onoway

The Once Coming Back to You

The thing is that just taking the farmer to court is predatory, Farmers don't usually have the deep pockets that Monsanto has. In a similar case in Canada the Supreme Court here vindicated the farmer but by that time it was pretty much a moot point as it had cost him his family and pretty much everything he had. Monsanto likes to make examples of people so that even if you win, you lose. Makes it less likely others will challenge them.

As far as the legal stuff...I have never been asked to say what I have planned to do with a sack of grain I've bought. Using food grade seed for planting is certainly a common practice. I know people who save seeds from the pepper and other veggies they;ve bought and liked, to grow in their garden. This is illegal for anything produced by Monsanto, but I am quite sure they have no idea where the plants came from. That's why Monsanto has been busy developing seed which will grow and produce seed but it won't be viable. There might be some question as to how valuable such seed is as food but that is not an issue for Monsanto. There are stories of families surviving the thirties by planting some of the dried beans provided by the government to desperately impoverished people and thus providing much more food for themselves than they otherwise could. How intelligent to find that illegal. not. As far as I can tell the whole sack was NOT GMO seed, just some of it. So he might have a countersuit that his seed was contaminated by GMO seed.

Good lord. So you don't care that the food you eat has been so fiddled with that it may be actually causing health problems now rampant such as diabetes and arthritis to say nothing of cancer and other diseases? Or that crop failures may lead to famine, not only in third world countries, but in the US and other countries so dependant on corn and soybeans? Or that part of the reason the price of food has gone up is because the cost of seed that farmers are forced to buy (and the chemicals they are force to buy so that the seed will actually probably grow and produce anything) has risen astronomically over the past few years as Monsanto and their ilk control more and more of the food production of the world? No wonder Monsanto is so successful with politicians! One major objection many people have to GMO seeds is not that they have been fiddled with but that farmers are being forced to grow and people are being forced to eat this material with NO long term studies on what effects these "foods" may have on humans over time. If you read the information sheet that the druggist gives you with your medication, you will find that some drugs, even antibiotics, e.g. can cause serious damage to your liver and this effect MAY NOT SHOW UP FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER YOU STOP TAKING THE DRUG. This is one chemical taken for a short length of time, usually not more than two weeks maximum. Thalidomide consequences did not show up for 8 or 9 months and the scientist ( a Canadian, yay) who blew the whistle on that was reviled, mocked and abused by other scientists. The studies done by Monsanto on GMO foods are short term. One long term study http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11 gives rise to some concerns which should lead to further long term studies but instead has been met with denial and counter accusations. I don't think the OPTION of eating non GMO foods should be denied as it is now. If you ever eat any processed food, ever drink sodapop or use normal canola oil you are part of an experimental group which may indeed eventually show exactly what these "foods" are doing to us over time. Farmers often do NOT want to grow GMO seeds. A whole lot of Canadians farmers got together and appealed to the government to put a hold on GMO flaxseed approval but the Harper government refused to deny Monsanto. Since Monsanto owns some of the major buyers of grain crops, if the farmers want to have access to major markets then they have to grow what Monsanto tells them to grow, and guess what Monsanto is saying? Monsanto got approval to release GMO alfalfa over huge opposition in the States and nobody has a clue what - if anything- may happen to the bee populations already under stress from what some have identified as colony collapse disorder associated with pesticide and herbicide residues. The GMO seeds do not guarrantee a good harvest,in spite of the advertising aimed at increasingly helpless farmers. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.htmlhttp://naturalsociety.com/scientists-warn-epa-over-monsantos-gmo-crop-failures-dangers/ Did you know that some of the chemicals used on food crops call for hazmat equipment for the farmer? This is something not advertised by Monsanto commercials. The problem is that once farmers have used these extremely potent chemicals on their land it takes an average of three years before the land recovers enough to grow anything much at all without the artificial chemicals. Some of these chemicals can effectively sterilize the soil for ten years or more. I once inadvertently bought some hay which had been sprayed with some agricultural spray, three bales out of 60 or so 1500 pound bales. Where those three bales sat is bare black sterile dirt, nothing at all has grown there for 8 years now. I transplanted some healthy buckwheat seedlings around the edges and they all immediately died. Where the other bales sat, the organic matter from scattered uneaten hay has given rise to lush volunteer growth of grasses and weeds. But Monsanto assures us that none of their chemicals are actually in the parts of the plants we eat. Where are the studies proving that? I know someone who raised horses and one year had to buy hay which they later found out had been sprayed with RoundUp to dessicate it. Every single one of their pregnant mares aborted. This is consistent with the findings of this study http://www.scribd.com/doc/106438581/Long-Term-Toxicity-of-Roundup-Herbicide Governments everywhere are struggling with the costs of health care. How is it, then, that there aren't a whole lot of studies looking at the possible relationship between GMO foods and the marked increase in various autoimmune disorders such as some forms of arthritis which only show up after a long time of continued stress. Or that further studies aren't looking at what the change in gut bacteria caused by eating GMO foods may mean? This especially since now there has been an unrelated study showing that a change in gut bacteria may contribute to the development of diabetes, some degree of which is now considered to affect possibly as many as one in four older Canadians? If you want to eat what has been labelled fake phood then go for it, but don't force it on the rest of us. Monsanto is even trying to prevent the OPTION of growing anything except their seeds..already there are regulations in Europe making it illegal to sell, give away or trade any seed not on an "approved" list. This is not just for commercial growers but also the guy who grows some tomatoes or other veggies in his back yard. Thatchers in Britain are no longer allowed to grow the strains of grain they traditionally used for thatching but must import it, for another example. Almost exactly the same phraseology was used in legislation put forth in NZ which was met with such public opposition it was at least for now, withdrawn. I cannot believe anyone thinks this is in any way a good idea...except for Monsanto.

There is also another U.S. class action against Monsanto in the works which is trying to make the company responsible for contamination of the fields and crops of organic farmers. Since a large proportion if not the majority of people in the US government department overseeing what can be labelled organic are former Monsanto employees it will be interesting to see how the government deals with this, since contamination is decidedly well established. One example of hundreds; jellyfish genes were installed in the DNA of some potato plants to make them luminescent. These plants were allowed only as marker plants but the jellyfish genes have unexpectedly turned up in potatoes outside their allotted areas. As a side note, RoundUp has been found to be toxic to fish and other living creatures and it does NOT become inert when it hits the ground (or groundwater) and it has been linked to such things as increased incidence of prostate cancer and miscarriages among people who handle it a lot. This was shown by at least two studies by different independent groups which have effectively been buried by Monsanto and ignored by governments. The GMO seed/RoundUp use is also leading to the development of superweeds which are immune to RoundUp. GMO corn, in almost every processed food in some form of sugar or starch, was bred to be immune to the corn borer, but instead has given rise to cornborers who have adapted and happilly munch away on it. So chem companies are busilly developing yet more virulent poisons to spray on or install in the DNA of food crops. Marketting which isn't constrained by truth or socially responsible behaviour and is backed by almost unlimited funds is a marvel to behold.

I never claimed to be objective, I think the whole thing stinks. Tell me, who do you think is going to want to work at a job whose only point is to shoot to kill someone in the unlikely event they might conceivably come into a school with mayhem on their mind? It doesn't sound to me like the sort of job which would appeal to anyone I would want around my kids.

If schools are absolutely determined to have armed guards, then why isn't anyone talking about tasers? They are not AS lethal as guns, and certainly incapacitate people. Of course then it is a short stroll to using tasers on kids who misbehave which already sometimes happens inappropriately with kids outside schools who push authority. If the guards are already there and not doing anything, they may as well help with discipline issues... Police often don't think it's all that serious to taser someone, so that might lead to a host of other problems, including kids trying to find guns "to protect themselves". It seems bizarre to me that there isn't any money to hire teachers, but there is money for this. They can't keep the classes small to provide the individual attention so many need, but apparently there IS money to hire full time Wyatt Earp wannabes to patrol the halls or whatever. Maybe if kids weren't treated like cans of peas in a factory because many teachers are too overwhelmed to do much else except try to keep pace, some of these kids would get noticed and helped before they grew up and got to the stage of shooting everyone they could. School is sounding more and more like the jail so many kids already feel it to be.

So where do you want to go with this?

the sight of the crash? The English language is a wonderful thing. :) That sentence is so much richer in prompting mental images and story lines about sentient airplanes... It's good to hear that the storm hasn't lived up to the hype. 18 inches is still enough to give people a good workout clearing it though.

Having absolutely frustrated/humiliated myself innumerable times with Bridgemaster I don't think I like where that thought leads!

If intelligence is by definition something only humans can possess then what computers can do requires a different definition. It seems to me to be about as valid as the arguments denying evolution but people do hang on to the idea that humans are uniquely above/apart from the rabble of the natural world and so require special rules. It's how we justify doing what we do to the environment, for one thing. Not that I will see it but it will be interesting to see what happens when people do develop self repairing and self replicating intelligent robots, especially if that superiority mindset is unconsciously or otherwise part of the original programming. Logic already indicates the earth would be a lot better off without humans. So then? Some time ago I read an article which suggested we are developing our own replacement and will as a result suffer the same fate as dinosaurs, the difference being we are creating and celebrating the comet which will lead to our own extinction. To declare it cannot happen to me smells of the same arrogance that declared the Titanic unsinkable..but I have nothing to offer as a way to avoid it eventually. Eat, drink and be merry ...and beware of computers singing "daisy daisy..." :ph34r:

I loved Red Dwarf as well. And Dr Who. Also the Avengers with Patrick MacNee and Diana Rigg in particular. It got more and more sci-fi-ish as the years passed. All of them had elements of humor which were part of their appeal. Why should it have to be grim to be called sci-fi?

Is intelligence strictly a human attribute or can for instance an animal possess intelligence as well? If so, how is that demonstrated? If intelligence is considered to be something only humans can have then there is little point in debating whether or not computers might ever be intelligent.

Luddites are out of luck; the pandora's box of technology has been flung wide open and cannot again be tucked away. A couple of TED talks which I found very sobering and

This paper is dated 1993 http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html He predicted it would not happen before 2005 but within 30 years of his talk. This Ted talk is dated 2012 and demonstrates robots which behave autonomously and interact with each other and the environment in order to complete their tasks. http://techgearz.com/2012/03/ted-talk-robots-that-fly-and-cooperate/

The first link would not work on my computer. The second didn't spend much time dealing with what has been a major problem for IQ tests, which is cultural bias. You might be interested to see how you score on this IQ test http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceOriginalAustralian.html I was looking for but could not find an article I'd read some time ago which noted that age was directly related to IQ in North America. The percentage of mentally handicapped in the population rose around age 6 and dropped again around age 18..which led to the tongue in cheek conclusion that schools caused mental retardation. The article you linked to itself noted that IQ is affected by any number of things e.g diet (IQs rose when vegetarians supplemented diet with creatine) or special mental exercises/training. Stress or depression can cause IQ scores to plummet. So what is an IQ test beyond the measure of how someone performs at that moment in time to certain questions based on an assumed shared cultural background? Both Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton (among many others) were considered intellectually deficient as children. I once knew a brilliant teenager whose parents had been told he was mentally deficient, it turned out he was merely dyslexic. He could ace any tests given orally but had to take so much time to decipher written tests that the teachers assumed he was incapable of understanding the material. This is apparently so common that in many schools the option of taking tests orally is now offered. The article also notes that IQ tests are notoriously incapable of accurately assessing people suffering from autism, a large and growing segment of the population. So IQ tests are certainly one measure of intelligence but a highly flawed one. I suspect that most "intelligent" computers would score quite well on them as we now use them. What else you got? :)

So what was Nick doing, then, toward the end of the video? If you want to define swimming as something that can only be done by a warm or cold blooded creature that's fine but it seems to be sidestepping the pertinent points which normally define swimming and sounds a little like the last refuge of an exasperated parent "because I said so!". as far as that goes, consider the double amputee who walks with two artificial legs. (or even competes in track, in one case). Or people who use a mechanical larynx to speak with. (or, with which to speak, if split infinitives annoy you :P ) We still define what they are doing in the same terms we use for people with flesh and blood limbs or larynx, which they don't have.

What exactly are you defining as intelligence and what/how are you trying to measure and compare? That is perhaps the heart of the matter, and it's a very complicated problem. Say an unmanned sub is set a destination and left to get on with it. It gets there entirely on its own without further human input of any kind, avoiding obstacles and dealing with such things as tides, currents, other ships, sea creatures and so forth entirely on its own.Is that any less "swimming" than someone doing laps in a pool? If so, why?

Agree completely. If I venture into unknown territory I appreciate it if someone gives me guidance as to the customs. It doesn't have to be the head honcho, in fact it's less embarrassing if it isn't, if I have inadvertently done something incorrect. I think it's unfortunate that Straube's post seems so aggressive.

Where is the line drawn? IS there a line? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings

Osiyo. I think you need to consider all the people who got shipped off to North America (and Australia for that matter) and what society might have looked like had all those people no place to go. Admittedly some were remittance men and some were perhaps younger sons with no hope of inheritance and some lusted after adventure and the chance to make a fortune, or freedom of belief (which is ironic, considering what's going on in the States today). However as far as I can tell, many thousands were people with enough desperation to take such a leap of faith because anything would be better than the future they faced at home. Want to starve, be hung for stealing bread or emigrate? For many, perhaps the sort of desperation that today may lead to such things as suicide bombers, in fact. You don't need to look far to find examples of a population pushed too far, eventually deciding enough is enough and revolting. What would Europe have looked like today had North America and Australia not been available for these people? Judging from what's going on in various places around the world, in general science doesn't much flourish in a country ripped apart by violence spawned by despair when survival at all is the concern of the day. btw I said "apparently empty" as that is decidedly how the Europeans treated it, not that there was validity to that view. Donadagohvi B-)

One thing you might take into account that a major part of what revitalized and drove the rapid expansion AND the increased quality of life was the "discovery" of North America by the Europeans, with all that lovely apparently empty space and seemingly unlimited natural resources. Until we find a planet somewhat more habitable than Mars and have the technology to reach and settle it within a rational amount of time we are now stuck without any such place to rescue us from our own excesses. It's such a comfort to know that young male bridge players are so ready to sacrifice their superior genes to the gene pool. Now if only women would recognise their natural superior intelligence, and not be revolted by their astonishing ego..

So as the outlaws get caught and their guns confiscated those guns go out of circulation and become increasingly difficult to replace. In the meantime the incidence of "spur of the moment" murders which happen only because a gun is at hand in a moment of irrational behaviour will stop. It surprises me a little that nobody who has lost a loved one in one of these slaughters has gone after the gun and ammo manufacturers. If tobacco companies can be held responsible for someone getting lung cancer and so forth, why are gun and ammo manufacturers not being held responsible for a death their product is unmistakably responsible for? Even the threat of such a thing might temper the appetite of these companies to sell assault weapons and other such things to the general public.

Ths hand was with a GIB and they do this sort of thing ALL the time (passing for two or three rounds and then getting into the bidding at the 4 or 5 level). SO I am wondering if I am wrong in thinking that this is a penalty X? GIB clearly thinks I am asking it to choose but I would be unhappy with a partner who cannot support at lower levels and then leaps in at the 4 level when I have decided that we have to defend and the opps are going down. Maybe I need to bid this differently? Or just get used to chewing rocks when GIB does this? I know I didn't exactly show my strength when I didn't reverse to 3♦ but with the opps bidding and p passing I didn't want it to stretch into an unmakeable game if it really had nothing. My hand 10♠AKQ53♥AQ5♣ and KQ73♦ BIdding goes 1♥X Pass 1♠ 2♦2♠pass pass 3♥pass pass 3♠ X pass 4♥pass pass GIB has 64♥652♠Ten82♦J9843♣ we are white vs red