In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use of DDT was banned in most developed countries. DDT was first banned in Hungary in 1968 then in Norway and Sweden in 1970 and the US in 1972, but was not banned in the United Kingdom until 1984. The use of DDT in vector control has not been banned, but it has been largely replaced by less persistent alternative insecticides.
The Stockholm Convention, which entered into force in 2004, outlawed several persistent organic pollutants, and restricted the use of DDT to vector control. The Convention has been ratified by more than 160 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. Recognizing that a total elimination of DDT use in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible because there are few affordable or effective alternatives, the public health use of DDT was exempted from the ban until alternatives are developed. The Malaria Foundation International states that "The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations...For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before."
Despite the worldwide ban on agricultural use of DDT, its use in this context continues in India, North Korea, and possibly elsewhere.
Today, about 4-5,000 tonnes of DDT are used each year for vector control. In this context, DDT is applied to the inside walls of homes to kill or repel mosquitos entering the home. This intervention, called indoor residual spraying (IRS), greatly reduces environmental damage compared to the earlier widespread use of DDT in agriculture. It also reduces the risk of resistance to DDT. This use only requires a small fraction of that previously used in agriculture; for example, the amount of DDT that might have been used on 40 hectares (100 acres) of cotton during a typical growing season in the U.S. is estimated to be enough to treat roughly 1,700 homes.
I'd like to come to your hometown, find a nice used bookstore, buy a copy of Silent Spring, drive out to your place, and beat you around the head with it.
I did color management for a few years, all sorts of media. It's trivially easy.
If you'd make the case that each individual work of art was positioned in a different source of light that best revealed the true essence of the original painting, you might have a point. That's not what they've done here. The time to shout "Look what Man hath wrought!" is not after pressing the 'scan' button.
It looks like a bunch of seaweed and an algal bloom.
I thought so too, but then why the delay in identifying it? Take your little sample down to the high school science dept. and make the biology lab interesting for the day.
This statute is used to prosecute conspiracy to commit a federal crime
I know this has been used to put serious criminals away, and is probably a great tool in preventing crime, but prosecuting for conspiracy is still a nasty idea. I think that if I had to describe the boundary between acceptable government behavior and police state, it would be right after this.
It's ok to make your point without resorting to douchebaggery. The "you just want free stuff" line is a valid point, even if it gets trotted out a little too rabidly.
I did. It's poorly written and obviously exists to justify his behavior. The whole "aggrieved innocent party" tone he takes is really, really inappropriate for a research paper, ESPECIALLY one dealing with breaching social norms.
I've seen the revenge thesis before, and I've seen it done better.
Slashdot generally seems to consider tech something that requires cutting-edge skills but management as something anyone could do. I haven't found that to be the case.
Me either. Any project that I've worked on that was managed well always felt like the manager was meta-programming, if that makes sense to you. Seems to be a rare skill, much harder to pull off than just being a good programmer.
I can watch one of my roommates play round after round of CoD4 (a FPS shooter) and see him repeatedly get kills by shooting through walls apparently at random. His level of skill is partially determined by his knowledge of likely hiding places and positioning. Likewise, when I played WoW I had great success as a rogue simply due to the fact that I always had the absolute best equipment possible, and spent a great deal of time learning to min/max my class.
Both of us in this example are or were competent players in other regards, but it is the use of knowledge of the game that puts us ahead of the competition. If he can kill you without seeing you, or I can kill you in two GCDs through stunlock (WoW terminology, sorry) your "fast twitch skill" has been rendered meaningless.
After reading the article it seems like he was a griefer who wrote a paper to justify being an asshole. He's "dismayed" and "disturbed" by behavior any anthro 101 student could have predicted from the start. Behavior that would seem like a perfectly natural response to his actions in the "real world".
tl;dr version of his paper: "assholes shunned online as in RL. WTF?"
I thought you meant to imply that sending a HIV vaccine would be a waste of time AND that Africa wasn't already awash in misinformation. You certainly could not make the situation worse.
Fast forward to when we're passing it out like candy in Africa.
People who already have AIDS will get it, and with a lack of good information (such as the headline's "HIV/AIDS"), people will think they're cured, that they can't pass it on, etc.
Is it safe to assume that you're incredibly ignorant of the health situation in Africa, and not just a heartless racist?
Despite the drug company propaganda, there's no objective test to distinguish the two. In general the levels of neurotransmitters in a patient's brain aren't measured anyway... and even if they were, there's no available way to tell if the levels were what they were because of some physical issue, or if they're that way because your wife left you.
Especially since there are so many other ways we're destroying ourselves. Ocean acidification, for one example, is a huge problem also related to co2 emissions.
And there's really no question whether it's happening or what's causing it. And it means serious Malthusian shit for a lot of people.
This is the problem with the way we handle public discourse on environmental issues. We'll focus on one aspect to the exclusion of the dozen other ways we're fucking ourselves.
I find it odd that people who publish works that don't follow the prevailing wisdom that writes the pay checks for AGW researchers are called skeptics or crackpots
This is pretty much how it works in every discipline. You've never heard of anyone having trouble publishing something that goes against current thinking? That you think it only applies to climate theory sort of makes you look like a douchebag.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking more along the lines of "you can open it, but if it's in there you die."
The interesting point of your analogy, to me, is that the atheist never actually opens the box.
I wasn't there when she was discussing her motives, but it is commonly assumed that Ms. Carson wanted DDT banned, absolutely.
Nope, she was against large scale agricultural use, and specifically not against disease vector control.
Here's an interesting article that does a good job summing up the controversy.
Not to sidetrack this topic, but let's just get this out of the way...
Rachel Carson never wanted to ban DDT. DDT has never been banned for use in fighting malaria.
From the wikipedia page on DDT:
It's neat because I used to look at them all the time when I was little.
I'd like to come to your hometown, find a nice used bookstore, buy a copy of Silent Spring, drive out to your place, and beat you around the head with it.
I did color management for a few years, all sorts of media. It's trivially easy.
If you'd make the case that each individual work of art was positioned in a different source of light that best revealed the true essence of the original painting, you might have a point. That's not what they've done here. The time to shout "Look what Man hath wrought!" is not after pressing the 'scan' button.
It looks like a bunch of seaweed and an algal bloom.
I thought so too, but then why the delay in identifying it? Take your little sample down to the high school science dept. and make the biology lab interesting for the day.
But he did become the de facto caretaker of the fictional setting.
I love that that's a job description. Life is good.
This statute is used to prosecute conspiracy to commit a federal crime
I know this has been used to put serious criminals away, and is probably a great tool in preventing crime, but prosecuting for conspiracy is still a nasty idea. I think that if I had to describe the boundary between acceptable government behavior and police state, it would be right after this.
Folks have been conditioned to believe[...]
It's ok to make your point without resorting to douchebaggery. The "you just want free stuff" line is a valid point, even if it gets trotted out a little too rabidly.
I did. It's poorly written and obviously exists to justify his behavior. The whole "aggrieved innocent party" tone he takes is really, really inappropriate for a research paper, ESPECIALLY one dealing with breaching social norms.
I've seen the revenge thesis before, and I've seen it done better.
Slashdot generally seems to consider tech something that requires cutting-edge skills but management as something anyone could do. I haven't found that to be the case.
Me either. Any project that I've worked on that was managed well always felt like the manager was meta-programming, if that makes sense to you. Seems to be a rare skill, much harder to pull off than just being a good programmer.
I can watch one of my roommates play round after round of CoD4 (a FPS shooter) and see him repeatedly get kills by shooting through walls apparently at random. His level of skill is partially determined by his knowledge of likely hiding places and positioning. Likewise, when I played WoW I had great success as a rogue simply due to the fact that I always had the absolute best equipment possible, and spent a great deal of time learning to min/max my class.
Both of us in this example are or were competent players in other regards, but it is the use of knowledge of the game that puts us ahead of the competition. If he can kill you without seeing you, or I can kill you in two GCDs through stunlock (WoW terminology, sorry) your "fast twitch skill" has been rendered meaningless.
At what point does intimate knowledge of a game's mechanics make a player skilled?
I'd say that this is the definition of skill for an online game.
He's a "media professor".
After reading the article it seems like he was a griefer who wrote a paper to justify being an asshole. He's "dismayed" and "disturbed" by behavior any anthro 101 student could have predicted from the start. Behavior that would seem like a perfectly natural response to his actions in the "real world".
tl;dr version of his paper: "assholes shunned online as in RL. WTF?"
I agree, and I must have misunderstood you.
I thought you meant to imply that sending a HIV vaccine would be a waste of time AND that Africa wasn't already awash in misinformation. You certainly could not make the situation worse.
Fast forward to when we're passing it out like candy in Africa.
People who already have AIDS will get it, and with a lack of good information (such as the headline's "HIV/AIDS"), people will think they're cured, that they can't pass it on, etc.
Is it safe to assume that you're incredibly ignorant of the health situation in Africa, and not just a heartless racist?
Despite the drug company propaganda, there's no objective test to distinguish the two. In general the levels of neurotransmitters in a patient's brain aren't measured anyway... and even if they were, there's no available way to tell if the levels were what they were because of some physical issue, or if they're that way because your wife left you.
That's why you go to a doctor.
It's moot anyhow. When the water wars start the small ranchers will be the first to go. Here's a handy equation to explain it:
Los Angeles > Your Dirt Farm
I don't believe it was a lapse on the part of the former principal, I believe it was a flagrant action with malicious intent.
Not to mention creepy as hell. Good going, Roger Campbell of Coalinga High. Now everyone knows you stalk teenage girls.
Especially since there are so many other ways we're destroying ourselves. Ocean acidification, for one example, is a huge problem also related to co2 emissions.
And there's really no question whether it's happening or what's causing it. And it means serious Malthusian shit for a lot of people.
This is the problem with the way we handle public discourse on environmental issues. We'll focus on one aspect to the exclusion of the dozen other ways we're fucking ourselves.
I find it odd that people who publish works that don't follow the prevailing wisdom that writes the pay checks for AGW researchers are called skeptics or crackpots
This is pretty much how it works in every discipline. You've never heard of anyone having trouble publishing something that goes against current thinking? That you think it only applies to climate theory sort of makes you look like a douchebag.
Obama's middle name is a handy flag that tells me to stop reading.
"Welcome to Itchy & Scratchy Land, where nothing could possiblie go wrong."
"Possibly go wrong."
"That's the first thing that's ever gone wrong."
WE LEARNED FROM OUR MISSTAKES ASSHOLE! ARRRRRGHHH!