Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:How about some REAL information? (Score 1) 277

You are still overgeneralizing.

-GMOs are *NOT* bad.

This is a broad generalization. It's akin to saying "Chemical sweeteners are *NOT* bad" because you tested sucrose and aspartame and saccharine, while not testing ethylene glycol. Were a company truly evil, for example, they could probably create a plant that would be deliberately dangerous. Or, there could be a side effect that's not well caught in testing, such as a change to potatoes that make them taste like magic but also occasionally contain high levels of solanine.

Are any of the GMOs on the market bad? Well no, probably not. But saying "GMOs are *NOT* bad" full stop is giving up on a valid argument for oversight and regulation, and against using untested products in our food supply. That argument complements your point about the harmful indirect side effects of using certain GMOs; it doesn't compete with it.

(To the pro-GMO audience, of course traditional cross-pollination techniques could also yield things dangerous to eat. But saying "we've been doing it for thousands of years" is a worthless point, because that means we've had thousands of years of other people to test on to learn what seems okay versus what sickens and kills them.)

Comment Re: GOOD GRIEF! (Score 2, Informative) 564

Bottled water sales trod upon the commons with regard to waste recycling or disposal. The number of one-time-use bottles being discarded "incorrectly" (meaning: not where they will be recycled) is staggering, as is the number that end up in the environment like the ocean.

You see a successfully company being stomped out by liberals, liberals see a company taking from a common resource without paying for it.

Comment Re:Greenhouse gasses? (Score 1) 261

And someday Earth's core will cool and we'll lose our magnetosphere and our atmosphere will be stripped away, too. It's not the loss of atmosphere that's a problem, only the loss of atmosphere on a time scale where we can't replenish it and/or move on to another planet to colonize. Assuming we can put an atmosphere back onto Mars in under, say, 250 years, the odds are good we could keep it there faster than the tens-of-thousands-to-millions of years it would take to deplete again.

Comment Re:Science is so closed minded (Score 4, Funny) 286

Yeah no kidding. People who believe that dinosaurs and humans lived side-by-side 6000 years ago have been cast out of the archaeology community too, as have people who believe the earth is flat from the geography community and people who believe the sun revolves around the earth from the astronomy community. Where did open-mindedness go?

Comment Re:Why is National Geographic giving grants? (Score 3, Informative) 286

Why are journalists handing out grants to scientists (or anyone else) in the first place?

Because governments won't fund much science any more, and neither will for-profit corporations unless that science helps grow their profit in 1-2 years max, and neither will most people directly because they are too preoccupied with shiny, but people are willing to buy a shiny, intelligent magazine, and that magazine's (former) owners believed for more than 100 years that they should use those profits to fund science, so they did?

Comment Re:Misleading title - didn't pass Windows 8 (Score 5, Interesting) 246

Following the "every other version of windows is bad" thing, I count Windows 8.1 as the most recent "good", replacing the "bad" Windows 8. That makes Windows 10 another bad version, which so far sounds accurate given the snooping problems.

Of course I used XP until support ended, still use 7, and never used Vista, 8, or 8.1, so my experience is limited.

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A guinea pig is not from Guinea but a rodent from South America.