(it could be a part of how you don't have grasp on such basics...except that you based you derision of parent poster around the false marketing behind "4G" / make up your mind / the parent poster definitely didn't "call it 4G" anyway)
If it's simply "iPhone 4" - then I'm sorry, but it won't work on both the old "CDMA" and on LTE being rolled out by Verizon now. It needs to have some changes to make it work on either.
The only one who used "4G" above is you; the parent poster said "LTE".
Oh, good, you're onto something - could it be how it's not about the technology, but about a particular network of a particular provider?
(and again, how do you manage to miss that cell handover works perfectly also between 2G towers? But then, what to expect if seem you think WCDMA is still TDMA... when, ironically enough, it is CDMA2K 1xEV-DO which can send data only to one user at a time)
Huh? GSM family of standards is the dominating one pretty much everywhere... and GSM consortium formed from companies quite a bit distributed geographically.
How you seem to build this non-issue on "European" (vs. what, exactly, hm?) suggest that you have some location-based issues.
This confusion again... (resulting mostly, I guess, from how one camp couldn't come with anything better than naming their technology after basic radio method)
Generally, you're basically trying to say "notably younger technology uses more complex, more efficient on the wireless part (with some costs elsewhere) radio method" - ignoring how "GSM" camp also uses it (in the form of "3G"/UMTS/WCDMA), and actually to cram a lot more into the same chunk of the frequency (HSDPA, HSPA+). And how on Earth did you convince yourself that GSM doesn't do cell handover?... (also between 2G and 3G)
It's more about relative frequency; and AFAIK, while great apes obviously don't abstain from vertebrate meat, it's not exactly a foundation of their diet. Supposedly less than other (usually less "labor" intensive?) options, anyway.
(yeah, I also think I misspelled it; might be a case of words having less immediately obvious meaning for non-native speaker, and false sense of correctness from spell-checker...)
Conveniently, regarding the topic - a major part of assuring that nearly all children reach adulthood is getting rid of hunger, preferably in a sustainable manner.
A don't think situation in Japan can be described even as "sorta ecological balance" - I'll let you guess which of the blue rectangles in this diagram represents them.
On the other hand - considering how insect meat production is far more efficient from other possible forms, it might be a good way (not the only one) of utilizing plant resources otherwise unfit for human consumption.
Especially since our primate organisms are most likely well adapted to frequent insect meat consumption.
And please tell me, from where the nutrients and energy for "lab meat growing" will be cheaply coming from? (while insect meat is very efficient / that is the point)
Speaking of future (or is it already past?) - where is my flying car?
That's a more general issue, and why we need to try quite a bit harder with efforts at sustainability; also actions which many would perceive as going "back". A sort of cultural post-colonial mentality means that too many people in developing world perceive effects of prosperity also as reasons for it.
So, for example: sure, we're happy to pat ourselves on our backs because of apparently (true or not - irrelevant) approaching "solution" to "car problem" - hybrids or electrics. But for too many people that'll be just a reinforcement of valuing cars, of any type, to the detriment of alternatives which we also should be implementing (instead of encouraging their abandonment in other places via the above mechanism)
You're a primate. Look at the diets of other primates living in the wild. Your organism might be somewhat better adapted to diet dominated by insect / invertebrate meat than vertebrate one. In fact, considering that the latter was probably a relative rarity for most of our evolution, the current (very recent) levels of its availability and consumption can be more aptly described as "ridiculous new dietary fag".
That would miss the point; by introducing additional steps you get lower efficiency again... Also, fish farms require availability of suitable water reserves (while insect farming itself is very frugal with that increasingly problematic resource)
So...do you like meat or not? (insect meat among it...) BTW, I am pretty sure that we in developed world eat quite a bit more vertebrate meat than our bodies adapted to, more than they need.
You might also really reconsider projecting your local experiences on the rest of the world. Not only it's not impossible that most people depend on invertebrate / insect protein than on vertebrate one - in many places insects are delicacies.
OTOH our systems (while obviously omnivorous) certainly adapted to diets somewhat different from those popular in developed world.
It's probably safe to assume that vertebrate meat was a relative rarity, when compared to "every day, few times a day, typically central in main meal of the day" which seems to be the preferred approach now. Essentially, we probably fell into evolutionary trap via typical for our species (and preceding ones) relative rarity of meat - meaning that if this high-value food was available at all, it was a damn-good-thing. Which promoted acquiring a taste for it. But it didn't have to promote metabolism suitable for supermarket-shelf levels of availability.
In contrast, we are probably very adapted to meat of invertebrates, being primates / looking at typical diets of those in the wild.
Lactose intolerance among large part of world population makes this particular route much less useful (and is there a place where widespread lactose tolerance means it's not still in large part about meat biomass?)
Slashdot Mirror
Adding next alternative to PICNIC - wouldn't "fog" be more apt description than "cloud" for such implementation priorities?
Make it more foggy...cloudy?
LTE Advanced will be 4G
(it could be a part of how you don't have grasp on such basics...except that you based you derision of parent poster around the false marketing behind "4G" / make up your mind / the parent poster definitely didn't "call it 4G" anyway)
If it's simply "iPhone 4" - then I'm sorry, but it won't work on both the old "CDMA" and on LTE being rolled out by Verizon now. It needs to have some changes to make it work on either.
The only one who used "4G" above is you; the parent poster said "LTE".
Oh, good, you're onto something - could it be how it's not about the technology, but about a particular network of a particular provider?
(and again, how do you manage to miss that cell handover works perfectly also between 2G towers? But then, what to expect if seem you think WCDMA is still TDMA... when, ironically enough, it is CDMA2K 1xEV-DO which can send data only to one user at a time)
Huh? GSM family of standards is the dominating one pretty much everywhere... and GSM consortium formed from companies quite a bit distributed geographically.
How you seem to build this non-issue on "European" (vs. what, exactly, hm?) suggest that you have some location-based issues.
...selling placebos as real drugs?
They don't work otherwise...
This confusion again... (resulting mostly, I guess, from how one camp couldn't come with anything better than naming their technology after basic radio method)
Generally, you're basically trying to say "notably younger technology uses more complex, more efficient on the wireless part (with some costs elsewhere) radio method" - ignoring how "GSM" camp also uses it (in the form of "3G"/UMTS/WCDMA), and actually to cram a lot more into the same chunk of the frequency (HSDPA, HSPA+). And how on Earth did you convince yourself that GSM doesn't do cell handover?... (also between 2G and 3G)
...neither do they, themselves.
It's more about relative frequency; and AFAIK, while great apes obviously don't abstain from vertebrate meat, it's not exactly a foundation of their diet. Supposedly less than other (usually less "labor" intensive?) options, anyway.
(yeah, I also think I misspelled it; might be a case of words having less immediately obvious meaning for non-native speaker, and false sense of correctness from spell-checker...)
Not quite; we still know you can't / aren't willing to follow basic structure of Wiki articles.
Conveniently, regarding the topic - a major part of assuring that nearly all children reach adulthood is getting rid of hunger, preferably in a sustainable manner.
A don't think situation in Japan can be described even as "sorta ecological balance" - I'll let you guess which of the blue rectangles in this diagram represents them.
On the other hand - considering how insect meat production is far more efficient from other possible forms, it might be a good way (not the only one) of utilizing plant resources otherwise unfit for human consumption.
Especially since our primate organisms are most likely well adapted to frequent insect meat consumption.
And please tell me, from where the nutrients and energy for "lab meat growing" will be cheaply coming from? (while insect meat is very efficient / that is the point)
Speaking of future (or is it already past?) - where is my flying car?
That's a more general issue, and why we need to try quite a bit harder with efforts at sustainability; also actions which many would perceive as going "back". A sort of cultural post-colonial mentality means that too many people in developing world perceive effects of prosperity also as reasons for it.
So, for example: sure, we're happy to pat ourselves on our backs because of apparently (true or not - irrelevant) approaching "solution" to "car problem" - hybrids or electrics. But for too many people that'll be just a reinforcement of valuing cars, of any type, to the detriment of alternatives which we also should be implementing (instead of encouraging their abandonment in other places via the above mechanism)
This is one reason why large arthropods are primarily found in water, but not on land.
It can be still fun though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_spider_crab
Do you feel like a little girl already?
Please, something more... epic next time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0QfVDebLFg
It would be even better if Wikipedia wasn't associated with this - its 10-year anniversary will be celebrated at the very same day
Such coincidence seems like a purposeful effort at creating confusion...
You're a primate. Look at the diets of other primates living in the wild. Your organism might be somewhat better adapted to diet dominated by insect / invertebrate meat than vertebrate one. In fact, considering that the latter was probably a relative rarity for most of our evolution, the current (very recent) levels of its availability and consumption can be more aptly described as "ridiculous new dietary fag".
That would miss the point; by introducing additional steps you get lower efficiency again... Also, fish farms require availability of suitable water reserves (while insect farming itself is very frugal with that increasingly problematic resource)
So...do you like meat or not? (insect meat among it...) BTW, I am pretty sure that we in developed world eat quite a bit more vertebrate meat than our bodies adapted to, more than they need.
You might also really reconsider projecting your local experiences on the rest of the world. Not only it's not impossible that most people depend on invertebrate / insect protein than on vertebrate one - in many places insects are delicacies.
OTOH our systems (while obviously omnivorous) certainly adapted to diets somewhat different from those popular in developed world.
It's probably safe to assume that vertebrate meat was a relative rarity, when compared to "every day, few times a day, typically central in main meal of the day" which seems to be the preferred approach now. Essentially, we probably fell into evolutionary trap via typical for our species (and preceding ones) relative rarity of meat - meaning that if this high-value food was available at all, it was a damn-good-thing. Which promoted acquiring a taste for it. But it didn't have to promote metabolism suitable for supermarket-shelf levels of availability.
In contrast, we are probably very adapted to meat of invertebrates, being primates / looking at typical diets of those in the wild.
Lactose intolerance among large part of world population makes this particular route much less useful (and is there a place where widespread lactose tolerance means it's not still in large part about meat biomass?)
I wonder when we'll start eating what is apparently the most successful, by biomass, single specie on Earth (hey, we did wipe most of the whales around, all that krill is only going to waste... ;p )