what the permaculture guy is getting wrong - and it's a textbook error, that nearly everyone makes - is assuming that all arable land is perfectly suited to growing crops.
Read the link. He claims that he "built [his] soil from cement-hard adobe clay to its impressive state from scratch," and that half his land was terraced on a 35 degree slope. That's not perfectly suited to growing.
He may, of course, be full of shit. I dunno, I wasn't there to see his farm. But even if he's off by an order of magnitude, if you can only feed 10 people rather than over 100 per acre, 4,896,000,000 acres at 10 people an acre gives a capacity of feeding 49 billion people. Land is not the limiting factor.
Grown by whom? The Fukuoka method only floods fields temporarily, and gets very high yields. The SRI method also uses much less water than traditional rice farming.
And much of the water used to flood a traditional rice paddy ends up irrigating other crops down the line.
This is why we don't have enough planet for everyone to be a vegetarian. If you can come up with a way of growing vegetables in most of the places people raise livestock
You've got it backwards. Raising animals and processing their carcasses into food takes tremendous inputs of land, energy, and water.
There are about 4,896,000,000 acres of arable land on the planet. (From the wik + Google's conversion.) I've heard that one acre can support about four people sustainablely; that would mean 19 billion people could be fed. This guy claims that with careful application of permaculture techniques, over 100 people can be feed with vegetables and grains from an acre.
But hey, don't let the tenets of MY PERSONAL FAITH get in the way of your petty jokes....
Well, my personal faith says, "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke." So, yeah, I won't let the tenets your faith get in the way of my jokes. Priorities, man, priorities. I mean, have you ever even actually READ the Book of The SubGenius?
Tried. It's gods-awful. Finally put XFCE on my OLPC, now it's usable.
Sugar really only has two main differences to a normal GUI: every application is started in fullscreen...and you don't have a normal filesystem, instead you get a Journal
The fullscreen thing was irritating and unnecessary (you need it on a phone or PDA due to lack of screen real estate, but not on the OLPC), but one might be able to live with it
The "Journal" is a steaming pile of shit, and whoever thought it up should be put in the stocks and pelted with rotten fruit. If Gnome's Beagle is anything like it, then I'm not missing anything.
The point is, it doesn't matter what you teach kids today, since it will be nothing like what is in the office when they turn 21
I will bet you $20 that office software 10 years from now will still use files and some sort of desktop metaphor - things lacking in Sugar.
Just as cars eventually settled, after a period of diversity, into the wheel-and-pedals interface we have today, the GUI has settled into the desktop metaphor.
The obvious danger doing this is that sodium hydroxide can be nasty, especially if you are starting with it in solid form.
And yet you can walk into any good hardware store and buy it by the pound. It's a classic drain opener. GP's neighbor might well have had a pound of it in the cabinet under the sink, and almost certainly had some cooking oil around, thus possessing the basic chemicals used for soap-making...and yet got all flustered at the idea of someone making soap.
Methanol is both highly toxic and highly flammable. That's what the authorities would call "dangerous" if they raided his lab (though they wouldn't blink at gasoline).
You can find methanol - and a bunch of other toxic, flammable solvents - at a good hardware or auto supply store. Most gas-line dryers are methanol. Just keep your methanol in a Heet bottle and you won't get a second look.
I have to wonder what role Sugar plays in the decision to go with XP.
You get one choice that looks like a computer, windows and menus and the like; and you get one choice that looks like nothing you've ever seen, that doesn't give kids experience with a typical computer internface and is based on unproven ideas about how children learn.
all I can think of is that old disturbing Flash fanimutation, Hyakugojuuichi! If your "juiche" is from that, then it means "11" (eleven) in Japanese.:)
The original song in the Flash video is a children's song from Japan that talks about having 111 friends
Sumimasen, but hyaku-goju-ichi would be 151, not 111. Hyaku = 100, goju = 5 * 10 = 50, ichi = 1.
Juiche seems (from my quick Googling) to be Korean for "self-reliance", and is supposed to be one of the guiding principles of the North Korean state. (Obviously, not working too well in practice, since they can't even feed themselves.)
I speculate that "42" in the GP's sig is a reference that in North Korea, "self-reliance" is the answer, but no one really knows what it means.
They have the right to refuse service to anyone, therefore they have the right to say you can't buy anything if you don't voluntarily submit to search.
They can indeed decline to serve me. But in this case, they've already done so! The transaction is done. I've already bought the thing.
What you have here is not a violation of any rights, they weren't going to search purses and handbags (although some stores do - but they clearly post that they reserve the right). It's implied consent when you shop at a store like that, and if you don't like it, don't go back.
Searching my bag - whether it is a bag I came in with, on my brand new (once my purchase is completed at the register) Joe's Discount Electronics' bag - is indeed a violation of my rights. I don't surrender my rights because you put up a sign.
If specific and articulable facts lead you to a reasonable suspicion that I have been involved in a crime, they can hold me and call the cops. Store personnel have no right to search my person or my effects, and they do not gain such by posting a sign. All they can do if I don't comply with their store policy is ask me to leave and not come back - which, when treated like a criminal, is exactly what I want to do anyway.
People looking after their pennies are going to stick with what they have, not incur development and training costs.
That's penny-wise and pound-foolish. Ignoring the costs and dangers of proprietary data formats - the dependence on a single vendor, the loss of old data - because of development and training costs, is unwise.
No, when other people think something different from you, it generally means that your wrong or that you should double think your position.
So, again, I ask you: are you now going to admit that you were wrong about Obama? Or are you at least "double thinking", whatever that means, your position?
Actually, I hope not. I'd rather have you be honestly wrong, than "right" just because it's the popular view.
Truth is found only by those who are willing to go against or beyond what other people think. Galileo. Semmelweis. Einstein.
Of course, being in the minority doesn't ensure being correct either. As Carl Sagan once observed, "They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
The popularity of a thing - whether it be a complex belief system or a brand of sneakers - is independent to its accuracy or quality.
The argument wasn't if Obama was a patriot or not, it was if his own actions could be used in your evaluation of if he was a patriot.
Uh, no. My point was, and is, that the specific action in question is meaningless. As I said upthread, it's "like making a big deal out of what sort of knot the guy uses in his necktie."
And yes, freedom is grand when you don't have idiots like you attempting to dictate what freedoms other people have.
Calm down and take your meds. No one here is attempting to dictate what freedoms you or anyone else has. In fact, I will always stand up for your right to be a fool. Your beliefs are irrational, your words are nonsensical - but I will still fight to the death for your right to think and speak your nonsense.
But, you do not have a right to be free from criticism.
You're assuming that both passages are referring to the same being.
That is one of the core belief of monotheism. There are, of course, those who hold that Judaism has some polytheism hidden down inside there, but you won't get far with most Christians if you try to claim that "Jehovah", "God", and "the Lord" are not all the same deity. After all, "I am the Lord thy God," not "I am the Lord, one of thy gods."
Why do we assume that the ancients were idiots and used different 'names of god' on a poetic whim? Perhaps they used different terms because they were speaking of different entities or facets of entities?
I don't know how the original passage in Hebrew works, but here there's no "names", just titles. There's nothing idiotic or poetic about having different titles for the same person, real or fictional.
If I say at one time "I've never met the President of the United States", but I later say "I once met the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces", I'm either lying, mistaken, or had an interesting meeting between the two statements. (Or a major change in the Constitution occurred.)
you can check buddhism : since the world only exists as part of the mind of people, it is not possible for people to cause accidents due to "not knowing" something, since they know about the entire world. So dig a hold in the sidewalk, camouflage it, and if someone falls into it you're sure buddhism is wrong.
Uh, no. The hole exists in the subjective world of the person who falls into it, as soon as they discover it. That subjective world exists only in that persons mind.
Whether an "objective" world exists or not is irrelevant to the core teachings of Buddhism, which are concerned with the nature and relief of human suffering. If the hole is on a holodeck, or if the whole thing is some Matrix-style illusion, doesn't matter: the relevant question is, what you you do now that you're having this experience of being at the bottom of the hole with a broken ankle?
Of course some stupid ideas have been glommed on to the various schools over the years, but the essence of Buddhism is that 1) suffering exists, 2) suffering is caused by the mental activity we call "desire" or "attachment", 3) a solution to suffering exists, and 4) the solution is the cultivation of a lifestyle and mental habits that reduce desire and attachment-thinking. (More here, if you're interested in my take on it.)
This is not something that can be disproved by digging a hole and watching to see if people fall in.
The problem of doing this with the bible is that it hardly makes any direct claim at all.
It makes plenty. Your apology for the contradictions as "over-analyzed" is curious indeed; given the significance of the book to many in the Western world, of course it's been analyzed a lot. Doesn't change the contradictions. Like "No man hath seen God at any time" in John 1:18, and "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." in Exodus 33:11. Things like that blow the doors off of Biblical inerrancy.
Of course, not all Christians believe in Biblical inerrancy. Nor do all Muslims belief that the Qur'an is a literal document.
Hang on there a moment, I most certainly would like to do that. Especially as it would allow me to quickly find anything that I might be interested in, and not just the individual words that the authors thought were worthy of indexing.
You do know that the standard info reader has full search capabilities, right? This is one advantage of info versus the "tarball of HTML files" approach.
I want to read my man pages in my $PAGER, not in a dumbed-down Emacs mockup where the info I need is typically buried away in some untold subnode.
Info isn't for man pages. Info is for larger documents.
You don't want to read the complete elisp manual (about 340,000 words, according to cat/usr/share/info/elisp* | gunzip | wc) in $PAGER.
These days, you might distribute that sort of documentation as a tarball of HTML files. And indeed, you can get HTML out of texinfo files - as well as PDFs for printing, or on-line viewing if your tastes run that way.
I was attempting to state that when everyone else thinks differently then you do, maybe they are more right then you are. Perhaps that is why your amazed and find yourself on a crusade to change their minds.
Majority has never determined truth. (Or are you going to retroactively become an Obama supporter now?)
SO I can be free as long as I agree with you? That's basically what your saying.
No. I'm saying you're free to be a fool, and I'm free to tell you you're a fool and to attempt to talk some sense into you. Ain't freedom grand?
Slashdot Mirror
Read the link. He claims that he "built [his] soil from cement-hard adobe clay to its impressive state from scratch," and that half his land was terraced on a 35 degree slope. That's not perfectly suited to growing.
He may, of course, be full of shit. I dunno, I wasn't there to see his farm. But even if he's off by an order of magnitude, if you can only feed 10 people rather than over 100 per acre, 4,896,000,000 acres at 10 people an acre gives a capacity of feeding 49 billion people. Land is not the limiting factor.
Dogs can do quite well on a vegetarian diet - left to their own devices they're pretty omnivorous. Mine love carrots, broccoli, and chickpeas.
Grown by whom? The Fukuoka method only floods fields temporarily, and gets very high yields. The SRI method also uses much less water than traditional rice farming.
And much of the water used to flood a traditional rice paddy ends up irrigating other crops down the line.
Figures from the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) put water consumption in food production as follows, in m^3/kg:
You've got it backwards. Raising animals and processing their carcasses into food takes tremendous inputs of land, energy, and water.
There are about 4,896,000,000 acres of arable land on the planet. (From the wik + Google's conversion.) I've heard that one acre can support about four people sustainablely; that would mean 19 billion people could be fed. This guy claims that with careful application of permaculture techniques, over 100 people can be feed with vegetables and grains from an acre.
Well, my personal faith says, "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke." So, yeah, I won't let the tenets your faith get in the way of my jokes. Priorities, man, priorities. I mean, have you ever even actually READ the Book of The SubGenius?
Tried. It's gods-awful. Finally put XFCE on my OLPC, now it's usable.
The fullscreen thing was irritating and unnecessary (you need it on a phone or PDA due to lack of screen real estate, but not on the OLPC), but one might be able to live with it
The "Journal" is a steaming pile of shit, and whoever thought it up should be put in the stocks and pelted with rotten fruit. If Gnome's Beagle is anything like it, then I'm not missing anything.
I will bet you $20 that office software 10 years from now will still use files and some sort of desktop metaphor - things lacking in Sugar.
Just as cars eventually settled, after a period of diversity, into the wheel-and-pedals interface we have today, the GUI has settled into the desktop metaphor.
Right...locking people up for a free society. I'll get on that just as soon as I'm done fucking for virginity.
And yet you can walk into any good hardware store and buy it by the pound. It's a classic drain opener. GP's neighbor might well have had a pound of it in the cabinet under the sink, and almost certainly had some cooking oil around, thus possessing the basic chemicals used for soap-making...and yet got all flustered at the idea of someone making soap.
You can find methanol - and a bunch of other toxic, flammable solvents - at a good hardware or auto supply store. Most gas-line dryers are methanol. Just keep your methanol in a Heet bottle and you won't get a second look.
I have to wonder what role Sugar plays in the decision to go with XP.
You get one choice that looks like a computer, windows and menus and the like; and you get one choice that looks like nothing you've ever seen, that doesn't give kids experience with a typical computer internface and is based on unproven ideas about how children learn.
OLPC w/ XFCE FTW.
Sumimasen, but hyaku-goju-ichi would be 151, not 111. Hyaku = 100, goju = 5 * 10 = 50, ichi = 1.
Juiche seems (from my quick Googling) to be Korean for "self-reliance", and is supposed to be one of the guiding principles of the North Korean state. (Obviously, not working too well in practice, since they can't even feed themselves.)
I speculate that "42" in the GP's sig is a reference that in North Korea, "self-reliance" is the answer, but no one really knows what it means.
They can indeed decline to serve me. But in this case, they've already done so! The transaction is done. I've already bought the thing.
Searching my bag - whether it is a bag I came in with, on my brand new (once my purchase is completed at the register) Joe's Discount Electronics' bag - is indeed a violation of my rights. I don't surrender my rights because you put up a sign.
If specific and articulable facts lead you to a reasonable suspicion that I have been involved in a crime, they can hold me and call the cops. Store personnel have no right to search my person or my effects, and they do not gain such by posting a sign. All they can do if I don't comply with their store policy is ask me to leave and not come back - which, when treated like a criminal, is exactly what I want to do anyway.
Best Buy has the same policy. After a confrontation with one of their rent-a-cops, I no longer shop there.
Obama got a pass from the media?
During the 2000 campaign, McCain used a racial slur that would have ended the career of any other politician, a Macaca moment. His fans in the press let it slide.
The media loved McCain: Chris Matthews famously said, "We're his base."
McCain might have room to complain about the fickleness of the media's bias, but that's all.
That's what people's attitude is. It's their job to report people's reactions to events.
That's penny-wise and pound-foolish. Ignoring the costs and dangers of proprietary data formats - the dependence on a single vendor, the loss of old data - because of development and training costs, is unwise.
So, again, I ask you: are you now going to admit that you were wrong about Obama? Or are you at least "double thinking", whatever that means, your position?
Actually, I hope not. I'd rather have you be honestly wrong, than "right" just because it's the popular view.
Truth is found only by those who are willing to go against or beyond what other people think. Galileo. Semmelweis. Einstein.
Of course, being in the minority doesn't ensure being correct either. As Carl Sagan once observed, "They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
The popularity of a thing - whether it be a complex belief system or a brand of sneakers - is independent to its accuracy or quality.
Uh, no. My point was, and is, that the specific action in question is meaningless. As I said upthread, it's "like making a big deal out of what sort of knot the guy uses in his necktie."
Calm down and take your meds. No one here is attempting to dictate what freedoms you or anyone else has. In fact, I will always stand up for your right to be a fool. Your beliefs are irrational, your words are nonsensical - but I will still fight to the death for your right to think and speak your nonsense.
But, you do not have a right to be free from criticism.
That is one of the core belief of monotheism. There are, of course, those who hold that Judaism has some polytheism hidden down inside there, but you won't get far with most Christians if you try to claim that "Jehovah", "God", and "the Lord" are not all the same deity. After all, "I am the Lord thy God," not "I am the Lord, one of thy gods."
I don't know how the original passage in Hebrew works, but here there's no "names", just titles. There's nothing idiotic or poetic about having different titles for the same person, real or fictional.
If I say at one time "I've never met the President of the United States", but I later say "I once met the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces", I'm either lying, mistaken, or had an interesting meeting between the two statements. (Or a major change in the Constitution occurred.)
Uh, no. The hole exists in the subjective world of the person who falls into it, as soon as they discover it. That subjective world exists only in that persons mind.
Whether an "objective" world exists or not is irrelevant to the core teachings of Buddhism, which are concerned with the nature and relief of human suffering. If the hole is on a holodeck, or if the whole thing is some Matrix-style illusion, doesn't matter: the relevant question is, what you you do now that you're having this experience of being at the bottom of the hole with a broken ankle?
Of course some stupid ideas have been glommed on to the various schools over the years, but the essence of Buddhism is that 1) suffering exists, 2) suffering is caused by the mental activity we call "desire" or "attachment", 3) a solution to suffering exists, and 4) the solution is the cultivation of a lifestyle and mental habits that reduce desire and attachment-thinking. (More here, if you're interested in my take on it.)
This is not something that can be disproved by digging a hole and watching to see if people fall in.
It makes plenty. Your apology for the contradictions as "over-analyzed" is curious indeed; given the significance of the book to many in the Western world, of course it's been analyzed a lot. Doesn't change the contradictions. Like "No man hath seen God at any time" in John 1:18, and "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." in Exodus 33:11. Things like that blow the doors off of Biblical inerrancy.
Of course, not all Christians believe in Biblical inerrancy. Nor do all Muslims belief that the Qur'an is a literal document.
You do know that the standard info reader has full search capabilities, right? This is one advantage of info versus the "tarball of HTML files" approach.
Info isn't for man pages. Info is for larger documents.
You don't want to read the complete elisp manual (about 340,000 words, according to cat /usr/share/info/elisp* | gunzip | wc) in $PAGER.
These days, you might distribute that sort of documentation as a tarball of HTML files. And indeed, you can get HTML out of texinfo files - as well as PDFs for printing, or on-line viewing if your tastes run that way.
If you don't like the default reader, there are others.
Texi2HTML will happily output "the next standard" in hypertext, HTML, from a texinfo document.
info was doing hypertext back when the WWW was nothing by a gleam in Tim Berners-Lee's eye. Show some respect.
Majority has never determined truth. (Or are you going to retroactively become an Obama supporter now?)
No. I'm saying you're free to be a fool, and I'm free to tell you you're a fool and to attempt to talk some sense into you. Ain't freedom grand?