Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Scientific Breakthrough Increases Plant Yields By One Third ( 197

Slashdot reader schwit1 writes, "Plant scientists have found a way to encourage plants to better use atmospheric nitrogen, thus increasing yields by more than one third. The technique not only produces healthier plants and more seeds, it reduces the need for fertilizer, the overuse of which can be an environmental issue." From WSU News: For years, scientists have tried to increase the rate of nitrogen [conversion] in legumes by altering...interactions that take place between the bacterioid and the root nodule cells. [Washington State University biologist Mechthild] Tegeder took a different approach: She increased the number of proteins that help move nitrogen from the rhizobia bacteria to the plant's leaves, seed-producing organs and other areas where it is needed. The additional transport proteins sped up the overall export of nitrogen from the root nodules.

This initiated a feedback loop that caused the rhizobia to start fixing more atmospheric nitrogen, which the plant then used to produce more seeds. "They are bigger, grow faster and generally look better than natural soybean plants," Tegeder said.

Comment Re:What part of this is hard to understand? (Score 1) 183

Deep inspection is a breach of my privacy. How the hell do you logically separate VOIP from "streaming audio" in any case? Logically VOIP is nothing else but TWO streams of audio... But the very best, and really only important argument is; keep your prying snooping eyes and judgement out of my data.

Comment Re:but - (Score 2) 220

Calling this area a "Island" where the oriArticle does not is not "factual" but misleading at best. The best way to describe this are might be a thin plastic soup. With occasional bigger floating plastic dumplings. The article calls it a "patch", nobody but clueless lazy media calls this a "Island".

Calling people who actually try to do (as little as we can) something, in a non profit, "pretenders trying to make a living" is down right malicious.

Comment Re:crowded (Score 1) 203

You premises are wrong:
You define "crowded" one way, and claim Kurtzweil does not follow (your rather arbitrary definition).

You seem to equate "nature" with "unused bits of land (by humans)", thats wrong, because humans are part of nature, even if you re-define nature to mean something like "all life except humans", then wrong too, because every bit of surface of this planet has been touched by humans, and is therefore "used" by humans. The ocean is where we store our unwanted plastc, the Arctic and Antarctic is where we power our global airconditioning. (Mind you we have limited ice supply, hence its time limited airco)

So Kurtzweil must mean something like "unsused for habitation (aka: not cities)" So the issue becomes humans could use the planet far more efficiently then we do now for habitation. Its easy to see that we could form a few more London/Paris/New York's right here in The Netherlands and we could house many more people.

Now, thee shit will hit the fan with regards to some resources (Where will the energy come from), but the resource we actually have plenty of is space... we still can go UP and DOWN, and we can even get rid of some of those "single tree that is allowed to fall down after a meeting"

Comment Bloody IP (Score 4, Insightful) 405

Riddle me this.

Intellectual means "of the intellect" and is thus intangible.
Property has always been used as a nomer for physical items that are clearly in possession, after all possession is 9/10th of the law.

This whole "IP" terminology is thus clearly double speak, and should be avoided. The whole legal constructs around them, be it patents, invention or copyright are only there to not disrupt existing economic structures. They are a philosophical abomination, especially in the digital age, where copying is cost-less, and distribution nearly so. This is true for books, code, movies and basically everything digital IMHO, and in this case even more so.

In this particular case of Oracle vs Google regarding Java "IP" we are talking about API Headers. To anyone with some coding background, API Headers are a description of a system. They are not patentable, as patents require implementation. (In Europe software is considered "math", and atm not patentable at al) They should not be copyrightable, for the same reason that announcing you will write a book about Fire and Ice and Dragons is a description of a book, but not the book itself. This description should not grant you the right to be the sole author of books about Fire and Ice and Dragons.

I applaud Google in this fight, and I hope they fight till they win.

Comment Re:"Industry desire" is all good and well (Score 2) 382

"In any case, EARS are analog"

No. They are not. (Or for some people, they will not be)

Ever thought about a hearing aid? How about a hearing aid that records things? handy huh.

Soonish rather than latish, some guy will implant a hearing aid, with large capacity of storage, either connected, or local, and they will have the ABILITY to record their life in autdi, and polayback whenever they want. Possibly mind controlled.

No Sci-fi, possible today, with current technologies.

If you think beating upa disabled person, in the Mac D's, for wearing what looks like a google glass(hole) apparatus. Wait till hearing aids with recording become popular....

(Woudnt it be AWESOME, if you could re-wind that lecture, or that song, you heard years ago?)

Comment Re:Hypotheticals (Score 1) 368

So many fallacies... where to begin...

"Existing models failed to predict "the pause.""

There is only a "pause" if you very selectively look at the data. I suggest "the pause" doesn't exist.

"Why should we continue to trust them blindly"

We do not. We do not trust them blindly now, and we will not start doing that anytime soon. Science is based on objective verification of theory against data, and trust has no meaning here. Blind trust is just a strawman.

"They obviously are missing something"

Sure, the body of knowledge on any topic and most certainly on "Climatology" is still incomplete. Gravity is another such topic where we are "obviously still missing something".

However, those facts do not mean that what we DO know, is invalid and/or useless.

Slashdot Top Deals

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.