It is known that IBD diagnoses have spiked in the USA in the past couple decades, which suggests an environmental factor
Possibly, but not necessarily. It could be due to changes in diet, a change in the obisity rate, a change in the prevelance of a related condition, or even genetic factors.
More importantly, you're assuming that the increase is limited to the USA, but this is not the case. A quick search shows that rates in some (or maybe all) EU nations have also gone up. And some studies have found that rates seem to be going up globally:
If you're going to point to the increasing rates in the USA as evidence, you first need to show that nations which do not use glyphosate at all (or use very little) have not had a corresponding increase.
Lastly, keep in mind that glyphosate isn't just used for drying wheat; it's also used for drying oats, and several other plants. This doesn't change anything as far as the increase in IBD goes, but if the "gluten allergy" people were really reacting to glyphosate, they should have issues with far more foods than just wheat. Oats are often suggested as a replacement for wheat, so we should have seen some problems there for sure.
That's such a gross generalization that it should be beneath anyone other than a proud bigot. Again, you could say the same thing about doctors - or any profession you like - and be equally ridiculous.
Correct, no interest. If you propose a practical solution which doesn't cost billions and doesn't create more risk for cops, and I'll gladly back it. Otherwise the numbers simply aren't high enough to be of concern, and I'm not going to waste my time dreaming up solutions for a non-issue.
What do the experts say? Well, in Europe (where the experts are actually expert and therefore worth listening to), GMO is banned by scientific advice.
That's a blatant lie. The opinions of scientists on these issues do not vary significantly by nation. Multiple European scientific organizations have agreed that GE crops do not pose any unique health risks. Any "bans" of genetic engineering in Europe are political in nature, not scientific.
The rest of your insanely long comment just builds on that lie.
That's an interesting hypothesis, but there is really no good reason to suspect that roundup has any effect on IBS, and certainly no known mechanism for such an action. It's just a wild guess.
Should be easy enough to test though. Would be great to see people complaining about "gluten allergies" actually put together a good study testing such a hypothesis instead of just waving anecdotes at us.
Don't you think if Atomic bombs really caused cancer we would see a huge, statistically undeniable effects on the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Um. We did. Thanks for making his case for him, I guess?
Never happened. That chunk of wood wasn't given by NASA to a museum, it was given to the Dutch Prime Minister by an American ambassador.
Either the ambassador or the PM (or both) obviously had a brainfart and believed that the token gesture was actually a real moon rock. That was a rather silly assumption given that the thing was about 90 times larger than the real lunar rock samples which were given out to friendly nations. The Dutch received something like 5 actual moon rock samples, so it's not like they didn't know what size the things were supposed to be...
True, it allows us to select much more carefully. Kinda how a scalpel is qualitatively different than an axe. I know which one I'd rather have my surgeon using... you may disagree.
Of course they've sued you ignorant dipshit. The question was never whether they sued, it was whether they sued anyone for accidental cross contamination. And the answer is no, they didn't. Your first article talks about the Bowman case - a guy who blatantly stated that him planting Monsanto seeds is not a patent violation. There's nothing accidental about that.
The problem is that they've legally shed themselves of liability for any problems it causes. Basically they sell the seed and collect the profit from all farmers who want to use it. But if the seed spreads to farmers who don't want it, they just throw their hands up and say, "Not our problem!
This is just a blatant lie, and it's embarrassing that you've been modded insightful. While Monsanto existed they had a standing offer to remove any "contamination" of neighbouring fields at no cost to the farmers. It wasn't much of an issue since most farmers weren't stupid enough to consider it contamination in the first place, but for those who did raise a stink Monsanto was quite happy to come in and remove the plants.
Of course this shouldn't even be a Monsanto responsibility in the first place. If your neighbour is raising a crop that you don't want in your fields, the two of you should be sorting out any contamination issues between you. Certainly if my hippie neighbour contaminates my GMO fields with his crappy plants, I can't go after whatever dipshit sold him the seeds. Why anyone would expect Monsanto to take responsibility for it is beyond me, but they did anyway.
I didn't bother reading the rest of your comment since you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
I like how selling seeds and pestices to people who want them is suddenly "a distastefull business contract". Monsanto derangement syndrome still in full swing, even though the company doesn't even exist any more.
If you're the kind of person who loses all respect for hundreds of thousands of people based on the actions of one individual, you are clearly not a rational actor and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. You may as well be stating that you lost all respect for doctors after reading about Andrew Wakefield.
Also, let's forget the "politics" for a minute. What will it take to change things so police kill fewer innocent people? Got any ideas? Any interest in that at all?
That's a loaded question. The number of innocent people killed by police annually is notoriously difficult to quantify, but whatever the exact number may be it's statistically inconsequential; on the same order as the number of people killed by farm animals every year (and yes, I can already see you getting ready to make a pig joke).
The real questions are how much further this number can be lowered, by which methods, and what you're willing to do in order to accomplish that goal. You may want to familiarize yourself with the concept of diminishing returns. If your concern is saving innocent lives, there are far more lives to be saved by further lowering crime rates than there are by reducing police shootings. Put your energy where it can do the most good.
If you had the slightest bit of humanity in you, you might see the difference between someone fucking up while doing an insanely stresfull job, and someone intentionally creating a situation meant to cause harm. But you don't. You don't give a fuck about the people involved. It's all just politics to you.
No, it's not a dumb comment. A little naive maybe, but certainly not dumb.
He's right, it is censorship. The very definition of it, in fact. Instead of calling him stupid you could have pointed out that some forms of censorship are ok, for various reasons. That might have led to an interesting discussion of how we determine which forms of censorships are ok, and under which circumstances. But that's too hard, I guess.
Personally I'm waiting for the first flight of the BFG (or whatever they are calling it these days). Figure I'll take a 2 week holiday, drive down, and get a hotel somewhere in the area. If they scrub enough times to outlast my 2 week stay, they've got some serious problems.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as battery and data usage go, disabling the app is just as good as deleting it.
No, it's not. Pre-installed apps are stored on the system partition. Deleting it would make absolutely no difference to your usable space.
You're a goddamn mathemagician!
When some rigidity is needed, cardboard or even wood.
I can just see it now ... your new iPhone arrives in a wooden create, along with a complimentary iCrowbar to help with the unboxing ...
It is known that IBD diagnoses have spiked in the USA in the past couple decades, which suggests an environmental factor
Possibly, but not necessarily. It could be due to changes in diet, a change in the obisity rate, a change in the prevelance of a related condition, or even genetic factors.
More importantly, you're assuming that the increase is limited to the USA, but this is not the case. A quick search shows that rates in some (or maybe all) EU nations have also gone up. And some studies have found that rates seem to be going up globally:
https://www.mdmag.com/medical-...
If you're going to point to the increasing rates in the USA as evidence, you first need to show that nations which do not use glyphosate at all (or use very little) have not had a corresponding increase.
Lastly, keep in mind that glyphosate isn't just used for drying wheat; it's also used for drying oats, and several other plants. This doesn't change anything as far as the increase in IBD goes, but if the "gluten allergy" people were really reacting to glyphosate, they should have issues with far more foods than just wheat. Oats are often suggested as a replacement for wheat, so we should have seen some problems there for sure.
Examples please.
That's such a gross generalization that it should be beneath anyone other than a proud bigot. Again, you could say the same thing about doctors - or any profession you like - and be equally ridiculous.
Correct, no interest. If you propose a practical solution which doesn't cost billions and doesn't create more risk for cops, and I'll gladly back it. Otherwise the numbers simply aren't high enough to be of concern, and I'm not going to waste my time dreaming up solutions for a non-issue.
What do the experts say? Well, in Europe (where the experts are actually expert and therefore worth listening to), GMO is banned by scientific advice.
That's a blatant lie. The opinions of scientists on these issues do not vary significantly by nation. Multiple European scientific organizations have agreed that GE crops do not pose any unique health risks. Any "bans" of genetic engineering in Europe are political in nature, not scientific.
The rest of your insanely long comment just builds on that lie.
That's an interesting hypothesis, but there is really no good reason to suspect that roundup has any effect on IBS, and certainly no known mechanism for such an action. It's just a wild guess.
Should be easy enough to test though. Would be great to see people complaining about "gluten allergies" actually put together a good study testing such a hypothesis instead of just waving anecdotes at us.
Don't you think if Atomic bombs really caused cancer we would see a huge, statistically undeniable effects on the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Um. We did. Thanks for making his case for him, I guess?
Never happened. That chunk of wood wasn't given by NASA to a museum, it was given to the Dutch Prime Minister by an American ambassador.
Either the ambassador or the PM (or both) obviously had a brainfart and believed that the token gesture was actually a real moon rock. That was a rather silly assumption given that the thing was about 90 times larger than the real lunar rock samples which were given out to friendly nations. The Dutch received something like 5 actual moon rock samples, so it's not like they didn't know what size the things were supposed to be ...
And the times it has been wrong ... who actually determined that it was wrong, and corrected it?
Was it an expert in the field who provided solid data showing the error?
Or was it an ignorant layman repeating nonsense he read on NaturalNews?
True, it allows us to select much more carefully. Kinda how a scalpel is qualitatively different than an axe. I know which one I'd rather have my surgeon using ... you may disagree.
Of course they've sued you ignorant dipshit. The question was never whether they sued, it was whether they sued anyone for accidental cross contamination. And the answer is no, they didn't. Your first article talks about the Bowman case - a guy who blatantly stated that him planting Monsanto seeds is not a patent violation. There's nothing accidental about that.
The problem is that they've legally shed themselves of liability for any problems it causes. Basically they sell the seed and collect the profit from all farmers who want to use it. But if the seed spreads to farmers who don't want it, they just throw their hands up and say, "Not our problem!
This is just a blatant lie, and it's embarrassing that you've been modded insightful. While Monsanto existed they had a standing offer to remove any "contamination" of neighbouring fields at no cost to the farmers. It wasn't much of an issue since most farmers weren't stupid enough to consider it contamination in the first place, but for those who did raise a stink Monsanto was quite happy to come in and remove the plants.
Of course this shouldn't even be a Monsanto responsibility in the first place. If your neighbour is raising a crop that you don't want in your fields, the two of you should be sorting out any contamination issues between you. Certainly if my hippie neighbour contaminates my GMO fields with his crappy plants, I can't go after whatever dipshit sold him the seeds. Why anyone would expect Monsanto to take responsibility for it is beyond me, but they did anyway.
I didn't bother reading the rest of your comment since you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
I like how selling seeds and pestices to people who want them is suddenly "a distastefull business contract". Monsanto derangement syndrome still in full swing, even though the company doesn't even exist any more.
I'd be curious to see how it classifies "Kaitlyn" Jenner, or "Chelsea" Manning.
If you're the kind of person who loses all respect for hundreds of thousands of people based on the actions of one individual, you are clearly not a rational actor and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. You may as well be stating that you lost all respect for doctors after reading about Andrew Wakefield.
Also, let's forget the "politics" for a minute. What will it take to change things so police kill fewer innocent people? Got any ideas? Any interest in that at all?
That's a loaded question. The number of innocent people killed by police annually is notoriously difficult to quantify, but whatever the exact number may be it's statistically inconsequential; on the same order as the number of people killed by farm animals every year (and yes, I can already see you getting ready to make a pig joke).
The real questions are how much further this number can be lowered, by which methods, and what you're willing to do in order to accomplish that goal. You may want to familiarize yourself with the concept of diminishing returns. If your concern is saving innocent lives, there are far more lives to be saved by further lowering crime rates than there are by reducing police shootings. Put your energy where it can do the most good.
The French manufacture the Citroen, which is a fail in pretty much any language familiar with lemons.
If you had the slightest bit of humanity in you, you might see the difference between someone fucking up while doing an insanely stresfull job, and someone intentionally creating a situation meant to cause harm. But you don't. You don't give a fuck about the people involved. It's all just politics to you.
EMTs don't generally go into active shooter situations. It's not a good idea.
No, it's not a dumb comment. A little naive maybe, but certainly not dumb.
He's right, it is censorship. The very definition of it, in fact. Instead of calling him stupid you could have pointed out that some forms of censorship are ok, for various reasons. That might have led to an interesting discussion of how we determine which forms of censorships are ok, and under which circumstances. But that's too hard, I guess.
Personally I'm waiting for the first flight of the BFG (or whatever they are calling it these days). Figure I'll take a 2 week holiday, drive down, and get a hotel somewhere in the area. If they scrub enough times to outlast my 2 week stay, they've got some serious problems.