Even further, lets say lab grown beef becomes economically viable to replace 'real' beef. Would it be ethical to allow the extinction of the cow because it had become economically unsustainable? It cannot survive without humans because we artificially selected traits to service our needs over its own over thousands of years.
Life may suck for a cow but at least it has a life. Is a bad life better than no life?
You know fully well the people that are pushing for the reduction or elimination of meat consumption would suddenly reverse their tune if breeds of cows, hogs, and chickens were going extinct because we listened to them.
On the other hand though, if farm land were to resort to natural woodland (or whatever the natural land usage is wherever that field is) - genetic diversity for other animals that lived in those woodlands would increase- and there would be less extinction pressure on OTHER animals.
Let's just be honest, simply LIVING emits carbon, so are they not really saying people will have to die? They want us to go back to the amount of carbon we emitted in the 1700's, which is going to pretty much require that a large percentage of us die to save the planet.
There is an alternate solution. We inject chlorophyll under everyone's skin; they can absorb carbon and would need to eat a lot less.
There are an awful lot of animals in this world that would never be born in the first place if we didn't eat them.
Indeed. Many millions a year. Maybe billions of animals that owe their existence due to humans. Wouldn't want to be in their shoes, but the global cow, chicken, pig, etc... populations would be far lower if people didn't exist.
Again, not saying life is all rosy for a farm animal, but farmed animals in general have a healthier, less stressful life than their wild counterparts. Life sucks for battery hens and the like though.
I want to know. If I feed a horse my ready made breakfast sandwich, how many miles can he trot on the calories from that breakfast sandwich? (carrying me of course).
What if I convert my sandwich to biodiesel? How far can my car travel with that? Would it be more efficient to feed my car breakfast sandwiches than diesel?
I think this idea of the Doomsday clock being soooo close to midnight reveals just how useless a measurement of crisis it actually is. They're suggesting that a global nuclear holocaust has never been more likely? More likely than during the Cuban Missile Crisis?
OK... so time for my smart ass response... of course we're closer to a global nuclear holocaust than the Cuban Missile Crisis- because that event was in the past- any potential nuclear holocaust can only exist in the future... (sorry had to get that out the way- I'm not proud of myself)...
Than when the president of China urged President Nixon to join him in nuking Russia? Closer than when Pakistan and India took turns testing nukes underground in the early 2000's? All of those years of the cold war where both the US and USSR had nuclear-armed bombers flying all around?
The only location where a nuclear event is likely to take place would be in North Korea: If any event took place, it would have to be a limited attack by the North Korea, prompting a US response. But that isn't to suggest an entire global nuclear winter would necessarily follow.
This is nothing but attention-seeking for the organization behind the clock and in no way measures the actual threat of a nuclear doomsday.
Serious response time. Obviously we're no more in danger of mutually self-assured mass destruction (in the short term) than we appeared to be during any of those events. Few people would sanely argue that we are. It can change any moment... two major world leaders have a big misunderstanding about something, read a missile launch incorrectly... *boom* - but the plain reality is, that doesn't appear to be any more likely now, than it did during those events.
With that said, I think the doomsday clock has some merit. It's not really scientific, it's not really accurate, it's more subjective than objective, but it still has value. It's a social narrative that says "hey look-here; we need a wake up call, things are going down the wrong path... we don't want to accidentally blow up the earth."
When the newspapers of the world write "doomsday-clock moves closer to midnight" it always makes news around the world and people at least partially pay attention. (we're discussing it now). The problem with this model is...it's not as easy to move backwards as it is to move forwards. You move the hand back and it gives people the wrong impression; the result is you have a hand moving ever closer to *boom*.
Could a better scale be made? Could a better system be put in place?
Absolutely, but this is one the public understands and know about now so it appears to have stuck. Even a broken clock occasionally tells the right time.
Most languages have a no-op statement. C allows just a plain ";" as a do nothing statement. Even going back to Fortran, there was CONTINUE. It's a very old concept.
Very true, although ";" is decidedly less amusing than "Do Nothing"... at least to me.
Not sure if Speedware is still around. I briefly did a little work with that. They had one command that was ahead of its time. Would have been a hit with millenials.
Do Nothing;
Yes, that was the command. Don't remember the rest of the Speedware syntax, so below is wrong, but the idea was:
if (x) {
Do Nothing; } else {
CallMyProcedure(); }
For some reason "Do Nothing" was preferable to them than saying "Not X" in the If statement. I used to pepper my code with "Do Nothing" just to be silly. (I was young and liked having a laugh back then).
Of course, the real question is: why didn't they do this when they put the slowdown software in in the first place? Treating your customers like milk cows makes it harder, not easier, to sell next-generation hardware.
I can think of two reasons: 1) It admits there is a problem. (even if it is a problem that affects every brand) 2) It adds "choice" to the consumer and Apple's philosophy is or was "it just works" by making the consumer decide something the consumer has to think. Apple wants to be seen as a company that thinks for you so that you don't have to.
Yeah, they screwed up here and should have given a choice- but their reasoning probably was "let's do this to help out Granny McNubbins; she doesn't want to think about whether she wants speed or battery... let's just do it for her." They weren't thinking about the techy Chip McFly who wants to be able to decide how his phone works... from a market segment the Chip McFlys of the world trend towards Android, and the Granny McNubbins trend towards Apple. Sure, there is crossover.
It's normal business for a company to give a big discount to use their product. if the payout took place in the U.S. there is nothing the E.U. can do about it.
I would never pay their fine.
The EU absolutely has authority over what companies that operate within the EU do. There are many-many cases where the US has passed punitive measures against companies not based in the US too. This isn't something only the EU does.
I understand the concern here. Is it different though to say...
In 007, Die another Day, every car used in the film had to be a Ford or a Ford subsidiary because Ford paid them. Or when Coke or Pepsi make an agreement with a restaurant chain to be their only provider. Or when an event provider agrees to only employ people from a certain staffing agency. Sure, Restaurant X could start buying Pepsi but then face a financial penalty. On the same token Apple COULD start buying Intel, but then face the wrath of Qualcomm who won't pay them (or demand their money back).
My problem is not that QC being punished for this, it's that, the same thing seems to happen in business all the time, and maybe there is a subtle difference in what Apple/QC did and what Coke/McDonalds or Ford/MGM or any of the others do. It seems a very difficult thing to police without overstepping boundaries. I obviously understand why we want to make sure that competition remains open; it just appears there are some shades of grey here that other company agreements approach.
Is it illegal to "pay to play"? How is Qualcomm paying to be an exclusive provider not just a contract agreement of service? I thought this happens in a lot of industries. How is it different to offering a bulk-discount if you buy x million chips from us? (essentially doing the same thing)
I know some grocery stores accept money from companies to guarantee certain shelf-space; for example.
If Qualcomm had paid to guarantee they be used for just 99% of chips supplied would that still be illegal (obviously Apple would just get all from them in that case, because wouldn't make sense to change hardware to allow a second chip for 1% of products).
Apart from the 2015 MacBook Pro, it's the only laptop with a decent keyboard and enough ports for real-world use.
The replacement cannot be the MacBook because the keyboard sucks, there's only one USB-C port that also happens to be the port for charging, it's slower because of thermal throttling and it's more expensive on top of that. The only thing better than the MacBook Air is the display.
Maybe they have something else in the pipeline. Or maybe they don't care about losing market-share in the laptop area because they see tablets/phones as more profitable. (and everyone has been half expecting a decent dockable phone that runs a computer setup for a long time)
Probably shouldn't let kids vape with nicotine; I did not RTFA, but I'm assuming kids already are not allowed to buy nicotine containing vape stuff. If more people quit smoking with vaping, than new people are lead to smoking because of vaping- vaping is a net positive impact on society.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have a penis which looks like an eggplant, seek medical attention.
I did and the nurse gave me her phone number.
Who cares what words mean as long as it gets more billable hours for lawyers and paralegals.
Lawyers can kiss my big purple aubergine! [that's eggplant for the yanks]
The secret to a longer life is nudity.
Where is my science grant to study people in nudist colonies?
They will; but it will cost an ARM and a leg.
Even further, lets say lab grown beef becomes economically viable to replace 'real' beef. Would it be ethical to allow the extinction of the cow because it had become economically unsustainable? It cannot survive without humans because we artificially selected traits to service our needs over its own over thousands of years.
Life may suck for a cow but at least it has a life. Is a bad life better than no life?
You know fully well the people that are pushing for the reduction or elimination of meat consumption would suddenly reverse their tune if breeds of cows, hogs, and chickens were going extinct because we listened to them.
On the other hand though, if farm land were to resort to natural woodland (or whatever the natural land usage is wherever that field is) - genetic diversity for other animals that lived in those woodlands would increase- and there would be less extinction pressure on OTHER animals.
Let's just be honest, simply LIVING emits carbon, so are they not really saying people will have to die? They want us to go back to the amount of carbon we emitted in the 1700's, which is going to pretty much require that a large percentage of us die to save the planet.
There is an alternate solution. We inject chlorophyll under everyone's skin; they can absorb carbon and would need to eat a lot less.
#greenchicksarehot
There are an awful lot of animals in this world that would never be born in the first place if we didn't eat them.
Indeed. Many millions a year. Maybe billions of animals that owe their existence due to humans. Wouldn't want to be in their shoes, but the global cow, chicken, pig, etc... populations would be far lower if people didn't exist.
Again, not saying life is all rosy for a farm animal, but farmed animals in general have a healthier, less stressful life than their wild counterparts. Life sucks for battery hens and the like though.
Guess we'd better stop eating sandwiches.
I guarantee you will quickly lower your carbon footprint if you stop eating.
I don't recommend it however.
Silly alarmism makes that more likely to happen, since it jades the public, and reduces the credibilty of scientists.
Brits should be offended that their tax dollars were spent on something as frivolous as this "study".
Brits don't have tax dollars.
I want to know. If I feed a horse my ready made breakfast sandwich, how many miles can he trot on the calories from that breakfast sandwich? (carrying me of course).
What if I convert my sandwich to biodiesel? How far can my car travel with that? Would it be more efficient to feed my car breakfast sandwiches than diesel?
Or do they just keep forgetting to adjust for leap seconds.
If the clock doesn't move back soon we're in big trouble when we adjust for daylight savings time.
I think this idea of the Doomsday clock being soooo close to midnight reveals just how useless a measurement of crisis it actually is. They're suggesting that a global nuclear holocaust has never been more likely? More likely than during the Cuban Missile Crisis?
OK... so time for my smart ass response... of course we're closer to a global nuclear holocaust than the Cuban Missile Crisis- because that event was in the past- any potential nuclear holocaust can only exist in the future... (sorry had to get that out the way- I'm not proud of myself)...
Than when the president of China urged President Nixon to join him in nuking Russia? Closer than when Pakistan and India took turns testing nukes underground in the early 2000's? All of those years of the cold war where both the US and USSR had nuclear-armed bombers flying all around?
The only location where a nuclear event is likely to take place would be in North Korea: If any event took place, it would have to be a limited attack by the North Korea, prompting a US response. But that isn't to suggest an entire global nuclear winter would necessarily follow.
This is nothing but attention-seeking for the organization behind the clock and in no way measures the actual threat of a nuclear doomsday.
Serious response time. Obviously we're no more in danger of mutually self-assured mass destruction (in the short term) than we appeared to be during any of those events. Few people would sanely argue that we are. It can change any moment... two major world leaders have a big misunderstanding about something, read a missile launch incorrectly... *boom* - but the plain reality is, that doesn't appear to be any more likely now, than it did during those events.
With that said, I think the doomsday clock has some merit. It's not really scientific, it's not really accurate, it's more subjective than objective, but it still has value. It's a social narrative that says "hey look-here; we need a wake up call, things are going down the wrong path... we don't want to accidentally blow up the earth."
When the newspapers of the world write "doomsday-clock moves closer to midnight" it always makes news around the world and people at least partially pay attention. (we're discussing it now). The problem with this model is...it's not as easy to move backwards as it is to move forwards. You move the hand back and it gives people the wrong impression; the result is you have a hand moving ever closer to *boom*.
Could a better scale be made? Could a better system be put in place?
Absolutely, but this is one the public understands and know about now so it appears to have stuck. Even a broken clock occasionally tells the right time.
I thought it was almost lunchtime.
Indeed, lunchtime for the post-apocalypse radiation-zombies.
how come you misspell "millennials" in the exact same incorrect way that everyone else does?
Because if I misspelt it any other way it would be different to how everyone else misspelt it.
Most languages have a no-op statement. C allows just a plain ";" as a do nothing statement. Even going back to Fortran, there was CONTINUE. It's a very old concept.
Very true, although ";" is decidedly less amusing than "Do Nothing"... at least to me.
Not sure if Speedware is still around. I briefly did a little work with that. They had one command that was ahead of its time. Would have been a hit with millenials.
Do Nothing;
Yes, that was the command. Don't remember the rest of the Speedware syntax, so below is wrong, but the idea was:
if (x)
{
Do Nothing;
}
else
{
CallMyProcedure();
}
For some reason "Do Nothing" was preferable to them than saying "Not X" in the If statement. I used to pepper my code with "Do Nothing" just to be silly. (I was young and liked having a laugh back then).
Of course, the real question is: why didn't they do this when they put the slowdown software in in the first place? Treating your customers like milk cows makes it harder, not easier, to sell next-generation hardware.
I can think of two reasons: 1) It admits there is a problem. (even if it is a problem that affects every brand) 2) It adds "choice" to the consumer and Apple's philosophy is or was "it just works" by making the consumer decide something the consumer has to think. Apple wants to be seen as a company that thinks for you so that you don't have to.
Yeah, they screwed up here and should have given a choice- but their reasoning probably was "let's do this to help out Granny McNubbins; she doesn't want to think about whether she wants speed or battery... let's just do it for her." They weren't thinking about the techy Chip McFly who wants to be able to decide how his phone works... from a market segment the Chip McFlys of the world trend towards Android, and the Granny McNubbins trend towards Apple. Sure, there is crossover.
The EU has no authority in the U.S.
It's normal business for a company to give a big discount to use their product. if the payout took place in the U.S. there is nothing the E.U. can do about it.
I would never pay their fine.
The EU absolutely has authority over what companies that operate within the EU do. There are many-many cases where the US has passed punitive measures against companies not based in the US too. This isn't something only the EU does.
I understand the concern here. Is it different though to say...
In 007, Die another Day, every car used in the film had to be a Ford or a Ford subsidiary because Ford paid them. Or when Coke or Pepsi make an agreement with a restaurant chain to be their only provider. Or when an event provider agrees to only employ people from a certain staffing agency. Sure, Restaurant X could start buying Pepsi but then face a financial penalty. On the same token Apple COULD start buying Intel, but then face the wrath of Qualcomm who won't pay them (or demand their money back).
My problem is not that QC being punished for this, it's that, the same thing seems to happen in business all the time, and maybe there is a subtle difference in what Apple/QC did and what Coke/McDonalds or Ford/MGM or any of the others do. It seems a very difficult thing to police without overstepping boundaries. I obviously understand why we want to make sure that competition remains open; it just appears there are some shades of grey here that other company agreements approach.
Is it illegal to "pay to play"? How is Qualcomm paying to be an exclusive provider not just a contract agreement of service? I thought this happens in a lot of industries. How is it different to offering a bulk-discount if you buy x million chips from us? (essentially doing the same thing)
I know some grocery stores accept money from companies to guarantee certain shelf-space; for example.
If Qualcomm had paid to guarantee they be used for just 99% of chips supplied would that still be illegal (obviously Apple would just get all from them in that case, because wouldn't make sense to change hardware to allow a second chip for 1% of products).
You use that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
If they really want to find the owners they would dredge the base of the River Forth. We all know that this is a case of the Scottish Mafia at work.
Apart from the 2015 MacBook Pro, it's the only laptop with a decent keyboard and enough ports for real-world use.
The replacement cannot be the MacBook because the keyboard sucks, there's only one USB-C port that also happens to be the port for charging, it's slower because of thermal throttling and it's more expensive on top of that. The only thing better than the MacBook Air is the display.
Maybe they have something else in the pipeline. Or maybe they don't care about losing market-share in the laptop area because they see tablets/phones as more profitable. (and everyone has been half expecting a decent dockable phone that runs a computer setup for a long time)
If you are using the Internet you aren't taking privacy seriously.
That's why I never use the internet. I especially don't use it to post comments to a forum where anyone else might see my opinions on things.
More gateway drugs we need to ban.
Probably shouldn't let kids vape with nicotine; I did not RTFA, but I'm assuming kids already are not allowed to buy nicotine containing vape stuff. If more people quit smoking with vaping, than new people are lead to smoking because of vaping- vaping is a net positive impact on society.
8 Hours a day, 5 days a week.
8*5 = 40
/ If my employer is reading this, that was just a joke.