The problem is stopping western farmers dumping their products on third world markets at far below cost. Destroying the local market for locally produced food, thereby driving local farmers out of business and off the land.
I realize the west isn't helping, but the countries affected could prevent the problem the same way we maintain our markets -- by taxing the bejeezus out of imports. The corrupt governments (a redundant adjective, granted) of these countries are just as much to blame for not using the potential source of income through import duties to further develop their countries. They wouldn't need local farmers if their governments invested in creating industry, but if they raised tariffs high enough, it would be profitable for their own farmers to grow food. It's not like it's an all-or-nothing proposition either; they can allow in a minimum amount of produce to meet demand, and adjust the quota year-over-year -- just like the US does. The US is not entirely to blame for providing a product [food] where there is a demand any more than, say, South American countries are to entirely to blame for doing the same with drugs. If there was no demand, there would be no drug smuggling.
The reality is that both sides are culpable -- it takes two to play, and the game stops whenever one side decides to stop playing. Blaming one party is just recockulous.
Hey, I'm all for genetically engineering everything from kids to apples. I'm sick of imperfect fruits and veggies, and bruises showing up on my kids after I toss them around a bit.
Or was that the other way around?
Either way, I wonder if people will ever stop being scared of new things. It seems like every new concept is something to fear, from the earth's orbit around the sun to the creation of antibiotics. Sure, there may be some twelve-fingered freaks created, or we may find out that one specific strain of carrot causes diarrhea, but that's part of the discovery process. You gotta break a few eggs to make.. anything with eggs in it really.
But honestly, I have no moral or ethical qualms with genetic engineering as long as there's a good-faith effort to prevent, say, peanuts that cause cancer or people born with no mouth. There is no progress without risk.
I'm sorry, but the plural of bogeyman is bogeymen, but more importantly, we prefer to be called bogeypeople these days. Also we're working closely with the National Association of Home Builders to have closets renamed to Bogeyperson Apertures, since their primary function is transporting us to and from the netherworld and not, as you seem to believe, a place to store your garments and knickknacks.
As opposed to overtly creating a clandestine program?
Re:This DRM experiment is useless
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 1
Technically, we're digital as well, as "digital" seems to mean storing or sampling information in discrete units rather than in a continously variable manner. This is most evident by the fact that a light flashing fast enough appears to be steady once it exceeds our internal "sample rate", and by the fact that there exists a threshold above which a "digital" audio signal is also indistinguishable from its analog counterpart. (Arguably it may not be 44.1Khz, but CDs do exceed that threshold for most people). Obviously we already know that matter is made up of discrete units, which means that any recording media is -- at worst -- an imprecise digital media, and since time might be discrete as well, everything in the universe may, in fact, be "digital."
I know what you meant though. Barring implants, all sound will eventually need to be converted to pressure waves, and all video to visible light or light-reflective material, in order for humans to perceive it, and as such it can then be captured by an external recorder.
Ah, the cliche stick figure once again used in completely the wrong context. Next time, consider posting the contents of the following diagram instead:
And yet it's the CEOs and other super-rich people that expect a bunch of extra favours from society.
That's probably because they get it. The more rich, powerful, and/or famous you are, the more things you get gratis. Whether it's to get a product seen (free advertising), to build customer loyalty (repeat business), or to generate word-of-mouth recommendations (increased business), it's all about increasing revenue in the long run, or at least trying to.
And once you get something long enough, you tend to expect it, which is known as taking something for granted. It's not their fault that they take free things for granted any more than it's our fault for taking running water or electricity for granted. We all get accustomed to things; the only difference is our respective environments. Some people manage to keep things in perspective, but odds are you can't name anyone off the top of your head who celebrates the fact that they don't have to run outside to take a dump.
For the love of God, they're not talking about growing Steaks on a Stick (TM); they're talking about growing animals with identical genetic code, aka clones. In nature, we call them twins.
One of the _other_ big benefits of cloned meat would be that, once properly developed, it would consume far less resources to produce than traditional meat on the hoof.
What the hell are you talking about? Cloning is the process of growing entirely new animals using the same genetic code as the original animal (parent?). If a cow tastes good, you make a copy of it -- that's all. The article doesn't say anything about growing disembodied muscles to be turned into steak.
That's incorrect.. Although filet mignon, for example, is very tender, it's often served with sauce because it has very little flavor. Flavor and tenderness are, pretty much, inversely proportional.
A cheap cylinder lock is secure enough to deter a passing opportunist (eg, not someone who carries a bump) and should be used as such.
Actually it seems to work against just about anything with split pins, regardless of its price. That's a helluva lot of locks.
To secure your house or office you shouldn't look at anything less than a Mortis or a deadlock, and you should have at least two on each entry point. Windows should lock from the inside, again with deadlocks.
I was intrigued by your statement, so I did some quick research. What I discovered is as follows:
Deadbolt locks* are cylinder locks; they just have the weight of a bolt holding the pins down instead of just springs. There's no reason why bump attacks shouldn't still be successful against this type of lock since the principle of bumping is somewhat different than pin scraping.
Mortise locks are just locks which are inserted into a hollowed out portion of the door -- it has nothing to do with the mechanism inside, and from what I was able to find out, most modern mortise locks contain cylinders.
* Which is what I assume you meant, since the only definition of a deadlock I can find is a situation wherein two or more competing actions are waiting for the other to finish, and thus neither ever does. I have no idea how you propose putting a deadbolt on a window, but maybe you meant something else.
The DMCA has exceptions for interoperability. If DVD-Jon had used his code to write a Linux DVD player, for example, rather than simply releasing an "exploit," it's unlikely he would've been found guilty. (Not that I'm saying what he did was morally wrong).
And wow, just look at the reaction from the self-titled nerd community. A whole 5 posts over +2.
The problems with this, as I see it, are at least fourfold:
1) The companies that want to keep the research results private have money and influence, and will likely lean on Senators and Congressmen to vote against it.
2) Someone will bring up the topic of weapons research.
3) The Bill [PDF Warning] specifically excludes research that is unpublished or rejected for publication, which boggles the mind.
4) The Bill claims that it will not materially alter the status of any copyright or patent, however I doubt the research papers' authors and publishers will agree.
Nothing? It costs you one parent's income. That's more expensive than private school.
Not necessarily, if the second parent wasn't working to begin with.
The really taxing part is spending 24 hours a day with kids, especially those in the single digits. It's also good for kids to get a break from their parents and to socialize. Also it can be detrimental if the parent is impatient, disorganized, a poor teacher, a moron, or has poor discipline and/or problems being consistant in performance, schedules, and so on. I know it's nice to think anyone can be a teacher -- and anyone can, in the sense that anyone can paint a picture -- but it's not always going to be the best option. I'd even venture to say rarely the best option.
If parents who are offended by evolution could send their kids to a private school, the conflict over what's taught in public schools would largely disappear
I'm not sure that's true.. people actually love to argue over things, whether or not it affects them personally.
It was not a religious school, BTW, and had no sources of funding other than students' tuition.
$3500 tuition 10:1 students to teachers = $35,000 income per teacher, excluding materials, lunches, administration, rent/mortgage, taxes, and all the other costs.
I think they probably had another source of funding, or your math is off. Alternatively, your story took place in 1950.
Can we please stop appending critter(s) to the end of words to refer to people who work in the government? Calling them "big dummyheads," for example, would probably be less ridiculous.
Also because Japan is the most gadget-obsessed culture in the world.
And for those wondering about the squatter toilets in Japan: No, the typical Japanese public toilet user isn't any better at getting it in the bowl than your typical public toilet user anywhere else in the world, and it's not unusual for the floor around the squatter to be covered in either urine, feces, vomit, or some combination thereof.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is stopping western farmers dumping their products on third world markets at far below cost. Destroying the local market for locally produced food, thereby driving local farmers out of business and off the land.
I realize the west isn't helping, but the countries affected could prevent the problem the same way we maintain our markets -- by taxing the bejeezus out of imports. The corrupt governments (a redundant adjective, granted) of these countries are just as much to blame for not using the potential source of income through import duties to further develop their countries. They wouldn't need local farmers if their governments invested in creating industry, but if they raised tariffs high enough, it would be profitable for their own farmers to grow food. It's not like it's an all-or-nothing proposition either; they can allow in a minimum amount of produce to meet demand, and adjust the quota year-over-year -- just like the US does. The US is not entirely to blame for providing a product [food] where there is a demand any more than, say, South American countries are to entirely to blame for doing the same with drugs. If there was no demand, there would be no drug smuggling.
The reality is that both sides are culpable -- it takes two to play, and the game stops whenever one side decides to stop playing. Blaming one party is just recockulous.
Hey, I'm all for genetically engineering everything from kids to apples. I'm sick of imperfect fruits and veggies, and bruises showing up on my kids after I toss them around a bit.
Or was that the other way around?
Either way, I wonder if people will ever stop being scared of new things. It seems like every new concept is something to fear, from the earth's orbit around the sun to the creation of antibiotics. Sure, there may be some twelve-fingered freaks created, or we may find out that one specific strain of carrot causes diarrhea, but that's part of the discovery process. You gotta break a few eggs to make.. anything with eggs in it really.
But honestly, I have no moral or ethical qualms with genetic engineering as long as there's a good-faith effort to prevent, say, peanuts that cause cancer or people born with no mouth. There is no progress without risk.
I'm sorry, but the plural of bogeyman is bogeymen, but more importantly, we prefer to be called bogeypeople these days. Also we're working closely with the National Association of Home Builders to have closets renamed to Bogeyperson Apertures, since their primary function is transporting us to and from the netherworld and not, as you seem to believe, a place to store your garments and knickknacks.
As opposed to overtly creating a clandestine program?
Technically, we're digital as well, as "digital" seems to mean storing or sampling information in discrete units rather than in a continously variable manner. This is most evident by the fact that a light flashing fast enough appears to be steady once it exceeds our internal "sample rate", and by the fact that there exists a threshold above which a "digital" audio signal is also indistinguishable from its analog counterpart. (Arguably it may not be 44.1Khz, but CDs do exceed that threshold for most people). Obviously we already know that matter is made up of discrete units, which means that any recording media is -- at worst -- an imprecise digital media, and since time might be discrete as well, everything in the universe may, in fact, be "digital."
I know what you meant though. Barring implants, all sound will eventually need to be converted to pressure waves, and all video to visible light or light-reflective material, in order for humans to perceive it, and as such it can then be captured by an external recorder.
Ah, the cliche stick figure once again used in completely the wrong context. Next time, consider posting the contents of the following diagram instead:
<diagram></diagram>
I do not know what we can do
Use temporary paint?
You obviously didn't RTFA...
He brought his laptop.
And yet it's the CEOs and other super-rich people that expect a bunch of extra favours from society.
That's probably because they get it. The more rich, powerful, and/or famous you are, the more things you get gratis. Whether it's to get a product seen (free advertising), to build customer loyalty (repeat business), or to generate word-of-mouth recommendations (increased business), it's all about increasing revenue in the long run, or at least trying to.
And once you get something long enough, you tend to expect it, which is known as taking something for granted. It's not their fault that they take free things for granted any more than it's our fault for taking running water or electricity for granted. We all get accustomed to things; the only difference is our respective environments. Some people manage to keep things in perspective, but odds are you can't name anyone off the top of your head who celebrates the fact that they don't have to run outside to take a dump.
Bob Sagat, yes.
The writers of his jokes for Whore House and America's Stupid And We Prove It With These Videos, no.
Admittedly not that funny, but it's the first clip I found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj26FG1hLMQ
His bit in The Aristocrats was a bright spot in an otherwise tedious inside-joke as well.
For the love of God, they're not talking about growing Steaks on a Stick (TM); they're talking about growing animals with identical genetic code, aka clones. In nature, we call them twins.
One of the _other_ big benefits of cloned meat would be that, once properly developed, it would consume far less resources to produce than traditional meat on the hoof.
What the hell are you talking about? Cloning is the process of growing entirely new animals using the same genetic code as the original animal (parent?). If a cow tastes good, you make a copy of it -- that's all. The article doesn't say anything about growing disembodied muscles to be turned into steak.
That's incorrect.. Although filet mignon, for example, is very tender, it's often served with sauce because it has very little flavor. Flavor and tenderness are, pretty much, inversely proportional.
You think chess is bad -- checkers apparently has jump-kicks.
And 80% boring. Sounds about right.
I'd mod you +1 Informative if I had the points.
Security is all about perception. It's never really achievable, which is why liberty is more important.
A cheap cylinder lock is secure enough to deter a passing opportunist (eg, not someone who carries a bump) and should be used as such.
7 _e.pdf
Actually it seems to work against just about anything with split pins, regardless of its price. That's a helluva lot of locks.
To secure your house or office you shouldn't look at anything less than a Mortis or a deadlock, and you should have at least two on each entry point. Windows should lock from the inside, again with deadlocks.
I was intrigued by your statement, so I did some quick research. What I discovered is as follows:
Deadbolt locks* are cylinder locks; they just have the weight of a bolt holding the pins down instead of just springs. There's no reason why bump attacks shouldn't still be successful against this type of lock since the principle of bumping is somewhat different than pin scraping.
Mortise locks are just locks which are inserted into a hollowed out portion of the door -- it has nothing to do with the mechanism inside, and from what I was able to find out, most modern mortise locks contain cylinders.
* Which is what I assume you meant, since the only definition of a deadlock I can find is a situation wherein two or more competing actions are waiting for the other to finish, and thus neither ever does. I have no idea how you propose putting a deadbolt on a window, but maybe you meant something else.
References:
http://images.google.com/images?q=mortise%20locks
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/tsb/pubs/phys_sec/g1-01
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadbolt
The DMCA has exceptions for interoperability. If DVD-Jon had used his code to write a Linux DVD player, for example, rather than simply releasing an "exploit," it's unlikely he would've been found guilty. (Not that I'm saying what he did was morally wrong).
I thought it was a Pulitzer.
And wow, just look at the reaction from the self-titled nerd community. A whole 5 posts over +2.
The problems with this, as I see it, are at least fourfold:
1) The companies that want to keep the research results private have money and influence, and will likely lean on Senators and Congressmen to vote against it.
2) Someone will bring up the topic of weapons research.
3) The Bill [PDF Warning] specifically excludes research that is unpublished or rejected for publication, which boggles the mind.
4) The Bill claims that it will not materially alter the status of any copyright or patent, however I doubt the research papers' authors and publishers will agree.
Nothing? It costs you one parent's income. That's more expensive than private school.
Not necessarily, if the second parent wasn't working to begin with.
The really taxing part is spending 24 hours a day with kids, especially those in the single digits. It's also good for kids to get a break from their parents and to socialize. Also it can be detrimental if the parent is impatient, disorganized, a poor teacher, a moron, or has poor discipline and/or problems being consistant in performance, schedules, and so on. I know it's nice to think anyone can be a teacher -- and anyone can, in the sense that anyone can paint a picture -- but it's not always going to be the best option. I'd even venture to say rarely the best option.
If parents who are offended by evolution could send their kids to a private school, the conflict over what's taught in public schools would largely disappear
I'm not sure that's true.. people actually love to argue over things, whether or not it affects them personally.
Case in point: This post.
It was not a religious school, BTW, and had no sources of funding other than students' tuition.
$3500 tuition
10:1 students to teachers
= $35,000 income per teacher, excluding materials, lunches, administration, rent/mortgage, taxes, and all the other costs.
I think they probably had another source of funding, or your math is off. Alternatively, your story took place in 1950.
There is no such thing as "undesireable" genes.
I beg to differ.
Can we please stop appending critter(s) to the end of words to refer to people who work in the government? Calling them "big dummyheads," for example, would probably be less ridiculous.
Also because Japan is the most gadget-obsessed culture in the world.
And for those wondering about the squatter toilets in Japan: No, the typical Japanese public toilet user isn't any better at getting it in the bowl than your typical public toilet user anywhere else in the world, and it's not unusual for the floor around the squatter to be covered in either urine, feces, vomit, or some combination thereof.