If what you mean is that only in America can a creator of something valuable go to congress and ask that protections be in place to prevent stealing by people who don't create things (but think that they should get them for free), then I agree with you. It's always funny when Congress gets criticized for doing what it's supposed to do.
Now, if you want to limit your criticism to stating that this is the WRONG WAY to prevent piracy and criticising the prevention of copying for personal use, then I'm with you.
But to state that somehow Congress is wrong for wanting to find solution to enforce copyright laws so that the creators in society (i.e., the valuable ones) aren't ripped off, that is just ludicrous.
This is so laughable. I'm still waiting for you to prove it... come on, the challenge awaits!
But if you look at the architecture, the physics, and the hardware, rather than relying on benchmarks, its obivous which ship provides higher performance for less cost.
LOL!!! So we should ignore ACTUAL PERFORMANCE and go by "theoretical" superiority??
In any case, PROVE IT. If what you say is true, it should be trivial to prove these things.
MS was proven to have broken the law and yet nothing is being done about it. This is wrong. Period.
Ever heard of the concept of the "punishment fitting the crime"? I will grant that Microsoft has been found guilty (although it's debatable whether they should have been, particularly from a judge ruled to have made major errors), but that does not mean that the punishment should be some draconian death penalty that people like you seem to want.
For example, the USFL sued the NFL. They won. They were awarded one dollar. I think awarding the damaged part(ies) one dollar would be about right.
And by the way, this is not to defend many of Microsoft's policies or their software. I just don't see that "being mean" to one's competitors (PARTICULARLY completely incompetent competitors like Netscape who produced absolute crap software) is a crime.
The fact is that Microsoft has dominated because their competition has been idiots.
but is cowed by a multinational corporation that has been demonstrated to be involved in monopolistic forms of terrorism.
I swear that I will never understand people like you.
Her's a free clue: IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT MUCH. Politicians don't care because the public doesn't care. The public doesn't care because IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT MUCH.
If you think you are oppressed by Microsoft, then I suggest you go study some history and learn what real oppression is all about.
Now I know that you're pretty young. Only someone in their late teens or early twenties would say something like that. Just for the record, since it seems to matter to you, I'm 37.
But you continue to ignore my question. Loads of people have posted real world benchmarks of various applications that show that you are wrong. But hey, maybe we're all wrong. POST THE LINKS. Prove me wrong.
You claim in your sig that "A 1GHz PPC G4 is 2 to 4 times as fast as a 2GHz P4. Stop lying with SPEC, look at architecture, actual performance"
Come on, prove it. If that's true, that a G4 can execute 4-8 instructions in the same clock cycle as a P4 executes 1 instruction, then it should be EASY to find benchmarks that prove this out. My only request is that it CANNOT come from Apple.
Of course, since in the past you have posted that you value honesty, I would assume that if you fail to prove this, then that sentence will disappear from your bio. After all, I wouldn't expect you to lie about the performance of Macintoshes. You wouldn't do that, would you?
And of course, I'm STILL waiting for a breakdown on how the Macintosh is twice as expensive as the Dell, yet you claim it's 10% cheaper. Please explain that as well.
Come on! Now is your chance to strike me down! Smite me with your righteous fury! Post the benchmarks and the value breakdown!
In fact, tell you what. You post 10 benchmarks that show that a 1 Ghz G4 is 2-4 times faster than a 2 Ghz P4, and I will set my sig to your post to draw attention to the superiority of the Apple platform. I'll do a huge Mea Culpa and bow down to the Great God Apple. Come on, you can't turn down that kind of publicity for your beautiful Macintosh! Now's your chance to rub it in my face! Big slam dunk IN MY FACE.
And I suppose I shouldn't sound so bitter about them pulling it down when obviously it's their right, but I just hate dishonesty. Obviously I don't have proof that there was some other reason, but the story of why they killed them all off is just so thin.
they elected instead to remove them all (well, almost, Robby Roto (I think) and two other 'legal' ROMs are still available) thinking that since they were contacted by one, likely they'd be contacted by more.
Sorry, but that's just stupid. Most of the manufacturers knowingly did NOT take legal action. They could have just taken down the couple that were in question, and moved on. If they got a flood of legal activity, they could have delt with it then.
The second reason, I suspect, is because of the massive bandwidth requirements to serve all those ROMs. They operated almost soley on donations. I contributed what I could, when I could.
Now that's a reason I could have respected. If they didn't have the money to support it, then just say so, but don't give us a cock-and-bull story about "one mfg complained, therefore we have to take the WHOLE DAMN THING DOWN" which just doesn't ring true.
Can you say the same?
As a matter of fact I did, so take your take your nose in the air elsewhere.
Of course, Mame is the best answer to this question, as many have pointed out.
On that topic, does anyone know what happened to mame.dk? All the roms get removed with just a mysterious message that a copyright holder complained. One copyright holder and they ditch everything?
Fortunately, I had written a program to download all roms from the site (heh) not long before it closed, but are there any other places that are as complete as mame.dk used to be?
your brain will quite happily fill in the missing detail about an object's position, be it a Baseball or whatever, quite unconciously - you don't have to see it to know it's there and where it's going!
Spoken like someone who doesn't play sports (no offense). Anticipation is certainly an important part, but only a minor part. You will NOT be able to hit a 80-90 MPH curve ball by just watching the angle coming from the pitcher's hand. Think about the margin for error in hitting a baseball, and then think about the angle you are watching the baseball come in at, which is basically straight at you.
Or heck, an easier experiment is to have someone toss a ball to you and close your eyes at the halfway point when it reaches the top of the arc. It will NOT be easy to catch, but by your theory is should be since you have data from half the travel of the ball.
This really shouldn't be surprising. Which would be easier to design... a device that tracks a ball and then tries to predict where a grabber should be to catch it, or a device that watches the flight of the ball and continuously updates the grabber position based on where it sees the ball going? Again, anticipation is certainly a part of it since you want a rought approximation of where the ball is going to be, but it's not nearly enough data to be accurate.
The human eye only resolves 12 to 15 frames per second
Where did you get that from?? It's easily proved wrong by the fact that you can see the flicker of a 60Hz monitor, but even then, if that's all you could see it would be impossible to play sports (such as hitting a baseball).
The whole "what is the frame rate of the eye" question is an incredibly complex one that I won't try and do here (yet again). Suffice it to say that it's not as simple as "frame rate".
[note to the younger Slashdotter... Montalban used to do rather infamous car commercials]
Hey, say what you want about the ol' Volare, but I had a friend who bought a used one way back when for $1000. He drove that thing another 3 years and 80K miles before it just wouldn't run anymore. He sold it again for $800. Best. Deal. Ever.
As a bonus, when you drive, you get to sing "Voooolaaaaaaareeeeeee Whoooooo---
ooooaaaa"
OK, I'll buy into all that, but I have to again ask the question: How does Red Hat make money on it? They're going to give it away. Their primary business of the corporate market is of sufficient volume, plus the support contracts, that they might be able to survive on that (although that's not even assured).
But this is such a narrow market that the volume is essentially zero on the high end, and very low on the low end. I mean, how many amateur musicians are there in general, and of that, how many would be willing to put out money for this?
There would probably be a greater number of musicians if the tools were cheaper and easier to use.
Well, musicians and DJs aren't exactly known for their deep pocketbooks. Presumably they are planning to make it free, so I doubt they're going to get too many people on the low end signing up for support.
And even if they did get EVERYONE to sign up for support at $100/year, I doubt there are enough amateur musicians and DJs who would use this that would end up paying for the development. 2 years times 5-10 developers + overhead = $1-2M.
I dunno. This sounds like a fiasco in the making to me. Maybe they'll prove me wrong.
Unfortunately, there just isn't a solution, except do it at the start of your transaction.
Well, I shouldn't say that. There's no solution that doesn't require locking a row somewhere, which is the way I've had to solve it in some situations.
The goal seems to be a system for professional audio composers and engineers. Don't expect it for awhile- they have 24 months scheduled to do it, although it looks like releases will start by the end of 02.
How do they expect to make money from this? It's such a small market. Granted, in small professional markets you can usually charge a lot for support, but I just don't see business case here.
"By developing a release specifically designed for professionals in the musical industry, Red Hat wants to enable authors and composers, as well as simple amateurs, to free themselves from technological and cultural constraints," declares Franz Meyer, Director for Southern Europe at Red Hat, before adding "By giving more freedom to artists, our aim is to expand the global nature of music even further and to extend the concept of Open Source Software to Open Source Music."
Not really related to my previous point, but I just have to say in response to this: "Barf me".
How did you "rewrite" your procedure? Perhaps with a function "test for keyexistence if true update else insert"?
Unfortunately, that creates a race condition. What if someone else is doing the same thing, you both test which fails, and then you both do the insert? One of you is going to fail. Unfortunately, there just isn't a solution, except do it at the start of your transaction.
From reading the PostgreSQL developer logs, this is really a huge pain to fix. Apparently it's a very old structural problem inherited from the original project, and relates to how errors are handled at a low level.
Sorry, but Oracle is WAY better about making decisions automatically, not to mention reclaiming space.
Wrong. It's good as it keeps your data consistent.
Sorry again, but you're wrong. Even the PostgreSQL developers know this is brain-damaged (read the developer logs). Reread what I said -- I think you didn't understand what I was talking about. This has nothing to do with data integrity. In any case, it's MY decision when I decide to do a rollback, not the databases's.
IN is not perfect in Oracle either. Try to use outer join instead.
Unless they have broken it recently, Oracle will use an index in my example. And, yes, in this simple example, an outer join might work, but in many complex cases a sub-select is what I need, and I don't need apologists just telling me "well, don't do that". If they're going to support sub-selects, then support them right.
Oh, the irony. And nice, well-thought out argument, dude.
You think a computer with twice the clock speed is a faster computer?
No, I think a P4 with (over) twice the clock speed is MUCH faster than a G4.
Its not, its actually slower.
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. Look at REAL benchmarks, not ones doctored up by Apple. A photoshop filter is not a real benchmark; it's a contrivance. Once again, sometimes a P4 is faster, sometimes a G4 is faster. On the average, a G4 is about 20% faster clock-for-clock.
Probably about half as fast.
So now we've gone beyond even Steve's "twice as fast" lies and we're up to that a G4 is FOUR TIMES FASTER than a P4 clock-for-clock?? On ALL benchmarks?? Please, show me the proof. Show me 10-20 non-Photoshop benchmarks (which Adobe specifically optomizes for Apple) that, when averaged, produce a 4x winner for Apple. I dare you.
And, as I have done time and again, comparable machines are cheaper when you buy from Apple.
Please, show me the comparison. Even allowing that an 800 Mhz G4 is equivalent to a 1.8Ghz P4 Dell, please explain how Apple is cheaper when it costs twice as much. I dare you.
You haven't proven anything-- except that you don't grasp the basics of computer architecture.
Now, don't make me explain how brain damaged Apple's memory architecture is. And I've always thought those 533Mhz bus speeds on PCs are overrated.
"Postgresql is slow" is a very popular myth and urban legend. [...] 7.2.1 is lightning fast.
PostgreSQL is pretty good, but there are a couple of "gotchas"...
1) You MUST "vacuum" your database and generate statistics, or the optimizer's decisions will suck in many cases. I really hope they make this sort of thing automatic in the future.
2) Any error voids an entire transaction. This really SUCKS. This means you can't try an insert, and then do an update if the insert fails with a duplicate key violation. This is the "normal" way to do a no-race-condition "insert the row if it doesn't exist, otherwise update it". I believe MySQL has an atomic operation for this.
3) Using an "IN" clause with a sub-select causes a brute-force join without indexes. In other words,
select * from table1 where id in (select id from table2 where code = 'BLAP') -- horribly slow, and won't use any indexes
select * from table1 where id in (1, 2, 3) -- whereas this is really fast.
There's a note on the postgresql web site that they're going to fix it (someday).
Don't get me wrong, I use PostgreSQL every day and like it a lot, but it's far from perfect.
The famine in Zimbabwe is mostly the creation of one man, el presidente for life Robert Mugabe.
And another lesson that people could hopefully learn someday is that almost ALL famine is politically based, despite how much certain people want to blame "greedy capitalists who hog all the resources of the world".
I really wish US multinationals would stop pushing GE onto other countries.
How about if other countries educate their citizens so that they don't they don't get whipped in a frenzy of fear by idiot "scientists" who make their living by scaring ignorant people.
Slashdot Mirror
subtle difference
Subtle, but meaningless difference. Promoting creative expression includes protecting the rights of the owner to profit from their work.
If what you mean is that only in America can a creator of something valuable go to congress and ask that protections be in place to prevent stealing by people who don't create things (but think that they should get them for free), then I agree with you. It's always funny when Congress gets criticized for doing what it's supposed to do.
Now, if you want to limit your criticism to stating that this is the WRONG WAY to prevent piracy and criticising the prevention of copying for personal use, then I'm with you.
But to state that somehow Congress is wrong for wanting to find solution to enforce copyright laws so that the creators in society (i.e., the valuable ones) aren't ripped off, that is just ludicrous.
This is so laughable. I'm still waiting for you to prove it... come on, the challenge awaits!
But if you look at the architecture, the physics, and the hardware, rather than relying on benchmarks, its obivous which ship provides higher performance for less cost.
LOL!!! So we should ignore ACTUAL PERFORMANCE and go by "theoretical" superiority??
In any case, PROVE IT. If what you say is true, it should be trivial to prove these things.
I'mmmmmm stilllllll waitinggggggg.......
MS was proven to have broken the law and yet nothing is being done about it. This is wrong. Period.
Ever heard of the concept of the "punishment fitting the crime"? I will grant that Microsoft has been found guilty (although it's debatable whether they should have been, particularly from a judge ruled to have made major errors), but that does not mean that the punishment should be some draconian death penalty that people like you seem to want.
For example, the USFL sued the NFL. They won. They were awarded one dollar. I think awarding the damaged part(ies) one dollar would be about right.
And by the way, this is not to defend many of Microsoft's policies or their software. I just don't see that "being mean" to one's competitors (PARTICULARLY completely incompetent competitors like Netscape who produced absolute crap software) is a crime.
The fact is that Microsoft has dominated because their competition has been idiots.
but is cowed by a multinational corporation that has been demonstrated to be involved in monopolistic forms of terrorism.
I swear that I will never understand people like you.
Her's a free clue: IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT MUCH. Politicians don't care because the public doesn't care. The public doesn't care because IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT MUCH.
If you think you are oppressed by Microsoft, then I suggest you go study some history and learn what real oppression is all about.
normally I ignore children.
Now I know that you're pretty young. Only someone in their late teens or early twenties would say something like that. Just for the record, since it seems to matter to you, I'm 37.
But you continue to ignore my question. Loads of people have posted real world benchmarks of various applications that show that you are wrong. But hey, maybe we're all wrong. POST THE LINKS. Prove me wrong.
You claim in your sig that "A 1GHz PPC G4 is 2 to 4 times as fast as a 2GHz P4. Stop lying with SPEC, look at architecture, actual performance"
Come on, prove it. If that's true, that a G4 can execute 4-8 instructions in the same clock cycle as a P4 executes 1 instruction, then it should be EASY to find benchmarks that prove this out. My only request is that it CANNOT come from Apple.
Of course, since in the past you have posted that you value honesty, I would assume that if you fail to prove this, then that sentence will disappear from your bio. After all, I wouldn't expect you to lie about the performance of Macintoshes. You wouldn't do that, would you?
And of course, I'm STILL waiting for a breakdown on how the Macintosh is twice as expensive as the Dell, yet you claim it's 10% cheaper. Please explain that as well.
Come on! Now is your chance to strike me down! Smite me with your righteous fury! Post the benchmarks and the value breakdown!
In fact, tell you what. You post 10 benchmarks that show that a 1 Ghz G4 is 2-4 times faster than a 2 Ghz P4, and I will set my sig to your post to draw attention to the superiority of the Apple platform. I'll do a huge Mea Culpa and bow down to the Great God Apple. Come on, you can't turn down that kind of publicity for your beautiful Macintosh! Now's your chance to rub it in my face! Big slam dunk IN MY FACE.
I await your lesson to be administered.
I think he's calling me the "fuckwit". :)
And I suppose I shouldn't sound so bitter about them pulling it down when obviously it's their right, but I just hate dishonesty. Obviously I don't have proof that there was some other reason, but the story of why they killed them all off is just so thin.
they elected instead to remove them all (well, almost, Robby Roto (I think) and two other 'legal' ROMs are still available) thinking that since they were contacted by one, likely they'd be contacted by more.
Sorry, but that's just stupid. Most of the manufacturers knowingly did NOT take legal action. They could have just taken down the couple that were in question, and moved on. If they got a flood of legal activity, they could have delt with it then.
The second reason, I suspect, is because of the massive bandwidth requirements to serve all those ROMs. They operated almost soley on donations. I contributed what I could, when I could.
Now that's a reason I could have respected. If they didn't have the money to support it, then just say so, but don't give us a cock-and-bull story about "one mfg complained, therefore we have to take the WHOLE DAMN THING DOWN" which just doesn't ring true.
Can you say the same?
As a matter of fact I did, so take your take your nose in the air elsewhere.
Of course, Mame is the best answer to this question, as many have pointed out.
On that topic, does anyone know what happened to mame.dk? All the roms get removed with just a mysterious message that a copyright holder complained. One copyright holder and they ditch everything?
Fortunately, I had written a program to download all roms from the site (heh) not long before it closed, but are there any other places that are as complete as mame.dk used to be?
your brain will quite happily fill in the missing detail about an object's position, be it a Baseball or whatever, quite unconciously - you don't have to see it to know it's there and where it's going!
Spoken like someone who doesn't play sports (no offense). Anticipation is certainly an important part, but only a minor part. You will NOT be able to hit a 80-90 MPH curve ball by just watching the angle coming from the pitcher's hand. Think about the margin for error in hitting a baseball, and then think about the angle you are watching the baseball come in at, which is basically straight at you.
Or heck, an easier experiment is to have someone toss a ball to you and close your eyes at the halfway point when it reaches the top of the arc. It will NOT be easy to catch, but by your theory is should be since you have data from half the travel of the ball.
This really shouldn't be surprising. Which would be easier to design... a device that tracks a ball and then tries to predict where a grabber should be to catch it, or a device that watches the flight of the ball and continuously updates the grabber position based on where it sees the ball going? Again, anticipation is certainly a part of it since you want a rought approximation of where the ball is going to be, but it's not nearly enough data to be accurate.
The human eye only resolves 12 to 15 frames per second
Where did you get that from?? It's easily proved wrong by the fact that you can see the flicker of a 60Hz monitor, but even then, if that's all you could see it would be impossible to play sports (such as hitting a baseball).
The whole "what is the frame rate of the eye" question is an incredibly complex one that I won't try and do here (yet again). Suffice it to say that it's not as simple as "frame rate".
Oops, You're right; it was Sergio Franchi who did the Volare commercials. Well, they're both dark-haired guys with great tans. :)
[note to the younger Slashdotter... Montalban used to do rather infamous car commercials]
Hey, say what you want about the ol' Volare, but I had a friend who bought a used one way back when for $1000. He drove that thing another 3 years and 80K miles before it just wouldn't run anymore. He sold it again for $800. Best. Deal. Ever.
As a bonus, when you drive, you get to sing "Voooolaaaaaaareeeeeee Whoooooo--- ooooaaaa"
OK, I'll buy into all that, but I have to again ask the question: How does Red Hat make money on it? They're going to give it away. Their primary business of the corporate market is of sufficient volume, plus the support contracts, that they might be able to survive on that (although that's not even assured).
But this is such a narrow market that the volume is essentially zero on the high end, and very low on the low end. I mean, how many amateur musicians are there in general, and of that, how many would be willing to put out money for this?
No, the worst name still has to be "Gnu", as in "Gah-new". What moron decided on that name?
*Yes, I know which moron. It was a joke.
There would probably be a greater number of musicians if the tools were cheaper and easier to use.
Well, musicians and DJs aren't exactly known for their deep pocketbooks. Presumably they are planning to make it free, so I doubt they're going to get too many people on the low end signing up for support.
And even if they did get EVERYONE to sign up for support at $100/year, I doubt there are enough amateur musicians and DJs who would use this that would end up paying for the development. 2 years times 5-10 developers + overhead = $1-2M.
I dunno. This sounds like a fiasco in the making to me. Maybe they'll prove me wrong.
Unfortunately, there just isn't a solution, except do it at the start of your transaction.
Well, I shouldn't say that. There's no solution that doesn't require locking a row somewhere, which is the way I've had to solve it in some situations.
The goal seems to be a system for professional audio composers and engineers. Don't expect it for awhile- they have 24 months scheduled to do it, although it looks like releases will start by the end of 02.
How do they expect to make money from this? It's such a small market. Granted, in small professional markets you can usually charge a lot for support, but I just don't see business case here.
"By developing a release specifically designed for professionals in the musical industry, Red Hat wants to enable authors and composers, as well as simple amateurs, to free themselves from technological and cultural constraints," declares Franz Meyer, Director for Southern Europe at Red Hat, before adding "By giving more freedom to artists, our aim is to expand the global nature of music even further and to extend the concept of Open Source Software to Open Source Music."
Not really related to my previous point, but I just have to say in response to this: "Barf me".
How did you "rewrite" your procedure? Perhaps with a function "test for keyexistence if true update else insert"?
Unfortunately, that creates a race condition. What if someone else is doing the same thing, you both test which fails, and then you both do the insert? One of you is going to fail. Unfortunately, there just isn't a solution, except do it at the start of your transaction.
From reading the PostgreSQL developer logs, this is really a huge pain to fix. Apparently it's a very old structural problem inherited from the original project, and relates to how errors are handled at a low level.
You have to reoptimize indices in Oracle either.
Sorry, but Oracle is WAY better about making decisions automatically, not to mention reclaiming space.
Wrong. It's good as it keeps your data consistent.
Sorry again, but you're wrong. Even the PostgreSQL developers know this is brain-damaged (read the developer logs). Reread what I said -- I think you didn't understand what I was talking about. This has nothing to do with data integrity. In any case, it's MY decision when I decide to do a rollback, not the databases's.
IN is not perfect in Oracle either. Try to use outer join instead.
Unless they have broken it recently, Oracle will use an index in my example. And, yes, in this simple example, an outer join might work, but in many complex cases a sub-select is what I need, and I don't need apologists just telling me "well, don't do that". If they're going to support sub-selects, then support them right.
Your are a fucking idiot.
Oh, the irony. And nice, well-thought out argument, dude.
You think a computer with twice the clock speed is a faster computer?
No, I think a P4 with (over) twice the clock speed is MUCH faster than a G4.
Its not, its actually slower.
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. Look at REAL benchmarks, not ones doctored up by Apple. A photoshop filter is not a real benchmark; it's a contrivance. Once again, sometimes a P4 is faster, sometimes a G4 is faster. On the average, a G4 is about 20% faster clock-for-clock.
Probably about half as fast.
So now we've gone beyond even Steve's "twice as fast" lies and we're up to that a G4 is FOUR TIMES FASTER than a P4 clock-for-clock?? On ALL benchmarks?? Please, show me the proof. Show me 10-20 non-Photoshop benchmarks (which Adobe specifically optomizes for Apple) that, when averaged, produce a 4x winner for Apple. I dare you.
And, as I have done time and again, comparable machines are cheaper when you buy from Apple.
Please, show me the comparison. Even allowing that an 800 Mhz G4 is equivalent to a 1.8Ghz P4 Dell, please explain how Apple is cheaper when it costs twice as much. I dare you.
You haven't proven anything-- except that you don't grasp the basics of computer architecture.
Now, don't make me explain how brain damaged Apple's memory architecture is. And I've always thought those 533Mhz bus speeds on PCs are overrated.
"Postgresql is slow" is a very popular myth and urban legend. [...] 7.2.1 is lightning fast.
PostgreSQL is pretty good, but there are a couple of "gotchas"...
1) You MUST "vacuum" your database and generate statistics, or the optimizer's decisions will suck in many cases. I really hope they make this sort of thing automatic in the future.
2) Any error voids an entire transaction. This really SUCKS. This means you can't try an insert, and then do an update if the insert fails with a duplicate key violation. This is the "normal" way to do a no-race-condition "insert the row if it doesn't exist, otherwise update it". I believe MySQL has an atomic operation for this.
3) Using an "IN" clause with a sub-select causes a brute-force join without indexes. In other words,
There's a note on the postgresql web site that they're going to fix it (someday).
Don't get me wrong, I use PostgreSQL every day and like it a lot, but it's far from perfect.
The famine in Zimbabwe is mostly the creation of one man, el presidente for life Robert Mugabe.
And another lesson that people could hopefully learn someday is that almost ALL famine is politically based, despite how much certain people want to blame "greedy capitalists who hog all the resources of the world".
I was talking about Europe.
I really wish US multinationals would stop pushing GE onto other countries.
How about if other countries educate their citizens so that they don't they don't get whipped in a frenzy of fear by idiot "scientists" who make their living by scaring ignorant people.