The entire point is that the information provided is misleading because it's useless information provided to encourage an outcome in someone's decision-making purpose. So on top of not knowing what the word ironic means, you load your post full of some tangential nonsense. What else can you expect from Slashdot, really? Learn how to read.
What he's doing is making a ludicrous argument using the claims of the person being interviewed. If I tell you that for every canybar sold I earn $0.25 and you go and fill a bag with 10 candybars and I charge you $50 you're going to ask me what's going on. Well of course my rates change. I didn't specify what relationship if any between the number of units purchased and the cost per unit, or what role if any time plays. The point is that the statement is meant to be misleading, because the listener presumes that the person making it is trying to say something about the significance of outsourcing on the domestic economy. After all, the point is to tell me why believing a lot of the science/engineering work is being exported and I should major in something that pays better instead is wrong, isn't it? Shouldn't the data they're providing me be compelling?
On the interval [t1, t2] the number of jobs exported is K and the number of jobs created domestically is N. They look at the numbers for this interval see N:K is 9:1. Then they tell you, "for every job outsourced from the U.S., nine new jobs are actually created in the U.S." They aren't implying this because it doesn't support their thesis, but the rate of change for K and N is not constant, so the ratio of new jobs to exported jobs isn't constant. It also says nothing about the nature of the created or exported jobs in question.
If the planet is overpopulated then replacement is not sustainable. Two children is two too many. Do the right thing and self-terminate. Having any children, and even existing yourself is the problem. End it, so the rest of us may enjoy the fruits of a sustainable population.
Certain store-bought tomatoes are the way they are due to the manner they're "ripened." I grow tomatoes and they're quite good. Go to better stores or markets. The reason most human foods are as good as they are now is that humans have been selecting the best traits for generations.
People never want to do anything about a problem, they just want to talk about how to solve it at long as it requires nothing on their part. Kill yourself and make the world a better place if you think it's overpopulated.
If you die without having reproduced, I would be able consume even more, produce more than two children, or live in a world that's just slightly less overpopulated. Why is that such a bad scenario? What are you doing that's so important, anyway?
There's considerable inefficiency in the actual utilization of land suitable for growing human-edible plants (as opposed to land useful for animal feed, which has its own inefficiencies). There are intellectual property and environmental regulation impediments to complete adoption of higher-yield genetically-engineered crops. There are also lands that are used to cater to yuppies by means of using substandard growing practices that can called "organic." In some instances subsidies are paid to businesses to essentially sit on useful land. And crops are sometimes grown for profit margins where other products might produce better yields. Then of course there are similar wastes of land for animals. Excessive recreational animal ownership, substandard growing practices, and so forth.
And last but not least is that a lot of North Amerians overconsume. They're giant, unhealthy fatasses that require copious amounts of medical science to preserve their lives sufficiently to maintain their consumption levels. Given the amount of land that is only useful for growing feed for animals, just cutting down on fast food consumption would go a long way to reducing the statistics that paint a doom-and-gloom scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
The entire point is that the information provided is misleading because it's useless information provided to encourage an outcome in someone's decision-making purpose. So on top of not knowing what the word ironic means, you load your post full of some tangential nonsense. What else can you expect from Slashdot, really? Learn how to read.
What he's doing is making a ludicrous argument using the claims of the person being interviewed. If I tell you that for every canybar sold I earn $0.25 and you go and fill a bag with 10 candybars and I charge you $50 you're going to ask me what's going on. Well of course my rates change. I didn't specify what relationship if any between the number of units purchased and the cost per unit, or what role if any time plays. The point is that the statement is meant to be misleading, because the listener presumes that the person making it is trying to say something about the significance of outsourcing on the domestic economy. After all, the point is to tell me why believing a lot of the science/engineering work is being exported and I should major in something that pays better instead is wrong, isn't it? Shouldn't the data they're providing me be compelling?
On the interval [t1, t2] the number of jobs exported is K and the number of jobs created domestically is N. They look at the numbers for this interval see N:K is 9:1. Then they tell you, "for every job outsourced from the U.S., nine new jobs are actually created in the U.S." They aren't implying this because it doesn't support their thesis, but the rate of change for K and N is not constant, so the ratio of new jobs to exported jobs isn't constant. It also says nothing about the nature of the created or exported jobs in question.
Where did you start reading this discussion, the bottom? Are you reading backward in time?
If the planet is overpopulated then replacement is not sustainable. Two children is two too many. Do the right thing and self-terminate. Having any children, and even existing yourself is the problem. End it, so the rest of us may enjoy the fruits of a sustainable population.
Certain store-bought tomatoes are the way they are due to the manner they're "ripened." I grow tomatoes and they're quite good. Go to better stores or markets. The reason most human foods are as good as they are now is that humans have been selecting the best traits for generations.
People never want to do anything about a problem, they just want to talk about how to solve it at long as it requires nothing on their part. Kill yourself and make the world a better place if you think it's overpopulated.
Bob, Sue, Joe, Me. You killing yourself benefits everyone if the world is overpopulated. Stop being so selfish.
If you die without having reproduced, I would be able consume even more, produce more than two children, or live in a world that's just slightly less overpopulated. Why is that such a bad scenario? What are you doing that's so important, anyway?
There's considerable inefficiency in the actual utilization of land suitable for growing human-edible plants (as opposed to land useful for animal feed, which has its own inefficiencies). There are intellectual property and environmental regulation impediments to complete adoption of higher-yield genetically-engineered crops. There are also lands that are used to cater to yuppies by means of using substandard growing practices that can called "organic." In some instances subsidies are paid to businesses to essentially sit on useful land. And crops are sometimes grown for profit margins where other products might produce better yields. Then of course there are similar wastes of land for animals. Excessive recreational animal ownership, substandard growing practices, and so forth. And last but not least is that a lot of North Amerians overconsume. They're giant, unhealthy fatasses that require copious amounts of medical science to preserve their lives sufficiently to maintain their consumption levels. Given the amount of land that is only useful for growing feed for animals, just cutting down on fast food consumption would go a long way to reducing the statistics that paint a doom-and-gloom scenario.
Why don't you just voluntarily self-terminate so that there's more for me?