You're completely wrong. Our planet could sustain 8 billion people, 9-10 billion if we really tried. Come on. Rationing is never the solution. Necessity is the mother of invention. When we need more food, we'll invent more efficient processes of making it. The Earth will find its own equilibrium, we don't need to do it for it. That's terribly Arrogant and Elitist.
In yet another move to display how antiquated and completely ignorant of digital culture he is...
I expect this kind of bias from slashdot comments, but when the articles themselves are slanted...
Let us formulate our own opinions before you shove yours down our throat.
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists.
So the fact that other ~6,000 scientists that disagreed but were too afraid of losing their jobs and clientele didn't respond obviously doesn't matter? I could accept it if 9/10 or 8/10 of participants responded, but only 3/10? Maybe the pollsters just "misplaced" the other ballots with in-congruent data.
Installing "Windows 7" Step 6 of 10:
Picking which web browser is right for you. If you need help visit us at www.microsoft.com.
1.) Internet Explorer 8
DEFAULT CHOICE
RECOMMENDED CHOICE
2.) Other (Advanced)
(Only recommend for Advanced Users)"
The problem with Health Care isn't that the poor can't get care. We have Medicaid and Medicare. Those 47 Million people without care obviously don't WANT care. After all, if you're healthy, in your middle years, and not rich, why spend money on something you don't need? The US already offers health care to those who need it. This bill would just force is on those who don't want it.
I guess there are advantages to living in the poorest state in the US, Michigan. I can see all the stars at night, but I know from experience that it doesn't take much light pollution to obfuscate them. One car, or one streetlight and over 75% of them vanish, at least till your eyes readjust.
The article is full of vague numbers and statistics. It's just manipulation of numbers to prove a point
"The study found that regular downloaders of unlicensed music spent an average of £5.52 a month on legal digital music. This compares to just £1.27 spent by other music fans. What other music fans? The one's with dial-up connections? Who then? You can't compare apples to oranges.
That's not the same thing at all. Your analogy is flawed. You can download an infinite amount of music online, whereas you amount of "fecal matter" is limited by the amount of organisms you own.
Although I agree with his point, Ben Goldacre also makes up some facts, like this one "...for example, people who download more also buy more music." I would have to disagree, after all if I can get the music for free, why would anyone ever pay?
Yeah, with truecrypt create a hidden partition, and just have the machine boot into a clean XP install when someone (without the pass key) starts it up.
This is obviously a prime example of an adaptation creating a new and distinct species. In a few years, the city birds will no longer interbreed with their rural counterparts, and the inbreeding will cause them to mutate and adapt differently. In 100 years the two groups will be in two very distinct species, with one having the upper hand in our modern climate. I'm sure this is already beginning to happen to other species, but its just because of birds shorter gestation period and lifespan that it is appearing first. Just wait, in several hundred more years, humanity will have reshaped all of the species on this planet, for good or ill.
Although this kind of research is interesting, the final results of this would have wide ranging implications that I would rather avoid. Mainly, that is if animals were allowed to converse in a common language with humans, it would show us if they possess a consciousness, can reason, and what emotions that they can feel. This would either prove the sanctity of animal life or deny it, ultimately; I would rather keep the ongoing debate and not have a decision.
On the contrary, your second point is incorrect. As of know, all genetic engineering has to be paid for by large biomedical firms or universities. I see no small upstarts cashing in on its success. There are no profits to be made in the short or intermediate term.
Also, your third point is a half-truth. While technological advances often do make profitable activities easier, they also make the competition for the same activities more fierce. This counterbalances the ease of production with the difficulties in marketing, so technological advances ultimately don't make profits easier, just more diverse.
Regardless, your viewpoint is merely the one of defensive fear-mongering, with you halting technological process for your own selfish moral dilemmas, which don't happen to exist in this scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
You're completely wrong. Our planet could sustain 8 billion people, 9-10 billion if we really tried. Come on. Rationing is never the solution. Necessity is the mother of invention. When we need more food, we'll invent more efficient processes of making it. The Earth will find its own equilibrium, we don't need to do it for it. That's terribly Arrogant and Elitist.
But your walls come with windows. Or was it the other way around...
In yet another move to display how antiquated and completely ignorant of digital culture he is...
I expect this kind of bias from slashdot comments, but when the articles themselves are slanted...
Let us formulate our own opinions before you shove yours down our throat.
Go get autopager (for firefox). It solves that problem.
You forgot to mention that the Linux gun comes in a box with a notice "Some Assembly Required."
The irony is that you didn't RTFA either.
~Post from Windows 7 RC Build 7137!
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists.
So the fact that other ~6,000 scientists that disagreed but were too afraid of losing their jobs and clientele didn't respond obviously doesn't matter? I could accept it if 9/10 or 8/10 of participants responded, but only 3/10? Maybe the pollsters just "misplaced" the other ballots with in-congruent data.
Statistics is the art of lying with math.
What did they do, make sure that all of Uve Boll's movies never came up as a "Recommended for you" movie?
As I said earlier...
"I can see it now.
Installing "Windows 7" Step 6 of 10:
Picking which web browser is right for you. If you need help visit us at www.microsoft.com.
1.) Internet Explorer 8
DEFAULT CHOICE
RECOMMENDED CHOICE
2.) Other (Advanced)
(Only recommend for Advanced Users)"
No, He's a Realist
This would only work if I was paid to use the bathroom. Otherwise, I'd be flushing money down the toilet.
Dropbox is an excellent service, I'll third this. Even if you delete a file, it stays there indefinitely. Also, the sharing features are great.
The problem with Health Care isn't that the poor can't get care. We have Medicaid and Medicare. Those 47 Million people without care obviously don't WANT care. After all, if you're healthy, in your middle years, and not rich, why spend money on something you don't need? The US already offers health care to those who need it. This bill would just force is on those who don't want it.
No, Fusion power isn't unlocked until 2050.
Scientists remember that Earth's core is made up of magma, so it only makes sense that alot of it exists...
I guess there are advantages to living in the poorest state in the US, Michigan. I can see all the stars at night, but I know from experience that it doesn't take much light pollution to obfuscate them. One car, or one streetlight and over 75% of them vanish, at least till your eyes readjust.
The article is full of vague numbers and statistics. It's just manipulation of numbers to prove a point
"The study found that regular downloaders of unlicensed music spent an average of £5.52 a month on legal digital music. This compares to just £1.27 spent by other music fans. What other music fans? The one's with dial-up connections? Who then? You can't compare apples to oranges.
Yes. A hypocrite is someone who says lies are bad, then makes something up (lies).
That's not the same thing at all. Your analogy is flawed. You can download an infinite amount of music online, whereas you amount of "fecal matter" is limited by the amount of organisms you own.
Really, I though the Pirate Bay already offered those. Except the artist support, obviously.
Although I agree with his point, Ben Goldacre also makes up some facts, like this one "...for example, people who download more also buy more music." I would have to disagree, after all if I can get the music for free, why would anyone ever pay?
Yeah, with truecrypt create a hidden partition, and just have the machine boot into a clean XP install when someone (without the pass key) starts it up.
This is obviously a prime example of an adaptation creating a new and distinct species. In a few years, the city birds will no longer interbreed with their rural counterparts, and the inbreeding will cause them to mutate and adapt differently. In 100 years the two groups will be in two very distinct species, with one having the upper hand in our modern climate. I'm sure this is already beginning to happen to other species, but its just because of birds shorter gestation period and lifespan that it is appearing first. Just wait, in several hundred more years, humanity will have reshaped all of the species on this planet, for good or ill.
Although this kind of research is interesting, the final results of this would have wide ranging implications that I would rather avoid. Mainly, that is if animals were allowed to converse in a common language with humans, it would show us if they possess a consciousness, can reason, and what emotions that they can feel. This would either prove the sanctity of animal life or deny it, ultimately; I would rather keep the ongoing debate and not have a decision.
On the contrary, your second point is incorrect. As of know, all genetic engineering has to be paid for by large biomedical firms or universities. I see no small upstarts cashing in on its success. There are no profits to be made in the short or intermediate term. Also, your third point is a half-truth. While technological advances often do make profitable activities easier, they also make the competition for the same activities more fierce. This counterbalances the ease of production with the difficulties in marketing, so technological advances ultimately don't make profits easier, just more diverse. Regardless, your viewpoint is merely the one of defensive fear-mongering, with you halting technological process for your own selfish moral dilemmas, which don't happen to exist in this scenario.