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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: Great news everyone (Score 1) 159

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that because the Solar system experiences a roughly homogenous spacetime field that everywhere else does too.

I'm pretty well convinced by the precession of the perihelion of Mercury that it isn't 'homogeneous' - if by that you mean that here's no significant space-time curvature.

The edge of the galaxy has no significant matter at all one one side and has an extremely limited distribution of matter on the other side.

As does, on a smaller scale, the solar system. Why are the results so different?

Comment Re:Great news everyone (Score 1) 159

In summary, galactic rotation curves are flat because ...

Then why doesn't the same thing happen in the solar system?

*Article that doesn't mention rotation curves*

Does that summarize our discussion well enough?

Relativistic effects happen almost everywhere, but they can't explain galactic rotation curves.

Comment Re:Great news everyone (Score 1) 159

What we call gravity arises from spacetime. ... The concept of time moves faster the further away it is from the matter that it is part of (e=mc^2 simplified).

*facepalm*

In summary, galactic rotation curves are flat because time is faster and space is smaller where there is less matter.

Then why doesn't the same thing happen in the solar system? If it did, we wouldn't have had a mystery in the first place.

Comment Re:Great news everyone (Score 1) 159

MOND doesn't eliminate the "need" for Dark Matter, does it.

Still, it fails in situations that otherwise have a "dark matter" explanation, just slightly fewer of them. It's not a solution to the problem.

Dark matter itself is only a partial solution, so...

You seem to have some strong feeling on the subject - could you explain?

Comment Re:Great news everyone (Score 1) 159

From the wiki:

MOND is an example of a class of theories known as modified gravity, and is an alternative to the hypothesis that the dynamics of galaxies are determined by massive, invisible dark matter halos.

It started out as a replacement for DM. 30 years later, with more evidence supporting DM, it's more like a ready-made replacement if DM fails, or an add-on if some of the observed phenomena aren't explained by a more refined DM theory.

Comment Re: Eugenics (Score 1) 93

a person born with a condition that prevents them from walking should not reproduce. But then what if that person also has a separate gene that makes them super smart?

The same thing that would happen if they chose not to have kids, or their kids didn't happen to get the gene, or if a different sperm fertilized the egg, or if the parent's birth control hadn't failed, or ...

Comment Re: Quit it already! (Score 1) 470

I personally wish golden rice worked and was viable. It's not.

I have no idea what you're talking about - it works just fine, the only issues are the political BS, scaremongering, and competing with other possible solutions.

I wish there was a magic gene ... Tinkering with genes for features that don't address those beneficial base requirements seem to have been commercially successful. Hence my skepticism.

So lowering costs (diesel, labor) and increasing yields (less pest damage, less competition from weeds) that lead to lower prices and less environmental damage isn't worthwhile? I'm sorry version 1.0 isn't exactly what you wanted, but how is that an argument against it?

Now something I could really get behind is removing certain mosquito's blood sucking gene set, reverting them back to a nectar eating bunch...

So what you're in favor of is something far beyond our current ability, as well as absurd? (How would you prevent them from speciating? Why not just take the easier route and engineer them into extinction (doable with existing tech) and breed a new pollinator from an existing one?)

Comment Re:Quit it already! (Score 1) 470

If you're arguing every single GMO product should go through all 3 agencies, we're on the same page.

I'm arguing that they should, and already do, require approval from all three agencies.

Apparently not inert. And why was it in the product in the first place?

It's not an active ingredient (it's not added in order to react chemically with anything) so it's called an inert ingredient, even if it does have some other effect. If we were to use a stricter definition of 'inert' then everything (including water) becomes 'active', so the term would be useless.

Polyethoxylated tallow amine is a surfactant added to lower surface tension, which helps the herbicide spread out rather than 'bead up' on the plants. This increases the amount of active ingredient that gets absorbed.

I'm complaining someone got self-replicating river water mixed in with my distilled water, and I can't get it out.

I'm starting to think that the assumptions that we're making are too disparate to make an analogy worthwhile. The point I'm trying to get across is that everything you've ever eaten has had random, untested mutations in its DNA, so why would carefully planned changes that go through multiple stages of testing be more likely to cause problems? Why would glyphosate resistance from an inserted gene be more likely to have a bad effect than the same property brought about by heavy x-ray doses and genetic testing to find strains to breed together?

Comment Re:Quit it already! (Score 1) 470

why bother controlling pollution

Pollution should be avoided in general. You're complaining that someone got some distilled water mixed in with your river water.

It's not like a smoking gun over a corpse, but the study certainly raises some questions about the assumed safety of the product as currently used.

So an inert (and easily replaced) part of one product, when directly exposed to sensitive cells (i.e. not when eaten), may cause issues. And because that product is used in conjunction with a second product, everything that uses the technology in the second product is suspect?

You've gone from "a fabric used in Toyota Camrys is possibly more flammable than expected" to "ban the wheel".

Every product should be individually approved.

We do that already - EPA, FDA, USDA.

Comment Re:Quit it already! (Score 1) 470

Mine's more concerned with an unintended and will almost never occur in nature genetic hybrid getting out and turning out to be bad.

Why would that be worse than the uncountable number of mutants that crop up all of the time?

There simply hasn't been enough testing over a long enough time, and there's been too many variables...

Eaten trillions of times, zero demonstrable human health effects. That doesn't mean we stop looking, but how much testing would be enough for you to stop worrying?

Roundup itself is quite bad.

Sigh. That's not what the article said.

Comment Re:Proprietary food, like proprietary software (Score 1) 470

Because only the latter is clearly patentable.

That's patently (ha ha) false. I don't know where these absurd ideas come from.

The EULA imposed by GMO plant patent holders tends to forbid saving seeds for replanting, and this is antithetical to traditional sustainable farming.

If you're into traditional farming you aren't going to want to use hybridized seed, either. Not every product is going to be a perfect match for your business.

It's the same reason that some people prefer free software.

And some people don't. Why should people who have one preference get to require scare-mongering labels on things for people with a different preference?

Comment Re: Wow. (Score 1) 470

Vitamin pills, homeopathy and feng shui are just a few examples of irrational things that lead people to spend their money unwisely. In a free society, that's just part of life's rich tapestry. If a sufficiently significant proportion of the population wants labels, they should have labels. Your definition of irrationality is irrelevant.

No. Required labels should be for things that have demonstrable consequences for the consumer - anything else turns a useful tool for protecting customers into a political circus.

What's next, natural foods must be labeled "non-fortified"? Regular medicine - "non-homeopathic"? Houses that haven't been checked by charlatans have to be advertised as "potentially haunted" and have a "feng shui" rating?

Slashdot Top Deals

Multics is security spelled sideways.

Working...