Ahh.. I see the (insoluble) contradiction.
Yes, lots of Woo--clue: there's nary a soupçon of Yays in it. But obfuscation of some selective data-taking, to further an esoteric agenda nullifies, is counterproductive to demanding further oversights--as very well might be needed.
Figured next task was to proceed as you did: (Who He? ..reason I asked if anyone saw this in '12.) Odd that PBS seems to have demonstrated no more diligence than any YouTube screed
--simply dropping it there, sans Intro or comments on the source.
Academic Review seems thorough, but I have to wade through their topic summaries, particularly re. random fragments created along with the intended insertions.. I don't think we're finished with constructing the unusual oversights which DNA-for-profit demands: it's a bizness now. And all that implies. Were there an area for fear to be mongered, I'd place that squarely on the concept that "you can trust a bizness decision; if it's profitable, it must be safe." Food-like substances, anyone? If you don't ƒeare those ... (and they're still in most schools, in the dis-US.) DNA-for-profit -vs- fast-food: which is the scarier?
'General Science' is not enough for a CIEIO to decide which? specific-unknowns in your product.. matter. See: fracking/aquifers and "don't worry; we know what we're doing".
It's 2014, and the improbable has become a familiar, on many equally fraught topics, while the recklessness of Corporate has become a daily given. To be less than paranoid about Blankenship clones would be dumb.
Will do my homework on next weird essay--thanks for the Archive.org tip; Maybe Google-pro would have been best; general Google is becoming a morass. (Do we yet know the effects of those Paid-sortings?)
Figured next task was to proceed as you did: (Who He? ..reason I asked if anyone saw this in '12.) Odd that PBS seems to have demonstrated no more diligence than any YouTube screed
--simply dropping it there, sans Intro or comments on the source.
Academic Review seems thorough, but I have to wade through their topic summaries, particularly re. random fragments created along with the intended insertions.. I don't think we're finished with constructing the unusual oversights which DNA-for-profit demands: it's a bizness now. And all that implies. Were there an area for fear to be mongered, I'd place that squarely on the concept that "you can trust a bizness decision; if it's profitable, it must be safe." Food-like substances, anyone? If you don't ƒeare those ... (and they're still in most schools, in the dis-US.) DNA-for-profit -vs- fast-food: which is the scarier?
'General Science' is not enough for a CIEIO to decide which? specific-unknowns in your product.. matter. See: fracking/aquifers and "don't worry; we know what we're doing".
It's 2014, and the improbable has become a familiar, on many equally fraught topics, while the recklessness of Corporate has become a daily given. To be less than paranoid about Blankenship clones would be dumb.
Will do my homework on next weird essay--thanks for the Archive.org tip; Maybe Google-pro would have been best; general Google is becoming a morass. (Do we yet know the effects of those Paid-sortings?)