Because you can still - after eight freaking years - find Diablo II in stores. And it's not in the bargain bin, either. It's $40 plus tax for the game and the expansion the expansion. I think the base game is still $20.
Starcraft is alive and well in some parts.
Are those the two you're referring to in addition to WoW or...?
It's pretty easy to figure out what competitions a machine will be better at than a person.
Chess: Really hard to make a machine that can beat a person. And it takes quite a machine. Why? The game is entirely mental. And computers are really dumb. But we can make them be really dumb really fast, so we eventually pulled it off.
Poker: It's almost cheating for a machine here. Much of the game is based off of your opponents meat-weaknesses and reading their hand from their faces. The computer doesn't have a face and is using pure probability. Even the best poker player cannot read them. So unless they're better at math than a computer and and their poker prowess isn't based on reading people, they're never going to win. It takes the game out of the game really. The perfect odds playing machine against the perfect odds playing player would come out even.
Air hockey: It's mostly about physical speed. [sarcasm]Shockingly, machines are faster than people.[/sarcasm]
Facial Recognition: We win, and I'd wager we will for a while. Machines still get fooled by magazine covers. Next up, multiple cameras for 3D recognition! Foiled by a mannequin head or some random person paid to pose for the cameras.
Sex: I'm pretty sure we're still better at it. Sure, you can get some machines to give you an orgasm, but I don't think there are very many people that wouldn't rather go for a roll in the hay with a real person.
They're all in corporate pockets and you would be too in their position.
The system is inherently broken and I've yet to see a system of government that even remotely works for a population larger than a tiny village. Our republic is better than some, worse than others and far from ideal.
It would work a hell of a lot better though if we would stop forming political parties as Washington advised. You know...the Washington that our capitol is named after.
We pay lip service by honoring his name, then ignore his advice.
If you really want to make a difference, disavow all party affiliations and think for yourself.
Which is why most legal systems are completely broken.
The minute - no the second - that the letter of the law becomes what rules rather than the spirit, all is completely lost. The laws only cover crimes that have been conceived of in the past, then painstakingly documented in an incomprehensible language that only sycophants of the broken system benefit from. People are thinking up new nasty things to do for their own advantage every millisecond of the day.
But I agree with you, if people got punished for the indirect results of their actions, almost everyone on the planet could be found guilty of some pretty heavy crimes.
What this woman did was certainly horrible, but I don't think we should bend over backwards to try and pin something out of our legal system on her. We'll all forget about here in a few months, but I'm sure the damage to our legal system, and as a direct result, our own freedoms will be significant and lasting.
For the sake of argument, say she didn't intend for the girl to commit suicide, but the girl did. Then for the sake of argument assume someone else deliberately tried to get someone online to commit suicide and failed.
Which committed the greater crime? The one who wasn't trying and succeeded, or the one who was trying and failed? The latter has probably happened thousands of times. But the first time the former occurs it's in headlines for weeks and we bastardize our legal system trying to get her. And based on what (admittedly little) I know about the case I don't think pinning any crime on the woman is justified. Conversely, I don't know that it isn't.
That has nothing to do with the age of the machine or the operating system on it.
I have a windows XP machine at home that was up to 60 days of up time before the power went out. No perceivable slowdown in any application.
I would liken your example to running a car for four years and never changing the oil or other fluids, then complaining when it doesn't run well.
And one hour boot times are NOT the norm. At that point most uneducated users will think it's "worn out" and simply go buy a new one. Of course, most computers have very few parts that actually wear out, but the point is, your example is a lot less realistic than it first appears.
Except when the site is 98% flash and the remaining 2% is just setup to point the browser at the flash objects. If at all possible, I stop going there at that point.
Even IE has a separate thread for flash objects or other tabs.
It turns the FF browsing experience into one that is usually slower than IE and infinitely more frustrating when the browser is too busy rendering stuff in the background to listen to the user trying to use it.
It's got the upside down T-arranged arrow keys, no normal three by two navigation keys (home/end/del etc), volume keys, five generic bindable buttons, media controls, very convenient forward & back keys (alt+left & alt+right) and a weird scroll widget in the middle the primary purpose of which seems to be for dust to lay on.
The simple reason the states aren't happy with that idea is that it doesn't net them near as much of Amazon's income.
To say anything else is to skirt the real issue.
Walmart doesn't pay sales taxes for goods transported out of their huge warehouses, why should Amazon?
You could argue that Amazon is actually selling out of the warehouse, and I'd have to admit there's some truth to it. However, Amazon is providing worldwide competition to local stores. And competition is good for the end user. Adding sales tax to would hurt the business and make competition more difficult if not impossible.
Right now the buyer basically has two choices: Go to the retail store where they'll probably pay more. Order online and have to wait for their loot.
If you eliminate a huge chunk of the price difference, you may effectively eliminate the competition they bring. And amazon and others will certainly try and recoup the newly added costs. Either by jacking the price of the product or adding a "your state sucks tax" to the order.
Taxing online business is bad for competition, ergo bad for consumers, ergo bad for the economy and everyone.
Conversely, some people will buy the game, then crack it to be rid of onerous copy protection measures.
I have personally done this at least twice. Nine times if you count seven copies of a game.
What I should have done is voted with my wallet and not bought the game, but who could resist Diablo II?
By way of explaination, by the time I quit playing *coughWoWcough* I had accumulated through friends and other means, seven pairs of legitimate D2/LoD keys for playing on battle.net. You're probably curious wtf I could possibly do with seven copies of the game, but that's way off topic.
And honestly, your analogy sucks. If you walk into a store and take a bottle of wine out of it without paying, they can no longer sell that bottle.
If you download a copy of a game (note how it's a copy?) then every physical copy in existence can still be sold. By law, you've stolen nothing. Committed copyright infringement, absolutely. But nothing was, in fact stolen.
What this means to the market is that companies are valuing their "Intellectual Property" much higher than consumers are.
This business model is really simple, if flawed these days. Make something you can make copies of really really cheaply, then sell each of them at way higher than the cost of making a copy. But prevent, if you can, anyone else making copies really really cheaply. There's nothing immoral about it, but they picked that business model, now they get to live with the consequences. Criminalizing all of your paying customers while people who download a copy get a better copy is just foolhardy. They would be better off in the long run making a better product. But too many companies are focused on the short term to their detriment. Look at Diablo II. To this day you can find copies of that game in stores for $40 for the game plus its expansion. Eight years later and only a modest price reduction. I still get the occasional urge to play it!
Good sir, I'd like to interrupt you if I may? I think it would be in the best interest of several parties if you would cease this particular discourse on the subject at hand. Specifically, it would be in the best interests of myself, yourself, and the general slashdot reading populace if you were to cease and desist your discussion of this matter. The reason I suggest this, kind sir, is that there are valid emotional reasons for using "swear words" as you call them. Further, it can be argued - nay, has been argued - that the only people who are harmed - that is to say, offended by - swear words are people who have chosen to take offense at such things. As such, the burden for negating the harm resulting from "swear words" lies solely with those offended and not with the perpetrators of said offenses. Furthermore, the concision with which the person swearing can convey their point through swearing is considerably increased over that of more intellectual discourse. For example, if you were to drop a hammer on your toe. Would you stop, think about it rationally and attempt to compose a proper message to convey your pain, frustration or anger? Or would you swear, get it over with, and resume your work? Ponder these points for a few moments, I implore you...
Actually you can only super saturate water with dissolved solids such as sugar at high temperatures. It's gases that dissolve better at low temperatures.
Yeah, I'm totally sure it wasn't a personal pursuit for power. The royalty back then totally looked out for the little man so that civilization could flourish.
Wait.
Are you an alien?
About the last truly altruistic behavior you can count on is your mother.
And it's not pure cynicism. Beings that pursue things that benefit them and their progeny at the expense of other beings are more likely to succeed and produce equally successful offspring. If nothing else, smacking down your competition is highly beneficial. You could say it more simply with "nature prefers selfish beings" but it's a gross and misleading simplification.
All governments go downhill like this. It's inevitable.
The people in power always seek more power, and never relinquish what they have. That means governments only ever trend in one direction. Toward more power. Look at the FCC, they were created to regulated who could broadcast on what radio frequencies. Now they're making all of our moral decisions for us with regard to broadcast tv, broadcast radio, and they're trying for cable and satellite. How did that happen? Gradually over time.
And the reason it's consistently like that is all people are like that. We're all selfish at heart because that's what gets you ahead in life. Survival of the fittest does not stop at doors. Nature loves it when you take from others for you own benefit. All else is human hubris.
Lazy companies create "automated systems to handle most inquiries" ignoring the fact that even their claim states its own failing, it doesn't handle them all. So we have created a database of how to circumvent the barrier to customer support.
Now if only we could force them to hire customer support grunts without such thick accents.
Cause I'm sure an article on the site "sustainabletable.org" claiming to be celebrating the sustainable food movement isn't biased at all.
Here is another article which, unlike yours, does not look like a press release from Monsanto, with a juicy tidbit of my picking:
My article? Why does have to be mine? I didn't write it. It's rational write up of a Swiss scientific paper. The facts it contains are independent of you or I. It's not about you or me, the facts, the science, and the math are all that matter.
How about this one for ya: "The greatest catastrophe that the human race could face this century is not global warming but a global conversion to 'organic farming'--an estimated 2 billion people would perish." - the Cambridge chemist John Emsley
You cite the place that created such unbiased and fine educational films as The Meatrix in association with Free Range Studios. Like all the best half-truths, there are grains of truth to them. But as with most emotionally charged Green/organic issues, they're very shallow and careful examination by a thoughtful mind can easily pick them apart and find nothing left but demonized terms, loaded words, and attempt to make oneself feel better by convincing oneself that you're doing good in the world. It's entirely selfish.
And I know the treehugger irrationality is motivated almost entirely by the desire to feel good about yourself. Why else do you think the leaders of most of these organizations are women? Sustainable Table is. Free Range Studios is. PETA is. It isn't misogyny, it's science. Just as women are more susceptible to puppies, they're also more strongly affected by things like animal cruelty as portrayed in the meatrix and therefore more motivated to do something in reaction to those emotions. I mean, just look at the pigs in the Meatrix! Compare "Leo" to the pigs in the pens, they're not even the same color. They're gray and sickly looking (circles under their eyes!), or bleeding, or bruised, or both And before that kneejerk reaction, "but of course they're a different color, look at those horrible conditions!" Have you ever even seen a pig in real life? They're disgusting. Keeping them off the ground almost certainly keeps them cleaner. I've seen "free range" pigs too. More gross. And I don't even like pork. What about those "free range" animals that are fucking cold cause they're stuck outside? Or subject to a vastly greater number of parasitic insects. Or don't get to eat because the bigger animals ate all the food. Or go thirsty because it was hot outside and all the water evaporated. Maybe I should make a movie about that. It would be equally emotionally charged, contain grains of truth, and be equally irrelevant. Actually try doing something about it. Just complaining without attempting to solve the problem yourself is nothing more than just bitching. Go start a free range farm or something. Or find a way to provide meat more economically. Or plants. Farmers' interests are efficiently and reliably creating food. Yours are to selfishly satisfy your own feelings.
If you want to attempt to make a rational argument leave the emotionally charged words and demonization out of it. Free range? Wow, what a crock of shit. We raise them so we can eat them. I'm not advocating animal cruelty, but get a grip on reality for both our sakes. Even certain ants raise food creatures. In the dark! Underground! Why don't you pester them? Oh, right, that won't make you feel better about yourself.
Do you know how much natural gas goes into making chemical fertilizers? Not very much.
Don't think you eat a whole lot of grain or vegetables? I know I don't. I should eat more, but I don't.
About 10 lbs of grain feed go into every lb of beef. Mmm. Beef.
We are literallyI don't think that word means what you think it means. eating fossil fuels, and natural gas production is about to fall off a cliff in the next few decades. Literally eating fossil fuels means you are drinking crude oil or chewing on coal.
Your line of reasoning is as irrational as those crazy people that think margarine is somehow bad for you solely based on the fact that it is "one molecule away from plastic". I'm not kidding, someone once posited that as evidence. You know what is one atom away from breathable air? Water! Just one atom! So surely you can breathe that. They're practically the same thing? What's one atom? It's not even a whole molecule!
I realize you did not say that, but your reasoning is no more sound than theirs. I don't fall for sensationalism or the demonization of things. If you want to convince me of anything, try using the scientific method. Cause I think you're a few chemistry classes away from being able to talk about this subject with any credibility whatsoever.
Two solutions: 1. Stop all this "organic" and "natural" treehuggery. Because that's all it is. Well, that and money grubbing on the part of the people selling you that overpriced stuff. 2. If you can't find enough food to eat, stop making more people. There were starving children twenty years ago. If there are starving children today in the same area, that mean somebody made more kids who should not have. Which is especially odd when you consider the fact that a woman with less than 10% body fat stops menstruating and thus stops being fertile. So staving people ought to be incapable of having children. At least women. IIRC anyway.
"Organic" and "natural" crops cannot even remotely compete in terms of volume of perfectly safe, edible food with the genetically modified, pest free varieties. Here's a quote:
But--to ask the organic advocates' own question--is organic agriculture sustainable over the long run? Again, the fine print says no. As their research confirms, organic farming is mining the soil of its vital minerals, particularly phosphorus and potassium. Eventually, as these minerals are used up, organic crop production will fall below its already low level. Conventional farming, on the other hand, restores mineral balances through fertilization.
Here's another gem from the same article:
The researchers also point out that "cereal crop yields in Europe typically are 60 to 70% of those under conventional management." Furthermore, they dispelled the notion that organic crops are superior food by noting, "There were minor differences between the farming systems in food quality."
Shocking to discover that fertilizer and pesticides yield more crops.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious to what titles you're talking about.
Because you can still - after eight freaking years - find Diablo II in stores. And it's not in the bargain bin, either. It's $40 plus tax for the game and the expansion the expansion. I think the base game is still $20.
Starcraft is alive and well in some parts.
Are those the two you're referring to in addition to WoW or...?
It's pretty easy to figure out what competitions a machine will be better at than a person.
Chess: Really hard to make a machine that can beat a person. And it takes quite a machine. Why? The game is entirely mental. And computers are really dumb. But we can make them be really dumb really fast, so we eventually pulled it off.
Poker: It's almost cheating for a machine here. Much of the game is based off of your opponents meat-weaknesses and reading their hand from their faces. The computer doesn't have a face and is using pure probability. Even the best poker player cannot read them. So unless they're better at math than a computer and and their poker prowess isn't based on reading people, they're never going to win. It takes the game out of the game really. The perfect odds playing machine against the perfect odds playing player would come out even.
Air hockey: It's mostly about physical speed. [sarcasm]Shockingly, machines are faster than people.[/sarcasm]
Facial Recognition: We win, and I'd wager we will for a while. Machines still get fooled by magazine covers. Next up, multiple cameras for 3D recognition! Foiled by a mannequin head or some random person paid to pose for the cameras.
Sex: I'm pretty sure we're still better at it. Sure, you can get some machines to give you an orgasm, but I don't think there are very many people that wouldn't rather go for a roll in the hay with a real person.
There's really no difference.
They're all in corporate pockets and you would be too in their position.
The system is inherently broken and I've yet to see a system of government that even remotely works for a population larger than a tiny village. Our republic is better than some, worse than others and far from ideal.
It would work a hell of a lot better though if we would stop forming political parties as Washington advised. You know...the Washington that our capitol is named after.
We pay lip service by honoring his name, then ignore his advice.
If you really want to make a difference, disavow all party affiliations and think for yourself.
Which is why most legal systems are completely broken.
The minute - no the second - that the letter of the law becomes what rules rather than the spirit, all is completely lost. The laws only cover crimes that have been conceived of in the past, then painstakingly documented in an incomprehensible language that only sycophants of the broken system benefit from. People are thinking up new nasty things to do for their own advantage every millisecond of the day.
But I agree with you, if people got punished for the indirect results of their actions, almost everyone on the planet could be found guilty of some pretty heavy crimes.
What this woman did was certainly horrible, but I don't think we should bend over backwards to try and pin something out of our legal system on her. We'll all forget about here in a few months, but I'm sure the damage to our legal system, and as a direct result, our own freedoms will be significant and lasting.
For the sake of argument, say she didn't intend for the girl to commit suicide, but the girl did. Then for the sake of argument assume someone else deliberately tried to get someone online to commit suicide and failed.
Which committed the greater crime? The one who wasn't trying and succeeded, or the one who was trying and failed? The latter has probably happened thousands of times. But the first time the former occurs it's in headlines for weeks and we bastardize our legal system trying to get her. And based on what (admittedly little) I know about the case I don't think pinning any crime on the woman is justified. Conversely, I don't know that it isn't.
Try 7234534. 7-2345-34. Notice the unlikely four sequential digits? Easier to remember than my phone number to this day.
I signed up back in 1998 or so. And then of course lost the password somewhere around 2000. :-/
That has nothing to do with the age of the machine or the operating system on it.
I have a windows XP machine at home that was up to 60 days of up time before the power went out. No perceivable slowdown in any application.
I would liken your example to running a car for four years and never changing the oil or other fluids, then complaining when it doesn't run well.
And one hour boot times are NOT the norm. At that point most uneducated users will think it's "worn out" and simply go buy a new one. Of course, most computers have very few parts that actually wear out, but the point is, your example is a lot less realistic than it first appears.
Except when the site is 98% flash and the remaining 2% is just setup to point the browser at the flash objects. If at all possible, I stop going there at that point.
The #1 thing I want out of Firefox is threading.
Even IE has a separate thread for flash objects or other tabs.
It turns the FF browsing experience into one that is usually slower than IE and infinitely more frustrating when the browser is too busy rendering stuff in the background to listen to the user trying to use it.
You should try the *deep breath* Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 v1.0 *pant*.
It's got the upside down T-arranged arrow keys, no normal three by two navigation keys (home/end/del etc), volume keys, five generic bindable buttons, media controls, very convenient forward & back keys (alt+left & alt+right) and a weird scroll widget in the middle the primary purpose of which seems to be for dust to lay on.
The simple reason the states aren't happy with that idea is that it doesn't net them near as much of Amazon's income.
To say anything else is to skirt the real issue.
Walmart doesn't pay sales taxes for goods transported out of their huge warehouses, why should Amazon?
You could argue that Amazon is actually selling out of the warehouse, and I'd have to admit there's some truth to it. However, Amazon is providing worldwide competition to local stores. And competition is good for the end user. Adding sales tax to would hurt the business and make competition more difficult if not impossible.
Right now the buyer basically has two choices: Go to the retail store where they'll probably pay more. Order online and have to wait for their loot.
If you eliminate a huge chunk of the price difference, you may effectively eliminate the competition they bring. And amazon and others will certainly try and recoup the newly added costs. Either by jacking the price of the product or adding a "your state sucks tax" to the order.
Taxing online business is bad for competition, ergo bad for consumers, ergo bad for the economy and everyone.
Conversely, some people will buy the game, then crack it to be rid of onerous copy protection measures.
I have personally done this at least twice. Nine times if you count seven copies of a game.
What I should have done is voted with my wallet and not bought the game, but who could resist Diablo II?
By way of explaination, by the time I quit playing *coughWoWcough* I had accumulated through friends and other means, seven pairs of legitimate D2/LoD keys for playing on battle.net. You're probably curious wtf I could possibly do with seven copies of the game, but that's way off topic.
And honestly, your analogy sucks. If you walk into a store and take a bottle of wine out of it without paying, they can no longer sell that bottle.
If you download a copy of a game (note how it's a copy?) then every physical copy in existence can still be sold. By law, you've stolen nothing. Committed copyright infringement, absolutely. But nothing was, in fact stolen.
What this means to the market is that companies are valuing their "Intellectual Property" much higher than consumers are.
This business model is really simple, if flawed these days. Make something you can make copies of really really cheaply, then sell each of them at way higher than the cost of making a copy. But prevent, if you can, anyone else making copies really really cheaply. There's nothing immoral about it, but they picked that business model, now they get to live with the consequences. Criminalizing all of your paying customers while people who download a copy get a better copy is just foolhardy. They would be better off in the long run making a better product. But too many companies are focused on the short term to their detriment. Look at Diablo II. To this day you can find copies of that game in stores for $40 for the game plus its expansion. Eight years later and only a modest price reduction. I still get the occasional urge to play it!
Good sir, I'd like to interrupt you if I may? I think it would be in the best interest of several parties if you would cease this particular discourse on the subject at hand. Specifically, it would be in the best interests of myself, yourself, and the general slashdot reading populace if you were to cease and desist your discussion of this matter. The reason I suggest this, kind sir, is that there are valid emotional reasons for using "swear words" as you call them. Further, it can be argued - nay, has been argued - that the only people who are harmed - that is to say, offended by - swear words are people who have chosen to take offense at such things. As such, the burden for negating the harm resulting from "swear words" lies solely with those offended and not with the perpetrators of said offenses. Furthermore, the concision with which the person swearing can convey their point through swearing is considerably increased over that of more intellectual discourse. For example, if you were to drop a hammer on your toe. Would you stop, think about it rationally and attempt to compose a proper message to convey your pain, frustration or anger? Or would you swear, get it over with, and resume your work? Ponder these points for a few moments, I implore you...
Translation: Shut the fuck up, asshole.
Actually you can only super saturate water with dissolved solids such as sugar at high temperatures. It's gases that dissolve better at low temperatures.
So you're not only fat, but a dirty, dirty liar!
Yeah, I'm totally sure it wasn't a personal pursuit for power. The royalty back then totally looked out for the little man so that civilization could flourish.
Wait.
Are you an alien?
About the last truly altruistic behavior you can count on is your mother.
And it's not pure cynicism. Beings that pursue things that benefit them and their progeny at the expense of other beings are more likely to succeed and produce equally successful offspring. If nothing else, smacking down your competition is highly beneficial. You could say it more simply with "nature prefers selfish beings" but it's a gross and misleading simplification.
But they're insufferable bastards if you don't meet them. Or they aren't. They're Schroedinger's Developers!
Funny, that's the same mindset most corporations and US leaders have these days.
So why do we look less favorably on the children who do it and are just not as good at it?
Just look at about every 5th story (or more) on techdirt for an example.
Think of the children? No, think of the old people acting like children.
The other two weren't busted.
He was diagnosed with ALS at 21. So you'd have to stretch it to 63rd trimester.
Which I believe pretty much everyone agrees is called murder at that point. Perhaps assisted suicide.
All governments go downhill like this. It's inevitable.
The people in power always seek more power, and never relinquish what they have. That means governments only ever trend in one direction. Toward more power. Look at the FCC, they were created to regulated who could broadcast on what radio frequencies. Now they're making all of our moral decisions for us with regard to broadcast tv, broadcast radio, and they're trying for cable and satellite. How did that happen? Gradually over time.
And the reason it's consistently like that is all people are like that. We're all selfish at heart because that's what gets you ahead in life. Survival of the fittest does not stop at doors. Nature loves it when you take from others for you own benefit. All else is human hubris.
Try this: http://www.gethuman.com/gethuman_list.asp?bname=%22C%22
Lazy companies create "automated systems to handle most inquiries" ignoring the fact that even their claim states its own failing, it doesn't handle them all. So we have created a database of how to circumvent the barrier to customer support.
Now if only we could force them to hire customer support grunts without such thick accents.
How about this one for ya: "The greatest catastrophe that the human race could face this century is not global warming but a global conversion to 'organic farming'--an estimated 2 billion people would perish." - the Cambridge chemist John Emsley
You cite the place that created such unbiased and fine educational films as The Meatrix in association with Free Range Studios. Like all the best half-truths, there are grains of truth to them. But as with most emotionally charged Green/organic issues, they're very shallow and careful examination by a thoughtful mind can easily pick them apart and find nothing left but demonized terms, loaded words, and attempt to make oneself feel better by convincing oneself that you're doing good in the world. It's entirely selfish.
And I know the treehugger irrationality is motivated almost entirely by the desire to feel good about yourself. Why else do you think the leaders of most of these organizations are women? Sustainable Table is. Free Range Studios is. PETA is. It isn't misogyny, it's science. Just as women are more susceptible to puppies, they're also more strongly affected by things like animal cruelty as portrayed in the meatrix and therefore more motivated to do something in reaction to those emotions. I mean, just look at the pigs in the Meatrix! Compare "Leo" to the pigs in the pens, they're not even the same color. They're gray and sickly looking (circles under their eyes!), or bleeding, or bruised, or both And before that kneejerk reaction, "but of course they're a different color, look at those horrible conditions!" Have you ever even seen a pig in real life? They're disgusting. Keeping them off the ground almost certainly keeps them cleaner. I've seen "free range" pigs too. More gross. And I don't even like pork. What about those "free range" animals that are fucking cold cause they're stuck outside? Or subject to a vastly greater number of parasitic insects. Or don't get to eat because the bigger animals ate all the food. Or go thirsty because it was hot outside and all the water evaporated. Maybe I should make a movie about that. It would be equally emotionally charged, contain grains of truth, and be equally irrelevant. Actually try doing something about it. Just complaining without attempting to solve the problem yourself is nothing more than just bitching. Go start a free range farm or something. Or find a way to provide meat more economically. Or plants. Farmers' interests are efficiently and reliably creating food. Yours are to selfishly satisfy your own feelings.
If you want to attempt to make a rational argument leave the emotionally charged words and demonization out of it. Free range? Wow, what a crock of shit. We raise them so we can eat them. I'm not advocating animal cruelty, but get a grip on reality for both our sakes. Even certain ants raise food creatures. In the dark! Underground! Why don't you pester them? Oh, right, that won't make you feel better about yourself.
Your line of reasoning is as irrational as those crazy people that think margarine is somehow bad for you solely based on the fact that it is "one molecule away from plastic". I'm not kidding, someone once posited that as evidence. You know what is one atom away from breathable air? Water! Just one atom! So surely you can breathe that. They're practically the same thing? What's one atom? It's not even a whole molecule!
I realize you did not say that, but your reasoning is no more sound than theirs. I don't fall for sensationalism or the demonization of things. If you want to convince me of anything, try using the scientific method. Cause I think you're a few chemistry classes away from being able to talk about this subject with any credibility whatsoever.
1. Stop all this "organic" and "natural" treehuggery. Because that's all it is. Well, that and money grubbing on the part of the people selling you that overpriced stuff.
2. If you can't find enough food to eat, stop making more people. There were starving children twenty years ago. If there are starving children today in the same area, that mean somebody made more kids who should not have. Which is especially odd when you consider the fact that a woman with less than 10% body fat stops menstruating and thus stops being fertile. So staving people ought to be incapable of having children. At least women. IIRC anyway.
"Organic" and "natural" crops cannot even remotely compete in terms of volume of perfectly safe, edible food with the genetically modified, pest free varieties. Here's a quote:
Here's another gem from the same article:
Shocking to discover that fertilizer and pesticides yield more crops.
Religion: A large, popular cult.
Cult: A small, unpopular religion.
Thinking for yourself: Awesome.
We can only hope that's the case.