More generally, this UI might end up not much different from current "good" WinMob experience. Specifically - those implementations which put nice, polished homescreen with basic apps on top.
Yes, the basic experience might be nice. But 3rd party apps don't fit. With WinMob7 the situation might be better, after all every implementation will, supposedly, have the same UI paradigm/homescreen...but I don't really see how MS can enforce (with that kind of UI) solid, consistant, easy to follow / forced upon UI guidelines. Getting nice UI will be mostly about tinkering by hand. MS can pull that off with homescreen and their apps. Many of the 3rd poarty devs - not really.
False analogy; tuna is food with trace amounts of contamination. What those people drank was clearly labelled as poison (or added by fraudsters to supposedly "good" alcohol)
Actually, I can see some group of people benefiting from the LHC being shut down until recently.
A buddy of mine, who lived many years ago in Geneva, shared with me how the electricity there was noticeably below specs (voltage-wise) every time the previous CERN accelerator was online. Who knows whether or not that changed. But until recently it was quite cold in most of Europe...
If vastly lowering the temperature together with giving them a little oxygen & nutrients via artificial blood is not enough...why not a temrporary transplant to somebody who is compatible or an animal which can support and won't destroy them (also with partly disabled immune system) in that short time?
So...remove at least one of them and preserve as for transplant? Might also allow for some treatment that would greatly harm your whole body bot not a detached kidney, so it would rid off the bacteria in there.
I'm not really buying this. You want to tell me that which could rid the world of some major diseases (assuming that it's possible right now...but isn't done) would pass on this great and long lasting (in historical terms) PR? Heck, I can imagine people would suddenly choose their generics just for carrying the brand...
No cost of having resistance is unlikely; having it is an optimal adaptation to given enviroment; if the antibiotics are gone, the envrionment changes, and so do optimal adaptations to it.
Even if there's no cost - that the resistance would suddenly become generally useless means that bacteria having it would need to suddenly compete with "normal" ones on equal terms. The resistance would be marginized and would gradually die out (since, over time, in some populations there would be a mutation that nullifies resistance...but it wouldn't loose out against resitant bacteria this time; repeat over and over again)
Show me any significant group (really significant; not known about mostly on the basis of curiosity) of rural people, in developed world, who don't completelly rely on motor vehicles.
Much more than city dwellers; especially if living in a city that wasn't sabotaged by car industry lobbying groups.
There's a very easy reality check to your ideas: people who live in the "country" have on average significantly greater number of children. That is the lifestyle which encourages in modern soceities population growth, not the city one.
And are you really comparing impact of one individual living on a farm to the impact of million people densely packed? Compare the latter to million people living on farmland, and see how much area they destroy.
As for cities being hostile and country people friendly - that's in large part your selection bias; how people in your place fail in creating large communities (which is not universal). And also because small communities are quick to "evict" their "troublemakers" - guess to where?
You think that because US cities with their suburban sprawl and citizens relying primarily on car transport are a gross perversion of the idea; generally taking the downsizes from both rural and urban living, but not the benefits.
What do you mean "they might be still doing it now"? They are doing it all the time! You can buy various forms of denaturated, unfit for consumption alcohol perhaps even in more places than "pure" one. Heck, some stupid people still drink it. But it's not much of a story except "stupid people poisoning themselves".
Yes, an important distinction - people dying nowadays are semi-randomly killed by somebody who made stupid choice. Back then...no, not "the alcohol itself killed people when it was poisoned"; people killed themselves when they choose to drink poison.
Which is worse - stupid people killing only themselves or killing also people around them?
Your example is dumb (without "kind of"). Do I really have to explain the difference between your rampage against drunks and accidents caused by drunk drivers? Those which choose themselves to drink what is a low grade posion anyway. Not very dissimilar one to denaturated alcohol, drinking which which this story is about. Though...the latter in itself kills only stupid drinkers; not so when the drinker is a driver.
Confirmed 10000 people over the period of 7 years...shocker.
Now, when consumption-grade ethanol is perfectly legal in the US, it kills more than 10000 people annually, taking into account only alcohol-related road accidents. Worse, those aren't only idiots killing themselves via doing something stupid. I'm sure there are also some other alcohol-influenced deaths, as well as serious crime. Plus toll of long-term ailments.
Where's the story?
Is this some pathetic hidden reference to dangers of socialised healthcare?
...which they relate to being a more humble $808 US. Significantly better than the Indian price.
The dirty little secret of anything tech related is not only that, generally, the more poor the place the bigger the margin; also differences actually increase with the baseline price of an item.
If the manufacturer itself sugests that you're better off with a Bluetooth headset, what exactly this phone gives in comparison with "normal" one kept in a pocket / bag? Except bringing back problems with the skin on one of yor wrists...
PS. And since this is/., the summary has wrong reference - it's like in Babylon 5.
Sure, you specifically might be roughly equally (which is stupid BTW, because coal is staggeringly more harmful) against both. Or your group generally, if any. Or many that you know. But that's far from univeral.
Yes, you are somewhat right that "enviromentalists" (I consider myself one BTW, and I dream about being able to live close to a nuclear power plant in my country (which has none, even though one was 90% complete 20 years ago...but thrown away)) can't do much by themselves - but the general public can. And the simple fact is that the public can be swayed into state of paranoia regarding nuclear much, much, MUCH easier (also with great help of "enviromentalists") than this is the case with coal.
Accidentally, my country also has the largest brown coal powerplant in the world (I can see firsthand what it does, with my friend and her family living downwind). But there are no protests from the population - it's just a big fireplace, right? Hardly anything from "enviromentalists" (and there was an occasion, with the recent addition of two energy blocks); they focus much more on nuclear power. The latter is a much easier PR for them.
Just like proposing water power - that it would mean turning all our major rivers into concrete waterways (quite a change from their currently quite pristine state, with lots of swamps/etc. habitats) escapes most of the population; so again good PR in campaign against nuclear.
And my region doesn't have many sensible locations for wind turbines, geothermal or solar, no tidal waves (Baltic...), so those even hardly enter into equation. Though most are proposed by "enviromentalists" on a much larger scale than is sensible anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't you forgetting about Symbian?...
You know, that smarthpone OS which almost has more marketshare than all the platforms you mentioned, combined...
More generally, this UI might end up not much different from current "good" WinMob experience. Specifically - those implementations which put nice, polished homescreen with basic apps on top.
Yes, the basic experience might be nice. But 3rd party apps don't fit. With WinMob7 the situation might be better, after all every implementation will, supposedly, have the same UI paradigm/homescreen...but I don't really see how MS can enforce (with that kind of UI) solid, consistant, easy to follow / forced upon UI guidelines. Getting nice UI will be mostly about tinkering by hand. MS can pull that off with homescreen and their apps. Many of the 3rd poarty devs - not really.
False analogy; tuna is food with trace amounts of contamination. What those people drank was clearly labelled as poison (or added by fraudsters to supposedly "good" alcohol)
I'm suggesting that in low temperatures it's beneficial to have your grid operating as smoothly as possible.
Actually, I can see some group of people benefiting from the LHC being shut down until recently.
A buddy of mine, who lived many years ago in Geneva, shared with me how the electricity there was noticeably below specs (voltage-wise) every time the previous CERN accelerator was online. Who knows whether or not that changed. But until recently it was quite cold in most of Europe...
If vastly lowering the temperature together with giving them a little oxygen & nutrients via artificial blood is not enough...why not a temrporary transplant to somebody who is compatible or an animal which can support and won't destroy them (also with partly disabled immune system) in that short time?
So...remove at least one of them and preserve as for transplant? Might also allow for some treatment that would greatly harm your whole body bot not a detached kidney, so it would rid off the bacteria in there.
Wastefulness would probably be still a hindrance if there's some more efficient organism present. It's like the latter has even more plentiful energy.
I'm not really buying this. You want to tell me that which could rid the world of some major diseases (assuming that it's possible right now...but isn't done) would pass on this great and long lasting (in historical terms) PR? Heck, I can imagine people would suddenly choose their generics just for carrying the brand...
"No evolution"? Where have you ever seen that?...
Plentiful supply of energy wouldn't help with lack of "living space" orsome limitations on have fast the organism can reproduce / fight / etc.
No cost of having resistance is unlikely; having it is an optimal adaptation to given enviroment; if the antibiotics are gone, the envrionment changes, and so do optimal adaptations to it.
Even if there's no cost - that the resistance would suddenly become generally useless means that bacteria having it would need to suddenly compete with "normal" ones on equal terms. The resistance would be marginized and would gradually die out (since, over time, in some populations there would be a mutation that nullifies resistance...but it wouldn't loose out against resitant bacteria this time; repeat over and over again)
Show me any significant group (really significant; not known about mostly on the basis of curiosity) of rural people, in developed world, who don't completelly rely on motor vehicles.
Much more than city dwellers; especially if living in a city that wasn't sabotaged by car industry lobbying groups.
There's a very easy reality check to your ideas: people who live in the "country" have on average significantly greater number of children. That is the lifestyle which encourages in modern soceities population growth, not the city one.
And are you really comparing impact of one individual living on a farm to the impact of million people densely packed? Compare the latter to million people living on farmland, and see how much area they destroy.
As for cities being hostile and country people friendly - that's in large part your selection bias; how people in your place fail in creating large communities (which is not universal). And also because small communities are quick to "evict" their "troublemakers" - guess to where?
You think that because US cities with their suburban sprawl and citizens relying primarily on car transport are a gross perversion of the idea; generally taking the downsizes from both rural and urban living, but not the benefits.
No, the government hasn't decided to kill people in order to conform to some arbitrary moral ground.
People have decided to risk killing themselves by drinking poison.
What do you mean "they might be still doing it now"? They are doing it all the time! You can buy various forms of denaturated, unfit for consumption alcohol perhaps even in more places than "pure" one. Heck, some stupid people still drink it. But it's not much of a story except "stupid people poisoning themselves".
Yes, an important distinction - people dying nowadays are semi-randomly killed by somebody who made stupid choice. Back then...no, not "the alcohol itself killed people when it was poisoned"; people killed themselves when they choose to drink poison.
Which is worse - stupid people killing only themselves or killing also people around them?
The government wasn't poisoning people. People were poisoning themselves. Just like they do with consumption-grade ethanol.
Your example is dumb (without "kind of"). Do I really have to explain the difference between your rampage against drunks and accidents caused by drunk drivers? Those which choose themselves to drink what is a low grade posion anyway. Not very dissimilar one to denaturated alcohol, drinking which which this story is about. Though...the latter in itself kills only stupid drinkers; not so when the drinker is a driver.
Confirmed 10000 people over the period of 7 years...shocker.
Now, when consumption-grade ethanol is perfectly legal in the US, it kills more than 10000 people annually, taking into account only alcohol-related road accidents. Worse, those aren't only idiots killing themselves via doing something stupid. I'm sure there are also some other alcohol-influenced deaths, as well as serious crime. Plus toll of long-term ailments.
Where's the story?
Is this some pathetic hidden reference to dangers of socialised healthcare?
...which they relate to being a more humble $808 US. Significantly better than the Indian price.
The dirty little secret of anything tech related is not only that, generally, the more poor the place the bigger the margin; also differences actually increase with the baseline price of an item.
If the manufacturer itself sugests that you're better off with a Bluetooth headset, what exactly this phone gives in comparison with "normal" one kept in a pocket / bag? Except bringing back problems with the skin on one of yor wrists...
PS. And since this is /., the summary has wrong reference - it's like in Babylon 5.
Oh that's just a lie.
Sure, you specifically might be roughly equally (which is stupid BTW, because coal is staggeringly more harmful) against both. Or your group generally, if any. Or many that you know. But that's far from univeral.
Yes, you are somewhat right that "enviromentalists" (I consider myself one BTW, and I dream about being able to live close to a nuclear power plant in my country (which has none, even though one was 90% complete 20 years ago...but thrown away)) can't do much by themselves - but the general public can. And the simple fact is that the public can be swayed into state of paranoia regarding nuclear much, much, MUCH easier (also with great help of "enviromentalists") than this is the case with coal.
Accidentally, my country also has the largest brown coal powerplant in the world (I can see firsthand what it does, with my friend and her family living downwind). But there are no protests from the population - it's just a big fireplace, right? Hardly anything from "enviromentalists" (and there was an occasion, with the recent addition of two energy blocks); they focus much more on nuclear power. The latter is a much easier PR for them.
Just like proposing water power - that it would mean turning all our major rivers into concrete waterways (quite a change from their currently quite pristine state, with lots of swamps/etc. habitats) escapes most of the population; so again good PR in campaign against nuclear.
And my region doesn't have many sensible locations for wind turbines, geothermal or solar, no tidal waves (Baltic...), so those even hardly enter into equation. Though most are proposed by "enviromentalists" on a much larger scale than is sensible anyway...
I wonder how much of this new fear has to do with revving up support for ACTA/etc.
It's a pile of rubble; the voids permeate it through.