"Totally removing meat would require much more farm land to be devoted to edible crops to the point it may actually be impossible."
That statement couldn't be more wrong. All the food those animals eat has to be grown somewhere and much of the food they eat does not become the muscle fiber we eat, it either serves other purposes for the animal or gets expelled in their poop. On top of that, there's the space the animals need to live in and this space goes up the more ethically you want your meat raised.
This makes meat production an incredibly inefficient means of general food production. If we didn't eat meat we would use significantly less farm land in total.
"Food, especially livestock, also takes up a lot of room – a source of both greenhouse gas emissions due to land conversion and of biodiversity loss. Of the world’s approximately five billion hectares (12 billion acres) of agricultural land, 68% is used for livestock."
Don't get me wrong in any of this, I eat meat. I just couldn't let something some obviously wrong go by without saying something.
"(not seeing the slaughter also helps, I think if a few more kids saw an animal being killed it would make a big difference)"
Maybe yes and maybe no. Once upon a time meat didn't come all nicely packaged from the supermarket. You or some one you knew went out and killed an animal and dragged its still bleeding body back home to be skinned and then cooked.
I also doubt many of the 4-H (and like program) kids that raise animals for slaughter become vegetarians or vegans as these programs wouldn't last very long if that were the case.
Then again, people are kept so distant from their food production nowadays that all of a sudden seeing an animal slaughtered after a lifetime of getting ones meat wrapped in plastic might shock a lot of people into not eating meat.
"How many of the tallied "cord-cutters" in these figures are like me? Especially younger people, who increasingly see TV as unnecessary, and who are increasingly strapped for cash they are unlikely to waste even starting up service for an unnecessary entertainment package when they could just as well do without."
You're right, they don't define what they mean by productivity and that is exactly what the parent and I are on about.
"But as I've tipped my hand, I think the keywords "unmitigated success" tells us which of the above two scenarios the owners/managers think they're in. "
I dunno, I've heard lots of "success" stories that turn out to be much less so once the numbers are crunched. I find it awfully suspect that they provide a bunch of data detailing how happy their employees are (which is a "no duh" conclusion, they have more free time which usually makes people happy) but when it comes the most crucial part, did the work get done, they get super vague.
Don't get me wrong, it is possible they got 5 says worth of work into 4 which would be potentially good news for all of us 5 days a week folks, especially if it holds true crossing over to other fields. I just find what they are presenting to the public as very suspect given what they are leaving out.
Maybe try reading what you posted? That in no way, shape, or form says "employees did 5 days of work in 4".
If their productivity went up 2% then they are still "performing better in their jobs" but are certainly not making up for the missed day. As the parent states, without actual productivity data you can't really call this experiment a success.
I'm not trying to insult you here but you're either being willfully ignorant or you don't know your modern Middle Eastern history very well. Syria has indeed been an adversarial nation to the US for decades. Russia's naval base in Syria was built by the Soviets in the early 70's and cemented them into the Soviet sphere in terms of the global order of the time. The naval base in Syria was essential to the Soviet positioning of it's 5th Operational Squadron in the Mediterranean to counter the US' 6th fleet based out of Italy. This base allowed the Soviets to open up a new potential front in the Mediterranean in the event war broke out between them and the West.
Syria also quickly found common ground with Iran following the 79' revolution and built up an alliance from there. Much of the common ground revolved around them being antagonistic to US interests and allies with neither country recognizing (staunch US ally) Israel's statehood and both were enemies of Saddam in Iraq who was also a US ally until he was dumb enough to invade Kuwait.
"Everyone expected her to win, so they wanted to be on the right side. So they became donors."
Taking donations does not in any way, shape, or form equal corruption as long as the donations are legal.
After that you ramble into conspiracy nonsense and I now have a sense of who I am talking to (something I was suspecting after watching that youtube video with the Brit swearing like he's 13 and trying to fool everyone into thinking he's an adult with adult opinions). Hillary was not going to "open the flood gates" to illegal immigrants and there is no hard evidence of such plans. Furthermore, doing this would have been political suicide for the Democratic party as a whole and for her as well as native voters would have fled the party in mass.
Or we Americans might increasingly seek to identify ourselves by healthier traits than what we do to pay the bills. After all, most people don't work a job because they want to work a job (even if they like their job), they do so because it's a necessity for having what they need and/or want and doing what they want to do with their lives.
"I am as cynical as they come but how is this a failed experiment if you lose nothing but have happier employees?"
You're assuming they got 5 days of work done in 4 which I don't see written anywhere in the summary or in the linked to Guardian article. If they did do this then you're correct but what the parent is getting at is that if productivity didn't rise enough to make up for the missed day or at least come close to that then this experiment might be considered a failure.
References are certainly nice but they don't make something true. I'm sure if I cherry picked the right references I could "prove" that the Nazi's won WWII.
"and what's more, it makes sense"
No it doesn't at all. The Clinton foundation conspiracy theories all rely on the foolish assumption that the Clinton's have some how managed to consolidate a completely unprecedented amount of political power under themselves, meanwhile Hillary can't even carry Pennsylvania in a presidential election against a reality TV star and is now largely irrelevant in the context of politics.
"What's the amazing prize that we win in Syria? Why's it so damn important?"
The most obvious answer to your question is not some conspiracy about the Clinton Foundation and a lame duck plan for a pipeline that barely stood a chance in hell of being adopted. It's that Syria has been an adversary of the US since the Clinton's were children and is allied to even more significant adversaries of the US (Russia's only Mediterranean Naval base is in Syria for instance). The US has a long history of using turmoil in country's we're not fond of as an excuse for sponsoring regime change and have funded all sorts of unsavory groups to do so over the years. We literally just did this in Libya only a few years ago and there have been no plans for pipelines through that country that I've ever heard of.
"I am outside US, I am sick of comment section filled with right vs left."
Not to be rude but slashdot editors have stated multiple times over the years that this is a US based site and therefor don't care about complaints about it being US-centric .
You might as well complain about The Guardian covering too much British news,
Finally watched your video link. You watch this garbage? Sure, the gus has a British accent which sounds intellectual to many of us Americans but he drops the word "fuck" like a 13 year old trying to prove something. I couldn't take this guy seriously even if what he was saying wasn't rubbish.
"The Syrian civil war? We're involved in that because before the Syrian civil war, two pipelines were proposed..."
Nice lengthy conspiracy theory but Syria was regarded as a country antagonistic to the US for decades prior to the planning of these pipelines. The much simpler and more logical answer is the US saw the turmoil happening in Syria as an opportunity to get rid of an ally of two of our most significant adversaries, Russia and Iran.
This Clinton Foundation shit just sounds ludicrous. I mean, if Hillary and the Clinton foundation are such puppet masters how did she lose an election to a hack like Trump?
Never mind that now there are actually plenty of good reasons for Americans to not like Russia. From interfering in our presidential election, to invading a European country for seaking to align with the West, to engaging directly in cyber warfare against us and our allies.
Go back a few years and there were far fewer reasons to hate the Russians
Slashdot Mirror
In my head I was more referring to hunter / gatherers, some of which ate quite a lot of meat. I wasn't very clear in my post though.
"Totally removing meat would require much more farm land to be devoted to edible crops to the point it may actually be impossible."
That statement couldn't be more wrong. All the food those animals eat has to be grown somewhere and much of the food they eat does not become the muscle fiber we eat, it either serves other purposes for the animal or gets expelled in their poop. On top of that, there's the space the animals need to live in and this space goes up the more ethically you want your meat raised.
This makes meat production an incredibly inefficient means of general food production. If we didn't eat meat we would use significantly less farm land in total.
From/; http://www.bbc.com/future/stor...
"Food, especially livestock, also takes up a lot of room – a source of both greenhouse gas emissions due to land conversion and of biodiversity loss. Of the world’s approximately five billion hectares (12 billion acres) of agricultural land, 68% is used for livestock."
Don't get me wrong in any of this, I eat meat. I just couldn't let something some obviously wrong go by without saying something.
"(not seeing the slaughter also helps, I think if a few more kids saw an animal being killed it would make a big difference)"
Maybe yes and maybe no. Once upon a time meat didn't come all nicely packaged from the supermarket. You or some one you knew went out and killed an animal and dragged its still bleeding body back home to be skinned and then cooked.
I also doubt many of the 4-H (and like program) kids that raise animals for slaughter become vegetarians or vegans as these programs wouldn't last very long if that were the case.
Then again, people are kept so distant from their food production nowadays that all of a sudden seeing an animal slaughtered after a lifetime of getting ones meat wrapped in plastic might shock a lot of people into not eating meat.
"How many of the tallied "cord-cutters" in these figures are like me? Especially younger people, who increasingly see TV as unnecessary, and who are increasingly strapped for cash they are unlikely to waste even starting up service for an unnecessary entertainment package when they could just as well do without."
What other reason for cord cutting is there?
This stuff is all billed on a monthly basis. Watching a season of any TV show in a full month hardly qualifies as binge watching
You're right, they don't define what they mean by productivity and that is exactly what the parent and I are on about.
"But as I've tipped my hand, I think the keywords "unmitigated success" tells us which of the above two scenarios the owners/managers think they're in. "
I dunno, I've heard lots of "success" stories that turn out to be much less so once the numbers are crunched. I find it awfully suspect that they provide a bunch of data detailing how happy their employees are (which is a "no duh" conclusion, they have more free time which usually makes people happy) but when it comes the most crucial part, did the work get done, they get super vague.
Don't get me wrong, it is possible they got 5 says worth of work into 4 which would be potentially good news for all of us 5 days a week folks, especially if it holds true crossing over to other fields. I just find what they are presenting to the public as very suspect given what they are leaving out.
Maybe try reading what you posted? That in no way, shape, or form says "employees did 5 days of work in 4".
If their productivity went up 2% then they are still "performing better in their jobs" but are certainly not making up for the missed day. As the parent states, without actual productivity data you can't really call this experiment a success.
"Syria wasn't an adversary of America."
I'm not trying to insult you here but you're either being willfully ignorant or you don't know your modern Middle Eastern history very well. Syria has indeed been an adversarial nation to the US for decades. Russia's naval base in Syria was built by the Soviets in the early 70's and cemented them into the Soviet sphere in terms of the global order of the time. The naval base in Syria was essential to the Soviet positioning of it's 5th Operational Squadron in the Mediterranean to counter the US' 6th fleet based out of Italy. This base allowed the Soviets to open up a new potential front in the Mediterranean in the event war broke out between them and the West.
Syria also quickly found common ground with Iran following the 79' revolution and built up an alliance from there. Much of the common ground revolved around them being antagonistic to US interests and allies with neither country recognizing (staunch US ally) Israel's statehood and both were enemies of Saddam in Iraq who was also a US ally until he was dumb enough to invade Kuwait.
"Everyone expected her to win, so they wanted to be on the right side. So they became donors."
Taking donations does not in any way, shape, or form equal corruption as long as the donations are legal.
After that you ramble into conspiracy nonsense and I now have a sense of who I am talking to (something I was suspecting after watching that youtube video with the Brit swearing like he's 13 and trying to fool everyone into thinking he's an adult with adult opinions). Hillary was not going to "open the flood gates" to illegal immigrants and there is no hard evidence of such plans. Furthermore, doing this would have been political suicide for the Democratic party as a whole and for her as well as native voters would have fled the party in mass.
No where does that say that they did 5 days worth of work in 4 and they are incredibly vague about the efficiency claims they allude to.
from TFS:
" ...trialled a four-day working week over March and April, working four, eight-hour days but getting paid for five."
No, they are not working the same number of hours in a week.
No, North America and South America are continents.
"America" is widely accepted shorthand for "United States of America".
Or we Americans might increasingly seek to identify ourselves by healthier traits than what we do to pay the bills. After all, most people don't work a job because they want to work a job (even if they like their job), they do so because it's a necessity for having what they need and/or want and doing what they want to do with their lives.
"I am as cynical as they come but how is this a failed experiment if you lose nothing but have happier employees?"
You're assuming they got 5 days of work done in 4 which I don't see written anywhere in the summary or in the linked to Guardian article. If they did do this then you're correct but what the parent is getting at is that if productivity didn't rise enough to make up for the missed day or at least come close to that then this experiment might be considered a failure.
"It's all backed up with references"
References are certainly nice but they don't make something true. I'm sure if I cherry picked the right references I could "prove" that the Nazi's won WWII.
"and what's more, it makes sense"
No it doesn't at all. The Clinton foundation conspiracy theories all rely on the foolish assumption that the Clinton's have some how managed to consolidate a completely unprecedented amount of political power under themselves, meanwhile Hillary can't even carry Pennsylvania in a presidential election against a reality TV star and is now largely irrelevant in the context of politics.
"What's the amazing prize that we win in Syria? Why's it so damn important?"
The most obvious answer to your question is not some conspiracy about the Clinton Foundation and a lame duck plan for a pipeline that barely stood a chance in hell of being adopted. It's that Syria has been an adversary of the US since the Clinton's were children and is allied to even more significant adversaries of the US (Russia's only Mediterranean Naval base is in Syria for instance). The US has a long history of using turmoil in country's we're not fond of as an excuse for sponsoring regime change and have funded all sorts of unsavory groups to do so over the years. We literally just did this in Libya only a few years ago and there have been no plans for pipelines through that country that I've ever heard of.
Funny, I find complaints about slashdot content tiring. The exact same ones have been voiced over and over again for the last two decades.
"I am outside US, I am sick of comment section filled with right vs left."
Not to be rude but slashdot editors have stated multiple times over the years that this is a US based site and therefor don't care about complaints about it being US-centric .
You might as well complain about The Guardian covering too much British news,
Finally watched your video link. You watch this garbage? Sure, the gus has a British accent which sounds intellectual to many of us Americans but he drops the word "fuck" like a 13 year old trying to prove something. I couldn't take this guy seriously even if what he was saying wasn't rubbish.
"The Syrian civil war? We're involved in that because before the Syrian civil war, two pipelines were proposed..."
Nice lengthy conspiracy theory but Syria was regarded as a country antagonistic to the US for decades prior to the planning of these pipelines. The much simpler and more logical answer is the US saw the turmoil happening in Syria as an opportunity to get rid of an ally of two of our most significant adversaries, Russia and Iran.
This Clinton Foundation shit just sounds ludicrous. I mean, if Hillary and the Clinton foundation are such puppet masters how did she lose an election to a hack like Trump?
We spend 2.5 times more per capita on healthcare than the Brits do https://www.pbs.org/newshour/h...
I sure as hell hope our wait times are less than their's.
Considering how much more we spend than any other country on healthcare we really don't get that much back in return.
"There is no such thing as a shortage, or a surplus. Those two things only exist within a price point, at a specific point in time."
So there's no such thing as a shortage or a surplus except when there's a shortage or a surplus?
That's just.... I don't know what to say to that...
Never mind that now there are actually plenty of good reasons for Americans to not like Russia. From interfering in our presidential election, to invading a European country for seaking to align with the West, to engaging directly in cyber warfare against us and our allies.
Go back a few years and there were far fewer reasons to hate the Russians
How about something from Master of Puppets?
Am I? How many people do you think a mass shooter with a musket could kill?
One if he's close and lucky.
Warefare/hunting/personal protection have all changed quite a bit since 1776
How does your post address the comment you quote at all?
Are you saying America has plenty of engineers now because we invented modern computing decades ago? That just doesnt follow at all.
http://bfy.tw/IzVA