Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Arguably not the GMO that caused harm here (Score 1) 206

In many cases direct genetic modification is *less* intrusive than other techniques of creating more suitable species of plants...the non-GMO method generally involves forcing random mutations via chemicals/radiation and then selecting for the traits you want. Of course there may be a bunch of other mutations that you didn't select for/against that could cause problems in people.

However, we do not know what long-term unintended consequences there may be to this type of gene modification, because there has been no long term. While selective breeding of natural mutations -- even of a relatively "forced" variety -- has been around for millennia.

The point being that one method is time-tested and the other one not. We don't have any long-term examples of jellyfish genes crossed with plant genes. We do have evidence that bacterial and viral genes have invaded other organisms, but again those we have evidence of were very long ago and have had eons to weed out any bad variants or effects.

I do agree, however, that the regulatory system is faulty.

Comment: Re:Arguably not the GMO that caused harm here (Score 1) 206

I would suggest that the GMO itself isn't actually harming anything.

And I would disagree.

Societal / economic issue aside, when an altered genome that was controversial in the first place, and was promised not to be cross-fertile, proves otherwise and starts cross-pollinating other strains uncontrollably, we should take that as a strong warning.

Ever read Jurassic Park? The book, not the movie.

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 1) 206

Since the oceans are warming, it's wrong to say "the globe isn't warming."

Warming, according to whom?

This says long-term trends have not been detected, up to 2000.

This says no warming trend in upper ocean SINCE 2000.

This -- which is the longest and most comprehensive study to date -- says there is no detectable warming in the deep ocean.

So I don't know who you've been listening to, but my sources say it isn't happening to any noticeable degree.

Comment: Re:So basically (Score 1) 424

by Jane Q. Public (#48437417) Attached to: Republicans Block Latest Attempt At Curbing NSA Power

Do you somehow think your behavior isn't bullying and harassment?

I don't "think" it, I know it. I haven't been following you around and spamming YOUR comments with insults. That is not a matter of opinion it is provably true. I have only been replying to your own harassing comments.

Listen up: while YOU might find name-calling as a matter of opinion objectionable, there is a line -- and it isn't all that fine of a line -- between that and LIBEL. (I am not accusing you here of libel, that is just a neutral statement of fact.)

There is ALSO a fine line between replying to a comment, no matter how angrily, and HARASSMENT.

Name-calling might not be a nice thing to do, but libel and harassment are behaviors that are so odious they are actually ILLEGAL. Illegal behaviors are grounds for lawsuits. That is also a statement of fact.

Do you understand the difference between those kinds of behaviors, or not?

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 1) 206

Tell us exactly what the problem is with this corn. Is it killing anything? Is it affecting anything?

I would very definitely call this HARM.

Introduced plants spreading where they are very definitely unwanted are called invasive species.

Companies suing farmers whose fields have been invaded without their consent is abusive monopolistic behavior. (Read: "corporatism".)

I could go on, but those are 2 harms that have been proved. One to crop diversity, the other to society and free markets.

Comment: Re:So basically (Score 1) 424

by Jane Q. Public (#48437167) Attached to: Republicans Block Latest Attempt At Curbing NSA Power

Here's a quiz, Jane. Is the rest of this comment a proportional response, or is it an anger-driven escalating over-reaction?

You just gave away who you are. But I knew already.

Sock-puppetry is another form of dishonesty. It's also universally despised here on Slashdot.

But you've been told that before. So why don't you cease the BS, and STOP HARASSING ME?

Or do you somehow think that my behavior is evil, but bullying and harassment isn't? It's that hypocrisy rearing its head again.

Comment: Re:Nope... Nailed It (Score 1) 153

by Jane Q. Public (#48437111) Attached to: It's Not Developers Slowing Things Down, It's the Process

Well, they also think that they're "agile". And have another expensive trendy tool to ensure it.

But according to the description their methodology very clearly ISN'T "agile", whether they think so or not.

Agile isn't a tool, it's a method. And that method doesn't include eons of top-down planning, no matter what tools are used. But I may be preaching to the choir here.

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 1) 206

If the globe isn't warming, that must mean the oceans aren't warming because they're part of the globe. Is that the case, Jane?

I stated what I stated. If you have a specific argument to make, then make it. Otherwise kindly go away. I won't argue over insinuations.

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 1) 206

Just curious: are you saying you don't believe GMO corn spread beyond its boundaries and hybridized with other corn, after Monsanto had claimed that wasn't possible in its applications to USDA? (Hint: it has been proven in court.)

Are you claiming that the roundup-ready genes have NOT been found in other plants growing near cornfields?

As I say: I am just curious what your point is here.

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 0) 206

Isn't that the same precautionary principle that should have been used before we started spewing CO2 into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates? Especially given that several mass extinctions were preceded by rapid CO2 releases?

Since the satellite AND balloon AND un-"adjusted" ground temperature measurements ALL say the globe isn't warming, even while CO2 has risen significantly, I wouldn't worry much about it.

But more to the point: even if that were not true, and CO2 warming were proved (it is not), we didn't really suspect any actual warming until the late 70s... more than a hundred years after we started "spewing" it into the air. So... no.

Comment: Re:Heh... (Score 1) 101

by Jane Q. Public (#48436711) Attached to: The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"

The fact that Jane mistakenly thinks the very first, most fundamental equation in this problem is "irrelevant" should be a red flag that Jane doesn't understand physics as well as professional physicists.

The fact that you insist that I provide you with something I already gave you, a long time ago and repeatedly, represents either a fundamental failure to understand on your part to understand the concept, or simple dishonesty. But your lack of understanding -- OR dishonesty, whichever it turns out to be -- is not my responsibility.

As before, I'm writing this for other readers, so that they are not taken in by your misinformation. That is the ONLY reason I have replied again.

I have no obligation to prove to you AGAIN what I have already proved. As others will have no problem seeing when I publish.

I shall not reply again. Stop harassing me. Your comments have been reported.

Comment: Re:So basically (Score 1) 424

by Jane Q. Public (#48436665) Attached to: Republicans Block Latest Attempt At Curbing NSA Power

Jane doesn't seem to be describing someone who just isn't a pacifist. Jane actually seems to be describing someone who attacks without remorse and doesn't care if his responses are proportional or escalating. How is that different from the description of a sociopath?

And "Anonymous Coward" doesn't seem to be describing what I actually wrote. Where is your failure to understand my simple words? Why do you insist on putting your own spin on them that I neither wrote or intended?

That's a form of dishonesty. I repeat: you are quick to criticize others but you seem blind to your own transgressions. That's called hypocrisy.

Don't bother to reply; I have nothing further to say to you.

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 1) 206

Because purposeful geoengineering is, by its nature, going to be of larger scale of effect. Making mistakes about degree of effect or feedbacks could be very bad for us. It's devil you know versus devil you don't, and you only get one planet to try with. Relatively small chances of error are still kind of a big deal.

Pretty much this. It's the same precautionary principle that should have been used with GMOs, which are already causing serious problems. And I don't mean health problems, I mean ecology. Such as roudup-ready corn spreading in the wild, and passing some of its modified genes to other plants, when it wasn't supposed to.

The whole global warming scare made it abundantly obvious that the current state of science (plus politics) is incapable of intelligently managing the climate, or perhaps even managing it at all, much less intelligently.

I'd like to add, though: contrary to what OP implies, we've been "seriously considering" engineering the climate for many decades.

Per buck you get more computing action with the small computer. -- R.W. Hamming