Slashdot Mirror

as noted elsewhere the article measured perceived disruptions, not productivity. Full text here (blackwell-synergy.com). It's from Oct of 2007.

This isn't the first time we've seen evolution in the lab. Andrew Spiers has been doing it for years - e.g.
here (2003) or more recently here.

Basically Spiers grows bacteria in an unstired beaker. As the limiting resource for growth (nitrogen? Oxygen? I forget) is most available at the top of the beaker, it soon evolves a mutation which allows the bacteria to stick together and form a mat at the top ("wrinkly spreader"). Then somewhat later the mat collapses as freeloaders have evolved and come to dominate the population.

Spiers' experiment is highly predictable - the populations always go through the same phases, but different colonies turn out to have used different mutations to get there. This differs significantly from the research here, where it appears a low probability event has occured.

(Warning: the above is primarily based on my memory of a talk he gave several years ago. My memory is known to be lossy.)

The paper in the posting is a reply to a comment with the contrary interpretation (i.e. that Lake Cheko isn't an impact) [Same paper as PDF]. The critical comment should be cited too.

The original paper by Gasperini et al. (2007) is also available as PDF and HTML.

I'm not particularly convinced by the evidence they present. It's quite circumstantial. What they need to find and sample is an ejecta-related layer in the lake stratigraphy or in a lake nearby, and you'd think that if such a large impactor hit the ground there would be plenty of micrometeorite debris in the sediments of the surrounding area. Geomorphological evidence and age just isn't enough.

The paper in the posting is a reply to a comment with the contrary interpretation (i.e. that Lake Cheko isn't an impact) [Same paper as PDF]. The critical comment should be cited too.

The original paper by Gasperini et al. (2007) is also available as PDF and HTML.

I'm not particularly convinced by the evidence they present. It's quite circumstantial. What they need to find and sample is an ejecta-related layer in the lake stratigraphy or in a lake nearby, and you'd think that if such a large impactor hit the ground there would be plenty of micrometeorite debris in the sediments of the surrounding area. Geomorphological evidence and age just isn't enough.

The paper in the posting is a reply to a comment with the contrary interpretation (i.e. that Lake Cheko isn't an impact) [Same paper as PDF]. The critical comment should be cited too.

The original paper by Gasperini et al. (2007) is also available as PDF and HTML.

I'm not particularly convinced by the evidence they present. It's quite circumstantial. What they need to find and sample is an ejecta-related layer in the lake stratigraphy or in a lake nearby, and you'd think that if such a large impactor hit the ground there would be plenty of micrometeorite debris in the sediments of the surrounding area. Geomorphological evidence and age just isn't enough.

The paper in the posting is a reply to a comment with the contrary interpretation (i.e. that Lake Cheko isn't an impact) [Same paper as PDF]. The critical comment should be cited too.

The original paper by Gasperini et al. (2007) is also available as PDF and HTML.

I'm not particularly convinced by the evidence they present. It's quite circumstantial. What they need to find and sample is an ejecta-related layer in the lake stratigraphy or in a lake nearby, and you'd think that if such a large impactor hit the ground there would be plenty of micrometeorite debris in the sediments of the surrounding area. Geomorphological evidence and age just isn't enough.

i don't know if individual ants are warm blooded or not, but army ant's bivouacs can get pretty warm due to the heat produced by 200k ants packed in a small ball they form with their own bodies.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-3032.1989.tb01109.x

The Tasmanian plant has been cloning itself for at least 43,600 years, so its genetic code hasn't changed. A part of the point of sexual reproduction is 'swapping' our genes so that our descendants are more readily adaptable to new or changed environments: in a sense, 'editing' our genetic code for each new generation. Although some single-celled organisms do reproduce sexually - in bacteria that's called conjugation - many (usually) don't. So... in the sense that each of us humans is the "same" organism even though we have new cells / some of our cells have died, some blue-green algae are at least a billion years old, some amoeba are more than a million years old, etc. If "continuously existing community of genetically identical cells" is how you define "individual," then some algae mats are awesomely ancient beings!

Freedom Evolves is an extension of his earlier view. Dennett is actually a compatibilist so I think you may be projecting somewhat with the supposed confusion. He does lean on explanations that diminish control, hence the metaphors about the self as the center of narrative gravity, or like a symphony, and some silly views about qualia; however he is a compatibilist and does think we do exercise control (maybe less than others would tend to think) hence the subtitle "varieties of free will worth having"

I prefer a compatibilist view more similar to the one expressed by Jenann Ismael:

http://www.usyd.edu.au/time/ismael/papers/5.freedom&determinism.pdf
http://www.usyd.edu.au/time/ismael/papers/selves.pdf
http://www.usyd.edu.au/time/ismael/papers/6.causation_perspective_agency.pdf

also:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00057.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=ppsc

Like how "CO2 causes man-made climate change", when, in fact, CO2, when the ocean...ya know...that 3/4 of the Earth's surface, spews CO2, it cools, not heats the surface air. It's an 'inconvenient truth', but is core to the problems with this, the world's biggest hoax.

The chemical reactions that lead to the oceans releasing CO2 may (or may not) be endothermic; that has nothing to do with the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Did you never have a science lab where you worked with compressed gases? If you open up a tank of compressed CO2, the tank gets colder, because heat is absorbed in the expansion of the gas. (Safety hint, kids: this is why you never huff nitrous directly from the tank, it'll freeze your lungs.) That has nothing to do with CO2's role as a greenhouse gas.

The nearly world-class hoax of the ozone hole.

We put the brakes on ozone depletion before it got really bad; still, there is evidence that ozone loss has increased skin cancer in the most affected regions, and is having an impact on wildlife.

Doesn't anyone care about freedom anymore? Must we all join the fascists? Any problem that can be solved by sending money to Washington or voting Democrat isn't worth solving.

Thank you for so completely illustrating the problem. You seem to be so locked into your loathing of "voting Democrat" and your odd notion that "freedom" means that you get to pollute the planet and destroy resources that don't belong to you, that you've created a reality distortion field around yourself.

Before we can communicate science to people like you, we'd have to cure this pathogenic political condition. I'm not sure it can be done.

Here is the original publication. I can view fulltext from my computer on campus, but it could be a subscription-only.

This is a link to the article (you probably need an academic IP to be able to access it)

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.2008.0030-1299.16551.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A(tomas+grim)

If you take the time to read it, you see that the data comes from no more than 18 people and the r^2 value of the alcohol consumption-publication correlation was 0.55. That doesn't convince me at all. In fact, it is a shame that the NYTimes picks up on this type of sensationalist pseudo science.

The full text of the journal article is located here:
A possible role of social activity to explain differences in publication output among ecologists

Unfortunately, you have to be somewhere that's paid the journal's ransom.

Sam

decisions on a child's health are the domain of his or her parents and doctors, not government.

When I was stationed in Thailand I had a friend who had jungle rot on his penis, necessitating circumcision.

After it healed he made no complaints about loss of pleasure during sex.

That and the research showing that uncircimsized men having unprotected sex are three times more likely to contract AIDS than uncircumcised men would have me INSIST on circumcision were I to have a son.

Again, keep your nanny state laws off my family.

• "A survey of the 35 female and 42 gay sexual partners of circumcised and genitally intact men, and a separate survey of 53 circumcised and 30 genitally intact men themselves, indicated that circumcised men experienced significantly reduced sexual sensation along with associated long-lasting negative emotional consequences."; Adverse sexual and psychological effects of male infant circumcision. Boyle GJ, Bensley GA
• "We found no relationship between childhood circumcision age and overall sexual function; however some specific domains of sexual function (i.e. avoidance and communication) seemed to be affected by the age at circumcision procedure in this cohort of sexually active males. In addition, prevalence of sexual dysfunction was higher, with premature ejaculation being the most common dysfunction in the survey. We concluded that childhood circumcision age might affect some domains of male sexual function in adulthood, but not the overall function."; Effects of childhood circumcision age on adult male sexual functions. Aydur E et al.

Also, you say in a post further down:

• The psychological impact of circumcision; R. Goldman 1999
• Physical, sexual, and psychological effects of male infant circumcision: an exploratory survey; GA Bensley, GJ Boyle 2001

And finally, although circumcised men have lower risk for some infections and penile cancer, WHO states that "some of these conditions are rare while others are uncommon or treatable, and routine neonatal circumcision is not currently recommended on medical grounds". Promoting circumcision is being considered by the WHO as a way of reducing the risk of HIV infections in countries in a particularly dire state, like South Africa. But again, it only reduces the risk, and does not in any way replace the use of condoms. Also, studies are still ongoing on this.

So there. Was there anything unclear?

cheap crap coming out of China.

Even Japan and Korea have been forced to manufacture in China, and Chinese companies DO realize that they have to improve or else...:

Japanese management style in China? Production practices in ...
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-005X.00058

Location decisions of Japanese new manufacturing plants in China ...
http://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/anresc/v40y2006i2p369-387.html

Even way back in 2002:

Samsung, LG Relocating Plants to China| Korea.net News
http://www.kois.go.kr/news/news/newsView.asp?serial_no=20020505006&part=104&SearchDay=2002.05.06

I find it hypocritical that US and wester nations (but the US, particularly) will spew volumes of criticism against China when just recently we have facing us a 143 million pounds beef recall. We endured selenium and other chemicals and metals in our water supply, with government not being aggressive enough on some offenders.

Granted, it is totally unacceptable for any company to produce goods containing lead, arsenic, other toxins, or flaking/dangerous matter.

The vast majority of the billions of animals grown for food out there are NOT fed by allowing them to freely graze "in forests and other areas". Most of them live out their lives in intensive factory farming operations. They are mostly fed vegetable and grain based diets, designed to make them grow quickly. So if you were to eat only meat, you would not avoid the need to grow vegetables. In fact, to grow a pound of beef in north america, it takes at least 2.6 pounds of grain (if you take the numbers from the beef industry at face value). And all this grain is not grown anywhere near the feed lots, either. It is shipped to the cows from all over the world, again requiring large amounts of fossil fuels. And I haven't even mentioned the methane that is produced by cattle in enormous quantities, or the methane produced by their manure. And this is just for cattle. You also need to factor in the billions more pigs, chickens, etc.

Your only valid point is that too much of the vegetables we buy comes from too far away, and that is why it is not only important to eat less meat (note I didn't say NO meat), but it is also important to purchase as much seasonal, local produce as possible. One criticism you missed, however, is the popularity of heavily processed meat substitutes (eg: "Tofurkey"). They probably consume far more energy per pound than most meats.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_animal_feeding_operation
http://www.beeffrompasturetoplate.org/mythmeatproductioniswasteful.aspx#Sixteen%20pounds%20of%20grain
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=asj
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h307k69711m5nh00/

The abstract of their publication says they in fact read 301 letters, not 300.

If someone would take it's two minutes in order to check out the article, then it would be quickly realised that the _abstract_ of the actual paper is more detailed than the whole article linked in the summary and it is also free of the stupid sensationalization.

Among the structured survey respondents, the two most common reasons were "having a baby would dramatically change my life" and "I can't afford a baby now" (cited by 74% and 73%, respectively--Table 2).

Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively).

I'm sorry to disturb the parallel parking conveniences day dreaming of some, but the real advantage is the elimination of blind spots. For starters, if every SUV (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/22/earlyshow/living/parenting/main526462.shtml), truck (http://www.oregonlive.com/metro/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1192245943100770.xml&coll=7), tractor (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1440-1754.1998.00177.x?cookieSet=1) or van had such a device, thousands of lives around the globe would be saved each year.

Run a poll of file sharers or record execs have you? Performed a psychological study perhaps?

Actually, yes, my background is in research psychology and I am familiar with scholarly articles on this topic. (here's a quick couple one-off: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/adar/index.html or maybe: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00301.x. There's a lot more out there and the consensus is that basically, a very small percentage of people host a majority of the content and that "free-riding" is more of a threat to P2P networks than litigation.

Anyway, I have also spent enough time with a significant number of file sharing users that I did, in fact, feel that my statement was reasonably well substantiated by my own experience -- and clearly, it was a statement of opinion, albeit an informed one rooted in facts, but had I wanted to (or felt the need to make an airtight case), I would have gone into more depth.

I find it interesting how quick you were to judge my background and make your own suppositions while disparaging me for what you were assuming about me. Ironic, and not even in that Alanis Morissette kind of way. Good for you!

The 30-foot-long dinosaur, which stood about 10-12 feet tall at the hips and weighed several tons[natch], is believed to be the largest specimen recovered from the site's 75-million-year-old Kaiparowits Formation. A description of the dino appears in this month's Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.

If the results make almost everybody uncomfortable, then journalists don't write about it.

Case in point, this study documenting the effects of circumcision got almost no journalistic attention whatsoever, even though it's exactly the kind of information needed by parents in about half of all births:

abstract
pdf

It's the same reason this comment will be ignored.

When ice melts into salt water, the water level actually does rise. Because of the density of the salt water, the ice floats higher on the ocean. When it all melts in, it will incease the raise the water level. Not a lot, but there will be some rise.

Ref:
Ecology.com
Geophysical Journal International

In other news, there is a powerful correlation between Stork populations and births in Germany.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j .1365-3016.2003.00534.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=pp e

Clearly, that bullshit about babies coming out of human mothers was meant to confuse us while crazed anti-human PETA representatives kill off all the Storks as a means to destroy the human race. It is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from such a correlation. No need to look into external variables, the only two variables are # of storks and # of babies born.

How do people get off randomly correlating two variables and claiming they have something more than a correlation? Who assumes correlation == causality anymore? Hey, did you know more black people are in jail than white people? Nevermind social inequality and the population density distributions of the two races, just look at the numbers -- clearly black people break more laws.

I heard the same. I did a bit of googling and came up with this article (although it is only an abstract). There's also a comment and reply to this article, but it isn't accessible, unfortunately. And here's a news article. From the looks of it, they had mixed success because the quality of the video tape was so poor.

For a geologist (I'm one) seemingly mundane outcrops of rock can be as distinctive as, oh [struggling with analogy] the US Capitol Building versus the UK Houses of Parliament. Both the rock and the way it is naturally weathered can be quite unique, almost like a fingerprint, and it will be very familiar to a geologist that worked in the area.

Cross reference the geology with a bit of extra information (e.g., time of day, shadow height and angle, or some general idea of where someone is), and it could really narrow down the possibilities. It's even better if the camera moves, because it becomes possible to recover some types of 3D information using stereo photogrammetry techniques

It is interesting that after those early "video in a canyon" clips of bin Laden most of the terrorist video clips supposedly from Afganistan (or Pakistan?) have had a bland-looking sheet or some other backdrop. As you suggest, I think the terrorists learned the lesson that they were giving away more information than they thought. The same is true for almost any outdoor scene.

Really? Then
why is technical
and industrial know-how
locked up in
pay-to-view websites
in the US?

anyone who wants to can go and read about finite element analysis; there's no secrets there.

Great. Now where are the directions for extracting stigmasterol from soybeans and using it to make corticosteroids?

I'm no geologist so I can't comment on whether or not this lake looks typical but I will say that, judging by the coloration of the foliage around it, this is probable the same land as the river/stream that winds to the west of it. Interesting is that if you follow it northwest for miles it looks smooth cut. Once it passes Lake Cheko, it seems to become more speckled and pock marked. Doesn't seem 'natural' to me for an inlet and outlet to be positioned so close together on a lake--though the topography could indeed make that make sense if I could see a map of it.

I'm no geologist so I can't comment on whether or not this lake looks typical but I will say that, judging by the coloration of the foliage around it, this is probable the same land as the river/stream that winds to the west of it. Interesting is that if you follow it northwest for miles it looks smooth cut. Once it passes Lake Cheko, it seems to become more speckled and pock marked. Doesn't seem 'natural' to me for an inlet and outlet to be positioned so close together on a lake--though the topography could indeed make that make sense if I could see a map of it.

The Tunguska meteor happened in the year 1908, which means those logs in the blast pattern probably are long gone by now.

A. Ol'khovatov (olkhov.narod.ru) comments on the Italian researcher: " 97. June 23, 2007 News story just appeared ( http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/8134097.html ) that Italian researchers published an article where they proposed that Lake Cheko (about 8 km form the epicenter of the Tunguska event) was formed by an impact of a fragment of 'Tunguska meteorite'! The article is here: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/ j.1365-3121.2007.00742.x Let me make some comments.
The idea was already checked by Soviet/Russian researchers in the year ~ 1960.
Their initial idea to research the lake was that a lot of local surface waters (headwaters) pass through the lake, so the lake's bottom should accumulate substance of the 'Tunguska meteorite' fallen over large area.
They discovered the funnel shape of the lake's bottom, but failed to find any evidences that it was a meteorite crater.
Arguments were the following:
a) there is no any rim around the lake:
b) Forest/trees around the lake is older than ~50 years old in general;
c) a local resident (Evenk who huntered in the area) said that on the place of the lake there was a 'zabolochennaya luzha ' (swampy pool).

So the idea was rejected by Sovet/Rissian researchers. Now the Italians are trying to recover it.
And of course neither Soviet/Russian researchers nor the Italians discovered any fragments/microparticles of the hypothetical 'Tunguska meteorite' despite large-scale digging of the bottom and the lake surroundings. I can add that interrogations of local residents conducted in the early 1960s show that a path from Vanavara settlement to the area of Strelka-Chunya (which later became a settlement too) went through Lake Cheko. So there is practically no chance of the 'sudden appearence' of the lake from a meteorite impact.

But what can't be ruled out is flooding of the lake, as local residents said about fountains of water from the ground and some flooding near the Tunguska epicenter in association the Tunguska event. By the way, for the 'geophysical Tunguska' interpretation the phenomena are explained as being due to tectonic activity (and are known in association with earthquakes).

Anyway, I hope that the article (which possibly will be promoted in mass-media) will help the Italian researchers to get finance/funds to come to Russia next summer and to celebrate 100th Anniversary of Tunguska! :) "

"An article in science blog says we may have to rethink how genes work. So called "junk DNA" actually appears to be functional. What's more it works in a mysterious way involving multiple overlaps that seems to be connected in some sort of network."

And, anecdotally, having money doesn't seem well-correlated with handsomeness.

To test this prediction, a sample of 737 male and female MBA graduates from the years between 1973 and 1982 was used to explore how facial attractiveness relates to starting and later salaries. Results indicated that more attractive men had higher starting salaries and they continued to earn more over time. For women, there was no effect of attractiveness for starting salaries, but more attractive women earned more later on in their jobs. By 1983, men were found to earn $2600 more on the average for each unit of attractiveness (on a 5-point scale) and women earned $2150 more.

As always there's the issue of correlation vs causality. But note that "more attractive women earned more later on in their jobs." In other words, their beauty predicted their later raises! But even if wealthier people simply find it worthwhile to spend money making themselves look good, don't you think there's probably a reason?

I think I've found the full-text of an article on this research, but I haven't found the full text publicly available where I can link it. I think the actual research may first have appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but the article I'm finding is here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7174873&dopt=Abstract

or here:

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb =true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_Searc hValue_0=EJ270965&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_ accno&objectId=0900000b80083931

or here:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j .1460-2466.1982.tb02514.x?journalCode=jcom

Like I said, though, no full text. Sorry.

• "initiation" stands (9-23 years old): -124 g C m^(-2) yr^(-1) (note that this value is negative -- that's not a typo)
• "young" stands (56-89 years old): 118 g C m^(-2) yr^(-1)
• "mature" stands (95-106 years old): 170 g C m^(-2) yr^(-1)
• "old" stands (190-316 years old): 35 g C m^(-2) yr^(-1)

• "initiation" stands (9-23 years old): -124 g C m^(-2) yr^(-1) (note that this value is negative -- that's not a typo)
• "young" stands (56-89 years old): 118 g C m^(-2) yr^(-1)
• "mature" stands (95-106 years old): 170 g C m^(-2) yr^(-1)
• "old" stands (190-316 years old): 35 g C m^(-2) yr^(-1)

This recent study is also about hacking or senses. It measured sensory loss to circumcision (announce,abstract,full study pdf).

"And how, exactly, did you come to that conclusion?"

By reading articles from scientific journals and using deductive reasoning to make connections between competing theories in evolutionary biology.

Check the following articles that relate to what I've been writing about.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j .1475-4983.2006.00603.x
and
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046 /j.1420-9101.2002.00437.x/abs/

"And how, exactly, did you come to that conclusion?"

By reading articles from scientific journals and using deductive reasoning to make connections between competing theories in evolutionary biology.

Check the following articles that relate to what I've been writing about.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j .1475-4983.2006.00603.x
and
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046 /j.1420-9101.2002.00437.x/abs/

By coincidence, I was just reading this paper yesterday:
Genetic and Environmental Influences on Religiousness: Findings for Retrospective and Current Religiousness Ratings.
They established that religiousness is somewhat inherited, with the hereditability increasing with age (as do some other traits, such as drug addiction and intelligence). The established this through twin studies.

I can see the point that the plants adapted to the Cretaceous might have been slightly more efficient at photosysnthesis though I doubt that one can easily implicate greater availability of CO2 since the increased growing season would have a greater effect. Plants adapted to the Holocene may do much worse in the face of a rapid increase in CO2 for while productivity may go up, the range of pests can also increase with the increase in temperature subjecting large tracks of forests to die off. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046 /j.1461-9563.2002.00124.x/full/?cookieSet=1

The key here is the rapidity of the change which allows the fast moving species (the pests) to overcome the slow moving species (the trees).

With regard to agriculture, beyond growing season, the timing of the availability of water is crucial, and the loss of glaciers and snowpack reduce the availability of water during the gowing season, counteracting the increase in the season. The cost of attempting to retain water that in the past has been held by snowpack may be unrealistically high, leading to the shutting down of vast amounts of currently productive agricutural land.
--
Switch to Solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

No, it is not a logical fallacy, and nothing in your post says it is.

Your statement is an obvious non sequitur (more specifically, you are denying the antecedent.) You posit that if competition actually improves productivity, then most/all companies would be structured this way. Your argument is based on the false assumption that productivity is the sole concern of shareholders (not mention another critical assumption: that management is completely free of any relevant conflicts, e.g., agency costs). Long term profitability (or future cash flows) is the chief concern of shareholders and I demonstrated how increased productivity can dramatically reduce net profitability. Therefore your assertion that competition does not improve productivity does not follow from your argument.

Your argument is kind of like arguing that "If good deeds contribute to the welfare of society, then this big group of people would be doing more good deeds. Because they're not, good deeds must not be good for society."

What's more, your argument does not really even compute. You imply that there are many companies that are unnecessarily competing against their own interests, but suggest that management is at once too stupid to know better (due to the fact that they're competing externally) and simultaneously suggest that their lack of internal competition is clear evidence of management's belief in cooperation. It'd be one thing if you wish to finger antitrust regulation as being the culprit (that some mergers would not be allowed), but I think the real issue is that you want to have your cake and eat it too. Management is insightful and properly motivated when you agree with them, but not otherwise.

If you consider all of us to be shareholders in society, then it makes sense for society to be organized as corporations are, cooperatively. If it makes sense for a corporation to have one larger division rather than several smaller ones, because of overhead costs and duplication of effort, it makes sense for all of society to be so organized.

More logical fallacies. Your argument is too simplistic and too polar. You might as well argue that if two packets of sugar in your coffee is better than none, then an entire cup of sugar would be the best. There is a balance to be struck. A company can get too big for their own good or sell too much internally and that can create very real inefficiencies. Small companies are usually dramatically more efficient in terms of management than big companies are... where big companies make up for it is when production/manufacturing scale creates dramatic efficiencies (e.g., producing cars) or where having vast amounts of capital is extremely important (e.g., building a cell phone network). The point that you are missing is that the free market, under our system of government, usually allows the participants to decide when to cooperate/merge (with the exception of very large companies when they are deemed by the powers that be to have "market powers") and when to compete (where the government hasn't granted monopolies, e.g., land-line phones). When it is in the interest of two or more companies to merge or for one to acquire the other, this happens fairly frequently. In point of fact, this has happened throughout the agricultural industry in the United States. Big corporate owned farms can farm far more efficiently than small ones do and this has put market pressure on those small farms to sell to bigger ones or to, at least, form collective agreements with previously competing farms.

If there are a number of studies proving competition boosts productivity, perhaps you could point them out?

I don't keep them at my finger tips since this is sufficiently obvious to most people, but here's One

Except the oceans are currently a massive CO2 sink, not a net CO2 source.

Two decades of ocean CO2 sink and variability (abstract)
The Acid Ocean - the Other Problem with CO2 Emission
Direct observation of the oceanic CO2 increase revisited

-FL

Formatting corrected.

No, as some primitive peoples with poor food habits are lactose tolerant.

Did you mean to say lactose-intolerant?

Is there an association between lactose tolerance and the success of populations or civilizations? I don't see any -- in East Asia, lactose-tolerant Mongolians and Tibetans have shorter life spans and more primitive lifestyles.

You are ignorant of European history. Go read, climb down from your particular pedistle, then we can talk.

Were you trying to say "pedestal"? Or were you saying you aren't ignorant?

You mean like Egypt and Syria? Those advanced ancient cultures of beer and wine?

"Advanced" ancient cultures with "amazing technologies" have been found in any number of places throughout the world. How one calls an ancient civilization more advanced than another is merely a matter of perspective.

Link to something more data-driven than your presumption.

Lactose intolerance caused by non-genetic reasons is on the rise.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j .1572-0241.2003.08670.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=aj g

Here you purposly omit that the American base is far more genetically diverse than the white Russians in Finland base.

Define what you mean by "base", since geneticists do not use that term.

You make it sound as if your comparitors are equal,

And define what a "comparitor" is.

Yeah, and a village in Italy has a beneficial gene for processing colesteral.

1. Did you mean "cholesterol"?
2. Source please (assuming you're serious).

Small populations which haven't expanded for some reason having a beneficial gene. Lucky them.

As you might know if you were familiar with Cavalli-Sforza's famous work in the 1950s, population size has little to do with the genetic diversity of the population.

No, as some primitive peoples with poor food habits are lactose tolerant. Did you mean to say lactose-intolerant? Is there an association between lactose tolerance and the success of populations or civilizations? I don't see any -- in East Asia, lactose-tolerant Mongolians and Tibetans have shorter life spans and more primitive lifestyles. You are ignorant of European history. Go read, climb down from your particular pedistle, then we can talk. Were you trying to say "pedestal"? Or were you saying you aren't ignorant? You mean like Egypt and Syria? Those advanced ancient cultures of beer and wine? "Advanced" ancient cultures with "amazing technologies" have been found in any number of places throughout the world. How one calls an ancient civilization more advanced than another is merely a matter of perspective. Link to something more data-driven than your presumption. Lactose intolerance caused by non-genetic reasons is on the rise. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j .1572-0241.2003.08670.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=aj g Here you purposly omit that the American base is far more genetically diverse than the white Russians in Finland base. Define what you mean by "base", since geneticists do not use that term. You make it sound as if your comparitors are equal, And define what a "comparitor" is. Yeah, and a village in Italy has a beneficial gene for processing colesteral. 1. Did you mean "cholesterol"? 2. Source please (assuming you're serious). Small populations which haven't expanded for some reason having a beneficial gene. Lucky them. As you might know if you were familiar with Cavalli-Sforza's famous work in the 1950s, population size has little to do with the genetic diversity of the population.

-FL

-FL