Corn ethanol cannot be made affordable regardless of economies of scale, due to a thing called the laws of thermodynamics. Even if you manage to build a 100% efficient ethanol engine, it will still take more ethanol to grow a crop of corn, that can ever possibly be obtained from the corn. So corn subsidies are the government spending money in order to make things worse. Because the generators and the tractors don't run on 100% efficient ethanol engines, they run on diesel. So instead of just using 100 gallons of petrol in vehicles, you're using 120 gallons on farms to make 100 gallons of ethanol, which then gives a lower MPG than petrol did in the first place*. And no price makes that make any sense, ever, no matter what. Now, there are far more efficient sources of ethanol, but the American corn states had a lot of power, and sort of forced all Ethanol research to be on corn. For one, any grain at all would be a better source by a long shot. Corn is the worst crop in the world to be grown for food in terms of efficiency, and the same holds for fermenting it.
I was on the bus in Vancouver the day after the LAST Canucks riot. Overheard this "Did you have fun last night?" "Naw it was shitty I just managed to loot a couple shitty tshirts, how about you" "Oh yeah, totally, I fucking suckerpunched so-and-so and then smashed his head with a brick, I hope he died" "haha, awesome, hope there's another soon". So that's the "harmless fun" you're defending, assuming Vancouverites haven't become any more human since. But it's nice to know that even if you witnessed a murder, you would not only refuse to come forward, you'd turn the cops away even if they asked. I'd imagine if a friend or loved one of yours got murdered, you'd equally support the murderers right to privacy vis-a-vis no evil witness coming forward and narcing on the poor innocent murderer.
Alzheimer's is 100% fatal. As your brain dies you lose all control of your bodily functions, and will slip into a coma and die. Maybe it gets listed as pneumonia, or heart attack, it doesn't matter, you died because you had Alzheimer's. Try knowing anything at all about what you're talking about before you accuse people of self-deception.
Poor poor Apple, it sure is expensive to hire trademark lawyers to check if something's already taken. How ridiculous, a company going to court to enforce their trademark according to the law. And yes I totally agree with you, "iCloud" is a very different name than "iCloud". Ummm, but just so everybody else is on the same page as us, how exactly is it totally different?
She's also lying. "I wasn't even texting, I was just using it to find my seat! And plus I text all the time at other theaters and nobody complained then!" She was also warned to stop texting twice, which it even says in the summary.
It's ambiguously worded. You are reading it as "Isys claim: they filed for trademark in June 2010. Information about claim: they received interim approval for said application in October 2010. Information about claim: they claimed (on said application) to have been using name for 18 months." I read the last bit as "Second Isys Claim: They have been using the name for 18 months". If the "claim" verb was also meant to be subordinate, it would have "claiming" not "claimed". But it's never good to have a sentence where the meaning depends on the assumption that you haven't messed up your verb tenses. It's the most common* error to make, after all.
Both Logos are a combination of the universal wifi symbol, and the universal sync symbol. If you asked a room full of graphics designers to come up with a wifi sync logo, that's what half of them would have made. Besides the basic shapes involved, they're pretty dissimilar in terms of design and color. Still, what do you expect coming from The Register. Didn't they just run a thing about how hackers can now email you grenades and blow up your computer?
The law requires that the image be intended to cause harm, and have absolutely no other purpose whatsoever at all. Newspapers are safe unless they start publishing pictures for no other purpose than to intimidate or threaten people (Oh, did you think the law said offend? that was made up by Ars Technica to get you offended!)
"Offensive" is something made up by the media, or at least by Ars Technica. The bill never says offensive. The law says "Frighten, intimidate, or cause emotional distress." It's even in the summary. Hilarious you calling them illiterate while not even reading the summary. The law also covers intent. It ONLY covers speech that is intended to intimidate, frighten, or otherwise harass a person. So, no, this is no different than all the other laws against harassing phonecalls and the like. You have in intend to inflict emotional distress, and your communication has to have no other purpose than to inflict distress.
That's absurd. It's not a zero sum game. There is no universal law of fruit that says the most uniformly colored one must necessarily taste the worst. There's absolutely no force selecting AGAINST taste. As a worst case scenario, there is neutral drift. Except that I have a hard time believing that people intentionally eat food they don't like. Golden delicious and red delicious apples are. in my opinion, gross. They are far to sweet for my tastes, and the texture is unappealing to me. But some people like it sweet, and don't mind how soft they are (or like how soft they are). Just because some people don't agree with your particular taste doesn't mean they like bad tasting foods.
At every store I've seen, it's Macs, Empires, Fujis, and Granny Smiths (Grannies Smith?) that are predominant, with the golden and red delicious apples off to the side and with less of them on the shelf. Because you and I aren't the only ones who find "Delicious" apples too sweet. I prefer granny smith myself, and my wife likes Crispins (a more pinkish red delicious that's much more crisp and not quite as sweet). Then again, I live in apple country so maybe the stores here aren't very representative. But the red delicious apples aren't the go-to apple. They're the cheap discount apple. There's no tide of people lining up to buy them for their color, even though they don't like them. And just to hammer my point home with repetition, the pale yellow granny smith apples that I get locally taste exactly the same as the brilliant (almost incandescent) green ones.
What the WHO says "There is no evidence that mobile phones cause cancer, but there is also no conclusive evidence that they do not." What CNN reports "There is mounting evidence that cellphones may cause cancer, says the WHO. Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation, previously thought to not cause cellular damage. Cellphone radiation is similar to microwaves, so it will heat your brain to the boiling point. Some say there is no way that cooking your brain cannot cause some form of harm." Holy hell. I bet $1000 the "some" who say that are the fucking writer, who is scared shitless because they are illiterate and can't tell the difference between "has shown there is a link" and "hasn't shown there isn't a link".
It was a class action suit. This settlement immunizes them from further lawsuits. The first link is out of date. In 2009 it hadn't YET been granted class action status by a judge, but it was still a class action lawsuit even then, just not approved yet.
I should expand on your statements. I think very early gene splicing was hit and miss. A metaphor I've heard before was loading genes into a shotgun and ventilating the target DNA, hoping that the gene ends up in the right place, and all the other copies end up somewhere harmless. But, that's not actually how it works. Basically, you get a virus, yeast, or bacteria loaded up with the gene you want. (This may be done by the aforementioned "shotgun" technique. But viruses and bacteria are simple things, so manipulating their DNA isn't TOO hard, though by no means is it easy). Then, you get a nicely designed enzyme that will cleave DNA molecules at exactly one point. So you mix your easy-to-grow GMO bacteria/virus/yeast (called a vector) in which the target, or host, DNA, add your enzyme, flush the enzyme out, and the genes cleaved out will recombine with the holes left in the DNA molecules. Sometimes you'll get the same gene back inside, and sometimes you'll get them switched. Then you just put that DNA into seeds or whatever, and when they grow, you test to see which gene they got, and you keep the ones that got the right genes. Because these DNA molecules are being cleaved at a SINGLE point only, there is essentially zero chance that the gene will end up in the wrong spot, or that you'll get an unrelated gene from the vector. It's possible, but it's just as possible to get mismatched genes, partial genes, and other nastiness through traditional reproduction. (And I say nastiness but it's probably harmless even if it does happen, which it doesn't).
The TLDR version of that is that you move only a single gene into the host's genome, and the odds of getting any other scraps of DNA anywhere else are about the same as they are when you breed plants normally, a problem that we normally don't worry about. The thought that there will be recombinant vectors floating around that will pass this gene on to a person eating it is false. The thought that the pasted-in gene will be "loose" and come off and, again, recombine with the eater, is false. The thought that the gene will end up elsewhere in the plant, causing undesired effects, is false. It's almost impossible, and they check to make sure it hasn't happened. (They need to DNA test it anyway to be sure they have a recombinant plant on the hands anyways). And besides which, human DNA is almost all viruses that got accidentally recombined in there by infecting sperm/ova cells during reproduction, and we seem none the worse for wear. (Though yes there are some diseases caused by the activation of these million year old viruses).
The only legitimate difference between a GMO crop, and one that was made by cross breeding and selective breeding, is that you can get genes in there from entirely different species. Like fish genes into a tomato. This is, strictly speaking, not impossible via sexual reproduction. Just as viruses are used as a vector to splice in foreign DNA in a lab, they can do the same things in the wild. But, that's rare compared to how often we do so in a lab. But ignoring the fact it can and does happen naturally, a gene is just instructions for making a protein. If the protein isn't harmful in fish, it's not harmful in a tomato. The only exception is if the presence of this new gene activates dormant genes already in the plant, or ramps already-present genes, or deactivates genes that are normally active. Possible. But I don't think very likely. Besides which, they do test this shit. Since gene activation is very neat (as in groovy, not as in tidy), geneticists are very keen to get any sort of data point over what can trigger or repress genes. And further more, there are all kinds of ways for dormant genes to be activated by natural mutation or other factors. But we don't let that worry us. Because the odds of this happening are probably greater due to selective breeding than they are for gene splicing. Banning gene splicing because of worry over activating dormant genes makes little sense unless you also ban se
Most countries that have an age of consent that is less than 18 still consider it child pornography if it contains somebody under 18. That is, just because it's legal to fuck somebody who is 17 doesn't mean its legal to see them naked. I don't know if that's how it works in Scandinavia, but that's how it is in Canada. You can have sex with a 17 year old, but if you get them to webcam naked you're both going away for a long time. She'll probably get the worst of it because you just are in possession of child pornography, but SHE is manufacturing AND distributing it.
Actually they can't, because the cash register only sends the total to the credit card terminal, not a line-by-line rundown. That's why there's a register receipt with every item, and a credit card receipt with the total only. TFA is assuming Google will change this. They're also assuming that cash registers don't already log purchaces, which is completely false. Actually, it's laughable. TFA even says this will cost jobs because, with an android phone checkout, they won't need cashiers! Cus lacking android phone swipe payments is why there are no automated checkouts, right? What. The. Fuck.
Well, a credit card terminal just gets a total from the register. TFA is assuming that Google will demand and require that all cash registers tell the Google Wallet terminal every single item being purchased! And in case they're wrong, watch how easily it is to back peddle! "You're right, they don't examine what's being bought....yet." It's a classic move, but stick with what works I say.
FTA is absolutely mentally retarded. Lets take a quote. "The store, for example, could aggregate that information to determine that a lot of people are buying Modelo and Doritos at the same time, and may display them closer together inside the store. Or it may determine the demand for Modelo and Doritos spikes after 11 pm and institute variable pricing, charging more for it in the wee hours than it does in the afternoon." Does this retard think that if you pay cash, the cashier is obligated to sell "under the table" and not use the cash register? Cash registers already record what's being bought. And big shock here, but CASH registers are used even for CASH purchases. What total and complete idiot wrote this pile of garbage?
Mixed case alphanumeric is 62 characters. So even if nobody uses symbols at all, that "nice and guessable" is one in 238,328. Yeah, so fucking trivial. You can basically get in each time. Well, except that if an IP makes multiple failed attempts it will be locked out. So you'll need several hundred thousand nodes in your botnet. And each individual account will also get locked as its being hammered. So if you have some 80,000 bots odds are even that as you target 80,000 peoples accounts, you'll probably get into one. Then oops, unknown IP address logged in successfully, time to answer the security questions. So that's the case where somebody is breaking in without a keylogger. Basically immune because nobody would use an 80,000 node botnet to have a tiny chance at getting into ONE account. Tiny. The other case is where you have a keylogger. In that case, you have a what, 2% chance of getting in even if you've seen 2 out of 3 characters before? Vs. 100% total access if the bank didn't use this scheme.
Apples to oranges. The USA is about 10% construction, manufacturing, farming, and mining jobs. In China it is not nearly so low. Although working at Walmart or McDonalds or wherever, people are occasionally get shot, fall off ladders, get hit by delivery vehicles, or get crushed by falling prices/boxes, construction and manufacturing jobs nevertheless maintain a much higher fatality rate, not just per employee, but overall (One in four workplace deaths is by a construction worker, but they are nowhere near 25% of the workers in the USA, not even close). So, you can't compare 300 million people to 1.2 billion people. You need to compare 12 million manufacturing jobs to 140 million manufacturing jobs. Any way you slice it, China has a higher accident rate. But considering the fact that they have ten times the jobs in the most dangerous industries, it's not the 500% increase you describe. Exactly how much higher is hard to calculate because of the various ways in which to do so. Possibly 60% higher.
So you think Microsoft is tracking your every move through your MSN account, but you still want to keep using MSN even though your completely insane paranoid delusions tell you it's being used to locate your house? Wut. You realize that MSN sends Microsoft your IP address, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Corn ethanol cannot be made affordable regardless of economies of scale, due to a thing called the laws of thermodynamics. Even if you manage to build a 100% efficient ethanol engine, it will still take more ethanol to grow a crop of corn, that can ever possibly be obtained from the corn. So corn subsidies are the government spending money in order to make things worse. Because the generators and the tractors don't run on 100% efficient ethanol engines, they run on diesel. So instead of just using 100 gallons of petrol in vehicles, you're using 120 gallons on farms to make 100 gallons of ethanol, which then gives a lower MPG than petrol did in the first place*. And no price makes that make any sense, ever, no matter what. Now, there are far more efficient sources of ethanol, but the American corn states had a lot of power, and sort of forced all Ethanol research to be on corn. For one, any grain at all would be a better source by a long shot. Corn is the worst crop in the world to be grown for food in terms of efficiency, and the same holds for fermenting it.
*these numbers are made up, but broadly true.
I was on the bus in Vancouver the day after the LAST Canucks riot. Overheard this "Did you have fun last night?" "Naw it was shitty I just managed to loot a couple shitty tshirts, how about you" "Oh yeah, totally, I fucking suckerpunched so-and-so and then smashed his head with a brick, I hope he died" "haha, awesome, hope there's another soon". So that's the "harmless fun" you're defending, assuming Vancouverites haven't become any more human since. But it's nice to know that even if you witnessed a murder, you would not only refuse to come forward, you'd turn the cops away even if they asked. I'd imagine if a friend or loved one of yours got murdered, you'd equally support the murderers right to privacy vis-a-vis no evil witness coming forward and narcing on the poor innocent murderer.
Alzheimer's is 100% fatal. As your brain dies you lose all control of your bodily functions, and will slip into a coma and die. Maybe it gets listed as pneumonia, or heart attack, it doesn't matter, you died because you had Alzheimer's. Try knowing anything at all about what you're talking about before you accuse people of self-deception.
Poor poor Apple, it sure is expensive to hire trademark lawyers to check if something's already taken. How ridiculous, a company going to court to enforce their trademark according to the law. And yes I totally agree with you, "iCloud" is a very different name than "iCloud". Ummm, but just so everybody else is on the same page as us, how exactly is it totally different?
She's also lying. "I wasn't even texting, I was just using it to find my seat! And plus I text all the time at other theaters and nobody complained then!" She was also warned to stop texting twice, which it even says in the summary.
Police cameras are exempt from the law.
It's ambiguously worded. You are reading it as "Isys claim: they filed for trademark in June 2010. Information about claim: they received interim approval for said application in October 2010. Information about claim: they claimed (on said application) to have been using name for 18 months." I read the last bit as "Second Isys Claim: They have been using the name for 18 months". If the "claim" verb was also meant to be subordinate, it would have "claiming" not "claimed". But it's never good to have a sentence where the meaning depends on the assumption that you haven't messed up your verb tenses. It's the most common* error to make, after all.
*not intended to be a factual statement.
Both Logos are a combination of the universal wifi symbol, and the universal sync symbol. If you asked a room full of graphics designers to come up with a wifi sync logo, that's what half of them would have made. Besides the basic shapes involved, they're pretty dissimilar in terms of design and color. Still, what do you expect coming from The Register. Didn't they just run a thing about how hackers can now email you grenades and blow up your computer?
The law requires that the image be intended to cause harm, and have absolutely no other purpose whatsoever at all. Newspapers are safe unless they start publishing pictures for no other purpose than to intimidate or threaten people (Oh, did you think the law said offend? that was made up by Ars Technica to get you offended!)
"Offensive" is something made up by the media, or at least by Ars Technica. The bill never says offensive. The law says "Frighten, intimidate, or cause emotional distress." It's even in the summary. Hilarious you calling them illiterate while not even reading the summary. The law also covers intent. It ONLY covers speech that is intended to intimidate, frighten, or otherwise harass a person. So, no, this is no different than all the other laws against harassing phonecalls and the like. You have in intend to inflict emotional distress, and your communication has to have no other purpose than to inflict distress.
In the original case, the students were told by the teachers that it was probably a hardware glitch, and not to worry about it. Or tell anybody, ever.
The Onion already did that one. LINK
That's absurd. It's not a zero sum game. There is no universal law of fruit that says the most uniformly colored one must necessarily taste the worst. There's absolutely no force selecting AGAINST taste. As a worst case scenario, there is neutral drift. Except that I have a hard time believing that people intentionally eat food they don't like. Golden delicious and red delicious apples are. in my opinion, gross. They are far to sweet for my tastes, and the texture is unappealing to me. But some people like it sweet, and don't mind how soft they are (or like how soft they are). Just because some people don't agree with your particular taste doesn't mean they like bad tasting foods.
At every store I've seen, it's Macs, Empires, Fujis, and Granny Smiths (Grannies Smith?) that are predominant, with the golden and red delicious apples off to the side and with less of them on the shelf. Because you and I aren't the only ones who find "Delicious" apples too sweet. I prefer granny smith myself, and my wife likes Crispins (a more pinkish red delicious that's much more crisp and not quite as sweet). Then again, I live in apple country so maybe the stores here aren't very representative. But the red delicious apples aren't the go-to apple. They're the cheap discount apple. There's no tide of people lining up to buy them for their color, even though they don't like them. And just to hammer my point home with repetition, the pale yellow granny smith apples that I get locally taste exactly the same as the brilliant (almost incandescent) green ones.
What the WHO says "There is no evidence that mobile phones cause cancer, but there is also no conclusive evidence that they do not." What CNN reports "There is mounting evidence that cellphones may cause cancer, says the WHO. Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation, previously thought to not cause cellular damage. Cellphone radiation is similar to microwaves, so it will heat your brain to the boiling point. Some say there is no way that cooking your brain cannot cause some form of harm." Holy hell. I bet $1000 the "some" who say that are the fucking writer, who is scared shitless because they are illiterate and can't tell the difference between "has shown there is a link" and "hasn't shown there isn't a link".
It was a class action suit. This settlement immunizes them from further lawsuits. The first link is out of date. In 2009 it hadn't YET been granted class action status by a judge, but it was still a class action lawsuit even then, just not approved yet.
I should expand on your statements. I think very early gene splicing was hit and miss. A metaphor I've heard before was loading genes into a shotgun and ventilating the target DNA, hoping that the gene ends up in the right place, and all the other copies end up somewhere harmless. But, that's not actually how it works. Basically, you get a virus, yeast, or bacteria loaded up with the gene you want. (This may be done by the aforementioned "shotgun" technique. But viruses and bacteria are simple things, so manipulating their DNA isn't TOO hard, though by no means is it easy). Then, you get a nicely designed enzyme that will cleave DNA molecules at exactly one point. So you mix your easy-to-grow GMO bacteria/virus/yeast (called a vector) in which the target, or host, DNA, add your enzyme, flush the enzyme out, and the genes cleaved out will recombine with the holes left in the DNA molecules. Sometimes you'll get the same gene back inside, and sometimes you'll get them switched. Then you just put that DNA into seeds or whatever, and when they grow, you test to see which gene they got, and you keep the ones that got the right genes. Because these DNA molecules are being cleaved at a SINGLE point only, there is essentially zero chance that the gene will end up in the wrong spot, or that you'll get an unrelated gene from the vector. It's possible, but it's just as possible to get mismatched genes, partial genes, and other nastiness through traditional reproduction. (And I say nastiness but it's probably harmless even if it does happen, which it doesn't).
The TLDR version of that is that you move only a single gene into the host's genome, and the odds of getting any other scraps of DNA anywhere else are about the same as they are when you breed plants normally, a problem that we normally don't worry about. The thought that there will be recombinant vectors floating around that will pass this gene on to a person eating it is false. The thought that the pasted-in gene will be "loose" and come off and, again, recombine with the eater, is false. The thought that the gene will end up elsewhere in the plant, causing undesired effects, is false. It's almost impossible, and they check to make sure it hasn't happened. (They need to DNA test it anyway to be sure they have a recombinant plant on the hands anyways). And besides which, human DNA is almost all viruses that got accidentally recombined in there by infecting sperm/ova cells during reproduction, and we seem none the worse for wear. (Though yes there are some diseases caused by the activation of these million year old viruses).
The only legitimate difference between a GMO crop, and one that was made by cross breeding and selective breeding, is that you can get genes in there from entirely different species. Like fish genes into a tomato. This is, strictly speaking, not impossible via sexual reproduction. Just as viruses are used as a vector to splice in foreign DNA in a lab, they can do the same things in the wild. But, that's rare compared to how often we do so in a lab. But ignoring the fact it can and does happen naturally, a gene is just instructions for making a protein. If the protein isn't harmful in fish, it's not harmful in a tomato. The only exception is if the presence of this new gene activates dormant genes already in the plant, or ramps already-present genes, or deactivates genes that are normally active. Possible. But I don't think very likely. Besides which, they do test this shit. Since gene activation is very neat (as in groovy, not as in tidy), geneticists are very keen to get any sort of data point over what can trigger or repress genes. And further more, there are all kinds of ways for dormant genes to be activated by natural mutation or other factors. But we don't let that worry us. Because the odds of this happening are probably greater due to selective breeding than they are for gene splicing. Banning gene splicing because of worry over activating dormant genes makes little sense unless you also ban se
If there isn't space for the game, you cannot upgrade the firmware.
Most countries that have an age of consent that is less than 18 still consider it child pornography if it contains somebody under 18. That is, just because it's legal to fuck somebody who is 17 doesn't mean its legal to see them naked. I don't know if that's how it works in Scandinavia, but that's how it is in Canada. You can have sex with a 17 year old, but if you get them to webcam naked you're both going away for a long time. She'll probably get the worst of it because you just are in possession of child pornography, but SHE is manufacturing AND distributing it.
News-anchor?
Actually they can't, because the cash register only sends the total to the credit card terminal, not a line-by-line rundown. That's why there's a register receipt with every item, and a credit card receipt with the total only. TFA is assuming Google will change this. They're also assuming that cash registers don't already log purchaces, which is completely false. Actually, it's laughable. TFA even says this will cost jobs because, with an android phone checkout, they won't need cashiers! Cus lacking android phone swipe payments is why there are no automated checkouts, right? What. The. Fuck.
Well, a credit card terminal just gets a total from the register. TFA is assuming that Google will demand and require that all cash registers tell the Google Wallet terminal every single item being purchased! And in case they're wrong, watch how easily it is to back peddle! "You're right, they don't examine what's being bought....yet." It's a classic move, but stick with what works I say.
FTA is absolutely mentally retarded. Lets take a quote. "The store, for example, could aggregate that information to determine that a lot of people are buying Modelo and Doritos at the same time, and may display them closer together inside the store. Or it may determine the demand for Modelo and Doritos spikes after 11 pm and institute variable pricing, charging more for it in the wee hours than it does in the afternoon." Does this retard think that if you pay cash, the cashier is obligated to sell "under the table" and not use the cash register? Cash registers already record what's being bought. And big shock here, but CASH registers are used even for CASH purchases. What total and complete idiot wrote this pile of garbage?
Mixed case alphanumeric is 62 characters. So even if nobody uses symbols at all, that "nice and guessable" is one in 238,328. Yeah, so fucking trivial. You can basically get in each time. Well, except that if an IP makes multiple failed attempts it will be locked out. So you'll need several hundred thousand nodes in your botnet. And each individual account will also get locked as its being hammered. So if you have some 80,000 bots odds are even that as you target 80,000 peoples accounts, you'll probably get into one. Then oops, unknown IP address logged in successfully, time to answer the security questions. So that's the case where somebody is breaking in without a keylogger. Basically immune because nobody would use an 80,000 node botnet to have a tiny chance at getting into ONE account. Tiny. The other case is where you have a keylogger. In that case, you have a what, 2% chance of getting in even if you've seen 2 out of 3 characters before? Vs. 100% total access if the bank didn't use this scheme.
"But that punishes those students who didn't have the resources to practice music on their own! Instruments are expensive! THIS IS CLASS WARFARE!"
Apples to oranges. The USA is about 10% construction, manufacturing, farming, and mining jobs. In China it is not nearly so low. Although working at Walmart or McDonalds or wherever, people are occasionally get shot, fall off ladders, get hit by delivery vehicles, or get crushed by falling prices/boxes, construction and manufacturing jobs nevertheless maintain a much higher fatality rate, not just per employee, but overall (One in four workplace deaths is by a construction worker, but they are nowhere near 25% of the workers in the USA, not even close). So, you can't compare 300 million people to 1.2 billion people. You need to compare 12 million manufacturing jobs to 140 million manufacturing jobs. Any way you slice it, China has a higher accident rate. But considering the fact that they have ten times the jobs in the most dangerous industries, it's not the 500% increase you describe. Exactly how much higher is hard to calculate because of the various ways in which to do so. Possibly 60% higher.
So you think Microsoft is tracking your every move through your MSN account, but you still want to keep using MSN even though your completely insane paranoid delusions tell you it's being used to locate your house? Wut. You realize that MSN sends Microsoft your IP address, right?