Probably, but since Norway imports both meat and vegetables, it just doesn't matter.

Yes, if local sheep were the realistic alternative, but they're not. The infrastructure for transporting sheep is the same as for vegetables. The army doesn't do sheep farming.

No. Most Norwegian military bases are located in the outer parts of nowhere, and regular soldier pay is worse than lousy (military service being semi-compulsory for men, still). Even if there are restaurants nearby, it's unlikely they could serve most of the soldiers stationed there, and if they could, most of the soldiers wouldn't be able to pay.

Also, the food tends to suck anyway, so a day of vegetables shouldn't make matters much worse.

Are you implying we live in the worst of all possible universes?

So what you're saying is that bread is fear? or circuses are fear, and bread is consumption? Or that nothing is something, which has changed?

In any modern browser: mark a word or phrase, right click it, choose 'search in Google|Bing' in the context menu. Even if you type 400 WPM, you just wasted several times as much time on your stupid comments than you would on doing 'research'. Not only are you a proud idiot, you're also a time waster.

Even worse than the slashvertisements are the slashbots who proudly flaunt their ignorance instead of doing a basic search.

I'm not sure I'd call a 27" monitor an area of science, but it does benefit from today's faster GPUs.

Not quite. We're seeing an exponential growth in publishing without a similar increase in quality. That means the crap to quality ratio is going up.

You've got a good point about negative results, but I don't think I agree with the rest.

There's nothing wrong with peer review as such, but the current research climate doesn't help it at all. In many countries, research grants are tied to "measurable, objective results", e.g. articles published, preferably in highly-ranked journals. And so researchers want to publish as much as possible, in as highly-ranked journals as they can get into. (Leading to an explosion in research, so no one really has the time to follow all the research in their own field, or even doing thorough peer review.) Journals are ranked among other things from how often they are cited. Negative results aren't often cited. Replicated tests are only cited in systematic reviews. Setting aside money for replication would be a good idea, but journals shouldn't need to fear for their ranking for publishing less glamorous articles either (or rather: ranking shouldn't be taken seriously). Most importantly, publishing shouldn't be so strongly encouraged. Far too much is published already, and much of it just isn't very good.

As for online publishing: that has been the norm the last decade, and is absolutely dominant now. Comment areas? Like Slashdot? God forbid.

LOL, +5 "insightful" is the new +5, ignorant.

Thanks.

However, that's 1850s dollars converted to today's, whereas today's dollar is decoupled from the price of gold, so the conversion isn't necessarily that straight forward. I found this newspaper clip from 1974, stating the price of picks, shovels and gold pans were $100 each. That's about five ounces of gold, so outrageously expensive, but still less than half a pound.

The problem is, of course, that even at the height of the California gold rush, there wasn't nearly enough gold to go around to that many people, to make a hammer worth a pound of gold. Hardly anyone had that much. A few people got crazy rich, but if you divide annual gold output by available rough estimates of the number of miners, you obtain average annual earnings of less than $600 per year in 1852. With 19.39 dollars an ounce, that's just short of two hammers for a year's labour. That's not to say it never happened (and demanding a price is not the same as getting it), but if it did, it probably wasn't a fair market valuation.

I didn't write [citation needed], and I was fairly clear about why I needed further convincing. But by now I'm convinced that you're an uneducated fool and a bullshitter, as you clearly have no idea what a source is and what it's good for. No one with as much as a bachelor's degree at a semi-reputable institution would claim that "posted historical documents at Independence Mine State Park" is good enough as reference for any sort of degree, or that "where" or "when" is in any sense more useful than a proper citation when discussing historical matters.

No, it's not. I found your claim interesting but questionable, so I did a couple of Google searches, and nothing relevant came up. I asked you, and nothing came up. I did a search in Web of Science, and the best I could find was that the U.S had a fixed price on gold (however: not on iron or steel) from 1837.

For someone who claims to use reality as a source, you sure pull lots of stuff from your imagination. For someone who keeps harping on about doctorate and master's dissertations, you know staggeringly little about how to cite documents, or why. "Demanding a source is denial"?! Where the fuck do you take this from? Providing sources is the basic foundation of all scholarly research. I don't deny that you may be right, but as long as you don't provide a source, there is no reason whatsoever to believe you.

I haven't denied anything, dipshit. All I did was to ask for a source.