Idk

help

Banning GMO Food (Cont'd)

Scientists claim GMO food will solve world’s persisting problem of starvation and hunger, be more nutritious, tastier, hardier than natural food, economically and environmentally friendly since GMO food does not require pesticides. GMO food, which can be very well grown in massive proportions, can stave off world hunger and possibly lower the percentage; however, in reality, growing GMO food alone will be financially straining to farmers, possibly arouse new diseases, allergies, and bodily problems, and corrupt nature’s order by accidentally transferring their genes or resistances.

GMO food allows the world to produce food at a much faster rate, and slacks off stress of fending off bugs and disease from natural food. However, genetically modified food is currently leading to overall decrease of world population in an unsafe manner, unprecedented gene transfer to non-target species, and there is the high risk of reduced effectiveness of pesticides, as bugs get used to the modified food’s resistances.

Genetically Modified Food is slowly leading to the overall lowering of the international populace in an unjustified manner. According to naturalsociety.com, scientists tested all sorts of animals such as mice, pigs, cows, rats and buffalo to test this claim. As each of these animals were fed higher and higher concentrations of GMO foods such as corn, they all suffered the same outcome; infertility, frequent abortions, fewer amount of and much weaker offspring, and even death of some of the babies’ parents. In extreme cases, a few hamsters even had hair grown inside their mouths, mice testes grew smaller and their sperm count decreased, and pigs gave birth to bags of water. Due to the correlation of animal symptoms and humans related to food and disease over the years, GMO food and not just corn, is being linked to rising levels of human infant mortality, dropping sperm counts, and sterilization.

 As GMO foods become much more prevalent worldwide, there will be destructive gene transfer to non-target species. According to gmo-compass.org, the movement of genetic material between unrelated species, such as hornets and wheat crops, is called the horizontal gene transfer. This type of gene transfer is arduously hard to detect, and all GMO food crops are tainted with the ability to become much more sturdier and resilient. Currently, the rates of such gene transfer is extremely low (one out of a trillion) but if GMO foods are grown over a large area (which is predicted to happen) it would certainly happen and pose a grave threat. In fact, this feared event is already happening in France, where genetically modified food crops have been exchanging genes with nearby weeds making them stronger and hardier, which would probably make these pests much harder to get rid of than before.

Bugs, such as mosquitoes, will eventually gain resistance to the Genetically modified foods’ natural wards and become much harder to get rid of in late years. According to gmo-compass.org and holistic.com, BT is the most commonly used pesticide which is “naturally” produced inside such genetically modified food in a wide range, from corn, potatoes, fruits, and vegetables. Although the BT toxin is said to be “very specific” in which bugs to ward off, it still has a chance to harm non-targeted insects. There was research in 1999 in Arizona, which revealed insects would get used to BT tainted crops, such as cotton, would get resistant to them very quickly such as bollworms. The main problem was that these BT resistant worms could spread its resistance to other natural bollworms, rapidly expanding the population of bollworms of those who are inexorable to BT.

Overall, the world should ban GMO food since its cons outweigh its benefits by a large margin. If people continue to consume GMO food, which is happening in this exact moment, they will eventually lose the ability to be fertile, and the babies who are born from GMO food-consuming parents will be more susceptible to death. Like how mosquitoes became resistant to DDT, such pestering bugs will become resistant to the GMO foods’ resistances and might pose a greater harm to people later on. GMO foods, due to their altered gene structure, have a chance to pass on their genes toward non-target species, which cannot be fixed. If GMO foods were banned, people would be able to consume food that is naturally grown, and causes little harm compared to those who consume GMO foods. In my opinion, people should have healthy, natural food rather than genetically modified food which have countless amounts of risks.

Banning GMO Food

No-fly zone over Libya

    French President Nicholas Sarkozy passed the no-fly zone over Libya in order to prevent any more heavy-air bombings and raids on the rebels (the entire Libyan population in general). He also proclaimed that the French Planes are already flying over Libya to halt any heavy-ground or air assault, including tanks, half-tracks, and other ground vehicles. Muammar Gaddafi said that he passed a ceasefire to "stop all ongoing fights in the country" and even opened the country to the international community. However, it is said that the war is still fresh and going in many parts of the country; the Libyan Army is camped outside of 35 miles outside of Benghazi. To counter the month of straight-on victories by the rebels, Gaddafi had started to use heavily artillery and bombing raids in order to quickly drive out the opposition, which has anti-aircraft guns, but most don't even know how to use a gun.


    While Europe is supporting the no-fly zone, Barack Obama had declined the notion of the Act. According to him, the no-fly zone would be "meaningless", as it would require an extensively large air force to patrol the Libyan air. It would require hundreds of jets, as well as fuel tanks, surveillance systems, and other transportation systems in order to sustain them. Also, the United States is further away from Europe; which is another detriment. Even so, America did agree that it would take some form of military action if the dictator continued the war. As U.S. Air Force General Norman Schwartz said, it would "upwards of a week" to implement a no-fly zone if the government decided to apply it. England and France are all for the matter, but Germany and Russia has decided to stay out of the issue. So far  Benghazi, and other preiviously-rebel held cities (Misrata) are being shelled once again, despite Gaddafi's declaration of a "ceasefire".   Currently, Europe is seeing most of the action in helping the Libyan opposition, while America is backstage (Humanitarian Aid would be America's greatest asset, instead of military force).

   Libya, on the contrary, has an extensively large aircraft force which could make it difficult for France (and possibly other countries) to continue strongholding the no-fly zone. With  thousands of Libyans running away to Egypt and even Tunisia, America should really step it up and stop the madman Gaddafi from continuing to rampage his own country.


*By now, I am wondering why Gaddafi does not step down. Continuing to stubbornly keep his "authority" is only going to put Libya in a deeper hole.

The Changing Future

There are many new, life-changing laws, decrees, and practices that would affect all of us. This includes agricultural innovations, technology, and even slowing/halting the process of global warming by Geo engineering. However, the world is growing quickly and the annual crop yields are coming shorter and shorter by the year. The First Green Revolution had been started in the 1920s-1930s by the introduction of synthetic fertilizer made primarily of fossil fuels. This fertilizer made the soil much more productive, and even made some parts of the land arable; However, The Green Revolution required billions of raw materials, which included fossil fuels (the most important ingredient), sulfur, iron, magnesium, copper and zinc. However, the 2nd Green Revolution js focusing on the genetic mutation of plants to create hardier, immunized-against-diseases, faster-growing crops. Instead, the cost for this new Agricultural Age would require billions of tons of raw data. This Second Green Revolution would require an alliance between organic-farmers (Farmers who only want to grow food organically, even without fertilizer) and genetic scientists.

An example of this was the recent ongoing process of rice immunization of xanthamonas, a bacteria that decimated rice harvests all over Asia. As scientists continue their work on immunizing rice against Xanthamonas, they also believes bananas (which are being obliterated by a disease in East Africa) would also be able to have full immunity against Xanthamonas, as most edible bananas were cloned and therefore shared the same genes (which makes them very susceptible to plagues and blights). As the First Green Revolution demanded, and used up over a billion ton of resources (literally), genetic scientists plans to reduce the usage of fertilizers and increase the crops' "dependencies" on phosphorus (as it is found on the topsoil), and make it roots grow deeper and further to promote faster and even larger crop growth. The Green Revolution had its consequences: Agricultural runoff, usually poisonous, contaminated some freshwater supplies and created "dead zones" around oceans where that region was unusable. As well as the enormous cost of natural elements, scientists are also fighting countless nature activists who  resist the genetically-enhanced crops. In turn, the activists are accused of imperialism and extreme greed, and vague of the current world situation.However, no matter how much crops can be enhanced, they must be harvested, weeded, watered, and grown.

Water will grow to be a continuous, nagging problem in agricultural advances as well as pessimistic farmers who believe there is a limit to the amount of grown food, and the scientists should not go too far in their quest to stop hunger. Even Arpa-E, who sends grants to colleges and groups in order a spark a new Energy Revolution in 20 years, could get involved in this in order to speed up the process.

In addition, most organic farmers believe that genetically enhancing the soil or the crops would cause harm to the consumers and even the environment around them. Genetic scientists have deconstructed the genetic code which gives the rice immunity to Xanthomonas, which happens to be Xa21-106/TP309. This "hardened" rice crop had been cultivated by Pamela Ronald, but the rice had strangely not been (and still is not) accepted by the Chinese Department of Agriculture. 

Egypt's New Leader?

  Egypt, with its ruthless dictator Hosni Mubarak retreated to his mansion, now must choose a leader to lead the turbulent country of nearly 80 million toward democracy. At this moment, the military is holding most of the power Mubarak once had, and currently they have disassembled the Parliament and are following the demands of the populace. For 18 days, the nobel peace-prize laureate Mohamed ElBaradei arrived in Egypt the fuel the flames of rebellion and inspired them to continue fighting for democracy and freedom. But now Mubarak is gone, the government is dissolved, and the army is holding power. Who will take the lead of Egypt?

Mohamed ElBaradei, Omar Suleiman, and even  Wael Ghonim, who has gained nationwide (Egypt-wise) popularity and it is reported that he was one of the main fuel-ers of the rebellion. Even though he was a Nobel Peace-Prize bearer, Mohamed ElBaradei was, and still is the last possible candidate for the new presidential seat. He inspired the Egyptians to continue the fight, but he never actively led them from the day he was injured and treated in a nearby mosque. Ghonim in contrast,   set up the Facebook page and was one of the administrators of "We Are All Khaled Said" Facebook page, which was set up to commemorate a 28-year-old youth who was brutally beaten to death on June 6, 2010. He was taken by the police on 1/27 and wasn't tortured, but was interrogated for 2 weeks regarding the rising dissent and most importantly, why he created the page. He also noted how blocking FaceBook showed a sign that the Egyptian government actually feared something, as it had been the very gathering place of the resistance movement, which empowered the protestors to continue. It also showed how even the most controlling, authoritarian governments cannot control ever single aspect of life.


Recently, ElBaradei proclaimed that he did not wish to run for presidency, but he only wished to see Egypt become a democratic country and elect a leader "in his 40s - 50s".
Now for Omar Suleiman, who is quite the opposite of Mubarak and is in favor of many Israelis, Egyptians, and even the U.S. government. He was anti - Islamist, constantly arrested muslim activists,   and fueled Egypt's efforts to crush Hamas by demolishing the tunnels that have functioned as a smuggling conduit for both weapons and foodstuffs into Gaza. However, some people think he did this to gain the sentiments of the people, and moreover, he resisted Mubarak leaving office so quickly, but wanted him to rule until the end of the term. This was to allow a steady change into democracy, as a sudden, major change in the government could bring chaos.


Which person, Omar Suleiman(Appreciated by Egyptians, Israelis, and Americans), or Wael Ghonim (who was a major influence along with ElBaradei to the Movement by creating the FaceBook page) would become Egypt's next president?

Taco Bell Situation

UPDATED CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT STATEMENT

January 26, 2011

 

 

http://www.tacobell.com/menu/why-pay-more



"The lawsuit is bogus and filled with completely inaccurate facts. Our beef is 100% USDA inspected, just like the quality beef you would buy in a supermarket and prepare in your home. It then is slow-cooked and simmered with proprietary seasonings and spices to provide Taco Bell's signature taste and texture. Our seasoned beef recipe contains 88% quality USDA-inspected beef and 12% seasonings, spices, water and other ingredients that provide taste, texture and moisture. The lawyers got their facts wrong. We take this attack on our quality very seriously and plan to take legal action against them for making false statements about our products. There is no basis in fact or reality for this suit and we will vigorously defend the quality of our products from frivolous and misleading claims such as this." ... says Greg Creed.


Would Taco Bell actually use up to 88% REAL beef? The chain serves more than 2 billion customers each year, and moreover a pound of beef ranges from 2.49 - 3 dollars. With the demand for beef (and there fore its price) goes up annually, if Taco Bell used real meat in every single burrito, taco, and other condiments that they made, they would not have $1.92 billion in Revenue. Seeing how McDonalds use up to 560 million pounds of beef anually along with 58 million customers DAILY (which adds up to 21170000000 million, or about 2 trillion customers per year, and it is still rising), Taco Bell's profit yearly is quite meager compared to McDonald's. Using about 40% real beef would help Taco Bell financially, and with great advantages. The common person would not detect Fungus, soy, or even wheat gluten pressed in and combined with the meat to form a "100% Real Beef" substance. In general, I believe Taco Bell is using fake meat to save money, as the food chain is still marginally smaller than most major food companies (McDonalds, Wendy's, Burger King). KFC and Taco Bell are fast-food chains which are still growing (with KFC being the smallest). In fact, many people still speculate KFC uses fake chicken, or using chicken meat that has received the lowest quality care, treatment, feed, and overall life quality.

Do you think Taco Bell meat is real or fake?

Droid X vs. Samsung Fascinate

Droid X and Samsung Fascinate are both fantastic phones. the Droid Series all consist of excellent touch phones, as well as the Samsung Galaxy Series. It has been quite some time since both phones were released. In 2010, Droid and Apple have both been lagging behind, as they did not even make it to the Top 5 Best-Selling CellPhone Brands of 2010 (Which were:   Nokia,  Samsung, LG,  BlackBerry, and Sony Ericsson). The Samsung Galaxy Phones have become wildly popular, while the Droid and Apple are still in close quarters.
It is not surprising that BlackBerry got ahead of Droid this year, as BlackBerries are widely used as comfortable-to-use business phones.


(Droid X vs. Samsung Fascinate) Battery Life:

The Fascinate's 1500 mAH Battery allows it approximately 392 minutes for nonestop talking while the Droid X's 1540 mAH Battery allows it about 480 minutes of nonestop talk time. Both phones are best used for people who frequently call, but do not talk long (Droid X), and others who do not call often but talk for many hours (Samsung Fascinate). The typical businessman will choose Droid X, while a teen or college student might choose Samsung Fascinate.

Storage:

The Droid X comes with 8GB internal memory and 16GB (microSD card). The Samsung Fascinate has a meager 2GB internal memory and 16GB  (microSD card). Both phones come with a 30 GB external memory. Leaving the MicroSD cards aside, the Droid X can support 40 GB memory while the Samsung Fascinate can support max. 34 GB.

Speed:

Both have the Cortex ARM A8 Processor. The Processors both provide the same speed, but the Chips each phone is equipped with makes a difference. Samsung Fascinate carries its own so-called Hummingbird Chip with 1 GHz, while Droid X contains the OMAP Chip from Texas Instruments also with 1 GHz. The GHz's may be the same, but the Fascinate's ability of stream videos and support 3D much better than most Android Phones out in the market. The FPS difference on the YouTube benchmark tests between these two were almost 13 FPS.... so the Fascinate dominates the Droid X in terms of 3D, media, and speed.

(Rear) Camera:

A typical Droid phone will always have the best camera, which could even been seen between the Droid X and iPhone 4, where iPhone 4 won quite narrowly. The Fascinate's 5 MP, single LED cannot compete with the Droid X's 8 MP dual-LED camera. The Droid X's only roadblock to fully besting the Fascinate regarding Camera is the video quality. An average Fascinate's video streaming will be 6 FPS higher than a normal Droid X's.


Connection:

Both phones work very well with Verizon's 3G network, but Droid X takes full advantage of this feature. Thanks to its OMAP chip, it can act as a Wi-Fi hotspot and transmit the 3G network up to five (or even more, which is rare) wireless connected devices. This function is not free at the cost of $20/month, but this function alone gives it an edge over Fascinate.


Screen:

LCD 4.3-inch screen on the Droid X and the 4 inch OLED panel on the Samsung Fascinate definitely is quite a match. The Super OLED screen is great when you are in the dark, but on a typical summer day, it tends to blur a bit and tends to fade out due to the strong sun. The Droid X's LCD screen works fine in any environment as it is "sun-shy". Its slightly bigger than the Fascinate as well, with 480x 860 compared to 480x800. The Droid X definitely wins this one.


So which phone would you choose? I would go alone with the Droid X, as it has a much better speed, screen, acts as a Wi-Fi hotspot, act as a great camera, and its longer Battery Life and Storage is ideal for the typical student who downloads many songs and apps.

iPhone 4 vs Droid X (Comparison)

Both iPhone 4 and Droid X are very refined, high quality touch phones. The iPhone 4 have some disadvantages over the Droid X in terms of battery life and Flash (The biggest flaw on any Apple mobile device). The speed of the iPhone 4, and its superb video and audio conferencing ability bested the Droid X, but barely. While the Droid X has the 8 MP Camera, iPhone 4 has geotagging and tap-to-focus, which allows the user to clarify the picture, such as reducing or increasing the amount of light in it. One important thing most iPhone devices miss out (iPad, iPhone 3g, 3gs, and 4) is to act as a mobile Wi-Fi hotspot. Also, holding the iPhone 4 a certain way suddenly cuts down the Wi-Fi from 5 bars to 2, or sometimes even slower.

As for the apps, Apple has more apps than any other phone/ phone company will have. However, the Apple app market restricts its customers from "outside sources", which include getting apps from unauthorized people. The Android Market has about 4x less apps, but it legalizes dealings with other "unauthorized" users who have created their own apps. iPhone 4 only comes with 16 or 32 GB Storage, but does not have any expendable storage, while Droid X comes with a MicroSD 16 GB external storage along with the meager 8 GB internal storage it comes along with. The MicroSD also can be bought with 32 GB storage, which boosts the Droid X's total internal and external storage to 40 GB.

iPhone 4 has the edge in speed, front-facing video conferencing camera, and app variety in the "legalized" market. However, the Droid X can harvest up to 8 GB more internal-and-external memory, support a better camera (Dual LED, 8 MP), and act as a Wi-Fi hotspot. Seeing these specs, I would go with the Droid X. What would YOU go with?

iPhone 4 vs Samsung Galaxy S ---> Comparison

           

          iPhone 4 is one of the best phones out in the market right now, along with Evo 4g (It is quite surprising how sometimes, the 4g network in Evo is slower than the Wi-Fi in the iPhone 4), Samsung Galaxy Series Phones, and the Motorola Droids. Even though the  "elite " Droid phones (with Android), such as Droid X and Droid 2 are still quite competitive in the market, others phones such as T-mobile MyTouch 4g and LG Optimus (speed and economic-wise) have gone up ahead. In fact, the Droid Touch Phones did not even go into the top 5 "Best Phones of 2010".



Galaxy S comes with Android 2.1 Eclair with the Samsung TouchWiz 3.0 UI and is supposed to get the Android 2.2 Froyo update soon. The iPhone 4 comes with the latest version of the iPhone OS - iOS4. The iOS platform has more than 225,000 applications in the App Store while the Android Market has around 68,000 applications. While the iPhone Appstore is restricted, the Android Market is open. Android 2.2 will also have Flash support. The Galaxy S comes with the Swype text input system built into the device which

is a lot easier than typing virtual keys ( like the BlackBerry Storm 2 "press" screen). The Android Market is like a "jailbroken" iPhone appstore, as you can get apps that are not currently uploaded into the app store.

 

Regarding the design and size, the iPhone 4 has a clean, elegant design and the Galaxy S has a stylish, minimal design too. The Galaxy S is considerably bigger than the iPhone 4. Both are extremely slim and have superb build qualities. The iPhone 4 has a beautiful 3.5 inch retina display with a resolution of 640 x 960 pixels, while the Samsung Galaxy S has a brilliant 4 inch Super AMOLED display with a resolution of 480 x 800 pixels. Both the displays are easily among the best, with the iPhone 4 marginally leading the way in terms of display quality and the Galaxy S winning the size battle. Both Phones have a 1 GHz and 512 MB RAM restriction. Galaxy S has 8/16 internal memory with a 32GB microSD card. while the iPhone 4 can come in either 32 or 16GB. All Galaxy Phones have a Super AMOLED screen (which is one reason for the heavy price tags), and especially on the Samsung Galaxy Epic 4g, the Super AMOLED is the best and most polished. In fact, the epic 4g was the 1st on the top 5 2010 phones on CNET.

Both the iPhone 4 and the Galaxy S are closely matched in the multimedia category. The Galaxy S has a great 5 MP camera with a resolution of 2592 x 1944 pixels. It also has features like autofocus, geotagging, touch focus, face detection, and smile detection. The iPhone 4 has an 5 MP camera with autofocus and LED flash which can capture images at a resolution of 2592 x 1944 pixels too. Both of them take excellent shots but the iPhone has a large image sensor which produces more "finely-grained" images than the Galaxy S's. Both the Galaxy S and the iPhone 4 can record 720p videos at 30 FPS. The iPhone 4 also comes with a front facing secondary camera which lets you make video calls using Facetime; while the the Galaxy S doesn't have a secondary camera, as video chat is not on most of the Galaxy Phones. The iPhone 4 clearly has the upper hand when it comes to camera and video recording.

The iPhone 4 beats down the Galaxy S in multimedia, but sadly the Galaxy S allows itself to act as a Wi-Fi mobile hotspot while the iPhone 4 does not have this feature. HSDPA, A2DP, GPRS etc. are all on both phones. Also, if an iPhone 4 is askance or held in a certain position, its Wi-Fi will suddenly degrade, which gives the Galaxy S an edge in network.

Personally, both phones are extremely advanced and it would be very hard to decide which one anyone would choose without looking at its capabilities first. iPhone 4 has better multimedia capabilities, while Galaxy S is more of a business phone, as its networking options vary greatly, and function much more flawlessly than iPhone 4. I would go with the Galaxy S, as an ardent schooler, I would definitely need the strong, stable Wi-Fi to connect to my contacts, etc etc.

 

 

Galaxy Tab vs. iPad

  The Android vs. Apple battle for supremacy has occurred over phones, such as Motorola Droid X, HTC Evo 4g, and iPhone 3g and 4. But now, it has also come down to the land of Tablets. There have been many not-so-good "imitations" of iPad, but me and most likely thousands of others probably agree Samsung Galaxy Tab is the real match.

 Looking at the "speed" specs, it seems Samsung Galaxy Tab races ahead the Apple iPad. For example, The Galaxy Tab has twice as much RAM (512 MB), and has Bluetooth/Phone function, and supports Flash (which is one huge problem Apple iPad and iPhone suffers from), and weighs less. True, iPad's internal storage allows twice as much the Galaxy Tab's, but it has no expendable storage unlike the Samsung Galaxy Tab which has 32 GB. Lastly, it has 3.2 rear and 1.2 front facing cameras for Video Chat and Taking Pictures.  Overall, the Galaxy Tab is like an enlarged phone,  which calling, camera functionality, and a greater variety of apps. (Samsung Tab allows non-Marketed Apps while iPad limits the user to just the Apple App Store). Just before I go, the GPS is on every Galaxy Tab unlike the iPad which only comes with on the 3G.  Personally, I think Samsung Galaxy Tab is better than the iPad, especially its great functionality as a "phone", camera, speed, storage capacity, and weight.


Update: The price for the Samsung Galaxy Tab is $499, making it affordable and being equally as expensive as the iPad, with the same specs and features on the list above.