There are many, many laws having nothing to do with government, that are useful to know because they tell you something about how the universe works. There are Newton’s laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle’s law, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, among dozens more. Most of these laws have been known for a long time, but it wasn’t until a mere nineteen years ago that Godwin’s Law was written.
If you’ve ever been involved in a discussion on Usenet, or have been following politics in the past decade or so, you’ve probably encountered Godwin’s Law. While Godwin’s Law is, alas, as true today as it was then, it seems unfortunate that there aren’t more widely-accepted axioms to help us geeks define the characteristics of our world.
To that end, then, here are ten geeky laws (axioms) that should exist, but don’t… at least, they didn’t until now:
1. Munroe’s Law: A person in a geeky argument who can quote xkcd to support his position automatically wins the argument. This law supersedes Godwin, so that even if the quote is about Hitler, the quoter still wins.
2. Lucas’s Law: There is no movie so beloved that a “special edition,” prequel or sequel cannot trample and forever stain its memory.
3. Tolkien and Rowling’s Law: No reasonably faithful movie adaptation of a book will ever be quite as good as the book it adapts. Thus great movie adaptations can only be made out of truly amazing books.
4. Somers and McCarthy’s Law: There is no dangerous unscientific theory so preposterous that no celebrity will espouse and advocate it.
5. Jobs’s Law: No matter how well last year’s cool tech gadget still works, it will seem utterly inadequate the moment the new version comes out.
6. Savage and Hyneman’s Law: Blowing stuff up is fun. Blowing stuff up in the name of science is AWESOME.
7. Starbuck’s and Peet’s Law: C8H10N4O2, better known as caffeine, is the most wonderful chemical compound known to humankind. If the field of Chemistry had never identified or produced a single other useful compound, caffeine alone would be justification enough for its existence.
8. Wilbur’s Law: Bacon makes everything better.
9. Comic Book Guy’s Law: There is no detail of a movie too brief or inconsequential to become the subject of an hours-long diatribe.
10. The Unified Geek Theory: At present, the President of the United States, the wealthiest person in the United States, and the most trusted newscaster in the United States are all geeks. At the same time, movies based on comic book characters are routinely taking in hundreds of millions of dollars. The only reasonable conclusion is: We’ve won!There are many, many laws having nothing to do with government, that are useful to... more
I don't believe in religion, I don't believe in God, and I most certainly don't believe in miracles. That being said, despite my disbelief in deity, it is not uncommon for people to be perplexed as to why I still don't believe in their personal "miracles". Here are five reasons to best explain why I don't believe in the miraculous (being defined as "a marvelous event manifesting a supernatural act of a divine agent").
Reason 1: Lack of proof
Theists often say that they have proof of miracles in the bible. What they do not realize is that their holy books prove nothing. The miracles of Moses, Jonah, and Jesus have no more physical proof behind them than the fairy tale "jack and the beanstalk". If you believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, you can only do so by faith, there is no way to prove that that event ever occurred. Some people respond to this with the notion that we need to take the writers word for it. Although it is true that we rely on the method of "taking their word for it" when recording historic texts, it's important to note that I hold those other texts up to the same level of scrutiny. I take peoples word on the documentation of napoleons journey, but if I read that napoleon raised someone from the dead, or turned water into wine, I would be very skeptical.
A far-from-definitive list of the 20 most annoying science and technology errors in films, from slow-moving lasers to extraterrestrials who use Windows Vista.A far-from-definitive list of the 20 most annoying science and technology errors in... more
The most common argument from proponents of GM crops is that genetically engineered food will be necessary to feed a growing world population. They argue that, if the world population continues to grow, it will be necessary to increase crop yield by new technologies, such as genetic engineering.
There is very little evidence to support this argument. In fact, most of the data points in the opposite direction. In 2003, Aaron deGrassi, a researcher at the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex University, published an analysis of the GM crops which biotech companies are developing for Africa.
These included cotton, maize and sweet potato. He discovered that conventional breeding and ecological management produced a far higher yield, at a fraction of the cost of genetic engineering. At that time, the GM research on sweet potato was approaching its 12th year. 12 scientists were involved and the project had already cost €6m. The result indicated that the yield had increased by 18%.
On the other hand, conventional sweet potato breeding, working with a much smaller budget, had produced a virus-resistant variety with 100%. More importantly for small, subsistence farmers, the non-transgenic sweet potato had not been patented. [GMW: It also emerged subsequent to deGrassi's report that the final trial results showed the GM sweet potato had failed completely in term sof both virus resistance and increasing yields.]
A 2007 study, conducted by Kansas State University agronomist Dr Barney Gordon over the past three years, suggests that the yield from RoundupReady soya was 9% less than conventional varieties. A report from the United States Department of Agriculture stated in April 2006 that currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety. In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars.
If GM crops are vital for combating hunger, it seems strange that they have not been endorsed by the Food Security Report from the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) published in 2008.
This report is a collaboration between public bodies such as the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Health Organisation and representatives from governments, NGOs and scientific bodies. It is a thorough sifting of the evidence about agriculture, food production and security, running to 2,500 pages. It took four years to complete, and invoved the work of 400 scientists.
The report does not endorse the claim that GM crops will feed the world. It argues that a drastic change in agricultural practices will be necessary in order to counteract soaring food prices, hunger, social inequality and environmental degradation.
It maintains that GM crops are controversial, and that they will not play a substantial role in addressing the challenge of climate change, loss of biodiversity, food security, poverty and hunger. It did not rule out a role for GM crops in the future, but highlighted the problems which the current regime of patenting seeds has on farmers and researchers.
snip
Robert Watson, the director of the IAASTD, and chief scientist at the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, responded to a question from the Daily Mail – Are GM crops the simple answer to hunger and poverty? with the words – I would argue, no.
The report concludes that 'Assesment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.'
The GM lobby often accuses those opposed to GM as being anti-science. Nothing is further from the truth.
The most common argument from proponents of GM crops is that genetically engineered... more
Help stop the commercial planting of genetically engineered papayas in Florida and the mainland US -- the first major cultivated GE tree on the US mainland.
The US Department of Agriculture is accepting public comments between now and November 3, 2008 on a petition that would allow commercial growing and marketing of the first genetically engineered (GE) papaya trees on mainland US soil. If approved, this would remove all regulatory oversight of this GE variety by USDA of a virus-resistant papaya tree known as the Ring Spot Virus Resistant Papaya.
This petition has implications for all other GE tree species, as the USDA and the industry want to gauge what the public's reaction will be. It is critical that all concerned about the threat of GE foods and GE trees respond to this USDA petition. Several hundred field trials of GE trees have been conducted already, many for forest trees, such as poplar, loblolly pine, and sweetgum, that grow on millions of acres in natural environments across the US.
The USDA admits that this GE papaya will contaminate both organic and conventional non-genetically engineered papaya groves if it is approved. Since all commercial papaya trees are cultivars that are relatively cross compatible within the same species, Carica papaya, contamination via GE papaya pollen carried by wind, bees and other insects will infiltrate the papaya groves of organic and conventional growers. The proposed buffer zones between GE papaya and other papayas will not prevent genetic contamination from being spread by pollinating insects.
Approval of this GE papaya tree also further opens the door to the commercialization of GE varieties of other tropical and subtropical tree species. In Hawaii, a previously approved virus resistant [Hawaiian] papaya has caused extensive contamination of organic, conventional and wild papaya groves on most of the Hawaiian Islands in just a few years. This contamination has spread far more quickly than the USDA predicted in its initial assessment. Once native and cultivated papaya varieties are contaminated with transgenic pollen and the resulting seeds are planted, there is no calling it back.
2. Double click on Docket - APHIS-2008-0054 - at the top of the page
3. Double click on small yellowish box directly below "ADD COMMENTS" in the right hand column
4. Enter public commenter information. You may add attachments to document your concerns!
5. Double click on NEXT STEP under ACTION at page bottom to enter your comments into Docket.
The following comments are in reference to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0054 I oppose the deregulation of genetically engineered papaya trees for the following reasons:
_____________
When will this end? When GE crops have transgenically contaminated the entire natural world and put every other farmer out of business? This is not necessary and needs to be stopped. Please go to the link and post your opinions regarding GE trees.Help stop the commercial planting of genetically engineered papayas in Florida and the... more
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today denounced newly proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules governing genetically engineered crops, including food crops engineered to produce pharmaceutical and industrial products. The proposed rules, UCS charged, would not protect the U.S. food supply from potential contamination by drugs from "pharma" crops, and could allow drugs that it deems "safe" to enter the food supply. This contamination could occur through cross-pollination or seed mixing between pharma food crops and crops intended for consumption.
The USDA ignored recommendations for a ban on the outdoor production of pharma food crops from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, major food companies, UCS, and more than 100 environmental, agricultural, health, and consumer organizations.
Below is a statement by Jane Rissler, UCS's Food and Environment Program deputy director:
"Under the proposed rules, USDA's new motto is 'Only safe levels of drugs in U.S. food.' If these proposals are enacted into law, American consumers must accept the possibility of drugs in their breakfast cereal or other common foods. Moreover, these rules likely will lead to contamination scares, which will hurt the food industry.
"The USDA proposal, unlike the ban we recommended, offers no incentives to drug companies to pursue already existing, safer methods for producing drugs.
"In its rush to enact the proposed rules into law before the end of the Bush administration, the USDA has given short shrift to public participation. The department is allowing only 45 days for the public to analyze and comment on this major proposal, which will determine the government's approach to regulating genetically engineered organisms for years to come.
"The proposed rules also overhaul the existing regulatory system for genetically engineered crops other than pharma crops. Some of the proposed changes represent steps in the right direction such as making the regulatory program more coherent and comprehensive, expanding the scope of genetically engineered organisms subject to government oversight, and allowing the department to consider impacts on public health."
For UCS's Web feature profiling innovative biotechnology companies that are developing drugs more safely, go to
