Moron, they *are* using the strains they've been using for the last few thousand years. It's just that now Monsanto "owns" the rights to the Iraqi strains.
Moron, read the fucking articles. Moron, read the fucking law. None of them say any such thing. Moron.
That's not how living systems work, particularly not plants which use freaking wind-blown "sperm" in the form of pollen.
Which doesn't include crops in Iraq, BTW, which kind of blows this whole comment away. The predominant crops in Iraq are barley and wheat, both of which are self-pollinators that do not rely on the wind to propagate. But you still got the obligatory fascism jab in, so it wasn't a total loss, I guess...
Except that, according to the article anyway, "seed saving" is now illegal.
And if you go to the linked IP law, you'll see that it says no such thing - propagation of protected varieties is to be illegal, not seed-saving in general. This whole brouhaha is built upon that single essential falsehood in the article and its summary here.
Instead, farmers will have to obtain a yearly license for genetically modified seeds from American corporations.
Or they could, you know, NOT USE THOSE SEEDS, and instead continue using the strains they've been using for the last few thousand years or so. But then we wouldn't have our little whole-cloth pretext for a little political bashing, would we?
Not to say that religious folks necessarily fall under this heading, but you're not arguing to convince the crackpots and the wingnuts - they're hopelessly beyond the reach of reason. You're arguing on behalf of all those folks out there sitting on the fence and watching, who want to be educated, and will take it wherever they can find it. It can be from you, or you can bail out, and they can get it from the crackpots - I prefer that we not give up on them, though, or we're going to find ourselves in a heap of trouble later on.
I understand what you're saying, and agree with it, to an extent. Clearly, no news outlet can possibly do justice to every opinion on every point along the spectrum on some given issue. But when it becomes a problem is when you have partisans on one side or another who, by virtue of the fact that they can have and maintain a monopoly on those outlets, are able to successfully suppress discussion on some theory they find crazy, but many others potentially do not. The job of the media is to give us information, and generally speaking, more information is better than less - we are called on, as citizens, to determine the direction of the nation and the world, and it's awfully hard to do that when we're living in ignorance by virtue of the fact that the media prefers to leave us that way rather than educate us by giving us information that we - or at least many of us - want to have.
It's a dilemma, to be certain, but I think the whole idea of declaring ideas to be off-limits from the start is a mistake. If nothing else, there is a whole crop of new humans born every year who don't know that 2 + 2 != 5, and they have to be educated to that fact. There's never a point where you can say "it's over and we've won, so let's all shut up about it now," because there will always be people who need to be educated. Ideally, in educating people, those sorts of objections will be addressed simply as a matter of due course, but when the flat-earth people come along, it's not enough to simply dismiss them - we need to be able to respond, or we cede the field by our silence. People have a nasty habit of assuming that when you don't answer your critics, it's because you can't answer your critics, and that's what the presumptive technocratic elite here on slapdash doesn't understand. You can't just ignore them, or you're setting yourself up for a nasty surprise somewhere down the road.
I think it's going to have to be done according to the popularity among the audience, even when there's no rational basis for such beliefs - perhaps especially when there's no rational basis for such beliefs. To take a particularly horrible contemporary example, there is a belief among some in parts of Africa that having sex with a virgin will cure you of HIV, and the younger the virgin, the better.
Now, you and I are educated, sophisticated people, who know very well that such a belief has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. So we can either addresss this belief, and explain why it is a bad idea, or we can act as though such a belief is too crazy to entertain, and let them continue sexually assaulting seven year old girls. But we can't do both, and it is unfortunate that so many here - hey mods, pay attention! - prefer to sit and curse the darkness than light a candle.
I didn't say it was a good theory, or that we should accept it as correct, only that if lots of people want to talk about it, we shouldn't go telling them that it's not a legitimate topic of discussion. What we should do is what you just did - look at it, examine it, and take two minutes to explain what, if any, are the flaws in such an explanation. What you did = good. Saying, in effect, "Fuck off, redneck!" = bad.;)
Clearly the counter argument to this is how many sides do you have to show before you are no longer being elitist?
Depends on how many people find those alternate viewpoints to be worth discussing. If we're talking about where babies come from, not many people pay attention to the stork theory on baby origins, so I think we're safe in omitting that one from our discussion. On the other hand, millions of people give James Dobson a respectful hearing when he speaks about evolution, whether you or I personally do so or not, and therefore pretending that we don't have to address that point of view is exactly why that sort of creation idiocy is stealthing its way back into this country's classrooms. The question may not be open for me, but that hardly means it's not open for anyone.
Note that I'm not saing we should uncritically accept such points of view - on the contrary, I think they should be examined and challenged, just like any other point of view - but if so many people out there want to talk about it, who are we to say "No, that opinion is not allowed at the table"?
Ah. The OP's sig reads Liberal Democrat, NRA member. "Truth is my god, and Justice his bride." Aside from that, I agree that people of all sorts try to spin facts in order to put a positive face on their preferred agenda, and that this behavior is not exclusive to any particular political persuasion.;)
I imagine he must have given some sort of "don't try this at home, kids" warning, but I didn't hear it, as I was too busy measuring out lamp cord at the time.
The point being that journalists should use some sort of rational criteria when determining which opinions to include on a given piece.
Sounds great in theory - in practice, what you get is what has now been stamped with the/. seal of approval up above, where you simply define opposing points of view as "irrational", and concurring points of view as "rational". We don't bother to discuss why "no aliens because God said so" is an inadequate theory or explanation - and indeed, you didn't - we simply dismiss it as a priori irrational, and vow never to discuss it. So no matter how whacked-out some point of view is, the net effect is to prevent people from investigating it and coming to that conclusion on their own.
Forget silliness like aliens for a moment - the point is that we are permitting some people to define Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen and James Dobson as irrational based on the fact that they disagree with them, and nobody bothers to actually investigate what they're saying after that point. And yes, it's incredibly elitist to do that, because what's really being said is "You there, peasant! I have been exposed to the opinions of the contrarians, and yet I disagree with them! But because you are not as smart and wise and 'insighful' as I am, you must not be allowed to do this thing that I have done, for you may be misled where I was not. Therefore, for your own good, I will define for you the parameters of legitimate discourse, for I fear that your lack of intelligence will prevent you from coming to the 'correct' conclusion, as defined by me."
Hey, you're the one that brought up liberals in the first place.
No, my point was that the parent's sig didn't match his rhetoric. Call yourself a liberal democrat all you like, but don't be surprised when someone else comes along and notes that your actions don't match your self-description.
Mr Wizard was interesting, but the most dangerous thing he did (and showed us how to do) was light a candle.
Not true - I clearly remember Mr. Wizard showing that you could cook a hot dog by sticking two forks into either end, stripping an electrical cord, wrapping it around the forks, and plugging it into the wall. It's a wonder the old bastard didn't kill us all...
Last time I checked, 'liberal' would be inaccurate to describe elitism of any degree.
Which is why I decided against it, despite the parent poster's sig where he claimed the mantle of same.
If you think that the scenario you outline is limited to liberals...
If you think I said any such thing, you should seriously go back and read what I actually posted, and not read what you imagine I posted, or worse, post based what you imagine I was thinking. Seriously.
A balanced report on global warming is not presenting whether or not it is occuring, but the degree and rapidity of it. A balanced report on evolution is not between Richard Dawkins and Mullah James Dobson. It's between Dawkins and Gould.
In other words, you'd like the media to do your thinking for you, by deciding for you which opinions you're exposed to. Or, more likely, you've already been exposed to Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, and James Dobson, decided they're beyond the pale, and now you'd like to do the thinking for other people, using the media as your proxy.
How wonderfully...something. I was going to say "liberal", but that's hardly an accurate word to use for such absurd elitism.
If "no more updates" is a reason to switch away from Winamp, then Sonique is hardly a solution either - Sonique hasn't been formally updated in years, since 1.96 was released, and S2 has been locked in perpetual beta for just about as long.
If Winamp is unofficially dead, Sonique has pretty much been unofficially dead for some time now as well.
Is that really what "mass" refers to in this context?
No. Per international treaty (and domestic US law, for that matter) weapons of mass destruction include biological weapons, chemical weapons, and so-called "dirty bombs", which release radiation or radioactive substances. It also includes large amounts of conventional explosives in many places - Timothy McVeigh was convicted of, among other things, conspiracy to use and the use of a weapon of mass destruction.
I included my adress to them, but no answer. I guess I was ignored. Oh well.
Oh, I don't know about that. Considering that Bush's margin of victory in 2004 was five times larger than Al Gore's in 2000, perhaps they heard you loud and clear. In which case, let me say thanks to all the readers of the Guardian, particularly those who took the time to write, for doing your part to insure W's re-election...
This is surely the most useless article I've seen posted here in some time, and that's saying a lot, considering we're just out of election season. The article doesn't tell you anything significant about how it works, the company's website consists of two press releases that don't tell you jack shit, so how about it folks - someone want to fill in a poor/. poster by telling me how this ------- thing works?
Slashdot Mirror
Moron, read the fucking articles. Moron, read the fucking law. None of them say any such thing. Moron.
Maybe you should have my sig instead of me.
Which doesn't include crops in Iraq, BTW, which kind of blows this whole comment away. The predominant crops in Iraq are barley and wheat, both of which are self-pollinators that do not rely on the wind to propagate. But you still got the obligatory fascism jab in, so it wasn't a total loss, I guess...
And if you go to the linked IP law, you'll see that it says no such thing - propagation of protected varieties is to be illegal, not seed-saving in general. This whole brouhaha is built upon that single essential falsehood in the article and its summary here.
I didn't see that anywhere in either of the articles. Did you?
Or they could, you know, NOT USE THOSE SEEDS, and instead continue using the strains they've been using for the last few thousand years or so. But then we wouldn't have our little whole-cloth pretext for a little political bashing, would we?
Hey, fighting ignorance is, and always has been, an uphill battle. Surely nobody promised you life was fair ;)
Not to say that religious folks necessarily fall under this heading, but you're not arguing to convince the crackpots and the wingnuts - they're hopelessly beyond the reach of reason. You're arguing on behalf of all those folks out there sitting on the fence and watching, who want to be educated, and will take it wherever they can find it. It can be from you, or you can bail out, and they can get it from the crackpots - I prefer that we not give up on them, though, or we're going to find ourselves in a heap of trouble later on.
It's a dilemma, to be certain, but I think the whole idea of declaring ideas to be off-limits from the start is a mistake. If nothing else, there is a whole crop of new humans born every year who don't know that 2 + 2 != 5, and they have to be educated to that fact. There's never a point where you can say "it's over and we've won, so let's all shut up about it now," because there will always be people who need to be educated. Ideally, in educating people, those sorts of objections will be addressed simply as a matter of due course, but when the flat-earth people come along, it's not enough to simply dismiss them - we need to be able to respond, or we cede the field by our silence. People have a nasty habit of assuming that when you don't answer your critics, it's because you can't answer your critics, and that's what the presumptive technocratic elite here on slapdash doesn't understand. You can't just ignore them, or you're setting yourself up for a nasty surprise somewhere down the road.
Now, you and I are educated, sophisticated people, who know very well that such a belief has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. So we can either addresss this belief, and explain why it is a bad idea, or we can act as though such a belief is too crazy to entertain, and let them continue sexually assaulting seven year old girls. But we can't do both, and it is unfortunate that so many here - hey mods, pay attention! - prefer to sit and curse the darkness than light a candle.
I didn't say it was a good theory, or that we should accept it as correct, only that if lots of people want to talk about it, we shouldn't go telling them that it's not a legitimate topic of discussion. What we should do is what you just did - look at it, examine it, and take two minutes to explain what, if any, are the flaws in such an explanation. What you did = good. Saying, in effect, "Fuck off, redneck!" = bad. ;)
Depends on how many people find those alternate viewpoints to be worth discussing. If we're talking about where babies come from, not many people pay attention to the stork theory on baby origins, so I think we're safe in omitting that one from our discussion. On the other hand, millions of people give James Dobson a respectful hearing when he speaks about evolution, whether you or I personally do so or not, and therefore pretending that we don't have to address that point of view is exactly why that sort of creation idiocy is stealthing its way back into this country's classrooms. The question may not be open for me, but that hardly means it's not open for anyone.
Note that I'm not saing we should uncritically accept such points of view - on the contrary, I think they should be examined and challenged, just like any other point of view - but if so many people out there want to talk about it, who are we to say "No, that opinion is not allowed at the table"?
Ah. The OP's sig reads Liberal Democrat, NRA member. "Truth is my god, and Justice his bride." Aside from that, I agree that people of all sorts try to spin facts in order to put a positive face on their preferred agenda, and that this behavior is not exclusive to any particular political persuasion. ;)
I imagine he must have given some sort of "don't try this at home, kids" warning, but I didn't hear it, as I was too busy measuring out lamp cord at the time.
Sounds great in theory - in practice, what you get is what has now been stamped with the /. seal of approval up above, where you simply define opposing points of view as "irrational", and concurring points of view as "rational". We don't bother to discuss why "no aliens because God said so" is an inadequate theory or explanation - and indeed, you didn't - we simply dismiss it as a priori irrational, and vow never to discuss it. So no matter how whacked-out some point of view is, the net effect is to prevent people from investigating it and coming to that conclusion on their own.
Forget silliness like aliens for a moment - the point is that we are permitting some people to define Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen and James Dobson as irrational based on the fact that they disagree with them, and nobody bothers to actually investigate what they're saying after that point. And yes, it's incredibly elitist to do that, because what's really being said is "You there, peasant! I have been exposed to the opinions of the contrarians, and yet I disagree with them! But because you are not as smart and wise and 'insighful' as I am, you must not be allowed to do this thing that I have done, for you may be misled where I was not. Therefore, for your own good, I will define for you the parameters of legitimate discourse, for I fear that your lack of intelligence will prevent you from coming to the 'correct' conclusion, as defined by me."
No, my point was that the parent's sig didn't match his rhetoric. Call yourself a liberal democrat all you like, but don't be surprised when someone else comes along and notes that your actions don't match your self-description.
Not true - I clearly remember Mr. Wizard showing that you could cook a hot dog by sticking two forks into either end, stripping an electrical cord, wrapping it around the forks, and plugging it into the wall. It's a wonder the old bastard didn't kill us all...
Which is why I decided against it, despite the parent poster's sig where he claimed the mantle of same.
If you think that the scenario you outline is limited to liberals...
If you think I said any such thing, you should seriously go back and read what I actually posted, and not read what you imagine I posted, or worse, post based what you imagine I was thinking. Seriously.
In other words, you'd like the media to do your thinking for you, by deciding for you which opinions you're exposed to. Or, more likely, you've already been exposed to Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, and James Dobson, decided they're beyond the pale, and now you'd like to do the thinking for other people, using the media as your proxy.
How wonderfully...something. I was going to say "liberal", but that's hardly an accurate word to use for such absurd elitism.
If Winamp is unofficially dead, Sonique has pretty much been unofficially dead for some time now as well.
Wrong county but thank you for playing.
No. Per international treaty (and domestic US law, for that matter) weapons of mass destruction include biological weapons, chemical weapons, and so-called "dirty bombs", which release radiation or radioactive substances. It also includes large amounts of conventional explosives in many places - Timothy McVeigh was convicted of, among other things, conspiracy to use and the use of a weapon of mass destruction.
Should be "margin of victory in Clark County"...
Oh, I don't know about that. Considering that Bush's margin of victory in 2004 was five times larger than Al Gore's in 2000, perhaps they heard you loud and clear. In which case, let me say thanks to all the readers of the Guardian, particularly those who took the time to write, for doing your part to insure W's re-election...
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story....
This is surely the most useless article I've seen posted here in some time, and that's saying a lot, considering we're just out of election season. The article doesn't tell you anything significant about how it works, the company's website consists of two press releases that don't tell you jack shit, so how about it folks - someone want to fill in a poor /. poster by telling me how this ------- thing works?