All "my goodies" being made and recycled in India doesn't force those people to dispose of their dead in the very same water they bathe in and drink from. Also it doesn't force them to consider their cows, apes and other animals to be so holy that these animals become a plague that spread their filth all over cities with nobody to stop them.
Not just dead bodies and cows flowing down the river, but also decomposing by the shore, getting eaten by wild dogs while people bathe in and drink that very same water with the decomposing corpses floating just a few meters away from them!
My god that is terrible and disgusting. I try to be tolerant and respectful towards different cultures and their quirks, but there is nothing cultured or civilized about living under those conditions. That is like hell. A culture that tolerates and even encourages that kind of behavior is sick and should be reformed.
Please quote me where I have "dished it out"... dumbass.
And just for the record, I am in my mid 30's, I have no drivers license, I have never owned a car. But yes, I live in Europe, not in the USA. In European culture, you don't need a car, especially not in the cities. So much for cars being essential.
I've heard the same claim about every Windows version since Windows 95
Considering that Windows 10 was designed as a "one size fits all" solution that is intended to run on machine with limited power, it's not surprising that in this case the performance is an improvement. Also they did away with the flashy Windows 7 UI and replaced it with rectangles - another performance improvement that I don't mind. I like minimal, simple things.
This is debatable. You have grown so accustomed to our ultra-mobility culture, that cars seem like an essential object to exist, when in fact, they are not a necessity. Mobility can be achieved by means of mass-transit as well. Everybody needing to own a car is a luxury that has transformed our society, in many ways for the worst. And if you look at the big picture, what do you think has made the larger impact on smog in towns and the general environment? Cars or cigarettes? If what scientists say is true and the probability that we will heat our civilization to death due to CO2 emissions, one of the larger culprits has been our oil dependent car society.
I think I'm one of the very few people who likes Windows 10. Yes, the telemetry features are not a great move, but just disable all of that crap and you're all set. Windows 10 uses less resources and starts up faster than my previous Windows 7. But the real improvements where on my girl's older laptop, where the update from 7 to 10 worked wonders by greatly improving startup times and no longer locking up randomly when starting or using a browser. HD video on Netflix or Amazon Prime is greatly improved. She was very sceptical about the update because she preferred the "nicer" look of 7 compared to 10's spartan look and feel, but has had zero regrets after the update.
I have also had no incompatibility problems with applications and everything worked just as before, after updating. I was actually very surprised about how smooth the update was. I also like how 10 will explicitly ask me before performing updates and not simply decide to shut down and restart whenever it sees fit, like all previous versions of Windows seemed to do.
I don't use Cortana and whatever other privacy invading crap there might be, and as standard Windows installation for gaming and media, I think Windows 10 is better than 7.
Every time I read an article like this I think we are oversimplifying things. How can it be that there are chain smokers that live well into old age, and light or non-smokers that die of lung and other cancers? Yes, there is some chance involved, but if you're a hard smoker, smoking a pack a day since you were 16, and every year you get so many mutations, shouldn't it hit you at some point? Yet there are people like This Guy who are heavy smokers and die at age 96.
I think it also comes down to two different factors that are rarely mentioned, for some reason: the intensity of smoking and your personal immune system. Some people take the smoke deep in their lungs and keep it there for a while before exhaling, and some people don't let the smoke reach their lungs at all. It has to make a huge difference if you smoke a pack a day this or the other way.
And also so many things come down to your personal immune system? Are you a sickly person? Pale and not feeling very well on most days? Perhaps you should better not take up smoking if your immune system is struggling even without the cell defects. On the other hand, if you have a strong immune system of a healthy individual, your body might be able to cope with the damages of smoking very well and perhaps even make up for most of it.
These two factors must be critically important in relation to smoking disease, yet I rarely find them even mentioned.
Any smoker who lights up around non-smokers without consent should be shot on the spot.
And concerning this, when walking on the street, such as on my way to and from work, I am more disturbed by breathing in exhaust from cars than from the occasional smoker who happens to walk in front of me.
Lets ban cars and shoot all drivers on the spot, yes?
Exactly. In all the debates about climate change and the environmental issues we face, I always wonder why nobody brings up the subject of birth control. Really, all of the issues we face can be reduced to the single root cause, that there's too many humans on this planet. It's not sustainable.
It wouldn't have to "hurt" either. Let every person have two children max, and with the people who don't want any kids at all and those who die before creating offspring, human population would gradually decrease. Though perhaps for the next 60 years or so, halving population every generation with a one child policy would be the more radical, but also the safer variant for the environment.
Yet as you also correctly state, everyone is always only talking about growth. We need more consumers, more workers, more people to pay the rents of the older generations... it's not a sustainable strategy. We are behaving like bacteria, endlessly reproducing until we kill of our host.
Nobody in their right state of mind wants it to be used. If it is ever used, it could mean the end of the world is nigh. Why would anyone invest the resources in developing such a weapon?
Fuck the Russians, and the Americans, and the defense departments, and the technicians and engineers willing to take on such a job, and the generals and presidents commissioning such a thing. You are all assholes.
Republicans are "too close for comfort" with Clinton. Everyone with a sound state of mind should be on the side of the politician rather than the narcissistic egomaniac if the stakes are the presidency of the United States.
It better be made of pretty tough stuff! Venus isn't a material friendly place. I think the longest lasting Venera probe made it for two hours. Pretty much anything that we make would be dissolved fairly quickly.
On the surface, yes. But this ancient stuff would probably be under layers of dirt, sand, ash... whatever, perhaps even fossilized. It could have been buried under the planet surface before the surface got as hazardous as it is now.
Well, they either smoked a hell of a lot, or they had civilization and burned up wood and all their fossil fuels, leading to the runaway greenhouse effect the article mentions.
Wouldn't it be ironic if humanity is searching the vastness of space with the most powerful telescopes for extraterrestrial intelligence, all the while the remnants of a fallen civilization reside on the planet right next to us, somewhere under layers of dirt and dust?
What a gloomy, foreboding picture that makes.
Perhaps they sent probes and robots to Earth, like we do to Mars, and life on Earth is the descendant of the microorganisms that made the trip on them.
Putin is a former KGB agent with a mind trapped in a cold-war mentality where the west and the USA in particular are the greatest threat to Russia and out to get him. I'm not sure it is such a good idea to fan the flames of his paranoia.
That is true. Genders and races are a real thing and there are differences between them. Not just outward appearances, but real physical or intellectual differences. On average, men are physically stronger than women, women are emotionally more stable and less aggressive than men, white people are more intelligent than black people, black men have longer... you know, than white men.
On average. But down to the level of individuals, it's unfair to judge people based on averages. Do you consider yourself an average person? On an individual level, everyone is different. But the key point is that, even though people are different in many ways, be it race, gender or their individual characteristics, they all deserve to be treated the same and given the same chances. Because we are all humans with our hopes, dreams, emotions and potential, regardless of physical or intellectual ability.
In fact, many times it's the people who are at a disadvantage that perform big acts and change the world. Being handicapped in a way, but having the need for respect and recognition, is one of the strongest motivators. Short men like Napoleon and Hitler set out to conquer Europe. Physically unattractive people tend to follow intellectual pursuits and provide humanity with great innovations. Socially disadvantaged people like Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks engaged themselves politically and managed to change a nation.
This is why I think that "fascism" as an ideology is wrong. At first glance it might sound like a brutal, but scientifically logical idea to weed out the "weak" and only breed the pure and strong. But often times it's the "weak" who accomplish great things and move humanity forward, because they are the ones who are out there to prove themselves. Not to mention that science also tells us that genetic homogeneity is a weakness whereas diversity and the mixing of genes is critical for long-term survival.
It scares the crap out of me that here on Slashdot, a site with presumably smart people like engineers and programmers, so many people are defending and rooting for Donald Trump.
Either Slashdot is not as intelligent as I thought, or it is more right-wing than I thought, which of course is not exclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
All "my goodies" being made and recycled in India doesn't force those people to dispose of their dead in the very same water they bathe in and drink from. Also it doesn't force them to consider their cows, apes and other animals to be so holy that these animals become a plague that spread their filth all over cities with nobody to stop them.
Not just dead bodies and cows flowing down the river, but also decomposing by the shore, getting eaten by wild dogs while people bathe in and drink that very same water with the decomposing corpses floating just a few meters away from them!
Most of India is still pretty empty (at least emptier than Europe)
Yet the population density of Europe is 112 per square km, versus 404 per square km for India.
My god that is terrible and disgusting. I try to be tolerant and respectful towards different cultures and their quirks, but there is nothing cultured or civilized about living under those conditions. That is like hell. A culture that tolerates and even encourages that kind of behavior is sick and should be reformed.
Please quote me where I have "dished it out"... dumbass.
And just for the record, I am in my mid 30's, I have no drivers license, I have never owned a car. But yes, I live in Europe, not in the USA. In European culture, you don't need a car, especially not in the cities. So much for cars being essential.
Yes, and I've argued as such repeatedly, and that's why I'm not going to suffer your bullshit superior tone.
Wow. What class of asshole are you? I was just stating my opinions whereas you:
This is the same dipshit argument...
No, son...
Are belittling me with every post. Now you will not suffer my "bullshit superior tone"? LoL
I've heard the same claim about every Windows version since Windows 95
Considering that Windows 10 was designed as a "one size fits all" solution that is intended to run on machine with limited power, it's not surprising that in this case the performance is an improvement. Also they did away with the flashy Windows 7 UI and replaced it with rectangles - another performance improvement that I don't mind. I like minimal, simple things.
Cars are a necessity for modern society
This is debatable. You have grown so accustomed to our ultra-mobility culture, that cars seem like an essential object to exist, when in fact, they are not a necessity. Mobility can be achieved by means of mass-transit as well. Everybody needing to own a car is a luxury that has transformed our society, in many ways for the worst.
And if you look at the big picture, what do you think has made the larger impact on smog in towns and the general environment? Cars or cigarettes? If what scientists say is true and the probability that we will heat our civilization to death due to CO2 emissions, one of the larger culprits has been our oil dependent car society.
I think I'm one of the very few people who likes Windows 10. Yes, the telemetry features are not a great move, but just disable all of that crap and you're all set.
Windows 10 uses less resources and starts up faster than my previous Windows 7. But the real improvements where on my girl's older laptop, where the update from 7 to 10 worked wonders by greatly improving startup times and no longer locking up randomly when starting or using a browser. HD video on Netflix or Amazon Prime is greatly improved. She was very sceptical about the update because she preferred the "nicer" look of 7 compared to 10's spartan look and feel, but has had zero regrets after the update.
I have also had no incompatibility problems with applications and everything worked just as before, after updating. I was actually very surprised about how smooth the update was. I also like how 10 will explicitly ask me before performing updates and not simply decide to shut down and restart whenever it sees fit, like all previous versions of Windows seemed to do.
I don't use Cortana and whatever other privacy invading crap there might be, and as standard Windows installation for gaming and media, I think Windows 10 is better than 7.
Every time I read an article like this I think we are oversimplifying things. How can it be that there are chain smokers that live well into old age, and light or non-smokers that die of lung and other cancers? Yes, there is some chance involved, but if you're a hard smoker, smoking a pack a day since you were 16, and every year you get so many mutations, shouldn't it hit you at some point? Yet there are people like This Guy who are heavy smokers and die at age 96.
I think it also comes down to two different factors that are rarely mentioned, for some reason: the intensity of smoking and your personal immune system.
Some people take the smoke deep in their lungs and keep it there for a while before exhaling, and some people don't let the smoke reach their lungs at all. It has to make a huge difference if you smoke a pack a day this or the other way.
And also so many things come down to your personal immune system? Are you a sickly person? Pale and not feeling very well on most days? Perhaps you should better not take up smoking if your immune system is struggling even without the cell defects. On the other hand, if you have a strong immune system of a healthy individual, your body might be able to cope with the damages of smoking very well and perhaps even make up for most of it.
These two factors must be critically important in relation to smoking disease, yet I rarely find them even mentioned.
Any smoker who lights up around non-smokers without consent should be shot on the spot.
And concerning this, when walking on the street, such as on my way to and from work, I am more disturbed by breathing in exhaust from cars than from the occasional smoker who happens to walk in front of me.
Lets ban cars and shoot all drivers on the spot, yes?
Nothing good ever comes out of outright banning things. Didn't we learn anything from the prohibition era?
If people want to smoke you should let them. People should be allowed to take responsibility for themselves and make up their own decisions.
You will probably get envelopes with strange white powder in them for posting this to the happy go lucky, science denying Slashdot crowd.
Exactly. In all the debates about climate change and the environmental issues we face, I always wonder why nobody brings up the subject of birth control. Really, all of the issues we face can be reduced to the single root cause, that there's too many humans on this planet. It's not sustainable.
It wouldn't have to "hurt" either. Let every person have two children max, and with the people who don't want any kids at all and those who die before creating offspring, human population would gradually decrease. Though perhaps for the next 60 years or so, halving population every generation with a one child policy would be the more radical, but also the safer variant for the environment.
Yet as you also correctly state, everyone is always only talking about growth. We need more consumers, more workers, more people to pay the rents of the older generations... it's not a sustainable strategy. We are behaving like bacteria, endlessly reproducing until we kill of our host.
Why would humans create a weapon like that? :(
Nobody in their right state of mind wants it to be used.
If it is ever used, it could mean the end of the world is nigh.
Why would anyone invest the resources in developing such a weapon?
Fuck the Russians, and the Americans, and the defense departments, and the technicians and engineers willing to take on such a job, and the generals and presidents commissioning such a thing. You are all assholes.
Republicans are "too close for comfort" with Clinton. Everyone with a sound state of mind should be on the side of the politician rather than the narcissistic egomaniac if the stakes are the presidency of the United States.
What's your fucking problem man?
Jesus, I fucking hate you guys.
Sorry to hear that, bro. :(
True. It also doesn't take into account the quality of work done. It might just mean Europeans are 25% more efficient.
I think it means that Americans get less paid vacation than Europeans and they are more afraid of losing their jobs.
It better be made of pretty tough stuff! Venus isn't a material friendly place. I think the longest lasting Venera probe made it for two hours. Pretty much anything that we make would be dissolved fairly quickly.
On the surface, yes. But this ancient stuff would probably be under layers of dirt, sand, ash... whatever, perhaps even fossilized. It could have been buried under the planet surface before the surface got as hazardous as it is now.
Well, they either smoked a hell of a lot, or they had civilization and burned up wood and all their fossil fuels, leading to the runaway greenhouse effect the article mentions.
Wouldn't it be ironic if humanity is searching the vastness of space with the most powerful telescopes for extraterrestrial intelligence, all the while the remnants of a fallen civilization reside on the planet right next to us, somewhere under layers of dirt and dust?
What a gloomy, foreboding picture that makes.
Perhaps they sent probes and robots to Earth, like we do to Mars, and life on Earth is the descendant of the microorganisms that made the trip on them.
Putin is a former KGB agent with a mind trapped in a cold-war mentality where the west and the USA in particular are the greatest threat to Russia and out to get him.
I'm not sure it is such a good idea to fan the flames of his paranoia.
That is true. Genders and races are a real thing and there are differences between them. Not just outward appearances, but real physical or intellectual differences. On average, men are physically stronger than women, women are emotionally more stable and less aggressive than men, white people are more intelligent than black people, black men have longer ... you know, than white men.
On average.
But down to the level of individuals, it's unfair to judge people based on averages. Do you consider yourself an average person? On an individual level, everyone is different.
But the key point is that, even though people are different in many ways, be it race, gender or their individual characteristics, they all deserve to be treated the same and given the same chances. Because we are all humans with our hopes, dreams, emotions and potential, regardless of physical or intellectual ability.
In fact, many times it's the people who are at a disadvantage that perform big acts and change the world. Being handicapped in a way, but having the need for respect and recognition, is one of the strongest motivators. Short men like Napoleon and Hitler set out to conquer Europe. Physically unattractive people tend to follow intellectual pursuits and provide humanity with great innovations. Socially disadvantaged people like Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks engaged themselves politically and managed to change a nation.
This is why I think that "fascism" as an ideology is wrong. At first glance it might sound like a brutal, but scientifically logical idea to weed out the "weak" and only breed the pure and strong. But often times it's the "weak" who accomplish great things and move humanity forward, because they are the ones who are out there to prove themselves. Not to mention that science also tells us that genetic homogeneity is a weakness whereas diversity and the mixing of genes is critical for long-term survival.
Insightful.
Much better than the predictable way in which he kicked the bucket at the end of the movie.
It scares the crap out of me that here on Slashdot, a site with presumably smart people like engineers and programmers, so many people are defending and rooting for Donald Trump.
Either Slashdot is not as intelligent as I thought, or it is more right-wing than I thought, which of course is not exclusive.