chinese-ethnic-furniture.com

Friday, November 3, 2006

On November 13, Torontonians will be heading to the polls to vote for their ward’s councillor and for mayor. Among Toronto’s ridings is Don Valley West (Ward 25). Three candidates responded to Wikinews’ requests for an interview. This ward’s candidates include John Blair, Robertson Boyle, Tony Dickins, Cliff Jenkins (incumbent), and Peter Kapsalis.

For more information on the election, read Toronto municipal election, 2006.

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

A National Academy of Sciences report (.pdf) last year said that while the milk and meat from cloned animals would not likely make anyone sick, more research should be performed. Now, a new US-Japan study published in the April 11 online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that milk and meat from cloned cattle does indeed appear to meet industry standards and appears to be safe for human consumption.

As BBC News reports, the scientists, led by Professor Jerry Yang from the University of Connecticut, compared the produce from two beef and four dairy clones, all derived from a single Holstein dairy cow and a single Japanese black bull, with the produce from normal animals of similar age and breed.

The meat was analysed against more than 100 physiological, tissue and cellular components, while the milk was analysed for protein, fat and other variables. No significant differences between the produce of cloned and normal cattle were found. Higher levels of fat and fatty acids were found in the cloned cow meat, but they still fell within beef industry standards.

While the study showed the cloned produce to be within the range approved for human consumption, the scientists stressed that the research was still in its early stages. Their findings, they said, provide “guidelines” for further research with larger numbers of clones from different genetic backgrounds.

Cloning livestock may one day increase yields by copying those animals that are especially productive and especially resistant to disease.

“The milking production levels in the US are three to four times higher than levels in China; maybe even five times or more compared to cows in India and some other countries,” Professor Jerry Yang told BBC News. “Therefore cloning could offer technology for duplicating superior farm animals. However, all the products from these cloned animals must be safe for human consumption. …and it is a major issue for scientists to provide a scientific basis for the data and information to address this question.”

As USA Today reports, there is currently no law governing the sale of meat or milk from the estimated 1,000 to 2,000 cloned farm animals in the USA. But since 2003, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has asked producers to voluntarily keep the meat and milk of these animals, and that of their offspring, out of the food supply.

Wired News reports that companies like ViaGen and Cyagra, which offer livestock-cloning services, have also been waiting for several years for a final say from the FDA.

“For the United States agricultural industry, (cloning) can reduce the number of cows necessary for milking,” said Jerry Yang “They can have a pleasant environment and produce even more milk.” He also said that cloning cattle from the United States, where genetic breeding is more advanced, could save developing countries 50 years of breeding.

The idea of cloning animals for human consumption is not without its critics. First, there are the welfare concerns, as most cloned animals do not make it to term before being born, and many of those that do are born deformed or prone to illness. The Humane Society of the United States has asked for a ban on milk and meat from clones for just this reason. Second, there is still the concern that healthy clones may have subtle defects that could make their food products unsafe to eat.

As the Washington Post reports, some critics are asking why it is necessary to clone cows that produce huge amounts of milk when surpluses, rather than shortages, are the main problem facing the U.S. dairy industry today.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Indian authorities today declared an intent to force web companies to screen content for “offensive” and “blasphemous material”. The move follows failed talks yesterday with Facebook, Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft.

Communications Minister Kapil Sibal says “My aim is that insulting material never gets uploaded”, and that web firms “will have to give us the data, where these images are being uploaded and who is doing it.” The government’s planned new policy is in response to web-based firms informing him they could not prevent such material being uploaded. “They have given it to me in writing that they will not do anything until we get an order from the court,” even though “At a meeting on 4 November, we showed them some of the photos and they too agreed that the photos were offensive,” said Sibal. The disputed material was first discussed three months ago.

Sibal calls the situation “unacceptable” and disputes the firms’ defence of being merely “platforms” for others to add material. He claims they showed their “intention was not to cooperate”. Facebook promised ongoing dialogue in a statement and “[recognise] the government’s interest in minimising the amount of abusive content”. They also promised to “remove any content that violates our terms, which are designed to keep material that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity off the service.”

Google say they remove material breaching their policies and to comply with local legislation. “But when content is legal and doesn’t violate our policies, we won’t remove it just because it’s controversial, as we believe that people’s differing views, so long as they’re legal, should be respected and protected,” the company added.

“We have to take care of the sensibilities of our people, we have to protect their sensibilities. Our cultural ethos is very important to us,” Sibal said today. A response from web firms of “we throw up our hands, we can’t do anything about this” would not be tolerated.

Although some reports suggest the spat has been triggered by critiques of powerful politician Sonia Gandhi, Sibal claims the firms have previously hesitated to respond to requests for details of “terrorists”. All the material the government wishes to censor is “absolutely illegal, defamatory, pornographic or other similar kind of material” says Congress spokesman Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Material in question includes cartoons of Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and material mocking religion including an image depicting pigs in Mecca.

Indian computer security expert Vijay Mukhi rubbished the suggestions. “The idea of prescreening is impossible. How will they do it?… There is no technology currently that determines whether content is ‘defamatory’ or ‘offensive’,” he told Reuters. This sentiment was broadly echoed by large numbers on Twitter; the tag #IdiotKapilSibal was among the nation’s Twitter users’ most-used today. Twitter and Facebook were the organising points earlier this year for an anti-graft campaign that saw thousands protesting and new laws passed.

Internet companies insist too much material flows through the web to make such screening plausible. Sibal says the firms are applying US standards which do not take Indian needs into account.

Research in Motion last year resisted Indian security demands for access to encrypted BlackBerry communications. The government gave up that request but did manage to gain limited access to some BlackBerry communications. Skype and Google were told then that local servers would be mandatory, allowing the government to inspect emails.

About 100 million of India’s 1.2 billion people are online. There are 28 million Indian Facebook profiles. Google says it has received 68 content removal requests from Indian officials this year, and there have also been concerns Google Earth could be used to plan militant attacks.

India’s new moves follow criticism of the United Kingdom earlier this year. The UK proposed social media restrictions following riots while the Foreign Secretary simultaneously criticised other nations using social media controls to limit protest.

Monday, September 12, 2005

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is being criticized for misallocation of personnel in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. FEMA representatives said they requested volunteers from fire departments around the U.S., to handle its community relations campaign. However, a document FEMA sent to local fire departments asked for firefighters with very specific skills and who were capable of working in “austere conditions”. Fire departments around the nation responded by sending crews to the FEMA staging ground in Atlanta. Some of these crews were unaware that they were only going to be used for public relations work. Others, however, merely hoped that FEMA would allocate them to rescue and damage control operations once it saw their qualifications.

The firefighter’s objections are particularly poignant as one of FEMA public relations training seminars coincided with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin plea for firefighters on national television, to relieve his own exhausted crews. It is unclear if FEMA’s request for firefighters prevented any municipalities from responding to Mayor Nagin’s request.

Some firefighters have objected to their use as FEMA public relations officers because their municipalities must bear the cost of their salaries, as well as endure reduced firefighting capacity. FEMA has stated that it sought to use firefighters to avoid background checks required of federal employees.

Firefighters began receiving their assignments Monday, September 5th. Among these was a crew of 50 assigned to tour the devastated areas with President Bush and the press.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

Lloyd Helferty is running for the Green Party of Ontario in the Ontario provincial election, in the Thornhill riding. Wikinews’ Nick Moreau interviewed him regarding his values, his experience, and his campaign.

Stay tuned for further interviews; every candidate from every party is eligible, and will be contacted. Expect interviews from Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, New Democratic Party members, Ontario Greens, as well as members from the Family Coalition, Freedom, Communist, Libertarian, and Confederation of Regions parties, as well as independents.