I merely suggested the reading and never stated I fully agree with those articles.
But still, the fact is that all efforts to feed hungry people, in Africa and elsewhere, leave only even more hungry people. Obviously many of them insist on mindless breeding even while starving. How would you exactly address this problem humanely?
Don't be put off by the kind of do-gooders who have a heart but no brain. They are in fact the ones who are responsible for creating the whole mess. But just for their edification:
It is well-recognized now that "foreign aid" in the form of shipping food, medicine, etc. to starving populations has done little but exacerbate the problem. As the guy stated (and this is a fact, which has no respect for whether you feel it should be true), those traditional forms of foreign aid did in fact do exactly what he stated. This is nothing more than a real-world example of the old saying, "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime." Except what really happened is a slight modification of that: "Give a man a fish and since he is now healthy he fathers a child he can't feed by himself either..."
It doesn't matter whether you people like that situation or not. It exists. And doing more of the same will just get you more of the same.
Not to sound melodramatic, but this is probably the most terrifying sentiment I've heard on/., and it disturbs me that I'm hearing it more often. The problem is that government-run foreign aid is done in an inefficient/unsustainable manner. You are arguing that because of this, nothing should be done at all. I would argue a different approach to the problem:
You should know that most of the places we are talking about are farming villages and were sustainable until *someone* fucked up their water supply. Manpower is required in order for the village to sustain itself, which requires workers. The easiest way to get new workers is to make babies and raise them, so the argument for eugenics is not only unethical/immoral, it is also economically unproductive. I know you probably don't believe in eugenics, I am just noting it for those who do, but I digress. In many cases, the problem comes down to providing a clean source of water. This is why my church sends engineers, not money, not water bottles, to places like these in order to dig and install wells that produce clean, drinkable water. In 2007, they dug 11 wells in Liberia (sometimes hundreds of feet deep), helping an estimated 8,000 people http://www.adventconspiracy.org/water/2007_projects/ The result has been that the children have stopped dying and these villages can actually prosper. Try as I might, I'm having trouble finding reasons why this was a bad idea, but feel free to educate me.
While this effort happened to be run by a religious organization, I do not believe efforts like this have to be faith based. I am simply saying that there are cheaper and more efficient ways of helping people. It should be the job of governments to find such solutions. Since governments are very good at finding the least efficient ways of solving a problem and there are often not enough short-term profits for private companies to get involved, it seems that a purely altruistic approach can be effective, at least in this case.
I recall that it's the number of connections that matter, not the sheer volume itself. Hence the wrinkles. I don't study neuroscience, but I do watch TV and I think the appropriate response is "Fuck you dolphin! Fuck you whale!"
You can't make most FPSs realistic for the simple reason that they are created for you to die frequently, in order to keep things "exciting". If you want to make a realistic game seem fun, don't use super soldiers as the starting point. For historical reasons, most of those games only allow shooting as the single way to interact with the environment, which is obviously not the case in real life, not even in war. Take Heavy Rain, for instance: story-driven, but player-guided; death is possible, but the game is carefully designed to keep the consequences of your actions interesting. If that's not real enough, you might have to wait awhile before some genius game designer can take a realistic story like the job of a police chief or astronaut and make it interesting. Since most of the big realist developers are stuck on the FPS formula, I'd say it's the indy scene that will have to push the envelope.
I don't think, in this age of unprecedented teenage sloth, it's wise or necessary to cut down the value of sports just to raise up the value of the sciences, computer or otherwise. What we need to really address is "fat kid on a couch, playing X-Box and eating chips, for hours after school" as a standard and acceptable behavior.
Meh, I know at least one great physicist that fit the "fat boy on the couch playing Nintendo" stereotype exactly. Incidentally, he was also a great football player. Personally, I think it's a lot easier to understand the math when you spend a significant amount of time in virtual worlds, and there are a lot of studies that support the notion that kids who play games are especially good at grasping problems of perspective like the phases of the moon, etc.
The truth is, videogames are much better at teaching many physical concepts than what can be taught in a traditional classroom. Kids that spend their time playing www.fold.it are going to make for much better chemists than the generations before. Kids that pour over probability maps in Halo or Team Fortress 2 are going to have a more concrete grasp of wave functions and quantum mechanics. I'd like to see the studios start tackling real-time classical E&M, so that gameplay isn't simply tied to newtonian mechanics and fluid simulations. Just as gaming is the driving force for chip manufactures, it's also pushing the limits of science education. It will be the games industry that redefines education, not teachers, not government, nor the rest of us.
You are correct - abortion and infanticide are completely different concepts and really have nothing to do with each other. Good on ya for noticing the fallacy.
... sensations were produced in it against your will by your assailant, etc., and then trying to talk yourself into the fact that that doesn't mean that you wanted it (as you'll be told by those self-righteous conservative christians that call themselves human).
Out of left field much? WTF does this have to do with Christianity?
Yeah, they're working on longer records using ice cores from the north pole and very old trees. It has to do with the flux of high energy particles correlating well with sunspot number. I remember Harlan Spence at Boston University was working on that. Also, relatively speaking, we know almost everything there is to know about the sun, except for heating in the corona and the exact cause of the sunspot cycle (although they believe the latter is caused by long-term effects of differential rotation).
Looking at the creatures in spore, I think it's clear that the ability to add artistic touches has come a long way. I look forward to seeing the industry following Will Wright's lead.
would be a cheap way to fix a lot of these issues. Limit 3 minutes per speech and to candidates only. Vote on your top speeches. Comments should stay on topic with some moderator support. With a little inginuity, this could go a long way.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be put off by the kind of do-gooders who have a heart but no brain. They are in fact the ones who are responsible for creating the whole mess. But just for their edification: It is well-recognized now that "foreign aid" in the form of shipping food, medicine, etc. to starving populations has done little but exacerbate the problem. As the guy stated (and this is a fact, which has no respect for whether you feel it should be true), those traditional forms of foreign aid did in fact do exactly what he stated. This is nothing more than a real-world example of the old saying, "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime." Except what really happened is a slight modification of that: "Give a man a fish and since he is now healthy he fathers a child he can't feed by himself either..." It doesn't matter whether you people like that situation or not. It exists. And doing more of the same will just get you more of the same.
Not to sound melodramatic, but this is probably the most terrifying sentiment I've heard on /., and it disturbs me that I'm hearing it more often. The problem is that government-run foreign aid is done in an inefficient/unsustainable manner. You are arguing that because of this, nothing should be done at all. I would argue a different approach to the problem:
You should know that most of the places we are talking about are farming villages and were sustainable until *someone* fucked up their water supply. Manpower is required in order for the village to sustain itself, which requires workers. The easiest way to get new workers is to make babies and raise them, so the argument for eugenics is not only unethical/immoral, it is also economically unproductive. I know you probably don't believe in eugenics, I am just noting it for those who do, but I digress. In many cases, the problem comes down to providing a clean source of water. This is why my church sends engineers, not money, not water bottles, to places like these in order to dig and install wells that produce clean, drinkable water. In 2007, they dug 11 wells in Liberia (sometimes hundreds of feet deep), helping an estimated 8,000 people http://www.adventconspiracy.org/water/2007_projects/ The result has been that the children have stopped dying and these villages can actually prosper. Try as I might, I'm having trouble finding reasons why this was a bad idea, but feel free to educate me.
While this effort happened to be run by a religious organization, I do not believe efforts like this have to be faith based. I am simply saying that there are cheaper and more efficient ways of helping people. It should be the job of governments to find such solutions. Since governments are very good at finding the least efficient ways of solving a problem and there are often not enough short-term profits for private companies to get involved, it seems that a purely altruistic approach can be effective, at least in this case.
I recall that it's the number of connections that matter, not the sheer volume itself. Hence the wrinkles. I don't study neuroscience, but I do watch TV and I think the appropriate response is "Fuck you dolphin! Fuck you whale!"
I think you may be looking for Red Dead Redemption's fame and honor system. It's also called Grand Theft Stagecoach.
You can't make most FPSs realistic for the simple reason that they are created for you to die frequently, in order to keep things "exciting". If you want to make a realistic game seem fun, don't use super soldiers as the starting point. For historical reasons, most of those games only allow shooting as the single way to interact with the environment, which is obviously not the case in real life, not even in war. Take Heavy Rain, for instance: story-driven, but player-guided; death is possible, but the game is carefully designed to keep the consequences of your actions interesting. If that's not real enough, you might have to wait awhile before some genius game designer can take a realistic story like the job of a police chief or astronaut and make it interesting. Since most of the big realist developers are stuck on the FPS formula, I'd say it's the indy scene that will have to push the envelope.
I don't think, in this age of unprecedented teenage sloth, it's wise or necessary to cut down the value of sports just to raise up the value of the sciences, computer or otherwise. What we need to really address is "fat kid on a couch, playing X-Box and eating chips, for hours after school" as a standard and acceptable behavior.
Meh, I know at least one great physicist that fit the "fat boy on the couch playing Nintendo" stereotype exactly. Incidentally, he was also a great football player. Personally, I think it's a lot easier to understand the math when you spend a significant amount of time in virtual worlds, and there are a lot of studies that support the notion that kids who play games are especially good at grasping problems of perspective like the phases of the moon, etc. The truth is, videogames are much better at teaching many physical concepts than what can be taught in a traditional classroom. Kids that spend their time playing www.fold.it are going to make for much better chemists than the generations before. Kids that pour over probability maps in Halo or Team Fortress 2 are going to have a more concrete grasp of wave functions and quantum mechanics. I'd like to see the studios start tackling real-time classical E&M, so that gameplay isn't simply tied to newtonian mechanics and fluid simulations. Just as gaming is the driving force for chip manufactures, it's also pushing the limits of science education. It will be the games industry that redefines education, not teachers, not government, nor the rest of us.
You are correct - abortion and infanticide are completely different concepts and really have nothing to do with each other. Good on ya for noticing the fallacy.
... sensations were produced in it against your will by your assailant, etc., and then trying to talk yourself into the fact that that doesn't mean that you wanted it (as you'll be told by those self-righteous conservative christians that call themselves human).
Out of left field much? WTF does this have to do with Christianity?
If only there were some kind of treaty for making these things illegal so that the United States, China, Russia, and India could sign it. oh wait...
If you really wanna keep track of the newest demos, I recommend demoscene.tv The quality is far superior than youtube, and they also provide the 4k download. http://demoscene.tv/page.php?id=172&lang=uk&vsmaction=view_prod&id_prod=13718
Yeah, they're working on longer records using ice cores from the north pole and very old trees. It has to do with the flux of high energy particles correlating well with sunspot number. I remember Harlan Spence at Boston University was working on that. Also, relatively speaking, we know almost everything there is to know about the sun, except for heating in the corona and the exact cause of the sunspot cycle (although they believe the latter is caused by long-term effects of differential rotation).
BTW, you can see spore's realtime creature modelling here
Looking at the creatures in spore, I think it's clear that the ability to add artistic touches has come a long way. I look forward to seeing the industry following Will Wright's lead.
would be a cheap way to fix a lot of these issues. Limit 3 minutes per speech and to candidates only. Vote on your top speeches. Comments should stay on topic with some moderator support. With a little inginuity, this could go a long way.