GJ said about 1 hour later

Think I'm kidding? Go read what Mythbuster Adam Savage has to say: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/mythbusters/articles/mythbuster-adam-savage-sopa-could-destroy-the-internet-as-we-know-it-6620300

---

Geoff said about 2 hours later

Seems to be spreading.

Php.net
Google.com
reddit.com
Wikipedia.com > English

I believe SOPA is dead, PIPA is next.

---

Marc said about 2 hours later

Good post GJ. Another good read on the technical aspects of the bills (broken down from things taken directly from the bill): http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html It's actually not too technical, and I recommend reading it as it makes clear exactly what would be expected of your favorite internet sites and why it's so bad.

These bills are unbelievably dangerous to the well-being of the internet. They in no way aid in the ability to stop piracy, so being against them in no way means you're supporting piracy. If you read all about this and are against it, seriously call your senator(s). Both of the NC senators are for the SOPA and PIPA bills and I haven't been able to get through the phone system yet (hopefully a good thing). I know Kirsten Gillibrand from NY is also in support (potentially Schumer too). If you need numbers to call, check out this site: http://lifeaftersopa.cheezburger.com/

---

Marc said about 2 hours later

SOPA isn't dead, it's been shelved until February. PIPA is just as dangerous though.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

I think Obama said he would VETO it if it came across his desk. Or so I heard, never know what is the truth now a days. I'd be surprised if these actually were put into law. Not to say they won't try again eventually.

---

GJ said 1 day later

Obama would veto it as it sits now, but he would be ok with certain changes. I'm not convinced there's much worth saving in the bill.

Steve said 2 days later

Love it, Awesome!

Marc said about 2 hours later

In America, we shouldn't judge them based on religion. Judge them on their character....actually maybe you should judge them on their religion, probably puts them in a better light.

In before Geoff: Where's Ron Paul?

---

GJ said about 6 hours later

Not judge people on religion? Are you kidding me?

I think it's just a line in the sand. Yours is lower than mine. I'm betting you start judging at the snake-dancing hillbilly Christians, if not earlier.

I don't find the creationists all that much higher on that list from the snake people. If you were more familiar with creobots, you might just knock them down your list a bit. Mormons are pretty looney too, but I don't consider them as bad or scary.

Oh, and Ron Paul is a creobot, too. He's not on this list because he doesn't have a chance. Even the MSM have figured him out by now.

---

Marc said about 7 hours later

Is your line just past religion? :) I'll agree it's a line in the sand, but you gotta be pretty batcrap crazy for me to question you on your beliefs. Michelle Bachman is pretty far past that line, as was Huckabee. When you deny the truth, you lose credibility on everything else.

---

Steve said about 15 hours later

Obama is the best shot we have for us real honest to goodness conservatives. He's the most conservative democrat I can imagine.

---

GJ said 1 day later

On fiscal issues, he sure is. And that's not a bad thing. I do hope he has some game plan in mind for this whole deficit thing, though, as it would appear the Dems still suffer from the "we don't negotiate, we capitulate" approach to politics.

Marc, my line is pretty much just below the mainstream, non-fundamentalist religions. So, for example--regular Catholics, fine. Pentacostals, not fine. The crazy really takes hold at the fundy level.

Dunno if any of you caught Jon Stewarts item on the poor this week. It really trashed the GOP far better than any Dem politician has been able to do. Heck, I'll post it here.

GJ said 18 days later

Note, I would not have supported a trial for Mr. Bin Laden. The best of all possible outcomes was precisely what transpired this past week.

GJ said 1 day later

Yes, we have oddballs on the other side (Dennis Kuchinich, anyone?) However, they don't appear to get the mass appeal that the GOP wingnuts attain.

---

GJ said 2 days later

Geez, Michele, when you want to lie about things, speak in generalities. Give specifics, and your critics will have a field day.

---

Marc said 2 days later

This is kinda why I want Donald Trump to run. I have no doubt that he will lose, but he will most certainly be a huge jerk to the other candidates and call them out, which I would just love to watch.

---

GJ said 2 days later

He's as bad with reality as she is. They'll be calling him out for his as well. :)

---

Marc said 3 days later

Fine by me. If there's gonna be mud slinging, we might as well make it Woodstock. :)

---

GJ said 3 days later

Actually, last election, the debates made for a great drinking game.

GJ said 2 minutes later

Yeah, yeah, spare me the "Rachel Maddow is an uber-liberal" stuff. :) I'm more interested in your thoughts on this proposed law.

My story--we did this to the elected town officials in Glenville many years ago, because of their fiscal mismanagement. However, we did it with the voting booth. Why do we need a different way to do this?

---

Marc said about 2 hours later

A law to break legal contracts without a check/balance? Is that even allowed from a federal point of view? I know that's only one aspect of this, but this whole thing is ridiculous.

---

GJ said about 2 hours later

Yeah, but I know things in Michigan are pretty dire financially, so I'm curious as to the back story here. Not that things are all roses here in NY or anywhere else, and I'd love a loophole to bust a few state unions here. :)

---

Steve said about 8 hours later

I loved the union thing, but not the rest. Find it kinda funny though. Can't believe this is the first I've ever heard of it, but I don't catch the news much.

---

Steve said about 8 hours later

yea, I gave up listening to the columnist...union lover...

---

GJ said about 21 hours later

LOL. Still, even if you don't like unions, that's no way to go about knocking them down a peg. I hate to Godwin, but I'll be damned if this Nazis didn't use this same strategy after the Reichstag fire (which they set, of course).

It's not a new concept, by any stretch--I just can't believe how many people, Republicans especially, that don't see this for what it is--a naked power grab that is totally beyond the reach of the electorate.

Geoff said about 4 hours later

It's the Libertarian Party, GJ. ;)

---

GJ said about 5 hours later

No, it's not. The Libertarians are basically anarchists. They don't want government. They say they do--they want government to protect the rights of the individual, period. However, government must step on individual rights occasionally, because government is of a *group* of people by a *group* of people. There is a concept of the "greater good" that does indeed involve infringing the rights of some individuals.

The government does indeed go overboard with this. The Patriot Act is a good example--as was Prohibition. There are plenty of other examples. There are also plenty of examples where most people would agree that the government does have a right to intervene. Licensing and regulation of motor vehicles and drivers is something most of us support, I would think. That includes forcing us to obtain car insurance--not that different than forcing us to obtain health insurance, depending on how you look at it.

Anyhow, unless my reading comprehension skills have dropped, the libertarians have such a generic anti-government platform that technically they oppose things like auto regulation. They definitely have a beef with health care reform. :)

So, no thanks, no Libertarian Party for me.

---

Steve said 12 days later

agreed, most public school teachers make a lot of money. Some are certainly worth it. Others are not.

Don't get me started on unions.....their time has past. Well, their location has past. They should be moving to Asia, where unions are needed for what they were good at - fighting for the safety and proper treatment of their industrial working members.

---

GJ said 12 days later

Good point on location, Steve--they are certainly needed in parts of the world. Here in the US, I think not.

Geoff said about 21 hours later

I need some help with this one. I've got a few ideas but my brain still resides in Monday.

---

Geoff said about 22 hours later

I thought this was a good article today. In response to the recent assignation attempt.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110111/pl_yblog_exclusive/analysis-how-free-can-a-society-be-when-elected-officials-are-walled-off

---

Marc said about 22 hours later

I assume this relates to Palin taking her website down regarding the gun targets on specific political people including the one who was SHOT last week.

Regardless, Palin was an idiot for posting something like that, I don't think she should be receiving as much flack for what the crazy gunman did, but perhaps it'll be an eye opener for some of these political pundits that all that crazy crap you say, many idiots take seriously. Although it is getting harder and harder to find the difference between the pundits and the idiots.

---

GJ said about 24 hours later

Yes, it's referring to Palin and her staff first changing the Take Back the 20 website to modify the graphic and some other choice words (Don't Retreat...Reload!), but the site appears offline now. Whether they gave up trying to find references to scrub, or the crush of people trying to see for themselves what her site said, the site is toast now.

One of her staff tried to explain that the gun sights on the map were actually surveyor's marks. Really? Palin herself referred to them as bullseyes when tweeting about how they'd won 18 of 20 of those districts.

It's not just Palin, however. This problem has been rampant all over the political spectrum, but far more on the right wing than the left.

In all likelihood, however, the suspect was mentally ill and appears to have had a personal vendetta with Giffords for a perceived slight of him by not answering a screwball question he managed to get in front of her back in 2007...the hallmark of a paranoid delusion.

That said--the scrubbing of that website should tell you something, regardless of whether the shooter was influenced by it at all.

GJ said about 6 hours later

From the start of the article: "I dislike President Obama's style and substance. A whiner and left-wing ideologue, he is remarkably slow-witted when out of range of speechwriters and teleprompters. I'll say one thing for him, though: He brings a sense of irony to government."

With a ridiculous start like that, I'm not bothering with anything else he has to say. It's telling when the first words on paper are an insult of that caliber.

---

Geoff said about 19 hours later

lol too bad, you missed some good stuff I think. What can we commend Obama on lately anyway?

---

GJ said about 21 hours later

Is this a thread to talk about the oil spill and response to it, or are you looking to debate Obama's performance to date across any and all areas?

---

GJ said about 21 hours later

OK, I went back and read the rest of the article. This guy is a crank who thinks he understands genetics and bio-engineering. Hint: he doesn't.

---

Geoff said about 23 hours later

his credentials seem fairly legit...what's your angle, the EPA isn't stifling genetic research? I thought the government has done a pretty good job at holding science back, no?

And for the topic of discussion, we can attack or defend Obama if we like. Has he done enough with this disaster? Should he be doing more, has he pressured BP enough to clean up this mess? Could this be Obama's Katrina?

---

GJ said about 24 hours later

When the web speeds up a bit, I'll have to take a look. I didn't catch his credentials, but regardless of them he comes across like a "Go genetic research, damn the negligible consequences" guy.
.
The idea of introducing a new animal / plant / bacteria into an environment to fix a problem is not a new one. The law of unintended consequences is also not new, but not understood well. Let's just say that there are few if any of these implementations that have ever turned out as planned, thanks to that aforementioned law. The idea that we have some magic bullet to solve the oil problem and the government is suppressing it is a fairly stock and naive line of reasoning.

To understand the law of unintended consequences, start here. Also give Freakanomics a read.

---

Geoff said about 24 hours later

Well I believe he said they were starting with a fairly neutral organism to begin with and adjusting characteristics to enhance it's "oil eating" ability. I'm not quite sure it has the same risks that killer bees had, whom managed to break free anyway and we're still alive and kicking.

Not to say there aren't risks with genetically engineering organisms, but since these organisms have been developed over 25 years ago in some form or another, I'd think they'd have sufficient testing done to employ the use of them by now.

---

Abby said 1 day later

if I can jump in.... basically every biology teacher in BH would shoot whoever introduced brand-new organisms to an ocean ecosystem that's already in trouble. :) even the most harmless-seeming creature can completely destroy its surroundings.

(I'm only here because my Bio regents is tomorrow. hah.)

---

Steve said 1 day later

Well said Abby. Geoff, you might not understand how serious a problem could be caused by introducing a new organism to an environment. Hot topic this year out here is Asian Carp - and keeping them out of the Great Lakes. A couple years ago it was the emerald ash borer - I have one of the few surviving Ash trees in southern Michigan in my yard. Over 90% of the ash trees in Michigan are dead from the emerald ash borer. There are several examples of new organisms totally changing an ecosystem.

Killer bees is not an issue in NY (yet), but it certainly is down south (southern US that is).

---

GJ said 1 day later

Killer bees actual issue isn't that they are prone to attacking humans. It's their decimation of the honey industry that is the far greater problem, since African bees tend to displace European ones, and they produce far less honey. One more application of the law of unintended consequences. :)

Now, I did hear that BP bought a bunch of machines from a company funded by Kevin Costner that supposedly clean up oil. I was expecting to see some nonsense-related gimmick, but they're actually using giant centrifuges. That's an interesting idea, and it should work...but I bet it's not good for the micro organisms in the water....if any are still alive in that contaminated water to begin with! So, for a rare change, my skeptical view got a pleasant refutation!

---

Geoff said 1 day later

We're talking about any oil spill here. Whatever ecosystem that existed there, especially this spill, is nothing like it used to be. I'd talk more about this, but there is a 2 year old who needs to go to bed.

---

GJ said 1 day later

Ok, Dr. Moreau. Whatever you say.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

To me, it seems absurd to discount genetically engineered organisms entirely because of unintended consequences of a micro organism being introduced to an ecosystem. First, what is this organism...perhaps it already exists in some form in the habitat. I can tell you the Oil that ended up there didn't exist prior, and I'm sure that damage done already probably outweighs the risk of this micro organism...unless you think they'll self replicate endlessly until they consume the earth like nanobots plan to in the near future. Perhaps they will, I don't know enough about this oil eating organism.

Just seems odd to me that we humans do more "damage" to the worlds ecosystem by infrastructure, hunting, industrial accidents, war, overpopulation on a daily basis, but then when some bring up the idea of a genetically enhanced organism to help combat these problems, we tell them their crazy.

Personally, I think this is hypocritical. While I don't agree it is smart to reckless introduce new species to an ecosystem, I do believe this is one option to consider for oil spills. It may not be the best option, or maybe it isn't a viable option at all, but it should be considered based on the risks of introducing a new organism to destroyed ecosystem. That is, of course, unless you think the oil is a welcome addition to the ecosystem.

If you think any kind of interruption in an ecosystem that has unintended consequences should be avoided in any way shape or form. I advise you to stay in bed. You may step on an ant or run over a squirrel in your car. Could have dire, unintended consequences on the ecosystem.

Lets be real, we interrupt the ecosystem all the time. The possibility that genetic engineering could actually assist in oil spill cleanups, or lake cleanups, or pesticides, or what have you, may actually benefit us. It should be an option to at least consider.

I mean, 98% of what you eat in the US is non-native crops and livestock. You can't tell me ALL introduced species are bad.

---

Marc said 1 day later

I don't think discounting the introduction of these organisms right out the door is a good idea. We all know introducing a new organism can cause problems, but as Geoff said, the oil is already causing problems and we know what that means for the ecosystem.

It seems like there's some basic tests that should be run with these organisms, and I'd actually love to see more info about the tests they've run. What is the sole purpose of this organisms, do they ONLY eat up oil? What happens when there isn't oil, do they simply die off or do they find other forms of nutrients by jumping into the food chain. Similarly, for the current organisms (if there are any left), what would they think of their new neighbors. Would they eat them up? Maybe not with other food in the area, but as food becomes scarce, what happens if they do start eating them? How does that affect their bodies and the dependents that eat them?

It certainly requires a lot of testing, but if there's already been some fairly extensive testing and things look pretty promising, is there a way we can safely try it on smaller, controlled areas? There's always a risk of not being able to control it, but as long as people can generally agree this won't be as disastrous as the oil spill, it might be worth a shot.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

Yup, even if it is not a viable solution, the pursuit of genetic engineering is something we need to continue.

I just thought it was an interesting article on how that could be a possible solution to cleaning up oil spills. If we could find an organic approach vs burning it, that would be good to know. More research would need to be done, but it gets you thinking, which is always a good thing in most cases.

---

GJ said 1 day later

Geoff, you should also read up on the either/or logical fallacy. You employ it a lot--it kills your argument line.

What organism is it? It almost doesn't matter. That's the whole point of unintended consequences. You bring in organism A, who, say, already exists in this biosphere prior to the oil spill. It's been engineered to eat oil. You've made a pretty radical change to it's life cycle. It eats something different--what does it poop? That may even be somewhat safe (that's probably the point of the organism), but we now have a number of unknowns:

What happens to what it used to eat? What takes it's place, or does anything? If nothing, what keeps its previous meal in check? What depends on this organism? What impact will its changed chemistry have on predators? On scavengers? How about on the next level of predators and scavengers? What happens once there isn't enough oil left? Sure, many will die off, but some will likely mutate and find themselves able to eat something new. Wonder what that'll be? How successful will they be, and again, what impact will that have on the environment?

Now for the real facts. There are various strains of bacteria that eat oil, and have been used to clean up previous spills. They are not outlawed by the EPA, contrary to what Geoff's linked article claims. Why aren't they being used? It could be simply that these bacteria have been used for surface oil spills, and would not be effective to resolve the plume issues. Also likely--due to the different scenario, more testing must be done.

I'm kind of surprised it hasn't been used yet. There's hints that some calls were made to the companies that make this product, but no followup occurred so far. Hard to say if there any truth to that, but I haven't seen any evidence to date that this kind of bacterial approach has been used.

In regards to not burning it--why the heck wouldn't you burn it? Isn't that what we'd be doing with the oil eventually? It seems funny that people have a problem with this approach--but again, that only addresses the oil on the surface. I've heard really no good solutions at all for removing the underwater oil plumes.

Worse, the leak has yet to be plugged. Haven't seen any good ideas for addressing that problem either.