Getting a dog that you know is going to die in ten years, give or take, is part of having a dog.
Not my point and I got no problem with this. What I said is that if your dog is about to die of age I give you a life expansion so he can be young again but you refuse to give it to him "because it's not nature's way" or "because our girl/son need that life lesson", that, I will find it cruel.
What's really cruel is to force extraordinary medical procedures to extend life for a a sentient creature that is incapable of understanding an communicating consent.
What do you mean "extraordinary medical procedures"? Of course if you plug a life support machine to an agonizing dog it'll would be cruel. But where does that come from?
Dogs understand when it's time for them to die. People frequently don't.
Er ok? Citation needed!
When my last dog died, he let me know that it was time by going outside in the middle of the night in five-degree Fahrenheit temperatures, going behind the shed, and refusing to come out. We coaxed him back in, but ended up putting him down a couple of days later, and he died peacefully with his family beside him.
I love to see people humanizing pets.
"Omg our poor little dog is getting old and he can barely walk. He want to die so It's cruel to let him live and we must euthanize him"
Really, how can you know what he feel? How can you know it's what "he want". I'm tired to hear about people giving human feeling and emotion to pets as a "proof" for anything. "He is sad because of that so I have to do this". "I know he feel that way so I must do that other thing".
I'm a profound atheist and one of the big consequence is the belief of eternal oblivion after death. I don't know for you, but for me it's the worst possible outcome and I'll do anything to avoid it as long as I can.
Funny point of view for an atheist. You had eternal oblivion before you were born, and somehow that doesn't seem to bother you at all.
I don't get what you mean. What does eternal oblivion before birth have to do with this? I was in oblivion before birth so I should embrace it?
You are not much of an atheist if you view oblivion as terrifying rather than neutral (worse than being happy, better than being unhappy) or if you believe you have a soul that can survive loss of memories.
Well I'm quite interested to hear what's your definition of an atheist.
If you take oblivion as "neutral", it's your choice and it's also your point of view. You see the life as a balance of good and bad so if your life is more bad than good you rather end your life and that's fine.
My point of view is that any happy moment is a treasure that worth it and I want to get most of them as possible. In consequence, it mean that if I have to life 100 years of sadness to get one more moment of happiness then I'll try to get it. It also mean that I'll do everything to extend my life as long that I have the slightest hope to live another good moment in the future. Again, it's my point of view and I don't see how it make me less atheist than you (which, by definition, doesn't have anything to do with our perception of oblivion afaik).
Some dogs never get over the death of a beloved owner.
Haaa yahoo news, (one of) my favourite source of integrity news. Any of those "dog stay at owner grave for years" news smell fishy and weird but it's my opinion.
Anyway, being true or not, I don't think a few story like this count as a good argument to prove that "no pet should outlive it's master because it's too cruel". Max here (granpa's dog) look quite happy with us.
That's not why you buy a pet. But it is part of owning a pet, just as death is a natural part of life. Owning a pet teaches a child about compassion, responsibility, and the cycle of life, including death and grieving. All of these things are valuable lessons for a kid, including the last part. What's a terrible lesson for a kid is to teach them that they can buy their way out of anything unpleasant that might ever happen to them.
That's a way oversimplified way to analyse this. It's like saying that the death of animal is necessary in a kid education and that buying a life extension pills for a pet will turn the kid delinquent or something.
Any kid could have a good childhood without all those "important" lesson and forcing the dog to die to teach grieving is nothing less than cruel. If that's the reason you buy a pet why don't you go buy a pet pig to your kid, wait that he likes it, shoot it before him and each bacon for diner while you're at it? But hey! It's life lesson and good bacon!
I guess all the world's problems have been solved now. Let's turn our attention to our pets.
I get your point but let put this story in another perspective.
Life extension in pet could be more easily morally accepted by society and a lot of new research funding could become available. And life expansion of pets shouldn't be too different of human life expansion so the two science could be beneficial to each others. And since age is the most common cause of mortality in the world, I'd say it's a good shoot.
Want to explain why mice or gerbils or hamsters don't live to be 100 then?
I think it's a question of metabolism. The smaller the animal, the faster the metabolism. But if you get two animal with the same metabolism but of greatly different size, the smaller one will live longer.
But I may be completely wrong and I, afaik, Chihuahua seems to have a metabolism way more faster than a big lazy dog.
Age extension is torture without corresponding lifting of physical and mental limitations. If I live long enough, I will eventually stagnate and not have any really new experiences which make living worthwhile. Eventually I will lose most memories from all but (say) most recent 50 years and earlier versions of me will still effectively die, except without a clear closure or joy of discovery available to a young person.
Give me ability to grow mentally and emotionally beyond my current capacity or let me feel well until around 70-80 and then I am ready to check out. Any self respecting dog would understand.
Well just don't take the pills, but don't try to force your morality on us.
I'm a profound atheist and one of the big consequence is the belief of eternal oblivion after death. I don't know for you, but for me it's the worst possible outcome and I'll do anything to avoid it as long as I can. Even if it mean forgetting all my "important" memory or who I am since, after all, what's the use of memory in oblivion?
Put aside the enormous cost that will surely be involved in extending animal lifespans, but think of the animals themselves: no animal should outlive its owner.
Ok, I'll go ask dog.
"Dog, do you mind that grandpa died?" "Woof!" "I think he doesn't mind".
More seriously thought, we just received the dog of my now deceased grand-father and his mourning was quite faster than ours and I seriously have hard time getting the pertinence of your point. I'm quite sure a dog will live happily and long that he got a good owner and good food. Furthermore, researching life extension on pet is actually a quite good idea to help the research of human life extension so in my books it's win-win (unless you're one of "those" guy thinking that life extension is "bad" and "immoral").
... as the San Bernardino, California, attack was happening, female shooter Tashfeen Malik posted a pledge of allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook...
At least Muslims here in the US are condemning the San Bernardino attack. The other week when the guy in Colorado shot up the Planned Parenthood clinic Christians were cheering.
Putting aside the fact that the main story is borderline "news for nerds", do you know how Slashdot works? The discussion is still active in the news posted yesterday so why don`t you simply go there and post your update?
When pets die it is like a practice run for the children in the family to learn to cope with death. If a child has been through the process of grieving for a pet they will have that experience to help them get through the much more traumatic effects of the death of human family member.
I had to rub my eyes and read again to be sure I didn't read that wrong.
So your point is that pet should die so it can be a good "life lesson" for our kid. Really?
And climate change? Are the visionaries working on those, too?
I actually want to start this argument.
What is the problem with "overpopulation" How do you define it?
Is a planet overpopulated because we can't produce enough food for everyone? About this, here's a conceptual 21th centory farming tower : http://www.popsci.com/cliff-ku...
With this, you can produce food for 50k people with a 30 story tower. So, unless I make a huge mistake somewhere, it's untrue that the earth can only produce food for 10 or so billion people.
Or is it the pollution and the destruction of the nature? I am going to say something really sad here, but will humanity really need nature to survive in the 22th century? A good image is the planet Coruscant from the Star Wars franchise, the planet is one big city, nothing else. Yeah it's sad and I love nature too, but there's tech to remove our dependency of mother nature.
Or is it the pollution and the global warming? Well, there is something to be worried. But I'm a optimist one. The reason why we are slow to fight global warming is mostly an economical one. But guess what, one of the first city to drown will be New York with a estimated GMP over a trillion dollars. So I think that, soon enough, there'll suddenly a lot more money available to fight global warming (Well, "soon" is a long shot since the sea is rising a few millimetres each years). And I also have faith in new green tech on the way to help us out.
There's a slight negative correlation at the level of countries between gun ownership and homicide. The correlation is a little more pronounced when you take out the US. I wouldn't call it a smoking gun.
That's the source that you stand on? Some "Pro-Gun" american website that make some biased statement? News flash for you, try that statistic again but remove all organised crime murder this time and tell me how that statistic goes for you. You can point the finger at Brazil all you want, but in my book there's a strong difference between drug lord shooting at each others and some crazy young man killing 20 children in a elementary school.
If you want to have some fact about the efficiency of banning gun, how about looking at the opinion of the journalist (with a minimum of integrity) of those country?
Let me stop you there as you are being moronic. You seem to understand the volume of guns but seem to think something can magically make them go away? Not going to happen. 3d printed guns? Zip guns? And the fact that there are, as you say, 250 million proper guns.
Think about this -- with reasonable care, guns last centuries. There are multitudes of 17th century guns that can still fire -- never mind the NEW stuff.
I think you need to find a different solution.
I can understand some "pro-gun" commentary on many place like Facebook, but on/. I find it both weird and sad.
So basically, your argument is (like many) "The problem won't solve overnight because suddenly the US ban gun. And look at those Canadian, they also have tons of gun and they don't have the same violence as us."
And since "Pro-gun" doesn't have any alternative solution, the outcome is that the US doesn't do anything.
Well, there's ton of example around the world (Australia, Western Europe, etc.) where country banned gun and got result. And yes I get that the USA is different and I get there's a ton of gun in circulation and it may take century to remove them, but it's a god damn place to start.
And even if it take years to before there's any result, as long as you save the live of a human being, it'll be worth it.
When the selling price of the whole board is only 5$, adding two ICs for 0.50~1.00$ each just increased your BOM drastically.
As you may have noticed, 5$ price point was not in my list for the ultimate Pi. And I'm quite sure people won't mind paying 6-7$ for the same board with, let's say, the Wifi/bluetooth/3.5mm/UpgradedGPIO.
not exist because its manufacturing costs would push it out of competition, and most users would be paying for stuff they are not using
fail, fail, fail
How exactly?
Are you saying that...
-The price of an inboard Wifi Bluetooth would be that high? (I've saw chip under 1$ for both case) -USB-C cost too much? (I saw some connector at 3$ each but I expect it'll drop soon enough and we're talking about replacing current connector that cost money) -The 3.5mm connector would cost too much? (Please) -All aditional GPIO feature would cost so much? (Granted, analogic GPIO would be a challenge. But most other feature cost nearly nothing in term of component.)
First, I want to applaud this achievement. 5$ for a little computer with a 40-pin with 26 GPIO is quite amazing in term of capacity. They are getting real closer to get a price tag low enough so it'll enter the manufacturing of some SMBs. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing those into some toys or drone real soon because it just cut the development time drastically.
But I'm saddened that it still doesn't come with WiFi. The ESP8266 is a good example on how cheap and small it could be. You could scrap the huge Ethernet port and still connect to the internet. Also, I'm frustrated that the Bluetooth didn't become the standard it should be and doesn't install easily on the Raspberry (or Windows for that matter) so most USB port could be remplaced by 2-3 USB-C port (You could use one for display and one for power).
In my mind, the ultimate RaspPi would have :
- Same specs as the RaspZero or better - WiFi and Bluetooth integrated - 2-3 USB-C port - 1 Four-pole 3.5mm connector (Analogic Video + Audio) - Micro-SD slot - 40 pin with 26+ GPIO with a few more feature (Surge protection, Drive, more power, Possibility to raise to 5V, Analogic GPIO, etc.)
Fortunately for them, they're up against politically correct pussies in most cases, which means they can take advantage of things like massive movements of immigrants over-running Europe to place thousands of hardcore fighters right where they want them, complete with free housing and food while they gear up.
Or, most importantly, they're up against politically correct government that cannot, because morality of well-developed countries, use their full wrath to punish and exact revenge to those infidel killing our good citizen (aka nuking the shit out of them).
In 2077, the storm of world war had come again. In two brief hours, most of the planet was reduced to cinders. And from the ashes of nuclear devastation, a new civilization would struggle to arise.
A few were able to reach the relative safety of the large underground Vaults. Your family was part of that group that entered Vault Thirteen. Imprisoned safely behind the large Vault door, under a mountain of stone, a generation has lived without knowledge of the outside world.
So far, it have been mostly what I have imagine the world during a nuclear conflict, but how will it have turned out exactly? Is there a more thoughtful research on the subject? I've found a few text with a quick google search but none really catches my eyes so far.
Agreed that the refrigerator (along with birth control) is one of the most disruptive technologies in the past 100 years. However, this is not yet the case for the world at large. Only 27% of people in India own a refrigerator. In the West we take things like refrigeration and toilets for granted...
True, but what was India's most disruptive technologies in the past 100 years and how does it fit for the rest of the world?
...the tech guy approved the ad-blocking apps in good faith. Then the Business guy noticed an unusual drop in ad-blocking revenu. The director of Business blamed the tech deparment for this drop. The tech guy got fired and the apps was removed. Just my theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting a dog that you know is going to die in ten years, give or take, is part of having a dog.
Not my point and I got no problem with this. What I said is that if your dog is about to die of age I give you a life expansion so he can be young again but you refuse to give it to him "because it's not nature's way" or "because our girl/son need that life lesson", that, I will find it cruel.
What's really cruel is to force extraordinary medical procedures to extend life for a a sentient creature that is incapable of understanding an communicating consent.
What do you mean "extraordinary medical procedures"? Of course if you plug a life support machine to an agonizing dog it'll would be cruel. But where does that come from?
Dogs understand when it's time for them to die. People frequently don't.
Er ok? Citation needed!
When my last dog died, he let me know that it was time by going outside in the middle of the night in five-degree Fahrenheit temperatures, going behind the shed, and refusing to come out. We coaxed him back in, but ended up putting him down a couple of days later, and he died peacefully with his family beside him.
I love to see people humanizing pets.
"Omg our poor little dog is getting old and he can barely walk. He want to die so It's cruel to let him live and we must euthanize him"
Really, how can you know what he feel? How can you know it's what "he want". I'm tired to hear about people giving human feeling and emotion to pets as a "proof" for anything. "He is sad because of that so I have to do this". "I know he feel that way so I must do that other thing".
I'm a profound atheist and one of the big consequence is the belief of eternal oblivion after death. I don't know for you, but for me it's the worst possible outcome and I'll do anything to avoid it as long as I can.
Funny point of view for an atheist. You had eternal oblivion before you were born, and somehow that doesn't seem to bother you at all.
I don't get what you mean. What does eternal oblivion before birth have to do with this? I was in oblivion before birth so I should embrace it?
You are not much of an atheist if you view oblivion as terrifying rather than neutral (worse than being happy, better than being unhappy) or if you believe you have a soul that can survive loss of memories.
Well I'm quite interested to hear what's your definition of an atheist.
If you take oblivion as "neutral", it's your choice and it's also your point of view. You see the life as a balance of good and bad so if your life is more bad than good you rather end your life and that's fine.
My point of view is that any happy moment is a treasure that worth it and I want to get most of them as possible. In consequence, it mean that if I have to life 100 years of sadness to get one more moment of happiness then I'll try to get it. It also mean that I'll do everything to extend my life as long that I have the slightest hope to live another good moment in the future. Again, it's my point of view and I don't see how it make me less atheist than you (which, by definition, doesn't have anything to do with our perception of oblivion afaik).
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/th...
Some dogs never get over the death of a beloved owner.
Haaa yahoo news, (one of) my favourite source of integrity news. Any of those "dog stay at owner grave for years" news smell fishy and weird but it's my opinion.
Anyway, being true or not, I don't think a few story like this count as a good argument to prove that "no pet should outlive it's master because it's too cruel". Max here (granpa's dog) look quite happy with us.
That's not why you buy a pet. But it is part of owning a pet, just as death is a natural part of life. Owning a pet teaches a child about compassion, responsibility, and the cycle of life, including death and grieving. All of these things are valuable lessons for a kid, including the last part. What's a terrible lesson for a kid is to teach them that they can buy their way out of anything unpleasant that might ever happen to them.
That's a way oversimplified way to analyse this. It's like saying that the death of animal is necessary in a kid education and that buying a life extension pills for a pet will turn the kid delinquent or something.
Any kid could have a good childhood without all those "important" lesson and forcing the dog to die to teach grieving is nothing less than cruel. If that's the reason you buy a pet why don't you go buy a pet pig to your kid, wait that he likes it, shoot it before him and each bacon for diner while you're at it? But hey! It's life lesson and good bacon!
I guess all the world's problems have been solved now. Let's turn our attention to our pets.
I get your point but let put this story in another perspective.
Life extension in pet could be more easily morally accepted by society and a lot of new research funding could become available. And life expansion of pets shouldn't be too different of human life expansion so the two science could be beneficial to each others. And since age is the most common cause of mortality in the world, I'd say it's a good shoot.
Want to explain why mice or gerbils or hamsters don't live to be 100 then?
I think it's a question of metabolism. The smaller the animal, the faster the metabolism. But if you get two animal with the same metabolism but of greatly different size, the smaller one will live longer.
But I may be completely wrong and I, afaik, Chihuahua seems to have a metabolism way more faster than a big lazy dog.
Age extension is torture without corresponding lifting of physical and mental limitations. If I live long enough, I will eventually stagnate and not have any really new experiences which make living worthwhile. Eventually I will lose most memories from all but (say) most recent 50 years and earlier versions of me will still effectively die, except without a clear closure or joy of discovery available to a young person.
Give me ability to grow mentally and emotionally beyond my current capacity or let me feel well until around 70-80 and then I am ready to check out. Any self respecting dog would understand.
Well just don't take the pills, but don't try to force your morality on us.
I'm a profound atheist and one of the big consequence is the belief of eternal oblivion after death. I don't know for you, but for me it's the worst possible outcome and I'll do anything to avoid it as long as I can. Even if it mean forgetting all my "important" memory or who I am since, after all, what's the use of memory in oblivion?
Put aside the enormous cost that will surely be involved in extending animal lifespans, but think of the animals themselves: no animal should outlive its owner.
Ok, I'll go ask dog.
"Dog, do you mind that grandpa died?"
"Woof!"
"I think he doesn't mind".
More seriously thought, we just received the dog of my now deceased grand-father and his mourning was quite faster than ours and I seriously have hard time getting the pertinence of your point. I'm quite sure a dog will live happily and long that he got a good owner and good food. Furthermore, researching life extension on pet is actually a quite good idea to help the research of human life extension so in my books it's win-win (unless you're one of "those" guy thinking that life extension is "bad" and "immoral").
The story Slashdot won't run:
San Bernardino shooting: Attacker pledged allegiance to ISIS, officials say
... as the San Bernardino, California, attack was happening, female shooter Tashfeen Malik posted a pledge of allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook ...
At least Muslims here in the US are condemning the San Bernardino attack. The other week when the guy in Colorado shot up the Planned Parenthood clinic Christians were cheering.
Putting aside the fact that the main story is borderline "news for nerds", do you know how Slashdot works? The discussion is still active in the news posted yesterday so why don`t you simply go there and post your update?
When pets die it is like a practice run for the children in the family to learn to cope with death. If a child has been through the process of grieving for a pet they will have that experience to help them get through the much more traumatic effects of the death of human family member.
I had to rub my eyes and read again to be sure I didn't read that wrong.
So your point is that pet should die so it can be a good "life lesson" for our kid. Really?
And a cure for world overpopulation
And climate change? Are the visionaries working on those, too?
I actually want to start this argument.
What is the problem with "overpopulation" How do you define it?
Is a planet overpopulated because we can't produce enough food for everyone? About this, here's a conceptual 21th centory farming tower : http://www.popsci.com/cliff-ku...
With this, you can produce food for 50k people with a 30 story tower. So, unless I make a huge mistake somewhere, it's untrue that the earth can only produce food for 10 or so billion people.
Or is it the pollution and the destruction of the nature? I am going to say something really sad here, but will humanity really need nature to survive in the 22th century? A good image is the planet Coruscant from the Star Wars franchise, the planet is one big city, nothing else. Yeah it's sad and I love nature too, but there's tech to remove our dependency of mother nature.
Or is it the pollution and the global warming? Well, there is something to be worried. But I'm a optimist one. The reason why we are slow to fight global warming is mostly an economical one. But guess what, one of the first city to drown will be New York with a estimated GMP over a trillion dollars. So I think that, soon enough, there'll suddenly a lot more money available to fight global warming (Well, "soon" is a long shot since the sea is rising a few millimetres each years). And I also have faith in new green tech on the way to help us out.
Yes, if only California had gun laws, this could have been averted.
California have some gun laws. California just got a mass shooting. In consequence, gun laws doesn't work.
Interesting! So, in your opinion, for a solution to work all gun homicide must stopped or the said reason isn't worth it?
Banning gun worked for all country that tried it.
There's a slight negative correlation at the level of countries between gun ownership and homicide. The correlation is a little more pronounced when you take out the US. I wouldn't call it a smoking gun.
That's the source that you stand on? Some "Pro-Gun" american website that make some biased statement? News flash for you, try that statistic again but remove all organised crime murder this time and tell me how that statistic goes for you. You can point the finger at Brazil all you want, but in my book there's a strong difference between drug lord shooting at each others and some crazy young man killing 20 children in a elementary school.
If you want to have some fact about the efficiency of banning gun, how about looking at the opinion of the journalist (with a minimum of integrity) of those country?
And since "Pro-gun" doesn't have any alternative solution, the outcome is that the US doesn't do anything.
There's no need to actually have a solution, much less a solution that doesn't work.
Banning gun worked for all country that tried it. Why would it be different for the USA?
"Actually, moron"
Let me stop you there as you are being moronic. You seem to understand the volume of guns but seem to think something can magically make them go away? Not going to happen. 3d printed guns? Zip guns? And the fact that there are, as you say, 250 million proper guns.
Think about this -- with reasonable care, guns last centuries. There are multitudes of 17th century guns that can still fire -- never mind the NEW stuff.
I think you need to find a different solution.
I can understand some "pro-gun" commentary on many place like Facebook, but on /. I find it both weird and sad.
So basically, your argument is (like many) "The problem won't solve overnight because suddenly the US ban gun. And look at those Canadian, they also have tons of gun and they don't have the same violence as us."
And since "Pro-gun" doesn't have any alternative solution, the outcome is that the US doesn't do anything.
Well, there's ton of example around the world (Australia, Western Europe, etc.) where country banned gun and got result. And yes I get that the USA is different and I get there's a ton of gun in circulation and it may take century to remove them, but it's a god damn place to start.
And even if it take years to before there's any result, as long as you save the live of a human being, it'll be worth it.
When the selling price of the whole board is only 5$, adding two ICs for 0.50~1.00$ each just increased your BOM drastically.
As you may have noticed, 5$ price point was not in my list for the ultimate Pi. And I'm quite sure people won't mind paying 6-7$ for the same board with, let's say, the Wifi/bluetooth/3.5mm/UpgradedGPIO.
In my mind, the ultimate RaspPi would
not exist because its manufacturing costs would push it out of competition, and most users would be paying for stuff they are not using
fail, fail, fail
How exactly?
Are you saying that...
-The price of an inboard Wifi Bluetooth would be that high? (I've saw chip under 1$ for both case)
-USB-C cost too much? (I saw some connector at 3$ each but I expect it'll drop soon enough and we're talking about replacing current connector that cost money)
-The 3.5mm connector would cost too much? (Please)
-All aditional GPIO feature would cost so much? (Granted, analogic GPIO would be a challenge. But most other feature cost nearly nothing in term of component.)
First, I want to applaud this achievement. 5$ for a little computer with a 40-pin with 26 GPIO is quite amazing in term of capacity. They are getting real closer to get a price tag low enough so it'll enter the manufacturing of some SMBs. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing those into some toys or drone real soon because it just cut the development time drastically.
But I'm saddened that it still doesn't come with WiFi. The ESP8266 is a good example on how cheap and small it could be. You could scrap the huge Ethernet port and still connect to the internet. Also, I'm frustrated that the Bluetooth didn't become the standard it should be and doesn't install easily on the Raspberry (or Windows for that matter) so most USB port could be remplaced by 2-3 USB-C port (You could use one for display and one for power).
In my mind, the ultimate RaspPi would have :
- Same specs as the RaspZero or better
- WiFi and Bluetooth integrated
- 2-3 USB-C port
- 1 Four-pole 3.5mm connector (Analogic Video + Audio)
- Micro-SD slot
- 40 pin with 26+ GPIO with a few more feature (Surge protection, Drive, more power, Possibility to raise to 5V, Analogic GPIO, etc.)
Fortunately for them, they're up against politically correct pussies in most cases, which means they can take advantage of things like massive movements of immigrants over-running Europe to place thousands of hardcore fighters right where they want them, complete with free housing and food while they gear up.
Or, most importantly, they're up against politically correct government that cannot, because morality of well-developed countries, use their full wrath to punish and exact revenge to those infidel killing our good citizen (aka nuking the shit out of them).
That may be why some dumbass like Trump are leading in presidency those day : http://www.businessinsider.com...
We read that in the paper newspaper a few days ago.
A quick custom Google search tell me that the first time this news came out was 20 hours ago. Still I get your point.
I'm surprised that it appeared so late on /. It's usually one of the first place I would expect to read news like this one.
From the first Fallout game :
In 2077, the storm of world war had come again. In two brief hours, most of the planet was reduced to cinders. And from the ashes of nuclear devastation, a new civilization would struggle to arise.
A few were able to reach the relative safety of the large underground Vaults. Your family was part of that group that entered Vault Thirteen. Imprisoned safely behind the large Vault door, under a mountain of stone, a generation has lived without knowledge of the outside world.
So far, it have been mostly what I have imagine the world during a nuclear conflict, but how will it have turned out exactly? Is there a more thoughtful research on the subject? I've found a few text with a quick google search but none really catches my eyes so far.
Obligatory shout out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well, while we're at it : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov
Agreed that the refrigerator (along with birth control) is one of the most disruptive technologies in the past 100 years. However, this is not yet the case for the world at large. Only 27% of people in India own a refrigerator. In the West we take things like refrigeration and toilets for granted...
True, but what was India's most disruptive technologies in the past 100 years and how does it fit for the rest of the world?
...the tech guy approved the ad-blocking apps in good faith. Then the Business guy noticed an unusual drop in ad-blocking revenu. The director of Business blamed the tech deparment for this drop. The tech guy got fired and the apps was removed. Just my theory.