Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux's Performance-Boosting FSGSBASE Support Dropped For Now Over Serious Bugs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by marlock View Post
    Now, I'm not saying that all GMOs will, by the simple fact of being GMO, be harmful, just as not all code provided by Intel is harmful by definition... but we humans are hasty Intel coders in comparison with the natural evolutionary process, so bugs in the code are very much expected to cause harm at some point... and once the code (or rather the software merging the hasty code) is out there spreading you can't really control 100% retracting it to stop the harm.
    FYI, to create new and better species of plants it's not uncommon (across the last few centuries) to just expose the plant to massively carcinogenic materials, and select the best random mutations that result from that, by eyeballing, and flying by the seat of their pants.

    Usually giant versions of plants, or different colors, or more "substance" you want to harvest per mass of product. Compared to that, a GMO is a carefully constructed clockwork with checks, balances and safeties.

    The main issue of GMOs isn't the biology aspect, that as I said is leaps and bounds over what preceded it, it's the legal aspects.

    If someone can copyright the fucking DNA of the food we must eat (what happens with GMO), and the plants have integraded DRM (they can't reproduce, every year you must buy new seeds from the GMO company) that's A LOT of leverage we really don't need to deal with.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by marlock View Post
    Saying that a GMO plant has no other difference to non-GMO plant than a strand if DNA is plain insulting everyone's intelligence:

    a) accusing GMOs and geneticists of being useless, since in that case there would be absolutely no gene expression impacting phenotype at all, hence no benefit to using GMOs at all

    b) the same as saying that software is just source-code, which is just text files hence it can't possibly cause any harm to your computer...

    ...which funnily is kind of circling back from the talk about Monsanto to Intel development efforts

    Now, I'm not saying that all GMOs will, by the simple fact of being GMO, be harmful, just as not all code provided by Intel is harmful by definition... but we humans are hasty Intel coders in comparison with the natural evolutionary process, so bugs in the code are very much expected to cause harm at some point... and once the code (or rather the software merging the hasty code) is out there spreading you can't really control 100% retracting it to stop the harm.

    (and I've already stretched the metaphor too far so will stop there)
    You realize that we've been eating "GMOs" for thousands of years, right? Only in the past it took many, many, many generations of trial and error of grafting, mating, cloning, selective breeding, not breeding (seedless foods), etc to turn what corn or bananas used to be into what corn and bananas are now. But it isn't just corn and bananas, so many different food products look different than what they did in the past when they were wild. Long term genetic manipulation is still genetic manipulation.

    You should read up on how the weed growers create their different strains. Farmers operate in the exact same manner and do the exact same things to (create) your food.

    And to make that evil -- what farmers have done since farming has been a thing, and are still doing today, as in literally today, is no different than Nazi eugenics and their breeding programs for people. Instead of a master race we get master corn...shit...gadget race and gadget corn...dammit...gadget is for slave...controller race and controller corn...Really? Controller race and controller corn? Y'all PC people suck. Now I'm talking like a fag and my shit's all tarded.

    Kind of funny that eugenics with people is bad and totally morally wrong but selective breeding with fruit, vegetables, and dogs & other animals is just fine and encouraged to the point where we have designer dogs that are born crippled for life so they look like cute toys.

    I'm more upset about designer dog eugenics than I am about tasty food.

    *afraid to use that quote w/o a link to put it into context these days

    Leave a comment:


  • marlock
    replied
    Saying that a GMO plant has no other difference to non-GMO plant than a strand if DNA is plain insulting everyone's intelligence:

    a) accusing GMOs and geneticists of being useless, since in that case there would be absolutely no gene expression impacting phenotype at all, hence no benefit to using GMOs at all

    b) the same as saying that software is just source-code, which is just text files hence it can't possibly cause any harm to your computer...

    ...which funnily is kind of circling back from the talk about Monsanto to Intel development efforts

    Now, I'm not saying that all GMOs will, by the simple fact of being GMO, be harmful, just as not all code provided by Intel is harmful by definition... but we humans are hasty Intel coders in comparison with the natural evolutionary process, so bugs in the code are very much expected to cause harm at some point... and once the code (or rather the software merging the hasty code) is out there spreading you can't really control 100% retracting it to stop the harm.

    (and I've already stretched the metaphor too far so will stop there)

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    They basically add DRM to food. Their plants can't reproduce so the farmer has to buy again from the company. This can lead to interesting world domination scenarios.

    Also, this is true for all GMOs where you are adding resistence to soil issues or other stuff. It's not just Monsanto that does this of course, it's just the most well-known.
    No that is just anti-GMO propaganda that is so wide spread that even you that use to be quite rational and logic have fallen for it. The so called terminator seeds is just an imagination of the antivaxxer, chemtrail and anti-GMO crazies. In fact Monsanto deliberately took a patent on terminator seeds just to prevent any one from developing such seeds. And to date no one have ever created a terminator seed.

    However it's true that farmers due to legally obligations have to buy new seeds (if they want to keep using the Monsanto patented seeds that is, there is of course nothing stopping them from buying seeds from other manufactorers), this however started long before Monsanto existed and have been one of the things in how farming have modernized in the last decades.

    Suing the farmers that break this license is not only in GMO-companies best interest but also demanded by the farmers themselves, and this is because they have built their farms around the idea that they all have to buy new seeds from manufacturers and the cheating farmers are then not competing with the other farmers fairly and thus the farmers want the GMO-companies to keep the farmers competitors honest.

    While we can both agree that patents is a bad idea this is a completely separate thing from GMO:s, plenty of non-GMO seeds (e.g crossbreeds) are all covered with patents as well and are just as aggressively litigated.

    Regarding the soil resistance this is a real problem for all farming and farmers usually keep different crops on the same field in order to minimize the risk of mono culture related problems.

    If you are interested in more information do listen to this podcast (they have more episodes about Monsanto also):

    Leave a comment:


  • L_A_G
    replied
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    Intel has something like 15 000 developers. You can bet there are also thousands managing them.. It might be issue of manager(s) nagging and nagging like old wives after 20 years of marriage "to produce results and get on with the next project". You bet you are going to make ton on mistakes, when you have "manager" looking over your shoulder non-stop and whining.
    There's nothing wrong with making mistakes per say, it's literally inevitable when you're working on code of this level of complexity.

    No, the issue is that you're supposed to have things like maintainers, QA and code review to catch those mistakes so they can be fixed before the code goes out the proverbial door. This logic is what's behind how Linux kernel development works on the methodology that responsibility travels up the chain and that once you push that code upstream, you're personally responsible for all of the mistakes in that code that you didn't catch and fix or get fixed.

    Obviously this goes completely counter to the way things work within a lot of companies. However the way things work within those companies is clearly backwards and this demonstrates the point fairly well.
    Last edited by L_A_G; 08 July 2019, 11:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
    Yes I was a bit hasty there, where you consume the whole produce it's true what you describe. But if you use parts of it as ingredients for other products like e.g sugar from sugar cane or beet roots then the extracted sugar from GMO and non-GMO produce is indistinguishable.
    Yes, but as I said even if you consume the whole produce, its GMO status is entirely irrelevant as the DNA is disassembled when the food is digested.

    The issue with GMO products is mostly legal and economical, not biological.

    Not to mention that GMO crops gives benefits to farmers
    It does so at the cost of DRM, at least for the newer OGMs. This does cause vendor lock-in and all the fun stuff we are used to see in software now applied on agriculture on a newer scale.

    Is that a good thing? I personally don't like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post

    Explain?
    They basically add DRM to food. Their plants can't reproduce so the farmer has to buy again from the company. This can lead to interesting world domination scenarios.

    Also, this is true for all GMOs where you are adding resistence to soil issues or other stuff. It's not just Monsanto that does this of course, it's just the most well-known.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    That's not how GMO works. It's not a graft, all cells in the plant carry the modified DNA.

    It's mostly irrelevant in the fruit/seed of course as it's not causing any change there, nor has any effect on consumption because that DNA is disassembled anyway to be digested.
    Yes I was a bit hasty there, where you consume the whole produce it's true what you describe. But if you use parts of it as ingredients for other products like e.g sugar from sugar cane or beet roots then the extracted sugar from GMO and non-GMO produce is indistinguishable.

    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    While I didn't follow that case, GMOs are usually significantly cheaper than normal crops at both the "buy seed" stage and growing stage.

    There MIGHT have been other actors at play too.
    Not to mention that GMO crops gives benefits to farmers (which is why they buy them in the first place) like BT Cotton, Round Up Ready crops, crops that needs lees water, less sunlight and so on. Poland is a strange example since they have banned GMO:s since quite a long while back but where some farmers apparently have been growing them illegally, one such example is the EH92-527-1 potato that "reduces the levels of amylose and increases the levels of amylopectin in starch granules" and "allows transformed plants to metabolize neomycin and kanamycin antibiotics during selection".
    Last edited by F.Ultra; 07 July 2019, 03:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post

    Monsanto is still evil though, even if "anti-GMO" movements are basically antivax bullshit.
    Explain?

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by Wojcian View Post
    I'm talking about countries which don't need 'improved' food. Poland for example was fully self sufficient, but GMO food was thrown on us for no reason.
    While I didn't follow that case, GMOs are usually significantly cheaper than normal crops at both the "buy seed" stage and growing stage.

    There MIGHT have been other actors at play too.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X