On May 4, 2012 10:57 AM, "mad_casual" <ademl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> MARC GOODMAN is pretty clearly a shady character himself. Anyone who says, "Never before in the history of humankind has it been
> possible for one person to rob 100 million people."
Other than the internet, what has historically enabled a single person to rob 100 million people??? His comment makes sense to me
either doesn't understand the technology or human history. I wonder if he was a part of the police Force in LA that has been under reform for the brutality that lead up to the riots? For a former law enforcement officer, he certainly oozes with the presumption of guilt. Who are the 'mice' or the 'bad guys' and what laws are they breaking? I don't
Bad guys don't necessarily break laws, especially if they're off U.S. soil ... its the intent that matters
worry about hackerz tripping my pacemaker for lulz as much as I worry about an American President 'legally' tripping an American Citizen's pacemaker without a trial, judge, or jury.
>
> I'm beginning to dislike the 'dual use' boogeyman; it's being co-opted to proliferate FUD. Steak knives are dual use. Lead pipes are dual use. Matter of fact, I have trouble coming up with a technology that is 'single use'. If there is a 'single use' technology and its single use is to kill people, I'd be more worried about that than any dual use technology. The only technologies that come close are electric chairs, guillotines, laser guided munitions, and/or thermonuclear weapons.
Electric chairs could be cheap surplus electrophoresis rigs, giluillotines make great cigar and watermelon choppers, Homer Simpson showed us that a shotgun can be used to apply makeup for females, or shoot lightbulbs instead of flipping the switch
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/diybio/-/u--w0vxE2PEJ.
On May 4, 2012 10:57 AM, "mad_casual" <ademl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> MARC GOODMAN is pretty clearly a shady character himself. Anyone who says, "Never before in the history of humankind has it been
> possible for one person to rob 100 million people."Other than the internet, what has historically enabled a single person to rob 100 million people??? His comment makes sense to me
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/diybio/-/C6MtKQ70pJwJ.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Hmm, an invention that allows one person to rob 100 million. OOO, i know! A BANK!
CRAIG VENTER: Well, they're not actually. There's not been one
single accident from molecular biology in almost four decades.
hmm.. well it sounds like our views were misrepresented again. I don't think anyone is claiming that it is possible to stop new viruses from being created. So what did this reporter think he was doing ?
Presumably a smart journalist does not need to attempt sensationalism to gain points.
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Jonathan Cline <jnc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Presumably a smart journalist does not need to attempt sensationalism to gain points.
Maybe we should just start pre-writing the articles for them. But there's not much to gain from that?
Is public fear rooted in the idea that synthetic biology is categorically different from genetic engineering (i.e. what we've been doing for decades already)?
There are many other technologies that we use on a daily basis that are comparatively lethal (automobiles, pharmaceuticals, etc) and generally accepted.
On May 4, 2012 10:57 AM, "mad_casual" <ademl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> MARC GOODMAN is pretty clearly a shady character himself. Anyone who says, "Never before in the history of humankind has it been
> possible for one person to rob 100 million people."Other than the internet, what has historically enabled a single person to rob 100 million people??? His comment makes sense to me
either doesn't understand the technology or human history. I wonder if he was a part of the police Force in LA that has been under reform for the brutality that lead up to the riots? For a former law enforcement officer, he certainly oozes with the presumption of guilt. Who are the 'mice' or the 'bad guys' and what laws are they breaking? I don't
Bad guys don't necessarily break laws, especially if they're off U.S. soil ... its the intent that matters
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
On May 6, 2012 8:08 AM, "mad_casual" <ademl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 4, 2012 11:15:52 AM UTC-5, Nathan McCorkle wrote:
>>
>>
>> On May 4, 2012 10:57 AM, "mad_casual" <ademl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > MARC GOODMAN is pretty clearly a shady character himself. Anyone who says, "Never before in the history of humankind has it been
>> > possible for one person to rob 100 million people."
>>
>> Other than the internet, what has historically enabled a single person to rob 100 million people??? His comment makes sense to me
>
> Which "one person" robbed 100 million? I wouldn't profess to be in
I'm not sure, but robbing in this sense could just meabln CPU cycles, so any malware or stupid virus counts IMO
the know about how this sort of thing gets done, but everything I've read suggests you either need a criminal network or some other covert (intelligence) agency to be even modestly successful at approaching the '100 million robbed' title. Between hardware knowledge, coding, and access, I'm 99.9999% sure "one person" didn't pull off stuxnet. I can point
stuxnet doesn't count IMO, since it was targeted vandalism of mainly one facility/entity... vandalism could equal stealing in time sense again
to several "one persons" in history who have killed tens if not hundreds of millions. Enron,
Enron is a corporation, no?
Madoff robbed how many? Ponzi schemes existed long before Charles Ponzi was arrested. The internet didn't enable people to rob others en masse. It does make the victims easier to find and count. And if the technology that allows 100 million people to be robbed by "one person" prevents the death of tens of millions of lives, I have a hard time faulting the technology.
How does internet prevent deaths of 10s of millions?
>>
>> either doesn't understand the technology or human history. I wonder if he was a part of the police Force in LA that has been under reform for the brutality that lead up to the riots? For a former law enforcement officer, he certainly oozes with the presumption of guilt. Who are the 'mice' or the 'bad guys' and what laws are they breaking? I don't
>>
>> Bad guys don't necessarily break laws, especially if they're off U.S. soil ... its the intent that matters
>
> Your comment suggests, to me, that it makes sense for the US to pursue people internationally that aren't doing anything illegal. Once
What I meant is there aren't laws against makibg GMO plasmids that can kill, but when you go and put that into the city water system its then illegal... all along g the intent was ill though.
I also meant that some countries are lawless in the hands of terrorist regimes, so legality in that case us tossed our the window. And yes I think terrorism is a force that needs to find a non-violent way to effect change.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
>> > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/diybio/-/Dd5AsPnePBsJ.
>
> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
Public fear of synthetic biology has more to do with the word "synthetic". Reference the focus groups done about 3 yrs ago where general, uneducated public described the feeling of the word as "fake, sterile, artificial, not natural".
Public fear of synthetic biology has more to do with the word "synthetic". Reference the focus groups done about 3 yrs ago where general, uneducated public described the feeling of the word as "fake, sterile, artificial, not natural".The automobile industry figured this one out decades ago. "Corinthian Genomics" y'all.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
I think this is one of those points that often gets lost in debates about genetic engineering, i.e. the fact that biologists have been practicing it for decades with extraordinary safety. I'm not sure anyone ever been killed by a GMO?
The escape of GE B. napus in North Dakota is extensive (Fig. 1). Brassica napus was present at 45% (288/634) of the road survey sampling sites. Of those, 80% (231/288) expressed at least one transgene: 41% (117/288) were positive for only CP4 EPSPS (glyphosate resistance); 39% (112/288) were positive for only PAT (glufosinate resistance); and 0.7% (2/288) expressed both forms of herbicide resistance, a phenotype not produced by seed companies (Table 1). Densities of B. napus plants at collection sites ranged from 0 to 30 plants m−2 with an average of 0.3 plants m−2. Among the archived specimens, 86.8% were sexually mature varying in developmental stage from flower bud to mature fruit with seeds. At the time of roadside sampling, in-field canola was non-flowering having matured to the 4-leaf to pre-bolting stage (JPL pers. obs.). This striking difference in flowering phenology suggests that flowering canola in roadside habitats may have originated from the previous generation's seed bank rather than from seed spill during the current growing season."""
The Establishment of Genetically Engineered Canola Populations in the U.S.Schafer MG, Ross AA, Londo JP, Burdick CA, Lee EH, et al. (2011) The Establishment of Genetically Engineered Canola Populations in the U.S.. PLoS ONE 6(10): e25736. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025736
This is not to say that L.E. officers are bad people - they're simply
a product of their line of work. They spend their entire workday
dealing with criminals; it should hardly be a surprise that this would
color their perspective.
I am amused that people think that personalized medicine is too expensive/unreasonable, but making a supervirus is a walk in the park.
What technology, or potential technology, worries you the most?Bostrom: Well, I can mention a few. In the nearer term I think various developments in biotechnology and synthetic biology are quite disconcerting. We are gaining the ability to create designer pathogens and there are these blueprints of various disease organisms that are in the public domain---you can download the gene sequence for smallpox or the 1918 flu virus from the Internet. So far the ordinary person will only have a digital representation of it on their computer screen, but we're also developing better and better DNA synthesis machines, which are machines that can take one of these digital blueprints as an input, and then print out the actual RNA string or DNA string. Soon they will become powerful enough that they can actually print out these kinds of viruses. So already there you have a kind of predictable risk, and then once you can start modifying these organisms in certain kinds of ways, there is a whole additional frontier of danger that you can foresee.