I'm sorry, but P+P/n != P+P(n) You will note that in the first equation, n is a divisor, in the second equation, n is a multiplier.
Fractional != exponential
I realize that my formal education may be three decades + out of date, but surely they haven't changed the meanings of fractions and exponents?
Allow me to rephrase what I said earlier. In any given century prior to the 1800's, global population growth amounted to a small fraction. In the 1800's we experienced exponential growth.
In point of fact, if you should look at a chart of historical population growth, I've overstated population growth prior to the 1800's. In many centuries, in fact, in some millenia, you would have a hard time finding any actual "growth". Considering the fact that most of the population levels are extrapolated from unverifiable data, it may well be that several millenia saw zero growth, or even negative growth.
Bottom line, we have millions of people living on land today that supported mere hundreds or thousands 200 years ago. Los Angeles is a prime example, Mexico City another, New York - we could go on and on.
But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. This is the second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian liberty.
Put any significant part of that into a search box. I think that you will see that democracy does not depend on capitalism in any way. The key words in your own post are "it would be very hard to imagine". And, I say, hard for you to imagine, because you have lived all your life in a capitalistic society.
Independently of the Greeks, the "civilized tribes" in North America practiced democracy - and they had almost nothing that even resembled capitalism. I invite you to examine the constitutions of any member tribe of the Iroquois confederation. And, you might also note just who has the vote, and who owns property. No man was wealthy, as were the Greeks, because the women owned it all, LOL!
I see what you're doing there. You expect me to deny being Fred, you'll come back with someone else, and by process of elimination, you'll narrow it down to me. Uh-huh. Yeah. How many rounds of this nonsense do we go through, to eliminate the couple billion males who COULD BE me?
Democracy requires capitalism? Not in any definition of "democracy" or "capitalism" which I've read. Nor, I suspect in any definitions which I'm willing to accept. All that "democracy" means, is that the members all have an equal voice in policy. On the other hand, "capitalism" is an economic machine - a tool. One does not have to subscribe to an economic philosophy to subscribe to a political philosophy. Or, vice versa. One might as well say that to be a good Christian, one must be agrarian. Or, to be a good steelworker, one must be a Republican. Or, how about, you can't be German or Bavarian if you don't love the smell and taste of vinegar?
We could go on all day with equally preposterous statements.
I alluded to my military background earlier. "Fortune favors the bold", or you can choose any number of variations on that often misquoted quote.
The main reason I give Israel a break, is they have huge swinging brass balls, and don't apologize for them. And, the main reason I bash Israel is, they have huge swinging brass balls, and don't apologize for them.
Bottom line is, they have taken on impossible odds, and won so far. To the military mind, that is commendable, even admirable. Now, if I were to discuss the concept of "justice", well - Israel doesn't even rank up there with the "respectable" nations. The concept of "might makes right" was supposed to have died around the time of the Magna Charta. Israel is stuck in the 10th century, right along with Islam, when it comes to "justice".
Lemme think a second. The EU has a population of roughlty 400 million. The US has a population of roughly 350 million. So - the EU has about 14% more population than the US. Roughly speaking, of course.
Anyway, I said "the size of a US state". Let's see what we get with sizes.
On the European side, we have the top five: Russia: 6,592,771 square miles Turkey: 302,535 square miles Ukraine: 233,090 square miles France: 211,209 square miles Spain: 194,897 square miles
On the American side, we have the top five: Alaska: 663,267 sq mi Texas: 268,580 sq mi California: 163,695 sq mi Montana: 147,042 sq mi New Mexico: 121,589 sq mi
With the exception of Russia, roughly ten times the size of Alaska, all of your nations are about the size of a US state.
it looks like Israel is writing the rules as they go along.
Uhhhh - actually, all nations write the rules as they go along. Every time the liberals in the US find something they dislike, they write a new rule, and have it passed as a law. The conservatives answer in kind. It takes weeks, months, even years to get stuff done like that, but it's what is happening right here, right now. So - Israel takes a little bit of a shortcut, and does the same thing more efficiently, and you think that is somehow "wrong"??
Gimme a break - Israel responded, in a reasonable and restrained manner to people who hoped to embarrass them. Israel would have been entirely justified to have allowed them to land, arrest and imprison them, and make their lives miserable for months or years before "caving in" to pressure to release them. If you're concerned with the "activists" supposed rights, you should praise Israel for not acting as I would have done.
But, as several people have pointed out already, none of these foreign nationals has any right to enter a sovereign nation for the purpose of disrupting that country's day to day operations.
Install the extension - it works for certain in Chromium 14.0.797 (Linux) I've not yet tried connecting to Google+ with Firefox, so I can't say how well it works.
You may possibly be right. But - I kind of play by my own rules. For instance - you'll have a few day's work cut out for you, trying to find my real name on Facebook, Google+, Youtube, Myspace, and all the other places I visit on the internet. You'll have an even harder time trying to tie all my identities together. If you want to know who I am, it would be easier to phish me onto a site so that you could get my IP address, and work from that.
But, whatever. I realize that few people see any need for exercising care on the internet, so, for most people, you are right.
A monopoly? Over which commodity do they exercise a monopoly? Maybe it's a monopoly over their own algorithm, if they won't publish their search algorithms for Microsoft and others to use? Come on, stop working so hard to sound like a Microsoft Fanboi, alright?
Ho-hum. Google has no shortage of servers, do they? In fact, I believe I've read articles about their ability to move a data center anywhere in the world, in an emergency. If some server somewhere is short of disk space, they can and will throw something in, and get it working again, real quick.
As for the beta stuff - yeah, it's beta. No one promised that it was going to work correctly, out of the box, first time around. It's been offered up as an experiment, and I'm experimenting. Die a slow death? Not likely, not real soon. I'll keep trialing this field trial of Google+ and when it comes out of trials, I'll probably keep on running it.
Meanwhile, you go on back to Facebook, and enjoy that heaping pile of fertilizer!
Oh - did you know that you can access Facebook via Google+ ? Now THAT's pretty cool! I can close the Facebook tabs, and see it all in one tab under Google+ ! WHOOT!
Yeah - that could be a problem. But - historically speaking, how many times has China invaded another country? I think that we all recognize that China has a different psychology than much of the rest of the world. When I look at history, I see a lot of nations invading others for food, for wealth, for crazy religious reasons, and to satisfy a desire for conquest and blood lust. China? They have had 1/4 of the world's population for millenia, I guess. Back when the number of warm bodies on the field pretty much decided the battle, they could have expanded anywhere they wanted. But, they didn't.
What I think is more likely to happen is, a lot of young men are going to emmigrate from China. China is right now building something of a financial empire across the rest of Asia, Africa, and reaching into Europe and the Americas, along with Australia. It would be perfectly reasonable for China to export young men to those nations for business reasons. And, while they are out and about, they may find that the local women are rather attractive, with the added benefit that the local governments don't care to much about the number of children you have.
To tell the truth, I think I'd rather face a Chinese army . . .
Not refuted at all. You're pointing at four countries, each the size of a US state. I'm looking at the world. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that the Catholics in Mexico, Central, and South America outnumber all other Catholics world wide. I could be wrong about that - if so, I'll eat some humble pie. I DO know that Mexico is so overpopulated that they barely eked out subsistence level living fifteen years ago. Now, with NAFTA, they cannot do so any longer. The corporations are competing against small family farms, and the family farms can't continue.
There are those who believe anarchy and chaos are good things. Personally, I don't give a damn. Those people have been at war with all outsiders for a long damned time. "Outsiders" include most of India, and "a long damn time" predates England and France's interest in the area. They were at war when Alexander the Great decided to take a part in events there, and nothing has changed since.
Huh? What? You're saying that George and associates had no weapons? Actually, I think George was rather poorly armed, in comparison with the Brits. But, he was indeed armed, and he made pretty good use of those arms. George and company did NOT stage peaceful sit-ins at the British forts after declaring independence.
Well, yes, kind of. The Afghans, the Pakis, and the Taliban should be permitted to live in the tenth century, if they so wish. They should be permitted to keep their women barefoot and pregnant, and serving the men. That's all well and good.
The problem in Afghanistan is, those inbred tribals gave refuge to Al Queda after AQ had attacked the United States.
Today, we've killed off much of AQ, we've killed off a lot of the Taliban, it's time to come home. Past time. Let those inbreds live their lives as they see fit, and let's get the hell out of their lives.
‘‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.’’
— Mahatma Ghandi,
Ghandi was not the man that so many of you think he is. Not only did he want, and require, weapons - he was also a racist sumbeach. But, you go on and admire him for all it's worth.
AND because the Pope discourages birth control. Come on, man - good Catholics do as they are told. The pope says it is God's will that every woman has a dozen babies or more. She's supposed to spread those legs every time her man points a stiff one at her, no questions asked.
A culture's desire for a male or a female offspring is pretty much a separate issue from population control.
However - the fact that the balance is in favor of male offspring only helps to cut the population faster. One couple, one child. It most definitely requires a female to form a couple. So - she has one child, and the extra guy doesn't. I have no problem with that. Seems to me that the males in China would start working hard to make themselves attractive to the females, so that they don't end up as the unnecessary fifth wheels!
What goods, exactly, are held back at the Israeli check points? Be specific. Food? No. Medicine? No. Water? No. Luxury goods? Some. Munitions? You bet your ass! Materials from which munitions might be manufactured? A lot.
Maybe - JUST maybe - if the people in Gaza decided that they would start hanging Palestinians who attempted to build rockets, Israel might be forced to come to reasonable terms with the Palestinians.
Hey, I resent the "settlers", for starters. But, as long as Palestinians want to fire rockets into Israel, I tend to shrug off the problem with the settlers.
As I've always said - there are no "good guys" in this mess.
No, stupid, 8 instigators on a boat provoked the IDF into firing on them. That one single boat experience violence. All the other boats were forcibly detained, with no injuries, whatsoever. That ONE boat had a cadre that was determined to instigate violence, apparently hoping that the violence would spread out of control.
But, whatever - keep posting your inane spin on things. Just remember, peaceful protestors don't carry pieces of pipe or wooden clubs.
Martin Luther King isn't speaking in Jerusalem? And, now that I think about it, neither is Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ghandi, or even Nat King Cole. I'm not sure about Elvis, though.
Hell, I've been calling for the Israeli navy to just torpedo all the flotillas. I think they should have allowed all these nutcases to land, take them into custody, then shot them down while "trying to escape". Fucking buttheads who think they can challenge an armed authority without any weapons of their own should be removed from the gene pool.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but P+P/n != P+P(n) You will note that in the first equation, n is a divisor, in the second equation, n is a multiplier.
Fractional != exponential
I realize that my formal education may be three decades + out of date, but surely they haven't changed the meanings of fractions and exponents?
Allow me to rephrase what I said earlier. In any given century prior to the 1800's, global population growth amounted to a small fraction. In the 1800's we experienced exponential growth.
In point of fact, if you should look at a chart of historical population growth, I've overstated population growth prior to the 1800's. In many centuries, in fact, in some millenia, you would have a hard time finding any actual "growth". Considering the fact that most of the population levels are extrapolated from unverifiable data, it may well be that several millenia saw zero growth, or even negative growth.
Bottom line, we have millions of people living on land today that supported mere hundreds or thousands 200 years ago. Los Angeles is a prime example, Mexico City another, New York - we could go on and on.
But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. This is the second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian liberty.
Put any significant part of that into a search box. I think that you will see that democracy does not depend on capitalism in any way. The key words in your own post are "it would be very hard to imagine". And, I say, hard for you to imagine, because you have lived all your life in a capitalistic society.
Independently of the Greeks, the "civilized tribes" in North America practiced democracy - and they had almost nothing that even resembled capitalism. I invite you to examine the constitutions of any member tribe of the Iroquois confederation. And, you might also note just who has the vote, and who owns property. No man was wealthy, as were the Greeks, because the women owned it all, LOL!
I see what you're doing there. You expect me to deny being Fred, you'll come back with someone else, and by process of elimination, you'll narrow it down to me. Uh-huh. Yeah. How many rounds of this nonsense do we go through, to eliminate the couple billion males who COULD BE me?
Democracy requires capitalism? Not in any definition of "democracy" or "capitalism" which I've read. Nor, I suspect in any definitions which I'm willing to accept. All that "democracy" means, is that the members all have an equal voice in policy. On the other hand, "capitalism" is an economic machine - a tool. One does not have to subscribe to an economic philosophy to subscribe to a political philosophy. Or, vice versa. One might as well say that to be a good Christian, one must be agrarian. Or, to be a good steelworker, one must be a Republican. Or, how about, you can't be German or Bavarian if you don't love the smell and taste of vinegar?
We could go on all day with equally preposterous statements.
Oh, very well. Pass me the humble pie. ;^)
I alluded to my military background earlier. "Fortune favors the bold", or you can choose any number of variations on that often misquoted quote.
The main reason I give Israel a break, is they have huge swinging brass balls, and don't apologize for them. And, the main reason I bash Israel is, they have huge swinging brass balls, and don't apologize for them.
Bottom line is, they have taken on impossible odds, and won so far. To the military mind, that is commendable, even admirable. Now, if I were to discuss the concept of "justice", well - Israel doesn't even rank up there with the "respectable" nations. The concept of "might makes right" was supposed to have died around the time of the Magna Charta. Israel is stuck in the 10th century, right along with Islam, when it comes to "justice".
Lemme think a second. The EU has a population of roughlty 400 million. The US has a population of roughly 350 million. So - the EU has about 14% more population than the US. Roughly speaking, of course.
Anyway, I said "the size of a US state". Let's see what we get with sizes.
On the European side, we have the top five:
Russia: 6,592,771 square miles
Turkey: 302,535 square miles
Ukraine: 233,090 square miles
France: 211,209 square miles
Spain: 194,897 square miles
On the American side, we have the top five:
Alaska: 663,267 sq mi
Texas: 268,580 sq mi
California: 163,695 sq mi
Montana: 147,042 sq mi
New Mexico: 121,589 sq mi
With the exception of Russia, roughly ten times the size of Alaska, all of your nations are about the size of a US state.
Pretty picture to look at here: http://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htm
it looks like Israel is writing the rules as they go along.
Uhhhh - actually, all nations write the rules as they go along. Every time the liberals in the US find something they dislike, they write a new rule, and have it passed as a law. The conservatives answer in kind. It takes weeks, months, even years to get stuff done like that, but it's what is happening right here, right now. So - Israel takes a little bit of a shortcut, and does the same thing more efficiently, and you think that is somehow "wrong"??
Gimme a break - Israel responded, in a reasonable and restrained manner to people who hoped to embarrass them. Israel would have been entirely justified to have allowed them to land, arrest and imprison them, and make their lives miserable for months or years before "caving in" to pressure to release them. If you're concerned with the "activists" supposed rights, you should praise Israel for not acting as I would have done.
But, as several people have pointed out already, none of these foreign nationals has any right to enter a sovereign nation for the purpose of disrupting that country's day to day operations.
http://crossrider.com/install/519-google-facebook
Install the extension - it works for certain in Chromium 14.0.797 (Linux) I've not yet tried connecting to Google+ with Firefox, so I can't say how well it works.
You may possibly be right. But - I kind of play by my own rules. For instance - you'll have a few day's work cut out for you, trying to find my real name on Facebook, Google+, Youtube, Myspace, and all the other places I visit on the internet. You'll have an even harder time trying to tie all my identities together. If you want to know who I am, it would be easier to phish me onto a site so that you could get my IP address, and work from that.
But, whatever. I realize that few people see any need for exercising care on the internet, so, for most people, you are right.
A monopoly? Over which commodity do they exercise a monopoly? Maybe it's a monopoly over their own algorithm, if they won't publish their search algorithms for Microsoft and others to use? Come on, stop working so hard to sound like a Microsoft Fanboi, alright?
Ho-hum. Google has no shortage of servers, do they? In fact, I believe I've read articles about their ability to move a data center anywhere in the world, in an emergency. If some server somewhere is short of disk space, they can and will throw something in, and get it working again, real quick.
As for the beta stuff - yeah, it's beta. No one promised that it was going to work correctly, out of the box, first time around. It's been offered up as an experiment, and I'm experimenting. Die a slow death? Not likely, not real soon. I'll keep trialing this field trial of Google+ and when it comes out of trials, I'll probably keep on running it.
Meanwhile, you go on back to Facebook, and enjoy that heaping pile of fertilizer!
Oh - did you know that you can access Facebook via Google+ ? Now THAT's pretty cool! I can close the Facebook tabs, and see it all in one tab under Google+ ! WHOOT!
Yeah - that could be a problem. But - historically speaking, how many times has China invaded another country? I think that we all recognize that China has a different psychology than much of the rest of the world. When I look at history, I see a lot of nations invading others for food, for wealth, for crazy religious reasons, and to satisfy a desire for conquest and blood lust. China? They have had 1/4 of the world's population for millenia, I guess. Back when the number of warm bodies on the field pretty much decided the battle, they could have expanded anywhere they wanted. But, they didn't.
What I think is more likely to happen is, a lot of young men are going to emmigrate from China. China is right now building something of a financial empire across the rest of Asia, Africa, and reaching into Europe and the Americas, along with Australia. It would be perfectly reasonable for China to export young men to those nations for business reasons. And, while they are out and about, they may find that the local women are rather attractive, with the added benefit that the local governments don't care to much about the number of children you have.
To tell the truth, I think I'd rather face a Chinese army . . .
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2312272&cid=36710196
Not refuted at all. You're pointing at four countries, each the size of a US state. I'm looking at the world. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that the Catholics in Mexico, Central, and South America outnumber all other Catholics world wide. I could be wrong about that - if so, I'll eat some humble pie. I DO know that Mexico is so overpopulated that they barely eked out subsistence level living fifteen years ago. Now, with NAFTA, they cannot do so any longer. The corporations are competing against small family farms, and the family farms can't continue.
There are those who believe anarchy and chaos are good things. Personally, I don't give a damn. Those people have been at war with all outsiders for a long damned time. "Outsiders" include most of India, and "a long damn time" predates England and France's interest in the area. They were at war when Alexander the Great decided to take a part in events there, and nothing has changed since.
Huh? What? You're saying that George and associates had no weapons? Actually, I think George was rather poorly armed, in comparison with the Brits. But, he was indeed armed, and he made pretty good use of those arms. George and company did NOT stage peaceful sit-ins at the British forts after declaring independence.
Well, yes, kind of. The Afghans, the Pakis, and the Taliban should be permitted to live in the tenth century, if they so wish. They should be permitted to keep their women barefoot and pregnant, and serving the men. That's all well and good.
The problem in Afghanistan is, those inbred tribals gave refuge to Al Queda after AQ had attacked the United States.
Today, we've killed off much of AQ, we've killed off a lot of the Taliban, it's time to come home. Past time. Let those inbreds live their lives as they see fit, and let's get the hell out of their lives.
‘‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.’’
— Mahatma Ghandi,
Ghandi was not the man that so many of you think he is. Not only did he want, and require, weapons - he was also a racist sumbeach. But, you go on and admire him for all it's worth.
AND because the Pope discourages birth control. Come on, man - good Catholics do as they are told. The pope says it is God's will that every woman has a dozen babies or more. She's supposed to spread those legs every time her man points a stiff one at her, no questions asked.
A culture's desire for a male or a female offspring is pretty much a separate issue from population control.
However - the fact that the balance is in favor of male offspring only helps to cut the population faster. One couple, one child. It most definitely requires a female to form a couple. So - she has one child, and the extra guy doesn't. I have no problem with that. Seems to me that the males in China would start working hard to make themselves attractive to the females, so that they don't end up as the unnecessary fifth wheels!
What goods, exactly, are held back at the Israeli check points? Be specific. Food? No. Medicine? No. Water? No. Luxury goods? Some. Munitions? You bet your ass! Materials from which munitions might be manufactured? A lot.
Maybe - JUST maybe - if the people in Gaza decided that they would start hanging Palestinians who attempted to build rockets, Israel might be forced to come to reasonable terms with the Palestinians.
Hey, I resent the "settlers", for starters. But, as long as Palestinians want to fire rockets into Israel, I tend to shrug off the problem with the settlers.
As I've always said - there are no "good guys" in this mess.
No, stupid, 8 instigators on a boat provoked the IDF into firing on them. That one single boat experience violence. All the other boats were forcibly detained, with no injuries, whatsoever. That ONE boat had a cadre that was determined to instigate violence, apparently hoping that the violence would spread out of control.
But, whatever - keep posting your inane spin on things. Just remember, peaceful protestors don't carry pieces of pipe or wooden clubs.
Martin Luther King isn't speaking in Jerusalem? And, now that I think about it, neither is Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ghandi, or even Nat King Cole. I'm not sure about Elvis, though.
Hell, I've been calling for the Israeli navy to just torpedo all the flotillas. I think they should have allowed all these nutcases to land, take them into custody, then shot them down while "trying to escape". Fucking buttheads who think they can challenge an armed authority without any weapons of their own should be removed from the gene pool.