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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Proof (Score 2) 415

In which case, we reject the idea that we live in a simulation. I see no proof that the world was created last Thursday. I can't disprove that either, so in lack of an ability to do anything either way, I take the simpler approach and reject the notion until further data becomes available. The burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claim, not those asking for evidence, and anything said without sufficient proving evidence can be rejected without disproving evidence.

Comment Re:Nothing like fudging the number (Score 5, Insightful) 97

Could be. I'm playing a game I got on Steam right now. It is thoroughly mediocre. I want to rate it, but Steam has only a positive/negative system as well, and this game deserves neither. So which do I give it? If I round up, it makes the game look better than it is. If I round down, I am being giving an inaccurate portray of how I really feel. I either am inaccurate, or I make tht game look better than it actually is in the rating aggregate, which will increase the likelihood of Steam making a sale.

In Netflix's case though, seeing as how you've already bought the subscription, I don't see how this will help them, but maybe that is their angle. Either way, as someone who gives far more 2-4 stars for things than 1 and 5 stars (because most things tend to fll somewhere between total crap and absolutely amazing), I do not welcome this change.

Comment Re:Republicans are anti-science (Score 3, Funny) 649

What you say about GMOs is incorrect. There is no kill switch; you are either thinking of terminator seeds, which were never implemented, or the nature of hybrid biology, which a more of a fact of genetics than any corporate money making plot. Your lawsuit your linked is about actuallyl says the exact opposite of what you claim. The judge asked the prosecuting organic group to prove their claim that farmers are sued for unintended cross pollination; they could not. Sure, farmers have been sued by Monsanto for knowingly and intentionally selecting for and mass propagating transgenic seed which were the result of cross pollination, but at that is very different from the anti-GMO narrative (which is ironic since the farmers who were sued were trying to get GMOs without paying for them). To use an analogy, if I throw a DVD on your lawn, you cannot be sued for that, but if you take that DVD, mass copy it, and use it in a for profit manner, you can be. Simple as that. Rule of thumb: if an article portrays genetic engineering as injecting an ear of corn with blue stuff, it's probably sensationalist nonsense.

If there's evidence that radio waves are damaging, it certainty hasn't made much in the way of a splash in any scientific circles I'm familiar with.

If you want to claim a scientific high ground, you've chosen some bad examples.

Comment Re: It'll never work (Score 1) 142

Put it in space? The James Webb Space Telescope has a 6.5 meter mirror and is projected to cost something like $10 billion; the proposed telescope on Maunakea has a 30 meter mirror. Putting a telescope like that in space would be great but it just is not a feasible option.

And while aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder, personally I don't think the telescopes already up there look all that bad. Besides that, the site was chosen to minimize visibility to onlookers. To be fair it will still be visible, but IIRC that was still considered.

Comment Re: It'll never work (Score 1) 142

It's even better than that; that funding included some very generous local educational programs. The astronomers were not the ones in the wrong. The fault lies in how the state handled things, and the protesters who have been all sorts of wrong. Though to be honest I don't think the leaders of that movement care much about being wrong, as long as they've got a controversy to shout about give them some local political clout. In fact, it's probably better to be wrong than to be right, because then you can drag things out longer.

I do hope it stays in Hawai'i and does not go to the Canary Islands, which are the runner up candidate location, though I certainty would not blame them if they said to hell with it and moved there. The absolute bullshit they've had to deal with is absurd.

Comment Re:So an American hero might be jailed for life (Score 4, Informative) 294

1) It's possible to feel that Trump is right on some issues like the H-1Bs but still wrong on others and/or a raging asshole.

2) Jailed? If he's lucky. Trump has in the past implied Snowden should be executed, and his CIA director has explicitly said as much.

3) Don't make this partisan; Obama had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. He didn't.

Comment Re: Am I supposed to hate this or not? (Score 1) 292

Or how is it that you missed those news? Are those tomatoes even still on the market? I doubt it.

You're probably thinking of the Flavr Savr tomato. That one made the news, but involved the silencing of an enzyme involved in fruit degradation. It had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was referring to things like the breeding Solanum lycopersicoides into cultivated tomato. These sorts of things happened a bit earlier, but I recall no fanfare or protest when for example the Plum Regal tomato containing the Ph-3 genes for late blight resistance from Solanum pimpinellifolium hit the market.

Comment Re:Stop apologizing (Score 2, Insightful) 292

When most people say 'genetic modification' what they mean is genetic engineering, which is to say, recombinant DNA techniques, which is different than so-called 'conventional' breeding techniques (for example inserting a spinach gene into an orange for disease resistance which is not naturally present in the citrus genepool), although not different enough to warrant the baseless opposition to it . Unfortunately, most people do not know what they are talking about when it comes to plants, agriculture, and genetic engineering

But I absolutely agree with you that the world should stop bending over to appease the anti-GE contingent. They are the anti-vaxxers of agriculture, and the effects the opposition to genetic engineering has had on the world are just as obscene.

Comment Re:Am I supposed to hate this or not? (Score 1) 292

Yes, cross breeding is genetic modification. When you breed, you mix genes from different varieties, sometimes even different species, and select the genetic combinations which are the most favorable. Breeding absolutely is modifying the genetics. True, it is different from genetic engineering, but you are still making modifications. This is why the term 'GMO' is a rather poor term.

Or, as in this case removing a gene to make something Monsanto can patent and profit more from while not really understanding (or perhaps they do but just don't care) the consequences of doing so.

Plenty of plant varieties are patented and sold for profit, genetically engineered and not. No one gets on Zaiger Genetic's case over pluerries, or UoM's case over Honeycrisp (the patent has since expired), or complains that Driscoll's breeds patented berries. If you don't like that, I don't see you offering to pay the salary of the people who keep the food supply afloat in a world with ever evolving pests, pathogens, and environmental stresses that you never consider because we do our jobs well enough that they never affect you.

Your accusation that genetic engineering is not well understood is just outright patently false. It is used as a valuable tool in basic research all the time, and on the applied side if anything, there's too much regulation on GE crops. It's gotten to the point where most publicly funded genetic engineering work never sees the light of day.

Comment Re:Hipster food (Score 2) 292

In this case, good on the hipsters though. Supporting the cultivation of 'new' species is how you increase the biodiversity of the food supply, which brings all sort of benefits. It is great to see more research and funding going to the support and promotion of less commonly cultivated crops.

Now if only we could get them to stop saying things like 'these benefits could be gained without the use of genetic modification' as if genetic engineering is a bad thing.

Comment Re:Am I supposed to hate this or not? (Score 2) 292

GMO = Man fucking about with genes that may or may not produce something good or bad due to a complete lack of long term studies (i.e. 50+ years).

That's a ridiculous standard. Do you also hold that Wifi and microwaves should undergo a half century of testing?

When someone can explain to me an actual reason as to why genetic engineering is fundamentally different from all the other similar things which occur in nature, then I'll consider advocating a half century of testing. However, the anti-GMO crowd has had over two decades to make their case to the scientific community though, so I'm not holding my breath.

Slashdot Top Deals

What ever you want is going to cost a little more than it is worth. -- The Second Law Of Thermodynamics

Working...