They are not orthogonal unfortunately because for religions to work they have to manipulate how people think. Science is really nothing more than a rigorous method of thinking and it routinely comes into conflict with religions on this point.
Science and religion are orthogonal in that science tries to explain creation while religion tries to explain God's actions, motivations and expectations. Religion accepts observations of science because they are the mechanics that God set in motion. Science doesn't attempt to answer questions related to God because there is no evidence.
Many religious people have no problem with scientific thinking. The big bang theory was proposed by a Catholic priest teaching at a Catholic university for example. Many understand that the passages of the bible are figurative not literal. Things needed to be explained in terms that pre-scientific shepherds and farmers could easily understand. If God were presenting his creation story today at a cosmological conference it would probably be far more technical. I'm betting on a multiverse, and that dark energy/matter is mentioned, hopefully explained.
What you seem to be finding in conflict with science is politics. Politics can copt and use both science and religion as a tool for political ends.
Curious how they interpret genesis then. If the big bang theory is accurate, then a god simply cannot have created the universe. It all comes down to relativity: If the universe started as a single dimensionless point, then the gravity would have been so strong that time didn't exist. If time didn't exist, then there was no time for a god to create the universe.
It is unlikely that the big bang presents any sort of theological problem for the church. The theory was put forward by a Catholic priest teaching at a Catholic university after all.
Keep in mind that communications between two parties needs to be a least common denominator sort of thing. An all powerful God has to use concepts that humans can understand. The pre-scientific farmers and shepherds of the bible's day needed something a bit simplified compared to a modern astrophysicist. Perhaps if God were to explain things today we might have a genesis where our universe is created out of a multiverse. That would be closer to what I think the church argues, that God is beyond the universe, outside of it. Not simply in a different geographical part of it. Hence the ability to create space, time and the universe.
Billionaires/Millionaires invests in start-up that could improve their profit margins by a non-trivial amount. Who cares? Show me the article when the technology is working and proven beneficial or otherwise.
I can show you an example of where this sort of thing is actually being used today.
"We take scrap from rockets and turn that into premium carbon fiber skateboards" http://www.121cboards.com/
As someone who comes from MS-DOS/Windows PCs background, I've never quite understood the appeal of Apple's products.
I have an Apple II/C64/Mac/DOS/Windows/Linux background, both as user and developer. The advantage of Macs today are:
- Reliability. With all the parts coming from the original vendor compatibility and drivers are not much of an issue. This also translates into security. Personally I have few problems on the PC since but I build my own from carefully chosen high quality parts. A more typical budget crapware laden retail PC is more troublesome. Most problems I've seen on the Windows side are due to 3rd party software, not Microsoft, especially drivers. Less 3rd party under macOS.
- Compatibility. I can dual boot in macOS or Windows. Yes emulators are nice but for games and some development work a native OS is better.
- Desktop Unix. Some tasks are better done under *nix. I've been using Linux since '94. However macOS provides a perfectly good *nix environment and Linux is pretty much relegated to headless boxes in a closet somewhere these days. The macOS GUI and macOS apps are simply better than their Linux counterparts.
In summary, a quality reliable box with native macOS, MS Windows and Unix environments.
Historically MacOS was superior to Windows through 3.x. Win9x was close enough but still inferior. Windows NT was where Windows became superior, it was inexcusable for Apple to take so long to get something like MacOS X.
If solar panel lifetime is shorter than 15-20 years like you say, why do solar manufacturers offer warrantees for 25 years or more?
A sales trick? Only the original purchaser gets the warranty and they are likely to move before it fails or seriously degrades? Or the poster is using dated technical info, those LG panels might be quite different that what was manufactured a decade or so earlier. A friend considered going solar 10+ years ago and dug into the technical info and it wasn't quite cost effective back then. Today it probably is, but he moved from CA to WA.
I have no idea where you're getting 300L a day. A human only needs around 1l of water a day to survive.
No, active adults need about 3L not 1L. So with this device producing about 2.8L it could sustain a single person. Things get complicated with activity levels and climate, and water in food counts towards the total.
The 1L per day figure is life raft level rationing where you are sedentary and either rescued from the sea in a few days or likely to die so additional water is unlikely to change the outcome.
Businesses don't get to decide if they compete on value or price. Consumers make that choice for them. Business follows where consumers lead them.
The point you are missing is that US consumers now consider environmental impact a value, for at least five decades they have not considered domestic/local manufacture a value. That can change, domestic/local could become a value in the mind of the consumer. This conversation is not about if some value exits, it is about the specific value of domestic/local manufacture.
I'm not sure you are getting my point. My point is that consumers demonstrated a preference for something, a consideration other than the lowest price. Manufacturers responded with products matching that consumer consideration. Consumers need to make domestic/local production one such consideration. As consumers rewarded companies that offshored, they can reverse their behavior and reward companies that produce domestically. Manufacturers will respond.
Sure, people will buy the cheapest thing if there is no compelling reason to buy the more expensive thing.
The compelling reason is their own economic security, their job prospects. As the other poster refers to, in other countries the people better understand this and do have a bias towards domestic goods. It is something they consider. The problem is we don't. In the 1970s there was a popular bumper sticker, "Save a Job, Buy American". Back then people couldn't imagine the offshoring that would come. Now people should have a better appreciation of this phrase. The people in the other countries have often had their own bad times and already learned this lesson.
Sure, there are always exceptions. And the good side of globalization is bringing in high quality or specialized/new goods that are not normally available. However over the last 50 years a huge amount of low quality imports have displaced higher quality domestics and that was due to consumer based decisions.
I want to stress that I am referring to a 50 year process, not just today's situation. Although the trend continues, and more importantly the trend is reversible IFF consumers show a preference for domestic/local.
Walmart doesn't manufacture products. Walmart can't sell you an American made version of a Samsung TV if Samsung doesn't make them!
That does not change the fact that when consumers do have a choice they generally choose low cost import.
Nor does it change the fact that 45 years ago consumers did have a choice in TVs and chose the cheap import. Again, we're talking about a trend that has been at work for at least 50 years.
Poor(er) people think that way. If you're rich, you have the luxury of getting what you want, and not having to have the cheaper stuff; of not having to choose between a good product or a good holiday/eating out more/clothing and feeding your kids. Poorer people don't have that choice. And it's not as if the elite/rich people are doing all they can to lift poor people out of poverty. I'd not blame "consumers" for trying to stretch their money as far as possible.
That the impoverished have a more valid reason does not change the fact that businesses that go the offshoring route are rewarded by consumers, that consumers drive offshoring process.
Also this was largely driven by the middle class, as most things are. Keep in mind that this trend started long ago when it was far more likely for a HS educated person to find a job that offered a living wage.
What percentage of products are greenwashing and what percentage are effective and less troublesome for people and/or the environment I don't know. However that doesn't matter to my point, which is that people demonstrated a willingness to buy something using a metric other than the lowest price and manufacturers and retailers respond. It worked for "green". It could work for "domestic/local".
big map books of the local area are not that easy to use in the car and what if you need 2-3 of them cover the drivers zone?
Well, we had three of those guidebooks (Thomas Bros) and we looked at them when not actively driving. Basically there was a planning stage where we created a mental map, it was enough or it was supplemented by notes (street names, distances, turns, etc.). Then once we had a plan we executed the plan. It really was not much trouble, two or three minutes up front before you started driving.
I confess that my guides are 10+ years old and move from trunk of old car to trunk of new car unused. Off in the wilds, there I moderate the wonders of handheld wireless computing. Drop GPS pins where we park and where we set up a campsite but navigate with printed maps and mechanical compasses, brushing up on that perishable skill, leaving the phone/gps in a waterproof bag turned off for backup.
You're oversimplifying a complex issue to blame the working class. Americans shop on price because we're desperately trying to maintain our standard of living in the face of declining wages. Those wages are declining because of globalization and automation.
Globalization is in part a result of the consumer's willingness to consider price above any other consideration. The consumer drives the offshoring process through their choices, their "tragedy of the commons" logic. CEOs may be greedy but it is sales that satisfy their greed, and it is consumers who decide whether offshoring improves or hurts sales.
Walmart's slogan nails it: You're not destroying Unions and plunging the country into the worst income inequality since WWI; you're saving money, living better.
The thing is Walmart is not creating that behavior, they are capitalizing on that pre-existing behavior, they leverage the pre-existing behavior.
I beg to differ. I have never seen any attempt to market products this way. When I go to the Apple store, they don't sell an iPhone made at Foxconn and an iPhone made in the US. It doesn't happen with any product.
We are talking about Walmart not Apple, a retailer not a supplier that happens to have a boutique retail store. I believe I can find US made goods like a MagLite flashlight, a Nalgene water bottle, a Leatherman multitool, a Lodge skillet, etc at Walmart.
We are also talking about a current situation that is the result of consumer behavior that has been going on for 40 to 50 years. And now with online shopping it is easier to find US made goods than in recent years.
If consumers wanted to demonstrate a preference for local products they have options. Such a trend would be recognized. That is why you find various "greener" products at the grocery store nowadays, consumers started voting with their dollars and stores responded.
Technically that is we the consumers that are doing that. Offshoring, low quality, etc... those are not CEO choices, those are consumer choices. When presented with two products, one domestically produced, higher quality and higher priced, and the other produced overseas, lower quality and lower priced, we the consumer overwhelmingly choose the lower priced. We reward the supplier that offshores and reduces quality. If we consumers showed a preference for local goods and/or higher quality goods that is what Walmart would stock the shelves with. They stock what sells, we decide what sells.
Before you laugh, some history... Walmart is/was a tech leader, they pioneered digitizing and automating the supply chain (orders, payments, etc) and inventory management (what, where, etc) back in the 1970s. They were also mining "big data" back then (more what and where - hurricane warning in gulf, move pop tarts from midwest distribution centers to gulf stores). Opening their "big data" is how they got suppliers to buy into their digital supply chain. Suppliers got to see their product sale at national, regional and even store levels with 15min granularity. All the cash registers reported to a store's minicomputer which then connected by satellite to headquarters to report sales.
Cases with integrated batteries address this problem. The phone itself does not have to go in this direction.
There is another thing about the Razr that is loved and missed. A small size that easily fit in the pocket. Thin and lightweight are an attempt to partially fulfill this Razr attribute. However today's handheld computers need a larger screen so we will always fall short of the Razr's convenience. An iPhone SE with the thickness and weight of an iPod touch might be convenient enough, ignoring the technical limitations that make that infeasible today. A case roughly twice as thick that triples battery life would seem reasonable for those that want endurance.
Seems like a thin phone plus a thick case is a path that lets both the convenience and endurance camps get what they desire.
Sure. In theory - I've not heard of it being done in practise other than wrt to specific bios settings like clock speed. As far as I know, this isn't possible in Windows (or linux) - happy to be proven wrong though. Do you have any links with further info? My cursory 30 seconds of googling seemed to suggest was still not possible.
Drivers interact with the hardware all the time. So too could malware as long as it is running in privileged mode, like drivers and other low level OS code. The hardware I am speaking of are the chipsets for the various types of I/O, not the BIOS itself. BIOS is largely irrelevant once the host OS is running. The host OS may look at current BIOS setting and respect a user setting but it is under no obligation to do so, BIOS can not enforce any limitations on the host OS. So if you can get malware running in privileged mode you could configure and provide drivers for a wifi chipset that both BIOS and the host OS ignored and never configured themselves.
yup. but the bios settings are typically a lot harder to change from userland than, well, userland settings (if it's even possible at all - normally it's not)
You don't need to change BIOS settings from userland. From userland to kernel to hardware works just as well, the hardware does not care what is configuring and initializing it.
Slashdot Mirror
They are not orthogonal unfortunately because for religions to work they have to manipulate how people think. Science is really nothing more than a rigorous method of thinking and it routinely comes into conflict with religions on this point.
Science and religion are orthogonal in that science tries to explain creation while religion tries to explain God's actions, motivations and expectations. Religion accepts observations of science because they are the mechanics that God set in motion. Science doesn't attempt to answer questions related to God because there is no evidence.
Many religious people have no problem with scientific thinking. The big bang theory was proposed by a Catholic priest teaching at a Catholic university for example. Many understand that the passages of the bible are figurative not literal. Things needed to be explained in terms that pre-scientific shepherds and farmers could easily understand. If God were presenting his creation story today at a cosmological conference it would probably be far more technical. I'm betting on a multiverse, and that dark energy/matter is mentioned, hopefully explained.
What you seem to be finding in conflict with science is politics. Politics can copt and use both science and religion as a tool for political ends.
Curious how they interpret genesis then. If the big bang theory is accurate, then a god simply cannot have created the universe. It all comes down to relativity: If the universe started as a single dimensionless point, then the gravity would have been so strong that time didn't exist. If time didn't exist, then there was no time for a god to create the universe.
It is unlikely that the big bang presents any sort of theological problem for the church. The theory was put forward by a Catholic priest teaching at a Catholic university after all.
Keep in mind that communications between two parties needs to be a least common denominator sort of thing. An all powerful God has to use concepts that humans can understand. The pre-scientific farmers and shepherds of the bible's day needed something a bit simplified compared to a modern astrophysicist. Perhaps if God were to explain things today we might have a genesis where our universe is created out of a multiverse. That would be closer to what I think the church argues, that God is beyond the universe, outside of it. Not simply in a different geographical part of it. Hence the ability to create space, time and the universe.
Billionaires/Millionaires invests in start-up that could improve their profit margins by a non-trivial amount. Who cares? Show me the article when the technology is working and proven beneficial or otherwise.
I can show you an example of where this sort of thing is actually being used today.
"We take scrap from rockets and turn that into premium carbon fiber skateboards"
http://www.121cboards.com/
Each skateboard removes five pounds of carbon fiber from landfill.
https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...
As someone who comes from MS-DOS/Windows PCs background, I've never quite understood the appeal of Apple's products.
I have an Apple II/C64/Mac/DOS/Windows/Linux background, both as user and developer. The advantage of Macs today are:
- Reliability. With all the parts coming from the original vendor compatibility and drivers are not much of an issue. This also translates into security. Personally I have few problems on the PC since but I build my own from carefully chosen high quality parts. A more typical budget crapware laden retail PC is more troublesome. Most problems I've seen on the Windows side are due to 3rd party software, not Microsoft, especially drivers. Less 3rd party under macOS.
- Compatibility. I can dual boot in macOS or Windows. Yes emulators are nice but for games and some development work a native OS is better.
- Desktop Unix. Some tasks are better done under *nix. I've been using Linux since '94. However macOS provides a perfectly good *nix environment and Linux is pretty much relegated to headless boxes in a closet somewhere these days. The macOS GUI and macOS apps are simply better than their Linux counterparts.
In summary, a quality reliable box with native macOS, MS Windows and Unix environments.
Historically MacOS was superior to Windows through 3.x. Win9x was close enough but still inferior. Windows NT was where Windows became superior, it was inexcusable for Apple to take so long to get something like MacOS X.
Does that include agricultural and industrial water use?
Very doubtful, that sounds like personal use or maybe household use / occupancy.
If solar panel lifetime is shorter than 15-20 years like you say, why do solar manufacturers offer warrantees for 25 years or more?
A sales trick? Only the original purchaser gets the warranty and they are likely to move before it fails or seriously degrades? Or the poster is using dated technical info, those LG panels might be quite different that what was manufactured a decade or so earlier. A friend considered going solar 10+ years ago and dug into the technical info and it wasn't quite cost effective back then. Today it probably is, but he moved from CA to WA.
I have no idea where you're getting 300L a day. A human only needs around 1l of water a day to survive.
It sounds like total water usage in the west once you consider showers, toilets, cooking, cleaning, etc.
I have no idea where you're getting 300L a day. A human only needs around 1l of water a day to survive.
No, active adults need about 3L not 1L. So with this device producing about 2.8L it could sustain a single person. Things get complicated with activity levels and climate, and water in food counts towards the total.
The 1L per day figure is life raft level rationing where you are sedentary and either rescued from the sea in a few days or likely to die so additional water is unlikely to change the outcome.
Is there really 79% of iOS users that have a device that can run iOS 10?
An iPhone 5 and an iPad (4th gen) released in 2012 are iOS 10 compatible.
Businesses don't get to decide if they compete on value or price. Consumers make that choice for them. Business follows where consumers lead them.
The point you are missing is that US consumers now consider environmental impact a value, for at least five decades they have not considered domestic/local manufacture a value. That can change, domestic/local could become a value in the mind of the consumer. This conversation is not about if some value exits, it is about the specific value of domestic/local manufacture.
I'm not sure you are getting my point. My point is that consumers demonstrated a preference for something, a consideration other than the lowest price. Manufacturers responded with products matching that consumer consideration. Consumers need to make domestic/local production one such consideration. As consumers rewarded companies that offshored, they can reverse their behavior and reward companies that produce domestically. Manufacturers will respond.
Sure, people will buy the cheapest thing if there is no compelling reason to buy the more expensive thing.
The compelling reason is their own economic security, their job prospects. As the other poster refers to, in other countries the people better understand this and do have a bias towards domestic goods. It is something they consider. The problem is we don't. In the 1970s there was a popular bumper sticker, "Save a Job, Buy American". Back then people couldn't imagine the offshoring that would come. Now people should have a better appreciation of this phrase. The people in the other countries have often had their own bad times and already learned this lesson.
Sure, there are always exceptions. And the good side of globalization is bringing in high quality or specialized/new goods that are not normally available. However over the last 50 years a huge amount of low quality imports have displaced higher quality domestics and that was due to consumer based decisions.
I want to stress that I am referring to a 50 year process, not just today's situation. Although the trend continues, and more importantly the trend is reversible IFF consumers show a preference for domestic/local.
Walmart doesn't manufacture products. Walmart can't sell you an American made version of a Samsung TV if Samsung doesn't make them!
That does not change the fact that when consumers do have a choice they generally choose low cost import.
Nor does it change the fact that 45 years ago consumers did have a choice in TVs and chose the cheap import. Again, we're talking about a trend that has been at work for at least 50 years.
Poor(er) people think that way. If you're rich, you have the luxury of getting what you want, and not having to have the cheaper stuff; of not having to choose between a good product or a good holiday/eating out more/clothing and feeding your kids. Poorer people don't have that choice. And it's not as if the elite/rich people are doing all they can to lift poor people out of poverty. I'd not blame "consumers" for trying to stretch their money as far as possible.
That the impoverished have a more valid reason does not change the fact that businesses that go the offshoring route are rewarded by consumers, that consumers drive offshoring process.
Also this was largely driven by the middle class, as most things are. Keep in mind that this trend started long ago when it was far more likely for a HS educated person to find a job that offered a living wage.
What percentage of products are greenwashing and what percentage are effective and less troublesome for people and/or the environment I don't know. However that doesn't matter to my point, which is that people demonstrated a willingness to buy something using a metric other than the lowest price and manufacturers and retailers respond. It worked for "green". It could work for "domestic/local".
big map books of the local area are not that easy to use in the car and what if you need 2-3 of them cover the drivers zone?
Well, we had three of those guidebooks (Thomas Bros) and we looked at them when not actively driving. Basically there was a planning stage where we created a mental map, it was enough or it was supplemented by notes (street names, distances, turns, etc.). Then once we had a plan we executed the plan. It really was not much trouble, two or three minutes up front before you started driving.
I confess that my guides are 10+ years old and move from trunk of old car to trunk of new car unused. Off in the wilds, there I moderate the wonders of handheld wireless computing. Drop GPS pins where we park and where we set up a campsite but navigate with printed maps and mechanical compasses, brushing up on that perishable skill, leaving the phone/gps in a waterproof bag turned off for backup.
No, its up to "teachers" to tell consumers about the tragedy of the commons.
You're oversimplifying a complex issue to blame the working class. Americans shop on price because we're desperately trying to maintain our standard of living in the face of declining wages. Those wages are declining because of globalization and automation.
Globalization is in part a result of the consumer's willingness to consider price above any other consideration. The consumer drives the offshoring process through their choices, their "tragedy of the commons" logic. CEOs may be greedy but it is sales that satisfy their greed, and it is consumers who decide whether offshoring improves or hurts sales.
Walmart's slogan nails it: You're not destroying Unions and plunging the country into the worst income inequality since WWI; you're saving money, living better.
The thing is Walmart is not creating that behavior, they are capitalizing on that pre-existing behavior, they leverage the pre-existing behavior.
I beg to differ. I have never seen any attempt to market products this way. When I go to the Apple store, they don't sell an iPhone made at Foxconn and an iPhone made in the US. It doesn't happen with any product.
We are talking about Walmart not Apple, a retailer not a supplier that happens to have a boutique retail store. I believe I can find US made goods like a MagLite flashlight, a Nalgene water bottle, a Leatherman multitool, a Lodge skillet, etc at Walmart.
We are also talking about a current situation that is the result of consumer behavior that has been going on for 40 to 50 years. And now with online shopping it is easier to find US made goods than in recent years.
If consumers wanted to demonstrate a preference for local products they have options. Such a trend would be recognized. That is why you find various "greener" products at the grocery store nowadays, consumers started voting with their dollars and stores responded.
... force quality down in the name of price ...
Technically that is we the consumers that are doing that. Offshoring, low quality, etc ... those are not CEO choices, those are consumer choices. When presented with two products, one domestically produced, higher quality and higher priced, and the other produced overseas, lower quality and lower priced, we the consumer overwhelmingly choose the lower priced. We reward the supplier that offshores and reduces quality. If we consumers showed a preference for local goods and/or higher quality goods that is what Walmart would stock the shelves with. They stock what sells, we decide what sells.
Before you laugh, some history ... Walmart is/was a tech leader, they pioneered digitizing and automating the supply chain (orders, payments, etc) and inventory management (what, where, etc) back in the 1970s. They were also mining "big data" back then (more what and where - hurricane warning in gulf, move pop tarts from midwest distribution centers to gulf stores). Opening their "big data" is how they got suppliers to buy into their digital supply chain. Suppliers got to see their product sale at national, regional and even store levels with 15min granularity. All the cash registers reported to a store's minicomputer which then connected by satellite to headquarters to report sales.
Cases with integrated batteries address this problem. The phone itself does not have to go in this direction.
There is another thing about the Razr that is loved and missed. A small size that easily fit in the pocket. Thin and lightweight are an attempt to partially fulfill this Razr attribute. However today's handheld computers need a larger screen so we will always fall short of the Razr's convenience. An iPhone SE with the thickness and weight of an iPod touch might be convenient enough, ignoring the technical limitations that make that infeasible today. A case roughly twice as thick that triples battery life would seem reasonable for those that want endurance.
Seems like a thin phone plus a thick case is a path that lets both the convenience and endurance camps get what they desire.
Sure. In theory - I've not heard of it being done in practise other than wrt to specific bios settings like clock speed. As far as I know, this isn't possible in Windows (or linux) - happy to be proven wrong though. Do you have any links with further info? My cursory 30 seconds of googling seemed to suggest was still not possible.
Drivers interact with the hardware all the time. So too could malware as long as it is running in privileged mode, like drivers and other low level OS code. The hardware I am speaking of are the chipsets for the various types of I/O, not the BIOS itself. BIOS is largely irrelevant once the host OS is running. The host OS may look at current BIOS setting and respect a user setting but it is under no obligation to do so, BIOS can not enforce any limitations on the host OS. So if you can get malware running in privileged mode you could configure and provide drivers for a wifi chipset that both BIOS and the host OS ignored and never configured themselves.
yup. but the bios settings are typically a lot harder to change from userland than, well, userland settings (if it's even possible at all - normally it's not)
You don't need to change BIOS settings from userland. From userland to kernel to hardware works just as well, the hardware does not care what is configuring and initializing it.