Yeah, the only problems that I see with this are, first, that it's too expensive and, second, that they tie it to another phone for some stupid reason. Why can't they just sell it as a small phone? That would be great. Maybe give it a slide out keyboard, like the Xperia Mini Pro, 'cause that tiny screen would be a pain in the ass to try and type on.
A shortage of calories is not the issue - as anyone trying to lose weight will tell you.
You're confusing the situation here. We're not trying to address human starvation, we're trying to address the fact that literally one quarter of all of the land on earth is dedicated to livestock and that livestock accounts for eighteen percent of all greenhouse emissions. This is the result of the fact that our enormous quantity of livestock needs calories, lots and lots of calories, while humans could easily get by on much less if we ate those calories directly.
Lack of micronutrients is not an issue that we're struggling with, they're not needed in large quantity. Distribution of micronutrients is occasionally an issue for humans, that's why we have iodized salt for example, but that doesn't consume farmland and doesn't produce an appreciable amount of greenhouse emissions.
You continue to harp on this tiny edge case with the switchgrass: grass fed beef accounts for only 3% of the beef raised in the US, and even there the majority of what they eat is "forage" - i.e.: hay and alfalfa, which are grown on cropland and so do nothing to address this issue.
No, there's no hedge on this: the meat overhead is huge. Twenty five plant calories for every one beef calorie. There's no way to rationalize your way around that, no matter how many whatabouts you throw at it. It would take a really extreme edge case, like your bit of land which is unsuitable for growing most plants without irrigation but yet can somehow support large grazing animals. (This land exists, but the plant life there is sparse enough that a huge area can only support a paltry amount of beef production.)
The animals which have the lowest overhead, fish and chicken, are not herbivores.
The clause which was removed disallowed copyright on telemetry data, but removing it does not give that copyright to the manufacturer. This does leave room for a law which gives a non-transferable copyright to the driver of the car.
This is unlikely, the party which voted to remove this clause seems to be firmly in the pocket of business interests, but it's not fair to say that they've sold everyone out just yet.
I miss the days when invoking Godwin's law got you modded down rather than up. What the hell happened to Slashdot?
Why do you ask a question like this? You know this answer, you seem to just be playing dumb: Nazis happened. Not figurative Nazis, actual Nazis wearing swastikas and talking about racial purity.
Godwin's law is a problem insofar as it represents people abandoning reasonable, proportionate discourse and invoking the most extreme thing that they can. Godwin's law is not a problem when you're talking about Nazis. Discussions about politics in the US have reached that point.
Try watching Solo. Going into it I didn't relish the thought of a movie about young Han Solo, but I was pretty happy with the result. It's not quite as good as Rogue One, but heads and shoulders better than the remakes. I'm getting the impression that the side stories are the ones for the fans, while the remakes seem to appeal more to the... I'm not sure what to call them. Normals. Muggles.
It's not necessarily that you need the millions to defend the patent, but you need millions regardless. The guy who invented, and patented, television got screwed over by RCA. They never really attacked his patents, they just attacked his ability to capitalize on those patents and then waited for them to expire. The patents expired in 1947, and by the mid 1950s the market had grown 100,000% with RCA controlling ~80% of that.
I've heard this many times now, but I have no idea where this is coming from. How exactly could Pence be worse? He's a pretty standard run-of-the-mill republican. He would talk a lot of family values, and banning abortion, and how "big government" and "the mainstream media" are evil so we should cut taxes for rich people.
Notably absent: overt racism again Muslims and Latin Americans, outright lying to the public and covering for it by undermining all trust in any channels which might expose those lies, disastrous foreign policy in... I was going to get specific there, but: everywhere.
I will give that Pence would be a stronger president than Trump, more able to pass bad legislation, but that hardly seems to balance out Trump's negative qualities.
The feds aren't losing on "legal" marijuana, it's still illegal by federal law and no one has successfully challenged that. No will they, there's no grounds to challenge that. That law can only be changed, not challenged. California's case is much stronger.
You seem to have taken what the parent wrote and gotten it exactly backwards. Let's try this: do you really believe California can't regulate within it's own borders how in-state ISPs handle traffic to in-state customers?
I dropped your specification of domestic traffic, because... who ever said we were only talking about domestic traffic?
It's sort of like "politically correct" - it's not a well-defined term, it's just an insult that some people use and so it means whatever they want it to mean. Insults are like that, if you think about every time you've ever called someone an idiot: were they all really "a foolish or stupid person"? Or perhaps some of them just did a foolish or stupid thing. Or maybe not even that, maybe they did something which wasn't foolish but which you disliked for some other reason.
When I first heard the term SJW I thought it was clever. It's a better insult than most, much better than "politically correct," there really are people who thrive on outrage. It was driven into the ground very quickly though. As with Linus Tovalds' recent behavioral change: the term might be a good one but the people who use it create too much negative overhead.
I always start with DuckDuckGo (which is basically an anonymized Bing search) and if I don't find what I want I switch to Startpage (which is basically an anonymized Google search).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know. Maybe you shouldn't do those things then. Maybe you should just have a single plan, for your single small phone.
Yeah, the only problems that I see with this are, first, that it's too expensive and, second, that they tie it to another phone for some stupid reason. Why can't they just sell it as a small phone? That would be great. Maybe give it a slide out keyboard, like the Xperia Mini Pro, 'cause that tiny screen would be a pain in the ass to try and type on.
A shortage of calories is not the issue - as anyone trying to lose weight will tell you.
You're confusing the situation here. We're not trying to address human starvation, we're trying to address the fact that literally one quarter of all of the land on earth is dedicated to livestock and that livestock accounts for eighteen percent of all greenhouse emissions. This is the result of the fact that our enormous quantity of livestock needs calories, lots and lots of calories, while humans could easily get by on much less if we ate those calories directly.
Lack of micronutrients is not an issue that we're struggling with, they're not needed in large quantity. Distribution of micronutrients is occasionally an issue for humans, that's why we have iodized salt for example, but that doesn't consume farmland and doesn't produce an appreciable amount of greenhouse emissions.
You continue to harp on this tiny edge case with the switchgrass: grass fed beef accounts for only 3% of the beef raised in the US, and even there the majority of what they eat is "forage" - i.e.: hay and alfalfa, which are grown on cropland and so do nothing to address this issue.
Not necessarily.
No, there's no hedge on this: the meat overhead is huge. Twenty five plant calories for every one beef calorie. There's no way to rationalize your way around that, no matter how many whatabouts you throw at it. It would take a really extreme edge case, like your bit of land which is unsuitable for growing most plants without irrigation but yet can somehow support large grazing animals. (This land exists, but the plant life there is sparse enough that a huge area can only support a paltry amount of beef production.)
The animals which have the lowest overhead, fish and chicken, are not herbivores.
The clause which was removed disallowed copyright on telemetry data, but removing it does not give that copyright to the manufacturer. This does leave room for a law which gives a non-transferable copyright to the driver of the car.
This is unlikely, the party which voted to remove this clause seems to be firmly in the pocket of business interests, but it's not fair to say that they've sold everyone out just yet.
I miss the days when invoking Godwin's law got you modded down rather than up. What the hell happened to Slashdot?
Why do you ask a question like this? You know this answer, you seem to just be playing dumb: Nazis happened. Not figurative Nazis, actual Nazis wearing swastikas and talking about racial purity.
Godwin's law is a problem insofar as it represents people abandoning reasonable, proportionate discourse and invoking the most extreme thing that they can. Godwin's law is not a problem when you're talking about Nazis. Discussions about politics in the US have reached that point.
Try watching Solo. Going into it I didn't relish the thought of a movie about young Han Solo, but I was pretty happy with the result. It's not quite as good as Rogue One, but heads and shoulders better than the remakes. I'm getting the impression that the side stories are the ones for the fans, while the remakes seem to appeal more to the... I'm not sure what to call them. Normals. Muggles.
It's not necessarily that you need the millions to defend the patent, but you need millions regardless. The guy who invented, and patented, television got screwed over by RCA. They never really attacked his patents, they just attacked his ability to capitalize on those patents and then waited for them to expire. The patents expired in 1947, and by the mid 1950s the market had grown 100,000% with RCA controlling ~80% of that.
I've heard this many times now, but I have no idea where this is coming from. How exactly could Pence be worse? He's a pretty standard run-of-the-mill republican. He would talk a lot of family values, and banning abortion, and how "big government" and "the mainstream media" are evil so we should cut taxes for rich people.
Notably absent: overt racism again Muslims and Latin Americans, outright lying to the public and covering for it by undermining all trust in any channels which might expose those lies, disastrous foreign policy in... I was going to get specific there, but: everywhere.
I will give that Pence would be a stronger president than Trump, more able to pass bad legislation, but that hardly seems to balance out Trump's negative qualities.
The feds aren't losing on "legal" marijuana, it's still illegal by federal law and no one has successfully challenged that. No will they, there's no grounds to challenge that. That law can only be changed, not challenged. California's case is much stronger.
You seem to have taken what the parent wrote and gotten it exactly backwards. Let's try this: do you really believe California can't regulate within it's own borders how in-state ISPs handle traffic to in-state customers?
I dropped your specification of domestic traffic, because... who ever said we were only talking about domestic traffic?
It's sort of like "politically correct" - it's not a well-defined term, it's just an insult that some people use and so it means whatever they want it to mean. Insults are like that, if you think about every time you've ever called someone an idiot: were they all really "a foolish or stupid person"? Or perhaps some of them just did a foolish or stupid thing. Or maybe not even that, maybe they did something which wasn't foolish but which you disliked for some other reason.
When I first heard the term SJW I thought it was clever. It's a better insult than most, much better than "politically correct," there really are people who thrive on outrage. It was driven into the ground very quickly though. As with Linus Tovalds' recent behavioral change: the term might be a good one but the people who use it create too much negative overhead.
I always start with DuckDuckGo (which is basically an anonymized Bing search) and if I don't find what I want I switch to Startpage (which is basically an anonymized Google search).