http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser
It's true, and here's a case if it actually happening.
Well, no it's not. Read the article you link to. Schmeiser specifically selected the GM plants, then re-planted seeds from these plants over his whole field. There was nothing "beyond his control" about it.
The Percy Schmeiser case: thousands of anti-GMO activists worldwide join forces to defend, supporting and fund an enthusiastic GMO planter!
At that price, the Surface Pro is more or less even with the Wacom stylus-input displays (of similar size, larger ones are substantially more expensive) that don't have a computer attached to them...
Unless the pen input is totally gimped, this seems like it would be a serious competitor to those for everyone except people whose photoshopping is serious enough that the Surface's specs can't handle it. Especially if your demands are at all mobile, it's hard to justify buying the Wacom when you could get the screen and stylus input with the laptop thrown in for free. It's a pity that the Surface can't act as a monitor/input device (optionally, while charging at your desk, for example, it could go from a waste of space to an extra monitor) for more powerful computers.
Apparently the device is good enough for Mike "Penny Arcade" Krahulik:
There already is a known genetic marker for violence. In the US, bearers of this genetic marker commit 70% of all property crimes, 90% of all murders, are 9 times more likely to be imprisoned, and comprise 93% of all prison inmates.
This marker is known as "Y chromosome".
Think of that.
don't like Monsanto's sueing farmers for having their wheat in their fields when the farmers had nothing to do with that happening
Could you cite actual, neutrally-verified cases in which that happened?
Because all the big cases we keep hearing about (Percy Schmeiser, or the recent SCOTUS case) involve farmers who carefully and deliberately selected the Monsanto seeds for re-planting.
Which leads to the puzzling situation in which hordes of anti-GMO folks worldwide rush to defend (and in some cases fund) enthusiastic GMO planters!
If we want to have actual heroes doing the research that will lead to such prizes, why not give reasonable career path to scientists?
THIS. With $33M a year you can fund about 8000 postdocs (NIH payscale), or 3000 professors.
Or you could directly fund your own institute, with positions that are more stable than the dreaded post-doc, but less cushy than the unfireable tenured professorship. Like Louis Pasteur [wikipedia.org] did with his Nobel money, to the enduring benefit of mankind.
Either of these would probably do much more for actual science than piling up more money on folks who are likely to have their career behind them.
American blacks average a standard
deviation lower in IQ than American whites at about 85.
AKA the IQ of an average Scotsman in the 40s, when evaluated on a modern scale.
Taking ESR seriously about anything scientific is a losing proposition. His antics on climate science are widely known (sees some piece of code that adjusts a timeseries for temperature increases, and immediately concludes that global warming is a hoax), but it's not common knowledge that he's also an HIV denialist.
How does Facebook deserve this money?
If you stay on Facebook, you implicitly acknowledge that they do, because you still judge the overall value of their service to be positive despite this added "inconvenience".
What are the 3 common points between Jan Ullrich, David Millar, Bjarne Riis and Richard Virenque?
- All of them wore the Tour de France yellow jersey at some point (Riis and Ullrich won the tour outright, Virenque won the mountains classification several times).
- All of them eventually admitted to doping.
- None of them were ever caught by the so-called "drug tests". They were found out through other evidence (drug transport interception, raid on clinic, etc.)
The simple fact is that the drug tests in the 90s were a joke. They got a bit better in the 2000s, and that's how many of the later crop of dopers were caught (Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, etc.) They're still nowhere near 100%. Extraneous evidence is still a major factor in catching dopers.
Is Lance Armstrong one of the greatest cyclists of all times ? Yes he is - he won 7 Tours while all his competitors were loaded with drugs too!
Did he do it without doping? If you believe that, either you don't follow cycling much or you're 12.
they're DRM for seeds. Except the DRM can infect other plants.
And then these plants don't reproduce, and at the next generation the problem solves itself.
Terminator seeds are only a "problem" for people who don't grok natural selection.
Your idea sounds good. Any ideas on what you're going to do about the massive unemployment, starvation, and misery that will result from your changes?
Petrol in the UK costs about GBP 1.5 per litre. That's roughly $9 per gallon.
Mass starvation has somehow failed to occur.
Yeah, when I'm looking for a careful assessment of scientifice evidence, my first source is always uncommondescent.com (actual byline: "serving the intelligent design community").
As for your first link, it quotes one actual climate scientist saying that in the future, snowfalls in parts of England are going to be rare and exciting (the "in a few years" is from the journalist, not the scientist). Apparently you regard this statement as absolutely ridiculous on its face?
Well, global warming is expected to warm global temperatures by 2degC or more by 2100. More so on land (as compared to oceans) and more so in the Northern hemisphere. Now let's compare the average minimum winter temperatures of two cities:
London, UK: 2.7 (Dec), 2.3 (Jan) 2.1 (Feb).
Marseille, France: 4.1 (Dec), 3.0 (Jan), 3.9 (Feb).
Guess what? Snowfalls are rare and exciting events in Marseille, right now! What do you think will happen in London when daily temperatures increase by two degrees?
The livelihood of scientists is entirely dependent upon...
.... nothing. Almost all prominent climate scientists have tenure or nearly-equivalent job security.
But thanks for the fact-free FUD, dear Mr. AC who supposedly "works in science".
You, and a bunch of other
There's a reason why uber-smart people have decided that they really needed this "dark matter" stuff.
Actually, although the guy doesn't mention it, this looks a lot like an expanded version of Richard Dawkins' "WEASEL" experiment.
As such, it does have some educational purpose: by its success (which would be impossible with an actual million monkeys experiment), it shows that evolution by natural selection (that's what the guy is doing) is very different from, and much more powerful than, simple random search. Simply because it's selective (duh), and more importantly, cumulative: you don't start from scratch at every new phenotype, you keep the good stuff you've found so far.
I wish he had highlighted this bit. That would have made his experiment much more valuable.
I have no problem with this. Also, lulzsec does tickle my anarcho-geek fancy. Information's natural state is to be free - think how much energy gets expended trying to keep things secret.
And yet I notice that you are posting this under a pseudonym.
Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.
