I think they're barking up the wrong tree; controlling the weed seems like an expensive pasttime. Instead, I'd combat it genetically:
- start building up cultures of the weed, test the characteristics of different strains (go for ones that are more susceptible to infections, aphids, lower burn temperatures, less serrated edges, etc), breed these together, and create a weaker strain; distribute that across infested regions to weaken the weed.
- start building up cultures of creatures that can (potentially) see the weed as a source of dinner, breed these to make them more voracious, and ultimately spread them at the same time that the weakened next generation of the weed from step 1 takes hold. This should ensure a successful startup of the weed killer.

This way you can change it from a curse into a blessing for the bugs, and from there on for many sections of the food chain. Bugs are the plankton of the land. You might even be able to apply such evolutionary abuse to many different scenario's: bullfrogs in australia, or the heaping of plastic particles in the Pacific by breeding plankton, for example. An this way, you're following a perfectly natural course; you're just helping it along a little by speeding the implementation of a counterbalance.

Not really. Such projects should be gov-supported, only opener, although I guess with international teams all over the place now, that counts as progress in international terms. But going back to the moon just for the moon's sake, come on, we've got other fish to fry. One of the things that pisses me off is that there's no central organisation specifically aimed at hunting and tracking down incoming asteroids. There's still too many "oops, didn't see that one coming!" cases, and sooner or later the near-miss (who thought up that word - that should be near-hit!) will not miss. Also we need to start sending probes to neighboring systems asap, nevermind that it'll take decades if not longer. Earth is a Single Point of Failure for the human race.

Yup, I think I do, yesss preciousss. Filthy nasssty antiprivacccccy dataminersessss! OUR precioussss!

From an evolutionary standpoint, it would be wise to banish gender differences altogether, allow doping, and reward the winners with a show to find 20 women willing to bear their children. It would cause plenty of havoc along the way, but that seems to be the way it works.

From a more pragmatic standpoint, I think you have to define male and female and discuss each exception separately. There's an inherent problem in questions like this: how far until you cross the line? Each person has an average of 200 mutations compared to the next person, and sometimes they stack; this creates our losers and junkies, athletes and geniuses, average joes, idiot savants and much more. The ultimate problem is that in a universe where everything is unique, you just can't work with laws. And I have no idea of how to tackle THAT problem. ;)

Seems to me we just ran into that bridge. And it appears to be rather dodgy. I say we build a new one.

What constitutes a flaw? Darwin teaches us that the species most responsive to change is most likely to survive. What if, for example, women are catching up with men in terms of muscle power and stamina?

Flaw insinuates positive and negative; a very human trait of cognition, and extremely subject to the zeitgeist of our time. Evolution doesn't work that way. $h!t happens, and sometimes it is either productive or at least non-detrimental; the latter will mean an extra notch under the belt when the inevitable change comes on. That is why rats, bats, birds and many other successful organisms have conquered the planet. They've got an edge.

This may just be the start of a new trend in humanity. It may be latent for a while, but if (extreme example) we get invaded by Martians tomorrow and survive to start an interstellar war, people like her may be of incalculable value. Consider, and consider carefully, the nature of your perception.

Well said!

I disagree. Her ability to run was what got this whole discussion started in the first place :P

Considering that there are plenty of creatures which can be hermaphrodites, and that there are rare genetic variations (YXYY, for example) where one is born with e.g. male characteristics while the sexual organs may be female, this is a difficult point. Where do you draw the line? I know of a few lesbians who, except for the chest, could easily pass for male: large arms and hands, low voice, etc.

The sexual differences are fairly pronounced for "normal" men and women, but there are plenty of in-betweens. Methinks the only thing they can do is make an extensive study of all the differences between men and women, and say that if more than an x number of variables lean towards the one or the other, the person in question must be considered as being of the opposite sex. Either that, or you have to create the Hermaphrodite Olympics. They'll probably still have to investigate each case separately either way.

only on?

I wonder if this is indeed the right way to go about it. I figure that if you're famous enough, there's going to be loads of fora - public and semi-private, mind you - stuffed with defamatory comments. I figure you should just ignore it, set up your own blog, and only react if people really seem to be getting wrong ideas - but then, do so with honesty and integrity on your own blog. Insert a good troll filter so people can comment and avoid the trolls. There's always gonna be shortsighted individuals who'll gripe anything or anyone, whether that person / thing is known to them personally or not. Let 'em rot in their own juices - they'll either shower eventually or rot away, and in the latter case they're hardly worth anyone's time. Also, this avoids Streisand effects and means that anyone seriously interested in what you have to say about something will refer to your blog and not some random forum; the news sites already do so. Just keep on truckin', apologise if you're wrong, react calmly and clearly when you're right, and let the lawyers stay at home.

It's a bit more interesting than that, though. BREIN was actually sueing the company that was planning to take over TPB, expecting an easier grant from the judge (which they got). This opens the door to forcing ISP's to block certain websites, something which BREIN has been trying for but has hitherto miserably failed at. This is all just a sham to set up jurisprudence to slowly swing the courts in their favor. I think I'm gonna go BREINwash their CEO.

We've got the same discussions going on here across the pond, but we're a bit further along. Several laws have already been passed ordering carriers to stop blocking VoIP and such; in Belgium, iPhones must be sold independently of carriers. I think we're starting to get the mix between government intervention and free market right. On another level, we told the telco's to standardise the power plugs they use; they were given an ultimatum after mass public annoyance at all the different chargers we have, and told to "choose or have it chosen for them". Now micro-USB will be becoming the standard. We're getting there!

It makes me wonder, though. I don't believe in free market anymore. There's just too many loopholes, lobbying being the biggest. And I think the U.S. government has a lot of corruption to stamp out before it can be as flexible as the EU has been hitherto.

Having a central government of any kind monitoring this type of thing just won't work. The best we could probably do is set up an automated system which yells BEEP! when it sees a truly suspicious transaction; then amici curiae appointed by the PEOPLE in combination with a random system to prevent infiltrators - NOT the government - are allowed access and can check the records, and indicate action may be necessary. Then, every action these people must be logged and open to public scrutiny. The servers must be monitored by an independent monitoring system, once again open to public scrutiny. That's the only way anybody will have any faith in such a system whatsoever.

But on the other hand: what are they looking for? $1m dollars transferred from Hussein in Iran to Mustapha in the U.S.? Couldn't you completely automate the whole system? Google did for its advertising, and that's the only thing that's keeping a really large group of inspectors at bay.

I posted because I know there may be people struggling with this type of thing, and it never hurts to share your experiences. Why rediscover the wheel yourself when you can get a schematic on internet (even if it does look square in some places) :) But now I respond because I'm curious: what would trigger a response like that? I presume you read the topic itself as well, and did so for a reason. Idle curiosity? Stuck in a similar ship? Frustration? Maybe try discussing instead of biting.