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


Forgot your password?
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: Lemme get this straight (Score 3, Insightful) 186

I wish I had mod points, but in lieu of that, I will say ABSOLUTELY! The criminal justice system in the country is completely messed up. The programs don't work (especially 3 strikes laws) and especially with the treatment of addicts (which is a medical condition) being locked up along with rapists and murderers. The fact that prison rape has become a punchline of jokes shows just how screwed up it all is. The entirety of the system needs an overhaul, from laws to prison conditions.

Comment Re:Sounds like this was noticed earlier ... (Score 1) 96

ABS was to stop the brakes from locking up in the first place, regardless of road condition (in other words, brakes work so well they had to invent a way to interrupt them). If you hold your brake pedal down and stomp the gas, your car will stay stationary, if you do it long enough (assuming you have an automatic transmission) You'll blow out your torque converter, your transmission or your engine (depending on the weak link) if you do it in a manual transmission, you'll kill the engine. You missed the point of my post entirely, that the brakes always overpower the engine, that they are so capable of stopping those wheels from spinning, that they had to invent a way to make them not do the job so well (and still be safe enough to drive). ABS isn't as simple as "wheels not spinning, release brakes".

Comment Re:Sounds like this was noticed earlier ... (Score 1) 96

Sudden acceleration syndrome was chalked up to operator error. Even revving the engines to full, the brakes supplied more than enough stopping force, every single time. So even from the get go, brakes were over-powering the engine (brakes work so well, in fact, that they had to invent a technology to make them not work so well it's called anti-lock brakes).

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

We don't know who it was that discovered water, but we're pretty sure that it wasn't a fish. -- Marshall McLuhan