The phrase 3rd world has nothing to do with standards or wealth and India is a 3rd world country, I believe.
That being said, I do not know about bribes, but I have been involved in projects where part of the team was outsourced in India and you often get what you paid for with outsourcing from what I have seen.
That is not fair, there is no proof that he ever thought about attacking anyone. The only evidence I see is that he knew a few Islamic extremists and had some of their literature. So he is guilty by association.
But it is the placement that matters. Surly you are not denying that mountains create deserts, aka something slowing down the wind effects the local climate. If that is a positive, negative, or neutral effect would depend on the situation and the perspective.
but if, for example, they just diverted 1% of the rainfall from falling on a swath of land then that has an noticeable effect.
If you take energy out of a closed system then that system HAS less energy, end of story. If you convert wind energy to electricity then that wind energy is gone from the climate.
Because humans have never been able to comprehend things the size of the earth. Our history is littered with "there is so much of this it does not matter what we do with it, we will never effect it" thinking.
If you or someone else had raised this idea on a previous/. article about wind turbines, ocean wave generators, geothermal, ect. you would have 5 guys responding with that exact same line.
That is not accurate at all. If you change the climate then you necessarily change the environment, which in tun effects the climate. If you turn a desert into a swamp or a forest into glacier then there is no easy way to go back.
Not only will even a small amount of climate change kill most indigenous life but it will also change the landscape enough that no matter how much time you give it after you remove the wind farms the climate very well might never go back.
But if you make it legal there very well might be a international infrastructural for finding potential matches for people in need, contacting those people and asking if they want to sell. A criminal might gain access to this DB and somehow falsify records, drug until compliment, or threaten his family.
That is the point of this fear, the legality creates an international business out of it, the criminals piggyback on this to find buyers and hide the source of the organs.
There would be more donations if it was legalised so a bigger crowd to hide in, you would not have to hide the money part just make up someone or add a organ or two onto a normal donor.
And no it would not be easy to trace. No government has very many peoples blood on file, no file no trace, and every match is non unique anyways.
Yes but unlike stealing a iPad you cannot unload a bag full of human organs at every street corner. Selling/buying them is illegal so there are very few buyers. Make it legal, and the demand and number of places you could offload goes through the roof. Price probably would drop but a persona life is not worth that much, a few hundred dollars would make it common crime, a few thousand an epidemic.
I don't think that is the fear at all, I think the fear is that people will have their organs stolen while they are alive. People get killed for their couple hundred dollar iPads, if a healthy person has dozens of saleable organs then they could be worth 10s of thousands of dollars.
Not sure if that is correct to say of Google. They seem to ditch most of their products before they even launch so they have no real idea how profitable they would be.
I always mix up the incas mayans and aztecs cultures, but one of them definitely did fall to population problems. In a nutshell massive deforestation that resulted in a massive water shortage. Also civilisations do not really fall to conquests unless scorched earth genocide measures are used. After the Romans conquered Egypt most of the people, buildings, land, etc were still there. Which is different from overusing a resource that causes long term resource deficiency and quite possibly massive death all the way up to complete genocide. I know absolutely nothing about modern Egyptian history but I do know that they used to be the breadbasket of the world and I have never heard that in referring to their current situation. But it should also be quite hard to damage their agriculture permanently because they get so much fresh soil from the Nile.
As for actually exceeding out capacity to feed ourselfs. I think that is really using the wrong words. Those estimates would really be telling us the time when out CURRENT methods of producing food will catastrophically fail. That does not mean that vertical farming with hydroponics or some other future method would not get us past that date. And we really cannot ignore the amount of deforestation and long term harming of the resources that we currently need.
If you have a scientifically valid proof it does not really matter how many people have been wrong before you. If I say that in the last 100 years we have cut down 85% of the trees (anyone know the really statistic?) then we can be absolutely positive that conventional easy lumber is about to hit a wall. And similarly for fish, soil, water,...
Well if it is true then it is true. Not every opinion or known fact needs to be backed up by links, if you are so interested look it up yourself.
You have opinions in your post as well and do not provide links. Where is the link to prove that he was fear-mongering? Where is the link to prove that all statements must be backed up by links?
Disliking a post and raging on it because he has not proved everyone of his statements from first principals is not a valid response.
As a farmer and someone who knows quite allot about all levels of food production and consumption I find this post ridiculously ironic. Your neighbours are, of course, creating billions of tons of sweeteners and bio-fuels not food. Sure a small percentage will go to cattle who will convert it very inefficiently to food that will be eaten by humans, but that number (even without taking out the 40% that will be thrown out at the end) will be a tiny percentage of that.
I don't know how this got marked as informative, it does not offer any useful facts (almost a troll post if I did not believe that it was unintentionally dumb). The "cost" in this study is land usage not whatever the current barrel of oil is going for. Also without a estimate on how much is used in pesticide/fertiliser/GMO/etc creation and transportation to the fields these 2 numbers really do not help us in figuring out anything.
But then we cannot ignore the fact that Organic methods can destroy the topsoil just as quickly. I am a fan of Organic farming, but it screws up just as much as conventional in many areas. What we need it scientifically engineered farming (just made that up). We have the knowledge of how to optimise yields, health, safety, and make it sustainable but unfortunately both conventional farmers and more Organic farmers are not particularly interested in these methods.
"Crop yields from organic farming are as much as 34% lower than those from comparable conventional farming practices" "organic farming could supply needs in some circumstances. But yields are lower than in conventional farming, so producing the bulk of the globe's diet will still require chemical fertilizers and pesticides."
Which obviously jumps out as obviously false. Just using the number of 34% as the amount less that every crop would grow would mean that obviously Organic can feed the world because we know that far far more then that is "wasted" from western agriculture. It has got to be something like 20% of food grown in the USA that is actually eaten by humans. After you take out huge chunks that are thrown away, ~40%, even more that is inefficiently converted to human food through meat, and other argi land that is used to grow bio diesel or sweeteners. In fact it is probably far far less then 20%.
And of course Organics would yield less in these circumstances. Correctly done you do not grow organic produce in a monoculture field like environment that these studies are studying.
It is pretty easy to hate an ancient civilization and to say that we have grown beyond that now.
But personally I would theorise that most of that is based on misunderstandings and little actual knowledge. Fortunately, for this example we have modern cultures to compare the Spartans to.
The Spartan ideals of constant struggle and allow the losers to lose (weak to die) is of course modern capitalism and Spartan is more or less in this area identical to the USA and their practices involving infants comparable to the USA's stand on national healthcare (that there should not be any).
Now you are completely allowed to hate the USA and their ideals, but I just thought that there was a more than minimal chance that you were simply not aware that more of less the same Spartan practices abound in modern societies.
Slashdot Mirror
The phrase 3rd world has nothing to do with standards or wealth and India is a 3rd world country, I believe.
That being said, I do not know about bribes, but I have been involved in projects where part of the team was outsourced in India and you often get what you paid for with outsourcing from what I have seen.
That is not fair, there is no proof that he ever thought about attacking anyone.
The only evidence I see is that he knew a few Islamic extremists and had some of their literature. So he is guilty by association.
But it is the placement that matters.
Surly you are not denying that mountains create deserts, aka something slowing down the wind effects the local climate.
If that is a positive, negative, or neutral effect would depend on the situation and the perspective.
but if, for example, they just diverted 1% of the rainfall from falling on a swath of land then that has an noticeable effect.
"Actually, it doesn't change the speed at all."
If you take energy out of a closed system then that system HAS less energy, end of story.
If you convert wind energy to electricity then that wind energy is gone from the climate.
Or course trees block wind and change climate, everyone knows this.
That does not change the fact the wind farms do this as well.
And of course a single toe slows a river.
Because humans have never been able to comprehend things the size of the earth. Our history is littered with "there is so much of this it does not matter what we do with it, we will never effect it" thinking.
If you or someone else had raised this idea on a previous /. article about wind turbines, ocean wave generators, geothermal, ect. you would have 5 guys responding with that exact same line.
That is not accurate at all.
If you change the climate then you necessarily change the environment, which in tun effects the climate.
If you turn a desert into a swamp or a forest into glacier then there is no easy way to go back.
Not only will even a small amount of climate change kill most indigenous life but it will also change the landscape enough that no matter how much time you give it after you remove the wind farms the climate very well might never go back.
But if you make it legal there very well might be a international infrastructural for finding potential matches for people in need, contacting those people and asking if they want to sell.
A criminal might gain access to this DB and somehow falsify records, drug until compliment, or threaten his family.
That is the point of this fear, the legality creates an international business out of it, the criminals piggyback on this to find buyers and hide the source of the organs.
There would be more donations if it was legalised so a bigger crowd to hide in, you would not have to hide the money part just make up someone or add a organ or two onto a normal donor.
And no it would not be easy to trace. No government has very many peoples blood on file, no file no trace, and every match is non unique anyways.
Yes but unlike stealing a iPad you cannot unload a bag full of human organs at every street corner.
Selling/buying them is illegal so there are very few buyers. Make it legal, and the demand and number of places you could offload goes through the roof.
Price probably would drop but a persona life is not worth that much, a few hundred dollars would make it common crime, a few thousand an epidemic.
I don't think that is the fear at all, I think the fear is that people will have their organs stolen while they are alive.
People get killed for their couple hundred dollar iPads, if a healthy person has dozens of saleable organs then they could be worth 10s of thousands of dollars.
So you are implying that without Obamacare they would of just thrown away the functioning organ and allowed the other patient to die?
You know that there is a always far more demand then availability.
No matter what happens it probably saved a life.
How can they just collect taxes from one online store and leave the other million alone?
Seems like a unfair advantage and completely illegal to boot.
Not sure if that is correct to say of Google. They seem to ditch most of their products before they even launch so they have no real idea how profitable they would be.
And instead they bought Intragam, possibly the only product/site in existence that is actually stupider then Bing.
I always mix up the incas mayans and aztecs cultures, but one of them definitely did fall to population problems.
In a nutshell massive deforestation that resulted in a massive water shortage.
Also civilisations do not really fall to conquests unless scorched earth genocide measures are used.
After the Romans conquered Egypt most of the people, buildings, land, etc were still there.
Which is different from overusing a resource that causes long term resource deficiency and quite possibly massive death all the way up to complete genocide.
I know absolutely nothing about modern Egyptian history but I do know that they used to be the breadbasket of the world and I have never heard that in referring to their current situation. But it should also be quite hard to damage their agriculture permanently because they get so much fresh soil from the Nile.
As for actually exceeding out capacity to feed ourselfs. I think that is really using the wrong words.
Those estimates would really be telling us the time when out CURRENT methods of producing food will catastrophically fail. That does not mean that vertical farming with hydroponics or some other future method would not get us past that date. And we really cannot ignore the amount of deforestation and long term harming of the resources that we currently need.
If you have a scientifically valid proof it does not really matter how many people have been wrong before you. If I say that in the last 100 years we have cut down 85% of the trees (anyone know the really statistic?) then we can be absolutely positive that conventional easy lumber is about to hit a wall. And similarly for fish, soil, water, ...
What a very interesting angle to approach this article from.
Great insight.
Well if it is true then it is true.
Not every opinion or known fact needs to be backed up by links, if you are so interested look it up yourself.
You have opinions in your post as well and do not provide links. Where is the link to prove that he was fear-mongering? Where is the link to prove that all statements must be backed up by links?
Disliking a post and raging on it because he has not proved everyone of his statements from first principals is not a valid response.
As a farmer and someone who knows quite allot about all levels of food production and consumption I find this post ridiculously ironic.
Your neighbours are, of course, creating billions of tons of sweeteners and bio-fuels not food. Sure a small percentage will go to cattle who will convert it very inefficiently to food that will be eaten by humans, but that number (even without taking out the 40% that will be thrown out at the end) will be a tiny percentage of that.
I don't know how this got marked as informative, it does not offer any useful facts (almost a troll post if I did not believe that it was unintentionally dumb).
The "cost" in this study is land usage not whatever the current barrel of oil is going for. Also without a estimate on how much is used in pesticide/fertiliser/GMO/etc creation and transportation to the fields these 2 numbers really do not help us in figuring out anything.
But then we cannot ignore the fact that Organic methods can destroy the topsoil just as quickly.
I am a fan of Organic farming, but it screws up just as much as conventional in many areas.
What we need it scientifically engineered farming (just made that up). We have the knowledge of how to optimise yields, health, safety, and make it sustainable but unfortunately both conventional farmers and more Organic farmers are not particularly interested in these methods.
"Crop yields from organic farming are as much as 34% lower than those from comparable conventional farming practices"
"organic farming could supply needs in some circumstances. But yields are lower than in conventional farming, so producing the bulk of the globe's diet will still require chemical fertilizers and pesticides."
Which obviously jumps out as obviously false. Just using the number of 34% as the amount less that every crop would grow would mean that obviously Organic can feed the world because we know that far far more then that is "wasted" from western agriculture.
It has got to be something like 20% of food grown in the USA that is actually eaten by humans.
After you take out huge chunks that are thrown away, ~40%, even more that is inefficiently converted to human food through meat, and other argi land that is used to grow bio diesel or sweeteners. In fact it is probably far far less then 20%.
And of course Organics would yield less in these circumstances. Correctly done you do not grow organic produce in a monoculture field like environment that these studies are studying.
It is pretty easy to hate an ancient civilization and to say that we have grown beyond that now.
But personally I would theorise that most of that is based on misunderstandings and little actual knowledge.
Fortunately, for this example we have modern cultures to compare the Spartans to.
The Spartan ideals of constant struggle and allow the losers to lose (weak to die) is of course modern capitalism and Spartan is more or less in this area identical to the USA and their practices involving infants comparable to the USA's stand on national healthcare (that there should not be any).
Now you are completely allowed to hate the USA and their ideals, but I just thought that there was a more than minimal chance that you were simply not aware that more of less the same Spartan practices abound in modern societies.
While I am not an expert on Spartan law and customs I do not think that they thought that it was particularly good to abuse those that were weaker.
To me they seemed to "abuse" everyone equally, you did not get a "nice" comfortable life simply because people thought you looked capable.