Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Their own fault (Score 1) 367

I have a friend who is a priest (Catholic) and he insists that the Catholic church is the One True Religion and everything else (including all other denominations) are not, in fact, truly Christian. I once got him to call Jesus a pagan by asking if the Jews were pagan. Personally, I believe in the Cosmos. I can see it, I know I am a part of it, I know that we all are. I don't know that it's "alive" or "intelligent" but I believe it is, others don't, doesn't bother me. Never understood why people get their knickers in a bunch over people not seeing things their way when it comes to religion. After all, you and I can look at a tree and never see it the same, and that's a physical object we can touch, taste, etc.

Comment Re:schitzophrenic summary. (Score 1) 128

Ok, as another poster already said, there is an article on /. here that shows weeds naturally developed resistance. Go read through that article, lots of interesting things in there. And yes, indeed, Monsanto did say they wanted his seed stores destroyed. Again, however, you fail to address my question: The farmer knew they were resistant, he knew they blew into his field from somewhere, big f'ing deal. His argument, which I ask you to clearly and logically counter is this: "They grew on my land, they are mine". Can you rationally explain to me why that should not be the case without saying "because the laws say so".

Comment Re:schitzophrenic summary. (Score 1) 128

And, again, I'm not having the legal argument about what the law says he should have done. My question, which you still haven't answered, is morally, why should he have destroyed his entire crop because a few rows of it contained GM stuff from Monsanto, whether he knew it or not? Because, again, how do you know it's Roundup Ready without spraying your whole field with Roundup? Is Monsanto going to reimburse the farmer for his whole crop being unusable due to this cross pollination? Even the court recognizes that the plants came there via means other than the farmer deliberately planting them. His argument was that because he didn't sign anything with Monsanto, and the plants came there through no deliberate action on his part, they were his. I agree with him, you may not, the law may not, but just because it's legal, doesn't make it right.

Comment Re:schitzophrenic summary. (Score 1) 128

Actually he only sprayed some of his crops, not all, and found that some of those crops were GM. His argument wasn't that he kept the seeds, it was that the seeds were his to keep, as the plants grew on his land. Again, that's a legal argument I'm not trying to get into, the moral argument I'm making is "If you are a farmer, and Monsanto's stuff gets into your stuff, why should you be on the hook?" Also, how do you know if your stuff contains the GM from Monsanto without killing your crop?

Comment Re:schitzophrenic summary. (Score 1, Insightful) 128

I read through the decision, and it seems this to be the most telling part: "Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell." It then goes on to state that the thing the defendant did wrong was using the plants that were accidentally planted on his land. In other words, the court seems to have decided that he should have destroyed the crops on his field after discovering that Monsanto's stuff had inadvertently been planted there. Now, I'm not going to say that Monsanto didn't have the laws on their side, because apparently they did, but to say those laws are right is another matter. Your assertion that the defendant was lying is kinda bold, as it implies he stole the seeds or had planted roudup ready canola and kept the seeds, when even the judge says (in paragraph 125) " That clearly is not Mr. Schmeiser's case in relation to his 1998 crop. I have found that he seeded that crop from seed saved in 1997 which he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and samples of plants from that seed were found to contain the plaintiffs' patented claims for genes and cells. His infringement arises not simply from occasional or limited contamination of his Roundup susceptible canola by plants that are Roundup resistant. He planted his crop for 1998 with seed that he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant." The farmer's concern (now confirmed by the decision) is that if Monsanto's crap blows onto your field is hosed, because though Monsanto may come and collect the errand plants, it's not like they glow in the dark and are easy to spot.

Comment Re:Let's nuke them to be sure (Score 5, Insightful) 322

Ok, let's look at this more closely, because you bring up very good and valid points. While it's true, if you are wrongly incarcerated you won't be happy about it, however, there are things which can be done to repay you for that injustice (financial compensation, and I know it may never be enough to make up for you losing your freedom). What reparations can you make to a man who you executed? He's dead, his body will no longer function, ever, you can't give him anything to make him come back to life or to make up for killing him. I won't say that execution is just as bad as murder, because I don't think it is (though I do think it somewhat barbaric).

Comment Re: Why? (Score 2) 318

I actually did this to a priest friend of mine, I've known him since High School, and his response floored me. He informed me that because I would not listen to reason, he would no longer discuss the matter with me (yes his response to me saying gravity is a theory just like evolution was I would not listen to reason).

Comment Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again (Score 3, Insightful) 307

Not to burst your bubble regarding places with strict anti gun laws but they don't all have higher crime rates (for violent crimes anyway). Mexico has massive violent crime issues and strict gun control, whereas England has strict gun laws and they have a much lower rate of violent crime. Of interesting note, in Switzerland, where there isn't gun registration, they have a very low rate of violent crime overall. Seems to me that the violence has a lot more to do with other factors than just the legality of firearms. Source:

Comment Re:Defense Contractors (Score 5, Informative) 545

I'm going to blow a mod point and say those little white boxes are transmitters for a system of automatic weigh station check-ins and communicating with the driver whether or not he has to pull in to get weighed or if he gets to pass that station.

Slashdot Top Deals

Chemist who falls in acid will be tripping for weeks.