Naw. About one in ten carrying concealed would do it.
So how do soldiers in Iraq get shot then? They all carry guns? Shouldn't the carrying of a gun, and being trained to use it, mean you're safe from being shot?
Pay no attention to the fact that in many of the recent mass shootings that shooters went out of their way to go to facilities where guns were explicitly banned, bypassing similar venues where people might have legally been carrying concealed weapons for protection.
You clearly never heard of this thing called war then. Hint: It's lots of people, sometime millions of them, and they're all armed, yet still killing each other.
So much for that theory...
Now it's just another greedy 0.1%er nomming up cash and playing a good game of sociopathic prisoner's dilemma. Boring.
You say that as if 1%'ers somehow behave differently from the other 99%? *Everyone* acts in their self-interest, you act surprised that having money would somehow change the laws of nature?
Oh yes, let's not forget the other fallacies, like war stimulates the economy. As do hurricanes and earthquakes.
Well technically they do, but building creates a greater net gain than destroying. Which is why new industry makes a more savvy investment than destruction.
Hint: if they were actually practical, then free enterprise would be all over them without any subsidies at all.
Not true. Large scale projects are generally too expensive and risky for shareholders who demand returns in months, not decades. It's why having a government is useful, and having no government is...well see Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria for examples...
Nobody is going to put a 55lb bomb on an Amazon drone. They can't lift that much.
RTFA, Amazon are designing Drones with 55lb load capacity.
When Amazon succeeds in automating their warehouses (and they will), there will be no human involved at all in picking and delivering your package.
A Terrorist doesn't send the package via the Amazon warehouse, they use their own.
You can't take a water bottle on a plane and you think a 55lb capacity drone will be publicly acceptable?
But it was never about "cost more, did less", unless the "Less" was Windows-Specific software.
By Windows-specific you mean business-specific. The reason MS did so well is that they catered to the smaller-medium business which was the lion's share of the market at the time.
Just because Apple changed to Intel CPUs (the smartest move they ever made!), does NOT mean they became a "Wintel box". Far from it.
In what way? The hardware is identical to Wintel boxes and fully compatible, you can even run Windows on it, meaning that by definition it is a Wintel machine.
There's a spectrum of options and simply saying clean energy is a win-win-win with no downside is cute in it's naivety.
But you said you don't even want to try, I'm at least willing to entertain the possibility that the "Global Warming" hype could produce a lot of positive side effects, whether it's true or not.
Bills success in exploiting the tech industry does not necessarily translate into any other knowledge.
Bill was/is extremely successful in Business, and those skills are a lot more transferable than a physicist or actor trying to be a politician.
He may not be the most perfect candidate, but I'll take a rich billionaire trying to help educate people and reduce diseases than trying cause trouble (eg Koch, Murdoch etc)
For me it's a choice of spending less money. If the average year round temperature where I live was 3deg higher I wouldn't have the heater on right now.
You're already spending money, who do you think is paying for Obama to go to Paris?
The cost may not be obvious to you directly, but that doesn't mean those costs don't exist.
That isn't adapting, that is kidding yourself. You're doing something so you're patting yourself on the back. But it won't make enough of a difference to change anything.
If you didn't selectrively snip my post you will know that it already changed something. I'm fitter and more active and enjoying a new way of doing things.
But they won't, and that is the reality that you miss.
If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right.
You must be real fun at parties.
What, so that you can spend a crap load of MY money trying to fix the unfixable?
Sorry, no thanks.
Your choice is spend money or spend more money. There is no option to spend no money.
Another way to look at it is this: Assume Global Warming is complete fiction, but we go with it anyway. We create an entire new clean energy industry, which stimulates the economy, and creates more jobs and therefore more wealth, less poverty, and less crime.
The worst case case is we have less pollution, generate cleaner energy, more efficiently, and create more jobs for more people.
Even hard-core conservatives love creating new jobs. What other plan do you have that could achieve this?
You saying we can, and actually being able to do it, are two different things.
Part of the issue seem to be a lot of people sitting on their fat arses waiting for someone else to do something.
I can't speak for anyone else, but me personally I've started adapting already. I'm sourcing most of my supplies from local stores that I can cycle or walk to. I have a scooter for longer trips (uses about 5 litres of fuel a week), which I can either use for work or catch the bus, and the car is now reserved for special occasions and touring.
My house of 5 people uses about 11-13kwh of energy per month, which the power company tells me equivalent to a 2 person household. My car has done 5000kms in the last 12 months down from 15000.
If everyone did something similar we'd be done (I realise not everyone is in the same position as me, but this is without solar power or an EV, so everyone should be able to put in some effort).
The funny part is my life has improved since making the changes. I find I'm getting out more, engaging more in my local neighbourhood, being more active, and spending more time outdoors which is generally free. Winning!
The terms Stupid or gimmicky has never been applied to the Apple ][ series.
That's why I qualified the statement with "other than that". With the "that" being the Apple 2 and original iPhone.
I'm not sure what metrics you use to determine "Stupidity" or "Gimmicky-ness"
Cost more, did less, tried to justify it with shineyness.
Most Apple 2 owners upgraded them for 286's when they came out and never looked back. There is a reason Apple almost went bankrupt in the 90's.
Fast-forward to the present: Apple makes the best laptops
Only since the Macbook became a shinier Wintel box. Not really thinking different now is it?
Ironic that the very thing you disparage Bill Gates for you are doing yourself.
I'm going to assume you aren't an expert in either education or malaria research, so who are you to say what is right or wrong?
I don't know Bill from a bar of soap, but I know he has proven himself clever and successful, and I'll take that over some unknown internet forum poster any day of the week.
Giving money to people who are real experts in a domain and giving them room to find solutions is a hundred times better than coming in as a celebrity and taking over with your own random idea.
You know that Bill Gates isn't one guy doing all the work all by himself right? He employs thousands of people who are experts in their fields, and they do most of the hard slog. He just sits on top and uses his clout to open doors that wouldn't otherwise open.
Which makes you wonder why it's a rule in the first place.
I've never paid attention to their "turn off your phone" rules, and I'm sure thousands of other don't either. In a decade and a half of common cell phone use on planes, there's be no known issues I've ever heard of, so why is it still a thing?
Or it's like the peacocks tail, guys don't like thinness because it's healthy, they like it because it's difficult to achieve.
I don't know many guys who like thin women. Thin women look like boys, so most guys I know would prefer a Kim K physique to a Kate Moss.
Also worth noting, back when I went to school you could count the number fatties on one hand (in a school of 2000). Even then I remember the go to girls had curves (tits and ass, not waistline).
Yeah, I've heard two competing theories and I think they're both right, albeit more the first one than the second one. The first one is that when women are attractive people look at the women and not the clothes,
Not quite. I used to work in the fashion industry, and it's all about the clothes. People in that industry love clothes, and the look of the clothes themselves, not the person wearing them. When I look at a woman, I'm checking her face, her boobs, her arse, and clothes are merely a prop to help show those off.
In fashion, the clothes are the focus, and the person is merely a prop, so the closer to a coat hanger or ironing board, the less impact the human body will have on the product.
The bias towards gay men in the industry is probably due to the fact the a hetero man would be too distracted by the tits and ass, where a gay man can look straight past these.
Apple has always been a parody. Except for maybe a breif period in 1983 with the Apple 2, and again in 2007-2009 when the iPhone was leading product of its type, but other than that, Apple products have been mostly stupid and gimmicky.
Slashdot Mirror
Naw. About one in ten carrying concealed would do it.
So how do soldiers in Iraq get shot then? They all carry guns? Shouldn't the carrying of a gun, and being trained to use it, mean you're safe from being shot?
Pay no attention to the fact that in many of the recent mass shootings that shooters went out of their way to go to facilities where guns were explicitly banned, bypassing similar venues where people might have legally been carrying concealed weapons for protection.
You clearly never heard of this thing called war then. Hint: It's lots of people, sometime millions of them, and they're all armed, yet still killing each other.
So much for that theory...
Now it's just another greedy 0.1%er nomming up cash and playing a good game of sociopathic prisoner's dilemma. Boring.
You say that as if 1%'ers somehow behave differently from the other 99%? *Everyone* acts in their self-interest, you act surprised that having money would somehow change the laws of nature?
Oh yes, let's not forget the other fallacies, like war stimulates the economy. As do hurricanes and earthquakes.
Well technically they do, but building creates a greater net gain than destroying. Which is why new industry makes a more savvy investment than destruction.
Hint: if they were actually practical, then free enterprise would be all over them without any subsidies at all.
Not true. Large scale projects are generally too expensive and risky for shareholders who demand returns in months, not decades. It's why having a government is useful, and having no government is.. .well see Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria for examples...
Nobody is going to put a 55lb bomb on an Amazon drone. They can't lift that much.
RTFA, Amazon are designing Drones with 55lb load capacity.
When Amazon succeeds in automating their warehouses (and they will), there will be no human involved at all in picking and delivering your package.
A Terrorist doesn't send the package via the Amazon warehouse, they use their own.
You can't take a water bottle on a plane and you think a 55lb capacity drone will be publicly acceptable?
But it was never about "cost more, did less", unless the "Less" was Windows-Specific software.
By Windows-specific you mean business-specific. The reason MS did so well is that they catered to the smaller-medium business which was the lion's share of the market at the time.
Just because Apple changed to Intel CPUs (the smartest move they ever made!), does NOT mean they became a "Wintel box". Far from it.
In what way? The hardware is identical to Wintel boxes and fully compatible, you can even run Windows on it, meaning that by definition it is a Wintel machine.
There's a spectrum of options and simply saying clean energy is a win-win-win with no downside is cute in it's naivety.
But you said you don't even want to try, I'm at least willing to entertain the possibility that the "Global Warming" hype could produce a lot of positive side effects, whether it's true or not.
Bills success in exploiting the tech industry does not necessarily translate into any other knowledge.
Bill was/is extremely successful in Business, and those skills are a lot more transferable than a physicist or actor trying to be a politician.
He may not be the most perfect candidate, but I'll take a rich billionaire trying to help educate people and reduce diseases than trying cause trouble (eg Koch, Murdoch etc)
Someone needs to patent "Things that do stuff" and be done with it.
For me it's a choice of spending less money. If the average year round temperature where I live was 3deg higher I wouldn't have the heater on right now.
You're already spending money, who do you think is paying for Obama to go to Paris? The cost may not be obvious to you directly, but that doesn't mean those costs don't exist.
That isn't adapting, that is kidding yourself. You're doing something so you're patting yourself on the back. But it won't make enough of a difference to change anything.
If you didn't selectrively snip my post you will know that it already changed something. I'm fitter and more active and enjoying a new way of doing things.
But they won't, and that is the reality that you miss.
If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right.
You must be real fun at parties.
Birth rates in the West are generally sustainable, it's the poor who seem to breed like rabbits that need controlling.
Here's something that's real that you can do with only a minor inconvenience... You could stop eating meat.
Not feasible. A more realistic option would be growing meat in a lab, which doesn't sound too far away...
What, so that you can spend a crap load of MY money trying to fix the unfixable?
Sorry, no thanks.
Your choice is spend money or spend more money. There is no option to spend no money.
Another way to look at it is this: Assume Global Warming is complete fiction, but we go with it anyway. We create an entire new clean energy industry, which stimulates the economy, and creates more jobs and therefore more wealth, less poverty, and less crime.
The worst case case is we have less pollution, generate cleaner energy, more efficiently, and create more jobs for more people.
Even hard-core conservatives love creating new jobs. What other plan do you have that could achieve this?
You saying we can, and actually being able to do it, are two different things.
Part of the issue seem to be a lot of people sitting on their fat arses waiting for someone else to do something.
I can't speak for anyone else, but me personally I've started adapting already. I'm sourcing most of my supplies from local stores that I can cycle or walk to. I have a scooter for longer trips (uses about 5 litres of fuel a week), which I can either use for work or catch the bus, and the car is now reserved for special occasions and touring.
My house of 5 people uses about 11-13kwh of energy per month, which the power company tells me equivalent to a 2 person household. My car has done 5000kms in the last 12 months down from 15000.
If everyone did something similar we'd be done (I realise not everyone is in the same position as me, but this is without solar power or an EV, so everyone should be able to put in some effort).
The funny part is my life has improved since making the changes. I find I'm getting out more, engaging more in my local neighbourhood, being more active, and spending more time outdoors which is generally free. Winning!
The terms Stupid or gimmicky has never been applied to the Apple ][ series.
That's why I qualified the statement with "other than that". With the "that" being the Apple 2 and original iPhone.
I'm not sure what metrics you use to determine "Stupidity" or "Gimmicky-ness"
Cost more, did less, tried to justify it with shineyness.
Most Apple 2 owners upgraded them for 286's when they came out and never looked back. There is a reason Apple almost went bankrupt in the 90's.
Fast-forward to the present: Apple makes the best laptops
Only since the Macbook became a shinier Wintel box. Not really thinking different now is it?
Ironic that the very thing you disparage Bill Gates for you are doing yourself.
I'm going to assume you aren't an expert in either education or malaria research, so who are you to say what is right or wrong? I don't know Bill from a bar of soap, but I know he has proven himself clever and successful, and I'll take that over some unknown internet forum poster any day of the week.
Vehicles over 3 tonne are prohibited in my street becasue I live near a school. So yeah, I can't see this one getting up.
Giving money to people who are real experts in a domain and giving them room to find solutions is a hundred times better than coming in as a celebrity and taking over with your own random idea.
You know that Bill Gates isn't one guy doing all the work all by himself right? He employs thousands of people who are experts in their fields, and they do most of the hard slog. He just sits on top and uses his clout to open doors that wouldn't otherwise open.
Which makes you wonder why it's a rule in the first place. I've never paid attention to their "turn off your phone" rules, and I'm sure thousands of other don't either. In a decade and a half of common cell phone use on planes, there's be no known issues I've ever heard of, so why is it still a thing?
Don't worry Apple will sue them for copyright infringment as soon as they've figured out how to do it too.
Or it's like the peacocks tail, guys don't like thinness because it's healthy, they like it because it's difficult to achieve.
I don't know many guys who like thin women. Thin women look like boys, so most guys I know would prefer a Kim K physique to a Kate Moss.
Also worth noting, back when I went to school you could count the number fatties on one hand (in a school of 2000). Even then I remember the go to girls had curves (tits and ass, not waistline).
Yeah, I've heard two competing theories and I think they're both right, albeit more the first one than the second one. The first one is that when women are attractive people look at the women and not the clothes,
Not quite. I used to work in the fashion industry, and it's all about the clothes. People in that industry love clothes, and the look of the clothes themselves, not the person wearing them. When I look at a woman, I'm checking her face, her boobs, her arse, and clothes are merely a prop to help show those off.
In fashion, the clothes are the focus, and the person is merely a prop, so the closer to a coat hanger or ironing board, the less impact the human body will have on the product.
The bias towards gay men in the industry is probably due to the fact the a hetero man would be too distracted by the tits and ass, where a gay man can look straight past these.
Apple has always been a parody. Except for maybe a breif period in 1983 with the Apple 2, and again in 2007-2009 when the iPhone was leading product of its type, but other than that, Apple products have been mostly stupid and gimmicky.