L
legendario
Guest
- Thread starter
- #61
/edit sorry i told lies here
sorry lester your post will look daft now
sorry lester your post will look daft now
L
Lester
Guest
- Thread starter
- #63
BY TEH POWER OF SUPER_GRAYSKULL FFS!!1111
spam
cheese
L
legendario
Guest
- Thread starter
- #64
Gah sorry.
I was talking shit in my post.
They are the same thing (technically)
But microwaves can be transmitted with a high enough power (not from phones) to cook j000. (with loads of teh photons)
I was talking shit in my post.
They are the same thing (technically)
But microwaves can be transmitted with a high enough power (not from phones) to cook j000. (with loads of teh photons)
T
Testin da Cable
Guest
- Thread starter
- #65
isn't that a maser? may be a bit off in my sifi though :/
L
legendario
Guest
- Thread starter
- #66
Power is still related to the number of photons passing a point over a given time :/
I wish I hadn't posted now
I made a complete cunt of myself.
(nothing new there then.....before bodhi take the oppertunity)
Sorry wijlet....
/bows to wijsci knowledge
I wish I hadn't posted now
I made a complete cunt of myself.
(nothing new there then.....before bodhi take the oppertunity
)Sorry wijlet....
/bows to wijsci knowledge
G
granny
Guest
- Thread starter
- #67
Wouldn't that make you Fremman? Why is that so familiar?
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #68
Dune ?
D
dysfunction
Guest
- Thread starter
- #69
Sand?
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #70
Originally posted by legendario
Power is still related to the number of photons passing a point over a given time :/
I wish I hadn't posted now
I made a complete cunt of myself.
(nothing new there then.....before bodhi take the oppertunity
Sorry wijlet....
/bows to wijsci knowledge
woot thx \o/
L
legendario
Guest
- Thread starter
- #71
Originally posted by Wij
woot thx \o/
I should have known better though.
My physics lecturer would kick my arse if he heard me speak now
G
granny
Guest
- Thread starter
- #72
Oh yeah, thanks
W
Will
Guest
- Thread starter
- #73
The danger with DDT that keeps it underused (and trust me, when countries don't have the budget for anything else, DDT is still being used) is that it doesn't degrade, and body fat stores it. I'm sure that at the moment the dosages aren't low enough to kill anyone (though I heard a rumour about polar bears, no evidence to back that one up), but they are never going to go down.
As for GM food...well, not exactly the easiest point to deal with. With those sort of news stories, you know that there is more going on behind the scenes than meets the eyes.
As for GM food...well, not exactly the easiest point to deal with. With those sort of news stories, you know that there is more going on behind the scenes than meets the eyes.
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #74
DDT does degrade, albeit slowly. Malaria degrades humans a lot quicker, though.
Indeed the GM debate is one of those questionable issues, I think there is certainly more to the argument than what both the government and the non-government organizations (NGOs) are revealing.
Personally, I believe the environmental movement has been largely taken over by elements of the post-cold-war CND hippies and the modern anti-capitalist crowd. The former still campaign against nuclear power (despite it being the most "green") and the latter campaign against biotechnology because it is the baby of the big agri-corporations.
Nuclear power has a lot going for it, and it matches the restrictions imposed by pollution controls perfectly. Even considering the nuclear waste it is less damaging than any other form of man-made power, including the solar/wind alternatives. Yet the environmentalists are generally against it (but not all of them).
Biotechnology has produced crops that require more yield (meaning less land area is used), more hardy (meaning less chemical fertilizer is used), better resistance to pests (meaning less chemical pesticide is used), and less tilling (meaning less soil erosion). Yet the environmentalists are generally against that too.
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the government is largely driven by the desires of big business, but nowdays you have to take the NGOs in the same vein, after all they are "big business" too, with many subscribers to their cause and visons of being in political power too. Most of the original people who were at the birth of the environmental movement have rejected it's modern state, mainly because it favours principle over real science.
Indeed the GM debate is one of those questionable issues, I think there is certainly more to the argument than what both the government and the non-government organizations (NGOs) are revealing.
Personally, I believe the environmental movement has been largely taken over by elements of the post-cold-war CND hippies and the modern anti-capitalist crowd. The former still campaign against nuclear power (despite it being the most "green") and the latter campaign against biotechnology because it is the baby of the big agri-corporations.
Nuclear power has a lot going for it, and it matches the restrictions imposed by pollution controls perfectly. Even considering the nuclear waste it is less damaging than any other form of man-made power, including the solar/wind alternatives. Yet the environmentalists are generally against it (but not all of them).
Biotechnology has produced crops that require more yield (meaning less land area is used), more hardy (meaning less chemical fertilizer is used), better resistance to pests (meaning less chemical pesticide is used), and less tilling (meaning less soil erosion). Yet the environmentalists are generally against that too.
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the government is largely driven by the desires of big business, but nowdays you have to take the NGOs in the same vein, after all they are "big business" too, with many subscribers to their cause and visons of being in political power too. Most of the original people who were at the birth of the environmental movement have rejected it's modern state, mainly because it favours principle over real science.
W
Will
Guest
- Thread starter
- #75
You can't forget that GM is not being used for the good of the people in any way (and Xane I see you touched on this already). Thats why I'm so sure more is going on here. It tends to lock you in to (usually Monsanto's) crop and pesticides. And it certainly rarely benefits consumers. Take GM tomatoes. Taste better? No Easier to grow? No. Longer shelf life? You got it.
). Thats why I'm so sure more is going on here. It tends to lock you in to (usually Monsanto's) crop and pesticides. And it certainly rarely benefits consumers. Take GM tomatoes. Taste better? No Easier to grow? No. Longer shelf life? You got it.
G
granny
Guest
- Thread starter
- #76
Oh, that wasn't really relavant any more was it? Oh well, never mind, still funny
GM foods... hmm.. I've got very mixed feelings about them to be honest (and my degree was in Genetics).
On one hand there isn't really a huge difference between GE and the 100's of years of cross- and selective-breeding mankind has been doing with plants and animals already. Just several 1000 times faster.
On the other hand I'm not all that keen to eat GM foods myself and whenyou get down to it there are more complex issues than those raised by traditional methods.
All of which would be irrelavant if I had *any* faith whatsoever in either corporations or governments telling me the truth about anything at all....
P
prime1
Guest
- Thread starter
- #77
Theres nearly always 2 oppinions to every new science thought. The problem now is that a large number of scientists and journalists see their name being made by disproving a commonly held theory, so rather than trying to make new discoveries etc, they just spend time sensationalising possible problems with exisiting thought.
GM holds tremendous possibilities, and there is currently no evidence, and not even any "susspect cases" to lend doubt. This to me suggests sensationalism.
There is always money to be gained or lost through scientific achievement, subsequently people who stand to lose money, will try and discredit it (for example look at all the smear campaigns and urban legends surrounding McDonalds, how many of you have heard the "she complained because her McChicken Sandwich had mayonaise, only it wasnt mayonaise, it was a cyst!" story?).
I agree that environmental groups can now rarely be trusted as well (look at the chaos of the Brent Sea Oil Platform, that GreenPeace were later forced to apologise over), its a fight for media coverage, and media is a fight for sales, news that says "yes this still works" or "yes this is correct" is dull, it dosnt sell, so they look for sensational stories. Good coverage in science means favourable budgets from the parent company or government, as well as name sin journals and history books etc)
A savvy editor can get 2 good stories from one breakthrough, the breakthrough itself, and then the "sensational" discovories, that in some small cases, theres a possibility, that something might go wrong.
Unfortunately you will find very, very few scientific discoveries that are 100% confirmed. Its now even thought that light is not *always* a constant, because they have discovered evidence that some light dating back to the beginning of the universe, has travelled off the recognise constant - this undermines the whole basis of E=MC2 (C is a constant, which was always taken to be the speed of light, because no matter where you are, or how fast you are moving, light always travels at the same speed, even if you were traveling at thousands of miles a second, light is still traveling at relatively the same speed as if you were standing still), but its only very, very rare. The theory still works for the vast majority of applications. But theoretically it could be wrong in a very specific small number of cases. This can be applied to the GM food argument. Its entirely possible that in some rare, minor case, something could go wrong, but for the vast majority of cases it will do exactly what it says on the tin.
GM holds tremendous possibilities, and there is currently no evidence, and not even any "susspect cases" to lend doubt. This to me suggests sensationalism.
There is always money to be gained or lost through scientific achievement, subsequently people who stand to lose money, will try and discredit it (for example look at all the smear campaigns and urban legends surrounding McDonalds, how many of you have heard the "she complained because her McChicken Sandwich had mayonaise, only it wasnt mayonaise, it was a cyst!" story?).
I agree that environmental groups can now rarely be trusted as well (look at the chaos of the Brent Sea Oil Platform, that GreenPeace were later forced to apologise over), its a fight for media coverage, and media is a fight for sales, news that says "yes this still works" or "yes this is correct" is dull, it dosnt sell, so they look for sensational stories. Good coverage in science means favourable budgets from the parent company or government, as well as name sin journals and history books etc)
A savvy editor can get 2 good stories from one breakthrough, the breakthrough itself, and then the "sensational" discovories, that in some small cases, theres a possibility, that something might go wrong.
Unfortunately you will find very, very few scientific discoveries that are 100% confirmed. Its now even thought that light is not *always* a constant, because they have discovered evidence that some light dating back to the beginning of the universe, has travelled off the recognise constant - this undermines the whole basis of E=MC2 (C is a constant, which was always taken to be the speed of light, because no matter where you are, or how fast you are moving, light always travels at the same speed, even if you were traveling at thousands of miles a second, light is still traveling at relatively the same speed as if you were standing still), but its only very, very rare. The theory still works for the vast majority of applications. But theoretically it could be wrong in a very specific small number of cases. This can be applied to the GM food argument. Its entirely possible that in some rare, minor case, something could go wrong, but for the vast majority of cases it will do exactly what it says on the tin.
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #78
AFAIK The "original" GM tomato was developed for processing into puree, the result was less waste and less energy used in production, it was also cheaper, but whether this was passed on to the consumer is another matter.
Tomatoes can be made more nutritous, containing higher levels of vitamins or whatever, but as a "better taste" is largely up to the consumers whim, I don't see how this can be achieved.
The real beneifits of GM food are as I explained; yield, hardiness and pest resistance, all of which have direct beneficial consequences on the environment. The schism I highlighted is why environmentalists are against something that is apparently in tune with their demands ?
W
Will
Guest
- Thread starter
- #79
Yeah, that is right. Its the anti-capitalists talking out against GM. But I do agree with serveral of the main arguments against.
Admittedly, the ground maize thing is what surprises me. That single-handly gets around all the reasons I can come up with to avoid GM.
Admittedly, the ground maize thing is what surprises me. That single-handly gets around all the reasons I can come up with to avoid GM.
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #80
It might be genetically modified in such a way that even when ground down it can grow new plants. And kill off native varieties with poison tentacles.
Think about it !!
:uhoh:
I blame Bill Gates and George W Bush.
Think about it !!
:uhoh:
I blame Bill Gates and George W Bush.
T
Testin da Cable
Guest
- Thread starter
- #81
you were thinking hentai tentacle rap0r weren't you you dirty bast 
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #82
I wasn't. But I am now
*disgrace self*
That's America's fault too If they didn't make all that japanese pr0n I'd be a clean boy !!
*disgrace self*
That's America's fault too
If they didn't make all that japanese pr0n I'd be a clean boy !!
T
Testin da Cable
Guest
- Thread starter
- #83
tell me about it. *sighs*
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #84
Agreed
*wipes*
*wipes*
T
Testin da Cable
Guest
- Thread starter
- #85
*flick off on potted plant*
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #86
*go even more off-topic*
T
Testin da Cable
Guest
- Thread starter
- #87
*force-feed Wij GM'd tentacle-grain*
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #88
Nooooooooo. Evil American Corporate Government CIA operatives are trying to alienise me with GM radioactive crops !!!1
Y
~YuckFou~
Guest
- Thread starter
- #89
co><0r that glows in the dark.
T
Testin da Cable
Guest
- Thread starter
- #90
What is Wij bodypainted with day-glo??
WIN!!1
WIN!!1