Is that over the price of doing the surgery? Because from what I could find, it's in the 2-3k range; so if you have to pay $2000 to save $313, that might not be the best idea.
The Nature article makes it clear:
But the cumulative benefits can add up. An analysis published last week by researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, found that the cost of performing circumcisions and treating complications would be tiny in comparison to the savings from the resulting lower rates of HIV, HPV, herpes and urinary tract infections, as well as from lower rates of bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis in women5. Each circumcision that is not performed costs the US health-care system US$313, the researchers estimate.
So let's cure that problem that same way we lop off penis tips. That's right. Lop off the breast buds for female infants, so they never need fear getting breast cancer.
Not remotely comparable. The breasts perform a major bodily function (feeding babies). They are also psychologically important - some women who get their breasts removed feel much less "woman".
Recent attempts to find medical justification for its existence are both new and almost laughable
So are the pediatricians scientists or not? When conservatives doubt scientists, they are called anti-science.
Why not promote mastectomies at puberty for girls to avoid the 1 in 7 chance of getting breast cancer during their lifetime?
Oh please. Not remotely comparable.
If your STD prevention strategy consists of promoting circumcision
Straw man. No one said that the STD prevention strategy should consist solely of circumcision.
You really want your baby circumcised? Wait until he's 18, and give him the choice.
You can advocate that through your free speech, but please don't try to make it a law. The first Amendment protects free exercise of religion; so there would need to be a compelling interest to justify restricting it; and since pediatricians say that t is actually beneficial, the rights of the Jews shall be respected.
When BBCwatcher said "Yes, you could do that.", he was clearly agreeing with the AC. Besides, the AC was talking about running an OS install from L3 cache. BBCwatcher said you could run multiple images. And sure as Hell, multiple images of a typical enterprise OS install do not fit into 48MB.
The test of overpopulation is simply whether natural resource consumption outpaces natural resource renewal.
See [1]. And remember that, if prices of raw materials go up, then 1) It becomes profitable to increase recycling 2) It becomes profitable to mine in places where it was previously unprofitable (in the long term, this will include extra-terrestrial bodies) 3) It becomes profitable to find a substitute raw material
Our seeming prosperity is not the triumph of technology; it's primarily a loan that our kids will be obliged, and unable, to repay.
Au contraire! Humans are not animals who simply "exploit" the environment. We are producers. This includes production of services and knowledge. A rising population means more scientists, more philosophers, mathematicians, priests, musicians, engineers, writers, artists and more.
To add to this, the Sandy Bridge has an L1 latency of 4 or 5 cycles
Wow, I thought L1 cache was much faster. Thank God there are 16 registers. But it looks that passing arguments in the stack is moderately expensive for a small function. Am I right?
That's not a fact, that's an assumption. You assume there is an innate difference between men and women, as opposed to a massive culture gap which can be ascribed to historical factors.
Not only what I say is common sense, but it matches what happens in other closely-related mammals. And since feminists are the ones criticizing society, and proposing new laws, it is they who should prove us guilty. In other words: it is not we (the common-sense people) who have to prove that women and men are different and complementary (regarding characteristics such as aggressiveness, career ambition, ability of communication, desire and ability to care for small children, etc.); it is feminists who need to prove they are the same and redundant.
Also, your hand waving fails to explain why there is a pay gap after controlling for confounding factors (which include working hours, career history, and the rest).
Yes, I did read your post. You talked about a bunch of technologies (solar, wind) that cannot currently provide more than a fraction of the energy we need.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity. Solar could reach residential grid parity by 2015, and industrial grid parity by 2020. Wind will reach grid parity by 2025. This _without subsidies_. With a little government help, the process will be quicker. And even fossil fuel plants can be made more efficient, and can be combined with carbon sequestration.
By the way, large-scale carbon sequestration is not as hard as it seems. I believe one cheap possibility would be to grow a forest, then cut the trees, turn them into coal, then bury in a place where the carbon will not be released. Plant the forest again, rinse and repeat.
I repeat: many times before (ozone layer hole, water wars, peak oil, Y2K bug) the Apocalypse had been predicted; what really happened is that the problems were solved with a pretty small impact to the economy. Why would this time be different?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 12 times, shame on me.
Would it be fair to say, then, that you consider a precondition to overpopulation to be no wasted food, and no corrupt government?
No, I said
If there were not enough food to feed everyone, and food prices continued to systematically rise. And if the high food prices were caused by a shortage of land or raw materials. In that case, we could maybe say there is overpopulation.
Regarding food wasting, there is a difference between "we waste too much food: 1/3" and "we should waste absolutely 0% of food". I just expect the food wastage to be reasonable; 1/3 is way too high.
I am having a hard time imagining how, physiologically, the human voice mechanism could be capable of producing a vibration at such a frequency. Frankly it sounds like bullshit to me.
This looks absurd to me too. I know nothing of anatomy, but I think the vocal chords work like strings.
Can you imagine a string vibrating at 0.189Hz? That is 5.3 seconds per period! Until Guinness verifies it, and be open about how they verified it, I am skeptical.
"Overpopulation is a myth. There is no global overpopulation"
If there were global overpopulation, what would it look like?
If there were not enough food to feed everyone, and food prices continued to systematically rise. And if the high food prices were caused by a shortage of land or raw materials. In that case, we could maybe say there is overpopulation.
However, today, we have much more than enough food to feed everyone. In fact, we throw away 1/3 of our food. And food production per capita does only rise.
Hunger is caused by corrupt governments and violent guerrillas.
You mean like Google's BS patent application for a notification system despite the fact it's a butt ton of prior art on the top three desktop operating systems?
They all patent bullshit because the system allows it. So you can't complain that one company is doing something they all do. The system needs fixing.
Apple, like Microsoft, is essentially making profit out of other people's work. This is revolting. I have never seen Google do that.
Now, you can claim that Apple and Microsoft are not intrinsically evil, they are just too big and powerful (which enables them to be evil, and, through the fiduciary duty, almost ensures that they _will be_ evil). I doesn't matter. They are sill two companies worth boycotting.
Yeah, there are lots of misathopists out there. Don't let them get you down -- or stop you from thinking about solutions to our problems. I make fun of them myself.
True. The media is sensationalist and loves man-bites-dog stories. As a side note, I believe that reading too much news causes pessimism, despair, melancholy and depression.
As a side note, Ehrlich isn't the misantropist that he is made out to be. He wrote a section of a book on what/might/ happen if we just let population ballon. He reasoned that, at some stage, action on population growth would be inevitable, and then imaginatively and graphically described what that may look like. It was a warning; however, it is now deliberately portrayed as a presecrption.
According to Wikipedia[1], he did support authoritarian measures to restrict human fertility. And the quote I mentioned in the grand parent showcases his contempt for human beings. Also, his theory is wacky. It is Malthusian fear-mongering revisited. Food production per capita is actually _growing_. Also, see [2] and [3].
AGW is/perceived/ as a rich people's problem; however, the shrill cries of economic Armageddon -- ironically by those who decry "alarmism"
Some environmentalist alarmists have actually proposed crippling the economy to mandate zero economic growth for twenty years. Some calculate the carbon impact of an African baby, and start promoting abortion. Some wackos even promote degrowth . Yes, you heard that right. Intentional economic contraction. Many use environmentalism to express their misanthropy. One of the world's most famous misanthropes, Paul R. Ehrlich, speaks of his contempt for human beings:
“People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses People, people, people, people”
So yes, if we let these people take over, it will be a humanitarian catastrophe.
*Note: I do not deny AGW, and I support research into solar, wind, next-generation nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, efficient biofuels, and carbon sequestering. I can even accept a carbon tax. I am just saying that there is a difference between serious engineers who study the environment, and the misanthrope loonies.
You're downplaying dangers that are or were legitimate.
Y2K was mostly fixed due to a massive effort from the software industry. The ozone layer and acid rain have been significantly reduced by legislation.
Famines may become reality as climate change makes historically arable lands unfarmable. I suspect instead of undergoing a global famine, we'll compensate in various ways, such as eating less meat and localizing hardship via market mechanisms. Water scarcity is not yet a serious issue, but it may become one since water consumption has not been reduced.
I think you're doing what a lot of people do. You see the dire predictions but you don't pay that much attention to the time frame attached to them. After having been burned a few times myself I learned better. Yes, some of the predictions are hyperbolic but many of them are proceeding on schedule. The ozone layer, acid rain and Y2K are all things we took action on to mitigate the problem.
I am just saying that, in the end, the problem will be solved with a low to moderate impact on the economy.
This is what happens every time . Y2K, ozone layer hole, acid rain, all were resolved with little impact on the economy. Overpopulation was absolutely a non-issue. Why would AGW be different?
Really, apocalypse is predicted every 5 years. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 12 times, shame on me.
The people saying the Apocalypse is coming on specific dates are loons who have NOTHING to do with the scientists predicting a man-made, dramatic shift in the climate.
So what? Who said I was criticizing scientists? I am criticizing the media, politicians, and environmentalists. But yes, sometimes scientists are alarmists too. They are flawed humans. Scientist overplays the impact of his research and asks for more grant money. Film at 11.
But you know all that. You're just using a cynical, insulting debating tactic to shift the blame to the people trying to prevent the problem, and away from those who are making it worse.
Cheap ad hominem.
In short: AGW is one more environmental problem that we face, and in the end it will be overcome with a low to moderate impact to the economy, just like all the others. There will be no end of civilization, no mass famines, no apocalypse.
Slashdot Mirror
First post!
It makes no sense to ignore economics here. The whole question is about whether we can produce enough to feed ourselves in the long term.
The Nature article makes it clear:
Next time, please read before posting!
Straw man.
But it is a very different, much more drastic procedure. Not comparable.
Not remotely comparable. The breasts perform a major bodily function (feeding babies). They are also psychologically important - some women who get their breasts removed feel much less "woman".
Circumcision is not even similar to that.
So are the pediatricians scientists or not? When conservatives doubt scientists, they are called anti-science.
Oh please. Not remotely comparable.
Straw man. No one said that the STD prevention strategy should consist solely of circumcision.
You can advocate that through your free speech, but please don't try to make it a law. The first Amendment protects free exercise of religion; so there would need to be a compelling interest to justify restricting it; and since pediatricians say that t is actually beneficial, the rights of the Jews shall be respected.
When conservatives make similar claims about AGW, they are called "anti-science".
I call both sides to start trusting science, even when it is inconvenient.
You don't even try to make sense.
Please go troll somewhere else.
And by the way, my Karma is good.
When BBCwatcher said "Yes, you could do that.", he was clearly agreeing with the AC.
Besides, the AC was talking about running an OS install from L3 cache. BBCwatcher said you could run multiple images.
And sure as Hell, multiple images of a typical enterprise OS install do not fit into 48MB.
See [1]. And remember that, if prices of raw materials go up, then
1) It becomes profitable to increase recycling
2) It becomes profitable to mine in places where it was previously
unprofitable (in the long term, this will include extra-terrestrial
bodies)
3) It becomes profitable to find a substitute raw material
Au contraire! Humans are not animals who simply "exploit" the
environment. We are producers. This includes production of
services and knowledge. A rising population means more scientists,
more philosophers, mathematicians, priests, musicians, engineers,
writers, artists and more.
Those who have large families help the future.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager
Wow, I thought L1 cache was much faster. Thank God there are 16 registers.
But it looks that passing arguments in the stack is moderately expensive for a small function. Am I right?
Wrong. See http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3078075&cid=41151983
MODS: mod it down until it is at score 1 (no need to go to -1 and burn the guy's Karma).
And to jthill: nothing personal.
Wrong. See http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3078075&cid=41151983
MODS: mod it down until it is at score 1 (no need to go to -1 and burn the guy's Karma).
And to BBC Watcher: nothing personal.
Not only what I say is common sense, but it matches what happens in other closely-related mammals. And since feminists are the ones criticizing society, and proposing new laws, it is they who should prove us guilty. In other words: it is not we (the common-sense people) who have to prove that women and men are different and complementary (regarding characteristics such as aggressiveness, career ambition, ability of communication, desire and ability to care for small children, etc.); it is feminists who need to prove they are the same and redundant.
Show links to multiple relevant studies.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity.
Solar could reach residential grid parity by 2015, and industrial grid parity by 2020. Wind will reach grid parity by 2025. This _without subsidies_.
With a little government help, the process will be quicker.
And even fossil fuel plants can be made more efficient, and can be combined with carbon sequestration.
By the way, large-scale carbon sequestration is not as hard as it seems. I believe one cheap possibility would be to grow a forest, then cut the trees, turn them into coal, then bury in a place where the carbon will not be released. Plant the forest again, rinse and repeat.
I repeat: many times before (ozone layer hole, water wars, peak oil, Y2K bug) the Apocalypse had been predicted; what really happened is that the problems were solved with a pretty small impact to the economy. Why would this time be different?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 12 times, shame on me.
No, I said
It is hard to claim "overpopulation" when the food production per capita keeps going up. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Food_production_per_capita_1961-2005.png
Regarding food wasting, there is a difference between "we waste too much food: 1/3" and "we should waste absolutely 0% of food".
I just expect the food wastage to be reasonable; 1/3 is way too high.
This looks absurd to me too. I know nothing of anatomy, but I think the vocal chords work like strings.
Can you imagine a string vibrating at 0.189Hz? That is 5.3 seconds per period! Until Guinness verifies it, and be open about how they verified it, I am skeptical.
If there were not enough food to feed everyone, and food prices continued to systematically rise. And if the high food prices were caused by a shortage of land or raw materials. In that case, we could maybe say there is overpopulation.
However, today, we have much more than enough food to feed everyone. In fact, we throw away 1/3 of our food. And food production per capita does only rise.
Hunger is caused by corrupt governments and violent guerrillas.
Apple, like Microsoft, is essentially making profit out of other people's work. This is revolting.
I have never seen Google do that.
Now, you can claim that Apple and Microsoft are not intrinsically evil, they are just too big and powerful (which enables them to be evil, and, through the fiduciary duty, almost ensures that they _will be_ evil). I doesn't matter. They are sill two companies worth boycotting.
True. The media is sensationalist and loves man-bites-dog stories.
As a side note, I believe that reading too much news causes pessimism, despair, melancholy and depression.
According to Wikipedia[1], he did support authoritarian measures to restrict human fertility. And the quote I mentioned in the grand parent showcases his contempt for human beings. Also, his theory is wacky. It is Malthusian fear-mongering revisited. Food production per capita is actually _growing_. Also, see [2] and [3].
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bomb and, in particular, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bomb#cite_note-10
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager
3. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3073583&cid=41135697
Some environmentalist alarmists have actually proposed crippling the economy to mandate zero economic growth for twenty years.
Some calculate the carbon impact of an African baby, and start promoting abortion.
Some wackos even promote degrowth . Yes, you heard that right. Intentional economic contraction.
Many use environmentalism to express their misanthropy. One of the world's most famous misanthropes, Paul R. Ehrlich, speaks of his contempt for human beings:
So yes, if we let these people take over, it will be a humanitarian catastrophe.
*Note: I do not deny AGW, and I support research into solar, wind, next-generation nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, efficient biofuels, and carbon sequestering. I can even accept a carbon tax. I am just saying that there is a difference between serious engineers who study the environment, and the misanthrope loonies.
I should have quoted the parent and the grandparent.
This Slashdot story, by itself, is not alarmist. I was responding to the parent and grandparent, who are alarmists as Hell.
Slashdot should allow adding additional text to posts! It would greatly enhance the discussion.
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3073583&cid=41135845
I am just saying that, in the end, the problem will be solved with a low to moderate impact on the economy.
This is what happens every time . Y2K, ozone layer hole, acid rain, all were resolved with little impact on the economy. Overpopulation was absolutely a non-issue. Why would AGW be different?
Really, apocalypse is predicted every 5 years. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 12 times, shame on me.
I did NOT deny they were real problems. I denied that they were catastrophic (as the media played at the time). Besides, have you even read the link I cited?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot
So what? Who said I was criticizing scientists? I am criticizing the media, politicians, and environmentalists. But yes, sometimes scientists are alarmists too. They are flawed humans.
Scientist overplays the impact of his research and asks for more grant money. Film at 11.
Cheap ad hominem.
In short: AGW is one more environmental problem that we face, and in the end it will be overcome with a low to moderate impact to the economy, just like all the others. There will be no end of civilization, no mass famines, no apocalypse.