Sorry. I'm not disagreeing with you, and regret that it seems like I am. I join with you in rebutting the OP.
In short, I'm on your side. I just found that what I wanted to say fit well as a reply to your post.
1) Animals already have something resembling rights, in the form of animal cruelty laws; the question here is whether those rights should be expanded to include some of the things guaranteed to humans.
There is a spectrum of opinion on what "animal rights" means. At the very least, I think animal rights include the right not to suffer needlessly at the hand of humans. I doubt anyone would argue that is also a human right. So, continuing in that direction, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that many human rights can be accorded to animals also.
Arguably, what we humans call animal rights are really just human-law restrictions on our own behavior (and good ones IMHO.) However, I think it captures their intent to call them "rights" so I embrace the term.
2) Plenty of humans (children, or, as someone else pointed out, the handicapped) can't hold down jobs or feed themselves. Chimps and dolphins, on the other hand, typically are able to feed themselves. So what you're saying is, chimps and dolphins should have more rights than children and the disabled?
I don't think it's a question of "more" rights, just different ones, and with the qualifier I mentioned above that we're really talking about human laws, not animal rights. I would say that animals have their own innate sense of rights and justice, and what we think of as their rights is an idealized picture of our relationship with them.
We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. In a world older and more complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth. -- Henry Beston
Actually you only need to pear the population down by about 20 million. The top 2% of the world's population consume something like 90-95% of the resources, they are extremely expensive to have around. Remove them and everyone's standard of living jumps significantly.
Except standard of living = energy consumption (or nearly so). So removing the top 2% to increase someone else's standard of living doesn't solve the problem, it just changes who is causing it.
Mod parent interesting. This kind of sounds like the environmental equivalent of Karl Marx's theory of class struggle: when revolution eliminates the privileged class, the lower class rises to take its place. Of course, this hypothetical environmental version of Marx's "worker's revolution" would not solve the environmental problem any more than the political version has solved the class problem, but for a different reason: the planet can't sustain a 2% that consumes like this.
...heat ray.
Apparently, yes. Gluten is a specific plant protein, it's not present in organic semiconductors. Which by the way, also contain no nucleic acids, thus are also not GMOs.
That's good to know, 'cause I kant wait to eat them.
With proper design of the hardware and protocols, congregation of people should be an advantage, as it is right now for the Hong Kong protesters and their mobile devices.
This sounds suspiciously like something written by someone with an online MBA: "Each project tests a critical component in a future data ecosystem in conjunction with a research community of users," said said Irene Qualters, division director for Advanced Cyberinfrastructure at NSF. "This assures that solutions will be applied and use-inspired."
If we want the public to continue to support federal funding of the sciences we have to do better than this. I understand the point, but it this needlessly laden with buzz-phrases and it is clumsy.
I understand your point about the technobabble. However, Ms. Qualters' résumé appears to be somewhat less fluffy that the quote would suggest.
Basing it on the game was an enjoyable element, to a point. What ruined it for me is the ridiculous way the aliens sunk the ships: by hurling these bombs that were peg-shaped (per the game) so that they spun end-over-end, yet penetrated the ship at various points in more-or-less correct orientation (also per the game.) For a species that was capable of interstellar travel, that seemed like a spectacular technological fail.
This reminds me of a friend of mine who used to flash his high beams erratically as he came up to red lights because he knew thats how the fire trucks signal to give them a green. I tried to tell him that there was no way this was going to work, but he was convinced it did because....of course.... fairly often he would flash his lights and the light would turn green for him....
I think your friend is influenced by this.
Why would they put Braille on the drive-up ATMs if they didn't expect me to drive there?
1. ATMs probably come standard with Braille. It's not worth it to create a special non-Braille version for the drive-ups.
2. Lots of people use drive-up ATMs without actually driving up to them. I know I have.
3. An AC poster already pointed out that blind people can take a taxi to the ATM.
When someone says "wasting food" It implies they mean actually wasting the food, as in not eating it all. Not that they are putting it in the incorrect bin, or recycling the food.
Corn can be used to create ethanol fuel. Is such corn "wasted" because it is not eaten?
Uneaten food that is diverted from landfill serves a purpose when it is rescued for composting, albeit one that was not intended when it was sold in the grocery store. Also, it reduces the use of valuable landfill space, thereby lowering the cost of trash disposal. So I would contend that it is not wasted (at least not entirely) when it is diverted from landfill.
Y'know, I could say Larry Ellison can go fuck himself.
But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if he married himself.
The reference to 4G limits has exactly what to do with this story?
I suppose about as much as a Space Shuttle has to do with a person standing next to it. I took it as a scale-comparison, but I understand your point about the story creating a potentially false impression that this is an evolution of 4G.
transfer data at the speed of 32 gigabits per second, which is 30 times faster than 4G LTE wireless technology in use today.
Exactly which carrier offers gigabit 4G LTE?
Some 4G implementations have a theoretical upper limit of 1 Gb/s for low-mobility agents.
This is only partially true. You have to remember that Apple products used to suck. People did not want them.
In my modest experience with older Apple products, I have found that they were about the same as others in quality. They didn't "suck" any more or less than their competitors.
Happiness is twin floppies.
