Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Be fair (Score 3, Informative) 179

by sFurbo (#49319511) Attached to: WHO Report Links Weed Killer Ingredient To Cancer Risk

Why is there a stigma about being cautious about introducing GMOs the the ecosystem if we don't have an untouched backup of the ecosystem that sustains us. It's not as if we can un-introduce GMOs to the ecosystem once they are there so what is the problem with having strict controls over their deployment?

Because, if it was reasonable, the same caution would be applied to all new cultivars. Because we have tested quite a lot of them for quite a long time, and they don't seem to yield catastrophic results, yet it doesn't seem to change anybodies minds. Because people oppose golden rice, where most of the concerns people claim are their reason to oppose GMO does not apply. Because many of the groups opposing GMO are misrepresenting reasearch in order to make GMO seem more dangerous.

In short, because people opposing GMO does not act as they would if they had reasonable cautions about the ecosystem. In stead, they act as if they are dogmatically opposing a new technology for no other reason then it being new. That tends to draw a stigma.

Comment: Re: Sweet F A (Score 1) 576

Like anything else: We set up an experiment so that, whenever we do A, B happened before we decided to do A. We then replicate the experiment while trying to make sure that there is no way B happening can affect the experiment. Ideally, other researchers then do different variations of the experiment toake sure we have not missed anything.

Comment: Re:Sweet F A (Score 1) 576

Not the GPP, but here goes (copy of my post further up): Faster than light communication is not strictly forbidden. However, FTL communication is equivalent to time travel in special relativity. This means that it breaks causality. Since we haven't observed any breaks in causality, and special relativity is an extremely well tested theory, we assume that FTL communication is not possible.

Comment: Re:Sweet F A (Score 2) 576

FTL travel, or even FTL communication, is forbidden by the laws of physics.

It's not strictly forbidden. However, FTL communication is equivalent to time travel in special relativity. This means that it breaks causality. Since we haven't observed any breaks in causality, and special relativity is an extremely well tested theory, we assume that FTL communication can not exist.

Comment: Re:No clue? (Score 4, Informative) 237

by sFurbo (#48477621) Attached to: Google Should Be Broken Up, Say European MPs
While I haven't been following European politics lately, I would think that this is part of the power struggle between the European Parliament (elected directly by the European voters) and the commission (members are selected by the governments of the member states, though I think the parliament have to approve the final result). Traditionally, the parliament have had very little power, and has been getting more power (primarily at the expense of the commission) a little at a time. This kind of votes are usually held to highlight who has what power in the hopes that it will help them change it (so basically telling the people "See? If we had more power, we would do something about this issue.").

Comment: Re:Link to the study. (Score 1) 422

by sFurbo (#48184665) Attached to: Soda Pop Damages Your Cells' Telomeres
Without having delved into the study, those p-values are awfully close to the cutoff of 0.05 (or, alternatively put, the CI nearly encompasses 0). Given how hard it is to control for external factors in epidemiological studies, I would put this in the "probably nothing" category, especially since the effects of two sugar categories have opposite signs.

Comment: Re:symbols, caps, numbers (Score 1) 549

by sFurbo (#48139675) Attached to: Password Security: Why the Horse Battery Staple Is Not Correct
> but overall sentences yield an extremely random password - moreso than "Correct Horse Battery Staple", it's much shorter, and it's easier to memorize. So you are saying that first remembering the sentence and then remembering how I abbreviated it is easier than only remembering the sentence?

Comment: Re:What 20 years of research on pot has taught us (Score 1) 263

by sFurbo (#48109713) Attached to: Carl Sagan, as "Mr. X," Extolled Benefits of Marijuana

[Cannabis] is hypocritical that some far worse drugs have social acceptance such as caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol[...]

I will give you alcohol (because of we have to consume to get an effect, and that is really unhealthy) and nicotine (because of the delivery mechanism. Cannabis typically has the same delivery mechanism, but you would typically smoke less material per day, so it is not as bad), but caffeine? Really?

The graph you link to can only be used to asses the risk of immediately dropping dead as a consequence of taking the drug. As this is not the main risk for any of the three drugs you mention, it is, at best, irrelevant.

If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.

Working...