161–170 of 279 posts
This is like during apartheid claiming that you are delighted to have partnership with government of South Africa. Or like now partnership with Ministry of Morals of Saudi Arabia.
All customers are good, but but you don't parade all of them during triumph.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> wouldn't be surprised. There is much we don't know. There are many processes of ongoing genetic transfer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer Next time ask for clarification.
I'm well aware of horizontal gene transfer, but thanks for linking it anyways for the people who don't know. Edit: My response was lacking, apologies. AFAIK, there's never been a horizontal gene transfer from a prokaryote/eukaryote/any other kingdom to a mammal or animal. The last time may be when we got mitocondria.
Now I have some prions to go BBQ.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The herbicide isn't what's interesting or valuable. Headpalm. You DO realize that the point of the gene is to SELL ROUNDUP, right? Not using RoundUp on "RoundUp Ready!" crops kind of defeats the entire purpose . " Sales for Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides peaked at about $4 billion in 2008 when the product line generated record gross profit of nearly $2 billion. Roundup-branded glyphosate, commerciali…
The licensing fees we're talking about farmers getting sued over are for the Roundup-ready crops, not the herbicide. The point of the Roundup-ready system is that it allows you to plant crops that aren't killed by Roundup. As someone else noted, you can buy Roundup itself at Wal-mart. I think even a cursory read of the thread would have indicated to a good-faith commenter that I know the basics of the difference betw…
And who do you think makes money when you do that?
Hint: It rhymes with "Monsanto".
> that I know the basics of the difference between Roundup and the Roundup-ready GMO product.
Not in dispute. Dispute is over your claim of them getting something for "nothing" because they used RoundUp.
Monsanto gets paid if they use RoundUp. RoundUp, unlike seeds, doesn't grow itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wholeheartedly agree. Monsanto's tactics in this situation are the greater evil, imho. The approach is the issue. I'm not under the assumption that every farmer is innocent, but Monsanto's actions against him/her lead my heart to plead on behalf of the farmer nonetheless. The tactics of Monsanto show me where their heart is, $2mm a day or not in research expenditures.
I don't understand your argument at all. Monsanto is a business, not a research laboratory or a charity.
Fuck Monsanto, and by association, fuck Cloudant. "We’ve been working with them for a few weeks now and we couldn’t be more thrilled with the partnership." Thrilled? I guess money is thrilling. "The data & reporting interfaces will be used across Monsanto and should be instrumental in the making of key business decisions." Key business decisions like which small farmer to sue into oblivion? Or what third world nation…
It's an unfortunate sign for HN when the top comment on a thread is such a content-free rant. If the rule is, if x sells something to Monsanto, fuck x, then what you're saying is fuck the entire corporate world, because I'm sure Monsanto buys Apple computers and Chevrolets and Clorox too. It's sort of ridiculous to hold Cloudant to a standard that essentially zero other companies meet. There are frequently inane comm…
I'm sure there are many evil corporate dealings in the world that would warrant such a "content-free rant"; however, those companies are smart enough not to celebrate their evil doings on a site as popular as HN.
Perhaps YC should provide media training: Item 1; keep your skeletons in the closet.
EDIT: Furthermore, Cloudant isn't supplying Monsanto with something as simple as a car. They, as they themselves put it, are fundamentally helping shape the way Monsanto does business.
I also find it troubling that instead of addressing the issue at hand, or at least providing a defense for this company, you instead ridicule your own userbase for putting my "content-free" rant at the top of this thread. That seems infinitely more content-free than anything I've added/not added to the discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The licensing fees we're talking about farmers getting sued over are for the Roundup-ready crops, not the herbicide. The point of the Roundup-ready system is that it allows you to plant crops that aren't killed by Roundup. As someone else noted, you can buy Roundup itself at Wal-mart. I think even a cursory read of the thread would have indicated to a good-faith commenter that I know the basics of the difference betw…
> As someone else noted, you can buy Roundup itself at Wal-mart. And who do you think makes money when you do that? Hint: It rhymes with "Monsanto". > that I know the basics of the difference between Roundup and the Roundup-ready GMO product. Not in dispute. Dispute is over your claim of them getting something for "nothing" because they used RoundUp. Monsanto gets paid if they use RoundUp. RoundUp, unlike seeds, does…
For those looking for some background on Monsanto, take the time to read through this Vanity Fair article from 2008: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto... .
For another side of Monsanto's story, see Norman Bourlag's speech commemorating Monsanto's committment to rice and wheat breeding[1]. Norman Bourlag's life work was to develop and distribute high-yield crops. He's a Nobel peace prize winner and is often credited with saving over a billion lives. Monsanto is carrying on his work at a scale he always strived for. People in this field is deeply passionate and morally in…
An employee emoting isn't the company or its actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they're not only admitting to power one of the most hated aspects of the company (genetic manipulation of seeds), but they're actually touting it as a win for the company. It is a win for Cloudant. A huge win. They're a data company, not a biological warfare company. Their product will be used in an incredibly data-intensive application to do some really cool analysis. That's awesome for a data startup, and somethi…
I personally wouldn't partner with Lockheed Martin if my tech was going to be used for weaponry. We've refused lucrative contracts with certain companies because we don't respect their product or their past behavior. It completely depends on the relative weight of what you find important. Partnership deals happen in the background without anyone knowing about it unless you are in the scene. Fact is that they could've…
Say goodbye to the vast majority of technological, materials, and aerospace development of the 20th century.
>The fact is that Monsanto has a long history of harmful activities in the United States
So? Sequencing genes isn't one of them.
>Sure, Cloudant isn't a bio warfare company, but the fact is that they are proud to be associated with Monsanto
They're proud that their product has found such a demanding and high-profile customer. They should be. They aren't providing logistical support for Monsanto's campaign to crush independent farmers, they're providing the backbone for gene sequencing.
It doesn't matter what you think of Monsanto or some of their policies. Fact is, Cloudant has found a demanding and bleeding-edge customer for their product, which will lead to big advances both in its adoption and its underlying technology. That's a Good Thing.
(I dislike Monsanto's heavy-handed IP enforcement, but the data scientists are pretty far away from that; it's like criticizing Microsoft Research for the Windows OEM bundling concerns. I prefer organic food, but I'm happy that industrial agriculture/the green revolution keeps billions of people from starving.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand your argument at all. Monsanto is a business, not a research laboratory or a charity.
Nor do they have morals or ethics. Only profit.
With that in mind, help me understand what you hoped to communicate with this comment. Did you feel like you were maybe pointing out something I hadn't considered? Did you expect a comment like this might change anyone's mind? Or cause someone to say, "you know what, I hadn't thought of Monsanto this way before"?