Search This Blog

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Google Glass = Borg

Watch this "Google Glass" video on the Mirror API.  The first thing he talks about are people at events holding up their phones to record things.

I'm sure you've seen it - just watch the first few minutes of the video.


So I guess when you don't like things like this:


You'd rather go with something like this:


Nice, eh?

Rather than put down your stupid phone and actually watch or listen to what's on stage let's let technology do it for us...

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

More Monsanto Roundup Problems: Its in Your Urine.

As if my last post wasn't enough we now find Roundup (glyphosate) in the urine of city dwellers.

(See this link for full details - posted October 23, 2012.)

From the link: "Now, results from a German study shows that people who have no direct contact with agriculture have significant concentrations of glyphosate in their urine. It's becoming quite apparent that genetically engineered crops are a source of multiple toxins, in addition to having been found to contain far lower levels of nutrients. So much for saving the world from starvation. "

The study is here (as a Google QuickView).

Glyphosate is sloshed over crops, its in the dirt, on the equipment, etc. etc.

Its not real good for you (from the link at the top):

Glyphosate works by inhibiting an enzyme called EPSP synthase that is necessary for plants to grow, causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at far lower levels than used in agricultural and garden applications.5 The malformations primarily affected the:
  •     Skull
  •     Face
  •     Midline and developing brain
  •     Spinal cord
...

The journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, the highest MRL for glyphosate in food and feed products in the EU is 20 mg/kg. Genetically engineered soybeans have been found to contain residue levels as high as 17 mg/kg, and malformations in frog and chicken embryos occurred at 2.03 mg/kg6 – that's 10 times lower than the MRL!

Glyphosate also has been linked to a variety of other problems such as destroying necessary pathogens in the soil, causing treated crops to use too much water, and other problems.

Just more reasons I don't consume soybean oil in any form.

Monsanto: Weaponizing GMO DNA Against You

A few years ago I wrote "Weaponized Intellectual Property" and "Genetic Engineering: It's What's for Dinner."

These were articles about how patent trolls (like Monsanto) could create situations where you could be sued for something they owned that ended up in your possession through a means outside your control.

But today Monsanto has one-upped the trolls.

Their game is to ensure that self replicating items like seed that contain their patented DNA remain their property no matter what.

This includes if someone sells them to others.

This also includes the case where your non-Monsanto seeds are "inoculated" by winds carrying DNA from Monsanto seeds in a nearby field.

The case is in the Supreme court (see this at the NY Times).

Some shlub thought he could escape Monsanto's grip by going to a grain elevator and buying some random soybeans.

He reasoned that neighbors had signed Monsanto contracts (as had he) to use the seeds as had he.

(The contract prohibits you from "saving" the seeds to replant next year as they are Monsanto's property.)

So the neighbors sold the seeds to a grain elevator.

Who sold them to this schlub.

Who planted them and found that low and behold some Round Up Ready soybeans survived.

Now Monsanto is suing the schlub for what amounts to theft of their "patented property."

So how are those who sold the seeds to the grain elevator in the first place not guilty.

They signed a contract not to save seeds - but they did.

Then they sold them to a third party who could not identify what seeds were Monsanto seeds and what seeds were not - the Monsanto GMO seeds look the same as the those which are not.

So this guy bought them.

Oops!

The schlub is holding the bag even though he did not violate his contract by saving seeds.

Should Monsanto win this case it will open the floodgates of "intellectual property" troll lawsuits.

Today IP trolls have been largely squashed by the judicial system - in part because they are wrong for what they are trying to do but also because there is no case law supporting their idea.

But a wrong decision here by the Supreme Court will seal your fate.

The current troll notion is that no matter how it got there if your computer contains someone else's IP then you can be sued regardless of intent.

Now this is truly nonsense.

Criminal law, for the most part, requires that you have intent when you do something wrong.

For example:  If there is an item in your car that was stolen it matters if you bought it in good faith at a yard sale or bought it off a known thief.  (There are exemptions for deals that are "too good to be true" but if you are paying a reasonable fee for something that in no way appears to be stolen then intent is on your side.)

But today's Monsanto lawyers want this swept away.

If you possess "it" - whatever "it" is - and "it" contains their IP (copyrighted or patented) then you're guilty.

Now imagine the fun.

Opt-in emails or bit coins or diddly bunks from some computer game are infused with weaponized IP - perhaps a snippet of a copywritten song or some patented code.

The emails or bit coins or diddly bunks happily store themselves in the "cloud" and subsequently install themselves on your iPads, andriod phones, Apple TV, etc.

Shazzam!

An IP lawyer sues you because you have "stolen" their client's IP.  Even though the emails, bit coins or diddly bunks installed themselves without your direction on your devices.

This idiot Roberts is worried about how much money you can make - not about what's right or wrong:

“Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?” 

In the past hybrid seeds were created by university ag departments for the benefit of the community and the world.

If the seed DNA escaped and made the world a better place so much the better.  (Generally since these were hybrids bred from standard seed stock there was no real downside.)

But Monsanto's DNA can now be anywhere: in soybean oil, in your food, in your body, anywhere.

Yes, people do eat soybeans directly: Edamame.

And if it integrates itself into your body (in your DNA, in your gut, in the bacteria that live inside you) this potential new law will say you have stolen their intellectual property (something like this is just one mutation away...).

Perhaps I can integrate some of my patented computer code into a seed and release it into the wind.

Then I can sue anybody that has that seed growing in their yard.

What insanity!

Do you think Monsanto will claim "ownership" of this GMO DNA if it does something bad somewhere along the line?

I can hear the lawyers now: "Oh no, your honor, its a natural seed in a natural world - we have no control over it."

Patenting things which control themselves is insane.

So is messing with their DNA - look up how "Round Up Ready" was done in the lab via "cut and paste" - the potential for a bad downside is I think significant.   No study, no analysis of risk, just get that patented shit out their so we can make our investment back ASAP!

Soybean seeds are alive.  No one knows how or why they are soybeans - they just exist as part of nature.

They reproduce themselves as part of nature.

From what I can tell the Surpreme court is full of idiots.  Idiots who cannot see the implications of what is before them.

Certainly I agree that Monsanto created the seeds and their magic DNA in the first place.

That's not the problem.

The problem is what the seeds do on their own outside the control of Monsanto.

But you can bet Monsanto won't be taking responsibility for that if it turns out badly...

Its also been argued that this case is like acquiring a song and then giving a copy to all your friends for free.

Wrong.

Its like downloading a song that then replicates itself like a virus onto all your computer and through the network to other peoples houses.

Big difference.

But one that escapes the idiots at the US Supreme Court.

Too bad.

The Supreme Court got the decisions about Promethius Laboratories right - no patenting natural processes.

So the question here is this.

Is the seeds reproduction a natural process?  After all soybeans were reproducing long before the 1980's when Monsanto's GMO work came along.

Or does the funky new DNA Monsanto injected into them somehow trump natural reproduction?

The seeds existed before Monsanto so my guess is that this fact should/would have to trump everything else.

GMO Monsanto "Round Up Ready" soybean DNA is in virtually everything you eat that's manufactured in some way.

Is this really a good idea?

PS: If you read the accounts of how it was created Monsanto exposed some living organism (bacteria I think) to ever-increasing doses of glyphosate over time.  After the organisms could "tolerate" high levels they cut and pasted until they had soybeans doing the same.

Did they really invent this?

No - the organism evolved a tolerance on its own.

I think there are some links to the original patents on some of my related posts.

Monday, February 18, 2013

The Bread Comes in the Mail...

In the mid 1930's the US population was about 125 million people.

Unemployment was, at its peak, about 12 million people or slightly less than 10%.

Today unemployment in the US is much less than 10% - more like 7.8%.

But with 48 million on food stamps we have 15% of the population on government assistance.

Worse than the Great Depression.

Bu we see no food lines today.

Why?

Because food stamps come in the mail (or on your ACCESS card)...

No waiting in line.

Problem solved.

Everything is just wonderful because we don't see the problem!


Thursday, February 14, 2013

Urine: Transmitting Pharmaceuticals Via Our Water Systems

A few years ago I wrote "Sharks on Birth Control?"  It describes how modern birth control medications are found in wild sharks from the open ocean.

It turns out that many medications we consume do not get fully processed in our bodies and they are often excreted via urine unchanged (our bodies simply do not use them all).

Modern sewage treatment plants do not use any processes to remove or neutralize these medications - most of these medical compounds where invented after the modern sewage treatment mechanisms we use today were put into large scale use - so they simply pass on through and into the environment.

Virtually all sewage plants emit effluent into waterways - either a river, lake or ocean - so that's were these compounds end it.

An individual can excrete only a tiny amount which would normally be inconsequential - but with what I'd estimate to be at least a half a billion women peeing out birth control compounds each day the micrograms of medication start to add up (from this I estimated a half billion women - 20% of the women on all continents save Africa and Antartica use these products).

It would seem today that indeed fish exposed to things like anxiety medications in fact have measurably altered behavior (see this from the Washington post).

Birth control medications enter the water systems via urine.  Other compounds, such as anxiety medications, enter these systems via disposal via from unglamorous means such as being "flushed down the toilet."

Like cell phones used by teens to "sext" it would seem the consequences of these modern medications are only now coming to light.

Since these compounds have been in our water systems for decades even experiments described in the article by the Washington Post are suspect because no one knows how long the fish being used in the experiments described have been exposed to these drugs.

Little wonder the big pharma companies want nothing to do with the environmental consequences of these medications.

Science, the Divine, Dogma and Mystery

Becher - Phlogiston Theory - Wikipedia
We start off with Missouri House Bill #291 introduced by representatives Brattin (Sponsor), Koenig and Bahr (Cosponors) - link via this Ars Technica article by John Timmer.

The bill outlines some interesting definitions:

Scientific Theory - an inferred explanation of incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy. The inferred explanation may be proven, mostly proven, partially proven, unproven or false and may be based on data which is supportive, inconsistent, conflicting, incomplete, or inaccurate. The inferred explanation may be described as a scientific theoretical model;

Scientific Law - a statement describing specific phenomena about the physical universe which has been verified by observation or experimentation and has no exceptions of verified empirical data. The statement may be described by formula;

Standard Science - knowledge disclosed in a truthful and objective manner and the physical universe without any preconceived philosophical demands concerning origin or destiny. Knowledge is based upon verified empirical data obtained through observation and experimentation and serves as the factual basis for formulae, events, processes, principles, and laws and may be a component of theory, hypothesis, conjecture and extrapolation. Knowledge growth as a result of human endeavor serves as the foundation for the continuous reevaluation of theory, hypothesis, conjecture, and extrapolation to determine their correctness based on supporting or conflicting verified empirical data.

Timmer objects to these definitions, the "Scientific Theory" in particular, and serves up the Wikipedia definition of "scientific theory" as a more proper definition (from Wikipedia):

The United States National Academy of Sciences (USNAS) defines scientific theories as follows:

    The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed
.
 The Ars author Timmer, who according to his bio, spent "15 years doing research at places like Berkeley and Cornell" dislikes the Brattin definition of "scientific theory" presumably because later on Brattin uses it as a means of injecting "Intelligent Design" into Missouri text books.

So let's look at the USNAS version.

Its explicitly says that definition of a (presumably) scientific theory is "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."

The Brattin definition is to me much clearer and does not conflict with the Academy of Sciences version.

What I think Timmer does not like is that Brattin's version explicitly lays bare the truth about science: its incomplete and the best explanation we have based on limited knowledge made up of "data, logic, and faith-based philosophy."

The USNAS version implies the notion of a "vast body of evidence" makes science right.  It then goes on to provide examples.

One I find particularly interesting is "matter is composed of atoms."

While this is "true" at a certain level it is no more true than matter is "earth, air, fire and water."

The "earth, air, fire and water" explanation acceptable to ancients who had no notion of atoms.

The atom explanation acceptable to those without apparent knowledge of quarks and quantum mechanics.

Timmer's world would have us believe that "atoms" are an acceptable notion for what things are made of because its supported by a "vast body of evidence" I suppose.

But Brattin's explanation of scientific theory is much more flexible and correct: it admits that some elements of explanation, quarks, quantum mechanics might be unclear (for example, what quantum mechanics means when you think about things like the "Observer Effect," entanglement, faster-than-light communication, and the implications of quantum mechanics as they apply to the macro (non-quantum) world).

Would Timmer have us believing still in "phlogiston theory?"

Apparently the USNAS version of theory doesn't account for new ideas replacing old ones.

The real problem is that quantum things like the Observer Effect makes it clear that we, as the observers in science, can and do affect what we observe.  And there is also the domain of theories of "consciousness" which are, by nature, observer dependent because the only observer of a conscious mind is the person who inhabits it.

Another problem is one of "scope" - yes, at some level - perhaps 1965 third grade science atoms make up the entire universe.  But only from the third grade perspective.  Simultaneously someone in graduate school in 1965 might have been advancing quantum theory or the understanding of quarks.

Is the third grader wrong?  Or is the third grader just working at a level of scope commensurate with his mental capability?  Does that make him wrong?

These things and others make at least some of what is called science today, at least by USNAS, fall outside the simple observation/hypothesis/theory model.  (For example, there is no known reason why macro objects cannot and/or do not behave like quantum objects.)

Over all I reject the Timmer model of constrained science.

Science is about truth.

Science is about mystery.

Science is also about "scope."

So who is to say that, at some level of scope, a religious perspective of the universe is wrong?

Certainly this is no different than trying to wrap up the notion of an "observer" in quantum mechanics.

Today's scientists certainly don't seem qualified to address these larger issues.

Instead it seems like "they" have a vested interest in keeping the definition narrow in order to keep the dogma where it is.

I think that we do a disservice to our children when we boil the world down to standard scientific "dogma" for them.

What does this do to their sense of wonder (I wonder)?

Quantum physics shows us that the standard scientific model is not going to hold up in the long run.

So how can anyone rule Divinity out of science - is it any more mysterious than quantum physics?

Today's science is not science.

Its "Facebook" - let's all click "Like" if we think this should be standard dogma.

But the Timmer's of the world should take a lesson from Facebook.

Just because everyone "Like's" something doesn't mean that its true...




Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Mother May I... Have a Flu Shot

Joseph Gobbels - Wikipedia
 I constantly receive random 1-800 calls at work.

Here's one...  (transcribed by the voice mail system)

Date    : Feb 13 2013 03:47:07 PM
From    : Name Unavailable (1800555____)
To    : The Lone Wolf  (1724555____)

"This UPMC health plan calling with an important health message for season is upon us. Make sure to cover your mouth when you sneeze, wash your hands frequently and most importantly prevent the flu by getting a flu shot. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that every one age 6 months and older get a flu shot. You can get your flu shot at your doctor's office, pharmacy or at a local flu clinic. Thank you"

The ministry of propaganda is at it again.

Flu shots, as I wrote here recently, are scientifically useless (have no measurable effect).   Basically they are magical thinking by the CDC (as I wrote in "Flu Shots and Magical Thinking" a few years ago).  Their own web sites and statistics don't even make logical sense.

I pay a good bit each month (and soon I will be forced to pay each month) for what used to be called "health insurance."

And these very idiots are calling me, with my money, to tell me that some idiot or idiots in my government want me to "conform" to their model of useless treatment even though their treatment is proven to be useless.

(Of course, there may be some placebo effect from the vaccine but that's hard to measure.  I could take a sugar pill and convince myself of the same thing and receive the same effect...)

How about using my money to get the CDC to stop with the flu shot nonsense entirely.

How about some actual research on the flu?

How about you stop nagging me to do something useless.

And no one questions this stupidity...  No, not at all. 

Flu shots are good for you!

Just like gas ovens.

Personally I've found proper health and nutrition much more effective than anything else I have done in my life to make me healthy.

Doctors today don't receive nutritional training in medical school.