Usually I buy a computer (laptop or desktop) based on its hardware features and then the OS. Yes, in theory, it sounds great to be able to have linux preinstalled, but most of those systems are pretty pricey compared to the equivalent hardware with Windows preinstalled. Since I tend to reconfigure a default install anyway, having to actually do the install is minor inconvenience, particularly if I'm saving $200-$300 over having it preinstalled. While my time is valuable, so is my money.
To each their own. However, I admit that if there were a competitively priced laptop with linux on it, I would definitely consider it. Then again, that doesn't mean I wouldn't install my distro of choice over the top of it.
You seem to think that people have some kind of government granted right to choice, they do not.
You seem to think that the constitution is a blacklist of things the government can't do; it is not.
Did that regulation restrict my liberty?
Yes.
Please explain how it restricted my liberty. Do I have a right to fly a fighter jet? No, I do not. Therefore, if I do not have a right to do something, I cannot have my liberty restricted by not being permitted to do it. Liberty only impacts things you have a right to in the first place. That's why not being allowed to sleep with your neighbors kids also doesn't restrict your liberty.
Are you kidding? I'm having trouble thinking of an application that wouldn't benefit from this type of feedback. A few, off the top of my head:
Tactile feedback on a keyboard yields a huge improvement in speed and accuracy.
Tactile feedback on buttons helps confirm that you're hitting the right one, and successfully activating it.
Tactile feedback on scrolling can give you another channel for judging speed or position.
Lack of tactile feedback is one of the single biggest impediments to "virtual control" usability. I don't know if this approach is the magic bullet, but I welcome all research in this direction.
This probably won't be as effective as you are thinking. The feedback occurs after the press. As such, for typing, it won't improve accuracy unless, you are always "typing" on parts of the screen that aren't showing keys. However, if you are typing on the "keys", all you will know is that you pressed a key, not which key. If you put your hands on a real keyboard, but have them on the wrong row, you can type gibberish all day long, even though you know you are pressing keys.
Even with the feedback, it doesn't get past the fact that you are still typing on a flat screen. Look at those chicklet bluetooth keyboards. They are better than typing on the screen, but not by much, if you have a lot of typing to do. Even on a full sized tablet (10"), the on screen keyboard, with or without feedback, is notably smaller than a regular keyboard.
Buttons on the screen would be similar. You will know that a button is pressed, but with an audible click or a highlight of the button, you know that now. This will be just one more way.
Places where this could really be useful, though, as others have mentioned is with the blind or deaf, who don't have the full sensory range. Particularly with the blind, if it could be developed so that the sensation was similar to braille. But for most people, the most likely use will be in gaming, where the screen will feel like different textures (rough or smooth) when you are scrolling over it. Think of a golf game, in the fairway, the swipe to swing the club is smooth. In the rough, well, it's rough and probably less accurate because of it.
That's not to say that there won't be some non game uses. But for the most part, while an interesting technology, it probably won't make a huge impact on how one uses a tablet or a smart phone.
Since nobody is being forced to do this procedure, the question is whether restricting a medical procedure actually restricts one's freedom to act.
Restricting this would eliminate one possible choice, which restricts people's freedom. Random rationalizations won't change anything. The end.
You seem to think that people have some kind of government granted right to choice, they do not. I'm short, no matter how much I want it, I cannot choose to be a fighter pilot. I pilot many aircraft, including decommissioned fighter planes, but I still did not have a choice to fly one for the military. Did that regulation restrict my liberty? No. Nor does restricting the use of experimental procedures.
...sounds suspiciously like what (Baudot) teletypes had been doing for decades around 1970, the approximate date TFS indicates.
Seems broad, all right... and obvious, and like there would be prior art.
But since it's secret... who knows.
If it is/was too broad or there was prior art, why didn't the patent office just deny it? The explanation could be that they thought it was a valid patent, but didn't want to approve it because of the impact such a patent might have.
Liberty is normally thought of as a freedom from coercion or a freedom to act. Since nobody is being forced to do this procedure, the question is whether restricting a medical procedure actually restricts one's freedom to act.
The individual is not being kept from having IVP, nor is the donor of the mitochondrial DNA being restricted from donating her egg. The donor doesn't have a right to force anybody to use her egg, so she isn't harmed in any way if the procedure isn't allowed. Likewise, the woman can still have a child either naturally or by artificial means, so her liberty isn't restricted either.
The only two people who might be impacted, in terms of liberty, are the doctor, but that would imply he has a right to do any medical procedure devised. But the courts have already ruled that is not a right, and since it is not, liberty isn't impinged. The other entity is the child who cannot be born healthy without the procedure. One could argue that his liberty is impinged, however, he doesn't even exist without the procedure and as such, has no liberty to impinge.
So, back to the original question, whose liberty is being restricted?
What individual liberty is being damned if this procedure is not approved? The couple in question is still free to procreate. They are still free to use IVP to do it and screen the embryos for those with the defect or not. They are free to adopt, if they decide the risk is too great. Of course, adoption would not be the woman's natural child, but then again, if you replace the mitochondrial DNA with another woman's, then neither is the child that would result.
Isn't the purpose of government to ensure the common good?
Depends on what govt. your talking about. IN the US, the constitution basically sets up the federal govt. to have a set, small enumerated set of powers (yes, sadly we're really getting away from that)...but it should be there to keep things civil,enforce contracts, and prevent crime. But I don't see that it is there to be mommy and daddy, and say what I can or cannot do with my body or my life.
And really...how does banning this type of thing affect the common good one way or another? This is purely a decision and action by consenting adults, why should anyone else, particularly the government have a say in what they are doing here?
Being for the common good has nothing to do with the government being mommy and daddy for the people. As for banning this procedure being wrong, well, why should the government regulate anything, then? One can make an argument that any decision made by consenting adults is okay. Don't want to pay to have a board certified surgeon remove your appendix? Fine, maybe the butcher down the street will do it. After all, as long as there are consenting adults, that's fine, right? But, if it is alright for the government to regulate other medical procedures and who can perform them, again, for the common good, then why would that not be the case for these procedures?
Simply put, if the government is allowed to regulate medical procedures, devices, medication, etc., what makes this, as of yet, experimental procedure, any different?
You start off by saying how many species engage in rape as a reproductive strategy, but then conclude with why rape is wrong because people will still be terrified and thus society must change this. However, while I don't condone rape, it is an effective strategy for passing on a male's genetic code. When the Norse raided villages and raped and pillaged (or the Huns or just about any other group), from their moral perspective, raping those conquered did not cause a moral problem for them.
Your premise is that things are wrong when people feels an instinctive compulsion against some act. And yet, what you are calling instinct is really just a form of conditioning. In the West, we are instinctively opposed to murder, not because of instinct, but because society says it is wrong and has done so for a long time. But, it still isn't instinct. Rape, except for the most violent types, has pretty much been accepted by society until the last 150 years.
You assume that if society allows these brutalities that eventually, because people are terrified, it will somehow change. However, there isn't any evidence to support that hypothesis and actually quite a bit to counter it. The strong prey on the weak. That is just as true for humans as it is lions. Change doesn't occur until somebody stronger forces their will on others. Historically, that stronger force was the king or the pope or some other form of religion. People changed because the pain of not changing was too painful. Today, there are no kings and religion has lost it's allure for many, so exactly where do we get our moral code from, the whim of the people? That is relativism, not morality. Basically, relativism removes any absolute truths so a society that can decide brutality to women is wrong is just as capable as deciding it is perfectly acceptable. The problem with relativism is that it allows for a man to sleep with a 14 year old girl in parts of Africa as acceptable and a crime in the US. Is the African immoral? No. Should they change? That depends. Who is to say Western sensibilities are the correct ones? Obviously, those in the West believe their ways are correct. But that believe often leads to war, as the Western governments then take on the role of king or religion to enforce their beliefs on others.
No, what you propose is just a clouded form of the strong make the rules for the weak. It seems acceptable to you, because in these issues, you agree with the outcome. But that doesn't make the moral system you describe correct or accurate.
Gnome 3.12 still supports Wayland, for any distro that wants to ship it that way. It's just that Wayland is not the default for Gnome 3.12. This probably speaks more to the distros ability to have Wayland working smoothly than Gnome 3.12 using Wayland.
Plenty of things could go wrong. And it is legitimate for a government to regulate artificial reproductive techniques to ensure the procedures are reasonably safe. But it is NOT legitimate for the government to ban or interfere with individual reproductive choices because they are "immoral" or "don't seem natural". If/when these procedures are shown to be at least as safe as traditional methods of conception and childbirth, then people should be free to use them.
Why is it okay for government to ban or interfere with other choices that are immoral or don't seem natural such as rape, murder, etc.? Isn't the purpose of government to ensure the common good? While one may argue that reproductive choices are moral or immoral, drawing a distinction saying those morality choices are off limits but all of the other ones are fair game seems to imply that something other than morality is involved in the discussion.
It is a myth that society (government) can be divorced from morality. Even something as basic as a tax code is full of moral decisions. So, if reproductive choices are to be made in a moral vacuum, why not all moral choices?
People who take the test may wish to load up on life insurance.
Insurers, on the other hand, will want to use these tests and DENY to offer insurance, unless the premium goes up 20 times.
This could easily destroy the life insurance industry as it is today.
Insurance companies already know about this. That is why they measure your HDL cholesterol and total cholesterol when you have a physical. Subtracting the HDL from the total is a lot cheaper than a full lipid profile and gives the same basic information.
Of the top 10 causes of death in the world, according to the WHO, ischemic heart disease and stroke kill more people than the other 8 combined. Doctors already knew that bad cholesterol (ldl/vldl) and inflamation were the leading cause of both of those and have known for decades. The study doesn't show anything that wasn't already known and just adds sensationalism, probably to get increased funding.
Either way it's stupid that anyone would physically/verbally assault someone even if they are wearing are being annoying google glass.
You don't get to bars much, I guess, because stuff like this happens all the time whether GG is involved or not.
But then, the witnesses said some people inside the bar got upset about the possibility of being recorded by the glasses. Brian Lester said he watched as a man insulted Slocum, then a man accompanying her retaliated with his fists.
People like their privacy and anonymity. As such, they may not want to be recorded for any number of reasons while in a bar. Think of it like "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas." Evidently GG will put an end to that.
When she felt threatened, she informed them that she would start recording.
It is never a good idea to threaten somebody unless you are able to defend yourself. It has nothing to do with right or wrong and everything to do with common sense. Obviously the attackers were wrong. However, since they were upset that the woman could start recording them, threatening to record them if they don't back down seems like a dumb idea, especially since they had been drinking. This would be paramount to telling somebody bigger than you who had been drinking "I'd like to see your try," or "Go ahead, make me."
File this under "What would you expect to happen?"
Why are you using social responsibility and a business in the same sentence?
A business is there ONLY to make money for itself and/or shareholders if it is public.
Its gift to society is generating jobs for people and helping to fund the community at large by taxes, etc.
But really...there is no social obligation by a business, that is something that is up to individual people in how they interact with each other.
Hiring employees is not a "gift to society" It is a means of increasing the value to the shareholders. Without at least some employees, it's hard to turn a profit. As for socially responsible, well, that's interesting. Companies can choose to be socially responsible or let the public rise up and enact legislation forcing them to do so. Companies don't operate in a vacuum. Everybody complains about OSHA and the EPA, but they only exist because companies weren't socially responsible in the past and once the government gets involved, it's like opening pandora's box.
Put differently, being socially responsible increases shareholder value in the long run.
Maybe cities just don't have the right mix of amenities, price, space, parking, and other factors to make them better places to put certain businesses.
Maybe it's not about the mix of amenities and something much more basic -- space. Looking at many of these tech companies, they have sprawling campuses that would be cost prohibitive to do in a heavily urban area (although doing so in a blighted area might work). When this happens, the city cries foul and talks about lost revenue for property taxes (and income taxes if the city has them). But, it isn't really about taxes, it is about space. Besides, cities often give tax breaks for companies to locate in the city so the tax issue is usually moot.
Cities build vertically, but most tech campuses are horizontal. It mimics the campuses of many colleges and universities, which given the relatively young age of the workers, coincides with an environment they are used to. If you are trying to encourage creativity and the like, tall skyscrapers aren't the way to do it. That reinforces rigidity.
Besides, why blame the tech companies, many businesses locate out of the city limits. The difference is they expect you to drive yourself to get there instead of providing their own bus service.
Maybe the problem isn't molasses but the notion of symmetry. As even the comic states, without symmetry, the equations become infinite to describe the universe. The reality we know is that we have to keep adding more equations (or particles or plains, all of which are defined by equations), to try and explain the universe. Some postulate that we will never have enough equations to fully explain the universe, which by definition implies that the sought after symmetry doesn't exist. An added benefit to not having symmetry is that one doesn't have to explain how the physics changed in the very early universe.
What is easier to grasp, the lack of symmetry or some external force had to cause the early particles to change? Theists probably like that notion, but for many it is unacceptable.
If you're suggesting we continue to put up with NAT because getting rid of it would introduce the possibility of some people becoming redundant... well, that sounds like a broken window fallacy to me.
I was not suggesting that. I was pointing out, however, that the displaced workers who currently support the NAT mess would not be guaranteed to be working on improving things such as bugs fixes, new features, etc. At least not for the same entity that currently employs them.
NAT needs to be fixed, that's a given. However, those employed specifically to keep NAT working will be displaced as their services will no longer be needed. Some of them will be picked up by their firms for other projects, but not all of them. Of those that aren't, some will find employment with other firms, but not all of them. Like NAT needing to be replaced, that is a given, too.
I have a titanium plate in my neck and while it is not impacted by an MRI (ie not ripped out), the MRI is impacted by it. Images in that area are pretty much worthless
Selective Laser Sintering metal printing although much stronger than typical Fused Deposition Modeling is nowhere near as strong or tough as cast and treated metal components. It has it's place and this is one, but SLS is not great everywhere.
Of course, in this application, it only needs be be as strong as the bone it is replacing.
The financial shocks would be felt in every corner of the world. The impacts on Europe and the US would be significant, but are tricky to predict. What's much easier to predict are the impacts of those areas of Africa and South America where China is now the main overseas investor.
Total collapse.
China is the main investor for the US, too. They hold the majority of US Treasuries and could cripple the US without ever firing a shot. All they have to do is unload their Treasuries they've been purchasing. If they did that all at once, the US dollar would be worth about $0.22 compared to its current value. If they did that, gas would cost $17/gallon, eggs around $8/dozen and a loaf of bread about $10. Even if the dollar only deflated to $0.50 that would be $7 for gas, $4 for eggs and $5 for bread.
Not only that, but it is far behind the rest of the world, at least first world countries, in computerizing. Many areas are just now getting electricity. Just think what an opportunity it would be to provide an operating system to a market that isn't locked into Microsoft.
The problem with the West, is they often misunderstand and underestimate the rest of the world until it is too late.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually I buy a computer (laptop or desktop) based on its hardware features and then the OS. Yes, in theory, it sounds great to be able to have linux preinstalled, but most of those systems are pretty pricey compared to the equivalent hardware with Windows preinstalled. Since I tend to reconfigure a default install anyway, having to actually do the install is minor inconvenience, particularly if I'm saving $200-$300 over having it preinstalled. While my time is valuable, so is my money.
To each their own. However, I admit that if there were a competitively priced laptop with linux on it, I would definitely consider it. Then again, that doesn't mean I wouldn't install my distro of choice over the top of it.
Indeed. In fact, just the other day I updated my Mac OS 9.2.2 G3 to Mac OS X 10.9.
I really don't understand why Microsoft is so quick on the draw to kill off their old products with no warning and alienate their customers.
Apple says a G3 Mac is only supported up to 10.4.x and that 10.9 only support intel processors. Exactly how did you upgrade a G3 to 10.9?
You seem to think that people have some kind of government granted right to choice, they do not.
You seem to think that the constitution is a blacklist of things the government can't do; it is not.
Did that regulation restrict my liberty?
Yes.
Please explain how it restricted my liberty. Do I have a right to fly a fighter jet? No, I do not. Therefore, if I do not have a right to do something, I cannot have my liberty restricted by not being permitted to do it. Liberty only impacts things you have a right to in the first place. That's why not being allowed to sleep with your neighbors kids also doesn't restrict your liberty.
Are you kidding? I'm having trouble thinking of an application that wouldn't benefit from this type of feedback. A few, off the top of my head:
Tactile feedback on a keyboard yields a huge improvement in speed and accuracy.
Tactile feedback on buttons helps confirm that you're hitting the right one, and successfully activating it.
Tactile feedback on scrolling can give you another channel for judging speed or position.
Lack of tactile feedback is one of the single biggest impediments to "virtual control" usability. I don't know if this approach is the magic bullet, but I welcome all research in this direction.
This probably won't be as effective as you are thinking. The feedback occurs after the press. As such, for typing, it won't improve accuracy unless, you are always "typing" on parts of the screen that aren't showing keys. However, if you are typing on the "keys", all you will know is that you pressed a key, not which key. If you put your hands on a real keyboard, but have them on the wrong row, you can type gibberish all day long, even though you know you are pressing keys.
Even with the feedback, it doesn't get past the fact that you are still typing on a flat screen. Look at those chicklet bluetooth keyboards. They are better than typing on the screen, but not by much, if you have a lot of typing to do. Even on a full sized tablet (10"), the on screen keyboard, with or without feedback, is notably smaller than a regular keyboard.
Buttons on the screen would be similar. You will know that a button is pressed, but with an audible click or a highlight of the button, you know that now. This will be just one more way.
Places where this could really be useful, though, as others have mentioned is with the blind or deaf, who don't have the full sensory range. Particularly with the blind, if it could be developed so that the sensation was similar to braille. But for most people, the most likely use will be in gaming, where the screen will feel like different textures (rough or smooth) when you are scrolling over it. Think of a golf game, in the fairway, the swipe to swing the club is smooth. In the rough, well, it's rough and probably less accurate because of it.
That's not to say that there won't be some non game uses. But for the most part, while an interesting technology, it probably won't make a huge impact on how one uses a tablet or a smart phone.
Since nobody is being forced to do this procedure, the question is whether restricting a medical procedure actually restricts one's freedom to act.
Restricting this would eliminate one possible choice, which restricts people's freedom. Random rationalizations won't change anything. The end.
You seem to think that people have some kind of government granted right to choice, they do not. I'm short, no matter how much I want it, I cannot choose to be a fighter pilot. I pilot many aircraft, including decommissioned fighter planes, but I still did not have a choice to fly one for the military. Did that regulation restrict my liberty? No. Nor does restricting the use of experimental procedures.
...sounds suspiciously like what (Baudot) teletypes had been doing for decades around 1970, the approximate date TFS indicates.
Seems broad, all right... and obvious, and like there would be prior art.
But since it's secret... who knows.
If it is/was too broad or there was prior art, why didn't the patent office just deny it? The explanation could be that they thought it was a valid patent, but didn't want to approve it because of the impact such a patent might have.
Liberty is normally thought of as a freedom from coercion or a freedom to act. Since nobody is being forced to do this procedure, the question is whether restricting a medical procedure actually restricts one's freedom to act.
The individual is not being kept from having IVP, nor is the donor of the mitochondrial DNA being restricted from donating her egg. The donor doesn't have a right to force anybody to use her egg, so she isn't harmed in any way if the procedure isn't allowed. Likewise, the woman can still have a child either naturally or by artificial means, so her liberty isn't restricted either.
The only two people who might be impacted, in terms of liberty, are the doctor, but that would imply he has a right to do any medical procedure devised. But the courts have already ruled that is not a right, and since it is not, liberty isn't impinged. The other entity is the child who cannot be born healthy without the procedure. One could argue that his liberty is impinged, however, he doesn't even exist without the procedure and as such, has no liberty to impinge.
So, back to the original question, whose liberty is being restricted?
Individual liberties be damned.
What individual liberty is being damned if this procedure is not approved? The couple in question is still free to procreate. They are still free to use IVP to do it and screen the embryos for those with the defect or not. They are free to adopt, if they decide the risk is too great. Of course, adoption would not be the woman's natural child, but then again, if you replace the mitochondrial DNA with another woman's, then neither is the child that would result.
So, what individual liberty is being damned?
Depends on what govt. your talking about. IN the US, the constitution basically sets up the federal govt. to have a set, small enumerated set of powers (yes, sadly we're really getting away from that)...but it should be there to keep things civil,enforce contracts, and prevent crime. But I don't see that it is there to be mommy and daddy, and say what I can or cannot do with my body or my life.
And really...how does banning this type of thing affect the common good one way or another? This is purely a decision and action by consenting adults, why should anyone else, particularly the government have a say in what they are doing here?
Being for the common good has nothing to do with the government being mommy and daddy for the people. As for banning this procedure being wrong, well, why should the government regulate anything, then? One can make an argument that any decision made by consenting adults is okay. Don't want to pay to have a board certified surgeon remove your appendix? Fine, maybe the butcher down the street will do it. After all, as long as there are consenting adults, that's fine, right? But, if it is alright for the government to regulate other medical procedures and who can perform them, again, for the common good, then why would that not be the case for these procedures?
Simply put, if the government is allowed to regulate medical procedures, devices, medication, etc., what makes this, as of yet, experimental procedure, any different?
You start off by saying how many species engage in rape as a reproductive strategy, but then conclude with why rape is wrong because people will still be terrified and thus society must change this. However, while I don't condone rape, it is an effective strategy for passing on a male's genetic code. When the Norse raided villages and raped and pillaged (or the Huns or just about any other group), from their moral perspective, raping those conquered did not cause a moral problem for them.
Your premise is that things are wrong when people feels an instinctive compulsion against some act. And yet, what you are calling instinct is really just a form of conditioning. In the West, we are instinctively opposed to murder, not because of instinct, but because society says it is wrong and has done so for a long time. But, it still isn't instinct. Rape, except for the most violent types, has pretty much been accepted by society until the last 150 years.
You assume that if society allows these brutalities that eventually, because people are terrified, it will somehow change. However, there isn't any evidence to support that hypothesis and actually quite a bit to counter it. The strong prey on the weak. That is just as true for humans as it is lions. Change doesn't occur until somebody stronger forces their will on others. Historically, that stronger force was the king or the pope or some other form of religion. People changed because the pain of not changing was too painful. Today, there are no kings and religion has lost it's allure for many, so exactly where do we get our moral code from, the whim of the people? That is relativism, not morality. Basically, relativism removes any absolute truths so a society that can decide brutality to women is wrong is just as capable as deciding it is perfectly acceptable. The problem with relativism is that it allows for a man to sleep with a 14 year old girl in parts of Africa as acceptable and a crime in the US. Is the African immoral? No. Should they change? That depends. Who is to say Western sensibilities are the correct ones? Obviously, those in the West believe their ways are correct. But that believe often leads to war, as the Western governments then take on the role of king or religion to enforce their beliefs on others.
No, what you propose is just a clouded form of the strong make the rules for the weak. It seems acceptable to you, because in these issues, you agree with the outcome. But that doesn't make the moral system you describe correct or accurate.
Gnome 3.12 still supports Wayland, for any distro that wants to ship it that way. It's just that Wayland is not the default for Gnome 3.12. This probably speaks more to the distros ability to have Wayland working smoothly than Gnome 3.12 using Wayland.
what could go wrong?
Plenty of things could go wrong. And it is legitimate for a government to regulate artificial reproductive techniques to ensure the procedures are reasonably safe. But it is NOT legitimate for the government to ban or interfere with individual reproductive choices because they are "immoral" or "don't seem natural". If/when these procedures are shown to be at least as safe as traditional methods of conception and childbirth, then people should be free to use them.
Why is it okay for government to ban or interfere with other choices that are immoral or don't seem natural such as rape, murder, etc.? Isn't the purpose of government to ensure the common good? While one may argue that reproductive choices are moral or immoral, drawing a distinction saying those morality choices are off limits but all of the other ones are fair game seems to imply that something other than morality is involved in the discussion.
It is a myth that society (government) can be divorced from morality. Even something as basic as a tax code is full of moral decisions. So, if reproductive choices are to be made in a moral vacuum, why not all moral choices?
People who take the test may wish to load up on life insurance.
Insurers, on the other hand, will want to use these tests and DENY to offer insurance, unless the premium goes up 20 times.
This could easily destroy the life insurance industry as it is today.
Insurance companies already know about this. That is why they measure your HDL cholesterol and total cholesterol when you have a physical. Subtracting the HDL from the total is a lot cheaper than a full lipid profile and gives the same basic information.
Of the top 10 causes of death in the world, according to the WHO, ischemic heart disease and stroke kill more people than the other 8 combined. Doctors already knew that bad cholesterol (ldl/vldl) and inflamation were the leading cause of both of those and have known for decades. The study doesn't show anything that wasn't already known and just adds sensationalism, probably to get increased funding.
Either way it's stupid that anyone would physically/verbally assault someone even if they are wearing are being annoying google glass.
You don't get to bars much, I guess, because stuff like this happens all the time whether GG is involved or not.
But then, the witnesses said some people inside the bar got upset about the possibility of being recorded by the glasses. Brian Lester said he watched as a man insulted Slocum, then a man accompanying her retaliated with his fists.
People like their privacy and anonymity. As such, they may not want to be recorded for any number of reasons while in a bar. Think of it like "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas." Evidently GG will put an end to that.
When she felt threatened, she informed them that she would start recording.
It is never a good idea to threaten somebody unless you are able to defend yourself. It has nothing to do with right or wrong and everything to do with common sense. Obviously the attackers were wrong. However, since they were upset that the woman could start recording them, threatening to record them if they don't back down seems like a dumb idea, especially since they had been drinking. This would be paramount to telling somebody bigger than you who had been drinking "I'd like to see your try," or "Go ahead, make me."
File this under "What would you expect to happen?"
Why are you using social responsibility and a business in the same sentence?
A business is there ONLY to make money for itself and/or shareholders if it is public.
Its gift to society is generating jobs for people and helping to fund the community at large by taxes, etc.
But really...there is no social obligation by a business, that is something that is up to individual people in how they interact with each other.
Hiring employees is not a "gift to society" It is a means of increasing the value to the shareholders. Without at least some employees, it's hard to turn a profit. As for socially responsible, well, that's interesting. Companies can choose to be socially responsible or let the public rise up and enact legislation forcing them to do so. Companies don't operate in a vacuum. Everybody complains about OSHA and the EPA, but they only exist because companies weren't socially responsible in the past and once the government gets involved, it's like opening pandora's box.
Put differently, being socially responsible increases shareholder value in the long run.
Maybe cities just don't have the right mix of amenities, price, space, parking, and other factors to make them better places to put certain businesses.
Maybe it's not about the mix of amenities and something much more basic -- space. Looking at many of these tech companies, they have sprawling campuses that would be cost prohibitive to do in a heavily urban area (although doing so in a blighted area might work). When this happens, the city cries foul and talks about lost revenue for property taxes (and income taxes if the city has them). But, it isn't really about taxes, it is about space. Besides, cities often give tax breaks for companies to locate in the city so the tax issue is usually moot.
Cities build vertically, but most tech campuses are horizontal. It mimics the campuses of many colleges and universities, which given the relatively young age of the workers, coincides with an environment they are used to. If you are trying to encourage creativity and the like, tall skyscrapers aren't the way to do it. That reinforces rigidity.
Besides, why blame the tech companies, many businesses locate out of the city limits. The difference is they expect you to drive yourself to get there instead of providing their own bus service.
Maybe the problem isn't molasses but the notion of symmetry. As even the comic states, without symmetry, the equations become infinite to describe the universe. The reality we know is that we have to keep adding more equations (or particles or plains, all of which are defined by equations), to try and explain the universe. Some postulate that we will never have enough equations to fully explain the universe, which by definition implies that the sought after symmetry doesn't exist. An added benefit to not having symmetry is that one doesn't have to explain how the physics changed in the very early universe.
What is easier to grasp, the lack of symmetry or some external force had to cause the early particles to change? Theists probably like that notion, but for many it is unacceptable.
If you're suggesting we continue to put up with NAT because getting rid of it would introduce the possibility of some people becoming redundant... well, that sounds like a broken window fallacy to me.
I was not suggesting that. I was pointing out, however, that the displaced workers who currently support the NAT mess would not be guaranteed to be working on improving things such as bugs fixes, new features, etc. At least not for the same entity that currently employs them.
NAT needs to be fixed, that's a given. However, those employed specifically to keep NAT working will be displaced as their services will no longer be needed. Some of them will be picked up by their firms for other projects, but not all of them. Of those that aren't, some will find employment with other firms, but not all of them. Like NAT needing to be replaced, that is a given, too.
Yes, Titanium is not a ferrous material.
I have a titanium plate in my neck and while it is not impacted by an MRI (ie not ripped out), the MRI is impacted by it. Images in that area are pretty much worthless
Selective Laser Sintering metal printing although much stronger than typical Fused Deposition Modeling is nowhere near as strong or tough as cast and treated metal components. It has it's place and this is one, but SLS is not great everywhere.
Of course, in this application, it only needs be be as strong as the bone it is replacing.
The financial shocks would be felt in every corner of the world. The impacts on Europe and the US would be significant, but are tricky to predict. What's much easier to predict are the impacts of those areas of Africa and South America where China is now the main overseas investor.
Total collapse.
China is the main investor for the US, too. They hold the majority of US Treasuries and could cripple the US without ever firing a shot. All they have to do is unload their Treasuries they've been purchasing. If they did that all at once, the US dollar would be worth about $0.22 compared to its current value. If they did that, gas would cost $17/gallon, eggs around $8/dozen and a loaf of bread about $10. Even if the dollar only deflated to $0.50 that would be $7 for gas, $4 for eggs and $5 for bread.
Such a shock would cause another depression.
And China is one hell of a big market!
Not only that, but it is far behind the rest of the world, at least first world countries, in computerizing. Many areas are just now getting electricity. Just think what an opportunity it would be to provide an operating system to a market that isn't locked into Microsoft.
The problem with the West, is they often misunderstand and underestimate the rest of the world until it is too late.
Considering that they are the largest holder of US Treasury's, a meltdown like you describe would impact the US and most of Europe.