Well, the article points out that the IPCC came around on nuclear in the 2014 report: 'Nuclear is once again grouped with renewable energy as the key elements of a low-carbon energy system, along with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS).'
You may be right, but I think part of the opposition to nuclear also has to do with cost, not with the science/safety issue.
I don't think this is hating on Big Ag so much as reporting on a surprising aspect of 4H, of which my family has been involved for years. It's not a bad thing to have information, and it isn't necessarily "hating."
No one has said it's bad. I participate in a huge fundraiser for my county 4H each year, and much of the money goes to international programs. I never knew that 4H was involved in a program like this. The point is to have information, and maybe to ask more questions. Information is never a bad thing. And do the farmers know what the long term cost of the seeds are? Seems to me they should be told. This is much like Nestle giving out formula to maternity wards, getting new mothers to feed their babies formula instead of breastfeed. Which turns out to have been a horrible idea, as the formula needed to be mixed with water, which was often unsanitary and caused untold numbers of deaths. Having information is never a bad thing, especially if 4H is acting as some sort of USAID program.
You do realize that many agencies are working on non-proliferation and have been for some time, which helps keep "boom" from happening (also chemweap attacks, etc). The article just details a few more safeguards. So many things have "dual use" purposes that keeping up with safeguards is vital.
Jesus. Why do you change the subject? Did I or anyone say it's okay to present graphic violence as entertainment? You are deflecting from discussion about what these two grown men did at a professional conference, which many people attended for the technical information. When you buy a ticket to a movie or a performance, you have a general idea of what you are going to get. If you want to see gratuitous sex and/or violence, you may choose to do so. And others may choose not to. When at a professional conference, the intent is altogether different. People are there for a variety of reasons, and having these men push their sexist, misogynist agenda on them is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the article points out that the IPCC came around on nuclear in the 2014 report: 'Nuclear is once again grouped with renewable energy as the key elements of a low-carbon energy system, along with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS).' You may be right, but I think part of the opposition to nuclear also has to do with cost, not with the science/safety issue.
I don't think this is hating on Big Ag so much as reporting on a surprising aspect of 4H, of which my family has been involved for years. It's not a bad thing to have information, and it isn't necessarily "hating."
No one has said it's bad. I participate in a huge fundraiser for my county 4H each year, and much of the money goes to international programs. I never knew that 4H was involved in a program like this. The point is to have information, and maybe to ask more questions. Information is never a bad thing. And do the farmers know what the long term cost of the seeds are? Seems to me they should be told. This is much like Nestle giving out formula to maternity wards, getting new mothers to feed their babies formula instead of breastfeed. Which turns out to have been a horrible idea, as the formula needed to be mixed with water, which was often unsanitary and caused untold numbers of deaths. Having information is never a bad thing, especially if 4H is acting as some sort of USAID program.
I think you might want to switch to Reddit.
You do realize that many agencies are working on non-proliferation and have been for some time, which helps keep "boom" from happening (also chemweap attacks, etc). The article just details a few more safeguards. So many things have "dual use" purposes that keeping up with safeguards is vital.
Jesus. Why do you change the subject? Did I or anyone say it's okay to present graphic violence as entertainment? You are deflecting from discussion about what these two grown men did at a professional conference, which many people attended for the technical information. When you buy a ticket to a movie or a performance, you have a general idea of what you are going to get. If you want to see gratuitous sex and/or violence, you may choose to do so. And others may choose not to. When at a professional conference, the intent is altogether different. People are there for a variety of reasons, and having these men push their sexist, misogynist agenda on them is wrong.