This isn't about banning GMOs. This is about labeling GMOs so that concerned citizens can make an informed choice. Unlike cars and horses, it isn't obvious which one eats hay.
Crossing bacterial genes with corn genes is not quite the same thing as mixing and matching corn genes from one variety with another. When we take a gene from bacteria and insert it into corn we are creating a quite unnatural thing and making a whole lot of assumptions about our understanding of genetic language in the process. Maybe it was safe to do, maybe it was not. With selective breeding and hybridization, you are at least starting with genetically compatible material. You also have millions of years of history demonstrating this to be reasonably safe. Nature prevents humans from impregnating hippos, but GMOs are effectively doing just that as well as things far more perverse.
For many of us, we feel an abundance of caution is merited. Given the players involved, it's really hard for us to simply accept their statements of "trust us." There's no independent verification of safety, just blind faith that Monsanto and co. aren't employing a calculus with our health and their profits.
AC could have forewent with the "illegal wars" part, but he does have a point. These aren't very large number in terms relative to other infrastructure projects and certainly not relative to military actions. Given that much of the history of war has a foundation built upon the disenfranchised seeking a correction their usage of "war" as a comparison has merit. Feeding the world's hungry can be solved for $30B/year according to UN estimates. The Iraq war is estimated to cost $1.7T with a projected cost (that includes veterans benefits to $6T within the next four decades.
NASA negotiated the terms. There was no reason they could not have included an insurance requirement as commercial customers do. NASA should have. I'm not sure why they didn't but this isn't a SpaceX problem, nor a problem with commercial launch. If NASA was using their own vehicle (assuming they had one), not only would it have cost more for the launch, but the tax payer would have still been on the hook.
These shameless attempts to discredit commercial launch providers and go back to status-quo, where the traditional MIC players provided everything are really getting wearisome.
Not sure it has anything to do with divinely controlled "cosmic justice". There are consequences for every action, some good, some bad. Certain actions earn wages differently from others. Their shenanigans earned them some immediate good, but along with that, were dividends that gradually filled the chamber pot that just fell on their heads.
You didn't read what I wrote did you? I never made any declaration that organic has superior nutrition, nor did I for wholesomeness--which BTW is the characteristic of promoting health and well being. However there are plenty of studies that show evidence that the pesticides/herbicides and even some hints that certain of the genetic modifications are indeed produce food with harmful characteristics.
Well look at it this way, if the growing of food crops migrated inward, you would still be reducing the load on rural land even if animal based production were kept where it was. I recall reading a few years back that Japan was experimented with vertical farming of cattle. I don't think even large animals production in an urban environment is entirely far fetched. Vertical farming whether plant, animal, or both has the potential to create a huge reduction in the footprint of agriculture. Waste, runoff, etc. can be capture and re-purposed/recycled. These massive dead zones at the foot of waterways would be a thing of the past, as would the need for things such as pesticides and herbicides.
I don't know what all the inputs are, such as fertilizer, nor how they'd match up to prevailing organic specifications. However, "organic" isn't a baseless marketing concept. The goal is to produce wholesome, nutritious, food without destroying the environment. Adherents believe that modern agriculture--with Monsanto style pesticides/herbicides, GMOs, petroleum derived fertilizers, etc.--is destructive, unsustainable, and ultimately produces lower quality food. On face value this project sounds like it's in keeping with the goals of organic farming even if certain details would need to be modified to be pedantically adherent.
Crazy thought. If the project is risky and requires a higher bid then would that not capture the inevitable rise in development cost we are currently experiencing with these projects? Perhaps different decisions would be made in light of more realistic bids? Bidding $100 on a job that you know full well is unlikely to come in under $1000 when completed would never be accepted in the private sector. Why do we allow it for these government contracts?
NASA doesn't have the funds to human-rate it, and even if they get those funds, human-rating it will likely cause SLS's schedule to slip even more, something NASA fears because they expect the commercial manned ships to be flying sooner and with increasing capability. The contrast — a delayed and unflown and very expensive SLS vs a flying and inexpensive commercial effort — will not do SLS good politically.
This is the real reason why CCP had it's funding reduced.
On the plus side, the F-35 has an impressive GAU-12 25mm gun. It boasts a plentiful 180 rounds (F-35A internal gun), or 250 rounds (F-35B external mission pod). Given a rate of fire around 3600/min they ought to last even protracted battles.
I would rather like to know why the tax payer is on the hook for a failed project from a contractor? The US government needs to stop negotiating these one-sided contracts where we the buyer take all the liability. If the contractor fails, we don't pay, period.
The difference is that a fighter pilot has been selected for their skills, esp. with multi-tasking and processing a rapidly evolving environment. Few candidates actually make it past the starting gate. Drivers on the other hand are only weeded down to those that can stay in a lane, use a turn signal, and apply the brakes at an intersection. You can be an almost entirely incompetent driver and pass your exam. If you fail you can generally can continue to retake the test until you pass. Eventually the dice will land just right.
HUD who cares about the HUD. I want a robotic arm that slaps the damn mobile phone out of the drivers hand then comes back across their face for good measure. I don't get it. Most of the cars whose driver's have a hand glued to their ear have bluetooth hands free integrated into them. Yet nobody uses it. Even if the car is old/cheap, nobody seems to have heard of "speakerphone".
I appreciate cynicism as much as the next person but in this case given present demand, Elon Musk, as well as China's willingness to undercut others that's actually highly unlikely. Within the next few years I think it very likely that we'll see a considerable expansion of manufacturing capacity for batteries.
Elon is managing to change the climate within the auto industry by a sufficient degree that EVs are going to enter the mainstream in the west. China's polution problems mean it has no other choice but to adopt EVs. If the establishment doesn't supply them, then they'll make them themselves--which they're already doing.
That does bring up an interesting question. I wonder just how flexible Elon's new factory, or others for that matter, are with regards to adopting process improvements such as this when they arise.
Yes, that cool thing called quantitative easing. That is, printing money so as to facilitate increased government debt. The citizens get to go along for the ride. The purchasing power of incomes tends to look like an upside down logarithmic curve whereby the poorest lost the most and the wealthiest the least. Don't worry though, it's all going according to plan.
I think the incompetent wordsmith was trying to communicate the problem embodied in San Francisco real estate. That is, us geeks whom command higher pay squeeze out the demographic currently residing in a given location.
Given that many of us contribute to the environment supporting higher rents, I suppose Sammypuss has an excuse. Can't say as I agree with that excuse but he likes to post irrelevant stuff so here it is.
Thanks to Tesla among others we're getting closer. There are a number of strategies under active development including battery, flywheel, thermal, and hydro conversion storage. It's an engineering problem. We simply need sufficient economic motivation to solve it.
I later found this page that does a nice little summary. Could many of these things actually be safe? Perhaps, but the calorie companies have demonstrated time and again that profit trumps all and will stop at little to ensure its continuance.
Citation required. I want to see these "studies." They don't exist. Many of these ingredients have been grandfathered in. The assumption being that since no one has provably dropped dead from having eaten them that they do not cause harm. The term is GRAS, Generally Recognized As Safe. An increasing body of these GRAS ingredients have come under suspicion as of late, some provably show to cause harm.
Regarding GMOs, Monsanto and co. prevent ANYONE from testing their seeds. Farmers are contractually obligated put them into the dirt or destroy/return them. Researches are not allowed access. Government bodies do not require independent testing. They are allowed to vouch that their products are safe and we're just supposed to trust them. A common genetic modification is to cause the plant to produce its own pesticide. Specifically Bt-toxin a neat little compound that works by eating holes in the digestive track. Even if we're not immediately dropping dead by this stuff, we're ingesting some pretty f'ed up stuff. GI inflammation continues to receive interest as a contributor to a significant number of health problems. Are these GMO plants contributing? Difficult to tell since there's no mandate for independent safety studies.
It is strangely coincidental that we are experiencing unprecedented health problems, unheard of allergies, whose timeline track rather closely with the inclusion of these so-called GRAS ingredients and GMO crops. I am far too cynical to believe that the calorie companies have my best interest at heart over their own profit. I also seem to recall the tobacco industry telling us similar tales. I will not take their word for it. These ingredients and plant modifications should be subject to same rigor as medications have to prove their safety.
To a large extent I think people have bought into the marketing BS/FUD about coverage area. Most people conduct 99.9% of the daily lives inside of T-Mobile's coverage area, but have been conditioned by competitor advertisements to irrationally fear that 0.1%.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't about banning GMOs. This is about labeling GMOs so that concerned citizens can make an informed choice. Unlike cars and horses, it isn't obvious which one eats hay.
Crossing bacterial genes with corn genes is not quite the same thing as mixing and matching corn genes from one variety with another. When we take a gene from bacteria and insert it into corn we are creating a quite unnatural thing and making a whole lot of assumptions about our understanding of genetic language in the process. Maybe it was safe to do, maybe it was not. With selective breeding and hybridization, you are at least starting with genetically compatible material. You also have millions of years of history demonstrating this to be reasonably safe. Nature prevents humans from impregnating hippos, but GMOs are effectively doing just that as well as things far more perverse.
For many of us, we feel an abundance of caution is merited. Given the players involved, it's really hard for us to simply accept their statements of "trust us." There's no independent verification of safety, just blind faith that Monsanto and co. aren't employing a calculus with our health and their profits.
AC could have forewent with the "illegal wars" part, but he does have a point. These aren't very large number in terms relative to other infrastructure projects and certainly not relative to military actions. Given that much of the history of war has a foundation built upon the disenfranchised seeking a correction their usage of "war" as a comparison has merit. Feeding the world's hungry can be solved for $30B/year according to UN estimates. The Iraq war is estimated to cost $1.7T with a projected cost (that includes veterans benefits to $6T within the next four decades.
NASA negotiated the terms. There was no reason they could not have included an insurance requirement as commercial customers do. NASA should have. I'm not sure why they didn't but this isn't a SpaceX problem, nor a problem with commercial launch. If NASA was using their own vehicle (assuming they had one), not only would it have cost more for the launch, but the tax payer would have still been on the hook.
These shameless attempts to discredit commercial launch providers and go back to status-quo, where the traditional MIC players provided everything are really getting wearisome.
Not sure it has anything to do with divinely controlled "cosmic justice". There are consequences for every action, some good, some bad. Certain actions earn wages differently from others. Their shenanigans earned them some immediate good, but along with that, were dividends that gradually filled the chamber pot that just fell on their heads.
Who says it has to be anything of the sort. How many female characters in {pick your MMO} are played by males for {fill in reason}?
You didn't read what I wrote did you? I never made any declaration that organic has superior nutrition, nor did I for wholesomeness--which BTW is the characteristic of promoting health and well being. However there are plenty of studies that show evidence that the pesticides/herbicides and even some hints that certain of the genetic modifications are indeed produce food with harmful characteristics.
Well look at it this way, if the growing of food crops migrated inward, you would still be reducing the load on rural land even if animal based production were kept where it was. I recall reading a few years back that Japan was experimented with vertical farming of cattle. I don't think even large animals production in an urban environment is entirely far fetched. Vertical farming whether plant, animal, or both has the potential to create a huge reduction in the footprint of agriculture. Waste, runoff, etc. can be capture and re-purposed/recycled. These massive dead zones at the foot of waterways would be a thing of the past, as would the need for things such as pesticides and herbicides.
I don't know what all the inputs are, such as fertilizer, nor how they'd match up to prevailing organic specifications. However, "organic" isn't a baseless marketing concept. The goal is to produce wholesome, nutritious, food without destroying the environment. Adherents believe that modern agriculture--with Monsanto style pesticides/herbicides, GMOs, petroleum derived fertilizers, etc.--is destructive, unsustainable, and ultimately produces lower quality food. On face value this project sounds like it's in keeping with the goals of organic farming even if certain details would need to be modified to be pedantically adherent.
BTW: there is such a thing as organic hydroponics
Crazy thought. If the project is risky and requires a higher bid then would that not capture the inevitable rise in development cost we are currently experiencing with these projects? Perhaps different decisions would be made in light of more realistic bids? Bidding $100 on a job that you know full well is unlikely to come in under $1000 when completed would never be accepted in the private sector. Why do we allow it for these government contracts?
NASA doesn't have the funds to human-rate it, and even if they get those funds, human-rating it will likely cause SLS's schedule to slip even more, something NASA fears because they expect the commercial manned ships to be flying sooner and with increasing capability. The contrast — a delayed and unflown and very expensive SLS vs a flying and inexpensive commercial effort — will not do SLS good politically.
This is the real reason why CCP had it's funding reduced.
On the plus side, the F-35 has an impressive GAU-12 25mm gun. It boasts a plentiful 180 rounds (F-35A internal gun), or 250 rounds (F-35B external mission pod). Given a rate of fire around 3600/min they ought to last even protracted battles.
I would rather like to know why the tax payer is on the hook for a failed project from a contractor? The US government needs to stop negotiating these one-sided contracts where we the buyer take all the liability. If the contractor fails, we don't pay, period.
The difference is that a fighter pilot has been selected for their skills, esp. with multi-tasking and processing a rapidly evolving environment. Few candidates actually make it past the starting gate. Drivers on the other hand are only weeded down to those that can stay in a lane, use a turn signal, and apply the brakes at an intersection. You can be an almost entirely incompetent driver and pass your exam. If you fail you can generally can continue to retake the test until you pass. Eventually the dice will land just right.
HUD who cares about the HUD. I want a robotic arm that slaps the damn mobile phone out of the drivers hand then comes back across their face for good measure. I don't get it. Most of the cars whose driver's have a hand glued to their ear have bluetooth hands free integrated into them. Yet nobody uses it. Even if the car is old/cheap, nobody seems to have heard of "speakerphone".
I appreciate cynicism as much as the next person but in this case given present demand, Elon Musk, as well as China's willingness to undercut others that's actually highly unlikely. Within the next few years I think it very likely that we'll see a considerable expansion of manufacturing capacity for batteries.
Elon is managing to change the climate within the auto industry by a sufficient degree that EVs are going to enter the mainstream in the west. China's polution problems mean it has no other choice but to adopt EVs. If the establishment doesn't supply them, then they'll make them themselves--which they're already doing.
Do you have a source for that assertion? I was under the impression that raw materials for the lith-ion batteries was negligible.
That does bring up an interesting question. I wonder just how flexible Elon's new factory, or others for that matter, are with regards to adopting process improvements such as this when they arise.
Yes, that cool thing called quantitative easing. That is, printing money so as to facilitate increased government debt. The citizens get to go along for the ride. The purchasing power of incomes tends to look like an upside down logarithmic curve whereby the poorest lost the most and the wealthiest the least. Don't worry though, it's all going according to plan.
I think the incompetent wordsmith was trying to communicate the problem embodied in San Francisco real estate. That is, us geeks whom command higher pay squeeze out the demographic currently residing in a given location.
Given that many of us contribute to the environment supporting higher rents, I suppose Sammypuss has an excuse. Can't say as I agree with that excuse but he likes to post irrelevant stuff so here it is.
Thanks to Tesla among others we're getting closer. There are a number of strategies under active development including battery, flywheel, thermal, and hydro conversion storage. It's an engineering problem. We simply need sufficient economic motivation to solve it.
I later found this page that does a nice little summary. Could many of these things actually be safe? Perhaps, but the calorie companies have demonstrated time and again that profit trumps all and will stop at little to ensure its continuance.
Citation required. I want to see these "studies." They don't exist. Many of these ingredients have been grandfathered in. The assumption being that since no one has provably dropped dead from having eaten them that they do not cause harm. The term is GRAS, Generally Recognized As Safe. An increasing body of these GRAS ingredients have come under suspicion as of late, some provably show to cause harm.
Regarding GMOs, Monsanto and co. prevent ANYONE from testing their seeds. Farmers are contractually obligated put them into the dirt or destroy/return them. Researches are not allowed access. Government bodies do not require independent testing. They are allowed to vouch that their products are safe and we're just supposed to trust them. A common genetic modification is to cause the plant to produce its own pesticide. Specifically Bt-toxin a neat little compound that works by eating holes in the digestive track. Even if we're not immediately dropping dead by this stuff, we're ingesting some pretty f'ed up stuff. GI inflammation continues to receive interest as a contributor to a significant number of health problems. Are these GMO plants contributing? Difficult to tell since there's no mandate for independent safety studies.
It is strangely coincidental that we are experiencing unprecedented health problems, unheard of allergies, whose timeline track rather closely with the inclusion of these so-called GRAS ingredients and GMO crops. I am far too cynical to believe that the calorie companies have my best interest at heart over their own profit. I also seem to recall the tobacco industry telling us similar tales. I will not take their word for it. These ingredients and plant modifications should be subject to same rigor as medications have to prove their safety.
To a large extent I think people have bought into the marketing BS/FUD about coverage area. Most people conduct 99.9% of the daily lives inside of T-Mobile's coverage area, but have been conditioned by competitor advertisements to irrationally fear that 0.1%.