Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:I guess he crossed the wrong people (Score 1) 294

by sjames (#49498593) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal

*IF* that pesticide has no biological mechanism of interacting with humans, being scared of it is stupid.

The pesticides in the plants we eat now other than the GMOs have had a thousand years of human testing. Further, if they were at all inclined to cross with some wild non-food species to gain something more toxic to humans, they more than likely would have by now.

Compare to something that has had zero years of human testing and in some cases no animal testing.

Comment: Re:Did they mention the yummy GMOs (Score 4, Informative) 294

by sjames (#49498469) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal

There are actually a few differences that can have real consequences. For example, simple cross breeding is a fairly slow and limited process that gives us time to see if a problem is developing. It is further limited by the need to stick with plants that can cross-breed in the first place.

Another factor is that not all genetic modification techniques lead to the plants breeding true. The next few generations may be substantially different from the original.

If the work was being done in a verifiable cautious manner, it might be OK, but there is a history of modifications that "can't escape to the wild" being spotted in the wild. It's somewhat amusing the number of weeds that gained roundup resistance from roundup ready canola. Also amusingly, in spite of Monsanto's claim that only their transgenic techniques could have produced roundup ready crops, traditional breeding has managed it in a few cases including in coca.

Comment: Re:I'd Like To See Electronic Voting Work (Score 1) 104

by sjames (#49497257) Attached to: The Voting Machine Anyone Can Hack

The simplicity of a salt isn't the issue, it's the size. More salt confounds the process.

As for the question of your ballot being void, you can't know. Any more than you can know that your ballot didn't somehow end up in the river or burning in someone's fireplace before it made it's way to be counted (as I said, not perfect).

However, the election officials and press observers can know if a lot of void ballots get checked from residential addresses (remember, validating void ballots triggers an investigation). Presumably, the large number of void ballot validations after the election might cause such measures as enabling voters to check if their ballot is void or not (now that the election is over and the controversy is starting to boil).

At that point, nobody will be able to prove that their particular ballot was meant to count but was issued void, but there will be enough people complaining that it becomes evident something is wrong and likely of a criminal nature.

Comment: Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? (Score 1) 261

by sjames (#49496787) Attached to: FBI Accuses Researcher of Hacking Plane, Seizes Equipment

You seem really desperate to see him as public enemy #1. I can see that nothing short of major brain surgery can change your mind. Certainly the absence of anything happening and their apparent inability to get a warrant hasn't convinced you.

If law enforcement walked past you, stopped, then turned and looked right at you, you're saying you are too clueless to guess you are of interest to them? Sorry to hear that.

In case of injury notify your superior immediately. He'll kiss it and make it better.