Especially if people keep supporting inefficient land usage, such as ethanol production
There is algae-based ethanol, sugarcane-based ethanol, corn-based ethanol. Only one of these is inefficient. So don't throw the baby with the bathwater.
and "organic" farming.
Here I agree with you. "Organic" farming should honestly be called Luddite farming.
On the other hand, it destroys topsoil and turns it into an inert medium for hydroponics.
Source?
On the other hand, it decreases the lumber of low-end jobs, since you're using machine cultivation
Ned Ludd, is that you?
Mecanization is awesome for society. Just compare our living standards today with those in 1600. Those people who "lose their jobs to the machines" become able to work in other areas, increasing the production of those areas. The net result is more production for the same effort. This is unambiguosly good.
*Malthus was only wrong about missing the Green Revolution. However, the amount of food extractable from any given acre cannot continue to increase forever. There is still an upper limit ahead.
The food production has space to grow tremendously, and the UN predicts the global population to reach a peak of 10B in 2100.
So the population will increase by onlye 40% (then start falling), and we have 88 years to plan for it.
In other words, global "overpopulation" is a complete non-issue.
Why? Interstate and international commerce increase efficiency, due to better division of labor (and due to regions with good climate/soil for producing crop X being able to specialize in it).
The problem is not ethanol production per se, but inneficient corn-based ethanol. Sugarcane-based ethanol is extremely efficient, and its efficience continues to grow.
Today's cultural elite is far more concerned with sexual diversity than with intellectual diversity. Any person with common sense would see that these priorities are upside-down.
This is an obvious fallacy of claiming that these two things are somehow related. They aren't. You don't have to prioritize one to de-prioritize another.
It is not a fallacy. See the "hate speech" legislation proposed around the world, which makes it a crime to say "homosexual acts are sinful". In Brazil, this legislation has already been approved by the lower house. If it is approved by the upper house, then politically incorrect people will face 5 years of prison. The US is relatively safe from a legal standpoint because of the First Amendment. But in many places in the USA, there is a culture of hatred against orthodox Christians. If you want to speak at a university about traditional marriage, you better bring bodyguards.
Also, it's about sexual freedom, not sexual diversity. The latter naturally follows from the former, but it's not a goal.
The homosexual activists are very clearly saying "celebrate diversity". And there are even people who say homosexualism is a good thing to "control overpopulation".
And the homosexualism "debate" is depressing. The cultural elite unilaterally declared traditional morality to be "bigotry", and refuses to even debate the issue.
That's because there is nothing to debate. Your freedom ends where my nose (and my dick) begins, and this applies to sexual orientation as well. Traditional morality (traditional to whom?) does not recognize this basic statement of individual freedom, and insists that private matters between two consenting adults are somehow of anyone else's business - to the point of suggesting criminalizing it. There's no debating that this is bigotry, a textbook definition of it in fact.
Today's "liberals" are pushing "anti-discrimination" legislation that would force adoption agencies to hand children to same-sex pairs, would force people to collaborate with same-sex union ceremonies, would force kindergarten schools to accept a teacher who dresses as a drag and calls himself "Cindy Butterfly".
In the UK, "same-sex marriage" has not even been legalized yet, and they have already closed down every Catholic adoption agency in the country for "discrimination".
It is not about the right to perform homosexual acts in the privacy of one's home; it is about shoveling homosexualism down everyone's throat.
In the "liberal" world, everything that is not forbidden is mandatory - lest you be judged guilty of "discrimination". I advance for you two truly radical ideas: 1) Not everything which is legal should be mandatory, so people would be able to choose. 2) Ideas should be openly debated without violence and hatred.
I don't have a problem with the changes, but I do have a problem with these changes getting shoved down everyone's throat without proper support to revert to a classic look. A lot of the 'core' features that are being added, could simply be mods on top of the existing desktop instead of the buggy restructuring that's currently going on.
AFAIK, gnome-panel has continued to be available. Why all the complaining?
Last I checked, most non-evangelical Protestants believe in Jesus, too.
Many "Liberal Protestants" believe in a radical division between the "historical Jesus" and the "Jesus of Faith"
Today's "PC police" has a problem with more conservative denominations, because the social policies of those denominations often directly conflict with the modern tolerant society. If you engage in e.g. gay bashing, why be all offended when someone calls you a bigot?
Today's cultural elite is far more concerned with sexual diversity than with intellectual diversity. Any person with common sense would see that these priorities are upside-down.
And the homosexualism "debate" is depressing. The cultural elite unilaterally declared traditional morality to be "bigotry", and refuses to even debate the issue.
I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, but in what sense the Manhattan Declaration is specific to Orthodox Christianity?
I am using "orthodox" in the sense of "right teaching"; I was not referring to the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Today's PC Police only accepts "Christianity" in its "Liberal Protestant" form; all faithful Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical Protestants are considered "fundamentalists".
And in fact, the "Liberal Protestants" cannot even be reasonably considered Christians. Once you stop believing in Jesus, you might as well admit you are not Christian and stop going to church. Which is, in fact, why the membership of Liberal Protestantism is collapsing.
The freedom of religion is balanced with other rights.
On the case of Jewish circumcision, the family's freedom of religion is more important than the baby's "right" of not being circumcised (remember circumcision is, in fact, good for health, as US doctors say).
If, on the other hand, a Muslim demands the "right" to murder an apostate, then the right to life is immensely more important than the Mulsim's freedom of religion (not to mention the apostate's freedom of religion).
Interesting. Imposing a severe carbon tax on America could actually _increase_ global emissions. Unintended consequences.
It's a valid point, but it's also not particularly difficult to avoid those consequences. Simply apply a carbon tax to imported goods as well. Get it right and not only would a carbon tax work to reduce emissions, it would also work to increase domestic manufacturing.
How do you measure carbon emissions in foreign countries? How do you tax it without breaking WTO rules?
Hold still, I have to place the leech in just the right spot to suck the evil spirit out.
Who said that leeches were ever intended for sucking "evil spirits"?
You seem to believe in a caricature of the Middle Ages; like those people who think learned Europeans affirmed the Earth to be flat (this never happened).
Maybe now Canonical will finally recommend 64-bit.
How is the web site supposed to know whether the computer on which the install disc will be run supports 64-bit? If it suggests 64-bit by default, people will complain that the install disc does not boot and that they wasted 700 MB of their monthly cap.
I think that installing and administering a Linux distribution - even one as easy as Ubuntu - is much more difficult than finding out if your PC supports 64-bit. So if the user is smart enough to switch to Ubuntu, he is smart enough to determine whether his computer supports 64-bit.
Maybe now Canonical will finally recommend 64-bit. Not only because of this, but also because Ubuntu 12.10 uses Unity3D over LLVMpipe on computers without hardware 3D, and LLVMpipe is much more efficient on AMD64.
Going slightly off-topic, can Intel and AMD start deprecating i386, to save transistors? They could do it on stages. First, release CPUs where half of the cores implement i386 on microcode, and the other half implement i386 in full speed; then, release CPUs where half of the cores implement i386 in microcode, and the other half do not implement i386 at all; then, get rid of i386.
Developed world emissions have leveled off while developing world emissions continue to grow rapidly, and developing nations have no interest in accepting economic constraints to change that dynamic. In this context, the primary effect of unilateral action by the U.S. to impose costs on its own emissions will be to shift industrial activity overseas to nations whose industrial processes are more emissions-intensive and less environmentally friendly. That result may make environmentalists feel better, but it will not better the environment.
Interesting. Imposing a severe carbon tax on America could actually _increase_ global emissions. Unintended consequences.
The biggest value for Ubuntu/Canonical is the user base. Make them angry to loose both them and your value.
Among my friends, they generally like or at least tolerate Unity. In the Ubuntu Software Center, the most recent (later than March 2012) reviews average 4 star. I, personally, like it very much. It saves screen real-state and: 1) Provides direct buttons for all the programs I commonly use 2) For other programs, I just hit Super and type the first letters of the program name
It is perfectly convenient.
I think the Slashdot anti-Unity hate is a remnant of the early days of Unity, when it was allegedly not baked enough.
Slashdot Mirror
There is algae-based ethanol, sugarcane-based ethanol, corn-based ethanol. Only one of these is inefficient.
So don't throw the baby with the bathwater.
Here I agree with you. "Organic" farming should honestly be called Luddite farming.
Source?
Ned Ludd, is that you?
Mecanization is awesome for society. Just compare our living standards today with those in 1600.
Those people who "lose their jobs to the machines" become able to work in other areas, increasing the production of those areas. The net result is more production for the same effort. This is unambiguosly good.
The food production has space to grow tremendously, and the UN predicts the global population to reach a peak of 10B in 2100.
So the population will increase by onlye 40% (then start falling), and we have 88 years to plan for it.
In other words, global "overpopulation" is a complete non-issue.
Why? Interstate and international commerce increase efficiency, due to better division of labor (and due to regions with good climate/soil for producing crop X being able to specialize in it).
The problem is not ethanol production per se, but inneficient corn-based ethanol.
Sugarcane-based ethanol is extremely efficient, and its efficience continues to grow.
Now I see that you answered it elsewhere. Please ignore the parent.
How exactly?
It is not a fallacy. See the "hate speech" legislation proposed around the world, which makes it a crime to say "homosexual acts are sinful". In Brazil, this legislation has already been approved by the lower house. If it is approved by the upper house, then politically incorrect people will face 5 years of prison. The US is relatively safe from a legal standpoint because of the First Amendment. But in many places in the USA, there is a culture of hatred against orthodox Christians. If you want to speak at a university about traditional marriage, you better bring bodyguards.
The homosexual activists are very clearly saying "celebrate diversity". And there are even people who say homosexualism is a good thing to "control overpopulation".
Today's "liberals" are pushing "anti-discrimination" legislation that would force adoption agencies to hand children to same-sex pairs, would force people to collaborate with same-sex union ceremonies, would force kindergarten schools to accept a teacher who dresses as a drag and calls himself "Cindy Butterfly".
In the UK, "same-sex marriage" has not even been legalized yet, and they have already closed down every Catholic adoption agency in the country for "discrimination".
For one small example: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/photographers-guilty-of-discrimination-for-refusing-to-shoot-same-sex-weddi
It is not about the right to perform homosexual acts in the privacy of one's home; it is about shoveling homosexualism down everyone's throat.
In the "liberal" world, everything that is not forbidden is mandatory - lest you be judged guilty of "discrimination". I advance for you two truly radical ideas:
1) Not everything which is legal should be mandatory, so people would be able to choose.
2) Ideas should be openly debated without violence and hatred.
I apologize in advance for my ignorance.
What does MATE do that regular gnome-panel (gnome-classic) doesn't?
I like Ubuntu + Unity very much.
And Ubuntu is more secure, has less malware, and is open. It is better than Windows.
AFAIK, gnome-panel has continued to be available. Why all the complaining?
Many "Liberal Protestants" believe in a radical division between the "historical Jesus" and the "Jesus of Faith"
Today's cultural elite is far more concerned with sexual diversity than with intellectual diversity. Any person with common sense would see that these priorities are upside-down.
And the homosexualism "debate" is depressing. The cultural elite unilaterally declared traditional morality to be "bigotry", and refuses to even debate the issue.
I am using "orthodox" in the sense of "right teaching"; I was not referring to the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Today's PC Police only accepts "Christianity" in its "Liberal Protestant" form; all faithful Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical Protestants are considered "fundamentalists".
And in fact, the "Liberal Protestants" cannot even be reasonably considered Christians. Once you stop believing in Jesus, you might as well admit you are not Christian and stop going to church. Which is, in fact, why the membership of Liberal Protestantism is collapsing.
The freedom of religion is balanced with other rights.
On the case of Jewish circumcision, the family's freedom of religion is more important than the baby's "right" of not being circumcised (remember circumcision is, in fact, good for health, as US doctors say).
If, on the other hand, a Muslim demands the "right" to murder an apostate, then the right to life is immensely more important than the Mulsim's freedom of religion (not to mention the apostate's freedom of religion).
This has been understood long ago.
Thank you very much for your principles.
We need more people like this: people who respect the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment.
How do you measure carbon emissions in foreign countries? How do you tax it without breaking WTO rules?
See http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-movement/latest-updates/10-12-23/Apple_Says_No_to_Manhattan_Declaration_App_2_0-1562643600.aspx
So you are arguing that he is not stupid, just evil. Either way, the UK taxpayer is defrauded.
Until someone stops their real medicine because he trusts homeopathy. Then his condition will become far worse and the cost will explode.
Who said that leeches were ever intended for sucking "evil spirits"?
You seem to believe in a caricature of the Middle Ages; like those people who think learned Europeans affirmed the Earth to be flat (this never happened).
If you hate Gnome 3, it is better to switch to XFCE, or LXDE, or KDE than to cling to an obsolete OS.
I think that installing and administering a Linux distribution - even one as easy as Ubuntu - is much more difficult than finding out if your PC supports 64-bit.
So if the user is smart enough to switch to Ubuntu, he is smart enough to determine whether his computer supports 64-bit.
Maybe now Canonical will finally recommend 64-bit. Not only because of this, but also because Ubuntu 12.10 uses Unity3D over LLVMpipe on computers without hardware 3D, and LLVMpipe is much more efficient on AMD64.
Going slightly off-topic, can Intel and AMD start deprecating i386, to save transistors? They could do it on stages.
First, release CPUs where half of the cores implement i386 on microcode, and the other half implement i386 in full speed; then, release CPUs where half of the cores implement i386 in microcode, and the other half do not implement i386 at all; then, get rid of i386.
Interesting. Imposing a severe carbon tax on America could actually _increase_ global emissions. Unintended consequences.
Among my friends, they generally like or at least tolerate Unity. In the Ubuntu Software Center, the most recent (later than March 2012) reviews average 4 star.
I, personally, like it very much. It saves screen real-state and:
1) Provides direct buttons for all the programs I commonly use
2) For other programs, I just hit Super and type the first letters of the program name
It is perfectly convenient.
I think the Slashdot anti-Unity hate is a remnant of the early days of Unity, when it was allegedly not baked enough.