I'm pretty sure our ancestors didn't evolve to eat corn that was licensed by Monsanto. Just a thought.
But I understand GMO foods are going to totally fix world hunger, which is why they're primarily sold in the US, where judging from the girth of people I see on the street, everybody's hungry as hell.
We are guinea pigs for the rest of the world. Looks like it's working.
So you're saying, eat less, exercise more, and do it for the rest of your life?
You'll never sell that. People want to know what magic food you can eat that will make the bulge from all the cheetos go away. Telling them to eat fewer cheetos only makes people hate you.
"Creating two slices of toa--ARE YOU TROUBLED WITH INCONTINENCE?--st at li--TRY NEW MOD STYLE DEPENDS! DELIVERED DISCRETELY TO YOUR HOUSE!--ght brown."
"Never mind, I'm not hungry anymore."
> Cyber is easy - simply no direct connect to the internet. Anything less is effectively nothing. Anything more is not needed.
From a purely electronic standpoint, true. But you also have to maintain a fairly high degree of physical security. Just one example: If you work in an office building, note that janitors have keys to everywhere, even the CEOs office. I know, many companies require a background check for janitors, but many don't.
Seconded on Anker batteries. I didn't like the funky wall charger with the movable contacts, ended up not using that. But the battery was fine.
The city's actually in more trouble if people keep suing it and it has to settle with six-digit amounts. That does put pressure on the government.
Sort-of true, except, it's easier to settle lawsuits if you're doing it with other people's money.
It's a way for mass bricking of phones should the need arise. And people will just accept it, believing it's for their own good.
Nobody needs to get murdered. You merely must create an environment where it's more profitable to research fusion energy than it is to commercialize fusion energy.
Right, because trial can set precedent and the city *really* doesn't want that.
I know this is an unpopular viewpoint, but I'm beginning to think that Tokamak is a way to funnel tax dollars into researcher's pockets. If we ever do achieve practical commercial fusion, we may look back at the Tokamak like modern pilots look back at the manned ornithopter attempts of the 1800's.
But if the Tokamak ever is made to be commercially viable, we're probably talking about a few gigantic power generators, which would mean we probably need to do something about that decades-old power line infrastructure.
We all hope not. And past performance is not an indication of future results. (Which is a good thing, in this case.) But the past several decades have pretty much beaten all the enthusiasm out of many of us.
Practical fusion would be a complete game changer in many different areas. Cheap enough, it would not only pretty much kill the oil industry, but may even make the "green" energy industry redundant. (Solar, wind, tides, geothermal.) Dirt cheap electricity, commonly available, would make electric vehicles a lot more interesting. Cheap centralized power would probably reverse the current tendency to diversify power and make upgrading our aging electric power infrastructure a priority. And so forth. Fusion is a very disruptive technology.
Maybe that's the real reason we don't have it yet.
True. This is not WinCE, or Win8 RT. It's "real" Windows. Nevertheless, it *is* Windows 8.1... And anytime Microsoft tries to shoehorn one of their operating systems into the "netbook" (or "chromebook" whatever the concept has morphed into) space, the process is usually (a) yes it work but it's really slow and the battery life is crap, (b) the next generation is heftier to be equal to the demands of the operating system, (c) eventually the product grows in capabilities and price to the point where it's really just a low end laptop. If MS is lucky, you then get (d), the market is muddied to the point where it becomes unprofitable and goes away.
It's the hardware equivalent of embrace, extend, extinguish.
Doesn't this pretty much eliminate any usage of a camera equipped drone anywhere in the city? How could you avoid filming bystanders if you were filming anything using a drone -- a high school football game, for instance.
I understand the reasons for the law -- we don't want people intentionally flying drones in areas where privacy would be expected -- and I include a back patio in that definition, if the owner has made a reasonable effort to make it a private space. But I'm concerned that a too-broad interpretation would ban all uses where there is any chance of unintentionally filming a stranger.
Photographers deal with this issue frequently. It's generally understood that if I take a photo of a street or a building, I don't need signed releases from every passer-by. But if I put my camera on a pole and raise it over the fence in someone else's enclosed back yard, I could get arrested (and would deserve to). Now that I think about it, wouldn't privacy issues regarding drones be covered by existing law?
Wait, didn't I hear something similar back in the seventies? Hope this works out better.
After all, we know it's from MS so it's going to be buggy and crappy.
That's actually a good point. What they really need is to disassociate the products from the parent company in some fashion. Maybe call the group of internet enabled apps
FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis
