I'm going to take it that you don't actually use a workstation much less a recent computer.

Let's start with OOD which I assume you mean optical drive. When was the last time you used one? Most people haven't used one in years. So removing it is like when computer manufacturers removed the floppy drive. Apple was one the first; others took years to do so even when it was apparent no one used them anymore.

Now let's talk about the HDDs. Yes they removed them. If you are using a workstation, you need speed. With most professionals using networked drives for collaboration, the need to have personal drives only comes from a small percentage of pros. Since the Mac Pro is for pros and not consumers, this was an understandable choice.

Now let's talk about eSATA. It isn't a standard that Apple has ever supported. Their standards has always been FireWire or Thunderbolt.

As for "underpowerd PSU", you do understand that a workstation is not a gaming machine, right?

No. The total loss of a species to study and learn from is a loss. That's not neutral. Its not like one species is dying to be replaced by another; right now were are experiencing decreasing bio-diversity.

My entire argument is centered on what is to the ultimate benefit of humanity. And another respondent even (rightfully) called my position "anthropocentric". I'm not sure what to make of your comment; except to say: "swing and a miss".

I can't tell if your suggesting that's good or bad. I think its good.

That's not anthropocentric. That's personal / self-interested / ego-centric.

That's a strange way of looking at it. They are seeking to learn and recover that which is -lost-. I can't see how not finding that which is lost is somehow doing us any good.

Granted the longer we wait to find that which is lost the better our technology for preserving it is but that is offset by
- a how long do we wait? clearly if we wait forever we never benefit from finding it; and anything else is entirely arbitrary. Searching

- some of what is lost is often slowly and sometimes quickly deteriorating. waiting for the future to find it may not leave us anything to find.

Probably not. Perhaps I should have clarified that things going extinct is universally bad for humanity.

And yes, obviously prior extinctions leading to the evolution of humanity were not bad for humanity.

On the other hand, humanity going extinct would be exceedingly bad for humanity.

Other species co-existent with humanity now going extinct, in the sense that it represents a reduction in biodiversity to draw on and study is also bad for humanity.

Right, it is not good or bad relative to the universe; its not "objectively" bad. Its not immoral. But it is still unversally bad from the subjective perspective of the species going extinct, or the species relying on it.

That, in this case, would be us. Granted we aren't dependent on the galapagos iguana the way we are dependent on chickens or corn, but we are dependent on the existing bio-diversity of earth to advance a wide variety of sciences, and the loss of that diversity is a loss to humanity. Particularly the Galapagos. Both due to its scientific value as a long isolated ecosystem; and culturally for its historic significance.

Is that a "for real" reason not to preserve a species, or are you just trolling? In a world where we use oil to make plastic McDonald's happy meal toys in china, and then more oil to ship to the united states, then more oil shipping them to a landfill after kids played with them for exactly 5 minutes once, the argument against using fossile fuels cost of preserving Galapagos species falls pretty flat.

Not moving them, and having them go extinct would have the same effect.

Have we identified anything else that is being threatened by the volcano ?
When did the next to last colony of pink iguana disappear ?
How is it determined if/when the iguana need to be moved ?
Do we understand enough about them to move them ?
How much support are we going to provide them if moved ?

I am not a biologist. Never mind a specialist in the Galapagos. Ask them.
But if a volcano is looking likely to wipe them out, and moving a number to a zoo to try and preserve them seems well worth it to me.

Can not have WHAT both ways?

I'd argue the Galapagos species are priceless. But I would also agree, that even priceless doesn't mean they have infinite value. There must be a reasonable limit on what we'd spend to save them ... but surely we agree its well above 0.

"seems sad"? Did you even read what I wrote? I gave two separate and specific contexts where extinction is a clear loss to humanity: scientific loss in all cases, and cultural loss in more limited cases. Both go well beyond "seems sad".

Along with climate changes, desertification, habitat destruction, food chain collapse,...

Nobody is arguing that point. A meter striking a major city would be totally natural too. "Natural" is hardly a reason to simply let it happen if we see it coming.

It's still a scientific loss. And its a valuable species; all the Galapagos are particularly valuable to science due to their extended isolation and resultant independent evolution.

The question I'm asking is not whether its natural or not, its whether its better or not in the long run for us not to have access to this species to study?

Its hard to make the argument that we gain any advantage from it being extinct.

We have actual scientists who have an actual scientific basis for being concerned about this species status... but you, without any grounds, studies, or special knowledge of the situation, suspect it will be just fine. So ... lets go with that instead. /facepalm

Yes. And?

Can't have what both ways? The premise is that things going extinct is universally bad. Yes, even when its entirely due to natural causes its still in our bests interests to preserve it. Biodiversity is objectively valuable; because we can learn from it.

Letting a species go extinct is like shredding the last copy of a book. The more interesting and unique the species the greater the loss to science.

Finally, and perhaps tangentially, its also rational to put higher value on the larger / famous species -- the extinction of some obscure spider or toad is perhaps just as much a loss as the extinction of tigers scientifically. But tigers are culturally significant in addition to being scientifically significant. So the extra awareness and priority to them is warranted.

The topic of the Manhattan Project is a red herring. Those people were choosing between two evils, because the Project was about building a weapon to stop a genocidal maniac from taking over the planet. By the time they were done, D-Day and V-E Day had happened, true, but those victories were far from foregone conclusions when the scientists started.

Nobody's building AI to try and prevent something on the same level as world domination by Hitler, sorry.

I'm wondering if the "editing" from the Slashdot editors wasn't the problem in the first place. How many Slashdot summaries wildly overstate/oversimplify/remove from proper context the real meat of a story? How many Slashdot comments essentially say, "RTFA...you'll see that [it only applies to this situation|they mean this instead of that|this was done on purpose under wildly crazy conditions to see if it could ever be true at all|this person has no credibility|this is really advertising for someone's product]"?

Question: What role do people who think that AI research is dangerous hold in the field of AI research?

Answer: None...because regardless of their qualifications, they wouldn't further the progress of something they think is a very, very bad idea.

Asking AI experts whether or not they think AI research is a bad idea subjects your responses to a massive selection bias. And discounting the views of others because they don't specialize in creating the thing they think should not be created does the same. You do realize that at your core, that's your only point...not that Hawking is an idiot, or that Gates doesn't know anything about technology. It's just that they don't work in the field of AI, so therefore they must not have any inkling whatsoever as to what they're talking about.

Those sound like school math test questions, not job interview ones.

Estimate how many infidels there are in the middle east right now that need killing.

Please talk about a time you had a disagreement with a Shia colleague and how you handled it?

How many sticks of dynamite can you fit in a Peugeot sedan? Before the suspension starts to visibly sag?

Explain Jihad to an 8-year old in 3 sentences or fewer.

1) How will replacing the voting system result in faster or more informed decisions by the voters? That's like suggesting making high tech toilets will get people to make better choices about what they eat.

2) What on earth do we need -faster- decisions for? Because having to wait a few hours a few times a decade is the major problem with our system of government?

Better how? Fewer people would know how it works. Therefore Few people should trust it. Doesn't sound "better" to me. Election systems need to be simple enough that everyone can understand them, everyone can see that hasn't been tampered with.

A show of hands is simple but not anoymous.

Physical ballots placed into a physical box. Then removed and counted in full view of everyone is also simple, and you gain anonymity. And a child can understand it and validate it. There is zero reason for an election to ever be more complicated than this.