Look at the USA... How many in this country actually demand their share of political power? Very, very few. How many Americans actually vote? How many Americans vote for someone outside of the "two choices" they are offered by the system? How many Americans realize that the two choices they are offered is really no choice, because for the most part, the two options are pretty much the same?
Even one choice would be enough, if you could cast an empty vote that actually meant "nothing". Having an election puts at least some constraints on the people getting elected, because then there's the possibility of not getting elected next time.
So in order to show your disapproval of the Chinese government's abuse of their people, you want to oppose and actively resist their attempt to do something to raise quality of life for those same people?
Ultimately, it's the people of a country who are responsible for having the government they have. So if the people suffer by actions that are meant to oppose said government, that's not so bad. Well, unless you believe there should be a "world police" with the right go and change goverments... I don't.
Clarification: I don't mean that the people are necessarily fully responsible for the things their government does, but they are fully responsible for having that government. Of course in some countries, getting the government changed would require more... drastic action than in some other countries, but IMHO this does not lessen the responsibility at all.
Eh. I think war will continue as long as there are too many people. If there were few enough humans on the planet that everyone was swimming in more resources than they knew what to do with, I think war would stop. Getting to that point is problem.
Nice thought, except the main resource on this planet for humans is other humans doing work for them...
If MAD capability starts to crumble, soon there will be somebody to nuke... That's the paradox of nuclear weapons: you need to have them so you don't have the need to use 'em.
So let's do our best to make sure that when/if we encounter other civilization(s), we're the more advanced one... Or we're the one that encounters the aliens, not that the aliens encounter us, here on Earth.
For extrasolar explorer, that classified Pluto-Charon as double planet, the list would be much longer, because there are a lot of Pluto and Charon like objects out there outside the orbit of Pluto.
For any "outsider" definition of a planet, our solar system doesn't have nine planets. It has eight, or it has well over ten.
Not to mention all the sulfuric acid, which is keeping Venus's atmosphere so fresh and healthy. For instance, asthma is completely nonexistent on Venus!
We were doing a nice job increasing sulfur content of Earths atmosphere, until those tree-hugger wackos got sulfur emissions severely restricted... And now they're trying to do it to CO2 as well! They must be stopped!
This is pure sentimentalization of nature. Are we going to protect gazelles from cheetahs next?
If the gazelles are likely to go extinct, then I suppose it would be a good idea... Also good for the cheetah, preserving one of it's prey species.
Letting species go extinct erases parts of biosphere forever. Now of course new stuff evolves all the time to replace the erased. But the thing is, we're in the middle of a mass extinction event. Currently things are being erased much faster than new stuff is evolving, overall. So trying to slow down the extinction rate sounds rather a good idea to me... Total collapse of food webs would be bad for humans too.
Why not leave nature to its own devices? Survival of the fittest, and all that kinda stuff...
We're part of nature, so even if we mess with it, it's still "natural" in the grand scheme of evolution. If those frogs that might be saved from extinction are saved, then it means they're fit enough to survive, even if they utilize humans to survive.
Wether we humans should or should not do something, now that's a valid question. But "it's against natural order of things" is not an argument against it, because there's no such "natural order". There's current natural order of things which involves these frogs. We could try to preserve current natural order as much as we can, or we could let them go extinct knowing that a new natural order will arise in a few thousand years...
I'd personally vote for preserving current natural order, since I won't be around to appreciate the new natural order later on...
Wacko nature lovers aside, but what you talk about "evolutionists" is pure rubbish. Evolution is a phenomenon, a force of nature, just like gravity. By your logic, if one is interested in natural processes, one should not fly, because it is against gravity...
No, it's you who is putting evolution on some kind of pedestal, saying it's something we shouldn't mess with it. Our whole culture and civilization is based on messing with evolution! Or how do you think our current crops and livestock became like they are now?
There is no grand plan that says that for example these frogs should go extinct if they can't develop resistance to this fungus. Either they don't and fungus kills them, or the do and they might survive. There's no "law" that says humans must not help them to acquire resistance, it's not against any scientific or natural principle.
Survival of the fittest is not a goal or a moral guideline or a law of nature. It's the intermediate result, and nothing more. Those that survived were the fittest at the time, by definition. And that's it. It's not even the end result, since the end result will be that nothing survives (in a few billion years or whatever).
Google ads have the word "Google" visible in addition to the actual ad. I bet Google is the most advertised web site, word "Google" getting most impressions on web surfers retinas.
Just look at the upper right corner of any Firefox browser window. Google logo right there, getting burned into your retina and your subconsiousness whenever you're online.
And if you don't have Google logo on upper right of your browser window, well, good for you, maybe? But many of us do have it there, waiting, watching, ready to grab your search, analyze it, store it.
Try Flashblock. Then you'll know if it's for you or not. Nobody else can tell you what's good for you in this case.
I just love it. Especially useful, as I always open a lot of pages into tabs for later viewing, and then there's usually no point in starting the flash widgets until eventually viewing the page. I also like running just the one flash I want (usually a video or a game), and not even load the stuff I don't care about (ads, chat windows etc), without any site or url specific white-listing or other tweaking.
Early galaxies dusty? How? I mean, where did the dust come from? Isn't dust heavier elements, formed in stars, so in early universe and early galaxies, there would have been much less dust than in current galaxies?
If netbsd was gpl licensed I would be Free to compile my own version of the OS to run on the Sidekick. As it stands there is nothing to make them release the source code to drivers they have written.
From my POV netbsd is less free.
No, only the derived, unpublished code could be considered less free. The original NetBSD code is more free, easily demonstrated by the fact that it was able to be combined with other Microsoft code. If it was GPL code, it would have been locked out of this particular product. Ie. GPL makes to code more limited, less free.
GPL is good though if you ask me. It enforces limitations, which I as a programmer often want to put on my code. It's good for this purpose precisely because it limits the freedom of the code in a way that I agree with (usually). Using the BSD license would make the code more free, more available for everyone, more compatible with different licenses and other external requirements. But I don't want that (usually), I rather want exchange of code enforces by GPL limitations.
There is absolutely no responsibility of the communicators to make sure they are understood by potential users if that entails breaking a working system because the end users want the illusion of a single provider solution.
That's not really a problem of potential users. It's problem of the communicators. Well, unless they wish to not communicate to that particular segment of users, in that case it's a plus to talk in a way that is not understood. However, if the goal of the communicator is to (for example) help Linux gain desktop marketshare, then it is a problem for everyone who wishes Linux would gain marketshare.
Just accept it. Linux means (at least) two different things. The most common meaning in the World and in the Internet is "a mostly GNU software based free operating system distribution running a Linux kernel and using some X Windows based GUI, usually Gnome or KDE". You may not like it, but you can't change it.
As it is four times the mass of Jupiter (and thus likely larger),
Actually, Jupiter is about as big as they get, diameter-wise, all the way to brown dwarf stars. As mass increases, they only get denser, not bigger. Just consider Jupiter and Saturnus, their size is pretty close, though Jupiter has more than three times the mass
No, the equations of Newtonian physics are always wrong. Sometimes they are wrong by such a small amount that the error is not practically important, but being only a little bit wrong is not the same as being right.
Sometimes? More like, almost always in almost all human endeavors (including things like navigating interplanetary spacecraft) they're wrong by such a small amount, that the error is not practically important.
Also, are they really always wrong? If the error is less than the Planck length or the Planck time, then is the result really wrong in any physical sense?
But, now, as Russia is flush with cash through oil/gas
Really? Where I can get my share of the said cash?
Well, first you need to personally know the right people. But if you did, you wouldn't be asking, so apparently you don't, so there's no share for you.
Well, you might get a small share by starting a business geared towards those who directly get a share of that cash. But even then, to get the rich customers, you'd need to know the right people, in which case you'd already know this, and wouldn't be asking... So again, sorry, no share for you.
But lucky for you, the cash might be a bit less available in the near future, since energy price is going down. It might be a few years before oil starts to go up again (next time going well over $200/barrel for sure). So start trying to get to know the right people now, and in a few years you just might get a share of the next cash flush. Just make sure you get to know the right people, not the wrong people, or ending up in jail as an enemy of the state might be a lucky outcome.
I'm not sure why parent was modded Flamebait but he's right. The soldiers being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are just as dead as those killed in WWII or any other war or"police action." Believe me, all states of war are equal when you're on the wrong end of an enemy weapon.
No, they're not equal. It's very different depending on what you are fighting for, and what is at stake. Well, depending on your (religious or other) beliefs about "afterlife", they might or might not be different for those who die instantly. But then if you don't believe in a certain kind of afterlife, the dead don't care anymore, so it doesn't matter. But at least for the living (including those who die later from their wounds, or commit suicide due to war trauma), the different "states of war" do matter a great deal. The dead may be dead, but it matters a great deal if they died while protecting the lives and freedom of the widows and orphans now mourning (but still with their lives and freedom), or if they died protecting the investments of few rich people (or something like that).
Re:Among insiders this is a well-known phenomenon.
on
The Unmanned Air Force
·
· Score: 1
Of course as this technology progresses the whole situation itself becomes ridiculous. We will just send out a bunch of hardware and hope that our hardware is better and we can create more faster. No human casualties in warfare. We might as well get rid of war entirely and just agree to solve disputes with 200 foot tall robots created out of the best hardware and technology that individual countries could create. Now *that* is an original idea right?
Well, in the end war is about taking and keeping control. You can do that either by physical presence, or by threats of bombing and/or occupation. Dominating the air is something that only indirectly helps with this, by allowing effective and cheap surveillance, transport and bombing. But alone, aircraft can achieve very little directly valuable, they can only give an advantage for other operations.
What are you talking about? The farmer is keeping those chickens alive, isn't he? If he stops maintaining them, all of them die... So assuming "cruelty to animals" stuff is in order and chickens aren't essentially tortured, I'd say that's rather a sweet deal for that group of chickens... Then they're much better off than any wild birds, who will be hungry much of the time, are plagued by parasites, and are likely to die in some nasty, excruciatingly painful way.
There are a lot of poor, starving folk in third-world nations who, in their current conditions, suffer from famine, disease, warfare, and other natural and social ills. How about we put them in a facility where they would be fed and have their other essential needs met. The only conditions is that scientists could extract fertilized eggs of the females for experiment and, when the adults reached a certain age they could be slaughtered and eaten. Also, when new children were born, they might be sold or sent to other facilities, separated from their parents at birth.
Ok, you seem to be arguing against something I've never said. I've never said people and other animals are equal. I've just said that in my opinion there are situations where needs of some other animals should be given preference over needs of some people. You seem to think that all humans are unconditionally superior to any animals, and this I disagree with.
Also, this is not a one-dimensional issue. I think you agree that it's completely ok to severely restrict freedom of a child, even punish the child if they try to do what they're not allowed. Ie. adult is superior to a child and has almost absolute power over their own children. Yet many adults would risk their life to save life of a child (especially but not limited to their own child), ie. life of a child is superior to life of an adult. You probably see this as a contradiction? I don't.
Such a notion seems absurd when put in the context of humans, but you argue that it's perfectly OK for chickens. Why is that? Clearly there is a moral difference in the eyes of humans between humans and animals. It's there in each and every one of us. And those who claim otherwise are either lying to themselves or are living a morally inconsistent life.
Why do you think it's clearly a moral difference? What if it is just a biological or ecological or social or cultural difference between chicken and people, and that makes it ok or not ok?
But of course there's a difference between humans and other animals. There's also a difference between, say, elephants and other animals (including humans). I don't see either difference as a moral difference.
It would be hard for one who has the moral conviction that human life is not superior to animal life to live a morally consistent life.
Hardly. For example it would be perfectly consistent to consider any individual human more valuable than any individual other animal, while still thinking that a population of animals is more valuable than an individual human, and/or thinking that a species of animals is more valuable than a population of humans.
There are farmers who raise a population of chickens for eggs and meat for no one but themselves, an individual. If your moral code values a population of animals greater than an individual human, how can you sit there and not do something to put a stop to such injustices?
What are you talking about? The farmer is keeping those chickens alive, isn't he? If he stops maintaining them, all of them die... So assuming "cruelty to animals" stuff is in order and chickens aren't essentially tortured, I'd say that's rather a sweet deal for that group of chickens... Then they're much better off than any wild birds, who will be hungry much of the time, are plagued by parasites, and are likely to die in some nasty, excruciatingly painful way.
(Not to mention, a farm-full of domesticated chickens is not a distinct population as far as I can see.)
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the USA... How many in this country actually demand their share of political power? Very, very few. How many Americans actually vote? How many Americans vote for someone outside of the "two choices" they are offered by the system? How many Americans realize that the two choices they are offered is really no choice, because for the most part, the two options are pretty much the same?
Even one choice would be enough, if you could cast an empty vote that actually meant "nothing". Having an election puts at least some constraints on the people getting elected, because then there's the possibility of not getting elected next time.
So in order to show your disapproval of the Chinese government's abuse of their people, you want to oppose and actively resist their attempt to do something to raise quality of life for those same people?
Ultimately, it's the people of a country who are responsible for having the government they have. So if the people suffer by actions that are meant to oppose said government, that's not so bad. Well, unless you believe there should be a "world police" with the right go and change goverments... I don't.
Clarification: I don't mean that the people are necessarily fully responsible for the things their government does, but they are fully responsible for having that government. Of course in some countries, getting the government changed would require more... drastic action than in some other countries, but IMHO this does not lessen the responsibility at all.
Eh. I think war will continue as long as there are too many people. If there were few enough humans on the planet that everyone was swimming in more resources than they knew what to do with, I think war would stop. Getting to that point is problem.
Nice thought, except the main resource on this planet for humans is other humans doing work for them...
Because there's no-one left to nuke?
If MAD capability starts to crumble, soon there will be somebody to nuke... That's the paradox of nuclear weapons: you need to have them so you don't have the need to use 'em.
So let's do our best to make sure that when/if we encounter other civilization(s), we're the more advanced one... Or we're the one that encounters the aliens, not that the aliens encounter us, here on Earth.
If you mean that Neptune hasn't cleared it's orbit of Pluto, then yes it has. Neptune has locked Pluto into 3:2 gravitational resonance.
Which IMHO is also a good common sense indication that Pluto is not a real planet, because it's orbit is controlled by Neptune.
For extrasolar explorer, that classified Pluto-Charon as double planet, the list would be much longer, because there are a lot of Pluto and Charon like objects out there outside the orbit of Pluto.
For any "outsider" definition of a planet, our solar system doesn't have nine planets. It has eight, or it has well over ten.
Not to mention all the sulfuric acid, which is keeping Venus's atmosphere so fresh and healthy. For instance, asthma is completely nonexistent on Venus!
We were doing a nice job increasing sulfur content of Earths atmosphere, until those tree-hugger wackos got sulfur emissions severely restricted... And now they're trying to do it to CO2 as well! They must be stopped!
This is pure sentimentalization of nature. Are we going to protect gazelles from cheetahs next?
If the gazelles are likely to go extinct, then I suppose it would be a good idea... Also good for the cheetah, preserving one of it's prey species.
Letting species go extinct erases parts of biosphere forever. Now of course new stuff evolves all the time to replace the erased. But the thing is, we're in the middle of a mass extinction event. Currently things are being erased much faster than new stuff is evolving, overall. So trying to slow down the extinction rate sounds rather a good idea to me... Total collapse of food webs would be bad for humans too.
Why not leave nature to its own devices? Survival of the fittest, and all that kinda stuff...
We're part of nature, so even if we mess with it, it's still "natural" in the grand scheme of evolution. If those frogs that might be saved from extinction are saved, then it means they're fit enough to survive, even if they utilize humans to survive.
Wether we humans should or should not do something, now that's a valid question. But "it's against natural order of things" is not an argument against it, because there's no such "natural order". There's current natural order of things which involves these frogs. We could try to preserve current natural order as much as we can, or we could let them go extinct knowing that a new natural order will arise in a few thousand years...
I'd personally vote for preserving current natural order, since I won't be around to appreciate the new natural order later on...
Wacko nature lovers aside, but what you talk about "evolutionists" is pure rubbish. Evolution is a phenomenon, a force of nature, just like gravity. By your logic, if one is interested in natural processes, one should not fly, because it is against gravity...
No, it's you who is putting evolution on some kind of pedestal, saying it's something we shouldn't mess with it. Our whole culture and civilization is based on messing with evolution! Or how do you think our current crops and livestock became like they are now?
There is no grand plan that says that for example these frogs should go extinct if they can't develop resistance to this fungus. Either they don't and fungus kills them, or the do and they might survive. There's no "law" that says humans must not help them to acquire resistance, it's not against any scientific or natural principle.
Survival of the fittest is not a goal or a moral guideline or a law of nature. It's the intermediate result, and nothing more. Those that survived were the fittest at the time, by definition. And that's it. It's not even the end result, since the end result will be that nothing survives (in a few billion years or whatever).
Google ads have the word "Google" visible in addition to the actual ad. I bet Google is the most advertised web site, word "Google" getting most impressions on web surfers retinas.
Just look at the upper right corner of any Firefox browser window. Google logo right there, getting burned into your retina and your subconsiousness whenever you're online.
And if you don't have Google logo on upper right of your browser window, well, good for you, maybe? But many of us do have it there, waiting, watching, ready to grab your search, analyze it, store it.
Try Flashblock. Then you'll know if it's for you or not. Nobody else can tell you what's good for you in this case.
I just love it. Especially useful, as I always open a lot of pages into tabs for later viewing, and then there's usually no point in starting the flash widgets until eventually viewing the page. I also like running just the one flash I want (usually a video or a game), and not even load the stuff I don't care about (ads, chat windows etc), without any site or url specific white-listing or other tweaking.
Early galaxies dusty? How? I mean, where did the dust come from? Isn't dust heavier elements, formed in stars, so in early universe and early galaxies, there would have been much less dust than in current galaxies?
If netbsd was gpl licensed I would be Free to compile my own version of the OS to run on the Sidekick. As it stands there is nothing to make them release the source code to drivers they have written.
From my POV netbsd is less free.
No, only the derived, unpublished code could be considered less free. The original NetBSD code is more free, easily demonstrated by the fact that it was able to be combined with other Microsoft code. If it was GPL code, it would have been locked out of this particular product. Ie. GPL makes to code more limited, less free.
GPL is good though if you ask me. It enforces limitations, which I as a programmer often want to put on my code. It's good for this purpose precisely because it limits the freedom of the code in a way that I agree with (usually). Using the BSD license would make the code more free, more available for everyone, more compatible with different licenses and other external requirements. But I don't want that (usually), I rather want exchange of code enforces by GPL limitations.
There is absolutely no responsibility of the communicators to make sure they are understood by potential users if that entails breaking a working system because the end users want the illusion of a single provider solution.
That's not really a problem of potential users. It's problem of the communicators. Well, unless they wish to not communicate to that particular segment of users, in that case it's a plus to talk in a way that is not understood. However, if the goal of the communicator is to (for example) help Linux gain desktop marketshare, then it is a problem for everyone who wishes Linux would gain marketshare.
Just accept it. Linux means (at least) two different things. The most common meaning in the World and in the Internet is "a mostly GNU software based free operating system distribution running a Linux kernel and using some X Windows based GUI, usually Gnome or KDE". You may not like it, but you can't change it.
As it is four times the mass of Jupiter (and thus likely larger),
Actually, Jupiter is about as big as they get, diameter-wise, all the way to brown dwarf stars. As mass increases, they only get denser, not bigger. Just consider Jupiter and Saturnus, their size is pretty close, though Jupiter has more than three times the mass
No, the equations of Newtonian physics are always wrong. Sometimes they are wrong by such a small amount that the error is not practically important, but being only a little bit wrong is not the same as being right.
Sometimes? More like, almost always in almost all human endeavors (including things like navigating interplanetary spacecraft) they're wrong by such a small amount, that the error is not practically important.
Also, are they really always wrong? If the error is less than the Planck length or the Planck time, then is the result really wrong in any physical sense?
Really? Where I can get my share of the said cash?
Well, first you need to personally know the right people. But if you did, you wouldn't be asking, so apparently you don't, so there's no share for you.
Well, you might get a small share by starting a business geared towards those who directly get a share of that cash. But even then, to get the rich customers, you'd need to know the right people, in which case you'd already know this, and wouldn't be asking... So again, sorry, no share for you.
But lucky for you, the cash might be a bit less available in the near future, since energy price is going down. It might be a few years before oil starts to go up again (next time going well over $200/barrel for sure). So start trying to get to know the right people now, and in a few years you just might get a share of the next cash flush. Just make sure you get to know the right people, not the wrong people, or ending up in jail as an enemy of the state might be a lucky outcome.
I'm not sure why parent was modded Flamebait but he's right. The soldiers being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are just as dead as those killed in WWII or any other war or"police action." Believe me, all states of war are equal when you're on the wrong end of an enemy weapon.
No, they're not equal. It's very different depending on what you are fighting for, and what is at stake. Well, depending on your (religious or other) beliefs about "afterlife", they might or might not be different for those who die instantly. But then if you don't believe in a certain kind of afterlife, the dead don't care anymore, so it doesn't matter. But at least for the living (including those who die later from their wounds, or commit suicide due to war trauma), the different "states of war" do matter a great deal. The dead may be dead, but it matters a great deal if they died while protecting the lives and freedom of the widows and orphans now mourning (but still with their lives and freedom), or if they died protecting the investments of few rich people (or something like that).
Of course as this technology progresses the whole situation itself becomes ridiculous. We will just send out a bunch of hardware and hope that our hardware is better and we can create more faster. No human casualties in warfare. We might as well get rid of war entirely and just agree to solve disputes with 200 foot tall robots created out of the best hardware and technology that individual countries could create. Now *that* is an original idea right?
Well, in the end war is about taking and keeping control. You can do that either by physical presence, or by threats of bombing and/or occupation. Dominating the air is something that only indirectly helps with this, by allowing effective and cheap surveillance, transport and bombing. But alone, aircraft can achieve very little directly valuable, they can only give an advantage for other operations.
What are you talking about? The farmer is keeping those chickens alive, isn't he? If he stops maintaining them, all of them die... So assuming "cruelty to animals" stuff is in order and chickens aren't essentially tortured, I'd say that's rather a sweet deal for that group of chickens... Then they're much better off than any wild birds, who will be hungry much of the time, are plagued by parasites, and are likely to die in some nasty, excruciatingly painful way.
There are a lot of poor, starving folk in third-world nations who, in their current conditions, suffer from famine, disease, warfare, and other natural and social ills. How about we put them in a facility where they would be fed and have their other essential needs met. The only conditions is that scientists could extract fertilized eggs of the females for experiment and, when the adults reached a certain age they could be slaughtered and eaten. Also, when new children were born, they might be sold or sent to other facilities, separated from their parents at birth.
Ok, you seem to be arguing against something I've never said. I've never said people and other animals are equal. I've just said that in my opinion there are situations where needs of some other animals should be given preference over needs of some people. You seem to think that all humans are unconditionally superior to any animals, and this I disagree with.
Also, this is not a one-dimensional issue. I think you agree that it's completely ok to severely restrict freedom of a child, even punish the child if they try to do what they're not allowed. Ie. adult is superior to a child and has almost absolute power over their own children. Yet many adults would risk their life to save life of a child (especially but not limited to their own child), ie. life of a child is superior to life of an adult. You probably see this as a contradiction? I don't.
Such a notion seems absurd when put in the context of humans, but you argue that it's perfectly OK for chickens. Why is that? Clearly there is a moral difference in the eyes of humans between humans and animals. It's there in each and every one of us. And those who claim otherwise are either lying to themselves or are living a morally inconsistent life.
Why do you think it's clearly a moral difference? What if it is just a biological or ecological or social or cultural difference between chicken and people, and that makes it ok or not ok?
But of course there's a difference between humans and other animals. There's also a difference between, say, elephants and other animals (including humans). I don't see either difference as a moral difference.
Well, excuse me for not having RTFA... Summary talks about partial disclosure.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what happens with this botnet next...
They should just publish their code. Let the individual hackers decide what to do with it...
It would be hard for one who has the moral conviction that human life is not superior to animal life to live a morally consistent life.
Hardly. For example it would be perfectly consistent to consider any individual human more valuable than any individual other animal, while still thinking that a population of animals is more valuable than an individual human, and/or thinking that a species of animals is more valuable than a population of humans.
There are farmers who raise a population of chickens for eggs and meat for no one but themselves, an individual. If your moral code values a population of animals greater than an individual human, how can you sit there and not do something to put a stop to such injustices?
What are you talking about? The farmer is keeping those chickens alive, isn't he? If he stops maintaining them, all of them die... So assuming "cruelty to animals" stuff is in order and chickens aren't essentially tortured, I'd say that's rather a sweet deal for that group of chickens... Then they're much better off than any wild birds, who will be hungry much of the time, are plagued by parasites, and are likely to die in some nasty, excruciatingly painful way.
(Not to mention, a farm-full of domesticated chickens is not a distinct population as far as I can see.)