Or maybe they read it like I did and see zero proof of anything besides republican gullibility.
Nothing there but whining that the process he (Nunez) set up isn't fair when used against his friend, and insinuations that all Federal law enforcement is a liberal conspiracy working for Hillary....patently ridiculous to the point of clinical paranoia if believed.

No one needs marching orders to see reality besides cultists....I noticed you had to wait for yours before replying....those orders, keep shouting bombshell and pretending you understand how this is indisputable proof that Trump is innocent and why you agree federal law enforcement needs to have loyalty testing monthly, with less that perfect loyalty to Trump meaning expulsion.

dr peterson is a professor of psychology at university of toronto,and former harvard professor.

i like him but often disagree with some of his criticisms,but he does source all his claims on his website and his books.

though his book "maps of meaning" is a bit of a slog.

one thing i admire about peterson is his careful use of words,which is where the interviewer was getting tripped up.

she was not really listening,and was instead reacting based on assumptions,rather than his actual words.which is why she kept with the "so what you're saying.."

the extreme left has labeled peterson an "alt-right" demagogue and a "transphobe" but both of these allegations are patently ridiculous with even a tertiary examination of what peterson is saying.

you don't have to agree with him,but as this interviewer found out,presume at your own risk.

he will may you pay for your presumptions and arrogance.

i find both dr peterson and dr haidt invaluable in understanding the psychology of human societies.peterson is an evolutionary psychologist while haidt focuses on moral psychology.

but what do i know..i am just a ghetto white trash kid from the burbs.
still interesting.

Being held accountable for what we do is a good thing, but ignoring degrees and distinctions can turn it bad.

Weinstein out of a position of power, out of a job, and quite possibly into jail: good. Deserved, and sends an important message to those that might want to abuse their power in similar ways in the future. Precedent set -- however things worked before, we won't stand for that shit anymore.

Louis CK out of favor, and on record for doing creepy things which reduces opportunity to continue doing said creepy things. Also removed from positions where he could exert pressure to "consent" to said creepery where consent likely wouldn't be granted if the threat of job repercussions wasn't implied or patently stated. Again, good outcome -- in my opinion including the fact that he likely won't face criminal charges while Weinstein may.


Franken, on the other hand, was held accountable for actions in a way that I found troublesome for two reasons:

1) He was under scrutiny for past actions, yet placed under the judgement of current (bleeding edge current, even) behavioral standards. That is trending towards ex-post-facto law. I can't pass a law in December making it illegal to wear white shirts, then throw you in jail for having worn a white shirt in November before the law was in effect.

It isn't the same thing because sexual harassment has been illegal all along, and because he wasn't really facing legal trouble, just professional / political trouble -- where "ex-post-facto" judgments aren't prohibited. Still, it seems like when standards change we should try to limit judgement under current standards to current behavior. There's a reason why it works that way in law.


2) Furthermore, a lot of the scrutiny Franken was under completely stripped the behavior from context. Context is extremely important. That's why Weinstein "asking" women to "consent" to his rapey behavior wasn't OK, even though asking for consent is sort of the baseline "good"/expected behavior -- they weren't actually completely free to tell him to shove it.

Ignoring the context of Franken's behavior means that it is immaterial that he was working for the USO at the time, where on-stage suggestive stuff and raunchiness was/is pretty much the whole idea. Immaterial that on-stage "groping and kissing" stuff may well have been scripted as such, and basically consented to by the actors -- part of the show.

Combine that with ignoring degrees of offense, and we're listing Franken's name in the same sentence with Louis CK and Harvey Weinstein, which is ridiculous. Franken "had to" be a sacrificial lamb to demonstrate that Democrats are willing to walk the walk as well as talk the talk on this issue -- but did he really?

If more Democrats were willing to "tell it like it is", as I'd argue Maher is doing here, Franken could have said that the photo where he mimed groping a sleeping Karri Turner was a mistake, a joke in poor taste done in the context of an entire tour that seems in poor taste by modern standards, and that could have been the end of it. He could still be in office, and the Democrat party at large would have been better off, as would the net balance in Congress with regards to women's issues.

But nope. Context, distinction, and degrees are all meaningless, so Franken's name is in that same list of dirty sleazeball asshole men, no asterisks or footnotes necessary. I don't think the outcome of that game goes in a favorable direction.

I think the insulin patent made in Canada was developed and sold for $1.00. Corporations are starting to run the world more and more. I'm hoping there will be leaders like Musk who try to get the civilization enhancing products to the people. If you invest you might want to ask some questions, if you lead a company it would be moral to try to help humanity. Unfortunately people like the dude who started charging 5000% or whatever it was on iirc AIDS drugs are out there in large numbers. I often fear for humanity, but I won't be around to see it's extinction I hope.

Your video, The question of patenting parts of the human genome., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

There are parts of this video that felt very much like Pro-Monsanto propaganda, though I think the feel was supposed to feel non-biased.

The idea that anyone should be able to patent natural living organisms is plain wrong in my opinion. It wasn't theirs to start with.

So when I hear that they can patent variations or modificatioons, then I start to worry about what happens when the Modified version overtakes and eliminates the natural organism. Using Corn as an example, It's just a matter of time before natural organisms will no longer exist. At least not the ones that we use.

So basically, it's just a waiting game that corporations with the money and technology have to play before they will, in the end, own everything.

Morally wrong in the end.

I did qualify it in my part of the description! The Benz Patent Motor car was still pretty early, predating volume production of either electric or steam cars (in the modern sense of passenger vehicles) which both took off in the 1890s.

I doubt steam will be the first company with verifiably active software out there that it still being used past the reasonable lifetime of the licencee.

My prediction is that someone will see a business opportunity in buying up licence enforcement rights and doing what patent trolls do today... threaten to bring hell down on everyone whose licence is over, say, 30 years old unless they pay a relatively small (possibly recurring) amount to relicence. Even genuine licencees would need to produce proof under pressure.

My suggestion to someone enterprising who has too much moral fibre for the above is to somehow patent this as a business method, wait for the practice to become slightly established, then bring righteous justice down in a fiery rain of lawyers.

As crappy as Jobs was, was he really also a patent thief?

Ugh - how to I start this:

First, not many Republicans are "right wing" any more. Many vote against free markets and Capitalism and vote for social engineering, wealth redistribution, and growing the size of the Government.

There are a few true right wingers left, but the establishment Republicans are not right wing at all if you test their voting habits against what it means to be on the right side of the political spectrum.

Also, I patently reject that notion that all racists are Republican. If you think racism only happens in the white community I suggest you open Youtube and simply search the term "kill whites".

Not too long ago, David Duke, a major KKK leader of some sort, was a Democrat in Congress.

My point is the only reason these people are voting Republican right now is because the social engineering of the left is seen as anti-white, which I am certain makes it untenable for a white racist to vote for that candidate/party.

Genius!
Patent?
Would be amazing to get automakers to implement this into their vehicles. Because cars are not one dimensional, so why should the horn?

: )

I continue to be amused by the long lines of "inventors" of new gadgets, gizmos and things that go bing that are very simply re-discovering items that already exist. Case in point, the button hook, the button loop, the fastener loop or other names as it was known being rediscovered here. The original button hook, serving the same purpose as this device, was patented in 1851, with many variants following. Give yourself a pat on the back kids, and don't forget to pick up your trophy.

OK, sorry to spam here, but I found another relevant link:
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/12/14/gmo-patent-controversy-terminator-genes-seed-piracy-forcing-farmers-buy-seeds/

That confirms that "terminator seeds" are a technology that does exist -- in practice as well as theory -- but isn't commercially sold or otherwise available.

More importantly, it mentions that there is a legal sort of "license agreement" that farmers sign when they buy the GM seed stating that they won't replant harvested stuff in the future, and that they can inspect your storage areas etc. if they suspect you are doing so. That would explain why my family worked hard to clean out storage areas that had grain resulting from GM seed. I erroneously thought that was because that grain was sterile.

Those agreements are for a single crop / harvest, so it is definitely possible to use a GM seed one year and then go back to non-GM seed in other years, as my family does. I guess that we just have to keep good records to show that we're not holding any back for future planting / sale.

Sorry for the several LONG posts, and thanks to @Hastur for asking the question that got me to figure out the misconception I had!

**EDIT**
I'm finding other sources that say that sterile "terminator seeds" are a patented technique, but that Monsanto has promised not to use it. Straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/terminator-seeds.aspx

So it appears that my info below is wrong. I will try to talk with my family and get the full story. That being said, I'll leave my original comment and the followup below unaltered.
*********


My firsthand knowledge of this stuff was from more than 10 years ago, and also when I was pretty young (early 20's). So I did some web searching to try to get updated since your question is a very interesting one:

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html

According to that, Monsanto is the company behind "Roundup Ready", and their corn (and other crops in the line) do use sterile "terminator seeds". It also mentions that farmers "must purchase the most recent strain of seed from Monsanto" each year.

I was never in the decision-making structure of my family farm, but I did remember that we couldn't just buy the Roundup Ready seed *once* and then hold a small amount back as seed for the next year and continue to get the benefits.

I'm not 100% sure exactly how the modification for sterility works -- I don't know if the plant will sprout if you plant the sterile seeds and just fail to produce any ears / fruit, or if it just won't germinate at all. I do remember that we had to be quite careful to fully clean out the corn grown from the GM seeds from our storage bins, and better yet to store our non-GM corn to be used for future seed in entirely different bins. That was done to make sure that we didn't end up planting any of the sterile stuff.

I'm sure that the seed dealers that sell the GM stuff really push farmers to buy and plant it every year, as hinted to in that link. But you certainly don't *have* to. On the other hand, if you go back to non-GM seed for a year or two or more, you can't use a strong herbicide like Roundup if you have an unexpected outbreak of weeds or other pest plants -- the Roundup would kill the non-GM crop along with everything else.

Basically, I don't specifically begrudge companies like Monsanto for their practices concerning these GM crops. The "terminator seeds" are controversial, but don't seem like a big deal to me. If you could buy GM seeds once and then just hold back some of your harvest for next season's seed, they'd only get your money once AND we'd probably lose the original strains. So I see that as kinda win-win, especially if you don't 100% buy into their sales department urging you to use GM seed every single year.

I don't want to sound like a shill for Monsanto -- some of their other practices are pretty shady, particularly political lobbying. But from the perspective of my family farm, the GM corn that we use was/is a real beneficial thing. Significantly less pesticide/herbicide use over time, and it allows for expanded low/no till farming. Before herbicides, tilling was one of the only ways to kill off pest plants. But, it also makes the fields lose some moisture and nutrients. Expanded farming and ubiquitous tilling was largely the cause of the "dust bowl" dirty 30's. Anyway, I'd say that a lot of good has come out of modernized techniques and technology like GM crops.