You can't avoid second hand smoke either, but you don't have to pay the clerk at the corner store $10 every two days for a pack of cigarettes. Will you reduce your chances of lung cancer to 0? No. Are you less likely to die of it than a "pack a day" smoker? Yes.

maybe it's helpful for you that I edit your response and show what a nonsense argument it is.

I'd have to say that does more to support the GP's point, than to refute it - Do you see a lot of people under 50 wearing watches?

Wrist watches have a tiny bit more utility than pocket watches; but once everyone had a de facto pocket watch on them at all times (aka a cell phone), most people saw no need to carry both. Wrist watches have effectively gone the way of the dodo, except for one niche purpose: Status symbols.

You only see two types of people wearing watches today - The rich (or pretenders thereof) showing off their Rolex; and the hipsters, showing off their vintage $10 Swatches to prove themselves as more Bohemian than the next guy on a fixie.

And whaddya know - Look who has adopted the iWatch.

I think you mean the memo from 2002, and so others can find it, here's a link to it.

Yes to #1, take your TV, throw it out the window. Tune your radio to NPR, install Ad Block, Flash Block, uBlock, Ghostery, etc. on your web browser. You will be shocked - SHOCKED - to find out from your friends when the latest summer blockbuster movies are coming out.
 
When I moved out of the house at 19 I did not take a TV with me, and I did not miss it. Only at 29 did I buy a TV, and only then so I could watch Netflix on a larger screen, in my living room.

I've been made to click on tons of videos with poor content, or badly structured content. This one was pretty good, though. A nice overview of something I know little about, with good narration too.

tl;dr: their domain went down and it took a little while for the new ones to float to the top of google.

I've seen many claims that being a human with autism somehow gives you some special access to animal experiences. Since no one knows what animals actually experience, and pretty much everything we know about both animal evolution and autism tells us that a human with autism is if anything less likely than a neurotypical human to have sound insight into the lived experience of a domesticated harem-keeping herbivorous prey-animal with completely different evolved responses to external stimuli--since neurotypical humans are generally better than humans with autism at building models of other minds--does it bother you as a scientist to see these completely unfounded, unjustified and likely false claims made, despite the huge benefits they have had to marketing your personal brand, and the likely good your prominence in the field has done regarding the humane treatment of animals?

Other than the whole "time travel" angle, Terminator pretty much counts as the only possible outcome of us developing a "true" AI - at least, any AI of (initially) comparable intelligence to a human. It will quickly evolve to something out of our control, and at that point will either kill us all as a threat, or keep us as pets.

Indium-Gallium-Arsenide: toxic heavy metals combined with toxic metalloids. Holy fuck.

Feel free to "dispose" of all the indium and gallium you want by sending it to me! As for the arsenic, easily removed.

Moving to InGaAs will make "scrap" chips practically a form of bullion storage.

Abject conjecture

Unless you mean #3, an obvious joke - What part of "updates can and do break things" and "not all updates involve security" do you claim as in any way "conjecture"?

This excuse of "this security update will break something I need" has been over used to keep security holes open.

1) Microsoft's updates do occasionally (twice a year or so) break things I need. And rolling them back doesn't always unbreak them.

2) Not all Windows updates consist of security patches. How do you justify decreasing the security of a system by installing IE11 or Skype or the Bing toolbar, in the name of "your security hole is my problem too"?

3) Get Satya's dick out of your mouth, troll.

I agree, but the problem with arguing against conspiracy theory is that "a vast conspiracy is hiding all the truth so no one can find it" is inherently unfalsifiable, which makes scientific argument (i.e. presenting evidence that falsifies the proposition) pretty useless.

[TMB]

I approve this correction. :)

I believe him that it's not about the money, over the last few decades our methods of listening to music have gotten more flexible but also often worse quality. From vinyl to q track to casette then a reprieve with CD followed by degradations with MP3 and minidisk (R.I.P. in piss)