and use technology for accomplishing things like ending hunger.
Hunger is not a problem, it's a consequence of inequality. Ending inequality shouldn't start with the difference between those who have 0% of the total and those who have 0.1% (the separation made by "hunger").
You might consider advocating for the end of massive accumulation of riches. That way you'll tackle a difference of several tens%
If your lovemaking includes unmanned aerial vehicles, directed-energy weapons, lethal autonomous robots and cyber weapons... You're probably doing it very right and should do online tutorials.
the product comes the way it was designed. If you bought it, you should have bought it in the knowledge that what it had to offer was fine for you and not with the intent to whine about any possibility that the company - understandably - has denied you form the start.
If they sold it, they should have sold it in the knowledge that the strength of their product's tamper protection was fine for them and not with the intent to whine about any possibility that the buyer - understandably - has broken the weak system.
In both cases, someone will come up with smart contact lenses (or something else that's pretty much undetectable) even faster
There's a hard limit on personal technology. It can't advance beyond the point where putting a pocket knife on someone's throat to steal it becomes a profitable job. That's why in most cyberpunk scenarios one of the technological advances is in self defense.
i.e.: There won't be ultra-tech glasses/contact lenses/etc unless someone thinks of a way of protecting the clients form increasingly profitable mugging.
The interesting thing about this debate is that whoever figures out how to extract elements and useful molecules in a generalized way from any refuse first is going to literally and figuratively be sitting on a gold mine.
Assuming that the technology to extract molecules will predate the obsolescence of pure/homogeneous materials.
It's cheaper for Apple to change that law than to provide repairs. It's more profitable for the lawmakers to change that law than to force Apple to provide repairs.
Slashdot Mirror
*pedantism
This "article" lost all credibility the moment they claimed that Kodak was replaced by Instagram.
Actually, the "article" lost all credibility quite sooner, at "Destroying the Middle Class".
The writer is ignorant of even the most basic economic theory and history. Another sad example of the bar height for becoming a journalist.
You're spoiling the answer to the exercise left to the reader.
and use technology for accomplishing things like ending hunger.
Hunger is not a problem, it's a consequence of inequality. Ending inequality shouldn't start with the difference between those who have 0% of the total and those who have 0.1% (the separation made by "hunger").
You might consider advocating for the end of massive accumulation of riches. That way you'll tackle a difference of several tens%
If your lovemaking includes unmanned aerial vehicles, directed-energy weapons, lethal autonomous robots and cyber weapons... You're probably doing it very right and should do online tutorials.
http://www.aluminiumleader.com/en/around/transport/cars
http://www.drivers.com/article/245/
http://www.audiworld.com/news/02/aluminum/content1.shtml
Because Preview.
Deflect towns away from tsunamis with atomic blasts.
For the cost of the materials infrastructure you'd need to bend a tidal wave around even a small building. Let alone a town.
It would be cheaper to move the town to somewhere you're not going to get hit in the first place. Far far far cheaper.
Now unless you have a spare load of cash numbering into the multi multi trillions laying around... This plan is an insane idea.
Soundproofing tho. That might be something.
A - Cost of materials: ?
B - Cost of moving a city: ?
C - ? if far far far cheaper than ?
Therefore: Insane idea. (unless you have multi multi trillions.)
There's nothing shameful on being old.
And thusly began The Saga of Cold Fjord and Peter Pan.
Because, as we all know, if you deal with a really large amount of energy, physics can't possibly work.
Which part of the constitution are they violating? Can you cite the passage or amendment?
For reasons of national security, that passage must be kept secret.
But you surely can trust the NSA's word about the existence of that passage.
It's the free/stored dual nature of data; which can be easily proven by passing data through a very narrow slit.
Don't be ridiculous.
Have you seen the traffic? We'll need at least half an hour to reach you. Please stay put.
Secretly yours,
NSA.
the product comes the way it was designed. If you bought it, you should have bought it in the knowledge that what it had to offer was fine for you and not with the intent to whine about any possibility that the company - understandably - has denied you form the start.
If they sold it, they should have sold it in the knowledge that the strength of their product's tamper protection was fine for them and not with the intent to whine about any possibility that the buyer - understandably - has broken the weak system.
And yet they whine incessantly.
In both cases, someone will come up with smart contact lenses (or something else that's pretty much undetectable) even faster
There's a hard limit on personal technology. It can't advance beyond the point where putting a pocket knife on someone's throat to steal it becomes a profitable job. That's why in most cyberpunk scenarios one of the technological advances is in self defense.
i.e.: There won't be ultra-tech glasses/contact lenses/etc unless someone thinks of a way of protecting the clients form increasingly profitable mugging.
There is only a single electron in the universe, propagating through space and time in such a way as to appear in many places simultaneously.
As a mnemonic rule, remember:
Number of electrons = Number of spoons + 1
I have a one word solution to that problem:
Catapults!
The interesting thing about this debate is that whoever figures out how to extract elements and useful molecules in a generalized way from any refuse first is going to literally and figuratively be sitting on a gold mine.
Assuming that the technology to extract molecules will predate the obsolescence of pure/homogeneous materials.
This is what the terrorists want.
That's what a terrorist would say.
Or a traitor!
Are you a terrorist? Or are you a traitor. (Or are you dancer)
You need huge fucking steel balls to double-down like that!
Actually, you only need need to compare the current loss to the new possible loss and the new possible win.
If, as I think happens in this case, current loss to new possible loss and current loss possible win, you need only commons sense to double-down.
Even when the argument of your double down is as stupid as "Terrorists!" or, the only slightly more infantile "pinky swear!".
They think removing one arm to reduce costs is a compromise?
They should speak to the engineering team who conceived the fleshlight.
If Australians want to know why they are constantly charged more for things, this is an example of such regulation.
Australians are charged more for things because charging Australians more for things produces a greater benefit than not charging them more.
Everything else is Stockholm syndrome. It's time to kill the beliefs about the fairness of the world.
It's cheaper for Apple to change that law than to provide repairs.
It's more profitable for the lawmakers to change that law than to force Apple to provide repairs.
Therefore, the law will be changed.
Capitalist Oligarchy 101.