This includes letting nature take its course: overpopulation leads to starvation and death.
See, that's your problem. All of/. seems to think the poor will let themselves starve to death so the rich can live the good life. I hope to see your head on a pike.
No. I never said people should catch all the fish. I said people will. Poor people eat whatever is cheapest, and stuff taken from the commons is cheapest.
If you make rules telling them otherwise, they ignore it because they want to live. If their government says they can't, they revolt.
Doesn't work that way. Hunger knows no law. Poor parts of the world will revolt if their food supply is threatened and whoever takes over will surely ignore the rules.
1. None of this changes the point - that if fishing is not curtailed there will shortly be no fish.
I agree. I just don't think we can solve the problem with fishing quotas unless they're one small part of a large, complex solution.
2. My original comment was aimed at places like Scotland.
I understand but, as I said, food is traded on a worldwide market. Every restriction raises prices and hurts the poor. And if you restrict fishing in one place, they fish ten miles away.
Desperate people do desperate things. I called you ignorant of suffering, no offense but it's true: you wouldn't believe how easily poor people will kill you if you threaten their food supply. Any significant change in worldwide price/supply would cause mass riots and force governments to change their minds about the restrictions. This is why we must look at the causes of the problem: overpopulation and waste.
Manipulating supply can be a part of the solution, but only if it's very carefully managed.
It is sheltered and ignorant to live your life removed from the reality of suffering and then think everyone else will just eat less because you tell them to.
I know the science says that we're overfishing. But hungry people want to eat. Pray tell, how will you convince them not to?
I wouldn't go so far as to say perish. Nevertheless, saying that we must restrict fishing won't help unless the underlying reasons for overfishing are addressed.
The rich (that's you and me, and everyone reading this) take all the resources and the poor (that's most of the world) get scraps.
The rich notice that the resources aren't going to last, so they point at the scraps and say "You can't have that, or there won't be any left tomorrow." The poor don't care about tomorrow because they're hungry now and, furthermore, because tomorrow the rich will just do the same thing again. So they poach/steal or they find something that's not protected and exhaust that instead. This is how conservation usually works: it just shifts the extinctions around. You'll have a nice graph of, say, the whales recovering and wonder where, say, the sardines went. Remember that whoever supplies a need indirectly represents those with the need. The commercial fishing industry is merely the agent representing hunger.
If you don't address the underlying problem, establishing lists of endangered species and marine reserves and all that stuff helps squat. You can't stop desperate people. We speak of food, but this applies to all resources. I also don't want to restrict myself purely to the currently underprivileged. If you significantly restricted fishing, Japan would starve. They know this and you shouldn't think for a moment they'd play along.
I do not assert a right of anyone to work in any profession they choose. However, it's not nice to suddenly find yourself out of a job. People don't want to join the ranks of the poor and starving and we should be sensitive to that.
The fact is that there are so many mouths to feed. I wish I could bring you over here so you can see for yourself. I'd show you, for example, the school where they built playground equipment and promptly had to forbid it to the children -- because their bones snap like twigs from malnourishment. Food is traded on a world-wide market, not just in your First World utopia.
It's wishful thinking to save the environment with restrictions because people will just find a different resource, even if it's catching the same fish illegally or a mile outside your waters. All our resources are under pressure, so you'd just move the problem around a little and pretend you've "solved" it. (Which must be why politicians love this. Saves them from cutting down on their own lifestyles or imposing one-child policy.)
You can't blame people for wanting to eat, and you can't blame companies for supplying that food because those are also people who want to eat. It's all fine and well to talk about the future, but a hungry man doesn't give a damn if it's the last fish or if it's forbidden. Not if it's the only one he can afford.
It's not a personal attack, but yes, you are living a sheltered and ignorant life. Legal restrictions on fishing will not do anything significant unless you also, and more importantly, address the underlying reasons for overfishing. And it's outright cruel to simply dismiss people who say they must make a living. They're telling the truth.
I'm sorry to say this but you're ignorant. How the hell do you expect to feed 7*10^9 people? Do you want them to eat soy beans? Farming doesn't impact the environment, right?
Now, if you were to say that there are too many people, or that the First World throws away perfectly good food, I'd understand. The problem is not the fisheries it's the public.
FYI, "trolling" means that you take a stance you don't really support in order to elicit a heated response, possibly over multiple posts.
Poking fun at someone is not trolling. Sarcasm is not trolling. In fact, anything that doesn't appear serious is probably not a troll at all. Mods take note.
The main advantage of the crossbow/musket over the longbow was that it didn't require a lifetime of practice to use. Not penetrating power. So N men with crossbows/muskets do not give you an advantage over N men with longbows, quite the opposite, but it impacts how many men you can field.
A relevant quote that often shows up (with some variation in wording and origin): Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.
Since this is Slashdot, I didn't RTFA but I'm answering anyway.:)
Neural networks are a computing model just like Lambda Calculus, Turing Machines, the Von Neumann model, etc. They are all equivalent by the Church-Turing Thesis.
Neural networks, also known as parallel distributed computing or a bunch of other names, is a biologically inspired parallel computing model with a very vague definition. Now there are some authors who use narrow definitions, but under most just about any form of processing with multiple processing nodes can be viewed and analysed as a neural network. Even reading/writing RAM has been used in this manner, to build hardware "RAM discriminator" NNs.
My personal guess would be that the researchers saw "Hey! This looks like a neural network!" and my answer is "Yeah, everything does."
That's partly but not entirely correct. Goods shipped past the Horn of Africa must compete in the marketplace with goods produced elsewhere or shipped along alternate routes. While an increase in the shipping cost for that route would lead to an increase in prices in the relevant markets, the increase would not be sufficient to cover losses entirely due to this substitution effect. Shipping companies could collaborate to fund pirate-hunting.
Nevertheless, I think that hanging pirates is one of the fundamental responsibilities of every government and would prefer to be without mercenaries.
Given that the pirates are using any old junk to mount their attacks, I'm guessing that there would be no economic incentive to hunt them down under the historical mechanism of condemnation and sale.
Selling the pirate vessel is not the only financial incentive. Piracy costs a lot of money.
Can anybody tell me?
I was so surprised to find out that Africans haven't actually done anything at all for humanity since they came into existence.
Anybody care to prove me wrong, without shouting "Heretic"? (Sorry - "racist"...)
Assumption fail. Volume is not necessarily a limiting constraint. Hard drives are dense.
According to this http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_gravel_can_a_dump_truck_hold a dump truck can typically hold 13T. I've googled the weight of a 3.5" hard drive and I get values between 400g and over 1kg. So I weighed an old one, and got a bit over 400g. The 400g drives are those with fewer platters, but I'll go with it for simplicity.
13,000kg / 0.4kg gives you 32,500 hard drives. Continuing with your calculations, 3TB*32,500 = 97,500TB = 780,000Tb. (According to 'man units', hard drive manufacturers use SI units.) 780,000Tb/26h = 780,000Tb/93,600s = 8.333Tb/s or 8333Gb/s.
You'll get 23,200 cubic feet of storage out of a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy cargo plane which is about 32 dumptrucks.
23,200*(12^3)/14 * 0.4kg ~= 1,145,416kg The plane can hold a maximum of 81,600 kg. And fuel economy is horrible.
Slashdot Mirror
This includes letting nature take its course: overpopulation leads to starvation and death.
See, that's your problem. All of /. seems to think the poor will let themselves starve to death so the rich can live the good life. I hope to see your head on a pike.
No. I never said people should catch all the fish. I said people will. Poor people eat whatever is cheapest, and stuff taken from the commons is cheapest.
If you make rules telling them otherwise, they ignore it because they want to live. If their government says they can't, they revolt.
Doesn't work that way. Hunger knows no law. Poor parts of the world will revolt if their food supply is threatened and whoever takes over will surely ignore the rules.
1. None of this changes the point - that if fishing is not curtailed there will shortly be no fish.
I agree. I just don't think we can solve the problem with fishing quotas unless they're one small part of a large, complex solution.
2. My original comment was aimed at places like Scotland.
I understand but, as I said, food is traded on a worldwide market. Every restriction raises prices and hurts the poor. And if you restrict fishing in one place, they fish ten miles away. Desperate people do desperate things. I called you ignorant of suffering, no offense but it's true: you wouldn't believe how easily poor people will kill you if you threaten their food supply. Any significant change in worldwide price/supply would cause mass riots and force governments to change their minds about the restrictions. This is why we must look at the causes of the problem: overpopulation and waste. Manipulating supply can be a part of the solution, but only if it's very carefully managed.
It is sheltered and ignorant to live your life removed from the reality of suffering and then think everyone else will just eat less because you tell them to.
I know the science says that we're overfishing. But hungry people want to eat. Pray tell, how will you convince them not to?
I wouldn't go so far as to say perish. Nevertheless, saying that we must restrict fishing won't help unless the underlying reasons for overfishing are addressed.
You are right. But telling people not to eat the fish won't work. They won't listen to you.
Okay, let me rephrase.
The rich (that's you and me, and everyone reading this) take all the resources and the poor (that's most of the world) get scraps.
The rich notice that the resources aren't going to last, so they point at the scraps and say "You can't have that, or there won't be any left tomorrow." The poor don't care about tomorrow because they're hungry now and, furthermore, because tomorrow the rich will just do the same thing again. So they poach/steal or they find something that's not protected and exhaust that instead. This is how conservation usually works: it just shifts the extinctions around. You'll have a nice graph of, say, the whales recovering and wonder where, say, the sardines went. Remember that whoever supplies a need indirectly represents those with the need. The commercial fishing industry is merely the agent representing hunger.
If you don't address the underlying problem, establishing lists of endangered species and marine reserves and all that stuff helps squat. You can't stop desperate people. We speak of food, but this applies to all resources. I also don't want to restrict myself purely to the currently underprivileged. If you significantly restricted fishing, Japan would starve. They know this and you shouldn't think for a moment they'd play along.
I do not assert a right of anyone to work in any profession they choose. However, it's not nice to suddenly find yourself out of a job. People don't want to join the ranks of the poor and starving and we should be sensitive to that.
No. I'm telling you that people will eat the seed stock whether you like it or not. The underlying issues must be addressed.
The fact is that there are so many mouths to feed. I wish I could bring you over here so you can see for yourself. I'd show you, for example, the school where they built playground equipment and promptly had to forbid it to the children -- because their bones snap like twigs from malnourishment. Food is traded on a world-wide market, not just in your First World utopia.
It's wishful thinking to save the environment with restrictions because people will just find a different resource, even if it's catching the same fish illegally or a mile outside your waters. All our resources are under pressure, so you'd just move the problem around a little and pretend you've "solved" it. (Which must be why politicians love this. Saves them from cutting down on their own lifestyles or imposing one-child policy.)
You can't blame people for wanting to eat, and you can't blame companies for supplying that food because those are also people who want to eat. It's all fine and well to talk about the future, but a hungry man doesn't give a damn if it's the last fish or if it's forbidden. Not if it's the only one he can afford.
It's not a personal attack, but yes, you are living a sheltered and ignorant life. Legal restrictions on fishing will not do anything significant unless you also, and more importantly, address the underlying reasons for overfishing. And it's outright cruel to simply dismiss people who say they must make a living. They're telling the truth.
I'm sorry to say this but you're ignorant. How the hell do you expect to feed 7*10^9 people? Do you want them to eat soy beans? Farming doesn't impact the environment, right?
Now, if you were to say that there are too many people, or that the First World throws away perfectly good food, I'd understand. The problem is not the fisheries it's the public.
FYI, "trolling" means that you take a stance you don't really support in order to elicit a heated response, possibly over multiple posts.
Poking fun at someone is not trolling. Sarcasm is not trolling. In fact, anything that doesn't appear serious is probably not a troll at all. Mods take note.
The least expensive DFs will use the existing home broadband connection
We have caps around here. And so will the rest of you, when the telecoms companies get their way.
Exactly. So why use a treadmill instead of horses? Seems like a big hole in the study.
The main advantage of the crossbow/musket over the longbow was that it didn't require a lifetime of practice to use. Not penetrating power. So N men with crossbows/muskets do not give you an advantage over N men with longbows, quite the opposite, but it impacts how many men you can field.
A relevant quote that often shows up (with some variation in wording and origin): Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.
Since this is Slashdot, I didn't RTFA but I'm answering anyway. :)
Neural networks are a computing model just like Lambda Calculus, Turing Machines, the Von Neumann model, etc. They are all equivalent by the Church-Turing Thesis.
Neural networks, also known as parallel distributed computing or a bunch of other names, is a biologically inspired parallel computing model with a very vague definition. Now there are some authors who use narrow definitions, but under most just about any form of processing with multiple processing nodes can be viewed and analysed as a neural network. Even reading/writing RAM has been used in this manner, to build hardware "RAM discriminator" NNs.
My personal guess would be that the researchers saw "Hey! This looks like a neural network!" and my answer is "Yeah, everything does."
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30865 (Point number 9.)
Mod parent up. Why do people fail to grasp this?
We hope for a Star Trek type utopia where Tech will solve all our human problems... It doesn't and it won't.
I don't think Star Trek ever made any such claim. The technology was just there to support the stories, which were about humanity.
I don't think you've seen Voyager. (It put me off Star Trek for good.)
That's partly but not entirely correct. Goods shipped past the Horn of Africa must compete in the marketplace with goods produced elsewhere or shipped along alternate routes. While an increase in the shipping cost for that route would lead to an increase in prices in the relevant markets, the increase would not be sufficient to cover losses entirely due to this substitution effect. Shipping companies could collaborate to fund pirate-hunting.
Nevertheless, I think that hanging pirates is one of the fundamental responsibilities of every government and would prefer to be without mercenaries.
Given that the pirates are using any old junk to mount their attacks, I'm guessing that there would be no economic incentive to hunt them down under the historical mechanism of condemnation and sale.
Selling the pirate vessel is not the only financial incentive. Piracy costs a lot of money.
Who says it isn't? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#Mitochondrial_DNA
Can anybody tell me? I was so surprised to find out that Africans haven't actually done anything at all for humanity since they came into existence. Anybody care to prove me wrong, without shouting "Heretic"? (Sorry - "racist"...)
Fine. Invented the calendar and stone buildings: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/esp_sumer_annunaki35.htm
I'd find some more, but I think it'll do you good to do so yourself.
Assumption fail. Volume is not necessarily a limiting constraint. Hard drives are dense.
According to this http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_gravel_can_a_dump_truck_hold a dump truck can typically hold 13T. I've googled the weight of a 3.5" hard drive and I get values between 400g and over 1kg. So I weighed an old one, and got a bit over 400g. The 400g drives are those with fewer platters, but I'll go with it for simplicity.
13,000kg / 0.4kg gives you 32,500 hard drives. Continuing with your calculations, 3TB*32,500 = 97,500TB = 780,000Tb. (According to 'man units', hard drive manufacturers use SI units.) 780,000Tb/26h = 780,000Tb/93,600s = 8.333Tb/s or 8333Gb/s.
You'll get 23,200 cubic feet of storage out of a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy cargo plane which is about 32 dumptrucks.
23,200*(12^3)/14 * 0.4kg ~= 1,145,416kg The plane can hold a maximum of 81,600 kg. And fuel economy is horrible.
Not that I disagree with your general point.
Too true. The Martian IPBM system would wreak havoc with this.