Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:FUCK OFF DICE (Score 1) 694

everyone who wants to participate has the opportunity to do so without having to put up with bullshit due to their gender/age/race/sexuality/etc.

Break out the champagne. For the most part that has been achieved. A few ass holes != industry standard. That doesn't even address the ability to avoid said ass holes by forking and starting your own committee around a project.

Small % of women in open source != less opportunity and more bullshit because gender.

Comment Re:FUCK OFF DICE (Score 1) 694

Your so called "segregated software projects" are not segregated at all. There are no rules or laws that bar certain genitalia from committing code. But you want rules on genitals in places where genitalia doesn't matter.

Just curious, what is your end game, or victory condition? a 50/50 split? or more women than men? Is that victory in-achievable if there is an ass hole on the internet?

Comment Re:How do they define GM? (Score 1) 330

In the EU we have food mountains. We don't actually need genetically modified foods to feed our people.
Why don't you send some of that food to people who need it then? Or what about the environment and farmers?

not analogous to banning computers to control Microsoft

Yes, it is. You are blaming a technology because of a company. You even said in your own post.

real concern is with countries becoming indebted to undemocratic corporations like Monsanto.

That is not a problem of GMO.

It's really very little to do with GMO foods themselves. Monsanto are the assholes in all this.

See, you even said it yourself. Stop trying to ban/blame a technology because company is an asshole.

Comment Re:How do they define GM? (Score 1) 330

If this is not about starving people Why would people reject food during a famine?

Why don't you make the same case with bandages, antibiotics, pesticides, fertilizers, construction equipment, medicines, doctors, clothes, shoes or anything that extends life? You know why, it all costs money. To your specific example, is there a precedent for the government taking a patent (that has not expired) from a private entity to release in the public domain? I have not heard of it. If you were a company doing GM RnD, why would you continue that investment if there were a strong possibility that the government would take your patent away and the profit you expected to pay back investors and continue other RnD efforts? If you have a better idea that would keep companies investing in that RnD (it is very expensive) for patent law while servicing more people, lets see it.

Monsanto does some crappy things(I think below in the thread talks about that more and better), but that doesn't undermine the utility of GM (the point of this thread). The utility of GM to stop people starving is there regardless of the actions of the entity that currently markets them. The real harm is the misinformation spread about GMO,

It is the failure to do something like this which makes people extremely suspicious.

It has more to do with FUD and you know it. GGGP made arbitrary lines in taxonomy to promote his political agenda because he doesn't understand species. GP misunderstood endogenous retroviruses and how much of our DNA is from "foreign" sources or how much DNA we share with other species not even closely related to us.

While they are comfortable with full bellies spreading misinformation about GM, that crap influences governments all around the world to reject GMO all this despite the good they can do to the environment and farmers.

Comment Re:How do they define GM? (Score 2) 330

. If you want to talk about specific ecological effects, or copyright, or monopoly on agriculture then I am all ears. But to say "this potato plant with a specific jellyfish DNA sequence is bad" is just as dumb as saying a tangelo is not GMO. It is an arbitrary line that he created to suit his political compass.

What happens when a GMO is released into the wild is irreversible genetic pollution of non-modified organisms.

Your reading comprehension seems poor. Emphasis added.

Lets talk about what is on the table. On the one hand you have the ecological factor of pesticide producing plants and the pests that grow resistant to them. On the other hand you have limited pesticides to give to various populations. In one decision people are fed and in future generations of pests they might become more resistant to modern pesticides, but people do not starve to death. On the other hand, crop yields are halved because no good access to pesticides, people starve to death.

Which would you choose? Save thousands now for an unknown. Or risk the unknown and let thousands die? Before you make a decision starve yourself for 2 weeks and then tell me about your pompous opinion.

As if our DNA does not have the remnants of endogenous retroviruses

As for your reductio ad absurdum argument about the non-dangers of "foreign" DNA: how does such an argument stack up against "foreign DNA" when it's wrapped up inside "invasive species"?

Holy reading comprehension... What the fuck do you think an endogenous retrovirus is you twat? Where did I say "non-dangers"? No technology is prefect. But let's not forget that the same virus that causes aids could be used to cure leukemia. But who cares right? Fuck gene therapy because scary GMO.

You underestimate how many people starve to death, how many people have been fed because of modern advances to agriculture, how every technological advancement to agriculture resulted in a population boon, how many more people could be saved with GMO, and the amount help the environment could get from GMO.

If you actually provide scientific evidence for ecological damage or some kind of "consequence" then DO IT. Just remember your belly is full because GM has increased the food supply. That is a fact.

Comment Re:How do they define GM? (Score 4, Informative) 330

His point doesn't address what the OP said.

He is making a line you can't cross in the taxological tree because reasons. Why can we manipulate the genes in species but not Kingdom? Oh, I know... God did it, right? That was the whole point of OP when he said: "It's a very hazy line there... is it just stuff made by Monsanto or *all* GM stuff, like... say just about *all* corn that's grown on the planet?" There are concerns with Monsanto, (see below in thread) that seem legitimate. But to label "ALL GM is bad" is proclaiming ignorance. Just like the GP misunderstanding what a species is.

"DNA that's totally foreign." What is foreign? When do you define DNA as foreign? How far up the taxological tree do you have go when it becomes foreign? how far back in evolutionary history do you have to go? How do you define that line in taxonomy? As if our DNA does not have the remnants of endogenous retroviruses, or the 60% of DNA we share with a banana plant.

The misinformed nature of his post is modded (as of now) +4 informative. It just shows you that the anti-GMO camp is mostly uninformed. If you want to talk about specific ecological effects, or copyright, or monopoly on agriculture then I am all ears. But to say "this potato plant with a specific jellyfish DNA sequence is bad" is just as dumb as saying a tangelo is not GMO. It is an arbitrary line that he created to suit his political compass.

Comment Re:How do they define GM? (Score 0) 330

It's only a thin line if you want to be a facetious ass and make it one...They're crops that have had their DNA altered with DNA from other species. Cross pollinating a grapefruit with a tangerine to make a tangelo is not GM...

Tangerines and grapefruit are the same species? Got it.

I guess we should update wikipedia: C. paradisi vs C. tangerina

Tell me how is tangelo not a GMNO when it is the combination of DNA from 2 species and by your own definition makes it a GMO?

Perhaps, you should use the correct terminology before you express your outrage on something before contradicting yourself and appearing as an uninformed ass.

Comment Re:Segregation not the answer (Score 1) 449

the point is, there is no additional barriers women face in IT. subtle social misgivings is not a barrier.

and the above post was before my morning coffee so I have no guarantee of readability of it. besides this thread has gone on for days on a tangent that may or may not be pertinent to the thread at hand.

Comment Re:Segregation not the answer (Score 1) 449

You missed that there is a trend elsewhere.

And you missed the part that even in countries that are more pro-women with more progressive policies to push women into stem than that of the US they still choose not to go into stem.

It's not about you, it's about numbers going from close to 50% to close to zero.

It's not about forcing women to do anything. It is about letting women decide what they want. They choose not IT.

It was kinda like stuffing the wrong card in a computer, when you're stickin' those artificial stimulants in your arm. -- Dion, noted computer scientist