Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Are They Using Dowsing Rods? (Score 1) 119

by IonOtter (#40151275) Attached to: Political Campaigns Mining Online Data To Target Voters

So they're "mining" social data to target their message, huh?

What are they using to figure out where to dig for this data? Dowsing rods? Pendulums? Ouija boards? Because every time I go onto YouTube these days, I get these ridiculous anti-Obama adverts that look like they crawled out of Rupert Murdoch's colostomy bag.

Comment: Re:Clarification Between GMO and Hybrids (Score 1) 333

by IonOtter (#40120883) Attached to: Battle Brewing Over Labeling of Genetically Modified Food

In and of themselves, no, RR weeds aren't bad.

But the fact that they exist at all is a bad thing. Monsanto told us this would not happen. But it is. So what else is going on that we were told would not happen? I could take the "ebil corporation" route, and argue maleficence on Monsanto's part, but that's not productive. Nor would it be productive to try and punish Monsanto for lying. What would be a good idea, if not productive for Monsanto, would be to require a longer testing period with more diverse tests.

The other thing that makes RR weeds bad, is the fact that Monsanto/Syngenta is the company that makes Round-Up.

RR weeds means you need to use more RU. That means you need to alter the desirable plants to be more resistant to RU, which could lead to even more resistant weeds. This already demonstrates a conflict of interest, but even if it doesn't, RU is still a dangerous environmental toxin. We already have environmental damage from run-off associated with farms using RU when it enters streams and waterways.

And finally, I don't have to suggest or allege lying, wrong-doing or criminal behavior on the part of Monsanto/Syngenta.

It has already been decided in a court of law.

For that reason alone, anything produced by Monsanto/Syngenta should be subjected to the strictest regulations and controls, if not forbidden until proven harmless.

Comment: Re:Clarification Between GMO and Hybrids (Score 1) 333

by IonOtter (#40118337) Attached to: Battle Brewing Over Labeling of Genetically Modified Food

That is not correct. You cannot unknowingly/unwittingly make a toxic hybrid, it is biologically impossible.

In order to hybridize, the plants must already be of the same Genus. A good example would be the Tangelo, which is a mix of the Pomelo and Tangerine. The Pomelo is Citrus maxima, and the Tangerine is Citrus tangerina. Plants and animals of the same Genus are usually genetically compatible.

However, you can make a toxic hybrid by doing it intentionally. You would have to specifically cross an already toxic, or potentially toxic plant, with another plant that has toxic potential or actually is toxic. But again, this would have to be intentional.

Comment: Re:Clarification Between GMO and Hybrids (Score 1) 333

by IonOtter (#40118261) Attached to: Battle Brewing Over Labeling of Genetically Modified Food

A fair question, so allow me to elucidate.

Splicing jellyfish into plants without conducting extended studies in restricted environments is a Bad Thing.

Monsanto/Syngenta wants it in the fields far too fast, and they've been found altering or suppressing research and/or evidence that is not in favor of their products. I can totally understand why? Such development costs hundreds of millions of dollars, and the only way to recoup those costs and make a profit is to get it in the field as fast as possible.

However, as we're already seeing with Round-Up resistant weeds, nature is all too ready and willing to exploit any loophole it can find. And the fossil record has numerous species that found themselves facing a loophole along the span of a few thousand years. Neanderthal is an excellent example? Their nasal passages were designed to conserve heat and moisture in an arctic environment. When the earth started warming up, they started dying of sinus infections, making room for us.

Nature has enough loopholes on it's own, and puts centuries, if not millenia, into developing them. We really can't afford to give it anything new without putting a comparable amount of time and resources into the project to make sure it's safe, and won't come back to haunt us.

Comment: Re:Clarification Between GMO and Hybrids (Score 1) 333

Ah, thank you for the corrections! Should have been more careful with that?

As for smokers?

*snerk* Probably not? But then, considering how the tobacco companies alter the tobacco to make it more addictive, it's a moot point. If you're going to smoke, go with American Spirit. No additives at all, but watch out, it packs a punch.

Comment: Clarification Between GMO and Hybrids (Score 2) 333

I'm seeing people in here saying that tomatoes are GMO because they're in the same family as Nightshade.

Not correct. Here's how it works...

Hybrid: Pollen from plant A is daubed on the stamen of plant B, yielding a hybrid. Both the parents and the offspring are the same Genus and species, such as Snap peas, or Pisum sativum. You can hybridize them into many varieties, with different characteristics, such as time to maturity, mildew resistance or sugar content.

Genetically Modified Organism: Genetic material is extracted from organism A and artificially implanted/replaced into the genetic material of organism B. Neither organism are even close to each other, such as adding the genes for luciferase in jellyfish to tobacco plants to track calcium uptake.

The name for corn is Zea mays. The name for StarLink(TM) is StarLink(TM), because it is an entirely new species that has not been classified under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, by the International Botanical Congress.

So.

Daubing pollen on plants is good. Daubing jellyfish on plants doesn't work. Splicing jellyfish into plants is a Bad Thing.

Comment: I Wouldn't Necessarily Mind AI? (Score 1) 267

by IonOtter (#40113095) Attached to: Where's HAL 9000?

Provided one of the Three Laws has the following equation?

If (potential results) > (harm) then DO
If (potential results) (harm) then NEXT
If (requested action) = (violation of law) then REPORT TO PUBLIC then HALT OPERATION
If (requested action) != (violation of law) then NEXT
Echo "I am sorry, I cannot comply with that order at this time. The potential for harm is greater than the potential result."

Comment: Re:At Chernobyl, they saw some damn cool shit. (Score 1) 201

by IonOtter (#40096017) Attached to: Little Health Risk Seen From Fukushima's Radioactivity

There was a docu-drama out of the UK that covered that? You could probably find it on MVGroup.org, in the Atomic Age section. Can't remember the name of it, but it was a conversation between those very men you speak about.

Worker #1: How much did you get?

W#3: I got 400.

W#2: Not bad. I got 250. You?

W#1: 750.

W#4 (The one who opened the door, in a very weak voice) I got...3000...

W#1: *snort* Show-off.

The debate rages on: Is PL/I Bachtrian or Dromedary?

Working...