Hm. So basically, Microsoft just patented word processor XML document 'cross compatibility', giving them a legal monopoly and incentive to sue anyone who implements such a scheme for compatibility reasons. Sounds like a pretty big hammer to use against OO.org, for instance.
(Nevermind that this still falls well within the original intent of XML, and that the concept/idea has been implemented a dozen times over - CSS, for instance.)
This will happen again: the wireless driver stack in Windows is poorly written and, as a result, users will disable the 'security' features just to get it to work consistently. Put another operating system on there. I suggest DOS or Linux if you don't want it to be exploited again in such a fashion.
Frankly, I'm surprised this got posted to slashdot. This is like "how do I floss my teeth?" or maybe "why is air breathable?" - both questions with easily findable answers via google. Maybe you should've started there.
No, I don't give any credence to such words. I was just being lazy. Just like "Ruskie", "Yank" or "Brit" shouldn't be derogatory, "Jap" shouldn't either. People need to pull the stick from their asses and stop assuming people are trying to offend them.
A biker on PCP (or anyone else) is not fragile. There have been cases of PCP addled fiends taking on 3-4 cops, taking multiple gunshots, and only dying once their brains were too damaged to continue the assault.
Paint.NET is, basically, on par in functionality to an older version of Paint Shop Pro (call it version 9). PSP was my favorite 'paint' program in Windows, back when I still used Windows with regularity. Until recently, I have rebooted to Windows (or used it in a vm) if I wanted to do something with a bitmap editor just so I could use PSP/Paint.NET/GimpShop (I'm not going to pay for Photoshop, and I don't particularly care for its UI, anyway).
If anything, it'll have a shorter lifecycle than previous versions, I think.
Why? Because you already have both 10.5 and a PPC. You don't have the latest, greatest Apple product, so you will not be giving them any more money.
The crazy thing about Macs is that, once Apple stops offering support/releases a new OS, you can rarely find applications - even the ones you'd used previosuly on the same OS - for them. Companies upgrade their products to -only- support the new system. A year ago I was looking for some software (any software, really) for a 10.4 machine. Guess what? Most downloadable/free stuff was Universal Binary only, and very few commercial products supported 10.4. Why? It's not that old.
Media mogul billionaires do not become billionaires by investing in only one side of a two-sided political spectrum. They invest in both (in this case) left and right wing media sources so that an election (and the resulting dissatisfaction with the choices made) do not drastically skewer their bottom line.
In this case, we are not talking about the right wing/conservative/whatever Fox News. We're talking about The New York Times, which is decidedly not conservative. The NYT is failing horribly: they went from being a newspaper which many people would pay for half a world away 10 years ago, to getting rid of staff.
Yes, part of this is due to the whole digital/print media 'war' going on now. All the newspapers are suffering somewhat. But the NYT, in particular (as well as a couple other big city papers) have been hit due to their brazen slant in reporting: being blatantly, brazenly partisan during the last election, for instance, did not win many friends (at least amongst those who pay attention to the news and world events).
And guess what? Fox News is doing quite well right now, it would appear.
I doubt it. Most ATMs in populated areas are (at the very least) bolted to the ground with a.25" lag bolt or three, sunk into the cement or through the floor (and you'd have to take the ATM apart to get at them). Even the cheap ones at convenience stores. It's doubtful a crook would take that much time to 'secure' a fake ATM.
On the other hand, there are some legit ATMs that have horrible security. I used to work at a rural gas station in North Dakota on the overnight shift - a very short stint, thank God. This place had no security whatsoever, but they did have an ATM. It was one of the low-end models that doesn't hold much cash (and has a $2 fee for everyone), but on a Friday night people would withdraw several thousand dollars from it. It just had a single strand of 4cm or so thick steel wire attaching it to an eye hook (which was cemented into the floor). The device was light and small enough that a single person of fit build could likely hoist it to their shoulders; it'd be no problem for a hand cart.
Then again, this place didn't lock their lock box, either, and someone in the back stocking the fridges (which occurred every shift for about 40 minutes) who didn't notice someone come in (entirely possible, there was no bell or such thing). It would have been trivial for someone to come in undetected (glass store front = easy viewing access). It was quite a disturbing situation; the store had more cash in the building on any given night than the average annual salary in the area, I'd not doubt (almost $20k I'd guess - the ATM was only stocked once a week).
Two words: public education. (The fact that you likely understand that statement is likely partially indicative of the total hold popular entertainment has had upon our minds - and the dearth of a literary backing to our psyche.)
The sad fact is that since shortly after (during?) World War II, popular culture (Elvis, John Wayne, the Beatles, etc.) has been the prevailing form of culturing we've received as a society. Yes, some of it's good: intelligently performed, produced, and sometimes educational to boot. But for the most part, it's insipid and a complete waste of time - mental masturbation of the least constructive kind. Before such things, prevailing culture was disseminated through books, discourse (in person and through writing), and social gatherings. Now, we just "party".
Simply put, what people in robotics have been trying to do for the past 50 years is akin to trying to make an apple pie with saw dust and water. Sure, I suppose you might be able to get some sort of approximation, but you're using the wrong materials, and any attempt will only be so-so at best.
You can't emulate a precise (while at the same time, very in-precise), artistic, biological, and tactile machine like the human body with gears, servos, pistons, joints, ballast, and god knows what else they're using. For one thing, you're not going to have nearly the range of motion (as provided to us by muscles). For another, the human body has an amazing degree of flexibility which aides in our mobility significantly - arguably making it possible at all - and without that flexibility, any impersonation will be lacking a significant part of what makes us able to walk, run, jump, and so on. (Ever notice that so many of these robots look like geriatrics? Lack of flexibility is, I think, a big part of the problem.)
Robotics - the components used to make the robots - need to improve a lot: all these neat things we've heard about over the years (synthetic muscles, for instance) need to be converged in order for robotics to approach human-like mobility. The problem is that engineers seem to approach such things like engineers tend to approach things in general: very narrow. They need to pull more biologists, artists, chiropractors, dancers, and so on in to study them, get their expert opinion on the matter.
As has been said elsewhere, Toyota makes a lot more than just cars. And if I were worried about someone's business failing in the auto industry, I would not be concerned for Toyota anyway, to be certain: they're probably the most reasonably priced, reliable vehicles available in the US (and elsewhere) right now.
As for the research itself, it doesn't seem like it was all that difficult to accomplish, in my mind: we have understood the mechanics of running for some time. We've got slow-motion pictures, xrays, thermals and god knows what else of the human body running, walking, sitting, and probably even having sex.
The hard part was getting the money for the equipment to make such a robot, how to approximate human movement and body parts in a cost-effective manner... and most importantly, try to figure out the proper timings to control the whole thing so it wouldn't fall to the ground. Much like a todler learning to walk, it likely took a great deal of trial and error.
But I thought the Japanese invented Gundam Suits and various Mech armors like that.
Incorrect. The first "mobile armor" suit I'm aware of was conceived in Starship Troopers, which won the Hugo Award in 1950. Gundam didn't come about until 1979, and Mechs (as in, BattleMechs) did not come about until the 1980s, and were derived from the Japanese mecha. The first instance of "mecha" I could find was in 1956, which could certainly have originated from Heinlein's work. (That said, ideas tend to occur in spurts, and the 1950s was a pretty big time for the relatively-new powerful mechanized, hydraulically augmented machines of the day. Mecha and Mobile Armor could easily have started independently, though they have undeniably impacted each other since.)
Though I can see why you'd think the Japs would be the origin for such things. I mean, they were the ones who had shoguns and samauri, which are about as close to such things in a pre-industry world as you can get. And they were certainly the only ones to ever have to deal with Godzilla and the like: that kind of exposure could certainly influence a people's mindset!:P
Get one of these helper bots in every home, on every street corner, flip the switch and they all take over without any loss of (your, the conquering) lives.
Somehow, I bet the conquering robots wouldn't fare too well out in the Midwest. When the husband comes in from the field at lunch with his Winchester, that robot'll be mighty sorry (unless they're made with kevlar casings, in which case we should all see "it's a trap!" is quite evident).
You don't really need to control weeds to produce food. For instance, growing multiple crops together in the same area can help deter both pests and weeds (I know squash, hot peppers, beans, and herbs in a small area is common, as are cabbage/lettuce, radish, and carrots) Yes, it's a bit of a labor intensive process now that machines are specialized for certain types of work. But consider a third of an acre in a middle temperate region w/ moderate soil quality can produce enough food for a family of 4 in a growing season, and it's not all that unattractive when you consider the marginal amount of labor involved.
Also do not forget that the review was funded by the FDA (which has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo due to how industrial ag and ranching increases the FDA's power at the local level) and performed by an economics body (ie also vested in the status quo). That's like MS funding a study on user interface and expecting something like OS X or Linux coming out as superior.
The thing about supermarket foods is that, by the time you get it home, it's been picked for a long damn time. Weeks, months - who knows. Same for beef, eggs, poultry, and dairy: it takes a while for all those things to get to the consumer.
We've bought eggs from the farmer's market or from a local friend/farmer before, as well as milk - straight from the cow with the little black floaties in it, still (mmm full-cream milk, not any of this homogenized and super-pastuerized "whole" milk nonsense). The milk can sit for couple days on the counter without souring (though it's much sweeter if refrigerated). Eggs can sit out on the counter "indefinitely" - call it a week or two (nobody put eggs in their fridge before fridge makers started having the egg trays, and industrial egg production started washing the protective membranes off the egg shells). Likewise, packaged meat at the supermarket has been sitting out for quite, whether at the packing plant after the slaughter, pre-freezing, or post-freezing at the store. And there's also the (not slim, during the summer) chance that the freezer truck thawed out during transit, and that meat spent a while heating in the back of a truck.
OK, I get the 8-15 conversion factor, because if I'm not eating meat I have to graze like a flipping cow: I'm constantly eating, vs. having regular meals throughout the day.
We might be able to feed the world if we all became vegetarians, but chances are we'd run out of suitable land for farming sooner than later. You do realize that much of the cattle in the world is grazed on land which is not suitable for growing crops, right? Like most of eastern Washington, Nebraska and western Dakotas and Texas, which are essentially sand dunes. The only thing you could do better for the land would be to reintroduce bison to supplant the cattle. I don't suppose you thought (or even knew) any of that, which would explain your silly suggestion. Symbiosis is much better than monoculture, to be certain.
As far as "easily feeding the world"... we could already do that if we weren't burning and fermenting plants to make fuel, and third world dictators weren't denying the free food we're giving them to their subjects. There is more than enough excess in the US alone to do this; human nature prevents it.
The real eye-opener is that they conclude that all these nutritionally fortified foods are on rough parity with the organic, "plain" foods. What exactly are they doing to our food to decrease its nutritional value to the point where even fortifying it, it still leads to rough parity? No wonder so many people in the US are "malnourished".
The other alternative is that you manufacture nitrates. That is called the Haber Bosch process and it involves burning a shit load of fossil fuels to produce the hydrogen and energy required convert the nitrogen in the atmosphere to ammonia. The phosphates and potassium are usually mined. All of which require vast amounts of energy and leave big holes in the ground. As long as energy is plentiful and cheap you can just about get away with this.
There's also the "compost it" option, which works out just fine provided your incubator is large enough and you've got the space for it. You can also burn it and churn it back into the soil: the key is to get it warm enough, long enough, to keep human intestinal bacteria at a minimum. Then it can be reintroduced back into the soil.
Well, not even that. It's not the fat, but the type of fat (saturated), the preservatives, multiple flavor enhancers, substitutes (soy) and use of the least-common-denominator products in general (yay, fluffy white buns which would normally lack all flavor if not for the additives in the rest of the food). There's little to no nutritional value there; it's fluff.
As I understand it, there are other environmental factors which commonly encourage people to adopt organic foods in their diet:
If something is certified organic, it -usually- means (depending on who certified it) that it was raised or grown in a completely organ (as much as can be, at least) environment: no pesticides, no petrofertilizer, no GMOs at any stage of the production process. It also usually means that the foods were not irradiated and are dye-free.
At least in the case of meat, I know that organic, free-range beef will have a substantial higher amount of omega 3 fatty acids than the "organic" feedlot cattle which are fed on organic corn feeds to fatten them up. There's a huge difference there, and I can imagine that, likewise, there's not much of a difference between organic feedlot and commercial feedlot cattle.
A big part of why people buy organic isn't due to the food itself at a primary-producer level, but what happens to it after production: milk is homogenized and ultra-pasteurized (and then manufactured vitamins and minerals re-added to make up for the fact); eggs sit around until they're "old" before they get to the consumer; meat and fruits/vegetables are irradiated, dyed, and god (and probably my wife) knows what else, and so on. When you're buying organic, you are probably more vested in the food you eat and are more likely to look local (and thus, probably better/more natural): most so-called organic food probably has very little fundamental difference from the mass consumer stuff, I'd agree.
Personally, I'd be suspicious of this study on principle (granted, I have not read it) due to the substantial money from the "food industry" which has a vested interest in sustaining the status quo.
It isn't clear what you're saying. Are you blaming the high-carb or high-protein diet? A lot of those problems are caused by high-sugar, low-fiber diets (resulting from processed foods, mostly). In terms of sustainable, healthy diets, high-fat, high protein, and protein with exercise = for the win.
Slashdot Mirror
... oops.
Hm. So basically, Microsoft just patented word processor XML document 'cross compatibility', giving them a legal monopoly and incentive to sue anyone who implements such a scheme for compatibility reasons. Sounds like a pretty big hammer to use against OO.org, for instance.
(Nevermind that this still falls well within the original intent of XML, and that the concept/idea has been implemented a dozen times over - CSS, for instance.)
This will happen again: the wireless driver stack in Windows is poorly written and, as a result, users will disable the 'security' features just to get it to work consistently. Put another operating system on there. I suggest DOS or Linux if you don't want it to be exploited again in such a fashion.
Frankly, I'm surprised this got posted to slashdot. This is like "how do I floss my teeth?" or maybe "why is air breathable?" - both questions with easily findable answers via google. Maybe you should've started there.
No, I don't give any credence to such words. I was just being lazy. Just like "Ruskie", "Yank" or "Brit" shouldn't be derogatory, "Jap" shouldn't either. People need to pull the stick from their asses and stop assuming people are trying to offend them.
A biker on PCP (or anyone else) is not fragile. There have been cases of PCP addled fiends taking on 3-4 cops, taking multiple gunshots, and only dying once their brains were too damaged to continue the assault.
My point was that it was a stupid metaphor.
Paint.NET is, basically, on par in functionality to an older version of Paint Shop Pro (call it version 9). PSP was my favorite 'paint' program in Windows, back when I still used Windows with regularity. Until recently, I have rebooted to Windows (or used it in a vm) if I wanted to do something with a bitmap editor just so I could use PSP/Paint.NET/GimpShop (I'm not going to pay for Photoshop, and I don't particularly care for its UI, anyway).
If anything, it'll have a shorter lifecycle than previous versions, I think.
Why? Because you already have both 10.5 and a PPC. You don't have the latest, greatest Apple product, so you will not be giving them any more money.
The crazy thing about Macs is that, once Apple stops offering support/releases a new OS, you can rarely find applications - even the ones you'd used previosuly on the same OS - for them. Companies upgrade their products to -only- support the new system. A year ago I was looking for some software (any software, really) for a 10.4 machine. Guess what? Most downloadable/free stuff was Universal Binary only, and very few commercial products supported 10.4. Why? It's not that old.
I think you're somewhat confused.
Media mogul billionaires do not become billionaires by investing in only one side of a two-sided political spectrum. They invest in both (in this case) left and right wing media sources so that an election (and the resulting dissatisfaction with the choices made) do not drastically skewer their bottom line.
In this case, we are not talking about the right wing/conservative/whatever Fox News. We're talking about The New York Times, which is decidedly not conservative. The NYT is failing horribly: they went from being a newspaper which many people would pay for half a world away 10 years ago, to getting rid of staff.
Yes, part of this is due to the whole digital/print media 'war' going on now. All the newspapers are suffering somewhat. But the NYT, in particular (as well as a couple other big city papers) have been hit due to their brazen slant in reporting: being blatantly, brazenly partisan during the last election, for instance, did not win many friends (at least amongst those who pay attention to the news and world events).
And guess what? Fox News is doing quite well right now, it would appear.
I doubt it. Most ATMs in populated areas are (at the very least) bolted to the ground with a .25" lag bolt or three, sunk into the cement or through the floor (and you'd have to take the ATM apart to get at them). Even the cheap ones at convenience stores. It's doubtful a crook would take that much time to 'secure' a fake ATM.
On the other hand, there are some legit ATMs that have horrible security. I used to work at a rural gas station in North Dakota on the overnight shift - a very short stint, thank God. This place had no security whatsoever, but they did have an ATM. It was one of the low-end models that doesn't hold much cash (and has a $2 fee for everyone), but on a Friday night people would withdraw several thousand dollars from it. It just had a single strand of 4cm or so thick steel wire attaching it to an eye hook (which was cemented into the floor). The device was light and small enough that a single person of fit build could likely hoist it to their shoulders; it'd be no problem for a hand cart.
Then again, this place didn't lock their lock box, either, and someone in the back stocking the fridges (which occurred every shift for about 40 minutes) who didn't notice someone come in (entirely possible, there was no bell or such thing). It would have been trivial for someone to come in undetected (glass store front = easy viewing access). It was quite a disturbing situation; the store had more cash in the building on any given night than the average annual salary in the area, I'd not doubt (almost $20k I'd guess - the ATM was only stocked once a week).
Two words: public education. (The fact that you likely understand that statement is likely partially indicative of the total hold popular entertainment has had upon our minds - and the dearth of a literary backing to our psyche.)
The sad fact is that since shortly after (during?) World War II, popular culture (Elvis, John Wayne, the Beatles, etc.) has been the prevailing form of culturing we've received as a society. Yes, some of it's good: intelligently performed, produced, and sometimes educational to boot. But for the most part, it's insipid and a complete waste of time - mental masturbation of the least constructive kind. Before such things, prevailing culture was disseminated through books, discourse (in person and through writing), and social gatherings. Now, we just "party".
The machines are not good enough yet, no.
Simply put, what people in robotics have been trying to do for the past 50 years is akin to trying to make an apple pie with saw dust and water. Sure, I suppose you might be able to get some sort of approximation, but you're using the wrong materials, and any attempt will only be so-so at best.
You can't emulate a precise (while at the same time, very in-precise), artistic, biological, and tactile machine like the human body with gears, servos, pistons, joints, ballast, and god knows what else they're using. For one thing, you're not going to have nearly the range of motion (as provided to us by muscles). For another, the human body has an amazing degree of flexibility which aides in our mobility significantly - arguably making it possible at all - and without that flexibility, any impersonation will be lacking a significant part of what makes us able to walk, run, jump, and so on. (Ever notice that so many of these robots look like geriatrics? Lack of flexibility is, I think, a big part of the problem.)
Robotics - the components used to make the robots - need to improve a lot: all these neat things we've heard about over the years (synthetic muscles, for instance) need to be converged in order for robotics to approach human-like mobility. The problem is that engineers seem to approach such things like engineers tend to approach things in general: very narrow. They need to pull more biologists, artists, chiropractors, dancers, and so on in to study them, get their expert opinion on the matter.
As has been said elsewhere, Toyota makes a lot more than just cars. And if I were worried about someone's business failing in the auto industry, I would not be concerned for Toyota anyway, to be certain: they're probably the most reasonably priced, reliable vehicles available in the US (and elsewhere) right now.
As for the research itself, it doesn't seem like it was all that difficult to accomplish, in my mind: we have understood the mechanics of running for some time. We've got slow-motion pictures, xrays, thermals and god knows what else of the human body running, walking, sitting, and probably even having sex.
The hard part was getting the money for the equipment to make such a robot, how to approximate human movement and body parts in a cost-effective manner... and most importantly, try to figure out the proper timings to control the whole thing so it wouldn't fall to the ground. Much like a todler learning to walk, it likely took a great deal of trial and error.
I don't think you used the "biker on PCP" comparison accurately. Perhaps you should reconsider it.
One does not say "smarter than Paris Hilton" to mean "very smart" any more than they would say what you said. It just doesn't make sense.
But I thought the Japanese invented Gundam Suits and various Mech armors like that.
Incorrect. The first "mobile armor" suit I'm aware of was conceived in Starship Troopers, which won the Hugo Award in 1950. Gundam didn't come about until 1979, and Mechs (as in, BattleMechs) did not come about until the 1980s, and were derived from the Japanese mecha. The first instance of "mecha" I could find was in 1956, which could certainly have originated from Heinlein's work. (That said, ideas tend to occur in spurts, and the 1950s was a pretty big time for the relatively-new powerful mechanized, hydraulically augmented machines of the day. Mecha and Mobile Armor could easily have started independently, though they have undeniably impacted each other since.)
Though I can see why you'd think the Japs would be the origin for such things. I mean, they were the ones who had shoguns and samauri, which are about as close to such things in a pre-industry world as you can get. And they were certainly the only ones to ever have to deal with Godzilla and the like: that kind of exposure could certainly influence a people's mindset! :P
Get one of these helper bots in every home, on every street corner, flip the switch and they all take over without any loss of (your, the conquering) lives.
Somehow, I bet the conquering robots wouldn't fare too well out in the Midwest. When the husband comes in from the field at lunch with his Winchester, that robot'll be mighty sorry (unless they're made with kevlar casings, in which case we should all see "it's a trap!" is quite evident).
You don't really need to control weeds to produce food. For instance, growing multiple crops together in the same area can help deter both pests and weeds (I know squash, hot peppers, beans, and herbs in a small area is common, as are cabbage/lettuce, radish, and carrots) Yes, it's a bit of a labor intensive process now that machines are specialized for certain types of work. But consider a third of an acre in a middle temperate region w/ moderate soil quality can produce enough food for a family of 4 in a growing season, and it's not all that unattractive when you consider the marginal amount of labor involved.
Also do not forget that the review was funded by the FDA (which has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo due to how industrial ag and ranching increases the FDA's power at the local level) and performed by an economics body (ie also vested in the status quo). That's like MS funding a study on user interface and expecting something like OS X or Linux coming out as superior.
Yep, that's our finding too.
The thing about supermarket foods is that, by the time you get it home, it's been picked for a long damn time. Weeks, months - who knows. Same for beef, eggs, poultry, and dairy: it takes a while for all those things to get to the consumer.
We've bought eggs from the farmer's market or from a local friend/farmer before, as well as milk - straight from the cow with the little black floaties in it, still (mmm full-cream milk, not any of this homogenized and super-pastuerized "whole" milk nonsense). The milk can sit for couple days on the counter without souring (though it's much sweeter if refrigerated). Eggs can sit out on the counter "indefinitely" - call it a week or two (nobody put eggs in their fridge before fridge makers started having the egg trays, and industrial egg production started washing the protective membranes off the egg shells). Likewise, packaged meat at the supermarket has been sitting out for quite, whether at the packing plant after the slaughter, pre-freezing, or post-freezing at the store. And there's also the (not slim, during the summer) chance that the freezer truck thawed out during transit, and that meat spent a while heating in the back of a truck.
OK, I get the 8-15 conversion factor, because if I'm not eating meat I have to graze like a flipping cow: I'm constantly eating, vs. having regular meals throughout the day.
We might be able to feed the world if we all became vegetarians, but chances are we'd run out of suitable land for farming sooner than later. You do realize that much of the cattle in the world is grazed on land which is not suitable for growing crops, right? Like most of eastern Washington, Nebraska and western Dakotas and Texas, which are essentially sand dunes. The only thing you could do better for the land would be to reintroduce bison to supplant the cattle. I don't suppose you thought (or even knew) any of that, which would explain your silly suggestion. Symbiosis is much better than monoculture, to be certain.
As far as "easily feeding the world"... we could already do that if we weren't burning and fermenting plants to make fuel, and third world dictators weren't denying the free food we're giving them to their subjects. There is more than enough excess in the US alone to do this; human nature prevents it.
The real eye-opener is that they conclude that all these nutritionally fortified foods are on rough parity with the organic, "plain" foods. What exactly are they doing to our food to decrease its nutritional value to the point where even fortifying it, it still leads to rough parity? No wonder so many people in the US are "malnourished".
The other alternative is that you manufacture nitrates. That is called the Haber Bosch process and it involves burning a shit load of fossil fuels to produce the hydrogen and energy required convert the nitrogen in the atmosphere to ammonia. The phosphates and potassium are usually mined. All of which require vast amounts of energy and leave big holes in the ground. As long as energy is plentiful and cheap you can just about get away with this.
There's also the "compost it" option, which works out just fine provided your incubator is large enough and you've got the space for it. You can also burn it and churn it back into the soil: the key is to get it warm enough, long enough, to keep human intestinal bacteria at a minimum. Then it can be reintroduced back into the soil.
Well, not even that. It's not the fat, but the type of fat (saturated), the preservatives, multiple flavor enhancers, substitutes (soy) and use of the least-common-denominator products in general (yay, fluffy white buns which would normally lack all flavor if not for the additives in the rest of the food). There's little to no nutritional value there; it's fluff.
As I understand it, there are other environmental factors which commonly encourage people to adopt organic foods in their diet:
If something is certified organic, it -usually- means (depending on who certified it) that it was raised or grown in a completely organ (as much as can be, at least) environment: no pesticides, no petrofertilizer, no GMOs at any stage of the production process. It also usually means that the foods were not irradiated and are dye-free.
At least in the case of meat, I know that organic, free-range beef will have a substantial higher amount of omega 3 fatty acids than the "organic" feedlot cattle which are fed on organic corn feeds to fatten them up. There's a huge difference there, and I can imagine that, likewise, there's not much of a difference between organic feedlot and commercial feedlot cattle.
A big part of why people buy organic isn't due to the food itself at a primary-producer level, but what happens to it after production: milk is homogenized and ultra-pasteurized (and then manufactured vitamins and minerals re-added to make up for the fact); eggs sit around until they're "old" before they get to the consumer; meat and fruits/vegetables are irradiated, dyed, and god (and probably my wife) knows what else, and so on. When you're buying organic, you are probably more vested in the food you eat and are more likely to look local (and thus, probably better/more natural): most so-called organic food probably has very little fundamental difference from the mass consumer stuff, I'd agree.
Personally, I'd be suspicious of this study on principle (granted, I have not read it) due to the substantial money from the "food industry" which has a vested interest in sustaining the status quo.
It isn't clear what you're saying. Are you blaming the high-carb or high-protein diet? A lot of those problems are caused by high-sugar, low-fiber diets (resulting from processed foods, mostly). In terms of sustainable, healthy diets, high-fat, high protein, and protein with exercise = for the win.
My first server was a boxed copy of Red Hat 5.2 that I bought for $300.
Ye gods, $300?! Where in the world did you buy it? I got a copy of RedHat 5.2 from Best Buy for $30.