bought feed supplements have to meet the requirements to retain certification.
I don't have a citation, I've just worked on both organic and non-organic farms (a long time ago, things may have changed).
Technology in food production isn't just for processed food, it's having a tractor to work your ground instead of a digging stick. Even organic farming uses technology, the question is which technologies to accept and which to reject. Personally I'm not a big fan of poisons sprayed on my food regardless of what this study says.
The 'dev' side, where your success is proportional to the thickness of your skin.
Possibly this affects kernel developers particularly but it is still generally true of any occupation or business. Learn to develop a thicker skin and you'll be amazed what you become capable of accomplishing.
Mental association has a lot to do with it. I actually find women between 30 and 40 more attractive than women in their twenties (i'm 25).
The mental anguish of pretending to be stupid and shallow enough to relate to most less than 25 year old women is too difficult to endure. You can flirt with a woman in her 30's or 40's without faking brain damage, which is a big plus.
Human males are attracted to just post-pubescent girls as that is their most fertile time.
Only in pictures. If you meet them they talk and you are soon repelled. Give me a reasonably attractive educated woman with life experience anytime for a partner over a "just post-pubescent girl".
The moment a single cell can be a legal human is the moment I'll embrace the concept of 'lesser' humans that can be slain for the convenience of 'superior' humans
We already have encoded in law in every country circumstances in which it is permissible to kill humans. Military, police, self-defence etc. The laws vary, but the principle is there. Most of them require some action on the part of the one to be killed in order to be legally justifiable though, not a criteria met by any foetus.
the point is, we should be given the freedom to get to the point where we need to answer such moral questions like "when is an cloned organ donor human?" for ourselfs, and not have that taken away by the moralist right.
I agree. That's why even though I think it's wrong to kill abortionists I don't want to impose my morals on others. If you disagree with killing abortionists, don't kill abortionists. Everyone should be free to make up their own mind.
See how ridiculous that argument is? Laws on murder should not be subject to personal opinion. While there is disagreement on whether killing an embryo should be considered murder, legally the only viable path is to have one definition for everybody. When duelling was made illegal I'm sure many did not consider it to be murder. Somebody is not going to get their way, possibly you. Deal with it. The embryos who are killed don't get to develop to the point that they can voice their opinion, so they get someone else's morals imposed on them in the most extreme manner. You don't seem to have a problem doing it to them.
Forcing a company to ship its competitors with its own product is ridiculous and anti-capitalism.
they should do what a business is supposed to do and get the word out about their product, not plead to the government for assistance.
My government only releases it's tax return software for windows. Even when you can get it running on wine, the help files don't work. I'd much rather have the government make their services platform independent than try to enforce competition.
Either that, or people without MS windows are exempt from reporting income and paying tax, whichever is easier!
I was replying to a comment on Linus' level headedness and perception. His perception was IMO erroneous regarding the bitkeeper licence issue. Linus, in his own words:instead of looking at huge plans for the future, I tend to have a rather short time frame of 'issues in the next few months'. Microsoft, however, does long term planning and have by their public statements proclaimed themselves to harbour animosity towards FOSS. Level headedness isn't the issue, neither is the existence or otherwise of closed source software in the story, Linus' stand isn't perceptive, it's the exact opposite.
I suggest you listen to Linus' words and take heed. The man is a visionary.
He is? You'd better let him know:
http://www.efytimes.com/efytimes/21160/news.htm
Linus: I've never been much of a visionary -- instead of looking at huge plans for the future, I tend to have a rather short time frame of 'issues in the next few months'.
Linus does not consider the long term consequences of actions to the extent necessary to anticipate the moves of a player like Microsoft. That puts him at a severe disadvantage to any malicious long-term thinker. Whether Microsoft is malicious to FOSS ought to be abundantly clear by now from their own public statements.
I don't think I can say anything, other than the fact this confirms my assumptions that Linus is an extremely level-headed, perceptive person.
Yes, his level headed approach to using bitkeeper proved that. Despite all the anti-proprietary software hype, it was a good choice and it wasn't taken away, despite the closed licence.
I tire of all of the "watch out for X!" and "Y are just out to get you!" stories, no matter how relevant they may or may not be.
Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying you're not interested in the relevance of the warnings? In that case, if someone wishes to harm FOSS, they just need to be persistent because given enough time, you will weary of those who warn you of their predatory behaviour and not the predatory behaviour itself.
I'm not sure how that could be considered insightful.
Now if I could sell my Brother on Firefox, I could stop fixing his computer every few months because all the stuff IE installs, though that is not the whole problem, he tends to click yes whenever anything wants to install.
Start charging, or send him to a repair shop. About 10 years ago I used to be consistently helping a couple of friends with recurring self-inflicted problems. After a while, I said "I've told you how to solve this, don't ever call me about this problem again, fix it yourself or pay someone". It resulted in instant habit change. Another time I told them some simple security practices which they ignored and got infected. When they asked for help, I said "I did help you, you didn't follow my advise. Now you need to pay someone", they took it to a repair shop, paid for service, and excitedly told me the new security habits they learned. The same advice they ignored for free they valued when they paid for it. It was a valuable lesson for me on human nature.
You aren't helping people when you repetitively fix self-inflicted damage for free, you are enabling bad behaviour and you are part of the problem. Your brother will value good advice if he pays $ for it. Advise him for free and he will ignore it forever. Stop paying the price of others mistakes, you're screwing up the internet.
I try hard to convince people to stop using Internet Exploder but they always tell me they like it because it's what they know.
Wait until there's an unpatched vulerability, install it for them as a temporary measure so their bank account doesn't get drained. Most of them will put up with it as a temporary measure, then it's no longer unfamiliar.
Slashdot Mirror
How about you spend a half an hour thinking about your preconceptions and their logical consequences before running your mouth off (keyboard off?).
I've worked for years in both conventional and organic farms.
Besides, if these 'poisons' as you put it were actually 'poisons' for humans, don't you think people would have started getting sick by now?
I know both farm owners and workers who have had terrible health consequences from the use of agricultural chemicals. Properly medically diagnosed problems, not just some vague suspicion on my part. I've applied chemicals to crops myself, I know the proper safe working practices. Have you ever read the label on any agricultural chemicals? Have you ever read a MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet)? Do you understand why they require various levels of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) depending on toxicity, from gloves to full body suits? Do you know what a withholding period is? Do you realize that agricultural chemicals sometimes get banned for being too dangerous, sometimes after years of widespread use?
How about you spend half an hour thinking yourself before spouting of nonsense that is easily refuted by the relevant science, as recognised by legislation and the companies that produce those chemicals. Maybe I can recommend some commonly used agricultural chemicals for you to ingest. You can take up the issue with your biochemistry teacher if you survive. Do you think they put warning labels on the drums for fun?
Use of these chemicals is regulated and has specific use instructions based on the science. I have seen the blatant disregard for those instructions and laws by food producers. As for people getting sick, well, they do. Tell me, what do you think is the reason they have withholding periods for sprays? It's to prevent people being poisoned by those chemicals. That's ok, because no farmers disregard the withholding periods. Ever. Right?
FYI, organic production does allow for fertlizers and pesticides. They are limited to those derived from plants. The plant derived pesticides are older, less effective, and require HEAVIER & MORE FREQUENT application rates than their more modern peers.
You don't really seem to have done much research on this topic. As I said, I worked in the industry. Replacement of artificial chemicals with organic alternatives is only one method of dealing with crop weeds, pests and diseases. Flame weeding http://www.industrysearch.com.au/Products/Flame_Weeding_using_Elgas_LPG-22464 is the first thing off the top of my head because I use it in my garden, even though I am not in agriculture any more, but there are many other methods used to reduce or eliminate the need for spraying.
Not many people get sick eating poison-sprayed foods. Think about how many millions of people in the US eat processed food. We're talking several hundred million people, yet the danger footprint is so small. That's almost better than a study.
How many get cancer now? I've heard 1/3 will get it in their lifetime, this article concurs (I didn't read the whole thing, just the first couple of paragraphs http://www.physorg.com/news151840958.html I know, I know correlation is not causation but something is going wrong. Surely our food is an obvious (though possibly wrong) place to look.
I don't have the references currently available, but several studies have shown that with about 50% of crops "organically" grown crops have more harmful toxins than those that use modern pesticides.
I'd be interested to see those studies and who did them. If the tested crops were grown for the study, I wouldn't consider it valid because I know chemicals are applied over recommended concentration, too often and too close to harvest by some farmers.
Certain crops are subject to insect pests that leave behind toxins inside the food as opposed to on the outside (the way pesticides are applied).
It is quite common for agricultural chemicals to be systemic. They are applied on the outside but are absorbed into the plant. Glyphosate is a good example, but there are plenty of others. You don't want to use glyphosate around pineapples, you'll get it in the fruit.
Additionally, the crop yield per acre of organically grown food is significantly less than using chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
That is conditional. Intensive farming can produce very high yields organically, conventional broadacre farming can cause soil degradation that makes continued high yields impossible. Set up a garden well and you can whip the pants of industrial farming in yield/acre, you'll never come close to matching overall output though.
Personally I'm not a big fan of poisons sprayed on my food regardless of what this study says.
People trusting their gut instincts over scientific evidence. Welcome to the 16th century
Did you consider the possibility that I had spent years in agriculture, both conventional and organic, and trust the certain knowledge of my own experience over the assertions of a group of people I neither know nor trust?
I know poisons are sprayed on foods above recommended concentrations. I know crops are picked within the withholding period of chemicals they are sprayed with. I know they reach the market within those withholding periods in certain circumstances. I don't think it, I don't suspect it, I know it, I have seen it happen. I've seen workers with skin cancers all over areas that have been exposed to agricultural chemicals, even skin that doesn't see much sun. That doesn't provide you with an easy snide comment though, does it.
According to other post's it's UHT. Does regular UHT milk give you problems?
HA HA, organic milk. Laughed my arse off! ... Just exactly how does organic milk differ from the "other" type? I have visions of a star trek "Borg" cow somehow hooked up to a milking cube.
You got a troll mod, but I suspect you are asking a genuine question. The whole system of production is relevant. If you use artificial fertilizers etc on your pasture, you don't produce organic milk. Although it doesn't appear this way to a customer reading a "Certified Organic" label on a product, essentially it is the farm that is certified organic, not the product. The product is organic by virtue of being produced on an organic farm.
In Australia, it takes years to achieve certification for your farm. Any prohibited chemicals can't be used on that block of land at all or no produce from that land can be sold as certified organic. If you wish to produce some organic goods and other non-organic goods, you need two separate blocks of land. IIRC you can't even have chemicals stored on your organic block. For livestock, even bought feed supplements have to meet the requirements to retain certification.
I don't have a citation, I've just worked on both organic and non-organic farms (a long time ago, things may have changed).
I was thinking of pasteurization too, it would be interesting to see if non-organic UHT milk caused the same reaction.
Technology in food production isn't just for processed food, it's having a tractor to work your ground instead of a digging stick. Even organic farming uses technology, the question is which technologies to accept and which to reject. Personally I'm not a big fan of poisons sprayed on my food regardless of what this study says.
Most people anyway, have never sat down in front of a Vista machine for long enough to get used to it.
So people don't switch to Vista for the same reason they don't switch to Linux. Interesting.
developing a more realistic overall view of the industry (perhaps like Steve Jobs).
Jobs (Apple) targets the high end of the market. Apparently he'd rather make big margins selling to the top 20% than lower margins to the 80%.
The 'dev' side, where your success is proportional to the thickness of your skin.
Possibly this affects kernel developers particularly but it is still generally true of any occupation or business. Learn to develop a thicker skin and you'll be amazed what you become capable of accomplishing.
Mental association has a lot to do with it. I actually find women between 30 and 40 more attractive than women in their twenties (i'm 25).
The mental anguish of pretending to be stupid and shallow enough to relate to most less than 25 year old women is too difficult to endure. You can flirt with a woman in her 30's or 40's without faking brain damage, which is a big plus.
Human males are attracted to just post-pubescent girls as that is their most fertile time.
Only in pictures. If you meet them they talk and you are soon repelled. Give me a reasonably attractive educated woman with life experience anytime for a partner over a "just post-pubescent girl".
Radical deniers have destroyed the evidence of global climate change!!! Will the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy stop at nothing?
The moment a single cell can be a legal human is the moment I'll embrace the concept of 'lesser' humans that can be slain for the convenience of 'superior' humans
We already have encoded in law in every country circumstances in which it is permissible to kill humans. Military, police, self-defence etc. The laws vary, but the principle is there. Most of them require some action on the part of the one to be killed in order to be legally justifiable though, not a criteria met by any foetus.
the point is, we should be given the freedom to get to the point where we need to answer such moral questions like "when is an cloned organ donor human?" for ourselfs, and not have that taken away by the moralist right.
I agree. That's why even though I think it's wrong to kill abortionists I don't want to impose my morals on others. If you disagree with killing abortionists, don't kill abortionists. Everyone should be free to make up their own mind.
See how ridiculous that argument is? Laws on murder should not be subject to personal opinion. While there is disagreement on whether killing an embryo should be considered murder, legally the only viable path is to have one definition for everybody. When duelling was made illegal I'm sure many did not consider it to be murder. Somebody is not going to get their way, possibly you. Deal with it. The embryos who are killed don't get to develop to the point that they can voice their opinion, so they get someone else's morals imposed on them in the most extreme manner. You don't seem to have a problem doing it to them.
Forcing a company to ship its competitors with its own product is ridiculous and anti-capitalism.
they should do what a business is supposed to do and get the word out about their product, not plead to the government for assistance.
My government only releases it's tax return software for windows. Even when you can get it running on wine, the help files don't work. I'd much rather have the government make their services platform independent than try to enforce competition.
Either that, or people without MS windows are exempt from reporting income and paying tax, whichever is easier!
To complicate matters, when we see a cursive "n", we often misread it as "m".
That can happen in printing too.
That's mot true!
I'm more concerned about this generations' general inability to form complete sentences.
I think you're making a mountain out of a. It's not really such. You just need.
I was replying to a comment on Linus' level headedness and perception. His perception was IMO erroneous regarding the bitkeeper licence issue. Linus, in his own words: instead of looking at huge plans for the future, I tend to have a rather short time frame of 'issues in the next few months'. Microsoft, however, does long term planning and have by their public statements proclaimed themselves to harbour animosity towards FOSS. Level headedness isn't the issue, neither is the existence or otherwise of closed source software in the story, Linus' stand isn't perceptive, it's the exact opposite.
I suggest you listen to Linus' words and take heed. The man is a visionary.
He is? You'd better let him know:
http://www.efytimes.com/efytimes/21160/news.htm
Linus: I've never been much of a visionary -- instead of looking at huge plans for the future, I tend to have a rather short time frame of 'issues in the next few months'.
Linus does not consider the long term consequences of actions to the extent necessary to anticipate the moves of a player like Microsoft. That puts him at a severe disadvantage to any malicious long-term thinker. Whether Microsoft is malicious to FOSS ought to be abundantly clear by now from their own public statements.
I don't think I can say anything, other than the fact this confirms my assumptions that Linus is an extremely level-headed, perceptive person.
Yes, his level headed approach to using bitkeeper proved that. Despite all the anti-proprietary software hype, it was a good choice and it wasn't taken away, despite the closed licence.
....
Oh, wait a minute
I tire of all of the "watch out for X!" and "Y are just out to get you!" stories, no matter how relevant they may or may not be.
Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying you're not interested in the relevance of the warnings? In that case, if someone wishes to harm FOSS, they just need to be persistent because given enough time, you will weary of those who warn you of their predatory behaviour and not the predatory behaviour itself.
I'm not sure how that could be considered insightful.
Now if I could sell my Brother on Firefox, I could stop fixing his computer every few months because all the stuff IE installs, though that is not the whole problem, he tends to click yes whenever anything wants to install.
Start charging, or send him to a repair shop. About 10 years ago I used to be consistently helping a couple of friends with recurring self-inflicted problems. After a while, I said "I've told you how to solve this, don't ever call me about this problem again, fix it yourself or pay someone". It resulted in instant habit change. Another time I told them some simple security practices which they ignored and got infected. When they asked for help, I said "I did help you, you didn't follow my advise. Now you need to pay someone", they took it to a repair shop, paid for service, and excitedly told me the new security habits they learned. The same advice they ignored for free they valued when they paid for it. It was a valuable lesson for me on human nature.
You aren't helping people when you repetitively fix self-inflicted damage for free, you are enabling bad behaviour and you are part of the problem. Your brother will value good advice if he pays $ for it. Advise him for free and he will ignore it forever. Stop paying the price of others mistakes, you're screwing up the internet.
I try hard to convince people to stop using Internet Exploder but they always tell me they like it because it's what they know.
Wait until there's an unpatched vulerability, install it for them as a temporary measure so their bank account doesn't get drained. Most of them will put up with it as a temporary measure, then it's no longer unfamiliar.