He was not doing cosmological research when in the army, however he was doing cosmological research as a priest and a professor at a catholic university. Research done with the full knowledge and support of his church, including some funding. A church that fully embraced his discovery. A church that continues to participate in and support serious cosmological research.
With respect to Lemaître we are talking the 1920s. He had studied civil engineering, math and physics. Had a doctorate. He was a WWI vet, a former officer. I don't think becoming a priest was necessary for him to find room and board.
What, PRECISELY does him being a Monk have to do with religion not being antithetical to science? Because science means questioning (and looking for the answers in evidence, IOW "that which is seen"),...
Yeah, the scientific method, guess what... in Europe various members of the clergy were partly responsible for its widespread adoption. A bishop in London comes to mind, don't recall the name. Sorry, most Christian denominations don't see science and religion as being in conflict, they study orthogonal topics. These religions specifically state that the discoveries of science, the observations of the workings of nature, are not in conflict with faith.
If anyone thinks that parts from a consumer device are obviously not a threat, go find an Iraqi/Afghan vet and ask them what sort of parts detonators of improvised explosive devices are sometimes made from. What was their training with respect to "clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashion?
Honestly it's likely because he had brownish skin.
Wrong. I know of a white kid in liberal California who was arrested for bringing a hoax bomb to his high school. It was a box that ticked and then ticked faster when moved. His name was Steve Wozniak, google him if the name is unfamiliar.
Would it have happened to someone who isn't brown skinned I don't know,...
Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer knows. He was arrested as a high school student for having a hoax bomb. A bomb that "ticked" and then "ticked faster" when moved.
Sorry, "box" not "bomb". A box that "ticked" and then "ticked faster" when moved.
Would it have happened to someone who isn't brown skinned I don't know,...
Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer knows. He was arrested as a high school student for having a hoax bomb. A bomb that "ticked" and then "ticked faster" when moved.
Purely on a factual level, yes he was arrested, after being questioned for an hour and a half (how is that even possible?), and was taken to a detention centre, fingerprinted, photographed, and questioned further.
He was not charged. Possibly that's what you meant.
Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal. Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer, was arrested and spent some hours with law enforcement when he brought a hoax bomb to his high school. A box that ticked, and then ticked faster when it was moved.
As for whether what this kid did was a hoax bomb, any Iraqi / Afghanistan vet can explain to you how the detonators of IEDs are sometimes made from the components of off-the-shelf consumer devices. So, its not unreasonable to see disassembled clock parts in a negative light.
If by "science" you mean creationism/intelligent design, Pi=3, genetics is wrong, evolution is a sin, and scientific theories are just "crazy ideas someguy once had that can't be proven"
You do realize that lots of religious schools, even in Texas, teach evolution even with respect to humans, teach the big bang theory, teach that the discoveries of science are not in conflict with religion, that science and religion search for answers in orthogonal fields.
FYI, genetic science and the big bang theory began with members of the clergy.
... didn't call for killing non-Muslims, but rather treat them with respect and even protect their rights. You could convert, OR you submit to rule by a Muslim state. Submitting to rule of the state sounds bad to our modern secular selves, but back then it was a very progressive form of religious tolerance from a non-secular government...
Actually the non-Muslims were treated as second class citizens, many of the rights of Muslim citizens were denied them, in judicial matters things were stacked against them, etc. And they had to pay an extra tax in order to be treated so. And it was not unheard of to be publicly humiliated for hours as part of the process by which one paid the tax.
The more civilized treatment of non-Muslims was somewhat correlated to the number of non-Muslims in the region, to the possibility of insurgency and rebellion. In North Africa and the Middle East, not so good. In India, much better at times.
I forgot to mention that paying the tax for 2nd class status was generally only an option to Jews and Christians. People that shared the same monotheistic God as Muslims, the God of the Old Testament, "people of the book". People that were at one time on the right track but had fallen one or two prophets behind. Religions unrelated to Islam, pagans, generally not eligible for anything other than slavery.
Back to India, I forgot to mention that some tolerance was motivated by commercial interests, not just rebellion. Members of the faith have to make a living too, so commercial necessities also worked to moderate things. Islamic scholars in India went through some elaborate mental gymnastics to argue that locals were "people of the book" too and not pagans. Scholars in north africa and the middle east did not generally accept these arguments, kinda old school about that old testament.
... didn't call for killing non-Muslims, but rather treat them with respect and even protect their rights. You could convert, OR you submit to rule by a Muslim state. Submitting to rule of the state sounds bad to our modern secular selves, but back then it was a very progressive form of religious tolerance from a non-secular government...
Actually the non-Muslims were treated as second class citizens, many of the rights of Muslim citizens were denied them, in judicial matters things were stacked against them, etc. And they had to pay an extra tax in order to be treated so. And it was not unheard of to be publicly humiliated for hours as part of the process by which one paid the tax.
The more civilized treatment of non-Muslims was somewhat correlated to the number of non-Muslims in the region, to the possibility of insurgency and rebellion. In North Africa and the Middle East, not so good. In India, much better at times.
Ostensibly, not a single one of us in this discussion is an analyst or other operative for an intelligence organization, so as such all we're doing is 'armchair quarterbacking', and worse, 'Monday morning armchair quarterbacking' when it comes to this type of work. I'm not sticking up for these people, but I will say it's easy to criticize what they are (or are not) doing when you don't have any real-world idea what the work actually entails.
A better source of info than operatives and analysts are historians. Take a look at the British Ultra project of WW2 where the communications of Germany were monitored. History shows us that the most mundane, boring and seeming inconsequential info can actually be quite valuable. A huge part of Ultra was organizing and indexing such info so that "random" bits of "related" info could be combined to build a larger picture, a mosaic indicating what an enemy was thinking or doing.
We also have the FBI efforts against organized crime where they created a graph of anyone who had telephone contact with a known member of organized crime. Lots and lots of noise, even criminals have normal household and personal business to conduct, but it did identify previously unknown members of the organization who were functioning in very low key positions. Some low key but important in a logistics sense.
2) If intelligence agencies are watching Twitter accounts for covert intelligence, that is idiotic.
They are not looking to twitter from planning info. What twitter may be good for is establishing links between sympathizers. Several ISIS members or ISIS inspired people exposed themselves through the Paris attack. Who in the last several years ever offered them any sympathetic or encouraging words? That might be a person to look into post attack. Its things like this that can help develop a picture of a network. The FBI did this with organized crime, they noted all phone calls a known member of organized crime made, the other party went into the node. After years of data collection some fairly innocent looking people were found to have meaningful low profile roles in organized crime. It helped in dismantling the organization, really damaged their operations and logistics. Finding someone who quietly helps launder money may be more valuable than finding a shooter.
Or look at the British Ultra project of WW2, decryption of enigma machine based messages. Great value did not come exclusively from the German high command sending an order to a general in the field or the command of a u-boat pack at sea. Valuable intelligence was discovered by collecting, organizing and indexing lots and lots of small unimportant things. When a bunch of things that are small and unimportant can be combined into a mosaic something much larger and more important can come to light. This is how intelligence actually works, its not like TV and movies, its rather dull and boring.
Sorry, I meant corporate as in business gmail.. I thought that was a thing, where businesses could buy 'official' google services, and have it not have this type of scanning. I could very well be wrong.
Reading farther into that link shows that the paid-for corporate is also exempt. It seems only the consumers and businesses (and rogue government employees) using the free service are subject to the default opt-in for scanning.
Plus, isn't it true that corporate gmail DOESN'T do this type of scanning? I thought I had read that, or maybe it was only the educational version.
Found more info, yes, Apps for Education is exempt, users may be minors and that is a touchy legal thing. As well as Government, which also has legal issues. However consumers, fair game. http://www.pcworld.com/article...
People using a free service _in exchange for advertisements_ is completely different.
Perhaps if it were a default opt-out system, but its not. The current default opt-in system leverages user ignorance and laziness.
Plus, isn't it true that corporate gmail DOESN'T do this type of scanning? I thought I had read that, or maybe it was only the educational version.
I think what Google clarified is that no humans are reading the email, that it is an automated process.
"Google’s ads use information gleaned from a user’s email combined with data from their Google profile as a whole, including search results, map requests and YouTube views, to display what it considers are relevant ads in the hope that the user is more likely to click on them and generate more advertising revenue for Google." http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
To Google targeted advertising is a "feature" of their email scanning like spam and malware detection.
Management decided to staff an Android security team, but they really don't tell us what to do.
Of course not, but senior management funded the Android project beyond an experimental phase because senior management had a plan on how to generate revenue. And advertising was a major component of that plan, of establishing control over a large portion of mobile advertising. Advertising was not an afterthought, it was a justification for the investment required to take the project to the scale of a major mobile device platform.
For example they of course believe it is quite legitimate to scan people's emails so that advertising may be more accurately targeted.
Sure, as long as the people in question have agreed to it. I have no problem with that, at all.
Things are not that simple. Google relies on the fact that people do not read terms of use agreements and do not change default settings. So the default is opt-in. Your argument would be far more credible if the default policy for Google products were opt-out. But default opt-out is not what an organization that is at its heart a targeted advertising company would do, default opt-out is something that a true technology company would do.
Google as an organization is no champion of privacy, it is a targeted advertising company after all.
Those things aren't inherently opposed. There's nothing anti-privacy about a business model based on users voluntarily providing information to enable targeted advertising, as long as the company takes due care to protect user data. The key word there is "voluntarily", obviously.
"Voluntary" in a legal sense, not a moral sense. The "moral sense" is lost by leveraging the ignorance and laziness of the average user. Again, default opt-out.
As for "due care", Google does an outstanding job of protecting user data.
That is not a completely altruistic move given that such user data is also a valuable business resource that Google would not want competitors or clients (advertisers) to have access too. Keeping a user's "profile information" private is absolutely required for Google's targeted advertising business. It must protect its position as the required middleman between customers (advertisers) and users.
it is a targeted advertising company after all.
It really isn't. That may seem a strange claim about a company that derives 90+% of its revenue from advertising, but it's true nonetheless. Google's biggest current products are most effectively monetized with advertising, true, but Google as a whole really isn't focused on advertising,...
That is a pretty strong case of denial there.:-)
... and isn't particularly even concerned about building stuff that drives advertising. The mandate is to build stuff that the whole world will want to use, and then we'll figure out later how to make money from it. In many cases, advertising fits the bill.
Absolutely untrue. How to make money, and advertising being a large part of the answer, was determined *before* projects like Android, Gmail, etc received the funding necessary to take them from an experimental phase to a large scale project for the public. Do not think that the entrepreneurial like experimentation that is fostered at the "small" scale, and a long term focus rather than the quarterly report focus, is evidence of not being focused on advertising. Its evidence of being very smart and well run, which may be something novel in the advertising field but not mutually exclusive.
In others, SaaS is better (that's mostly what has driven advertising from 100% to 90%).
Diversification is good. And its an excellent domain to expand into, but this doesn't chang
They are doing this because, if they didn't, somebody else would offer apps to do it and then take over part of their ecosystem.
Heh. As one of the engineers at Google who builds Android device encryption, I'd say that we do it because that's how it should be. But it should surprise no one that engineers who gravitate to positions like mine are people think everything should be encrypted and that only the person who owns the data should have the keys.
And it would be fair to point out that people who share such privacy concerns do not gravitate to Google corporate management. For example they of course believe it is quite legitimate to scan people's emails so that advertising may be more accurately targeted. Your "we" as in "we do it because" refers more to your specific team members and less to Google in general. Google as an organization is no champion of privacy, it is a targeted advertising company after all.
Your tasting the spices and preservatives. Bacon's a popular meat to fake with veg protein because of that.
Spices and preservatives as in salt, pepper, sugar. Note the hog was not raised and processed in an industrial facility. Raised and butchered at home, cured at the local specialty butcher shop. It didn't taste like store bought bacon, it was far better. That is what cured our leftist's beliefs, got her past "it was cute, intelligent and had a personality" to "oh god it tastes so good".
No, you didn't. Humans evolved to need meat in small quantities. They didn't evolve to need war in any quantities.
Group on group combat has been a significant factor in our evolution. It continues to be an environmental factor, pacifism can only endure when there are non-pacifists willing to protect the pacifists for some reason. The ability to wage war, to engage in self defense, is a necessity for survival. We have not evolved beyond some point where police and armies are no longer necessary. Yes, it sure would be nice if we had, but we have not.
Warlike, yes, racist, no. Try tribal next time, and the tribe being an extended family. Grow up in a tribe that includes multiple races and you almost certainly won't be racist. You will almost certainly fight to protect tribal member of a different race and kill outsiders of your race.
Why do you think racists are so fond of separating the races? Separation is needed to continue the racist meme.
Sometimes that whole idea of consuming mammal excretions or animal embryos or mammal carcases, in various staged of partial decomposition, with varying levels of our own pollution stored within them, just seems more than a little repulsive or it's actual totally unpalatable state in my digestive tract where it is actually consumed.
The taste of crispy bacon on the tastebuds cures all such silliness. I've seen it happen. Seriously, I've literally seen it happen. To be fair, the hog was raised "at home" not in an industrial facility.
Slashdot Mirror
And Isaac Newton spent a lot of time trying to figure out when Armageddon would happen (sometime after 2060 apparently) so what's your point?
If we apply relativistic theory to that 2060 calculation do have more or less time?
He was not doing cosmological research when in the army, however he was doing cosmological research as a priest and a professor at a catholic university. Research done with the full knowledge and support of his church, including some funding. A church that fully embraced his discovery. A church that continues to participate in and support serious cosmological research.
With respect to Lemaître we are talking the 1920s. He had studied civil engineering, math and physics. Had a doctorate. He was a WWI vet, a former officer. I don't think becoming a priest was necessary for him to find room and board.
What, PRECISELY does him being a Monk have to do with religion not being antithetical to science? Because science means questioning (and looking for the answers in evidence, IOW "that which is seen"), ...
Yeah, the scientific method, guess what ... in Europe various members of the clergy were partly responsible for its widespread adoption. A bishop in London comes to mind, don't recall the name. Sorry, most Christian denominations don't see science and religion as being in conflict, they study orthogonal topics. These religions specifically state that the discoveries of science, the observations of the workings of nature, are not in conflict with faith.
You could also say "The big bang theory began with the Belgian Army", because he was also in that.
He was no longer in the Army. However he was teaching at a Catholic university at the time.
If anyone thinks that parts from a consumer device are obviously not a threat, go find an Iraqi/Afghan vet and ask them what sort of parts detonators of improvised explosive devices are sometimes made from. What was their training with respect to "clock parts" wired together in an adhoc fashion?
Honestly it's likely because he had brownish skin.
Wrong. I know of a white kid in liberal California who was arrested for bringing a hoax bomb to his high school. It was a box that ticked and then ticked faster when moved. His name was Steve Wozniak, google him if the name is unfamiliar.
Would it have happened to someone who isn't brown skinned I don't know, ...
Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer knows. He was arrested as a high school student for having a hoax bomb. A bomb that "ticked" and then "ticked faster" when moved.
Sorry, "box" not "bomb". A box that "ticked" and then "ticked faster" when moved.
Would it have happened to someone who isn't brown skinned I don't know, ...
Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer knows. He was arrested as a high school student for having a hoax bomb. A bomb that "ticked" and then "ticked faster" when moved.
... the kid was not arrested ...
Purely on a factual level, yes he was arrested, after being questioned for an hour and a half (how is that even possible?), and was taken to a detention centre, fingerprinted, photographed, and questioned further.
He was not charged. Possibly that's what you meant.
Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal. Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer, was arrested and spent some hours with law enforcement when he brought a hoax bomb to his high school. A box that ticked, and then ticked faster when it was moved.
As for whether what this kid did was a hoax bomb, any Iraqi / Afghanistan vet can explain to you how the detonators of IEDs are sometimes made from the components of off-the-shelf consumer devices. So, its not unreasonable to see disassembled clock parts in a negative light.
If by "science" you mean creationism/intelligent design, Pi=3, genetics is wrong, evolution is a sin, and scientific theories are just "crazy ideas someguy once had that can't be proven"
You do realize that lots of religious schools, even in Texas, teach evolution even with respect to humans, teach the big bang theory, teach that the discoveries of science are not in conflict with religion, that science and religion search for answers in orthogonal fields.
FYI, genetic science and the big bang theory began with members of the clergy.
... didn't call for killing non-Muslims, but rather treat them with respect and even protect their rights. You could convert, OR you submit to rule by a Muslim state. Submitting to rule of the state sounds bad to our modern secular selves, but back then it was a very progressive form of religious tolerance from a non-secular government ...
Actually the non-Muslims were treated as second class citizens, many of the rights of Muslim citizens were denied them, in judicial matters things were stacked against them, etc. And they had to pay an extra tax in order to be treated so. And it was not unheard of to be publicly humiliated for hours as part of the process by which one paid the tax. The more civilized treatment of non-Muslims was somewhat correlated to the number of non-Muslims in the region, to the possibility of insurgency and rebellion. In North Africa and the Middle East, not so good. In India, much better at times.
I forgot to mention that paying the tax for 2nd class status was generally only an option to Jews and Christians. People that shared the same monotheistic God as Muslims, the God of the Old Testament, "people of the book". People that were at one time on the right track but had fallen one or two prophets behind. Religions unrelated to Islam, pagans, generally not eligible for anything other than slavery.
Back to India, I forgot to mention that some tolerance was motivated by commercial interests, not just rebellion. Members of the faith have to make a living too, so commercial necessities also worked to moderate things. Islamic scholars in India went through some elaborate mental gymnastics to argue that locals were "people of the book" too and not pagans. Scholars in north africa and the middle east did not generally accept these arguments, kinda old school about that old testament.
... didn't call for killing non-Muslims, but rather treat them with respect and even protect their rights. You could convert, OR you submit to rule by a Muslim state. Submitting to rule of the state sounds bad to our modern secular selves, but back then it was a very progressive form of religious tolerance from a non-secular government ...
Actually the non-Muslims were treated as second class citizens, many of the rights of Muslim citizens were denied them, in judicial matters things were stacked against them, etc. And they had to pay an extra tax in order to be treated so. And it was not unheard of to be publicly humiliated for hours as part of the process by which one paid the tax.
The more civilized treatment of non-Muslims was somewhat correlated to the number of non-Muslims in the region, to the possibility of insurgency and rebellion. In North Africa and the Middle East, not so good. In India, much better at times.
Ostensibly, not a single one of us in this discussion is an analyst or other operative for an intelligence organization, so as such all we're doing is 'armchair quarterbacking', and worse, 'Monday morning armchair quarterbacking' when it comes to this type of work. I'm not sticking up for these people, but I will say it's easy to criticize what they are (or are not) doing when you don't have any real-world idea what the work actually entails.
A better source of info than operatives and analysts are historians. Take a look at the British Ultra project of WW2 where the communications of Germany were monitored. History shows us that the most mundane, boring and seeming inconsequential info can actually be quite valuable. A huge part of Ultra was organizing and indexing such info so that "random" bits of "related" info could be combined to build a larger picture, a mosaic indicating what an enemy was thinking or doing.
We also have the FBI efforts against organized crime where they created a graph of anyone who had telephone contact with a known member of organized crime. Lots and lots of noise, even criminals have normal household and personal business to conduct, but it did identify previously unknown members of the organization who were functioning in very low key positions. Some low key but important in a logistics sense.
2) If intelligence agencies are watching Twitter accounts for covert intelligence, that is idiotic.
They are not looking to twitter from planning info. What twitter may be good for is establishing links between sympathizers. Several ISIS members or ISIS inspired people exposed themselves through the Paris attack. Who in the last several years ever offered them any sympathetic or encouraging words? That might be a person to look into post attack. Its things like this that can help develop a picture of a network. The FBI did this with organized crime, they noted all phone calls a known member of organized crime made, the other party went into the node. After years of data collection some fairly innocent looking people were found to have meaningful low profile roles in organized crime. It helped in dismantling the organization, really damaged their operations and logistics. Finding someone who quietly helps launder money may be more valuable than finding a shooter.
Or look at the British Ultra project of WW2, decryption of enigma machine based messages. Great value did not come exclusively from the German high command sending an order to a general in the field or the command of a u-boat pack at sea. Valuable intelligence was discovered by collecting, organizing and indexing lots and lots of small unimportant things. When a bunch of things that are small and unimportant can be combined into a mosaic something much larger and more important can come to light. This is how intelligence actually works, its not like TV and movies, its rather dull and boring.
Sorry, I meant corporate as in business gmail.. I thought that was a thing, where businesses could buy 'official' google services, and have it not have this type of scanning. I could very well be wrong.
Reading farther into that link shows that the paid-for corporate is also exempt. It seems only the consumers and businesses (and rogue government employees) using the free service are subject to the default opt-in for scanning.
Plus, isn't it true that corporate gmail DOESN'T do this type of scanning? I thought I had read that, or maybe it was only the educational version.
Found more info, yes, Apps for Education is exempt, users may be minors and that is a touchy legal thing. As well as Government, which also has legal issues. However consumers, fair game.
http://www.pcworld.com/article...
People using a free service _in exchange for advertisements_ is completely different.
Perhaps if it were a default opt-out system, but its not. The current default opt-in system leverages user ignorance and laziness.
Plus, isn't it true that corporate gmail DOESN'T do this type of scanning? I thought I had read that, or maybe it was only the educational version.
I think what Google clarified is that no humans are reading the email, that it is an automated process.
"Google’s ads use information gleaned from a user’s email combined with data from their Google profile as a whole, including search results, map requests and YouTube views, to display what it considers are relevant ads in the hope that the user is more likely to click on them and generate more advertising revenue for Google."
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
To Google targeted advertising is a "feature" of their email scanning like spam and malware detection.
Management decided to staff an Android security team, but they really don't tell us what to do.
Of course not, but senior management funded the Android project beyond an experimental phase because senior management had a plan on how to generate revenue. And advertising was a major component of that plan, of establishing control over a large portion of mobile advertising. Advertising was not an afterthought, it was a justification for the investment required to take the project to the scale of a major mobile device platform.
For example they of course believe it is quite legitimate to scan people's emails so that advertising may be more accurately targeted.
Sure, as long as the people in question have agreed to it. I have no problem with that, at all.
Things are not that simple. Google relies on the fact that people do not read terms of use agreements and do not change default settings. So the default is opt-in. Your argument would be far more credible if the default policy for Google products were opt-out. But default opt-out is not what an organization that is at its heart a targeted advertising company would do, default opt-out is something that a true technology company would do.
Google as an organization is no champion of privacy, it is a targeted advertising company after all.
Those things aren't inherently opposed. There's nothing anti-privacy about a business model based on users voluntarily providing information to enable targeted advertising, as long as the company takes due care to protect user data. The key word there is "voluntarily", obviously.
"Voluntary" in a legal sense, not a moral sense. The "moral sense" is lost by leveraging the ignorance and laziness of the average user. Again, default opt-out.
As for "due care", Google does an outstanding job of protecting user data.
That is not a completely altruistic move given that such user data is also a valuable business resource that Google would not want competitors or clients (advertisers) to have access too. Keeping a user's "profile information" private is absolutely required for Google's targeted advertising business. It must protect its position as the required middleman between customers (advertisers) and users.
it is a targeted advertising company after all.
It really isn't. That may seem a strange claim about a company that derives 90+% of its revenue from advertising, but it's true nonetheless. Google's biggest current products are most effectively monetized with advertising, true, but Google as a whole really isn't focused on advertising, ...
That is a pretty strong case of denial there. :-)
... and isn't particularly even concerned about building stuff that drives advertising. The mandate is to build stuff that the whole world will want to use, and then we'll figure out later how to make money from it. In many cases, advertising fits the bill.
Absolutely untrue. How to make money, and advertising being a large part of the answer, was determined *before* projects like Android, Gmail, etc received the funding necessary to take them from an experimental phase to a large scale project for the public. Do not think that the entrepreneurial like experimentation that is fostered at the "small" scale, and a long term focus rather than the quarterly report focus, is evidence of not being focused on advertising. Its evidence of being very smart and well run, which may be something novel in the advertising field but not mutually exclusive.
In others, SaaS is better (that's mostly what has driven advertising from 100% to 90%).
Diversification is good. And its an excellent domain to expand into, but this doesn't chang
They are doing this because, if they didn't, somebody else would offer apps to do it and then take over part of their ecosystem.
Heh. As one of the engineers at Google who builds Android device encryption, I'd say that we do it because that's how it should be. But it should surprise no one that engineers who gravitate to positions like mine are people think everything should be encrypted and that only the person who owns the data should have the keys.
And it would be fair to point out that people who share such privacy concerns do not gravitate to Google corporate management. For example they of course believe it is quite legitimate to scan people's emails so that advertising may be more accurately targeted. Your "we" as in "we do it because" refers more to your specific team members and less to Google in general. Google as an organization is no champion of privacy, it is a targeted advertising company after all.
Your tasting the spices and preservatives. Bacon's a popular meat to fake with veg protein because of that.
Spices and preservatives as in salt, pepper, sugar. Note the hog was not raised and processed in an industrial facility. Raised and butchered at home, cured at the local specialty butcher shop. It didn't taste like store bought bacon, it was far better. That is what cured our leftist's beliefs, got her past "it was cute, intelligent and had a personality" to "oh god it tastes so good".
No, you didn't. Humans evolved to need meat in small quantities. They didn't evolve to need war in any quantities.
Group on group combat has been a significant factor in our evolution. It continues to be an environmental factor, pacifism can only endure when there are non-pacifists willing to protect the pacifists for some reason. The ability to wage war, to engage in self defense, is a necessity for survival. We have not evolved beyond some point where police and armies are no longer necessary. Yes, it sure would be nice if we had, but we have not.
Humans are also historically warlike and racist.
Warlike, yes, racist, no. Try tribal next time, and the tribe being an extended family. Grow up in a tribe that includes multiple races and you almost certainly won't be racist. You will almost certainly fight to protect tribal member of a different race and kill outsiders of your race.
Why do you think racists are so fond of separating the races? Separation is needed to continue the racist meme.
Just try getting locally sourced beef on the ISS.
You are on to something. A full sized heifer with the tenderness of veal. Thank you microgravity.
Cow farts, not a problem. Capture as fuel for reaction control system thrusters.
Sometimes that whole idea of consuming mammal excretions or animal embryos or mammal carcases, in various staged of partial decomposition, with varying levels of our own pollution stored within them, just seems more than a little repulsive or it's actual totally unpalatable state in my digestive tract where it is actually consumed.
The taste of crispy bacon on the tastebuds cures all such silliness. I've seen it happen. Seriously, I've literally seen it happen. To be fair, the hog was raised "at home" not in an industrial facility.