Even if it's produced with zero human labor, the price isn't going to be free. There already is practically zero human labor in the actual growing of food. The process is heavily automated already. The consumer price is dominated by the various middle men (distributors, shippers, retailers, etc.) The actual farmer receives less than a dime for each dollar you spend. Far, far less for prepared foods.

If you're willing to cook, you can buy more than enough raw ingredients to feed yourself quite well, for well under a dollar a day. And very little of that money goes to the farmer himself; you're mostly paying to get the food from the farmer to your local outlet, and then to you.

I personally wouldn't mind if MORE people had to get into farming. There are downsides to that massively automated farming: increased pesticide use, large amounts of fossil fuels, soil loss, lack of variety, etc. I'm just fine with subsidizing the food for those people who can't work, or even don't wish to: the raw materials end up costing practically nothing already, at least at the farm itself. But if people want to work... and many do... I think that more labor-intensive agriculture has some advantages.

The problem here is that the policy is apparently all about "misogyny", which makes it inherently discriminatory. The policy should be about sexism.

While I understand what you are saying, I disagree in the intent of the policy. Sexism is offensive, misogyny is hatred. Being offensive isn't prohibited for if it was, the internet would cease to exist. Being outright hateful is though.

If I say "that awful parking job had to be by a woman", I'm sexist. If I say "that bitch deserves to be raped for that parking job", I'm misogynistic. It's the later trolling they don't want.

It's 2 GB per process-- period-- unless the /3GB switch is used. This is virtual memory, so it's not affected by hardware.

The usable RAM varies depending on hardware. It will be something less than 4 GB. I have seen machines with as little as 2.8 GB available.

It sounds to me as if he's pulling a switch in the middle of his argument. He didn't spend $1.6 million on the "episodic content" part. He spent the money on the playing device, which may have been noble and good, but he got his lunch eaten. (Not even by Apple. If it was a "cassette tape product", then it wasn't wireless and had less space than a Nomad.)

I'm sorry his product failed, but it seems like a reach to claim priority on the obvious parts of it. And I have even less sympathy when he's dragging in unrelated expenses to try to justify it.

My concern isn't cost, but the knock-on effects. What else happens when you spray a crapton of water into the atmosphere? Where will rain increase, and where decrease? Is there a risk of disastrous flooding? Will the reduction in visible light throw off animal behavior? Or plant growth cycles?

If all we had to worry about was a few degrees of warming, climate change wouldn't be that big a deal. It's the fact that it has so many other effects, different ones in different parts of the planet. It worries me to think of a "simple" solution to a complex problem. I'm sure that the engineers have it worked out better than you've just described, but I want to know how deeply they've considered it, and that they've got reason to think that they're not flapping the wings of the world's largest butterfly, if you take my meaning.

With only 2G, the OS will still be getting in your ways. This is all a flashback to the 90s when RAM was too expensive and you usually didn't see adequately equipped PCs. Any PC OS beyond DOS ended up getting in it's own way and running like a snail.

The PPACA has pretty much eliminated the issue of not being able to pay for medical care in the US, at least in the 27 states that have expanded medicaid.

Don't be daft. You are paying for your medical care in your tax bill and in all the other goods and services you buy that have taxes embedded in their prices.

There is no free lunch (2nd law of thermodynamics).

I want all of my digital stuff to be destroyed when I die. I really don't want my family combing through all my personal shit when I'm dead.

Unless you take strong measures on your own, there's zero chance that any of your "digital stuff" will be destroyed when you die.

Your choices, if any really exist, are having your family comb through it, setting up a dead-man switch, or having a corporation use it for their own profit. Because once they're sure you're dead, the zaibatsus would sell your toes to foot fetishists if they could get away with it. Their sole purpose for existence is to maximize profit within the law. And some of them interpret that last bit to mean "anything I can get away with is effectively legal".

All the medical service providers I use now require I show photo ID which they then scan.

This theft has no particular utility when it comes to stealing medical services.

How does this have anything to do with Obama? Or are you a bot or human acting as a proxy for a bot?

They do, now, in Delaware. But music that you've licensed doesn't belong to you. It was licensed. It will take a separate law to make music license purchases online into music purchases online.

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution is a limit placed on government. It's not a limit placed on the people. It's a statement of universal principle so important that our nation at it's birth was unwilling to accept a written Constitution without it.

It is not some sort of "legal loophole" that justifies everyone else being a tyrannical jackass.

When you ask for meaningful evidence of misogyny on slashdot (or wider society) you only underscore your blindness to the problem. You shouldn't need anyone to point out examples, because an intelligent person would be able to find a discussion and skim it. When you learn to use the internets, you'll spend a lot less time whining.

Every woman I know well enough to tell me whether she has been raped has been raped. (I don't ask, obviously.) Either you live in a magical fairy world where women are treated better than they are in Northern California, or women don't trust you well enough for you to know how serious the problem is. And let me tell you, based on your statements, I am something less than shocked.

> So any store that only carries Organic foods is censoring?

A merchant has to be able to make money to keep the lights on and pay the rent. A merchant is subject to physical constraints. A merchant is PAYING for the things they present to you.

Why didn't you just make it a bad car analogy from the start?

Trying to deviate from that doesn't make the problem of applying physical rules to the ethereal realm any more senseless.