I recall the director being interviewed and mentioning that the original promise was that humans were being harvested not for energy, but for brainpower, to act as biological computers. However, this idea was scrapped as too technical for the general audience to understand.

And it's a damn good sauce too!

There's lots of room for interpreting in the meaning of "telling a person what to do", but why object to "being told what to do"? There was no mention of slave-like behaviour, just a statement of fact. Seriously, does your boss actually ask you if you want to work? No, he tells you to because he's paid to do so, and you're paid to listen and work.

Mountains out of molehills...

Wait, really?

It looks pretty uncensored to me, result #1 is a dead guy lying in the street. #7 shows a bunch of tanks parked in the square. Keep in mind it's going to take some time for the previously-excluded results to work their way up the rankings.

It isn't shoddy products. The products work fine, which is why we haven't paid to have them upgraded to the latest greatest. They work fine for the environment they were originally purchased for, and do exactly what they are supposed to do.

Shoddy products don't work, these products work fine. Just not with XP or Win 7.

And for your info, I manage somewhere around 600 computers, plus all the networking equipment, printers, and servers, mostly by myself (Network Analyst) and one (sometimes 2) Tech. How many techs do you have for supporting your user base?

Yeah, I do, no lie.

In my experience, the size of the game they talk is inversely proportional to the amount of real knowledge they have. In response to the title of the thread, George Boole - Mathematician.

You might want to re-read your statistics textbook. They say that the power of the Monsanto analysis is low. That implies that if Monsanto does not see a significant result, they cannot conclude that no effect exists. However, the authors of this study see significant results nevertheless. Thus, even though power was low, the effect was large enough to show up.

In a nutshell: To demonstrate that there is a problem, all you have to do is find the problem in some instance. To demonstrate that there is no problem, you have to demonstrate that you looked very hard and yet could not find a problem. What the authors are saying is: "Monsanto didn't look very hard, and yet there is evidence of problems."

Ah, so I suppose a few of them perishing would be acceptable.