GE foods available for purchace are never harmful to humans. They are tested extensivly before release.
The FDA considers them GRAS (generally recognized as safe), for being "substantially equivalent" to the non-GE counterparts.
That said, we almost lost the Monarch butterfly because of GE wheat a few years ago (I can't remember what exactly it was, something missing in the wheat... I dunno).
Using quotes around the titles of television programs (radio programs, songs, articles featured in a larger collection, etc.) is a standard style, like using italics or underlining the titles of books, movies, albums and other complete works. However, since Star Trek was a television series, style guides often suggest the use of italics, while the title of a particular episode would use quotes (e.g., "Arena").
Vegan advocates love to trot this out in their "fact-sheets", and it's always interesting to see which particular Pimental source they use. It's like they draw it out of a hat or something, because it's always a different citation (same author, same factoid, but worded ever-so-slightly differently). A long while back I tracked down the article it was from (at the time) here. (pdf) That one is from 1997, I believe. There is also a 2004 edition. (another darn pdf) Now for the quote-mining:
(from the latter article)
The average precipitation for most continents is about 700 mm/yr (7 million liters/ha/yr)
[....]
The water required by food and forage crops ranges from 600 to 3,000 liters of water per kilogram (dry) of crop yield (Table 2). For instance, a hectare of U.S. corn, with a yield of approximately 9,000 kg/ha, transpires about 6 million liters per hectare of water during the growing season (Benham, 1998; Palmer, 2001), while an additional 1 to 2.5 million liters/ha of soil moisture evaporate into the atmosphere (Donahue et al., 1990; Desborough et al., 1996). This means that about 800 mm (8 million liters/ha) of rainfall are required during the growing season for corn production. Even with 800 to 1,000 mm of annual rainfall in the U.S. Corn-Belt region, corn frequently suffers from insufficient water during the critical summer growing period (Troeh and Thompson, 1993).
[....]
For open rangeland (instead of confined feedlot
production), from 120 kg to 200 kg of forage are required to produce 1 kg of beef. This
amount of forage requires 120,000 liters to 200,000 liters of water per kilogram of beef
(Thomas, 1987; Dorsett, 2003; Rangeland, 1994). Beef cattle can be produced on
rangeland, but a minimum of 200 mm per year of rainfall are needed[*] (Hays and White,
1998).
[* The previous article put this at 150 to 200 mm per year, a range of 1.5-2 million liters/ha, but also noted that "production is low under such arid conditions"...which only means that fewer head/ha is supported, not that it is a less efficient use, since those "arid conditions" wouldn't support much of anything. Maybe nopalitos.]
As I recall from my childhood when my grandfather was raising cattle, he never irrigated. And even though he doesn't have cattle anymore, he still grows and cuts hay for his neighbors who do. No irrigation. But it would be rather disingenuous to point out how much water that actually uses vs. how much it would have required to produce a comparable amount of a given crop (assuming it could survive the heat and the depredations of the deer, hogs, rabbits, etc). The water requirement for the former is spread out over a larger area and can be met by limited rainfall with the proper selection of grasses, but for the latter it is not spread out and would most certainly require additional input. It's therefore a more efficient use of the land and water resources, and not at all "wasteful and irresponsible". Quite unlike "Vegsource".
Sometimes the desire to criticize evil profit-doers can lead to neglecting relevant evidence, such as the fact that the US does indeed provide quite a lot of food aid. Over 4000 metric tons in 2005 (pdf), for instance. Besides, it's a *surplus*.
There is a chance, yes. There is also a chance that any one of those embryos, if it were implanted in a womb and allowed to grow into a full human being, could become a person who goes on to save many lives. Potential vs. potential. There's way too much hype, but that's nothing new. Just like the cure for diabetes is always "just around the corner". It's a rather long corner.
Personally, I wouldn't be bothered if 100 million embryos were sacrificed to save one person, or even for the chance to save one person. An embryo (assuming it's outside of a womb) has no more value to me than gametes--few people would think twice about wasting those for much less noble cause. I recognize that I'm not the only person entitled to an opinion, though, and I would be loathe to dismiss someone as a "kook" or hypocrite on the basis of a trite hypothetical that simply doesn't support that conclusion.
The question is whether to do stem cell research, presumably sacrificing embryos to save diseased child and adult lives, or to refuse to do stem cell research, presumably saving some large number of embryos, but condemning some number of diseased children and adults to death.
A choice between saving embryos and saving people who are suffering from diseases presumes that the research would indeed save lives. Just as in the other example, it becomes a question of one's commitment to a belief that the potential and the actual are of equal value rather than hypocrisy for making one choice over the other.
That is like the question asked of animal rights supporters who claim an equivalence between humans and other animals: If you can only save one from drowning, would you save the child or the dog? If the person says he would save the child, he's called an hypocrite, while if he chooses the dog, he's a monster. But neither answer would show that he would be happy to let the other die, or that he's actually supporting the deaths of dogs or children (or that he shouldn't oppose it lest he be tagged an hypocrite).
Likewise, even if a "right-to-life kook" chose his friend in that scenario, that would not suggest that he's an hypocrite for being opposed to the deliberate destruction of embryos. It calls into question only whether he truly believes the equivalence argument. But what if the scenario involves two strangers, alike in all respects? Would choosing to save one over the other suggest an inconsistency to believe their worth equal? Or must he be Buridan's Ass?
If you're waiting for cultural expectations to change before asserting yourself, isn't that submissive? How can an expectation change when you're willing to deliver?
Re:what about generic insulin?
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
Re:Knowing the drug companies . . .
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
Back when synthetic "human" insulin was first rolled out, we were assured that it would be cheaper to produce and that would be reflected in the price (although perhaps that was simply implied). Then the price went up. And it keeps going up. I'm not inclined to believe that will change unless real competition is introduced. New players with a new product that works at least as well as the old.
People in Texas are prosecuted all the time. You have to have a reasonable belief that you NEED to use deadly force.
Uh, yeah...."People in Texas can defend not only lives, but also property--using deadly force if necessary--and not be charged."
Texans may be "prosecuted all the time", but not for using necessary deadly force.
I don't have a court case to illustrate the point here (obviously), but a few years back a guy in San Antonio shot, in the back, a 14 yr-old who was with a few others stealing his gamecocks, after observing the group approaching the coop in his backyard (at night) on his security camera. He grabbed his gun, headed toward them and fired four shots. He knew what they were doing, and told the police this. The man was not in fear for his life, and he was not charged. Guess he didn't see any other means to get his cocks back? In every case I've heard of--no charges filed. But simply claiming defense of self or property isn't enough. It needs to fit the facts, too.
My entire point was that you do not have unmitigated power, even on your own land.
OK. I don't recall saying that I did, though (up until now I didn't say much), so I don't quite understand why this is your entire point, or why you are stating that to me as if it were a point of disagreement. Perhaps I should clarify where I'm coming from here first. I gave a link that I thought would help clear some confusion about these laws in Texas, a confusion that I believe leads to the "stories of people dragging bodies onto their property", although the version I'm familiar with usually involves some cop allegedly telling some gal's daddy (at a point in the distant past, naturally) that if he catches this perv prowling 'round outside his daughter's bedroom windows again he should be sure to drag the body into the house because it's "less paperwork". (I reckon that's the punchline.)
Anyway, I didn't elaborate other than to say "Trespassing isn't enough to justify deadly force, but it's easy to see how those stories get started." Your reply seemed to me a bit odd in that context, so I looked up a bit and re-read your earlier post:
What jurisdictions can you think of that allow you to shoot trespassers? I believe you may be mistaken. Shooting another person (intentionally) is assault (best case scenario) to murder (or attempted murder). Period. "Reasonable fear for your life" is an affirmative *defense*. If you can provide something to back up these mysterious jurisdictions in which you can shoot people for civil trespass in which you have no fear of bodily harm, I'd really love to see them. [Again: The general rule is that a reasonable fear of bodily harm constitutes an affirmative defense; not carte blanche.]
Hence my reply that deadly force can be used "if necessary" to protect not just life, but also property. "Fear of bodily harm", while sufficient in that particular test, isn't necessary, as it also provides for a lack of "any other means" to protect or recover the property (as in the example I gave above) and, for that matter, "to prevent the other's imminent commission of [...] criminal mischief during the nighttime".
I am sure you can give me half a dozen hypos where you win; my only point was that you do not always win.
You said your point was that I don't have unmitigated power, now it's that I don't always win. But I'm still wondering where you got the idea in the first place. If I would ever claim otherwise, the absurd hypothetical where I shoot some guy in the back, in the daytime, after he already dropped my crappy TV, would definitely serve as a valid counter-argument showing my claim to be garbage. The problem is it's straw.
And again, all these statutes do is create a statutory affirmative defense.
People in Texas can defend not only lives, but also property--using deadly force if necessary--and not be charged. Just because the "prosecute first" position could be taken doesn't mean that's what happens here. Texans tend to be fond of their property rights, and many of us have guns.
Mechanical rights are a component of the publishing rights, which are held by the songwriter and/or publishing company. That licensing is negotiated separately from the general recording agreement, though if the recording artist is also the songwriter, there are, of course, special opportunities to get screwed. It is the sound recording/"master use" rights that the labels hold--rights specific to that particular recording. (The performance rights, synch rights, and the print rights are other components of the publishing rights.) The two main divisions of copyrights, then, are those in the composition and those in the recording.
Where the record label can interfere with an artist re-recording songs previously released with that label is the "exclusive" part of the "Exclusive Artist Recording Agreement", which stipulates that the artist will record only under that label for the term of the contract, and frequently includes a re-recording restriction for some number of years after the contract ends or the last album is delivered, creating a sad case where anyone but the original artist (assuming he's the songwriter) can cover the song for however long this restriction lasts. And unless the artist negotiates exemptions, such agreements can also prevent him from guesting on other artists' albums or including songs on compilations and movie soundtracks distributed by other companies.
Maybe the skipped paragraphs are the spaces? But that would put 'smithycodeJae' together, two spaces between 'mqwf' and 'ka', and both 'a' and 'm' off by themselves, like this:
smithycodeJae (or just 'Jae') ie xt os tgps a cgrea mqwf
I think it's funny, and it's even more amusing because of the reaction to it as sexist, due to the irony of the expectations. I'm not saying it really isn't sexist (subjective grey area, perhaps), but it can be both.
Some background on my perspective: "blonde jokes" used to upset me, but then I realized it wouldn't matter if there weren't a bit of observable truth to it. E.g., when women dye their hair blonde, many begin acting the part, at least for a while. They become ditzy, bubbly flirts, and the rest of us have to suffer for that, but it's balanced by the fact that we do have other social advantages--consequences of the stereotype whether we deserve them or not. I made a choice. I could either continue to be upset over the inevitable references to "dumb blondes", or I could laugh at the irony of it. So now I laugh with everyone else, and I laugh at myself for taking it seriously before. Worrying about what other people think based on irrelevant features like hair color or gender is a waste of time, as there's no limit to the irrational leaps people will make in judging others (or trying to be funny).
The pink, "I love ponies" stereotype has some truth to it, too, mainly because that is a social expectation for girls. We shouldn't be surprised, then, when girls meet those expectations. If it really is "stupid", then why encourage girls to be exposed to this ridicule? Do we want them to be stupid, are we stupid for having this double-standard, or...?
I also read the "howto", and I think it's part of the problem for women (and men): expecting others to change to accommodate them. After all, I don't change just because other people expect me to change, especially if it encourages a result I don't really want. Should I expect men to be different? And let's face it, some men don't want women in what they consider their "domain". If women passively sit and wait for acceptance, or complain that the lack of accommodation is keeping them out, then they simply confirm the stereotypes and encourage the behavior despite their intentions.
Perhaps it would be more useful as a training device in a therapeutic setting, especially for youngsters. If that's the key problem, that they simply don't recognize these social cues and can't therefore train their interactions with others around those cues, then having a device like that could help them to associate those cues properly and build their social repertoire as other children do. Older kids and adults ought to be able to use it in that way as well, by experiment, but people tend to be more tolerant of young kids doing that.
Slashdot Mirror
Something devoted to just that sort of thing: Target of Opportunity
Warning: It's a touch rabid.
GE foods available for purchace are never harmful to humans. They are tested extensivly before release.
The FDA considers them GRAS (generally recognized as safe), for being "substantially equivalent" to the non-GE counterparts.
That said, we almost lost the Monarch butterfly because of GE wheat a few years ago (I can't remember what exactly it was, something missing in the wheat... I dunno).
Bt corn? herbicide-tolerant soybeans? Lots of GE crops have been blamed. Seems a tad suspicious.
Using quotes around the titles of television programs (radio programs, songs, articles featured in a larger collection, etc.) is a standard style, like using italics or underlining the titles of books, movies, albums and other complete works. However, since Star Trek was a television series, style guides often suggest the use of italics, while the title of a particular episode would use quotes (e.g., "Arena").
Vegan advocates love to trot this out in their "fact-sheets", and it's always interesting to see which particular Pimental source they use. It's like they draw it out of a hat or something, because it's always a different citation (same author, same factoid, but worded ever-so-slightly differently). A long while back I tracked down the article it was from (at the time) here. (pdf) That one is from 1997, I believe. There is also a 2004 edition. (another darn pdf)
(from the latter article) [....] [....] [* The previous article put this at 150 to 200 mm per year, a range of 1.5-2 million liters/ha, but also noted that "production is low under such arid conditions"...which only means that fewer head/ha is supported, not that it is a less efficient use, since those "arid conditions" wouldn't support much of anything. Maybe nopalitos.]Now for the quote-mining:
As I recall from my childhood when my grandfather was raising cattle, he never irrigated. And even though he doesn't have cattle anymore, he still grows and cuts hay for his neighbors who do. No irrigation. But it would be rather disingenuous to point out how much water that actually uses vs. how much it would have required to produce a comparable amount of a given crop (assuming it could survive the heat and the depredations of the deer, hogs, rabbits, etc). The water requirement for the former is spread out over a larger area and can be met by limited rainfall with the proper selection of grasses, but for the latter it is not spread out and would most certainly require additional input. It's therefore a more efficient use of the land and water resources, and not at all "wasteful and irresponsible". Quite unlike "Vegsource".
Sometimes the desire to criticize evil profit-doers can lead to neglecting relevant evidence, such as the fact that the US does indeed provide quite a lot of food aid. Over 4000 metric tons in 2005 (pdf), for instance. Besides, it's a *surplus*.
I love this idea, I would much rather make my own meat than take it from a nice, innocent bovine who happens to be using it at the moment.
All of my beef comes from mean, guilty bovines that are no longer using it themselves.
There is a chance, yes. There is also a chance that any one of those embryos, if it were implanted in a womb and allowed to grow into a full human being, could become a person who goes on to save many lives. Potential vs. potential. There's way too much hype, but that's nothing new. Just like the cure for diabetes is always "just around the corner". It's a rather long corner.
Personally, I wouldn't be bothered if 100 million embryos were sacrificed to save one person, or even for the chance to save one person. An embryo (assuming it's outside of a womb) has no more value to me than gametes--few people would think twice about wasting those for much less noble cause. I recognize that I'm not the only person entitled to an opinion, though, and I would be loathe to dismiss someone as a "kook" or hypocrite on the basis of a trite hypothetical that simply doesn't support that conclusion.
The question is whether to do stem cell research, presumably sacrificing embryos to save diseased child and adult lives, or to refuse to do stem cell research, presumably saving some large number of embryos, but condemning some number of diseased children and adults to death.
A choice between saving embryos and saving people who are suffering from diseases presumes that the research would indeed save lives. Just as in the other example, it becomes a question of one's commitment to a belief that the potential and the actual are of equal value rather than hypocrisy for making one choice over the other.
That is like the question asked of animal rights supporters who claim an equivalence between humans and other animals: If you can only save one from drowning, would you save the child or the dog? If the person says he would save the child, he's called an hypocrite, while if he chooses the dog, he's a monster. But neither answer would show that he would be happy to let the other die, or that he's actually supporting the deaths of dogs or children (or that he shouldn't oppose it lest he be tagged an hypocrite).
Likewise, even if a "right-to-life kook" chose his friend in that scenario, that would not suggest that he's an hypocrite for being opposed to the deliberate destruction of embryos. It calls into question only whether he truly believes the equivalence argument. But what if the scenario involves two strangers, alike in all respects? Would choosing to save one over the other suggest an inconsistency to believe their worth equal? Or must he be Buridan's Ass?
Mahdi Ahmadi Nejad: Hidden Imam Jaahad.
They can now keep their old addresses even after they cancel the service.
Juvenal wrote that.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? But who will guard the guards themselves?
If you're waiting for cultural expectations to change before asserting yourself, isn't that submissive? How can an expectation change when you're willing to deliver?
Some background on the biogenerics issue: http://www.aishealth.com/DrugCosts/specialty/SPNFD ABiogeneric.html.
Back when synthetic "human" insulin was first rolled out, we were assured that it would be cheaper to produce and that would be reflected in the price (although perhaps that was simply implied). Then the price went up. And it keeps going up. I'm not inclined to believe that will change unless real competition is introduced. New players with a new product that works at least as well as the old.
"Mater" is a feminine noun, while "certus" is masculine. I assume that is what the AC meant by "male mother".
Inflection.
Uh, yeah...."People in Texas can defend not only lives, but also property--using deadly force if necessary--and not be charged."
Texans may be "prosecuted all the time", but not for using necessary deadly force.
I don't have a court case to illustrate the point here (obviously), but a few years back a guy in San Antonio shot, in the back, a 14 yr-old who was with a few others stealing his gamecocks, after observing the group approaching the coop in his backyard (at night) on his security camera. He grabbed his gun, headed toward them and fired four shots. He knew what they were doing, and told the police this. The man was not in fear for his life, and he was not charged. Guess he didn't see any other means to get his cocks back? In every case I've heard of--no charges filed. But simply claiming defense of self or property isn't enough. It needs to fit the facts, too.
OK. I don't recall saying that I did, though (up until now I didn't say much), so I don't quite understand why this is your entire point, or why you are stating that to me as if it were a point of disagreement. Perhaps I should clarify where I'm coming from here first. I gave a link that I thought would help clear some confusion about these laws in Texas, a confusion that I believe leads to the "stories of people dragging bodies onto their property", although the version I'm familiar with usually involves some cop allegedly telling some gal's daddy (at a point in the distant past, naturally) that if he catches this perv prowling 'round outside his daughter's bedroom windows again he should be sure to drag the body into the house because it's "less paperwork". (I reckon that's the punchline.)
Anyway, I didn't elaborate other than to say "Trespassing isn't enough to justify deadly force, but it's easy to see how those stories get started." Your reply seemed to me a bit odd in that context, so I looked up a bit and re-read your earlier post:
Hence my reply that deadly force can be used "if necessary" to protect not just life, but also property. "Fear of bodily harm", while sufficient in that particular test, isn't necessary, as it also provides for a lack of "any other means" to protect or recover the property (as in the example I gave above) and, for that matter, "to prevent the other's imminent commission of [...] criminal mischief during the nighttime".
You said your point was that I don't have unmitigated power, now it's that I don't always win. But I'm still wondering where you got the idea in the first place. If I would ever claim otherwise, the absurd hypothetical where I shoot some guy in the back, in the daytime, after he already dropped my crappy TV, would definitely serve as a valid counter-argument showing my claim to be garbage. The problem is it's straw.
Ah well.People in Texas can defend not only lives, but also property--using deadly force if necessary--and not be charged. Just because the "prosecute first" position could be taken doesn't mean that's what happens here. Texans tend to be fond of their property rights, and many of us have guns.
See Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code, particularly Sec. 9.42, "Deadly Force to Protect Property" pdf
Trespassing isn't enough to justify deadly force, but it's easy to see how those stories get started.
Mechanical rights are a component of the publishing rights, which are held by the songwriter and/or publishing company. That licensing is negotiated separately from the general recording agreement, though if the recording artist is also the songwriter, there are, of course, special opportunities to get screwed. It is the sound recording/"master use" rights that the labels hold--rights specific to that particular recording. (The performance rights, synch rights, and the print rights are other components of the publishing rights.) The two main divisions of copyrights, then, are those in the composition and those in the recording.
Where the record label can interfere with an artist re-recording songs previously released with that label is the "exclusive" part of the "Exclusive Artist Recording Agreement", which stipulates that the artist will record only under that label for the term of the contract, and frequently includes a re-recording restriction for some number of years after the contract ends or the last album is delivered, creating a sad case where anyone but the original artist (assuming he's the songwriter) can cover the song for however long this restriction lasts. And unless the artist negotiates exemptions, such agreements can also prevent him from guesting on other artists' albums or including songs on compilations and movie soundtracks distributed by other companies.
I think it's funny, and it's even more amusing because of the reaction to it as sexist, due to the irony of the expectations. I'm not saying it really isn't sexist (subjective grey area, perhaps), but it can be both.
Some background on my perspective: "blonde jokes" used to upset me, but then I realized it wouldn't matter if there weren't a bit of observable truth to it. E.g., when women dye their hair blonde, many begin acting the part, at least for a while. They become ditzy, bubbly flirts, and the rest of us have to suffer for that, but it's balanced by the fact that we do have other social advantages--consequences of the stereotype whether we deserve them or not. I made a choice. I could either continue to be upset over the inevitable references to "dumb blondes", or I could laugh at the irony of it. So now I laugh with everyone else, and I laugh at myself for taking it seriously before. Worrying about what other people think based on irrelevant features like hair color or gender is a waste of time, as there's no limit to the irrational leaps people will make in judging others (or trying to be funny).
The pink, "I love ponies" stereotype has some truth to it, too, mainly because that is a social expectation for girls. We shouldn't be surprised, then, when girls meet those expectations. If it really is "stupid", then why encourage girls to be exposed to this ridicule? Do we want them to be stupid, are we stupid for having this double-standard, or...?
I also read the "howto", and I think it's part of the problem for women (and men): expecting others to change to accommodate them. After all, I don't change just because other people expect me to change, especially if it encourages a result I don't really want. Should I expect men to be different? And let's face it, some men don't want women in what they consider their "domain". If women passively sit and wait for acceptance, or complain that the lack of accommodation is keeping them out, then they simply confirm the stereotypes and encourage the behavior despite their intentions.
I would recommend other "female-friendly" colors like purple, emerald, and jade.
Oh wait...
Perhaps it would be more useful as a training device in a therapeutic setting, especially for youngsters. If that's the key problem, that they simply don't recognize these social cues and can't therefore train their interactions with others around those cues, then having a device like that could help them to associate those cues properly and build their social repertoire as other children do. Older kids and adults ought to be able to use it in that way as well, by experiment, but people tend to be more tolerant of young kids doing that.