If a group of people wanted to exclude homosexuals from their territory, paying the relocation costs of anyone who wanted to emigrate, how big must that group be before you would permit them to have their own way of life?
Like his corporate rivals within Apple? Like his business rivals outside of Apple? Anyone in a position to use it against him?
I guess I don't see the point of the announcement unless it was something unknown except to his closest friends.
It would also seem less like grandstanding if it came along with a $100 million endowment to some charity meant to overcome sexual orientation bullying or something.
Go new school -- Strontium-90! And then it won't need charging.
I think some of the technology issues involving size, etc. will eventually get fixed. The price may actually end up being less if the value proposition includes using modules in multiple devices, desktops, etc.
The software issue is two-pronged -- one, hardware advances so rapidly right now that I mostly give OEMs a break for bad support of older devices (maybe more nods to Apple, less to Android).
The biggest obstacle for both software and an Ara-like system with modularity is the economics of monolithic device release cycle. OEMs know they can count on a huge amount of sales as entire devices get bought every year.
It's hard to see Apple or Samsung giving up those economics for the economics of incrementalism or even bothering to support incremental component upgrades.
CP/M was written for hobbyists. PIP was from a time when even floppy disks were uncommon. As far as ease of use CP/M beat the daylight out of toggle switches. The issue is that once CP/M became mainstream it was going to be hard to change the syntax. Kind of like MS-DOS using \ for paths and / for switches.
In fact I think overpopulation will be a problem in the future.
We already know from Hans Rosling that population tops out at 10 billion or so, which we can easily support (and again, a warmer climate helps with).
It's the ice ages you need to fear, those fuckers will slaughter billions.
Crop yields are expected to decline because plants need more water as the temperature goes up:
We already know from historical records agriculture was better with the climate a few degrees warmer overall - also a warmer climate increases ocean evaporation, leading (as it has) to more rain in many areas.
If you are thinking regionally instead of globally, like say California, that is simply reverting to historical norms after a decade or two of above average precipitation - plus of course really badly managed water rights that hate agriculture.
As for your link, good luck with the magical thinking.
What gets me is the mild warming we are obviously going to be experiencing (since large CO2 increase have not shown not to correlate to rapid temperature increases as previously thought) is going to bring an overall boon to the planet, just as it did in ages past - a wider range of arable land.
Sure some land will change for the worse, but overall as a species we will be better off - and the rate the climate is changing allows for plenty of time for people, plants and animals to adapt.
There's all kinds of reasons this won't work, but I'm glad someone disagrees and is spending time developing it anyway because it seems like a cool concept and the idea of a modular phone/phablet/tablet/laptop/desktop system is appealing.
I think a lot of components are rapidly approaching the point where they're good enough for most people -- how many more ppi is Joe Sixpack going to want once a phone is over 300 ppi?
Would you consider home address, and phone number also to be a bit of a breach?
Because you can get those and a lot more with just the email address and a call to the CurrentC web service.
they just got a hold of their email mailing list
From registered email addresses, you can get things like home address/phone number, and lots more data that may be of interest.
Basically the breach got a bunch of primary keys they can use to get something more juicy later.
You like many people say that but do understand what it means.
A big company wants to build a theme park and gets development money from the state.
A church wants to build a theme park and gets development money from the state.
That is okay because both are treated the same.
If only the church or only the commercial company get money then you have a failure of separation of church and state.
And just so you understand this is the exact wording in the constitution
""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
In other words the original intent allowed states to actually have state religions. It only restricted the Federal government and even those restrictions are very limited and DO NOT LIMIT WHAT A CHURCH CAN DO! Some states have also embraced the separation of church and state but all those laws would make it illegal to exclude a church from receiving the same breaks that a non-church entity does from a state.
It is not a law to protect you from religion or to restrict religion. It is a law to protect the church.
Yet people would probably be okay with a theme park full of witches and fairies getting tax breaks.
But it can cook you. But then water can drown you as well.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
