"Gewiss! Seguro! Oui!" or as Curly of the Three Stooges would say "Why Soitenly!" You don't need blame to face a problem. You just say "Hey, that's a problem. Let's see now ... how can we fix that?" Let me throw a big word out there that I learned a long time ago ... Tautology This word has a lot to do with repetition and the dictionary will tell you that the nature of the repetition is needless or useless. How does it apply to this discussion? Well on the face of it, I would have you know that once you have encountered a problem, it is indeed useless to go and repeat the same encounter with the problem. In my own mind, I relate it to the more auto-actualization or reactive nature of rational beings like humans. We learn to drive a car and it comes naturally. After we master it, we no longer devote any mental energy to it. If there is a problem with the way we drive an automobile, we no longer think about it or devote any rational mental resources to it. We just go about it by rote. But in fact, there were problems with driving automobiles all through its history. And to get us all to change, we had to be hit in the face with a shovel, changing laws, taxes on fuels and finally, hybrids and alternative fuels. But before we are forced to change, we cling to the tautological repetition of the problem. In immediate terms, it is a less expensive solution in terms of brain power; We refuse to expend any energy on the problem, unless forced to. So, the long term problem escapes solution, if left to ourselves as individuals. Thankfully, there are enough of us that some of us see the train coming, step off the tracks and start yelling at everyone else on that tracks that the train is coming. Some folks have described this tautological nature of mankind as 'The Frog in The Frying Pan'. The frog is at first comfortable sitting in the frying pan. As the heat is turned up ever so slowly, the frog doesn't budge. It doesn't want to make the effort to analyze the problem and eventually, we have a frog that 1) leaps out of the frying pan with a burned underside and feet or 2) a fried frog. Our nature then can be very reactive and much less disciplined, especially if we feel that the change threatens us - greater expenses or some associated cost, having to learn something new, etc.. We react first and learn later ( if at all ). Many people in fact, fear change for reasons such as these. Fewer thrive on it. So, the tautological nature of humanity, based on the way the human brain operates by rote as a means of keeping rational energy expenses low, combined with fear of change ... makes people behave in cyclic or repetitive ways which most of the time is not a problem, even if the repetition is useless. But sometimes, it traps us into a cycle that is self destructive. A person who understands what I have just said then, will realize that the human mind can both, fall into the trap of potentially destructive tautological functioning, but also, that the human mind can be trained. They then set about disciplining themselves, so that when they face a problem, they avoid defensiveness and the tendency to avoid expending rational energy and acceptance of rote repetition. They train themselves instead to react by recognizing that the problem may possibly be real and further, to trigger the expediture in rational energy to analyze it. By doing so, they evolve solutions and either adapt to change by changing their ways or auto-effect change, something most folks are not often capable of. They are the first to step off the tracks in the face of an approaching train and warn the others. 'Thinking outside the box' is therefore a bit different than what you may have always accepted it to mean. Many people don't even conceptualize that the box has an inside and an outside. I prefer not to be a frog in a frying pan. But in reality, sometimes even I do not avoid it. And I have for a long time now, practiced disciplining my mind to react by expending the rational energy, hopefully, not needlessly. BTW: Crisis management is well, tautology in action, after the shovel hits someone in the face. :) Hmmm. I suppose I can be long-winded and wordy at times. People have told me that. Luckily, flapping ones lips doesn't prevent ones feet from letting them step off the railroad tracks.

Can gentically engineered foods help feed the hungry? Are anti-GMO activists and over-zealous environmentalists standing in the way of the hungry being fed? The hope that GMO foods might bring solutions to malnutrition and world hunger was never more dramatically illustrated than when Time magazine ran a cover story titled "Grains of Hope." The article joyfully announced the development of a genetically engineered "golden rice." This new strain of GM rice has genes from viruses and daffodils spliced into its genetic instructions. The result is a form of rice that is a golden-yellow color (much like daffodil flowers), and that produces beta-carotene, which the human body normally converts into Vitamin A. Nearly a million children die every year because they are weakened by Vitamin A deficiencies and an additional 350,000 go blind. Golden rice, said Time, will be a godsend for the half of humanity that depends on rice for its major staple. Merely eating this rice could prevent blindness and death. The development of golden rice was, it seemed, compelling and inspiring evidence that GM crops are the answer to malnutrition and hunger. Time quoted former U.S. President Jimmy Carter: "Responsible biotechnology is not the enemy, starvation is." Shortly after the Time cover story, Monsanto and other biotechnology companies launched a $50 million marketing campaign, including $32 million in TV and print advertising. The ads, complete with soft focus fields and smiling children, said that "biotech foods could help end world hunger." Other ad campaigns have followed. One Monsanto ad tells the public: "Biotechnology is one of tomorrow's tools in our hands today. Slowing its acceptance is a luxury our hungry world cannot afford." Within a few months, the biotech industry had spent far more on these ads than it had on developing golden rice. Their purpose? "Unless I'm missing something," wrote Michael Pollan in The New York Times Magazine, "the aim of this audacious new advertising campaign is to impale people like me -- well-off first-worlders dubious about genetically engineered food -- on the horns of a moral dilemma ... If we don't get over our queasiness about eating genetically modified food, kids in the third world will go blind." The implication of the ads is that lifesaving food is being held hostage by anti-science activists. In the years since Time proclaimed the promises of golden rice, however, we've learned a few things. For one thing, we've learned that golden rice will not grow in the kinds of soil that it must to be of value to the world's hungry. To grow properly, it requires heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides -- expensive inputs unaffordable to the very people that the variety is supposed to help. And we've also learned that golden rice requires large amounts of water -- water that might not be available in precisely those areas where Vitamin A deficiency is a problem, and where farmers cannot afford costly irrigation projects. And one more thing -- it turns out that golden rice doesn't work, even in theory. Malnourished people are not able to absorb Vitamin A in this form. And even if they could, they'd have to eat an awful lot of the stuff. An 11-year-old boy would have to eat 27 bowls of golden rice a day in order to satisfy his minimum requirement for the vitamin. I'm sure that given enough time and enough money, some viable genetically modified (GM) crops could be developed that contain more nutrients or have higher yields. But I'm not sure that even if that were to happen, it would actually benefit the world's poor. Monsanto and the other biotech companies aren't developing these seeds with the intention of giving them away. If people can't afford to buy GM seeds, or if they can't afford the fertilizers, pesticides and water the seeds require, they'll be left out. Poverty is at the root of the problem of hunger. As Peter Rosset, director of Food First, reminds us, "People do not have Vitamin A deficiency because rice contains too little Vitamin A, but because their diet has been reduced to rice and almost nothing else." And what, pray tell, has reduced these people to such poverty and their diets to such meager fare? In the words of the British writer George Monbiot: The world has a surplus of food, but still people go hungry. They go hungry because they cannot afford to buy it. They cannot afford to buy it because the sources of wealth and the means of production have been captured and in some cases monopolized by landowners and corporations. The purpose of the biotech industry is to capture and monopolize the sources of wealth and the means of production ... GM technology permits companies to ensure that everything we eat is owned by them. They can patent the seeds and the processes which give rise to them. They can make sure that crops can't be grown without their patented chemicals. They can prevent seeds from reproducing themselves. By buying up competing seed companies and closing them down, they can capture the food market, the biggest and most diverse market of all. No one in her right mind would welcome this, so the corporations must persuade us to focus on something else ... We are told that ... by refusing to eat GM products, we are threatening the developing world with starvation, an argument that is, shall we say, imaginative ... With rare exceptions, genetically engineered crops are being created not because they're productive or because they address real human needs, but because they're patentable. The biotech companies have invested billions of dollars because they sense in this technology the potential for enormous profit and the means to gain control over the world's food supply. Their goal is not to help subsistence farmers feed themselves. Their goal is maximum profit. While Monsanto would like us to believe they are seeking to alleviate world hunger, there is actually a very dark side to the company's efforts. For countless centuries farmers have fed humanity by saving the seed from one years crop to plant the following year. But Monsanto, the company that claims its motives are to help feed the hungry, has developed what it calls a "Technology Protection System" that renders seeds sterile. Commonly known as "terminator technology" and developed with taxpayer funding by the USDA and Delta & Pine Land Company (an affiliate of Monsanto), the process genetically alters seeds so that their offspring will be sterile for all time. If employed, this technology would ensure that farmers cannot save their own seeds, but would have to come back to Monsanto year after year to purchase new ones. Critics refer to these genetically engineered seeds as suicide seeds. "By peddling suicide seeds, the biotechnology multinationals will lock the world's poorest farmers into a new form of genetic serfdom," says Emma Must of the World Development Movement. "Currently 80 percent of crops in developing countries are grown using farm-saved seed. Being unable to save seeds from sterile crops could mean the difference between surviving and going under." To Monsanto and other GMO companies, the terminator and other seed sterilizing technologies are simply business ventures that are designed to enhance profits. In this case, there is not even the implication of benefit to consumers. I wish I could speak more highly of GM foods and their potential. But the technology is now held tightly in the hands of corporations whose motives are, I'm afraid, very different from what they would have us believe. Despite the PR, Monsanto's goal is not to make hunger history. It's to control the staple crops that feed the world. Will GMOs help end world hunger? I don't think so. John Robbins is the author of many bestsellers including "The Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and Our World," the classic "Diet For A New America" and "The New Good Life: Living Better Than Ever in an Age of Less." He is the recipient of the Rachel Carson Award, the Albert Schweitzer Humanitarian Award, the Peace Abbey's Courage of Conscience Award and Green America's Lifetime Achievement Award. To learn more about his work, visit www.johnrobbins.info This Blogger's Books from The New Good Life: Living Better Than Ever in an Age of Less by John Robbins Food Revolution, The: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and Our World by John Robbins Many supporters of GMO seeds, are Monsanto supporters. Who is in charge of the USDA-Agricultural Research Service ? I believe it was Tom Vilsack,who is now a member of the cabnit our current Secretary.Who is Tom Vilsack?Google him and find out. Our Supreme Court Justice,Clarence Thomas,,,Used to Work for who> Monsanto.and several top positions in the Food and Drug Administration,and the Department of Agriculture,all filled with former Monsanto Lobbyist, do you really want to believe any thing these people say? I can post more articall s,but I will not, enough has been said,if you are interested at all, in what you, your children,and grandchildren are eating, do your research,,make up your own mind,in the mean time,keep saving your seeds.You might want to google, how many seed saving banks are left here in the U.S., compared to how many there used to be, and why. cAROL

INKcognito.. was there a specific reason for mentioned the carpet??? at least it jogged a memory of the basis of Bedoiun tent sizes. on the Lotus road: Uhde, 1903, press: Wasmuth, Ernst -Berlin verlag, Der Holzbau, ... the connection back to Egypt -> the lotus flower reverts to bud form and in the stalk is the shape of the columns with top of lotus bud (Collonade to Philae, Temple to Denderah, Temple of Edfu / bud top pillars of Tontmes III, Karnak / Necropolis of Giza IV Dynasty and also very apparent of the polebarges developed for the Nile) the bud top column developed into the Corinth (ian). The sidebar timeline into Mesopotamia / Persia exists as the pillar size/ square dimension determining the tent size of one, eg: Ibrahim Pascha in Wezanschehir between Urfa and Mardin / the stone tomb of Beni-Hassan. These derived from the 'abacus' (flat beam under-support & top of column) portion of the capital, based on the proportion of the lotus leaf/papyrus proportion. This lotus stalk base 'foot' is apparently removed at the proto-Dorian stage and with the removal of the pillar & eventually becomes the open lotus bud form to support weight equivalent to the abacus... shortform as my Alt-Deutsch is rusty at the skimming level. This effectively places the open Lotus flower form as a base to weighted forms and then perhaps the Kouzama = abacus (grin... just for Yamakami san) Correlating to portions of this pillar history is Forest & Civilization, Yasuda, 2001, supported by pollen counts/Sasonoo = Gilgamesh, Mykonos, etal. an interesting sidebar to read and see, is the duplication of the Torii form as the base in the tombs in Lykos and Mykonos and an uncanny likeness of the Tomb of Telmissus to the stone tombs of Japan (Buddhist). (hmm, opposite of anything I've ever read) makes one think... ah well, never enough time for indulgent research. edzard :), INKcognito, when will you be defending this thesis??? can I come too??

Wayne, here's the headline...Crystal power Palmtop Nuclear Fusion Device Invented By Michael Schirber LiveScience Staff Writer posted: 27 April 2005 01:00 pm ET The nuclear reaction that powers the Sun has been reproduced in a pocket-sized device, scientists announced today. Researchers have for years tried to harness nuclear fusion to power the world. But its cousin, nuclear fission -- the breaking apart of atoms -- is the only method so far commercially viable. The latest invention is not in the same league as efforts to build complex commercial reactors. The new device creates a relatively small number of reactions, and requires more energy to operate than it produces. The Real Deal (AP) - Previous claims of tabletop fusion have been met with skepticism and even derision by physicists. In one of the most notable cases, Dr. B. Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann of Southampton University in England shocked the world in 1989 when they announced that they had achieved so-called cold fusion at room temperature. Their work was discredited after repeated attempts to reproduce it failed. Fusion experts noted that the new UCLA experiment is credible because, unlike the 1989 work, it did not violate basic principles of physics. "This doesn't have any controversy in it because they're using a tried and true method,'' said David Ruzic, professor of nuclear and plasma engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "There's no mystery in terms of the physics.'' -- Associated Press But the configuration is so small and simple that its creators think it may inspire unforeseen applications. "I certainly find it interesting that you can heat a cubic centimeter crystal in your hand, then plunge it in cold water and it will cause nuclear fusion," Seth Putterman from the University of California Los Angeles told LiveScience. Putterman's lay description greatly oversimplifies how the compact apparatus works. Specifically, Putterman and collaborators heat a pyroelectric crystal, lithium tantalite, from minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit to plus 45 in a matter of minutes. This generates an electrical charge -- 100,000 volts -- across the tiny crystal, which is housed in a chamber filled with deuterium gas, a heavy form of hydrogen. The high voltage is focused onto a needle-thin tip, which strips electrons from nearby deuterium nuclei and then accelerates them at a solid target containing deuterium. When two deuterium nuclei collide together at high speed, they fuse to form helium. The Sun also fuses atoms in thermonuclear reactions that create light and heat. The byproduct of the newly discovered lab reaction is a particle called the neutron. The scientists detect about 1,000 neutrons per second. Because neutrons are so penetrating, Putterman said that a hand-held neutron source might one-day be used to do geologic surveys or to look into cargo containers for nuclear devices. "Current neutron generators are extremely cumbersome," Putterman said. "They are about as big as a dentists X-ray machine, so you canÂt carry them into the field." Pyroelectric crystals could also provide a beam of ions for use as a microthruster in a miniature spacecraft. The research is described in the April 28 issue of the journal Nature.