I don't want to attack you or anything, just want to point out that no living thing wants to die.
There is evidence that even plants have some form of sensation [1]
Of course living things don't want to die. But if you decide that all living things including plants deserve to not be eaten or harvested, your menu becomes incredibly short.
I mean, you are not left with absolutely nothing to eat, but all you've got that I can think of is dairy, fruit and nuts. You could technically eat grains, but harvesting enough grain without killing the plant is difficult.
Not to disregard what you wrote, I just wanted to add that I don't think this post wanted to objectively compare the github and dropbox pricing models.
IMO he just wanted to show how ridiculous (in his opinion) the github model is by applying it to dropbox.
If you want to "[...]implement CPUs, programmable logic[...]" I would rather go with "The Elements of Computing Systems" [0].
On the other hand, if you are into gaming and want to experience a sandbox building game with a huge, albeit rather premature, community and lot of modding going on, give it a try, it is about 15 €. [1]
By just looking at the comments I have seen about five controversial statements like
Parent: Red meat is bad, because $study
Child: No, it isn't see $counter-study
What is up with the science in foodscience?
All the camps (paleo, vegetarian, vegan, locavore, raw foodists, ...) are citing studies which support their point of view and disregard the others.
Or another good example is the Weston A. Price Foundation [1] and Dr. Fuhrman [2]. They are "battling" each other with study after study.
Why are there so many contradicting and controversial studies and opinions in a field which calls itself a science?
It is virtually impossible to design a convincing study on the effect of FoodstuffA on human health. The ideal study would look something like that:
- Enlist people into study, divide them randomly into two groups
- Design a diet, where everything will be exactly the same, except FoodstuffA for group 1 will be replaced with some FoodstuffB for group 2.
- Keep all subjects under supervision 24/7 to eliminate possible cheating
- Continue the study long enough to determine long term effects (years? decades?)
Even in this case, there will be opportunity for speculation. Maybe the FoodstuffA is not bad, but the FoodstuffB is just beneficial, maybe we should have used FoodstuffC.
So, there's two alternatives that are realistic:
1. Observational study. Ask 1000000 people about how much red meat they eat, compare health, do conclusions. Lots of confounding variables - smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption etc etc.
2. Randomised controlled study. Will be fairly short due to funding and subject to criticism due to design of the diets of participants (no, group 1 had too much fat! no, group 2 had too little carbs!).
Both options are not ideal and subject to controversy.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/science/15food.html?_r=2