There's no need for total vegetarianism. Almost everyone in the developed world - which is fast becoming a lot more of the world than it once was - eats far more meat than is required to maintain health. Just cut it back.
I wouldn't be surprised if some high-frequency traders have actually hired scientists to study if this is feasible. I hope the 'no' cost a lot of money to establish.
Exactly what Apple are doing is still not fully understood, but it seems to involve reducing either the maximum CPU speed, or the length of time in which it can stay at that speed. If their claims that this is about stability are to be believed, this would make sense: They want to cap maximum instantaneous power draw below what they are confident an ageing battery can provide. Otherwise the battery voltage may dip below what is required for stable operation
Li-ions in phones are chosen for capacity, not longevity, and are usually run at the limits of their rated voltage limits to get the highest possible initial chemistry. This just reflects consumer demand: People only look at how long their possible new phone will run for when new, not how long it will run in two years.
The quest for thinness. Customers love thin, light phones. A replaceable battery adds extra thickness for the battery enclosure over just using a bare cell inside the phone. That extra milimeter really matters when selling phones. It's not just an Apple thing: Phones with easily replacable batteries are the exception now, not the norm.
It is possible-ish to replace the battery in an iPhone. Exactly how hard depends upon the model, but it isn't something your typical phone user, with no experience in electronics repair, could pull off without a risk of destroying the phone.
Perverse incentive, though. If the ISP invests in a fast, high-capacity infrastructure, what is the motivation for any company to pay for priority service? The incentive is for ISPs to hold back investment a bit, just enough to make sure that their standard tier service is not good enough.
Under Bush: "Federal authority on marriage! We must defend not allow states to redefine it!" Under Obama: "States rights on marriage! Do not allow the tyranny of the supreme court to violate our freedom!"
Maybe politicians just claim 'states rights' when it's convenient for whatever position they are advocating at the time?
It also plays better with the R's standard 'all regulation is oppression' ideology. Their reflexive reaction to any form of government action is to oppose it, until given a reason otherwise. It doesn't need to be much of a reason though, as their libertarian claims are largely a show and will be thrown aside the moment they become inconvenient.
They are also not essential services that are absolutely required to participate in society - no matter how hard Facebook tries to make that the case, it's still perfectly possible to live a facebook-free life. This is not the case for internet access. It's the portal to job-searching and applying, to your local and state government offices, to shopping, to finance. Living without the internet is very difficult indeed.
"Allowing Netflix to pay my isp to zero rate their traffic does nothing to speed up or slow down competitors traffic, it is purely a billing/accounting issue."
It does create a perverse incentive, though. If the ISPs regular, bog-standard service is perfectly good for Netflix, and their caps are so generous that very few customers ever run into them, why would Netflix pay up for zero rating? But if the ISP decides to just hold off on upgrades for a while and instead reduce the caps and over-utilise their backbone, then the regular tier service will become just bad enough that the likes of netflix will have no choice but to pay up for zero-rating and priority tagging.
The political divide in the US has grown so severe that even language is beginning to splinter in two. Using words claimed by the wrong faction is like turning up to a football match wearing the wrong team's shirt... are football shirts a thing there?
Thought so. The 'banned words' is really more of a guide for scientists on "How to talk to politicians."
"Don't say 'fetus!' To you it's a science word, but to a politician that's a flag of liberalism. If you utter that word they'll see you as the enemy and cut your funding. Just call it a pre-born child and they'll treat you as one of their own."
Note the first four words of my post: I was not advocating the position myself, I was only stating how the situation might be viewed by someone of that alignment.
If scientific evidence says that telling teenagers not to have sex doesn't actually work while condoms generally do, but popular opinion says that telling teenagers how to use a condom promotes sin and will send them all to burn in Hell, then both views are now given equal validity in the decision-making process.
In Republican/Conservative land, the result of conception it a baby. It's a baby from day zero, and calling it anything else is just an attempt to deny reality and dehumanise the baby so you can kill it. Only Nazis say fetus.
It's going to make it much easier to avoid scandal though. Simply insist you didn't do it, and denounce any proof otherwise as fake. Seems to work already.
Or it might be the end of comments sections. Consider this scenario:
Someone develops and publishes a comment-bot AI. It's not a general-purpose AI, but you can configure it with a position to promote and point it to a site, and it will then start posting unique comments promoting the view, and posting rebuttals to anyone who opposes the view. It's not going to pass for human in a conversation, but in single posts it'll appear human most of the time.
First thing that happens? Joe's Pizza unleashes a hundred instances to tell the world how great their pizza is. AI spam. But this is hard spam to get rid of, because it's constantly changing: This AI learns how anti-spam measures work. CAPTCHA tests get even more annoying for a while. But that's ok: The internet is used to spam. Joe's Pizza gets a lot of hate.
Then an election rolls around. Say, a US presidential election.
Suddenly, millions of instances appear - half of them promoting the Republicans, and half the Democrats. Comment threads all over the internet become fifty-pages of almost fully automatically generated text, flooding out any human voice. Both parties deny such underhanded techniques, of course - and perhaps even truthfully, as fingers are pointed to independent pressure groups or the governments of other countries as a possible source.
Meanwhile, the Church of the Easily Offended gets their running. They set a few thousand running - their job is to identify 'inappropriate' material - anything that offends their religion, or standards of decency or of clean language - and submit reports or write angry letters to site operators. In an amusing irony, the church website shortly has to close their own comments section because of the millions of bots now searching the internet for church comments pages and posting about why Islam is the true religion.
In the end the only option is to drop anonymous comments entirely, and tie any comments into verified accounts established with proof of identity.
Exactly. He might not be in 'the west.' He may well be in the sort of country where it is reasonable to fear the government may disappear him, or an angry business owner might ask the local mafia to take care of him.
Cables strewn all over a city means the city predates electricity - it's something that was retrofitted, hung up anywhere there was space. A city district built in more recent years has far less visible cabling, because it's mostly underground.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no need for total vegetarianism. Almost everyone in the developed world - which is fast becoming a lot more of the world than it once was - eats far more meat than is required to maintain health. Just cut it back.
Or a bulking agent.
Fake-meat does not taste quite as nice as real-meat. But what about, say, a mince that is 25% meat and 75% meat substitute?
Why do we need high energy density foods? Outside of disaster relief situations.
Just go direct. Network over neutrinos!
I wouldn't be surprised if some high-frequency traders have actually hired scientists to study if this is feasible. I hope the 'no' cost a lot of money to establish.
Exactly what Apple are doing is still not fully understood, but it seems to involve reducing either the maximum CPU speed, or the length of time in which it can stay at that speed. If their claims that this is about stability are to be believed, this would make sense: They want to cap maximum instantaneous power draw below what they are confident an ageing battery can provide. Otherwise the battery voltage may dip below what is required for stable operation
Li-ions in phones are chosen for capacity, not longevity, and are usually run at the limits of their rated voltage limits to get the highest possible initial chemistry. This just reflects consumer demand: People only look at how long their possible new phone will run for when new, not how long it will run in two years.
The quest for thinness. Customers love thin, light phones. A replaceable battery adds extra thickness for the battery enclosure over just using a bare cell inside the phone. That extra milimeter really matters when selling phones. It's not just an Apple thing: Phones with easily replacable batteries are the exception now, not the norm.
It is possible-ish to replace the battery in an iPhone. Exactly how hard depends upon the model, but it isn't something your typical phone user, with no experience in electronics repair, could pull off without a risk of destroying the phone.
Perverse incentive, though. If the ISP invests in a fast, high-capacity infrastructure, what is the motivation for any company to pay for priority service? The incentive is for ISPs to hold back investment a bit, just enough to make sure that their standard tier service is not good enough.
Under Bush: "Federal authority on marriage! We must defend not allow states to redefine it!"
Under Obama: "States rights on marriage! Do not allow the tyranny of the supreme court to violate our freedom!"
Maybe politicians just claim 'states rights' when it's convenient for whatever position they are advocating at the time?
It also plays better with the R's standard 'all regulation is oppression' ideology. Their reflexive reaction to any form of government action is to oppose it, until given a reason otherwise. It doesn't need to be much of a reason though, as their libertarian claims are largely a show and will be thrown aside the moment they become inconvenient.
They are also not essential services that are absolutely required to participate in society - no matter how hard Facebook tries to make that the case, it's still perfectly possible to live a facebook-free life. This is not the case for internet access. It's the portal to job-searching and applying, to your local and state government offices, to shopping, to finance. Living without the internet is very difficult indeed.
"Allowing Netflix to pay my isp to zero rate their traffic does nothing to speed up or slow down competitors traffic, it is purely a billing/accounting issue."
It does create a perverse incentive, though. If the ISPs regular, bog-standard service is perfectly good for Netflix, and their caps are so generous that very few customers ever run into them, why would Netflix pay up for zero rating? But if the ISP decides to just hold off on upgrades for a while and instead reduce the caps and over-utilise their backbone, then the regular tier service will become just bad enough that the likes of netflix will have no choice but to pay up for zero-rating and priority tagging.
It's like condoms sizes: the company will sell, fast, extra fast, superfast and ultrafast.
The political divide in the US has grown so severe that even language is beginning to splinter in two. Using words claimed by the wrong faction is like turning up to a football match wearing the wrong team's shirt. .. are football shirts a thing there?
Thought so. The 'banned words' is really more of a guide for scientists on "How to talk to politicians."
"Don't say 'fetus!' To you it's a science word, but to a politician that's a flag of liberalism. If you utter that word they'll see you as the enemy and cut your funding. Just call it a pre-born child and they'll treat you as one of their own."
Note the first four words of my post: I was not advocating the position myself, I was only stating how the situation might be viewed by someone of that alignment.
It's codespeak for 'popular oppinion.'
If scientific evidence says that telling teenagers not to have sex doesn't actually work while condoms generally do, but popular opinion says that telling teenagers how to use a condom promotes sin and will send them all to burn in Hell, then both views are now given equal validity in the decision-making process.
Politics.
In Republican/Conservative land, the result of conception it a baby. It's a baby from day zero, and calling it anything else is just an attempt to deny reality and dehumanise the baby so you can kill it. Only Nazis say fetus.
It's going to make it much easier to avoid scandal though. Simply insist you didn't do it, and denounce any proof otherwise as fake. Seems to work already.
Or it might be the end of comments sections. Consider this scenario:
Someone develops and publishes a comment-bot AI. It's not a general-purpose AI, but you can configure it with a position to promote and point it to a site, and it will then start posting unique comments promoting the view, and posting rebuttals to anyone who opposes the view. It's not going to pass for human in a conversation, but in single posts it'll appear human most of the time.
First thing that happens? Joe's Pizza unleashes a hundred instances to tell the world how great their pizza is. AI spam. But this is hard spam to get rid of, because it's constantly changing: This AI learns how anti-spam measures work. CAPTCHA tests get even more annoying for a while. But that's ok: The internet is used to spam. Joe's Pizza gets a lot of hate.
Then an election rolls around. Say, a US presidential election.
Suddenly, millions of instances appear - half of them promoting the Republicans, and half the Democrats. Comment threads all over the internet become fifty-pages of almost fully automatically generated text, flooding out any human voice. Both parties deny such underhanded techniques, of course - and perhaps even truthfully, as fingers are pointed to independent pressure groups or the governments of other countries as a possible source.
Meanwhile, the Church of the Easily Offended gets their running. They set a few thousand running - their job is to identify 'inappropriate' material - anything that offends their religion, or standards of decency or of clean language - and submit reports or write angry letters to site operators. In an amusing irony, the church website shortly has to close their own comments section because of the millions of bots now searching the internet for church comments pages and posting about why Islam is the true religion.
In the end the only option is to drop anonymous comments entirely, and tie any comments into verified accounts established with proof of identity.
Exactly. He might not be in 'the west.' He may well be in the sort of country where it is reasonable to fear the government may disappear him, or an angry business owner might ask the local mafia to take care of him.
Do we know what country he is in?
Cables strewn all over a city means the city predates electricity - it's something that was retrofitted, hung up anywhere there was space. A city district built in more recent years has far less visible cabling, because it's mostly underground.
No, but transferable debt is currency for all practical purposes.
You forgot a few other things which often face calls to ban:
Porn sites.
Sites criticising or insulting religion.