Not to mention the money spent to resolve countless crowding issues esp. in beef and pork. The problems caused by antibiotic overuse and buildup of pesticides. Then there's research that has to be done to change pesticide formulas. We just recently had an article that explained insects are gaining an adaption to the chemicals through symbiosis of bacteria who can metabolize the pesticides. All of this needs to be factored in.

Overfarming land for the sake of higher yield requires a great many natural resources in order to accomplish said yields. Water for example, instead of using sustainable methods can lead to shortages that have to be resolved. Then there's run-off waste by the pig farms which is dumped into rivers, where organic farms can simply use it as fertilizer because they aren't nearly as packed together.

Simple agriculture and meat "yields" need to take into account all of these repercussions of industrialized crowding and intensive farming which are not a factor in organic goods.

You know what's absurd? It's common place to call industrialised farming "conventional". Spraying crops with tons of pesticides that produce "edible" goods. Instead of producing a product that actually helps the environment, they use Government money (subsidizing) to lower the price of the "conventional" and industrialized methods. Calling them cheaper, rather than realizing the total cost includes the money given to the corporations by the government itself. Even if the company is not given money directly, it uses cheap foodstock (corn) which itself is given money.

It's been shown time and time again that these pesticides produce health issues in animals and people. For example Round-up, the scientific research finds that the pesticide "additives" primarily cause the issue rather than the pesticide itself.

Because the pesticide in-itself doesn't cause issues, they simply formulate a new chemicle makeup to circumvent the regulations. Which in turn often comes up as toxic. So Monsanto can simply sidestep an environmental issue by changing the formula without producing positive evidence that the new product is safe. Monsanto makes billions while environmental concerns are simply thrown away.

You joke, but this will likely be the market's solution.

If you remember in some of the pirate bay litigation they actually seized the computer RAM. :) The RAM contained case relevant material (at least when it had voltage going through it. Law and technical computer topics rarely mix well.

My main frustration with CRTs are the lack of current manufacturers. If you want a CRT that has good refresh rate, good resolution, and good contrast you're somewhat out of luck. You're talking about a peice of hardware that's now reserved for a niche economy where demand is low and prices are high.

Measurable is certainly a better term that could have been used. "Not insignificant" itself should be reserved for unmeasurable topics. Pain is a good topic for the discussion of "not insignificant" because pain can be ambiguous and related contextually in the "of the moment" kind of way. We can talk about how a pain can be intrusive, however in degree of displeasure it is minor. An intrusive pain would be not insignificant when the pain is reoccuring, much like the papercut reference. In the case of something that can be measured in mathematically relevant terms we should say "marginal" or talk about the average battery savings across the board.

Anyway, we're getting off topic the article states "although the difference is just 17.7W and 3.8W for CRT and LCD respectively" and we can see that's a significant amount of power. Particularly for the CRT monitor, 17.7W we're talking about quite a few watts. CRT monitors are almost certainly reserved for desktop environment rather than laptop, however power savings come in the form of money alone, rather than battery life. I would be interested in laptop measurements as the article is only related to desktop monitors. I imagine the 3.8W is much closer measurement towards what a laptop would give us. Laptops can run on 60W without much trouble and I could see 3.8W being important.

I saw that the first glance over also. :)

Romney technology MormonSue. We don't just sue you, we liquidate your companies and force them to wear magic underwear.

As a novice in Loci, I could probably do tau to 100 in an hour and thirty. I agree this isn't something worth bothering by itself. Primarily it's just a short benchmark. I plan to use Loci to memorize important books in rote memorization then go back over them mentally for deeper learning. At the moment I'm in the process of creating an imagined memory palace. The places in my apartment are fairly boring as individual locus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci

Actually it was interesting I had no problem with 50 digits. It feels like a brief stroll rather than a rigorous rote memorization. At some point I'll try a benchmark to find the upper limit if there is one. For now I don't really see the practical use of remembering Pi to that extent.

The Mnemonic Method of Loci does wonders for remembering digits. I just started with it and on the second day I have Pi at 50 without much effort. From memory: 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751

Are you kidding me? He was the Jar Jar Binks of Star Trek .

Cream allows for your body to produce melatonin. Lots of food have triptophan in them, a chemical that your body easily turns into melatonin.