Whats with all the comments about switching to another OS or some smart-ass comment about not using Windows?
You'll notice that many people are not so much arguing "not using Windows" they're arguing "not using Windows Vista" or "keep using Windows XP". Subtle but important difference.
When I was younger my best tactic for fixing a computer issue was to format. As I got older I realized that solution is impractical. Just like switching to another OS is impractical for most of us.
Bzzt. You and your vendor (Microsoft) learned how to (allow one to) fix a computer without having to format. Others have learned to cope with the (alleged) impractical aspects of switching to another OS. You however, clearly have not.
Removing the "or later" creates more problems than it solves because you can't possibly move to another license unless you first create a procedure for doing so (or do the senseless work of rewriting the code).
..but its possible, and its more senseless to put someones code under a different terms than the terms of the license they released it with.
A possible method, of course, would be assigning the copyright - but if you don't trust the FSF to not change the license in a bad way, you won't trust it to make good use of your copyright.
You can assign to a 3rd party. I think this is what corporations, in general, do when you develop FOSS for them. But, I would prefer to not see such centralisation for similar reasons as the issue with FSF.
However, if you don't trust a benevolent organization like the FSF, how will you trust anyone else to do it right? There is quite a difference between informed caution and being paranoid, you know.
That is precisely the point of Torvalds, others, and was my point in my previous post: some regard Stallman as a lunatic, and some simply do not believe the FSF is a benevolent organization. Besides, as I mentioned, a hostile takeover is possible. Stallman and Moglen pass away eventually. What then?
I think it would be held that changing to a license completely different in spirit would not be in the intent of the licensor and thus be held invalid.
You think, why exactly...? What if I'd argue the GPLv3 is not in the spirit of GPLv2? There is a mechanism if you want to evade what you point out here: you remove the "or later" clause!
If not, you can still try something like "...or later, provided the spirit of the license is preserved.".
Preventing "evil" by denying someone freedom who has done nothing wrong is evil.
Then why not release your code under the BSD license instead of GPL license? After all, why would you deny someone freedom who has done nothing wrong? The GPLv2 w/o "or later" prevents a specific, potential evil insighted by mr. Torvalds.
My point? Global quotes such as yours applied to specific situations make no sense. They can be easily reversed.
It's a business decision. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere.
I agree. If you don't like the GPLv3 don't use software released under it. Such arguments are also difficult because they're not always practical, or the aim to perfect a situation is too high.
Once again the FSF are ahead of the game - by asking GNU contributors to please contribute their actual copyright to the FSF. That's how come the FSF don't take legal cases where some scumbag corporate is redistributing Linux without respecting the GPL (ie., illegally): they don't own the copyright on the kernel. (Fortunately lots of the basic toolchain are FSF's so in those circumstances there's generally enough FSF code to actually stop the bastards getting away with it.)
Until Moglen and Stallman become crazy, or some evil alien infiltrates and takes over the FSF, after which they release the GPLv4 or GPLv5 with different terms. Suddenly, all "or later" code is available under this new license as well. Perhaps the new license is something like
* Copyright (c) , * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * * Neither the name of the nor the * names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products * derived from this software without specific prior written permission. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ``AS IS'' AND ANY * EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE * DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY * DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES * (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; * LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND * ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT * (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS * SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
What if you released software under the GPLv2, the GPLv3 was just released, and *gasp* your name is Linus Torvalds and you don't like the GPLv3? Then you're lucky (or wise) you didn't have the "or later" clause in your software. Your software is now released only under the terms of the GPLv2. The same may be true for many other programmers whereas the reverse (developers happy with GPLv3 while not having the "or later" clause) may also be true.
I admit its difficult to contact hunderds or thousands of developers, but its possible hence doable. These developers programmed the code; they should have a say whether they wish to accept the GPLv3 or not. I believe in decentralized power even if this means there is (slightly) more work. Hence, I believe Torvalds method (removing "or later") is better. I don't trust a big organisation having control of so much lines of software. If I would, I'd opt for "or later" or something more liberal such as the BSD license.
It's full of restrictions, and restrictions are not free.
One could argue what matters is 1) the purpose 2) the effect of the restrictions. Compare with e.g. BSD license and public domain.
There was one US mason who said something among the lines "those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither". The GPL, the BSD license, essentially sacrifice freedom indeed for security.
First of all I'm not using Linux on the desktop I'm ripping from I'm running Windows. Does Helix even allow me to rip a stream like MEncoder does? Thats why I needed the codec in the first place. And no, there is no DRM on this specific stream. And yes, I have been able to rip RealVideo streams in the past with MEnoncoder. Even wrote howtos about this for others.
created Helix community offering their millions dollars worth patents for free to GPL projects.
Oh? Actually, by sheer luck (?), today I tried to watch a RealVideo in VLC via streaming and it did not work. MPlayer was a bitch to get working (on Windows) but eventually I got that working and it wasn't flawless. So I installed RealPlayer Enterprise (has the best settings / least spyware) and got it working. One would assume that if they 'donated' their 'millions dollars worth patents for free to GPL projects' that such would include the lovely codecs (including the DRM stuff if its good enough but it probably isn't). Instead, last time I checked (I admit, a few years ago) Real made with Helix merely 'yet another media player'. VLC, MPlayer, et al, had to reverse engineer Real's codecs.
The 'nothing to hide' argument is quite prevalent.
Says who? It really doesn't sound smart when someone pulls it. Rather hilarious. Perhaps they don't know much about the Stasi. See e.g. the movie 'The lives of others' (Das Leben der Anderen): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094 the Stasi allegedly used the same argument.
Bravo, well put. Antigens are also often derived from small dosages of toxins. If you'd drink too much water, you'd also die. In the end, the rule of thumb if often: "It's all about the dosage and usage."
Yes, my idea is unrealistic to implement in this age. Human beings would have to learn to be less materialistic and childish (I call this 'responsible' or call it 'smart egoism' if you will). By that time we're perhaps better able to grow mechanically without disturbing the soil hence keeping nutrition and crop yield as high as possible. But, clearly we haven't advanced to such stage yet.
One thing I'd like to point out is the "placebo effect". Many, many people have been cured by the placebo effect. From faith healers, to alternative medicine, to modern back surgery - all of these depend on the placebo effect. Sometimes, switching diet can cure you, if only because you think it can. It works, so I'm not against it - but it brings up ethical questions about what you can claim. For instance, back surgery is about 50% effective at relieving pain... but so is a fake "placebo" surgery. So is it still ethical to operate? Or is it ethical to fake a surgery and pretend you really did one?
Indeed. I read one astonishing case in a book by Michael Tablot, The Holographic Universe. From what I recall out of the head: A person had severe cancer with only a short while to live. He received an alleged medicine to threat his cancer, was told this, and was cured. Doctors checked him and there were no signs of cancer. Then he read reports the drug was ineffective. His symptons returned. The doctor assured him these reports were untrue, gave him a new threatment, and he got cured again. Again, doctors could find no signs of cancer. Later, he heard elsewhere that the medicine was definetely not effective and that it was a fraud. He died a few days afterwards. The story was about 2 pages of the book long, but I can't quote it nor refer the exact page because I don't have the book at hand. I don't own a copy of it, my girlfriend does, and she lives on the other side of the planet.
I believe there is also a reverse placebo. Not sure if that is the correct term or the term used in (pseudo-)science. What I mean with that is the opposite of a placebo. Ie. a hypochondriac who believes he or she is ill really is (or becomes) ill getting the illnesses he or she suspects he or she has.
Hmmm, are your numbers based on a 2,5K/2K calorie diet? Theoretically, in my ideal society, we would either reassign the lands used by farmers hence we would have more land available or we would go back to ye olde way where we pluck some berries on the run while travelling. Practically I believe the former is more viable in the near-long run. We would also buy electric units to develop our own fuel and water. More towards true individualism, I'd say. Animals (esp those currently abused such as cattle eg. cows) would live freely, not in prison. I admit also that in my ideal society there would be less humans around, and those which would exist would be far more responsible humans.
I'd argue too that its silly to rule a non-organic diet [...] however there are cases where a change in diet partly or completely made symptons or disease vanish. People have been cured from MS, fibromyalgia, autism (linked to e.g. celiac) and other diseases by changing their diet and/or a detox. Some of the references I gave you have researched that organic foods are more nutritious than non-organic hence 'less is more'. I can more or less follow the complex theories, and they make sense to me (simply put: better soil yields more nutrients from soil yields healthier crops). According to my experience, organic food tastes better (depending on ingredient and recipe even 'far better') than non-organic just like fresh tastes better than canned. I believe enjoying your food is very if not the most important method to be nourished and I can achieve that easily if I enjoy the taste. However, my ethical judgement may blur such, I admit that.
Celiac is a sensitivity to wheat gluten and indeed organic wheat would not help. Although e.g. MSG and casein (milk protein) arguably are also part of the sensitivity. I had IBS, not celiac, but IBS can develop into celiac. 4-7 days GFCF and my IBS (in all its glory with all its symptons) is gone. 1 pizza and its back. Quitting coffee (very popular in my country) made my energy levels increase after merely 3 days. Headache gone after 3 days (I quit on friday noon, monday was my turning point). These are just simple ways one can improve their health with. Removing or evading refined sugar is also a good suggestion, but the popular artificial replacements are worse, and I think caffeine is also underestimated. Even more on a website such as Slashdot. Now, what does help me to get energy is water (and herbal tea; lots of both), regular morning exercise, and a far more efficient metabolism due to my cure from IBS. It all adds up. Given I am prone given my genetics I might have evaded diabetic disease, MS, cancer, and other diseases in my family. But I'm rambling. In any case, there are many researches about what wheat does to the soil. And they're not positive...
One can apply organic farming while depleting the soil, and one can deploy organic farming by replenishing the soil. That was what I meant to say. I'm aware of the problems with the term organic, but they are a non-issue here if you simply read the context.
I don't care why you're hateful. You simply have to control your temper and be a responsible netizen. You just don't do certain things just because you can. Responsibility, you know? Well, one of those things is indirectly saying one should commit suicide. There are other ways to hurt someone in a more stylish fashion, or perhaps *gasp* you can actually learn to argue!
I gave you my references in my previous post. If you wish you can look them up. In a different post in this sub-thread I posted specific references. If you're interested enough you can find a way to them. I'm not gonna help you further with that because I don't like you. Or rather, according to you, I'm too foolish to help you.:)
Few people own enough land to even live at subsistence levels. Technology has made it very efficient for a small fraction of the population to do the farming.
Not much land is required. Being more efficient with the land you own, and threating the soil better (e.g. leaving weeds which replenish the soil, not using herbicides) would both increase harvest. It would at least be a start. But right now, I only grow some herbs and fruits. No vegetables yet. One fruit (grapes) a neighbor shares with me since her tree grows over our part of the lawn. What would also be very good for our soils is simply pooing outside in our gardens. Thats one of the many examples where we don't live in harmony with nature. We arrogantly believe we can take, but not give back. Every other mammal gives back. Some plants are only able to breed due to such mechanisms.
We are far more "nourished" than at any point prior in human history, and we have the lifespans to prove it. We are certainly better-nourished than any agricultural people have ever been.
Perhaps. Looking at obesitas and cancer numbers I believe it could even increase further. Besides, I preferably would not compare lifespan; I would compare well-beingness. Studying history would point out there are always diseases which have a cause we don't understand. 40 years ago smoking cigarettes was not even considered unhealthy. Nowadays it is linked to cancer. There are ofcourse many other reasons one could get cancer. Then there are diseases such as fibromyalgia and MS of which the cause are unknown. Or what if you have IBS or celiac? Our social systems also support the ill better, we are able to write down diseases and remedies (natural or not), we are able to cleanly surge people with kidney stones, and so on. Hunderds of years ago we were relying on old wives tales and a few enlightened doctors which nobody could afford. So I would say the comparison is irrelevant, and unfair.
I know of no scientific study showing that intake of fresh organic products is healthier than consuming the same, non-organic versions. Please enlighten me if this exists.
There are various references to such studies in a book I recently read by Pete Tompkins and Christopher Bird The Secret Life Of Plants published by Perennial Library. References include:
Howard, Sir Albert. The Soil and Health. New York: Schocken Books, 1972. Howard, Sir Albert, and Yeshwant, D. Wad. The Waste Products of Agriculture: Their Utilization as Humus. London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1931. Sykes, Friend. Food, Farming and the Future. Emmaus, Pa.: Rodale Press, 1951. McCarrison, Sir Robert. Nutrition and National Health. London: Faber & Faber Ltd., 1944.
These were the most memorable stories on this subject. There were many more references.
In particular, we'd have to get used to a lot more beans and a lot less grain and meat.
Unfortunately, the human body is not able to metabolize oligosaccharides (the sugars from beans). In large qualities I doubt beans are good for ones flora. I don't know is there is a relationship between oligosaccharides and candida however such seems plausible to me at first sight.
Bracken lowers one's vitamin B1 absorption (due to the enzyme thiaminase). It is effective against worms/parasites however there are many other herbs effective against worms/parasites some of which one probably have in his or her kitchen (e.g. garlic). So that is not a valid argument; these are not reasons to eat it. There are many reports of cattle becoming ill after having eaten bracken. It simply doesn't seem nutritious. Perhaps the Japanese and Koreans know more about bracken than I do. I have no idea how they prepare it.
"Anyway, agriculture is inherently in conflict with nature. Most (all?) of our food crops are so different from the native species that any attempt to harmonize with nature is probably pointless on the field. You can try to use natural processes to your advantage (e.g. crop rotation, nitrogen fixers), but you will never run a "natural" cornfield or lettuce patch. Like it or not, we have moved past the hunter-gatherer stage and need to significantly modify the "natural" environment to survive. Other animals do this to lesser degrees - beavers, alligators, etc."
Exactly. This makes me believe we should each grow our crops or at least do this more. We're also eating too much yet we're malnourished. Something is severely wrong within our harmony with nature, or lack thereof.
Although I live in a rich Western country I am not that rich myself and I have figured out less is more. I have figured out that the higher price of fresh, organic products, combined with less food intake (and a specific GFCF diet against IBS) combined with more (clean) water and even herbal teas (and quiting coffee, tobacco and starting regular exercises) all benefit my help a lot. I wish more people would realize this, especially in Western countries where malnutrition is huge as is cancer, but I do understand your point of view is the popular one.
"You would also need to use more marginal farmland to grow crops, since yields would be lower using organic methods. That means more displaced wildlife and more environmental impact due to agriculture."
I don't think so. The research I read has shown the exact opposite: only in the first year the organic crop (having switched from herbicide) yielded less than before. After the first year it only increased. Also, the crops contained far more nutrients (minerals) compared to herbicide crops. This was linked to the number of minerals in the actual soil.
"Why are you under the mistaken impression that organic farmers don't eliminate weeds?"
Read what I wrote. I wrote "Organic farming, IF applied correct, is better for the soil than robots like this". I never wrote no organic farmers remove weeds or organic farmers don't remove weed. It isn't a prequisite for having an 'organic' brand. It differs per farmer. A wise farmer however, knows which weeds to eliminate and which not.
"I also don't know where you get the impression that industrial farms have soils that are "in quite bad conditions"."
Perhaps because you're too ignorant to understand that -especially in the case of grains- lands either have to be barren after used or their soil is severely depleted. A depleted soil may still yield some crops, but less than a healthy soil, and the nutrients in the crop are far less than compared to crops from a healthy soil.
"but modern industrial farms keep their soil in excellent condition. They need to in order to be profitable."
Fallacy / non-seq.
"The real problem with them from the "organic" [...] is the run-off from the chemicals they use to keep their soils that way."
I don't know what you're exactly arguing here. Seems finger pointing. Boohoo. British farmers and scientists figured out what I pointed out above in the beginning of last century. Perhaps you could look up the works from people such as Friend Sykes, Sir Albert Howard, and Robert McCarrison.
""organic" (can you tell I hate that term? It's worse than "IP")"
Shows your colours.
Pushing someone to commit suicide (murder) is a crime in many countries, btw. Also shows your colours. Besides that, shows how hateful you are towards a random person on the Internet. I believe it is you who needs to seek help.
Some say anything is for sale. Possibily this counts for many people however an increasing number of people have ethics higher than that. Then there are also some aspects such as power, pride, women. If you follow the 'everything is for sale' paradigm then what he is saying with 'it's not for sale' is 'you won't offer the price I would even consider so don't even bother'. You (and Googledrones) can easily judge him, claiming he is a liar, but you don't know how he exactly judges his situation. In your post you sadly don't even take such into account for your argument in which you claim he's lying.
It is also clear he registered the trademark in DE. A trademark not registered with the EU is not valid in the EU. The fact DE resides in EU does not matter in that regard! If he did not register the trademark in ES, then Google can register the trademark in ES. AFAIK the loser in many European countries pays all legal costs although I'm not sure in which countries this is true. I believe it is true in DE; hence he made no legal costs in DE since Google had to pay all of 'em.
The human obsession of grains is strange anyway. Grains, in general, are bad for the soil. According to my view and experience not so good for the human body either (especially if they contain gluten). Spraying (or grains + spraying) is even worse though. However, for those insisting on grains, it'd be best to keep the weeds intact as they replenish the soil. The very soil the grains draw huge amount of minerals from, depleting the soil. There are a few bad weeds (which AFAIK have no benefit for the soil, but I could be wrong on them too) however those only grow on severely depleted soil! The solution is simply not depleting the soil...
Whether the robot would trample a field would differ per type of field though.
Ofcourse goats don't eat 'anything'. They only eat anything when they don't live in harmony with nature. Any species on Earth eats what they like to eat most. That means what is most useful for them (or their health or their beloved ones; their survival). If the organism cannot get the most useful, they will go for the second most useful, and so on. When an organism starts to eat anything, it usually means they cannot get what truelly nourishes them. Essentially it is a sign of (coming) disease. This whole process goes 'instinctively' (means: 'we humans don't understand how it works'). And then we have the species homo sapiens of which most members don't live in harmony with nature. Alas, they're a strange exception to the rule.
I don't know much about bracken except that it isn't edible by humans. I don't know what it does to the soil, hence I would look that up first before starting on a world-wide extermination rampage.
Interesting. I still want to know what kind of weeds are combatted in usual NON-herbicide sprayed soils*. At least goats give back to the Earth, by pooing. In the end all the Earth wants is our poo. As simple example look at how flowers give nectar to bees. They're egoists too. Although it is a smart form of egoism, it is egoism. Its all part of a greater cycle. Trees do this too.
(* Herbicide sprayed soils are essentially dead and still need to be cured. If a herbicide sprayed soil contains a lot of weed then the farmer has to slap himself with a cluestick and look up the properties of that weed. 10 to 1 that weed does something specific good to his soil (and hence crops) which he never knew about.)
All 'funny' responses here, and then some cannabis jokes. Legalize cannabis and grow up. Then such childish jokes aren't funny anymore...
It seems nobody addresses the questionable assumption that weeds are somehow 'bad'. Nature lives in harmony without us humans quite well (arguably we rather disrupt the harmony), and there is a reason weeds grow near crops. Hint: the reason is not to be exterminated by man-made robots. Weeds actually often replenish the soil! For those interested, I can name several examples (by Latin name; I don't know English ones) which do this. Some weeds which contain flowers, such as Taraxacum officinale, are besides that good for our bee population. Many weeds also have medicinal properties. In other words: weeds are not 'bad' or 'evil'; they're herbs which are often medicinal. But besides that, they also replenish the soil.
Herbicides do the exact opposite to the soil! Given our soils are in quite bad conditions, we need less herbicides (this thing does that), not necesarily less weeds (this thing exterminates them). Organic farming, IF applied correct, is better for the soil than robots like this. The robots too, lie on a faulty assumption, just like shit like round-up.
Besides all that, the definition of 'weed' is ignorant as it is too much from a human viewpoint; not from a nature viewpoint. Once humanity is able to put itself in nature's shoe (perhaps after a few cataclysms?) this may improve, I presume.
Come on! Yes, it is the last 5%, but you've got a year! A few weekends of uber-hacking by those familiar with the current code bases, and you could beat Windows to having a modern desktop architecture. Get to it! *cracks whip*
There are currently very few hackers on this project. IIRC like 1 or 2 only!
Money makes the world go round. What i mean is, if he (Jon) gets paid for it, he might consider or promise to work (harder) or enjoy it more. Currently, he doesn't enjoy it. He's clearly frustrated (that news was also posted on Slashdot a while ago).
For example, he/we could set some plan up for donations and if it reaches $X status, he promises to do Y. Or a more specific bounty hunt task.
You can't force someone to work on a project they don't want to work on for whatever reason. You have nothing to say what the E-people do with their free time.
But what they do, which you don't mention, is besides being 'really cool' also various research and optimalisation. E17 will be used in embedded devices where optimalisation is a rather huge factor. I think Rasterman's blog has some info on that one.
Slashdot Mirror
My point? Global quotes such as yours applied to specific situations make no sense. They can be easily reversed.I agree. If you don't like the GPLv3 don't use software released under it. Such arguments are also difficult because they're not always practical, or the aim to perfect a situation is too high.
I admit its difficult to contact hunderds or thousands of developers, but its possible hence doable. These developers programmed the code; they should have a say whether they wish to accept the GPLv3 or not. I believe in decentralized power even if this means there is (slightly) more work. Hence, I believe Torvalds method (removing "or later") is better. I don't trust a big organisation having control of so much lines of software. If I would, I'd opt for "or later" or something more liberal such as the BSD license.
There was one US mason who said something among the lines "those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither". The GPL, the BSD license, essentially sacrifice freedom indeed for security.
First of all I'm not using Linux on the desktop I'm ripping from I'm running Windows. Does Helix even allow me to rip a stream like MEncoder does? Thats why I needed the codec in the first place. And no, there is no DRM on this specific stream. And yes, I have been able to rip RealVideo streams in the past with MEnoncoder. Even wrote howtos about this for others.
The 'nothing to hide' argument is quite prevalent.
Says who? It really doesn't sound smart when someone pulls it. Rather hilarious. Perhaps they don't know much about the Stasi. See e.g. the movie 'The lives of others' (Das Leben der Anderen): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094 the Stasi allegedly used the same argument.
Bravo, well put. Antigens are also often derived from small dosages of toxins. If you'd drink too much water, you'd also die. In the end, the rule of thumb if often: "It's all about the dosage and usage."
Locked? So you unlock them. In the Netherlands, after 1 year, you have the right to unlock the SIMlock.
Yes, my idea is unrealistic to implement in this age. Human beings would have to learn to be less materialistic and childish (I call this 'responsible' or call it 'smart egoism' if you will). By that time we're perhaps better able to grow mechanically without disturbing the soil hence keeping nutrition and crop yield as high as possible. But, clearly we haven't advanced to such stage yet.
One thing I'd like to point out is the "placebo effect". Many, many people have been cured by the placebo effect. From faith healers, to alternative medicine, to modern back surgery - all of these depend on the placebo effect. Sometimes, switching diet can cure you, if only because you think it can. It works, so I'm not against it - but it brings up ethical questions about what you can claim. For instance, back surgery is about 50% effective at relieving pain... but so is a fake "placebo" surgery. So is it still ethical to operate? Or is it ethical to fake a surgery and pretend you really did one?
Indeed. I read one astonishing case in a book by Michael Tablot, The Holographic Universe. From what I recall out of the head: A person had severe cancer with only a short while to live. He received an alleged medicine to threat his cancer, was told this, and was cured. Doctors checked him and there were no signs of cancer. Then he read reports the drug was ineffective. His symptons returned. The doctor assured him these reports were untrue, gave him a new threatment, and he got cured again. Again, doctors could find no signs of cancer. Later, he heard elsewhere that the medicine was definetely not effective and that it was a fraud. He died a few days afterwards. The story was about 2 pages of the book long, but I can't quote it nor refer the exact page because I don't have the book at hand. I don't own a copy of it, my girlfriend does, and she lives on the other side of the planet.
I believe there is also a reverse placebo. Not sure if that is the correct term or the term used in (pseudo-)science. What I mean with that is the opposite of a placebo. Ie. a hypochondriac who believes he or she is ill really is (or becomes) ill getting the illnesses he or she suspects he or she has.
Hmmm, are your numbers based on a 2,5K/2K calorie diet? Theoretically, in my ideal society, we would either reassign the lands used by farmers hence we would have more land available or we would go back to ye olde way where we pluck some berries on the run while travelling. Practically I believe the former is more viable in the near-long run. We would also buy electric units to develop our own fuel and water. More towards true individualism, I'd say. Animals (esp those currently abused such as cattle eg. cows) would live freely, not in prison. I admit also that in my ideal society there would be less humans around, and those which would exist would be far more responsible humans.
I'd argue too that its silly to rule a non-organic diet [...] however there are cases where a change in diet partly or completely made symptons or disease vanish. People have been cured from MS, fibromyalgia, autism (linked to e.g. celiac) and other diseases by changing their diet and/or a detox. Some of the references I gave you have researched that organic foods are more nutritious than non-organic hence 'less is more'. I can more or less follow the complex theories, and they make sense to me (simply put: better soil yields more nutrients from soil yields healthier crops). According to my experience, organic food tastes better (depending on ingredient and recipe even 'far better') than non-organic just like fresh tastes better than canned. I believe enjoying your food is very if not the most important method to be nourished and I can achieve that easily if I enjoy the taste. However, my ethical judgement may blur such, I admit that.
Celiac is a sensitivity to wheat gluten and indeed organic wheat would not help. Although e.g. MSG and casein (milk protein) arguably are also part of the sensitivity. I had IBS, not celiac, but IBS can develop into celiac. 4-7 days GFCF and my IBS (in all its glory with all its symptons) is gone. 1 pizza and its back. Quitting coffee (very popular in my country) made my energy levels increase after merely 3 days. Headache gone after 3 days (I quit on friday noon, monday was my turning point). These are just simple ways one can improve their health with. Removing or evading refined sugar is also a good suggestion, but the popular artificial replacements are worse, and I think caffeine is also underestimated. Even more on a website such as Slashdot. Now, what does help me to get energy is water (and herbal tea; lots of both), regular morning exercise, and a far more efficient metabolism due to my cure from IBS. It all adds up. Given I am prone given my genetics I might have evaded diabetic disease, MS, cancer, and other diseases in my family. But I'm rambling. In any case, there are many researches about what wheat does to the soil. And they're not positive...
One can apply organic farming while depleting the soil, and one can deploy organic farming by replenishing the soil. That was what I meant to say. I'm aware of the problems with the term organic, but they are a non-issue here if you simply read the context.
:)
I don't care why you're hateful. You simply have to control your temper and be a responsible netizen. You just don't do certain things just because you can. Responsibility, you know? Well, one of those things is indirectly saying one should commit suicide. There are other ways to hurt someone in a more stylish fashion, or perhaps *gasp* you can actually learn to argue!
I gave you my references in my previous post. If you wish you can look them up. In a different post in this sub-thread I posted specific references. If you're interested enough you can find a way to them. I'm not gonna help you further with that because I don't like you. Or rather, according to you, I'm too foolish to help you.
Few people own enough land to even live at subsistence levels. Technology has made it very efficient for a small fraction of the population to do the farming.
Not much land is required. Being more efficient with the land you own, and threating the soil better (e.g. leaving weeds which replenish the soil, not using herbicides) would both increase harvest. It would at least be a start. But right now, I only grow some herbs and fruits. No vegetables yet. One fruit (grapes) a neighbor shares with me since her tree grows over our part of the lawn. What would also be very good for our soils is simply pooing outside in our gardens. Thats one of the many examples where we don't live in harmony with nature. We arrogantly believe we can take, but not give back. Every other mammal gives back. Some plants are only able to breed due to such mechanisms.
We are far more "nourished" than at any point prior in human history, and we have the lifespans to prove it. We are certainly better-nourished than any agricultural people have ever been.
Perhaps. Looking at obesitas and cancer numbers I believe it could even increase further. Besides, I preferably would not compare lifespan; I would compare well-beingness. Studying history would point out there are always diseases which have a cause we don't understand. 40 years ago smoking cigarettes was not even considered unhealthy. Nowadays it is linked to cancer. There are ofcourse many other reasons one could get cancer. Then there are diseases such as fibromyalgia and MS of which the cause are unknown. Or what if you have IBS or celiac? Our social systems also support the ill better, we are able to write down diseases and remedies (natural or not), we are able to cleanly surge people with kidney stones, and so on. Hunderds of years ago we were relying on old wives tales and a few enlightened doctors which nobody could afford. So I would say the comparison is irrelevant, and unfair.
There are various references to such studies in a book I recently read by Pete Tompkins and Christopher Bird The Secret Life Of Plants published by Perennial Library. References include:
Howard, Sir Albert. The Soil and Health. New York: Schocken Books, 1972.
Howard, Sir Albert, and Yeshwant, D. Wad. The Waste Products of Agriculture: Their Utilization as Humus. London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1931.
Sykes, Friend. Food, Farming and the Future. Emmaus, Pa.: Rodale Press, 1951.
McCarrison, Sir Robert. Nutrition and National Health. London: Faber & Faber Ltd., 1944.
These were the most memorable stories on this subject. There were many more references.
Unfortunately, the human body is not able to metabolize oligosaccharides (the sugars from beans). In large qualities I doubt beans are good for ones flora. I don't know is there is a relationship between oligosaccharides and candida however such seems plausible to me at first sight.
Bracken lowers one's vitamin B1 absorption (due to the enzyme thiaminase). It is effective against worms/parasites however there are many other herbs effective against worms/parasites some of which one probably have in his or her kitchen (e.g. garlic). So that is not a valid argument; these are not reasons to eat it. There are many reports of cattle becoming ill after having eaten bracken. It simply doesn't seem nutritious. Perhaps the Japanese and Koreans know more about bracken than I do. I have no idea how they prepare it.
"Anyway, agriculture is inherently in conflict with nature. Most (all?) of our food crops are so different from the native species that any attempt to harmonize with nature is probably pointless on the field. You can try to use natural processes to your advantage (e.g. crop rotation, nitrogen fixers), but you will never run a "natural" cornfield or lettuce patch. Like it or not, we have moved past the hunter-gatherer stage and need to significantly modify the "natural" environment to survive. Other animals do this to lesser degrees - beavers, alligators, etc."
Exactly. This makes me believe we should each grow our crops or at least do this more. We're also eating too much yet we're malnourished. Something is severely wrong within our harmony with nature, or lack thereof.
Although I live in a rich Western country I am not that rich myself and I have figured out less is more. I have figured out that the higher price of fresh, organic products, combined with less food intake (and a specific GFCF diet against IBS) combined with more (clean) water and even herbal teas (and quiting coffee, tobacco and starting regular exercises) all benefit my help a lot. I wish more people would realize this, especially in Western countries where malnutrition is huge as is cancer, but I do understand your point of view is the popular one.
"You would also need to use more marginal farmland to grow crops, since yields would be lower using organic methods. That means more displaced wildlife and more environmental impact due to agriculture."
I don't think so. The research I read has shown the exact opposite: only in the first year the organic crop (having switched from herbicide) yielded less than before. After the first year it only increased. Also, the crops contained far more nutrients (minerals) compared to herbicide crops. This was linked to the number of minerals in the actual soil.
"Why are you under the mistaken impression that organic farmers don't eliminate weeds?"
Read what I wrote. I wrote "Organic farming, IF applied correct, is better for the soil than robots like this". I never wrote no organic farmers remove weeds or organic farmers don't remove weed. It isn't a prequisite for having an 'organic' brand. It differs per farmer. A wise farmer however, knows which weeds to eliminate and which not.
"I also don't know where you get the impression that industrial farms have soils that are "in quite bad conditions"."
Perhaps because you're too ignorant to understand that -especially in the case of grains- lands either have to be barren after used or their soil is severely depleted. A depleted soil may still yield some crops, but less than a healthy soil, and the nutrients in the crop are far less than compared to crops from a healthy soil.
"but modern industrial farms keep their soil in excellent condition. They need to in order to be profitable."
Fallacy / non-seq.
"The real problem with them from the "organic" [...] is the run-off from the chemicals they use to keep their soils that way."
I don't know what you're exactly arguing here. Seems finger pointing. Boohoo. British farmers and scientists figured out what I pointed out above in the beginning of last century. Perhaps you could look up the works from people such as Friend Sykes, Sir Albert Howard, and Robert McCarrison.
""organic" (can you tell I hate that term? It's worse than "IP")"
Shows your colours.
Pushing someone to commit suicide (murder) is a crime in many countries, btw. Also shows your colours. Besides that, shows how hateful you are towards a random person on the Internet. I believe it is you who needs to seek help.
Some say anything is for sale. Possibily this counts for many people however an increasing number of people have ethics higher than that. Then there are also some aspects such as power, pride, women. If you follow the 'everything is for sale' paradigm then what he is saying with 'it's not for sale' is 'you won't offer the price I would even consider so don't even bother'. You (and Googledrones) can easily judge him, claiming he is a liar, but you don't know how he exactly judges his situation. In your post you sadly don't even take such into account for your argument in which you claim he's lying.
It is also clear he registered the trademark in DE. A trademark not registered with the EU is not valid in the EU. The fact DE resides in EU does not matter in that regard! If he did not register the trademark in ES, then Google can register the trademark in ES. AFAIK the loser in many European countries pays all legal costs although I'm not sure in which countries this is true. I believe it is true in DE; hence he made no legal costs in DE since Google had to pay all of 'em.
The human obsession of grains is strange anyway. Grains, in general, are bad for the soil. According to my view and experience not so good for the human body either (especially if they contain gluten). Spraying (or grains + spraying) is even worse though. However, for those insisting on grains, it'd be best to keep the weeds intact as they replenish the soil. The very soil the grains draw huge amount of minerals from, depleting the soil. There are a few bad weeds (which AFAIK have no benefit for the soil, but I could be wrong on them too) however those only grow on severely depleted soil! The solution is simply not depleting the soil...
Whether the robot would trample a field would differ per type of field though.
Ofcourse goats don't eat 'anything'. They only eat anything when they don't live in harmony with nature. Any species on Earth eats what they like to eat most. That means what is most useful for them (or their health or their beloved ones; their survival). If the organism cannot get the most useful, they will go for the second most useful, and so on. When an organism starts to eat anything, it usually means they cannot get what truelly nourishes them. Essentially it is a sign of (coming) disease. This whole process goes 'instinctively' (means: 'we humans don't understand how it works'). And then we have the species homo sapiens of which most members don't live in harmony with nature. Alas, they're a strange exception to the rule.
I don't know much about bracken except that it isn't edible by humans. I don't know what it does to the soil, hence I would look that up first before starting on a world-wide extermination rampage.
Interesting. I still want to know what kind of weeds are combatted in usual NON-herbicide sprayed soils*. At least goats give back to the Earth, by pooing. In the end all the Earth wants is our poo. As simple example look at how flowers give nectar to bees. They're egoists too. Although it is a smart form of egoism, it is egoism. Its all part of a greater cycle. Trees do this too.
(* Herbicide sprayed soils are essentially dead and still need to be cured. If a herbicide sprayed soil contains a lot of weed then the farmer has to slap himself with a cluestick and look up the properties of that weed. 10 to 1 that weed does something specific good to his soil (and hence crops) which he never knew about.)
All 'funny' responses here, and then some cannabis jokes. Legalize cannabis and grow up. Then such childish jokes aren't funny anymore...
It seems nobody addresses the questionable assumption that weeds are somehow 'bad'. Nature lives in harmony without us humans quite well (arguably we rather disrupt the harmony), and there is a reason weeds grow near crops. Hint: the reason is not to be exterminated by man-made robots. Weeds actually often replenish the soil! For those interested, I can name several examples (by Latin name; I don't know English ones) which do this. Some weeds which contain flowers, such as Taraxacum officinale, are besides that good for our bee population. Many weeds also have medicinal properties. In other words: weeds are not 'bad' or 'evil'; they're herbs which are often medicinal. But besides that, they also replenish the soil.
Herbicides do the exact opposite to the soil! Given our soils are in quite bad conditions, we need less herbicides (this thing does that), not necesarily less weeds (this thing exterminates them). Organic farming, IF applied correct, is better for the soil than robots like this. The robots too, lie on a faulty assumption, just like shit like round-up.
Besides all that, the definition of 'weed' is ignorant as it is too much from a human viewpoint; not from a nature viewpoint. Once humanity is able to put itself in nature's shoe (perhaps after a few cataclysms?) this may improve, I presume.
Money makes the world go round. What i mean is, if he (Jon) gets paid for it, he might consider or promise to work (harder) or enjoy it more. Currently, he doesn't enjoy it. He's clearly frustrated (that news was also posted on Slashdot a while ago).
For example, he/we could set some plan up for donations and if it reaches $X status, he promises to do Y. Or a more specific bounty hunt task.
He's a human too, you know...
You can't force someone to work on a project they don't want to work on for whatever reason. You have nothing to say what the E-people do with their free time.
But what they do, which you don't mention, is besides being 'really cool' also various research and optimalisation. E17 will be used in embedded devices where optimalisation is a rather huge factor. I think Rasterman's blog has some info on that one.