It esentially means that if you model your product as a normal curve representing rate of failure, you need to aim for six standard deviations away from the mean failure rate. That figures out to be 3.4 per million which is a fraction of 18 per million. Believe it or not, there are many companies out there that consider their products to be six sigma.
You're missing the important part of the calculation -- six sigma isn't targeting 3.4 errors per million products, it's targeting 3.4 errors per opportunity. If there are six processes in manufacturing a lego brick, then six sigma would mean less than 3.4 errors per million units for each of those processes -- leading to just over 20 faulty pieces per million.
Now, I don't know how many error opportunities are involved in the manufacturing process for Lego bricks, but without knowing the number of potential failure points, you can't judge whether a production process meets six sigma standards.
Yeah, but I want to call him on it every time until it's common knowledge.
While his motivation may be in line with most of the Slashdot crowd, it sucks having a Jack Thompson on your side -- it damages everyone's credibility.
You can make all the suppositions and theories you want, but that's all they are. suppositions and theories.
The White House has not acknowledged that it eavesdrops on purely domestic telephone conversations, yet it has been widely reported that it did.
He can do this because we are in a state of declared war. Once we are no longer in a state of war, he can no longer run this program.
Are you kidding me? Did you really drink the kool-aid, or what? We are not in a state of declared war at all, no more than we've been in one since the "War on Drugs" began.
can do things that would be illegal for ordinary civilian law enforcment
I think you need to re-examine the case law in re: civil rights in time of war. SCOTUS has ruled that a state of war does not affect civil liberties.
but isn't the spying program we're talking about calls that original foreignly and only terminate domestically?
No. The program involves surveillance of purely domestic activity as well -- the program is 'limited' to people who are suspected of having contact with foreigners with links to al Qaeda. Once the connection with a foreign person of interest is established, the administration feels that the domestic person is then an OK target for surveillance. The program isn't/wasn't limited to wiretaps -- it also involved field teams doing surveillance, mail sniffing, etc.
Or, they could know that fdiskne1's original post was false. The domestic curveillance program involved wiretaps and other surveillance of people in the US suspected to have had contact with al-Qaeda. It included the eavesdropping of completely domestic calls. Contrary to what you've been led to believe, the international calls were not the only thing monitored.
Easy, the defamation costing him his job which can be proven in court, IN A SEPARATE LAWSUIT, the RIAA is 100% fucked. He's got proof of defamation, left and right, when he's not a part of the infringement lawsuit.
Oh? Has he lost his job? What if the claims of the RIAA are true? What if the son used his comapny's property to infringe on copyright, thereby exposing them to liability? Defamation might not be so easy to prove.
he can take the RIAA for destroying his job, effectively sue them for EVERYTHING they're worth (since they have just cost him everything, it's not an injust or unfair fine for the RIAA to pay)
Oh? Everything == lost income for, say, 40 years? Hardly adds up to billions. And you think it'd be easy to find pro bono representation in a case like this?
slander (since they called his employer)
Do you have a transcript of the conversations? Or even what was discussed, other than what was in those footnotes? Did the RIAA tell the employer that an employee of theirs was a criminal? Or did they say that they were trying to serve him with a subpoena in relation to a pending action? Or did they say that they may have evidence to suggest that there was illegal activity occurring on one of their computers? Who knows. And a defamation judgment is very difficult to prove here in the US.
I don't want to burst your bubble, but his case is not nearly so clean-cut as you seem to think -- particularly since truth is an affirmative defense to defamation (libel|slander) claims. In his case (since he's in the US) the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that the claims are untrue... might be difficult since he would need to supply the very things that he was so desperately trying to hide from the RIAA.
Read the judgement- there's almost no question in my mind- this case was extremely clear cut. On page six, quoted is the Can-SPAM act in which
This chapter supersedes any statute, regulation, or rule of a state or political subdivision of a state that expressly regulates the use of electronic male to send commerical messages...
Oh yeah? What about the use of electronic female? That's not even addressed in the statute, and I suspect that many of us use eletronic female very often.
A lot of this has to do with lung capacity. Leaning forward definitely reduces lung capacity, not sure of reclining. In my experience, though, seeing the conductor over the body of a baritone might be a little difficult when reclining....
It's pretty funny though, that people can disagree without being employed by any of those organizations. I mean really, heaven forbid someone has an opinion different from yours, and points out the problems with your arguments.
And, like a coward, instead of defending your arguments, you just add the posters to your foes list.
Very weak, sir, very weak.
PS. If you check my full post history, I think you'll see that I am very much against the gorilla (intentional mis-spelling) tactics used by the **AA. The reason for some of the comments I've posted today is that you make baseless claims ("outrageous"?) without explaining them in any way -- you appeal to the emotions of the slashdot crowd, without backing them up with any kind of justification. How does a SOP become an outrageous act, particularly when used against someone who has seemingly acted outside the law in their desire to avoid prosecution?
Until you can defend your statements, I think you need to refrain from making them -- or you are no better than the **AA.
Makes a lot of sense. Better adrenergic response when leaning forward, as the adrenergic response is not needed near so much when 'safely' reclined... from a two-bit evolutionary analysis.
I've read it. It kills me. Newt totally twists history to suit his agenda -- and the sad thing is, most Americans are so unaware of US history that they don't know enough to realize he is full of it.
What I don't get, is that he blasts the Federalist movement for the Sedition Act:
Madison and Thomas Jefferson were very sensitive to limitations on free speech because they lived through the Federalist efforts to criminalize political speech that was critical of the government. In response to the Sedition Act, Madison helped author the Virginia legislature's resolution that declared the act unconstitutional and stated that the law "ought to produce universal alarm, because it is leveled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right."
And yet, somehow, Newt comes down on the other side now. Go figure.
In other words, can you please do a study confirming (to my employer, of course) that this 135 degree reclined position does not adversely affect my the bloodflow to the brain, attention span, ability to perform complex mental tasks, etc?
From my anecdotal experience with video games, I can definitely say that my performance is much better when I am leaning forward than when I am reclining -- though this may also have something to do with distance from the monitor, etc.
You're missing the point. Ut's not about the US 'shutting down' the internets, it's about the US providing enough of a disincentive for others to put up content.
I know that the world doesn't depend on the US... but plenty of influential businesses do, as well as many countires in the Western hemisphere. Would an action like that cause the US to become irrelevant in the long run, if the position were maintained? Sure. But the US is far from irrelevant now.
even if it's rather the US who depend on China for imports than China who depends on the US for exports.
Are you kidding me? It's a two-way street, and China is, if anything, more dependent upon our markets than we are on their imports (don't you think Indonesia India Brazil et al would be happy to fill the supply void if anything were to happen to China?)
A major reason China is financing the US's domestic debt is that a collape of the economy here would result in a collapse in demand for their products -- and therefore a collapse of their economy.
Europe does not depend on the US, to begin with, not for exports and not for imports.
Are you stll kidding? Here's some info that directly contradicts what you are saying. The world economy is interdependent, and any drastic action like closing a market anywhere near the size of the US (be it the US, the EU, China, SE Asia, etc) would have drastic effects on the rest of the world, a global economic catastrophe.
I suggest that before you make generalizations like you did in your reply, that you read up on global trade, international relations, and macroeconomics.
Well, aside from the general ridiculousness of his position, my biggest concern is that there are enough Republicans eager for new[1] leadership that he has some credibility.
A brief specific from TFA:
Gingrich sharply criticized campaign finance laws he charged were reducing free speech and doing little to fight attack advertising.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of the fact[2] that campaign finance reform has anything to do with limiting attack advertising. Silly me, I thought it was to prevent undue influence from moneyed interests, and to level the playing field for those candidates not independently wealthy.
[1] by new, I mean new-ish. Recycled from previous failed Congresses, even.
[2] 'Fact' as in intentional misdirection from the true purposes of campaign finance reform.
And finally, where does NG get off complaining about negative campaigning? Gingrich routinely used attack ads in his campaigns, and in campaigns against Clinton.
In NJ one may send it to the place of employment, but it must be marked "for addressee only" or the equivalent. If it's a notice of judgment, then you can serve the employer as well, since they will be the ones ultimately garnishing wages if other attempts to collect fail.
He didn't ask if it was outrageous, he asked if it was unusual.
And given the circumstances, it's not even outrageous -- assuming that the plaintiff's assertions that repeated attempts to deliver the subpoena at the son's stated address failed. If you read the footnotes you linked to, there's some pretty dodgy stuff there about avoiding the subpoena. If true, the plaintiff was fully justified.
Making the summary sound like they contacted the employer out of the blue is sensationalist, misleading, dishonest, and, in fact, outrageous.
Note that I completely disagree with the RIAA's tactics in re: intimidation of targeted suspects. However, your yellow journalism just increases the amount of people who also believe that plenty of people who are against the RIAA are no better then them. FUD, etc.
Because there is no internet outside of the US. Or, in fact, anything. It's all just sea, y'know
And of the countries outside the US, how many have trade agreements with the US? How many are dependent on the US as an export market?
How many are signatories to the WTO treaty?
If you think that the outside world is independent of US political and economic action, that's just as bad as thinking there IS no outside world.
Of course, it's hubris to think that the US can unilaterally enact decisions this big, isn't it? Even when the US chooses to ignore the WTO whenever it suits them, while economically forcing other nations to comply with WTO decisions?
For a lawyer to call someone's employer? It sounds odd, but is it really rare and or unusual?
Not unusual at all, when someone is attempting to send legal documents (such as a notice of judgment or a subpoena) and attempted delivery at the home address has failed. I personally have had notices of judgment served to debtors at their place of employment many, many times.
Not for nothing, but it appears that the son was deliberately avoiding receiving the subpoena (good for him, every attempt at re-delivery is costing the plaintiffs cold, hard cash) -- and if he does this at home, he should expect and deal with the consequences (the subpoena being served to him at work).
The plaintiff's lawyers decided to play tit-for-tat and ask his employer about the possibility of the son's work computer having material potentially relevant to the case.
The lesson is, if you want to play hardball with the MPAA, then you'd better bring your bat, glove, and catcher's mask.
iPod to Eventually Hold All the Video in the World?
Article:Arora said, by 2012, iPods could launch at similar prices to those on sale now and yet be capable of holding a whole year's worth of video releases. Around 10 years down the line that could be expanded, creating iPods that can hold all the music ever sold commercially.Article, II (emphasis mine):
He said: "In 12 years, why not an iPod that can carry any video ever produced?"
Any != all. I get the weird feeling that either he's tossing speculation around (most likely), or there was a part skipped in the article, where Arora discusses distribution methods, and how video content will be just as (or more) available in digital format as music is now.
As to his question of "why not" an iPod that can hold all video ever produced (if that is what he was asking), the answer is that there will be no demand for a personal player with that much storage -- and since it will be more expensive than a smaller-storage device that meets the demand for storage volume, the smaller-storge device will win the pricing/distribution war. In light of this, why bother developing an expensive product with little demand?
I think it's funny (read: sad) that slashdot has such a leftist slant to it. Sadly, when someone makes a comment that outs the truth (see the post I'm commenting on) it gets modded as a 'troll'... interesting.
I'm sure the OP in this thread was modded troll because of the antagonistic way in which it was written, regardless of whether or not it had elements of truth to it. That antagonism is, in fact, trollish behavior, and deserving of a troll mod.
As to your post:
where does the NSTA get its funding
Other companies and NGOs? It's not an either|or choice between taxpayer funding and corporate funding. Never mind the fact that the NSTA is not eligible for government funding. What's more likely is that the companies with interest in seeing this video silenced would shift their funding to another organization. It still boils down to whether principles trump cash, and the answer for NSTA is no.
it's impossible (read: improbable) to get a donation made from a corporation (or an individual) completely selflessly and without any self-interest expected back... except of course in the form of tax dollars
I disagree completely. There does not necessarily have to be any financial interest on the part of the donor -- the self-interest could be the feeling of having 'done good' or the feeling of having met one's debt to society. Yours is a very cynical view (perhaps because your motivation is solely self-interest? not trying to insult you, just to figure out where you got the idea that no one is capable of acting selflessly), and I think it is off-base.
You will notice, if you are honest, that the areas where even the most fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible conflict with modern scientific work are in areas that Christians have an **ethical** objection to the way that life is manipulated or ended or in how things came to be on some level[1]. The environmental movement on the other hand is generally wildly [2] antagonistic to everything from GM foods to many promising alternative energy sources to nanotechnology.
Are you serious?
[1] So it's an ethical objection that causes a lot of the Christian fundamentalists to say the Earth is 6,000 years old, and all animals were created by God as-is? What exactly is the ethical objection, there?
[2] Hogwash. Some environmentalists are diametrically opposed to some areas of research. Most environmentalists are much more temperate in their approach to questionable technologies. Most scientifically educated environmentalists believe that above all, we need to know the implications of our behaviors before we can make an ethical decision on what behaviors are appropriate. This is the obejction to GM foods (where we don't know yet how far-reaching some of the implications are), ditto for nanotech. As to nuclear, I believe you are right about a lot of the environmentalists, who are unaware of current research and programs that are much safer and cleaner than the nuke plants of the 1970s.
At any rate, you totally dismiss the ethics of environmentalism in your post. I, for one, would rather that people followed ethical behavior patterns due to a rational analysis of the merits and demerits of a behavior (such as -- does this behavior run the risk of causing harm to others), than choice ethical behavior patterns based upon the utterances of a few men issued a couple thousand years ago and their modern interpretations (such as, thou shall not have sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex).
Either way, there are zealots on both sides, and it's as much of a mistake to lump garden-variety Christians in with extremist Christian pedagogues as it is to lump typical environmentalists in with extremist environmental pedagogues.
Unlike humans, who can live many per square meter (especially in a city with skyscrapers and such), trees per surface area is a de-facto constant, they can not be put in skyscrapers as they need access to sunlight. So carbon reabsoption is constant per surface area. So carbon exhaust per surface area is what matters. And, in every human city, it's WAY too high.
You're missing the point of concentrated population. What's important is not carbon output per surface area, but total carbon output. Surface area is only important on the reabsorption side. What this actually means is that area not occupied by people (well, their buildings) needs to be maximized -- and this is done by minimizing the area occupied by people.
Total Area = Area(peopled) + Area(unpeopled)
Carbon reabsorption = R * Area(unpeopled)
Carbon exhaust = E * (number of people)
R and C are theoretical constants.
So how does one minimize carbon exhaust? By reducing the number of people, or reducing the carbon output per person (E).
How does one maximize reabsorption? By increasing the reabsorption per unit area (a constant, as you say -- though certain plants are more effective than others) or by increasing the unpeopled area.
Seeing as total area is constant, the only way to increase the unpeopled area is to reduce the peopled area -- by concentrating the people in cities, for example.
What you cannot do is share the keyboard/mouse that allows you to interact with the system - finding videos on YouTube for example.
Why not? Wireless keyboards/mice aren't too expensive. Sure, it's annoying to sit and wait while someone else is searching... no less than someone else channel-surfing, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'll give it a stab, but I'm a bit rusty on the combinatory factorials. Let's see 8!*6!*8!/2!*... blech, screw that, let's count them:
____::::_::::
______::::
_____::::
___::::_::::
That's one.
___::::__::::__::::
_____::::__::::__::::
That's two.
Umm, I think this might take awhile, will you still be online in 15,000 years?
And here's a bunch of random text to get rid of the lameness filter.
Now, I don't know how many error opportunities are involved in the manufacturing process for Lego bricks, but without knowing the number of potential failure points, you can't judge whether a production process meets six sigma standards.
Yeah, but I want to call him on it every time until it's common knowledge.
While his motivation may be in line with most of the Slashdot crowd, it sucks having a Jack Thompson on your side -- it damages everyone's credibility.
The White House has not acknowledged that it eavesdrops on purely domestic telephone conversations, yet it has been widely reported that it did.
Are you kidding me? Did you really drink the kool-aid, or what? We are not in a state of declared war at all, no more than we've been in one since the "War on Drugs" began.
I think you need to re-examine the case law in re: civil rights in time of war. SCOTUS has ruled that a state of war does not affect civil liberties.
Or, they could know that fdiskne1's original post was false. The domestic curveillance program involved wiretaps and other surveillance of people in the US suspected to have had contact with al-Qaeda. It included the eavesdropping of completely domestic calls. Contrary to what you've been led to believe, the international calls were not the only thing monitored.
Oh? Has he lost his job? What if the claims of the RIAA are true? What if the son used his comapny's property to infringe on copyright, thereby exposing them to liability? Defamation might not be so easy to prove.
Oh? Everything == lost income for, say, 40 years? Hardly adds up to billions. And you think it'd be easy to find pro bono representation in a case like this?
Do you have a transcript of the conversations? Or even what was discussed, other than what was in those footnotes? Did the RIAA tell the employer that an employee of theirs was a criminal? Or did they say that they were trying to serve him with a subpoena in relation to a pending action? Or did they say that they may have evidence to suggest that there was illegal activity occurring on one of their computers? Who knows. And a defamation judgment is very difficult to prove here in the US.
I don't want to burst your bubble, but his case is not nearly so clean-cut as you seem to think -- particularly since truth is an affirmative defense to defamation (libel|slander) claims. In his case (since he's in the US) the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that the claims are untrue... might be difficult since he would need to supply the very things that he was so desperately trying to hide from the RIAA.
A lot of this has to do with lung capacity. Leaning forward definitely reduces lung capacity, not sure of reclining. In my experience, though, seeing the conductor over the body of a baritone might be a little difficult when reclining....
It's pretty funny though, that people can disagree without being employed by any of those organizations. I mean really, heaven forbid someone has an opinion different from yours, and points out the problems with your arguments.
And, like a coward, instead of defending your arguments, you just add the posters to your foes list.
Very weak, sir, very weak.
PS. If you check my full post history, I think you'll see that I am very much against the gorilla (intentional mis-spelling) tactics used by the **AA. The reason for some of the comments I've posted today is that you make baseless claims ("outrageous"?) without explaining them in any way -- you appeal to the emotions of the slashdot crowd, without backing them up with any kind of justification. How does a SOP become an outrageous act, particularly when used against someone who has seemingly acted outside the law in their desire to avoid prosecution?
Until you can defend your statements, I think you need to refrain from making them -- or you are no better than the **AA.
Makes a lot of sense. Better adrenergic response when leaning forward, as the adrenergic response is not needed near so much when 'safely' reclined... from a two-bit evolutionary analysis.
Great sig, btw.
What I don't get, is that he blasts the Federalist movement for the Sedition Act:
And yet, somehow, Newt comes down on the other side now. Go figure.
But not necessarily for the task.
In other words, can you please do a study confirming (to my employer, of course) that this 135 degree reclined position does not adversely affect my the bloodflow to the brain, attention span, ability to perform complex mental tasks, etc?
From my anecdotal experience with video games, I can definitely say that my performance is much better when I am leaning forward than when I am reclining -- though this may also have something to do with distance from the monitor, etc.
I know that the world doesn't depend on the US... but plenty of influential businesses do, as well as many countires in the Western hemisphere. Would an action like that cause the US to become irrelevant in the long run, if the position were maintained? Sure. But the US is far from irrelevant now.
Are you kidding me? It's a two-way street, and China is, if anything, more dependent upon our markets than we are on their imports (don't you think Indonesia India Brazil et al would be happy to fill the supply void if anything were to happen to China?)
A major reason China is financing the US's domestic debt is that a collape of the economy here would result in a collapse in demand for their products -- and therefore a collapse of their economy.
Are you stll kidding? Here's some info that directly contradicts what you are saying. The world economy is interdependent, and any drastic action like closing a market anywhere near the size of the US (be it the US, the EU, China, SE Asia, etc) would have drastic effects on the rest of the world, a global economic catastrophe.
I suggest that before you make generalizations like you did in your reply, that you read up on global trade, international relations, and macroeconomics.
A brief specific from TFA:
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of the fact[2] that campaign finance reform has anything to do with limiting attack advertising. Silly me, I thought it was to prevent undue influence from moneyed interests, and to level the playing field for those candidates not independently wealthy.
[1] by new, I mean new-ish. Recycled from previous failed Congresses, even.
[2] 'Fact' as in intentional misdirection from the true purposes of campaign finance reform.
And finally, where does NG get off complaining about negative campaigning? Gingrich routinely used attack ads in his campaigns, and in campaigns against Clinton.
In NJ one may send it to the place of employment, but it must be marked "for addressee only" or the equivalent. If it's a notice of judgment, then you can serve the employer as well, since they will be the ones ultimately garnishing wages if other attempts to collect fail.
Very well put... I had a lot of the same reactions but didn't spell it out half so well.
He didn't ask if it was outrageous, he asked if it was unusual.
And given the circumstances, it's not even outrageous -- assuming that the plaintiff's assertions that repeated attempts to deliver the subpoena at the son's stated address failed. If you read the footnotes you linked to, there's some pretty dodgy stuff there about avoiding the subpoena. If true, the plaintiff was fully justified.
Making the summary sound like they contacted the employer out of the blue is sensationalist, misleading, dishonest, and, in fact, outrageous.
Note that I completely disagree with the RIAA's tactics in re: intimidation of targeted suspects. However, your yellow journalism just increases the amount of people who also believe that plenty of people who are against the RIAA are no better then them. FUD, etc.
How many are signatories to the WTO treaty?
If you think that the outside world is independent of US political and economic action, that's just as bad as thinking there IS no outside world.
Of course, it's hubris to think that the US can unilaterally enact decisions this big, isn't it? Even when the US chooses to ignore the WTO whenever it suits them, while economically forcing other nations to comply with WTO decisions?
Not for nothing, but it appears that the son was deliberately avoiding receiving the subpoena (good for him, every attempt at re-delivery is costing the plaintiffs cold, hard cash) -- and if he does this at home, he should expect and deal with the consequences (the subpoena being served to him at work).
The plaintiff's lawyers decided to play tit-for-tat and ask his employer about the possibility of the son's work computer having material potentially relevant to the case.
The lesson is, if you want to play hardball with the MPAA, then you'd better bring your bat, glove, and catcher's mask.
Article:Arora said, by 2012, iPods could launch at similar prices to those on sale now and yet be capable of holding a whole year's worth of video releases. Around 10 years down the line that could be expanded, creating iPods that can hold all the music ever sold commercially.Article, II (emphasis mine):
Any != all. I get the weird feeling that either he's tossing speculation around (most likely), or there was a part skipped in the article, where Arora discusses distribution methods, and how video content will be just as (or more) available in digital format as music is now.
As to his question of "why not" an iPod that can hold all video ever produced (if that is what he was asking), the answer is that there will be no demand for a personal player with that much storage -- and since it will be more expensive than a smaller-storage device that meets the demand for storage volume, the smaller-storge device will win the pricing/distribution war. In light of this, why bother developing an expensive product with little demand?
I'm sure the OP in this thread was modded troll because of the antagonistic way in which it was written, regardless of whether or not it had elements of truth to it. That antagonism is, in fact, trollish behavior, and deserving of a troll mod.
As to your post:
Other companies and NGOs? It's not an either|or choice between taxpayer funding and corporate funding. Never mind the fact that the NSTA is not eligible for government funding. What's more likely is that the companies with interest in seeing this video silenced would shift their funding to another organization. It still boils down to whether principles trump cash, and the answer for NSTA is no.
I disagree completely. There does not necessarily have to be any financial interest on the part of the donor -- the self-interest could be the feeling of having 'done good' or the feeling of having met one's debt to society. Yours is a very cynical view (perhaps because your motivation is solely self-interest? not trying to insult you, just to figure out where you got the idea that no one is capable of acting selflessly), and I think it is off-base.
[1] So it's an ethical objection that causes a lot of the Christian fundamentalists to say the Earth is 6,000 years old, and all animals were created by God as-is? What exactly is the ethical objection, there?
[2] Hogwash. Some environmentalists are diametrically opposed to some areas of research. Most environmentalists are much more temperate in their approach to questionable technologies. Most scientifically educated environmentalists believe that above all, we need to know the implications of our behaviors before we can make an ethical decision on what behaviors are appropriate. This is the obejction to GM foods (where we don't know yet how far-reaching some of the implications are), ditto for nanotech. As to nuclear, I believe you are right about a lot of the environmentalists, who are unaware of current research and programs that are much safer and cleaner than the nuke plants of the 1970s.
At any rate, you totally dismiss the ethics of environmentalism in your post. I, for one, would rather that people followed ethical behavior patterns due to a rational analysis of the merits and demerits of a behavior (such as -- does this behavior run the risk of causing harm to others), than choice ethical behavior patterns based upon the utterances of a few men issued a couple thousand years ago and their modern interpretations (such as, thou shall not have sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex).
Either way, there are zealots on both sides, and it's as much of a mistake to lump garden-variety Christians in with extremist Christian pedagogues as it is to lump typical environmentalists in with extremist environmental pedagogues.
Total Area = Area(peopled) + Area(unpeopled)
Carbon reabsorption = R * Area(unpeopled)
Carbon exhaust = E * (number of people)
R and C are theoretical constants.
So how does one minimize carbon exhaust? By reducing the number of people, or reducing the carbon output per person (E).
How does one maximize reabsorption? By increasing the reabsorption per unit area (a constant, as you say -- though certain plants are more effective than others) or by increasing the unpeopled area.
Seeing as total area is constant, the only way to increase the unpeopled area is to reduce the peopled area -- by concentrating the people in cities, for example.