I agree with all your points... I can't remember if I intended to put a "not" in that sentence, but I didn't word it well.... I should have stated that the issue is the specific "type" of modification not the fact that genes are modified. In Monsanto's case, conveying resistance to an herbicide which they own all the IP and manufacturing base for. The issue is not modifying the genes, it's why, and to what purpose.

The university of Hawaii modified the genes of a Papaya to convey direct resistance to a disease (ringspot virus) that was threatening the entire species of crop on the island. That modification adds more value and has less chance of harm than the Monsanto modification. ( Side story... crazy eco-terrorists have destroyed Papaya crops in Hawaii due to their ignorance on the topic. )

I didn't mean a single committee in a literal sense. I was more implying an approval process for the release of genetic modifications. Similar to how the FDA has a drug approval process now. That said... the FDA process is currently not ideal and is ripe with corruption. Perhaps we can use the conversation on GMO approval to re-build both processes and begin to rein in some of the corrupt actors. No approval process will be perfect and exempt from corruption, but that's not a reason to not try. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

I don't "religiously believe" anything, being a scientist, atheist, and a skeptic... You have brought up an entirely different corporate overreach that goes beyond this single issue. Allowing corporations to legally protect genes ( and other designs ) as IP is a big detriment to innovation in general. This is true not only in the GMO space.

I do think that regulations are appropriate and somewhat effective. Like any common rule of civilization, those rules will be open to corruption and manipulation. I am not ignorant of that. I agree that liability for harm is also a tool that can be used to change corporate behaviour. However, that tool comes with its own disadvantages. Primarily, it is fundamentally reactive, and not proactive. Harm must be caused and suffering must occur at some scale before liability is great enough to prompt a change in behaviour.

One example of a simple yet effective change in Intellectual Property law that helps innovation is disallowing certain things from being patentable. In Europe, software patents are not allowed. Simple and effective. I believe we should not allow GMO sequences to be patentable. Simple, and transformative. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but it would stop Monsanto from being able to sue farmers. Instead they would have to actually provide value to farmers for them to buy and use their farming products.

The largest issue with GM crops right now is the modification itself. Its highly unlikely the gene that coveys resistance to âoeround-upâ is dangerous.... what is dangerous is dumping hundreds of tons of round-up herbicide on everything!!

We just need an approval committee for GM work.
Story 1)
âoeHi committee , we at Monsanto would like to release a GM crop that is resistant to an herbicide. Oh and by the way we have a patent on the herbicide too...

Story 2)
âoeHi committee, we here at the university of Hawaii have created a GM papaya that conveys a direct resistance to a virus that is wiping out crops.â

Genetic Modification is a powerful tool. It can be used responsibly. We as a society need to regulate and ensure responsible use over dangerous corporate greed.

That's not true. The KGB guy, Alexander Litvinenko, was poisoned with Polonium 210, which is a near pure alpha emitter with a small bit of gamma. He died from acute alpha radiation poisoning. The gamma is very detectable, you just have to know enough to look for it. After they figured that out they were able to accurately estimate the intake dosage from a gamma ray measurement.

Really? That is pretty petty. There is a bug here with posting from an iPhone on safari dealing with quotes. I did not know about it until I posted. I guess that makes all my other thoughts invalid..... harsh world.

This design seems like DRM for personal data. Which is fine for things I would never share, like a TODO list. As soon as you wish to share information the receivers need a way to decrypt it. Just like DRM is broken by design, since the purchaser needs to actually play the song, so will this.

I just donâ(TM)t think the protection of data Is the problem. Itâ(TM)s the motives of companies that provide ease of data creation, and consumption, that are the issue. For this to work, well funded, highly regulated non-profits would need to mange it, and create the interfaces. Maybe Iâ(TM)m an old cranky pessimist, but I donâ(TM)t see that happening.

If you aren't reporting this fraud. You are part of the problem.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Foig.ssa.gov%2Freport-fraud-waste-or-abuse%2Ffraud-waste-and-abuse

The quoted and linked article with the original article explains it a bit.... Here is a summary... When we started making jet fighters we had lots and lots of crashes, but they weren't from mechanical issues, so that seemed like pilot error, but the pilots didn't really think they were doing anything wrong. The cockpit design they were using was from 1926 and based on un-adjustable controls with positioning calculated from the "average pilot". While the upper management at the military was arguing about the costs of redesigning the planes engineerings invented adjustable seats and controls and pilots stopped crashing so much.

This, this, this. A million times over. Humans are really bad at estimating real risk, are even worse at comprehending scale, and tend to fear the exotic or unknown. Nuclear power gets the triple whammy here.

Real Risk: The health/death risk of Nuclear power to the public is so vanishingly small it disappears on any graph you can create. There have been 9 or 10 deaths in the 60 odd years of civilian nuclear energy in the US. None by radiation. About half by electrocution ( they are electric plants... ) and the half by physical events, pressure explosions, heavy things falling.

Scale: 100 Nuclear power plants have produced about 20% of the entire US electric grid for the past 60 years. In contrast, 600 coal plants produce about 40% of our needs. On top of that each coal plant needs a constant supply of coal, and much more land to operate. The land use efficiency of Nuclear is much, much better. As far as the Nuclear waste argument, here again, failing at comprehending scale. The spent fuel rods consumed for the past 60 years of nuclear power would fit into a single house.

I would like to give some credit where credit is due, and where reasonable regulations apply. Airliners are extremely safe because of the NTSB doing amazing work, getting to the bottom of every major crash and then back feeding that information into actionable fixes. The same goes for the NRC. I am hugely pro-nuclear power, but also believe the NRC is an important part of that environment.

I had someone give me an iphone 4 last year where a child playing with the phone had accidentally deleted all the pictures. My task was to recover all the deleted pictures. It took me a few hours, mainly because I had never done anything with an iphone before. The process that worked invovled booting the phone with a different bootloader and breaking the encryption key. Most of the information and software to accomplish this can be found with a few minutes of searching.

Society needs a punching bag. Preferably an enormous, lard filled, squishy one.

Like they did before. All the professors told them it was a bad idea when the site was proposed. Someone should tell the people in charge of Yale that they have pretty smart professors. They would be more efficient and do a better job if they took their advice.

Students evaluate classes and professors in extremely bias ways. Usually based on well they did in the class. Class was too hard for some entitled rich teenager? I can see the review now... "This class sucks!" Do you remember college? Put yourself in the role of a professor. Would you really want your annual evaluation based on the thoughts of a bunch of immature emotional teenagers? The entire idea of using student evaluations is flawed. Sharing the data openly is just plain dumb.

There wouldn't be any criminal liability. The casualty would be classified as an industrial accident. The new sub department of the NTSB that handles automated cars would investigate the incident. The results would serve to change the protocols and make the self driving car industry safer. _IF_ an NTSB investigation shows gross negligence on behalf of the car manufacturer, that would open up the possibility for criminal charges against executives at the company.

As a side note. Do you think you would get criminally charged _today_ if you "accidentally" veered onto a side walk and ran over a couple of children?

The parent would be responsible for the actions of their minor children under their supervision. If the parent is not the owner of the insurance policy of the vehicle, the policy owner, or the insurance company itself, may attempt to recover damages from the parent.

Obviously each case is different, and lawyers will have some work. Your hypothetical situation is similar to the "brake shift interlock" issue that went through the courts a few years ago. Parents argued that it was unsafe to be able to shift a vehicle out of park without depressing the brake after several children were injured and caused damage by doing so. I believe the interlock is now a mandated safety device.

I think people are over complicating this to death. It doesn't matter how magic the technology is. Insurance is black, cold, flat risk assessment. Nothing more. Everything else is details, and the lawyers will _continue_ to make plenty of money on that whether we ride horses, or have automated flying cars.

The change will happen slowly, organically, over time. A self driving car will behave statistically as a very safe driver. Ownership of a self driving car should bestow upon you lower insurance rates. If the current insurance companies balk at the idea, the private market will take over and "self driving only" insurance companies will gladly take their place. Eventually, as more and more share of vehicles are self driving the size of the insurance industry will shrink significantly.

I see no reason to change the liability burden away from the "Driver". It may seem counter intuitive, but you are gaining economic advantage by using your self driving car. For that advantage, you accept the risks, and insure yourself against them. That said, operating a self driving car will/should carry significantly less risk and liability then driving yourself around does now.

That does not mean that the car makers are off the hook. Just like today, if a vehicle mechanically malfunctions in a way that the car maker is found responsible, the insurance company may attempt to subrogate the claim to them.