What happens if a new host, or several new hosts are added to the network? What happens if this is a public wifi where new hosts are added and dropped all the time?
If the functionality is as described in the article summary and it looks for coordinated communications, how will it interpret bittorrent style communications where a lot of different computers, some possibly infected, most not, transferring data to and from a single host trying to download?
It sounds like swarming algorithms are the kind of behavior it would be looking for. Just thinking out loud...
Those neurotransmitters are a bitch to keep powered all the time. Damn, most of my classmates and coworkers clearly had difficulty with keeping theirs up and running. I'm sure many people can say the same.
The biggest issue that brought patents into existence is the concept of development cost. Development cost when working with something physical can be exceedingly high. Ever look at what it costs to make one gear. When developing, people are not dealing with batches of hundreds of thousands of wheels and gears. It gets very expensive very quickly. When you're dealing with software, this is less of a problem unless you need a peculiar piece of hardware for the application. In those situations, it's once again a hardware cost.
The point of a patent is to prevent other people from taking a published work on how to do something useful, recreate it, pay no heed to the original developer, and suck the wind from their sails fast enough to prevent them from recuperating the development costs. Many brilliant men have died unknown only to be recognized years later because they invested everything and reclaimed nothing for it in spite of incredible advancements.
The problem with patents in the computer industry is that, with development costs so low in software, it is easy to develop in the field. When people need to background check for prior art, the associated body of literature is monstrous and evolving rapidly. It is extremely difficult to guarantee that your work has no prior art. Especially with computers as prolific as they are today, this is an even greater problem. Yes, patents in software hamper and are difficult to check because what might look like a simple patent could be broad enough to apply to hundreds of fields.
This is completely different from chip development!
It is not uncommon to, when you see something failing so often for a certain field, think it applies to all aspects and facets of it. The patent system has been around for a long time for a reason. In chip design, the literature does not evolve nearly as rapidly as in software design. In the post, they state that Intel met with the inventor of the technique to discuss using it. This means they were aware of the prior art and used it anyway. For chip development costs, before FPGAs were prolific, it could take months to get an in-hardware solution. Even with FPGAs, developing a processor or the key components for one takes a prohibitively large amount of hardware.
I think it's important to consider turn-around time in the length of a patent, and they fail to do so. I'm pretty sure it's safe to venture a guess that the patents that are hampering you are software based.
How about picking up an OLPC laptop. Aren't they designed to be used in bizarre climates etc. They should also be waterproof and fairly robust. For $2-400 it might be worth taking a look at. Also, the software on those things isn't too bad. I've had the opportunity to mess around with one, if only for a few minutes.
Here's some questions... How long have the cables rested in those spots? Since they're cables, is it impossible for someone to trace them from the shore line down? Since they don't tend to move much, could they have found them a long time ago and be attempting to synchronize their breaks? If you can traverse the cable itself from a starting point, would they need an explosion at all?
There are signs all over the US warning against people plowing over fiberoptic cable. Since the higher quality stuff doesn't bend as well, it probably could break through shock.
Are there any natural causes that might result in the cables in the region breaking? I imagine it would have to be an earthquake or something on that scale, and we haven't really heard much to that end, so I'm doubting it, but, why not ask.
How about videos less than 6 months old. I want to see how they respond to pressure! How many of our presidents finished their term with color in their hair?
The stress is going to be great. Who will carry themselves better in that situation?
Do you honestly think this should be a vote about being black or being a woman? I thought we were looking for a president.
Neither color nor gender should matter in this decision. So far, the only arguments I've heard for Clinton are: 'You think Obama will be the first black president?' and 'Just think about what women would do'
I'm interested in what Obama and Clinton would do, not what women or black people would do.
Personally, I'm not very impressed with either candidate in terms of maturity. Both are mudslinging pretty hard. If I wanted to hear that, I could watch a kindergarten class.
To choose one, I'm liking Obama at the moment.
Right now, the country has lost the majority of its international image. This will probably result in our economy crapping out the deep end. Without a standard to tie our money to a value, the stuff isn't worth the paper its printed on, unless someone is willing to take it. If we lose international interest in what we do, we're screwed.
He's been exposed to other cultures outside of politics, he talks well, he carries himself well, and I've liked some of what I've heard him campaigning for. He's also been pretty up front about a lot of his past. How many candidates admit to pot and cocaine use without being asked. He's come clean and that has a lot of value.
I can't help feeling that Clinton's twisted, the more I hear her speak. Does anyone have any links to her stuff, because I'd honestly like to know more about why so many people are interested in her. I don't want to just shoot her down without more on what she's trying to run for.
Your statement also doesn't correct for the problem its trying to solve. In a symmetric system, both positive and negative are magnitude 2^31-1. Instead of -(2^32-1), you have +0 and -0.
I have a use for these, even with only 1/3 mm pixels.
If the iris is 1.3 cm in diameter, and the pupil is 6mm in diameter, why not make the side touching the eye opaque. (13/2)^2*pi-(6/2)^2*pi is approximately 104.5 square millimeters, 940 pixels. That is a fully controllable, active, special effects contact lens. It's not only changeable, it glows!
Now, does anyone see value in THAT!
My concern is heat output, right into your eye. Probably could cook it like an egg. Wear those through a metal detector? Maybe an RFID radar on the way out of the store. Inductive power surges... I wonder if there's something to be concerned of there.
While I have respect for the fact you took the time to compile a set of links in response to my inquiry, I have far less respect for the load of flamebait you prepared.
If you make a claim, you support it.
I'll look at the documents you provided and decide what I think about them. This gives you the opportunity to pick how you present your argument. It makes for a much more meaningful result as the information I'm looking at is related to what you think is most important.
In addition, if you want to pick a fight, I would like to see some support for your other claims:
"Most of the crops we eat today (including certified "organic" crops) have been produced by mutation breeding" I hope that one of the last three links you sent covers this one, because the first three appear to not.
"the ancient Incas developed systems for [artificially] introducing mutations." I believe what you're referring to is crossbreeding, not mutagens in this case.
and for fun "the GM that you oppose is the safest kind of GM" Where did I ever say I was opposed to the process. I have repeatedly stated that I oppose releasing the genes back into the wild. Where did I ever say I support the other variety, if until this point, I was unaware of its existence, hence asking for resources.
However, this is a link to a book you can buy from Amazon. The information available is very limited. From the description, the page previews, and the table of contents, it never mentions once that the results are used or to be used for a viable food source. Section 1.2 describes how "plant breeding" can be used to improve 'yield,' 'harvests,' or 'crops.' This, however is not 'mutation breeding.' From the book: "In most cases yield is considered in relation to food and fodder crops, but yield could also refer to the production of latex, fibers, wood, or number of flowers per unit of area"
From the first six pages, which are all that are available on the site, they push the issue that the technique applies to non-food crops, and never mention that current practice is to use these techniques on food crops.
They also don't specify mutagens or radiation. For this one, I concede nothing.
While it doesn't contain any content from the book except the table of contents, it does mention using gamma radiation to modify a fuel source. It also has a short excerpt stating "A large number of new promising varieties in different crops have successfully been developed world wide using both physical and chemical mutagens." It goes on to say that the developments include successes in edible crops and oils. The only thing is... they describe the process as experimental. Yes, they're studying it. Yes they're using radiation and chemicals to induce these changes. No, it doesn't hint that they are using the techniques as you claimed, and I quote "Most of the crops we eat today (including certified "organic" crops) have been produced by mutation breeding."
As I said before, I'm quite amused that the techniques actually exist. I am surprised. This is not enough to support your statement yet.
On to the 3rd link? http://www.fnca.mext.go.jp/english/mb/mbm/e_mbm.html This is an extraordinary resource. Full text available discussing everything from chemical techniques to radiation. This includes a discussion of the inner workings of the cell.
Transgenic genes still apply to the argument. 'Does the remainder of the genome support the introduced gene without risk of unexpected results'
What happens if a gene not present in the test subjects themselves, but prevalent, even if recessive, within the species exists that will interact with the gene being added.
Like I mentioned, evolution works as a search function. Any useful gene that promotes reproduction will be preserved. If you're growing a crop of one thing with a controlled set of genes, and it cross pollinates with the neighbor's field with different genes, and the neighbor, growing non-GMOs replants for the next crop, the genes are wild and potentially problematic.
The only way I see of preventing this is by castrating the GMOs themselves. No second generation, no problem, or significantly mitigated since there still is a chance that the castration will not be present in some iterations.
"GM crops undergo a great deal of testing, and many methods of genetic modification are actually safer than some of the existing hybridization techniques...With genetic modification, you can isolate the gene and insert it in your commercial peanut, and then grow the plant to fruit and see if the trait is there"
This is a valid point, but you're missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't so much that the first generation isn't safe. It's what happens when you release the genes into the wild... which they are doing. What happens when your stable plant mates and mates and mates. It only takes a year to produce a new batch of corn. 20 years down the line, if you put a bad trait in now, you'll see the results. The best, and worst part, is that it will be almost impossible to discern by then which trait is causing the problem.
I'll reiterate... My problem is that there are not enough controls on the GMOs themselves. If the wild gene-pool is contaminated with custom genes, they are out of our control and we are free to suffer the consequences. The real world lacks the power of the undo button.
To further illuminate the point, when I made my first post to this topic, I was injecting some of my custom memes into this meme pool (slashdot). The intended effect was to get 2, maybe 3 responses to see what people are thinking. Instead of the intended effect, people are now responding to the meme in hoards, some pro-GMOs, some con-GMOs, many people missing the issue completely and some people who show a clear understanding of some of what's going on. There are people on both sides of the fence in both those categories, not to start a flamewar if I can help it. But the point is, even if I wanted to, which I don't because this is endlessly interesting, I can never delete that first post. People will be responding to it for a while, and in the future, anyone reviewing this article has the chance to see it and respond to it, if not by entering a response, then by feeling angry or satisfied with the content of my post.
The difference is that with genes, the results of unexpected interactions with outside elements can produce a number of things. Failing crops, natural toxins, hazardous enzymes or proteins, prions, viruses. It all depends.
What do you think will happen when people start modifying plants to use the opposite chirality of sugars so fat people in my good old US of A can eat themselves happy without gaining weight. Let that gene go wild. Random plants that used to be wholesome food yielding no nutritional gain. People and animals starving to death with full stomachs. I can spin a pretty interesting dystopia if you like. The point is, people are not being cautious enough with this.
For those who don't know what chirality of a molecule is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry) For those who are wondering, I don't know for a fact that people can't use sugar with reverse chirality. It may have some function in the human body, but it should not behave like normal sugar would.
Show me a source other than TMNT, the DC universe, or the marvel universe that describes the use of radiation and mutagenic (carcinogenic) agents in order to produce viable food.
Yes, I can, and I think it's an important consideration.
Lets say, for example, that a plant species, over millions of years, is slowly affected by small changes that gradually turn it into a plant we know and love today like corn. This plant has evolved a certain level of genetic stability against mutations, such that during the normal process of crossbreeding and mutation, the possible results that can be achieved will mostly be stable. This is important.
Now, take a piece of genetic code and inject it in there sporadically. The plant now consists of several distinct chunks of information that are forced to be related to each other through horizontal gene transferral. Now, after months of testing (note the first process took millions of years), we deem it is safe to eat and put it into the wild. The plant works better than before because it was designed as intended. This is great, but there's a problem. There's no control over the plants in the wild.
Once the gene is in the wild, and the plants cross pollinate with non-GMOs, the genes are out of our control. The genes will remain in our food chain for as long as that kind of plant remains in the food chain. Now, maybe you trust the groups who produce these GMOs to have done due diligence on their testing of the stuff, but with as complex of a chemical system as an organism, and something as complex as genetic code, I think we're just kicking ourselves.
The number of plants needed to create individual problem genes that are beneficial to the plants but hurt us are there. How many kernels of GMO corn does it take to feed Rhode Island. How about NY? The rest of the US? Genetics is a search and optimization problem. Take genes, randomize as needed, preserve helpful ones, repeat. And the problems will arise much faster than normally because its no longer a search between combinations of stable genes that have undergone the same search pattern. There is new data in the mix and it doesn't have the support of natural redundancy that the old plant or donor animal had.
I have no problem with GMOs if they CANNOT reproduce on their own. Hiding the genes is a non-solution because the genes are still in the code. The issues arise from the presence of the genes in the code, and over several decades.
I don't care about cloned food. I care about genetically modified food. How many programmers do you know who have never put a bug in their code. We know how those languages work and can mathematically analyze their operation.
There are so many interactions going on within an organism that we have little idea how the 'code' we decide to inject is going to behave. The significance of this is not in the animal or plant being modified, but in their offspring.
The lack of restraint on GM food is ridiculous. Is anyone surprised the FDA allows cloned food if they allow GM food?
That's why I stopped watching the news in America after the big story was that ducttape and cellophane would protect a household against NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical, not the tv station) attacks.
I would never have read the AC post you mentioned had you not dove into the muck and waded about.
It does make it less habitable to spy satellites over China. It's making it less habitable for satellites in general over the planet. That doesn't exclude spy satellites, nor does it exclude the space over China.
In the same breath, yeah, it probably does orbit the earth every couple of hours.
Non-newtonian thrusters are possible, with Einsteinian physics.
Slashdot Mirror
also, I wouldn't drive it in upstate NY
snow?
I challenge your nanotech with my ICE SCRAPER!
This brings me to several questions:
What happens if a new host, or several new hosts are added to the network?
What happens if this is a public wifi where new hosts are added and dropped all the time?
If the functionality is as described in the article summary and it looks for coordinated communications, how will it interpret bittorrent style communications where a lot of different computers, some possibly infected, most not, transferring data to and from a single host trying to download?
It sounds like swarming algorithms are the kind of behavior it would be looking for.
Just thinking out loud...
Those neurotransmitters are a bitch to keep powered all the time. Damn, most of my classmates and coworkers clearly had difficulty with keeping theirs up and running. I'm sure many people can say the same.
The Banner Space Telescope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_(comics)
So you're saying he's indirectly tapping wall power?
http://stopgeek.com/richard-boxs-light-field.html
The biggest issue that brought patents into existence is the concept of development cost. Development cost when working with something physical can be exceedingly high. Ever look at what it costs to make one gear. When developing, people are not dealing with batches of hundreds of thousands of wheels and gears. It gets very expensive very quickly. When you're dealing with software, this is less of a problem unless you need a peculiar piece of hardware for the application. In those situations, it's once again a hardware cost.
The point of a patent is to prevent other people from taking a published work on how to do something useful, recreate it, pay no heed to the original developer, and suck the wind from their sails fast enough to prevent them from recuperating the development costs. Many brilliant men have died unknown only to be recognized years later because they invested everything and reclaimed nothing for it in spite of incredible advancements.
The problem with patents in the computer industry is that, with development costs so low in software, it is easy to develop in the field. When people need to background check for prior art, the associated body of literature is monstrous and evolving rapidly. It is extremely difficult to guarantee that your work has no prior art. Especially with computers as prolific as they are today, this is an even greater problem. Yes, patents in software hamper and are difficult to check because what might look like a simple patent could be broad enough to apply to hundreds of fields.
This is completely different from chip development!
It is not uncommon to, when you see something failing so often for a certain field, think it applies to all aspects and facets of it. The patent system has been around for a long time for a reason. In chip design, the literature does not evolve nearly as rapidly as in software design. In the post, they state that Intel met with the inventor of the technique to discuss using it. This means they were aware of the prior art and used it anyway. For chip development costs, before FPGAs were prolific, it could take months to get an in-hardware solution. Even with FPGAs, developing a processor or the key components for one takes a prohibitively large amount of hardware.
I think it's important to consider turn-around time in the length of a patent, and they fail to do so.
I'm pretty sure it's safe to venture a guess that the patents that are hampering you are software based.
How about picking up an OLPC laptop. Aren't they designed to be used in bizarre climates etc. They should also be waterproof and fairly robust.
For $2-400 it might be worth taking a look at. Also, the software on those things isn't too bad. I've had the opportunity to mess around with one, if only for a few minutes.
Here's some questions...
How long have the cables rested in those spots?
Since they're cables, is it impossible for someone to trace them from the shore line down?
Since they don't tend to move much, could they have found them a long time ago and be attempting to synchronize their breaks?
If you can traverse the cable itself from a starting point, would they need an explosion at all?
There are signs all over the US warning against people plowing over fiberoptic cable. Since the higher quality stuff doesn't bend as well, it probably could break through shock.
Are there any natural causes that might result in the cables in the region breaking? I imagine it would have to be an earthquake or something on that scale, and we haven't really heard much to that end, so I'm doubting it, but, why not ask.
How about videos less than 6 months old. I want to see how they respond to pressure!
How many of our presidents finished their term with color in their hair?
The stress is going to be great. Who will carry themselves better in that situation?
127.0.0.1
Best round trip times on the net!
Do you honestly think this should be a vote about being black or being a woman?
I thought we were looking for a president.
Neither color nor gender should matter in this decision.
So far, the only arguments I've heard for Clinton are:
'You think Obama will be the first black president?' and
'Just think about what women would do'
I'm interested in what Obama and Clinton would do, not what women or black people would do.
Personally, I'm not very impressed with either candidate in terms of maturity. Both are mudslinging pretty hard. If I wanted to hear that, I could watch a kindergarten class.
To choose one, I'm liking Obama at the moment.
Right now, the country has lost the majority of its international image. This will probably result in our economy crapping out the deep end. Without a standard to tie our money to a value, the stuff isn't worth the paper its printed on, unless someone is willing to take it. If we lose international interest in what we do, we're screwed.
He's been exposed to other cultures outside of politics, he talks well, he carries himself well, and I've liked some of what I've heard him campaigning for. He's also been pretty up front about a lot of his past. How many candidates admit to pot and cocaine use without being asked. He's come clean and that has a lot of value.
I can't help feeling that Clinton's twisted, the more I hear her speak. Does anyone have any links to her stuff, because I'd honestly like to know more about why so many people are interested in her. I don't want to just shoot her down without more on what she's trying to run for.
Your statement also doesn't correct for the problem its trying to solve.
In a symmetric system, both positive and negative are magnitude 2^31-1.
Instead of -(2^32-1), you have +0 and -0.
I have a use for these, even with only 1/3 mm pixels.
If the iris is 1.3 cm in diameter, and the pupil is 6mm in diameter, why not make the side touching the eye opaque.
(13/2)^2*pi-(6/2)^2*pi is approximately 104.5 square millimeters, 940 pixels. That is a fully controllable, active,
special effects contact lens. It's not only changeable, it glows!
Now, does anyone see value in THAT!
My concern is heat output, right into your eye. Probably could cook it like an egg. Wear those through a metal detector? Maybe an RFID radar on the way out of the store. Inductive power surges... I wonder if there's something to be concerned of there.
While I have respect for the fact you took the time to compile a set of links in response to my inquiry, I have far less respect for the load of flamebait you prepared.
If you make a claim, you support it.
I'll look at the documents you provided and decide what I think about them. This gives you the opportunity to pick how you present your argument. It makes for a much more meaningful result as the information I'm looking at is related to what you think is most important.
In addition, if you want to pick a fight, I would like to see some support for your other claims:
"Most of the crops we eat today (including certified "organic" crops) have been produced by mutation breeding"
I hope that one of the last three links you sent covers this one, because the first three appear to not.
"the ancient Incas developed systems for [artificially] introducing mutations."
I believe what you're referring to is crossbreeding, not mutagens in this case.
and for fun
"the GM that you oppose is the safest kind of GM"
Where did I ever say I was opposed to the process. I have repeatedly stated that I oppose releasing the genes back into the wild.
Where did I ever say I support the other variety, if until this point, I was unaware of its existence, hence asking for resources.
In response to the links you supplied:
http://www.amazon.ca/Mutation-Breeding-Theory-Practical-Applications/dp/0521036828/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200536610&sr=1-6
This resource talks about inducing mutations.
However, this is a link to a book you can buy from Amazon. The information available is very limited. From the description, the page previews, and the table of contents, it never mentions once that the results are used or to be used for a viable food source. Section 1.2 describes how "plant breeding" can be used to improve 'yield,' 'harvests,' or 'crops.' This, however is not 'mutation breeding.' From the book: "In most cases yield is considered in relation to food and fodder crops, but yield could also refer to the production of latex, fibers, wood, or number of flowers per unit of area"
From the first six pages, which are all that are available on the site, they push the issue that the technique applies to non-food crops, and never mention that current practice is to use these techniques on food crops.
They also don't specify mutagens or radiation. For this one, I concede nothing.
The second link: https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no38082.htm
is much more interesting.
While it doesn't contain any content from the book except the table of contents, it does mention using gamma radiation to modify a fuel source. It also has a short excerpt stating "A large number of new promising varieties in different crops have successfully been developed world wide using both physical and chemical mutagens." It goes on to say that the developments include successes in edible crops and oils. The only thing is... they describe the process as experimental. Yes, they're studying it. Yes they're using radiation and chemicals to induce these changes. No, it doesn't hint that they are using the techniques as you claimed, and I quote "Most of the crops we eat today (including certified "organic" crops) have been produced by mutation breeding."
As I said before, I'm quite amused that the techniques actually exist. I am surprised. This is not enough to support your statement yet.
On to the 3rd link?
http://www.fnca.mext.go.jp/english/mb/mbm/e_mbm.html
This is an extraordinary resource.
Full text available discussing everything from chemical techniques to radiation. This includes a discussion of the inner workings of the cell.
This is exactly t
Apologies, I said the word 'Custom'
The intended meaning was 'modified'
Transgenic genes still apply to the argument. 'Does the remainder of the genome support the introduced gene without risk of unexpected results'
What happens if a gene not present in the test subjects themselves, but prevalent, even if recessive, within the species exists that will interact with the gene being added.
Like I mentioned, evolution works as a search function. Any useful gene that promotes reproduction will be preserved. If you're growing a crop of one thing with a controlled set of genes, and it cross pollinates with the neighbor's field with different genes, and the neighbor, growing non-GMOs replants for the next crop, the genes are wild and potentially problematic.
The only way I see of preventing this is by castrating the GMOs themselves. No second generation, no problem, or significantly mitigated since there still is a chance that the castration will not be present in some iterations.
"GM crops undergo a great deal of testing, and many methods of genetic modification are actually safer than some of the existing hybridization techniques...With genetic modification, you can isolate the gene and insert it in your commercial peanut, and then grow the plant to fruit and see if the trait is there"
This is a valid point, but you're missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't so much that the first generation isn't safe. It's what happens when you release the genes into the wild... which they are doing. What happens when your stable plant mates and mates and mates. It only takes a year to produce a new batch of corn. 20 years down the line, if you put a bad trait in now, you'll see the results. The best, and worst part, is that it will be almost impossible to discern by then which trait is causing the problem.
I'll reiterate... My problem is that there are not enough controls on the GMOs themselves. If the wild gene-pool is contaminated with custom genes, they are out of our control and we are free to suffer the consequences. The real world lacks the power of the undo button.
To further illuminate the point, when I made my first post to this topic, I was injecting some of my custom memes into this meme pool (slashdot). The intended effect was to get 2, maybe 3 responses to see what people are thinking. Instead of the intended effect, people are now responding to the meme in hoards, some pro-GMOs, some con-GMOs, many people missing the issue completely and some people who show a clear understanding of some of what's going on. There are people on both sides of the fence in both those categories, not to start a flamewar if I can help it. But the point is, even if I wanted to, which I don't because this is endlessly interesting, I can never delete that first post. People will be responding to it for a while, and in the future, anyone reviewing this article has the chance to see it and respond to it, if not by entering a response, then by feeling angry or satisfied with the content of my post.
The difference is that with genes, the results of unexpected interactions with outside elements can produce a number of things. Failing crops, natural toxins, hazardous enzymes or proteins, prions, viruses. It all depends.
What do you think will happen when people start modifying plants to use the opposite chirality of sugars so fat people in my good old US of A can eat themselves happy without gaining weight. Let that gene go wild. Random plants that used to be wholesome food yielding no nutritional gain. People and animals starving to death with full stomachs. I can spin a pretty interesting dystopia if you like. The point is, people are not being cautious enough with this.
For those who don't know what chirality of a molecule is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry)
For those who are wondering, I don't know for a fact that people can't use sugar with reverse chirality. It may have some function in the human body, but it should not behave like normal sugar would.
For those who don't know what a prion is, think Mad Cow disease: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion
I challenge you all to site valid sources. At the time of submission, these resources were without bias in the face of this argument.
Show me a source other than TMNT, the DC universe, or the marvel universe that describes the use of radiation and mutagenic (carcinogenic) agents in order to produce viable food.
I would be ever so entertained.
Yes, I can, and I think it's an important consideration.
Lets say, for example, that a plant species, over millions of years, is slowly affected by small changes that gradually turn it into a plant we know and love today like corn. This plant has evolved a certain level of genetic stability against mutations, such that during the normal process of crossbreeding and mutation, the possible results that can be achieved will mostly be stable. This is important.
Now, take a piece of genetic code and inject it in there sporadically. The plant now consists of several distinct chunks of information that are forced to be related to each other through horizontal gene transferral. Now, after months of testing (note the first process took millions of years), we deem it is safe to eat and put it into the wild. The plant works better than before because it was designed as intended. This is great, but there's a problem. There's no control over the plants in the wild.
Once the gene is in the wild, and the plants cross pollinate with non-GMOs, the genes are out of our control. The genes will remain in our food chain for as long as that kind of plant remains in the food chain. Now, maybe you trust the groups who produce these GMOs to have done due diligence on their testing of the stuff, but with as complex of a chemical system as an organism, and something as complex as genetic code, I think we're just kicking ourselves.
The number of plants needed to create individual problem genes that are beneficial to the plants but hurt us are there. How many kernels of GMO corn does it take to feed Rhode Island. How about NY? The rest of the US? Genetics is a search and optimization problem. Take genes, randomize as needed, preserve helpful ones, repeat. And the problems will arise much faster than normally because its no longer a search between combinations of stable genes that have undergone the same search pattern. There is new data in the mix and it doesn't have the support of natural redundancy that the old plant or donor animal had.
I have no problem with GMOs if they CANNOT reproduce on their own. Hiding the genes is a non-solution because the genes are still in the code. The issues arise from the presence of the genes in the code, and over several decades.
We know that with months of testing, nothing bad can happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_orange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
I don't care about cloned food. I care about genetically modified food.
How many programmers do you know who have never put a bug in their code.
We know how those languages work and can mathematically analyze their operation.
There are so many interactions going on within an organism that we have little idea
how the 'code' we decide to inject is going to behave. The significance of this is
not in the animal or plant being modified, but in their offspring.
The lack of restraint on GM food is ridiculous. Is anyone surprised the FDA allows
cloned food if they allow GM food?
That's why I stopped watching the news in America after the big story was that ducttape and cellophane would protect a household against NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical, not the tv station) attacks.
I would never have read the AC post you mentioned had you not dove into the muck and waded about.
It does make it less habitable to spy satellites over China. It's making it less habitable for satellites in general over the planet. That doesn't exclude spy satellites, nor does it exclude the space over China.
In the same breath, yeah, it probably does orbit the earth every couple of hours.
Non-newtonian thrusters are possible, with Einsteinian physics.
Oh, and the obligatory:
I for one welcome our Non-newtonian overlords.
Anti-spy satellite missiles
???
profit?
It's ok, there's only one result for "Died in a toothbrush accident"
Give a man a relativistic rock, and he'll destroy a world today.
Teach a man to make a relativistic rock, and he'll destroy worlds for his lifetime.
Damn, that makes me laugh SO hard...
Congrats, you won the best comment I've seen on slashdot ever award.
Your prize: CONGRATS!