I think you mis-read that.

Intensive agriculture means you can grow more crops with higher yield in a more confined and limited environment. This could be as simple as yield per acre but in this case it's going beyond that and actually giving greater yields with fewer resources.

GMO seeds get weaker by the generation because the produced seeds are produced in very specific controlled conditions wheras wild seeds will get cross contaminated with native crops or will degrade amongst themselves due to relative environmental conditions.

As for the pesticide point I absolutely 100% agree with you and I think GMO is a short term solution to the problem with long lasting negative effects.

Yes, but at least there is movement. I think there is also a huge lack of people and a continued lack of financial support.

Still, broken-ness and all I'm comfortably using it now and quite like it. I do sort of miss the classic layout and all the cool stuff you could do with compiz - but the shell view is so convenient I couldn't imagine going back.

Try it again. Intial Gnome 3 releases weren't that... uh.. stable or feature filled. Since 3.10~ish it's gotten better and 3.12 on is pretty solld. 3.14 we're starting to see some nice polish too. Try it again, use it for a week or so, and check out extensions.gnome.org .

I was going to point this out to the parent poster but you did it much more gracefully than I would have.

I'm also surprised that if Groupon is so into "open source" they wouldn't have noticed this before submitting the trademark application. Oh, that and the fact they don't capitolize GNOME in their blog post. Maybe they should have said "we're vaguely aware open source exists and we kinda open sourced some tools so that gives us street cred right?".

Go fuck yourself. This article honestly pissed me off and it should piss you off too. If scientific/engineering endeavors like this and the enthusiastic philanthropists who support them are ridiculed it casts a negative light on eactly the kinds of things and people we should be encouraging. It's dipshits like the guy who wrote this article who are the cause of NASA being under-funded and new engineering endeavous seeing so much criticism about random unrelated shit they never get the go-sign or end up having huge hurdles imposed by governments and comittees. If some random billionaire just up and wants to fund something which will benefit the future of humanity and you try to make trouble for them because they aren't doing it the way you personally want them to do it there is something seriously wrong with you and any effect you have is going to have a negative effect on all of our futures.

The adoption of Rail travel and Airline travel by the rich is exactly what pushed down the price. The more demand there was the more that was developed for it, and the more that was developed the cheaper it beame to produce and run; and the early "rich" adopters paid the bills.

The situation you're describing is certainly true for a variety of products, but none of them happen to include the transportation industry.

Way to totally fucking miss the point and way to totally fucking mis-interpret Virgins intentions. Seriously, 5 minutes of Google searches could have saved you from looking like such awful fucking idiots.

Also fuck you for basically dis-respecting and dis-reguarding everyone involved in Virgin Galactic. These are people puting a fuck of a lot into making space travel a reality and just because the rich will be the first to enojoy the fruits of that labour doesn't give you the right to bitch. It's exactly the same situation in every industry, including passenger ships, trains, and aircraft. You give Branson shit for this when he's one of the few rich guys out there actually pouring money into this kind of thing. Bill Gates can shove his malaria garbage up his ass for all I care - that's not bringing us into a new era.

Seriously, I hope you fucking die in a fire Adam Rogers. Fuck your "opinion" and fuck you.

NO. If you are a family member or close to someone WHO ACTUALLY HAS A FUCKING GUN and knows how to handle it they can teach you how to handle it. They can also accompany you when you go hunting because going hunting alone is a good way to get yourself killed or stranded or in some other bad situation. And they only get preference - it's like a referral. Just because you don't know someone doesn't mean you won't get a license.

Stop selectivly reading my comments to try and fit them into your alternate-reality dystopia where society is unfair and only the 1% get guns which they can use to hunt the 99% for sport. Also that should totally be a book.

I would have said "hot pot" or something but I think the image most people would have gotten different imagery in their head.

Gifu style Boar nabe [shishi nabe]: http://deli-aurora.net/wp-cont...

The connected people are more likely to have experience and be more used to being around guns. They also have known hunting partners/mentors.

The prices are about 4x or so what they are in the US. This is mainly due to registrations / tagging / adding serial numbers etc. The thing is the animals they take they also get very very good prices on - so active hunters who are even moderately good will tend to retire from their day jobs (which is a dream of many hunters in the US).

No. The people getting these licenses are certainly not rich. The licenses are granted to indviduals who will actually use them when needed. Certain animals such as boars need to have populations controlled etc. The only reason family members and friends of existing license holders get preference is because they've been around and understand how the guns work AND will have an accessable mentor and hunting partner from the get-go.

Actually depending on the area you can still get hunting licenses - the thing is there is a limit and family and friends of existing hunters usually get preference. One of my employees happens to be the son of a hunter in Nagano and he's got a license. When he goes home during winter holiday he'll often bring us back some boar or deer meat. Having grown up for part of my life in Colorado the deer meat is especially appreciated, and boar meat goes great in a winter nabe.

That said, even with a license they have extreme limits on what kinds of guns and how much ammo they can have. Ammo needs to have serial numbers and can only be purchased at very specfic places - and the prices are outrageous. The yearly license fees on the guns are apprently pretty expensive too.

Aaaaaah, wow... That's actually pretty terrible. We just went through quite a bit to get a tool called Phantom SVG generating sort of a hackish frame animation system working - but in the process we went through a lot of the SVG spec and analyzed the DOM etc. During that process we realized a lot of people are using CSS and JavaScript to do things that SVG already does... and also found a whole bunch functionality that does the exact same thing replicated 5 different ways. On top of that Google did an absolutely awful job of implementing SVG event handling and chaining.

I'm all for cleaner DOMs and well defined specs but if people keep mixing web stuff like CSS and JavaScript into SVGs they may as well just be HTML to begin with - which is an awful awful solution and anyone who comes to that conclusion because all they deal with is web browsers should be beaten. SVG should render, animation included, with SVG specific libraries (RSVG, etc.) that only parse the SVG specific DOM. If I can't open your SVG in Inkscape because you have some strange CSS transform and some extension that only works on the web the first thing I'm going to do is vaccume/lint it, re-save it and tell you to fix it in raw SVG. Seriously.

BTW, check out the source for this: http://www.gakuengine.com/asse...
Pure SVG animation [written by hand]. SVG can do that all on its own. I hope people stop disreguarding this functionality and stop treating SVG like a second class citizen to HTML/CSS/JS.

Wow, that is an awesome follow up comment. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

From what gets standardized and the sometimes very long time it takes to get standardized I always just assumed the W3C was kind of a hostile place. I've also heard stories about a few issues (particularly about two specific media file formats) where apparently the discussion was not a friendly one due to a specific party having an agenda. After hearing those stories I think I just assumed that was what the W3C was like in general. Then there's the issue of things that are in the standard that browser makers decided selectively not to implement even after years of being in the standard and issues being put on trackers and ignored or set to "invalid" or "will not fix" or whatever - I always just sort of assumed this was a "fuck you" from that particular maker.

One point in your post brings up some questions for me: you mention Google (and often Mozilla) deciding to drop support for freatures... and mention SVG. Google/Mozilla are looking to drop support for SVG? Or did you mean they are pressing for more SVG support? FF SVG support is excellent, Chrome not so much but it pretty much works so I'm not sure why they would want to get rid of it...?

Anyway, thanks for one of the most interesting responses I've gotten in a while.

This. Absolutely this.

Though in the case of GNOME if you know about the development team and how depressingly under-funded and under-staffed they are I can understand. Case in point is GNOME Terminal - transparency was removed and bug report was immediately closed. The thing was the whole back end to Terminal was re-written and re-implementing transparency (it's "working" in edge right now btw.) was a super low priority issue compared to other more major issues. They certainly could have won some sympathy by actually providing an explanation as simple as "we've got some more pressing issues but we're looking at implemeting this in the future" - so bad on them there for sure but they did in fact eventually get around to it.

But as for Pottering and the W3C you are damn right. Pottering is the self proclaimed genius Kanye West of Open Source and the W3C is 80% composed of members who only want their own features implemented their own way for their own beneft and absolutely hate every other member so much they will impede any of their proposals out of pure spite.