I've had 4 such flights this year, 2 of which were 11 hours long. I don't see enough benefit in reclining my seat 15 degrees to inconvenience the person behind me.

All of Slashdot can use the AC account, while only a subset of Slashdot (often only one person) can use any given named account. People leak information when they type, and if the same person or small group of people can be identified by an anonymized identifier like a username, then you can glean information about whoever's using that name.

It's like the databases of "anonymized" information. Gather enough information, and eventually you'll have enough data points to uniquely identify an individual. That's pretty far off from "just as anonymous", provided someone wants to actually do the work to datamine someone else's old /. posts.

That happened in Hawai'i. The University of Hawai'i was considering developing a GE variety, but the Kona coffee growers opposed it. I imagine not because they actually believe it was actually a bad thing, but because they target the high end market, which has a large cross-over with the hippie anti-science market that would flip out if they though their coffee was GMO. It doesn't even have to be since these types of people consider Facebook rumors to be fact checking, so the mere rumor would be enough to hurt the industry. As such, GE coffee on the Big Island got banned (also, GMO taro got banned at the same time because of political and religious reasons, which was absolute bullshit, but that's another topic). Now that the coffee berry borer is becoming increasingly problematic, I wonder if anyone is having second thoughts, although necessity has never mattered to the anti-GMO crowd, who still hate the papaya industry for being saved from total destruction by the Rainbow papaya. It is frustrating that ignorance is now considered a valid point of view.

Yeah, no need to breed Typica or Yellow Caturra or all the varieties already developed from the wild, un-fucked with coffee. Sarcasm aside, it's already been fucked with, and if you like what you have now then you already agree that it has been for the best.

Breeding macadamia nuts with easier to crack shells resulted in more insect damage. Breeding potatoes with more pest resistance made toxic potatoes. Breeding corn that was easier to produce hybrid seed from made disease susceptible corn. All that and more was conventional breeding. You know what I think is hubris? All the armchair agriculturists acting as if the people working on these things are wild eyed mad scientists who never stop to consider any secondary affects that may more most likely may not happen.

I turned your statement into anti-progress Mad-Libs. You could make that same argument against all progress, and you'd be wrong every time.

Sounds like Caveman Science Fiction. It's a good point though, all these people saying they don't want people messing with their food, when we already have. Corn, wheat, seedless bananas, strawberries, cauliflower, all of those are man made, and there are several different methods used for the genetic improvement . When you point this out, usually to people totally ignorant of the history and science of crop improvement, instead of admitting they were completely and utterly clueless and had their foot in their mouth, and that maybe changing the genetics of crops isn't an intrinsically bad thing, they move the goalpost and say they meant this type of genetic change, then maybe throw in a appeal to ignorance for good measure. Can't win.

Define perfect. You do realize that if someone adds in, say, a defensin or chintinase gene for fungal resistance, it will not impact the flavor, but might cut down on fungicide use.

And the problem with those arguments is that, while they do sound good, with a bit more context and information you realize they are actually vary poor anti-GMO talking pieces. If you did those exact same things with conventional breeding, no one would care.

All plants do this. Plants cannot fight insects, so they produce insecticides. Caffeine in coffee is actually one of them; why do you think the plant produces it right in its seed, its offspring? Not so something can eat it, although by a twist of fate that wound up being what we consume it for. Adding an additional insecticide is not, in and of itself, concerning, and in the case of GMOs, the one added comes from Bacillus thuringiensis, which has been sprayed on organic crops for years with no ill effects. We know how it works and its mode of action. It does not affect mammals. I previously stated that no one would care about this if GMOs were not involved; how do you think pest resistance is bred conventionally? There is work breeding high maysin (a natural pesticide in corn) lines of corn, and no one cares. That's because the arguments against GMOs always follow the conclusion, not the other way around (that's why even things like Golden Rice and Arctic apples have arguments against them; don't be surprised that these have opposition arguments cooked up too).

They make plants resistant to certain herbicides, specifically glyphosate and glufosinate. This allows a shift in weed management practices away from harsher herbicide, and soil damaging energy intensive tillage, toward more benign, selected herbicides. I'd rather farmers spray glyphosate than atrazine or use tillage. And again, no one complains about Clearfield wheat, a conventionally bred herbicide resistant line, and no one complained about the herbicide resistant weeds that have been appearing since the 70's (and please, they are not 'superweeds' any more than the GMOs themselves are Supercrops). Furthermore, if the herbicide resistant GMOs offered no benefit, why would weeds resisting their herbicides be such a bad thing? The anti-GMO movement is trying to have its cake and eat it too, saying there are no benefits to herbicide resistant crops (there are) AND the herbicide resistant weeds are threatening to take away their benefits. Unfortunately, it seems like no one calls them out on this logical inconsistency.

Of course they patent everything. Those of us who work in plant improvement have a right to make a living. Lots of non-GMO crops have been patented since the plant patent acts passed in the 30's and 70's, and rightfully so. Do you work for free? I'll bet not. So why should plant breeders and genetic engineered? If you don't want to use those patented crops, don't. Ever had a pluot? Did you know they are patented? They took decades to develop, is it any wonder the breeders would like to maybe not go bankrupt and continue to produce something valued by society? Furthermore, Monsanto's first GMO soybean goes off patent this year and will be able to be freely planted in to 2015 season. Isn't that how it is supposed to work, develop something, make money, it goes to the public domain? I fail to see the problem. As for it hurting small farmers, that is false, they use GMO crops too. They don't have to, but they also get benefits from it. Why would new technology hurt small businesses?

It irks me that so often science is make out the be the monster maker. I get that a movie called 'Another boring day in a genetic engineering lab where noting unusual happens' isn't going to be a big hit so they need to get their Frankenstein's monster somehow, but still, I don't like it.

I really hate when there's some smug asshole in the movie who spends the first half of the film whining about playing God and 'toying with things you don't understand' and whatnot, and then gets vindicated when the monster inevitably attacks. I wonder if that influences movie goers' perceptions about science and scientists. The movie Contagion did a very good job at a positive portrayal of scientists, which I won't spoil, but if you haven't seen it you should.

Why not Royal Crown spiked with Crown Royal?

I prefer the Windows 3.1 BSoD

Forget about MAD or Deterrence. The only MADness here is Putin. If he does what he says what he will do (and he seems to rarely back down from anything due to his massive ego), most of the First World countries are going to immediately join forces to invade and permanently occupy Russia. This is obviously much harder than it sounds, and with lots of radioactive fallout there will be far more civilian causalities than in any other war ever imagined. The only question is - can Putin visualize the worst case scenario at all or has he completely lost his mind?

One of my recently replaced cards is chip and signature, and I think that's what most US-issued smart cards are using. Security-wise, it's kind of a half measure, but at least it's a step forward from complete reliance on the magstripe.

One would hope the headline would say. Linux? OpenBSD? FreeBSD? OSX?

The old school food triangle is garbage. Schools feed kids based on guidance from the govt and look what we get. Sugary sodas, high carb grains, meal replacement candy. None of this is for your health. The real problem is that none of it in combination is good for anything but heart disease and diabetes.

The studies on lchf have been out for a while and really put the pressure on the whole concept of shutting down glycogens and generating ketones. As noted in the study, bad cholesterol dives while good cholesterol spikes. I once saw a list of the most unhealthy processed foods that basically has every food group in a single meal. If you ate just one of these a day I think you are certain to die in ten years. Start with fresh meats, fish, nuts, creams and veggies. Leave the carbs for last. Live a long and healthy life.

People seem to forget that those who are 40 today have a good chance of living to 100. Do you want to spend the last 30 years of your life getting heart surgeries, popping blood pressure pills and overprescribed pharmaceuticals? You're just supporting an industry that thrives on your disabilities. Ditch them and the whole damned system of intolerance they offer.