It does update some kexts I believe. I've never once rebooted after updating iTunes. Don't know why it asks you to.
Troll? Re:That didn't take too long to fail
on
iOS 5 Update Available
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Are you trolling? I don't think anything at all you've said in your posts is right?
1) A brand new full iTunes download is 103mb, not 700 as you claimed.
2) I've never ever had to do anything remotely like you claim about removing kernel extensions and rebooting 3 times with iTunes, and in the past month I have bounced forwards and backwards between several beta versions. (b8 -> b9 -> b7 -> 10.5 all worked flawlessly). Just download a new version of iTunes and the installer will upgrade it anyway.
3) I just dragged iTunes to the trash. OSX asked for my password. I entered it. It deleted.
4) If you're not comfortable with GUI instructions and are at all competent with a bash/csh commandline, just fire up terminal and using su or sudo delete to your heart's contact. kextstat / kextunload / kextload can be used to view, load, and unload kernel extensions, but I've only ever had to use those commands when I was developing one. sudo rm -fr/Applications/iTunes.app/ etc
5) Absolutely false what you claimed about Apple expecting a crashed iPhone to just drain off the battery.
I'm afraid I've only fed into your ego honey pot, but whatever...
They suck. They just suck differently now. They've switched from being an ISP to being a content company (and most of their content creators seems rather disgruntled). Mostly US-based, but most slashdotters should recognize names like TechCrunch or primarily HuffPo...the rest, not so much.
Think of it as a honeypot for nerdrage and you won't be far off the mark.
I was curious after I saw somebody else do it a month or two ago (misattributed science fiction quotes). I found it humorous. Mine wasn't as inspired...
No. The Message app uses the iMessage protocol if available. If not available, it falls back to SMS/MMS. It's completely transparent/unified. The only indicator which message transport is being used is the color of the send button or conversation bubble. My first reaction was similar (how long until we see an iCloud outage), but for this example I don't think Apple has anything to worry about.
No, I think you misunderstand the fallacy here. The problem is that the original post to which I replied said exactly: "everybody was yapping about the magical iPhone 5."
In reality, that is not true at all (this is now the 3rd time I've explained this). The major mac rumors site--and even if you want to avoid my classification of them as more reliable (which they are!), then by measure of traffic the far and away most read mac sites (check the numbers if you don't believe me)--show that no, most people were not talking about a magical iPhone 5. MOST people were talking about a cheap iPhone 4 and an incrementally upgraded iPhone 4s. Absolutely some random poorly trafficked sites threw up random guesses about an iPhone 5, but how is that relevant to what "everybody" was yapping about?
I'm shocked that this seems so hard for some people to understand?
Though slashdot's many Apple articles might aggravate android haters, slashdot does not qualify as an apple rumor site. "Some" people were yapping about an iphone5, but none of the rumor sites were (other than to say it wasn't beyond the realm of possibility)
Yeah sure, people can make up rumors all the time. Making up rumors is not the same as leaking or receiving leaked information. I could predict a followup to the Samsung Galaxy SIII and eventually I'll probably be right! Even a broken clock--that old thing.
The point is, Apple did not successfully control leaks of information regarding the phone and software that was actually announced.
The venerable and largely reliable site is macrumors.com. 9to5mac is newer but has a good record as well. They almost always cover the same things.
Reading the reliable sites, just about everything -- including the name 4s! -- was indeed leaked correctly. The only information about the 5 came from 3rd parties--case designers. Information about the 4s allegedy came from closer sources. This includes photographs of chips, ports, wiring, etc. False rumors are what people make up that aren't reliable. Leaks are based on actual information that isn't made up. Is everything that was predicted -- even on macrumors -- correct? Of course not! They would be the first to say that. The point is, there were actual leaks, as opposed to just rampant speculation. Apple did not control any information about the iphone 4s.
While Apple kept the idea of a modestly improved iPhone 4 pretty close to the chest (everybody was yapping about the magical iPhone 5 and a 'cheap' iPhone), they can't do it forever.
That's actually not true in the slightest. The rumor sites had universally nixed the idea of an iPhone5 by the time of the announcements (or at least said, it's possible that there will be an iPhone5, but we have absolutely no evidence for it at all). The 'cheap' iPhone is the 8gb iphone4 (and the 'free' 3gs). Siri/personal assistant feature had been leaked. Upgraded camera had been leaked. I don't think there was a single unanticipated thing in the announcement beyond the odd "mail a postcard" feature and the existence of a "Where are my Friends?" app.
Does the default dock layout really have that? For one thing, I don't think there's a way to make dock icons respond to a mouse hover? Secondly, I didn't think I'd ever seen an applications stack before in the default layout? Is that new with Lion?
I've been using OSX since 10.2 in one form or another, and I've never heard of this "application bar." What the heck are you trying to describe?
The only thing I can think of is, that you're attempting to describe a Finder windows' sidebars or the Finder's "Go" menu? If so, in both cases, what you mistakenly believe is a menu is actually a shortcut to a folder. When you click "Applications" you're being taken to a Finder window (the equivalent of an explorer window in Windows). I don't think you can say that that is in any way comparable to the Start Menu.
Sorry. Not sure which point I failed to address. In general I'm interested in new ideas, facts, and understandings, but I tend to ignore strangers' opinions of my character, intelligence, or blog posts.
Ok, except I didn't say anything at all about your "character, intelligence, or blog posts." (unelss you're calling a post on slashdot a blog post). I just replied to what you posted. Why post if you don't want to discuss a topic? I don't get it.
I don't think "meddle with" means "affect" or "touch." I was referring to government actions that attempt to control the economy or favor special interests. Building roads and infrastructure is a healthy and proper facilitation of the economy. But government giving selective access to that infrastructure I would consider meddling.
Again, the very definition of government. Government controls access to all of the infrastructure it creates. Governments, for instance, control access to roads. If governments levy taxes, they're acting proper, if they relieve taxes, they're meddling? What's the distinction?
Perhaps you'll forgive me for paraphrasing. The point I was making was about preferential treatment.
Yeah, but you claimed something very different from what the article claimed. You've since clarified that you basically made up the claim that a Taiwanese (I think you also don't realize that Foxconn is Taiwanese company) is both a sweatshop and that it would "play by looser rules"--which you explained meant "regulations."
I think none of those activities are especially popular among libertarians. Some may be ok with tariffs, some may like immigration regulated. Virtually none of them want trade regulated, none of them want government dictating interest rates.
Absolutely correct, none of those things are POPULAR amongst libertarians, but it's an extremely rare libertarian who would--for instance--say "no taxes, on anything, at all." It's a very rare libertarian who would say "no regulations, on anything, at all." There are many libertarians who don't believe in open-borders.
But really, you're just avoiding the criticism I made of your posts. Governments perform myriad actions that affect the economy both directly and indirectly. It's frankly silly to say that governments should never meddle with the economy, because that's basically what governments are made to do! Even if you're a "roads and military" (or just roads!) libertarian, guess what, building roads meddles with the economy. So, unless you're an anarcho-capitalist, your post is just kind of... bizarre!
The article talks about negotiations breaking down over taxes and regulations. If they weren't getting special treatment, they'd get no better tax deal and no better rules than the computer shop down the street.
Is this true? TFA doesn't even contain the world "regulation." Do you have a different citation? Just curious what "looser rules" you're talking about since the article doesn't seem to mention that.
That's somewhat silly. Inviting in foreign companies -- and then copying them -- is exactly how China got where they are today.
Countries "meddle" in the economy when the impose taxes, regulations, change interest rates, regulate trade, regulate immigration, etc. Obviously not all of that is bad! Who is talking about sweat shops playing by looser rules?
I lean strongly to the libertarian, but your viewpoint is much harsher than mine!
Hardly anybody denies that Marx was an absolutely brilliant analysts. I've even heard a Cato speaker say just that--that Marx very accurately pinpointed a lot of the problems with the economies of his day (some aspects of which remain today).
What I think you're really getting at, is that Marx wrote about what we might today call "social dumping." That is, like water, production flows around the globe to the point of least resistance. India has cheaper lumber than the US, global production of lumber will be centered in India. The US makes the best and cheapest pianos--global production of pianos will be centered in the US (as it was in the first half of the 20th century, until it flowed away). Contrary to what you say, the one catch is really not natural resources, but labor.
This has been cited as one of the problems with the modern EU--social dumping. In some of the countries with strong social welfare and strong labor unions (and high standards of living for all citizens), many industries have been taken over by cheap migrant labor, often from Eastern Europe. This is a problem for welfare states!
I think it was Milton Friedman who said something along the lines of "You can have open borders or you can have a strong welfare state--but not both."
The disagreements re: Marx show up when it comes to solutions. Countries (or states) will always vie to attract businesses. And why shouldn't they?
George RR Martin's earlier stuff? Eh, I haven't read much (other than the Game of Throne series), and I'm not a huge fan of what I've read.
I've read a Song for Lya and Other Short Stories, Windhaven, and started a third whose name I forget. I really liked the premise of Windhaven, but I hated the characters and the plot (dual authors, so maybe not GRRM's fault!). I'm not at all interested in the "Wild Card" books so I haven't tried them.
He's made a crapload of money off not only his books but all the ancillaries. He's not QUITE as bad as Lucas, and I don't think any of the non-essentials have affected the game line, so I'm not sure sellout is a great description. I generally think of a sellout being someone who somehow compromised his/her values...I don't hink he's compromised anything. I mean, he's very big government leftwing, but just being leftwing doesn't mean you don't want to get filthy rich.
With regards to the quality of AGoT, as they say, de gustibus... I think his first three novels are great and 4+5 are a huge dropoff (unfortunately). I'm hoping he can pick up the pieces and keep going.
Hah, I play that game as well any anybody, and starting off a post like that is perhaps even more aggressive than me calling your other post ridiculously dumb. (though another poster did call me out on that, so I will say that I should have been more diplomatic in my original post. I apologize for the hyperbole)
What I mean is that there is different types of advancement. Hunter gatherers know their environment very well and can survive there. The most basic thing they usually learn is to respect the very resources their life depends on, because anything else means death.
Ridiculous noble savage again. "Respect" the very resources their lives depend on? If by respect you mean fear, be cognizant of the power of, worship, etc, I'll buy it. But I don't think that's the sense of respect you mean. I think you mean respect in spiritual, green, earth mother way. Don't forget that to pre-modern humans, the environment is pretty fucking scary. Floods? Droughts? Tsunamis? Earthquakes? Hurricanes? Lightning? All with no warning and no understanding of why or when? These romantic notions of living in perfect harmony with the Earth are a relatively modern creation that have since been shoehorned onto amongst others Amerindians, Australian Aborigines, and so forth.
They have gathered knowledge during thousands of years that is essential to their survival. Which plants to eat and to use, what material is best used for what purpose and so forth. (What tree species/types would you use for a composite bow?) Just drop a random tourist deep into the jungles of Papua-New Guinea and see how long he/she survives. Or maybe Siberia?
Or drop a native Lapp into Arabia, an Arab into the Amazon, a European into the Outback, an Australian Aborigine into Sibera, etc. Some would no doubt adapt, many would die. Try it with a cockroach. Are cockroaches more advanced? Learning what plants are poisonous and which can be eat is certainly useful knowledge to have, but it's hardly useful as an indicator of civilization advancement, since it's generally step 1 in development. I don't hink the Aborigines developed a compound bow, did they? I don't know.
Sure you can be proud that your culture developed windmills, sextants and aqueducts (did they?), but in such situation that knowledge won't keep you warm.
Please read what I wrote. Actually here you go: " (I'm trying to pick a wide range of innovations from around the globe here, in case it wasn't obvious)." I very deliberately picked a list of technologies that originated across the globe, NOT just from one culture.
I think that it's very plausible that humans have evolved as a species into certain way of life (we were hunter gatherers for several hundred of thousand of years afterall) and that what we are today might not be natural or even best for us. It's likely just a runaway reaction caused by farming.
It's not nice of you to try to label me as some religious nutjob. I'm intrested in pondering things like this and I try to keep an open mind. I just think that there's no need to bash those that have lived as hunter gatherers as stupid and backwards. They have shitloads of knowledge that is relevant to their way of life.
Here's why I was led to believe by your original post that you're a religious nutjob (and I'm led further in that direction by your second post). What on earth does "best" mean? The mere fact that you're applying intrinsically meaningless values to quantifiable things like "advancement" (meaning advancement beyond the starting point) shows that you do view this in a less than factual way. If you're a canine, is it better to live as an overfed housedog or as an atavistic wolf in its natural habitat? Depending on your religious views on the environment, people will answer this differently.
Barring possibly the OP AC, nobody is bashing indigenous people. Nob
Slashdot Mirror
It does update some kexts I believe. I've never once rebooted after updating iTunes. Don't know why it asks you to.
Are you trolling? I don't think anything at all you've said in your posts is right?
1) A brand new full iTunes download is 103mb, not 700 as you claimed.
2) I've never ever had to do anything remotely like you claim about removing kernel extensions and rebooting 3 times with iTunes, and in the past month I have bounced forwards and backwards between several beta versions. (b8 -> b9 -> b7 -> 10.5 all worked flawlessly). Just download a new version of iTunes and the installer will upgrade it anyway.
3) I just dragged iTunes to the trash. OSX asked for my password. I entered it. It deleted.
4) If you're not comfortable with GUI instructions and are at all competent with a bash/csh commandline, just fire up terminal and using su or sudo delete to your heart's contact. kextstat / kextunload / kextload can be used to view, load, and unload kernel extensions, but I've only ever had to use those commands when I was developing one. sudo rm -fr /Applications/iTunes.app/ etc
5) Absolutely false what you claimed about Apple expecting a crashed iPhone to just drain off the battery.
I'm afraid I've only fed into your ego honey pot, but whatever...
And you're here to save slashdot with your invectives? I think stupid comments are as much a problem as anything these days...
They suck. They just suck differently now. They've switched from being an ISP to being a content company (and most of their content creators seems rather disgruntled). Mostly US-based, but most slashdotters should recognize names like TechCrunch or primarily HuffPo...the rest, not so much.
Think of it as a honeypot for nerdrage and you won't be far off the mark.
I was curious after I saw somebody else do it a month or two ago (misattributed science fiction quotes). I found it humorous. Mine wasn't as inspired...
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2459630&cid=37602748
Oh right Deep Space 9...my mistake. Truly one of the more moving lines ever uttered by Commander Cisco.
...and the Babylon 5 fans come out of the woodwork. As if BlackBerry fans weren't annoying enough to begin with!
No. The Message app uses the iMessage protocol if available. If not available, it falls back to SMS/MMS. It's completely transparent/unified. The only indicator which message transport is being used is the color of the send button or conversation bubble. My first reaction was similar (how long until we see an iCloud outage), but for this example I don't think Apple has anything to worry about.
No, I think you misunderstand the fallacy here. The problem is that the original post to which I replied said exactly: "everybody was yapping about the magical iPhone 5."
In reality, that is not true at all (this is now the 3rd time I've explained this). The major mac rumors site--and even if you want to avoid my classification of them as more reliable (which they are!), then by measure of traffic the far and away most read mac sites (check the numbers if you don't believe me)--show that no, most people were not talking about a magical iPhone 5. MOST people were talking about a cheap iPhone 4 and an incrementally upgraded iPhone 4s. Absolutely some random poorly trafficked sites threw up random guesses about an iPhone 5, but how is that relevant to what "everybody" was yapping about?
I'm shocked that this seems so hard for some people to understand?
Though slashdot's many Apple articles might aggravate android haters, slashdot does not qualify as an apple rumor site. "Some" people were yapping about an iphone5, but none of the rumor sites were (other than to say it wasn't beyond the realm of possibility)
Yeah sure, people can make up rumors all the time. Making up rumors is not the same as leaking or receiving leaked information. I could predict a followup to the Samsung Galaxy SIII and eventually I'll probably be right! Even a broken clock--that old thing.
The point is, Apple did not successfully control leaks of information regarding the phone and software that was actually announced.
You're reading the wrong sites :-P
The venerable and largely reliable site is macrumors.com. 9to5mac is newer but has a good record as well. They almost always cover the same things.
Reading the reliable sites, just about everything -- including the name 4s! -- was indeed leaked correctly. The only information about the 5 came from 3rd parties--case designers. Information about the 4s allegedy came from closer sources. This includes photographs of chips, ports, wiring, etc. False rumors are what people make up that aren't reliable. Leaks are based on actual information that isn't made up. Is everything that was predicted -- even on macrumors -- correct? Of course not! They would be the first to say that. The point is, there were actual leaks, as opposed to just rampant speculation. Apple did not control any information about the iphone 4s.
Read the macrumors roundup to see what I mean http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1238595
While Apple kept the idea of a modestly improved iPhone 4 pretty close to the chest (everybody was yapping about the magical iPhone 5 and a 'cheap' iPhone), they can't do it forever.
That's actually not true in the slightest. The rumor sites had universally nixed the idea of an iPhone5 by the time of the announcements (or at least said, it's possible that there will be an iPhone5, but we have absolutely no evidence for it at all). The 'cheap' iPhone is the 8gb iphone4 (and the 'free' 3gs). Siri/personal assistant feature had been leaked. Upgraded camera had been leaked. I don't think there was a single unanticipated thing in the announcement beyond the odd "mail a postcard" feature and the existence of a "Where are my Friends?" app.
Does the default dock layout really have that? For one thing, I don't think there's a way to make dock icons respond to a mouse hover? Secondly, I didn't think I'd ever seen an applications stack before in the default layout? Is that new with Lion?
I've been using OSX since 10.2 in one form or another, and I've never heard of this "application bar." What the heck are you trying to describe?
The only thing I can think of is, that you're attempting to describe a Finder windows' sidebars or the Finder's "Go" menu? If so, in both cases, what you mistakenly believe is a menu is actually a shortcut to a folder. When you click "Applications" you're being taken to a Finder window (the equivalent of an explorer window in Windows). I don't think you can say that that is in any way comparable to the Start Menu.
Sorry. Not sure which point I failed to address. In general I'm interested in new ideas, facts, and understandings, but I tend to ignore strangers' opinions of my character, intelligence, or blog posts.
Ok, except I didn't say anything at all about your "character, intelligence, or blog posts." (unelss you're calling a post on slashdot a blog post). I just replied to what you posted. Why post if you don't want to discuss a topic? I don't get it.
I don't think "meddle with" means "affect" or "touch." I was referring to government actions that attempt to control the economy or favor special interests. Building roads and infrastructure is a healthy and proper facilitation of the economy. But government giving selective access to that infrastructure I would consider meddling.
Again, the very definition of government. Government controls access to all of the infrastructure it creates. Governments, for instance, control access to roads. If governments levy taxes, they're acting proper, if they relieve taxes, they're meddling? What's the distinction?
Perhaps you'll forgive me for paraphrasing. The point I was making was about preferential treatment.
Yeah, but you claimed something very different from what the article claimed. You've since clarified that you basically made up the claim that a Taiwanese (I think you also don't realize that Foxconn is Taiwanese company) is both a sweatshop and that it would "play by looser rules"--which you explained meant "regulations."
I think none of those activities are especially popular among libertarians. Some may be ok with tariffs, some may like immigration regulated. Virtually none of them want trade regulated, none of them want government dictating interest rates.
Absolutely correct, none of those things are POPULAR amongst libertarians, but it's an extremely rare libertarian who would--for instance--say "no taxes, on anything, at all." It's a very rare libertarian who would say "no regulations, on anything, at all." There are many libertarians who don't believe in open-borders.
But really, you're just avoiding the criticism I made of your posts. Governments perform myriad actions that affect the economy both directly and indirectly. It's frankly silly to say that governments should never meddle with the economy, because that's basically what governments are made to do! Even if you're a "roads and military" (or just roads!) libertarian, guess what, building roads meddles with the economy. So, unless you're an anarcho-capitalist, your post is just kind of ... bizarre!
The article talks about negotiations breaking down over taxes and regulations. If they weren't getting special treatment, they'd get no better tax deal and no better rules than the computer shop down the street.
Is this true? TFA doesn't even contain the world "regulation." Do you have a different citation? Just curious what "looser rules" you're talking about since the article doesn't seem to mention that.
That's somewhat silly. Inviting in foreign companies -- and then copying them -- is exactly how China got where they are today.
Countries "meddle" in the economy when the impose taxes, regulations, change interest rates, regulate trade, regulate immigration, etc. Obviously not all of that is bad! Who is talking about sweat shops playing by looser rules?
I lean strongly to the libertarian, but your viewpoint is much harsher than mine!
Hardly anybody denies that Marx was an absolutely brilliant analysts. I've even heard a Cato speaker say just that--that Marx very accurately pinpointed a lot of the problems with the economies of his day (some aspects of which remain today).
What I think you're really getting at, is that Marx wrote about what we might today call "social dumping." That is, like water, production flows around the globe to the point of least resistance. India has cheaper lumber than the US, global production of lumber will be centered in India. The US makes the best and cheapest pianos--global production of pianos will be centered in the US (as it was in the first half of the 20th century, until it flowed away). Contrary to what you say, the one catch is really not natural resources, but labor.
This has been cited as one of the problems with the modern EU--social dumping. In some of the countries with strong social welfare and strong labor unions (and high standards of living for all citizens), many industries have been taken over by cheap migrant labor, often from Eastern Europe. This is a problem for welfare states!
I think it was Milton Friedman who said something along the lines of "You can have open borders or you can have a strong welfare state--but not both."
The disagreements re: Marx show up when it comes to solutions. Countries (or states) will always vie to attract businesses. And why shouldn't they?
George RR Martin's earlier stuff? Eh, I haven't read much (other than the Game of Throne series), and I'm not a huge fan of what I've read.
I've read a Song for Lya and Other Short Stories, Windhaven, and started a third whose name I forget. I really liked the premise of Windhaven, but I hated the characters and the plot (dual authors, so maybe not GRRM's fault!). I'm not at all interested in the "Wild Card" books so I haven't tried them.
Hah, I knew I forgot something. I'm sure I missed other products too...he's a busy man.
He's made a crapload of money off not only his books but all the ancillaries. He's not QUITE as bad as Lucas, and I don't think any of the non-essentials have affected the game line, so I'm not sure sellout is a great description. I generally think of a sellout being someone who somehow compromised his/her values...I don't hink he's compromised anything. I mean, he's very big government leftwing, but just being leftwing doesn't mean you don't want to get filthy rich.
With regards to the quality of AGoT, as they say, de gustibus... I think his first three novels are great and 4+5 are a huge dropoff (unfortunately). I'm hoping he can pick up the pieces and keep going.
Don't forget the replica coins, replica swords, board game, card game (and expansion packs), roleplaying game (2 versions), comic books, spinoff short stories, illustrated hardcover books, limited edition books, collectible calendars, and collectible toy figurines.
GRRM is one capitalist SOB! Damn good author, damn good businessman.
Can that possibly be true? I know nothing about Android but I can't imagine that your explanation is accurate...that would eliminate 99% of programs.
I'm guessing the distinction you didn't mention is "activity-tied-to-launcher"? Any thoughts?
No need to get so emotional.
Hah, I play that game as well any anybody, and starting off a post like that is perhaps even more aggressive than me calling your other post ridiculously dumb. (though another poster did call me out on that, so I will say that I should have been more diplomatic in my original post. I apologize for the hyperbole)
What I mean is that there is different types of advancement. Hunter gatherers know their environment very well and can survive there. The most basic thing they usually learn is to respect the very resources their life depends on, because anything else means death.
Ridiculous noble savage again. "Respect" the very resources their lives depend on? If by respect you mean fear, be cognizant of the power of, worship, etc, I'll buy it. But I don't think that's the sense of respect you mean. I think you mean respect in spiritual, green, earth mother way. Don't forget that to pre-modern humans, the environment is pretty fucking scary. Floods? Droughts? Tsunamis? Earthquakes? Hurricanes? Lightning? All with no warning and no understanding of why or when? These romantic notions of living in perfect harmony with the Earth are a relatively modern creation that have since been shoehorned onto amongst others Amerindians, Australian Aborigines, and so forth.
They have gathered knowledge during thousands of years that is essential to their survival. Which plants to eat and to use, what material is best used for what purpose and so forth. (What tree species/types would you use for a composite bow?) Just drop a random tourist deep into the jungles of Papua-New Guinea and see how long he/she survives. Or maybe Siberia?
Or drop a native Lapp into Arabia, an Arab into the Amazon, a European into the Outback, an Australian Aborigine into Sibera, etc. Some would no doubt adapt, many would die. Try it with a cockroach. Are cockroaches more advanced? Learning what plants are poisonous and which can be eat is certainly useful knowledge to have, but it's hardly useful as an indicator of civilization advancement, since it's generally step 1 in development. I don't hink the Aborigines developed a compound bow, did they? I don't know.
Sure you can be proud that your culture developed windmills, sextants and aqueducts (did they?), but in such situation that knowledge won't keep you warm.
Please read what I wrote. Actually here you go: " (I'm trying to pick a wide range of innovations from around the globe here, in case it wasn't obvious)." I very deliberately picked a list of technologies that originated across the globe, NOT just from one culture.
I think that it's very plausible that humans have evolved as a species into certain way of life (we were hunter gatherers for several hundred of thousand of years afterall) and that what we are today might not be natural or even best for us. It's likely just a runaway reaction caused by farming.
It's not nice of you to try to label me as some religious nutjob. I'm intrested in pondering things like this and I try to keep an open mind. I just think that there's no need to bash those that have lived as hunter gatherers as stupid and backwards. They have shitloads of knowledge that is relevant to their way of life.
Here's why I was led to believe by your original post that you're a religious nutjob (and I'm led further in that direction by your second post). What on earth does "best" mean? The mere fact that you're applying intrinsically meaningless values to quantifiable things like "advancement" (meaning advancement beyond the starting point) shows that you do view this in a less than factual way. If you're a canine, is it better to live as an overfed housedog or as an atavistic wolf in its natural habitat? Depending on your religious views on the environment, people will answer this differently.
Barring possibly the OP AC, nobody is bashing indigenous people. Nob