mabrown310

Same dude who was dealing drugs while at the University?

 

Did I remember that right?

If I remember correctly his roomate was busted selling drugs and then police searched their house and found more drugs. I think Koulianos plead guilty to marijuana posession and his other drug charges were dropped

Just curious do Kalen and 2015 CB Eric Lee have any connection? Saw that Lee has been interested in ASU as well.

Thanks for the clarification. Well that certainly makes for an uphill battle. This kid is a freak and I have no doubt the coaching staff will put on the full court press this weekend

I know his brother. Kalen is committed to ASU.

I don't doubt he is commited now. But as long as we get him in Lincoln for a visit we have a chance. Could be wrong, but he has not visited ASU yet right?

He seems pretty set on playing RB in college. I wonder if our depth played a part in him commiting. It could be a placeholder, but I think he is too much of a talent for any coach to pass on. We have to sell him hard that when Ameer leaves its a wide open race for the starting job. Our facilities should speak for themselves

Different take, but I have always liked Patrick Willis' story. He and his younger siblings grew up with an alcoholic, abusive, deadbeat dad in a trailerpark. His father did not take care of any of his kids so at age 10 Patrick was working full-time in the cotton fields to support his younger siblings. When he turned 17, Patrick took his siblings and moved into his high school basketball coach's home and his coach and wife ended up raising the kids. Pretty remarkable how some of these kids go from complete poverty to being high profile millionaires

You all may have seen this already but Dave Ramsey breaks down the math of Obamacare and explains how it doesn't work. Well worth your 10 minutes

*SPOILERS*

(sorry I don't know how to make the fancy post that hides the message)

The Shield still tops my "best finale" list, but this was pretty close. Nothing too unpredictable, which surprised me, yet it felt like a perfect wrap up. This series has always been very Shakespearian and for that I believe Walt's fate was inevitable. It was strangely satisfying to watch him die by his own bullet literally. I have always seen this show as a tale about hubris and ego. Walt was never truly in it for the money. He wanted to be recognized for doing something he loved (chemistry), especially after he was forced out of Gray Matter

Just some friendly advice here. I enjoy the bar scene as much as everyone but my buddies and I always establish a DD for the night. If whoever is DDIng thinks they might be close to the legal limit, we always ask one of the cops downtown to do a breathalyzer just to be safe. The cops are always very nice and thankful that we err on the side of caution. It just isn't worth the risk to get a DUI, especially being a college student who is about to start his career

It was a standard transport vehicle used by police when bringing in suspects. Could also just be the arrval of additional security. But there was a man hanging on the side with a vest and automatic rifle. Van was also moving very quickly

Anybody else catch the bit about the van? After the courthouse was evacuated a police van with an armed man hanging off the side sped up to the courthouse and backed into the side door where prisoners are usually brought in. Could be nothing, but it would make sense that the police want to avoid another Jack Ruby incident or do a sweep of the courthouse before bringing the suspect in for security reasons.

Mad Cow disease? Or just not a fan of the flavor/texture?

A genuine fear of prions. They're probably the most terrifying thing in nature that I can think of.

 

(The flavor and texture are gross too . . . my great aunt used to pan fry brain. Gross. Decent catfish bait, though.)

CJD has got to be one of the most vicious diseases out there. Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease is similar to Alzheimers, but the brain deteriorates much faster for those wondering. It can be transmitted to humans by eating Mad Cow beef. Fortunately, it is a very, very rare disease and the USDA does a great job of monitoring beef . Still, I have wondered if a cure for Alzheimers could also help those with CJD, because it is more prevalent in other countries with fewer food safeguards

Just to point out what this big mean evil corporation that doesn't care if they kill all of us is doing, two goals that I know of that they are working hard on are:

 

a) Doubling yield on the same number of plants.

b) Drastically increasing the drought tolerance of corn.

 

Just think of what those to goals (if reached) can mean to society. With the same number of acres planted and same amount of plants, our corn production could double. Farmers averaging over 300 bushels per acre? That could be fun.

 

Now, what if that same corn only needs half the water the corn now days needs. What would that mean to the Ogallala Aquifer and feeding people in extremely dry areas of the world.

 

But...hey.....they are horrible people.

I should have made it clear that my original post was supposed to be hypothetical. I have nothing against Monsanto, but the President did make an interesting, and somewhat troubling, precedent. My dad has told me about the new "super seeds" that they believe can be produced. This would do wonders for the world. Nebraska has the benefit of being on a part of the Ogallala Aquifer that can replenish some of the water used in irrigation. States like Texas do not have that luxury and many areas are being forced back into dryland corn. That is a scary issue when you start to think about world food supply. The demand for food and grains keeps growing, while farmland is dissapearing or becoming unusable in some places. World food surplus is at a scary low level, which could become a problem if theres continued droughts and large natural disasters around the world. Food prices are also skyrocketing worldwide, putting a squeeze on undeveloped countries. 300 bushel yield seeds could make a huge dent in the world food shortage

*side of a mountain

Their security isn't much different than any other technology industry. I have been to that facility a number of times and actually know the manager out there.

 

They have the right to protect their investment and I wouldn't expect anything less.

That would be interesting to see their facilities. Off topic, but has anyone heard about the "Doomsday" seedbank in Norway? It was built on some remote island on the side of the cave. It has over 3,000,000 seeds from around the world. Its protected by blast proof doors, motion detecters, meter thick steel reinforced concrete walls, and two airlock chambers. Now thats intense! A lot of people don't realize just how valuable and important conserving seeds is

Monsanto has ways of IDing their corn. They 'check' on farmers crops to make sure that anyone growing their corn, bought it for that specific season. It can be done.

That's interesting.

 

One of our customers plumbed the new Monsanto plant in Gothenburg. They told us the bs they had to go through whenever arriving at the leaving the grounds. Inspection of vehicles, toolboxes, clothing. Checklists of what you brought in and what you were leaving with. You name it, they checked it. Their exact words were "i didnt know if we were plumbin or meeting the president". It was quite intense, and sounded like a high level of paranoia.

I have heard similar stories from one of my professors. They are very secretive and protective of their seeds and technologies. To be fair though, some of their patents are worth millions.

Like I said before, I am all for labeling so we know what we are eating. Problem is, there are very informative labels on most foods and one heck of a lot of Americans still don't give a crap and eat pathetically horrible crap.

 

That said, I think before GMOs are on labels (which I am not against) a very specific definition of GMO needs to be determined. Scientists might have an idea of what that is but the general public is all over the board.

 

For instance, the corn plant we have now (before GMO) is no where close to the corn plant given to white people from the Indians. All those changes were done by humans with varying levels of technology. So, is all corn now GMO?

 

What if the GMO corn is taken to an plant where some minor specific ingredient is taken out (let's say corn syrup) and used in a food. Now does that food need to be labeled GMO?

 

Do grain elevators now need to have completely different storage facilities for GMO with different transportation so that when ADM gets a load of corn, they know that? Then, does ADM need to have completely different production facilities for GMO so that it's not mixed with non GMO? If two bushels of GMO get into an entire grain bin, does that entire grain bin then have to be labeled GMO?

 

Is there a simple test that can be performed by someone like ADM when they get a load to tell if it is GMO?

 

Labeling is good and I'm all for it. But, with something like this, the practicality of it may be difficult.

Those are all very valid points. Differentiating specialty grains in shipping containers and elevators seems to work pretty well. But would the sheer volume of GMOs make this a practical approach? I dont know

GMOs are seeds that are genetically modified by being injected with pesticides which are passed onto consumers.

 

No disrespect intended, but you need to learn what genetically modified means. This statement is entirely inaccurate.

 

I know diddly about GMOs but when he said that specific sentence every skeptical neuron in my brain fired red. What I do know is every time I even glance at non far-left sources about the state of modern farming, it's difficult to figure out a way to feed seven billion people without some kind of pesticides or mechanism to increase yields. Add onto that the fact that our lifespans have practically doubled in the last decade (DDT and all), am I missing something here?

 

Ill say it again. I am NOT against GMO crops. But the fact is there have been studies that have said "we don't know the health consequences of this yet" . So should consumers be denied the right to make informed decisions about what they buy at stores?

 

Ah yes, "informed decisions". What constitutes an informed decision? I already have an answer in mind, but I want to hear your thoughts.

I believe food companies should be as transparent as possible. People today eat very differently than in the past. Some people have allergies to the new proteins in GMOs. And then there are vegans, gluten free dieters, organic, etc. People are more interested than ever in what they are consuming. While not everyone looks at food labels, a large amount of people do. We are in the information age now. Almost every poll shows 80-90% of Americans want GMOs to be labeled as such.

Sorry meant to get to that last post. I am an agronomy major, so yes I realize that different species of plant DNA is also used in creating GMOs. Those arent concerning though. Crossing different breeds is pretty natural. Adding animal DNA and bacterias are not as natural, and there are people who would want to know those things next time there at the grocery store. But Monsanto will not allow their GMO info to be on food labels. I personally don't believe that they should be able to do that

 

My undergraduate degree is in Agronomy as well. It seems to me that your biggest concerns are with herbicides, not GMOs. There is no reason to be inherently afraid of crops modified with animal or bacterial DNA. I have no problem with labeling of foods, but the irrational fear of GMOs pushed by a group that clearly doesn't understand what they are will probably damage any useful GMO to the point of extinction.

 

(As an aside, bacterium is singular, bacteria is plural)

Right, a lot of GMOs have been very beneficial and safe. But several countries have banned CERTAIN GMOs until more is known about them. Shouldn't consumers have a choice in whether they want to purchase these products?

 

I've said I'm fine with labeling requirements, but the European bans on GMOs are short-sighted, at best, and entirely politically motivated.

 

My biggest problem with the thread was that you came in here half-cocked and spreading patently false information in your attempt to A) "dumb down" the science and B) indict the potentially hazardous nature of some herbicides.

Uhh my bad? I didnt know everyone here knew the physiology of GMOs so I tried to summarize what I was trying to get to. And where did I ever say all herbicides are bad? Of course they aren't, otherwise we would all be dead. SOME studies have been done on certain herbicides and there were differing opinions. I should posed my original post as more hypothetical, which was my intent. There is no proof that Monsanto's GMOs are gonna kill people...but what if something happened? Should Monsanto be totally protected? Don't consumers have a right to know what they are eating ( I know you already answered this. Just trying to clear up my original message)

Where are the studies that show this is a terrible idea?

 

Here is one study on repeated exposure to GMO corn in lab rats http://www.scribd.co...undup-Herbicide

And again, I am NOT against the production of GMO crops. But shouldn't consumers be able to know what they are eating?

 

Well, I'll stop you right here. Rats do not equal humans. I understand why studies like this can not be done on humans--it's completely unethical. I'm a psychology major, and my fairly extensive knowledge of methodology and ethics leads me to come to this conclusion: We can't run this study on the human population because it is unethical. We can run this study on rats because it is ethical. But the sticky point about this comes back to (population) external validity--will the results of this study translate to just about the same results in a different population? It did in rats doesn't mean it will in humans. Unless some biology major (tschu I'm looking at you) can come in here and point me to a study demonstrating the resemblance of rats to humans, this study can't be used as causal proof.

 

Genetically modified does not mean bad. Yes, food can be genetically modified to be bad, but why on Earth would any legal entity want to do that? As soon as the effects of their GE food come to the forefront, people are going to stop buying their product. I can't think of one company that would go into this with the sole intention of making a little profit, harming people, and then going out of business. More so than not, GE foods are going to result in better, not worse things.

 

What I don't like in this is (and perhaps I'm misreading the Act), how the GMO organizations are absolved of any liability. It won't facilitate them to being reckless, but if something bad results from their GE products, shouldn't they be held responsible? I mean, that seems like common sense.

 

We do have a right to know what we're putting into our mouths, however, how many of us read the ingredients label of what we eat and drink everyday? We know the general gist of what is in each product, and more often than not, that is good enough for us to make our decisions. So we'll know that this food is a genetically modified (x) with DNA from (y). If we don't like the sounds of that, we won't eat it and find something else.

Thanks for pointing that out. I am a psych minor also. Love psychology. I meant to put that this study cannot be translated to humans. It can't be completely refuted though, and like you said we can't run tests on humans. And I completely agree about the liability part. You interpreted correctly. Monsanto cannot be sued or be told to stop producing a GMO if it was found to be harmful. Monsanto would never try to abuse this power intentionally. But why does Monsanto get protection and the public none if something did happen?

Sorry meant to get to that last post. I am an agronomy major, so yes I realize that different species of plant DNA is also used in creating GMOs. Those arent concerning though. Crossing different breeds is pretty natural. Adding animal DNA and bacterias are not as natural, and there are people who would want to know those things next time there at the grocery store. But Monsanto will not allow their GMO info to be on food labels. I personally don't believe that they should be able to do that

 

My undergraduate degree is in Agronomy as well. It seems to me that your biggest concerns are with herbicides, not GMOs. There is no reason to be inherently afraid of crops modified with animal or bacterial DNA. I have no problem with labeling of foods, but the irrational fear of GMOs pushed by a group that clearly doesn't understand what they are will probably damage any useful GMO to the point of extinction.

 

(As an aside, bacterium is singular, bacteria is plural)

Right, a lot of GMOs have been very beneficial and safe. But several countries have banned CERTAIN GMOs until more is known about them. Shouldn't consumers have a choice in whether they want to purchase these products?

For which allowed farmers to use FAR fewer herbicides. I would think that would be a good thing.

I'm not saying that RR is a bad thing. Far from it. I certainly don't miss walking beans.

 

That said, if you aren't already dealing with RoundUp resistant weeds . . . you will be soon.

 

BTW...Herbicides are pesticides. Pesticides can be either herbicides or insecticides. In other words....both a weed and a bug can be a pest.

This is true but we (my family farm and the local COOP) generally don't use them interchangeably.

 

Specificity also matters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: The real fun will begin when we mix and match and throw BT corn into the mix . . . a GMO plant that produces toxins to kill insects. Then the sparks will really fly.

Oh man thats a whole new can of worms haha. BT attacks specific sites on insects that aren't present in humans though, correct? I don't know a whole lot about BT. You seem knowledgable on the matter though

Where are the studies that show this is a terrible idea?

As far as I know there isn't much in the way of definitive answers.

Agreed. There is no definitive evidence either way. Most studies conclude by saying they don't know the effects yet. Hell, there might not be any! My problem is with the food labeling. We have a right to know what we are purchasing and consuming

Your right I worded that wrong. I tried to dumb down the science part. GMOs are seeds whose DNA makeup is altered by incorporating other animal DNA and bacterias. The major breakthrough was RoundupReady crops, which enabled farmers to spray crops with glysophate to kill all sorts of weeds without killing the crop itself. Problem is Roundup Ready is used so much that it has lost alot of its affectiveness. Weeds are now becoming resistant to the same pesticides. Now farmers are resorting to other pesticides and herbicides, which are much more harmful and studies have shown that these new pesticides can get into our crops. A study last year showed that rats exposed to these same pesticides started to develop tumors, but no official study has been done on the human effects (for obvious reasons)Thats what I was trying to get at.

 

Several things. First, plants do not have to be altered with animal or bacterial DNA in order to be called GMO. For example, if I studied drought resistance in plants and was able to identify 3 genes in millet that make it so exceptionally drought tolerant, I could theoretically integrate those genes into the genome of corn and make corn exceptionally drought tolerant. This would be a GMO crop, but almost certainly would be a good thing. So the scare tactics about GMOs are meant to bypass reason, and ignite hysteria.

 

Second, we have been genetically modifying organisms for thousands of years, by selecting the most fit crops or livestock and mating. Creating new, stronger breads of horses, for example, or increasing yields on corn. This is the high tech version. And yes, there are drawbacks at times, round-up resistant weeds are a fine example. However, the issue you listed is with the new herbicides being used, not the GMO crop itself.

 

Third, always, always, always cite the study you are referring to.

 

Fourth, a real world example of a GMO fish, where the only thing done was to alter Atlantic salmon with a gene that helps production of a growth hormone in Chinook Salmon, in order to decrease time to market:

The AquAdvantage fish is an Atlantic salmon that carries two foreign bits of DNA: a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon that is under the control of a genetic “switch” from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish that lives in the chilly deep. Normally, Atlantic salmon produce growth hormone only in the warm summer months, but these genetic adjustments let the fish churn it out year round. As a result, the AquAdvantage salmon typically reach their adult size in a year and a half, rather than three years.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

Those are all good points to keep in mind Junior, but as mabrown pointed out genetically modified can also mean splicing genes from other plants and animals. That's were the biggest concern is with GMOs. There just isn't enough research out there right now to make any kind of conclusion about the safety risk of eating those types of foods. However there are some personal accounts from people having reactions to food they have no business being allergic to only to find out it was some kind of GMO.

Sorry meant to get to that last post. I am an agronomy major, so yes I realize that different species of plant DNA is also used in creating GMOs. Those arent concerning though. Crossing different breeds is pretty natural. Adding animal DNA and bacterias are not as natural, and there are people who would want to know those things next time there at the grocery store. But Monsanto will not allow their GMO info to be on food labels. I personally don't believe that they should be able to do that

GMOs are seeds that are genetically modified by being injected with pesticides which are passed onto consumers.

 

No disrespect intended, but you need to learn what genetically modified means. This statement is entirely inaccurate.

 

I know diddly about GMOs but when he said that specific sentence every skeptical neuron in my brain fired red. What I do know is every time I even glance at non far-left sources about the state of modern farming, it's difficult to figure out a way to feed seven billion people without some kind of pesticides or mechanism to increase yields. Add onto that the fact that our lifespans have practically doubled in the last decade (DDT and all), am I missing something here?

Ill say it again. I am NOT against GMO crops. But the fact is there have been studies that have said "we don't know the health consequences of this yet" . So should consumers be denied the right to make informed decisions about what they buy at stores?