If you like your trusted computing, you can keep your trusted computing.

I love the smell of your objectivity claims in the evening. It smells like. . .my toddler needs a change.

No, what's really afoot here is the mismatch between the U.S. Constitution as written, and the post-Industrial Revolution world, when the Atlantic Ocean ain't no moat no mo'.
I'm pretty confident that Isolationism no worky-worky, but Interventionism has also been shown to be kinda bust.
What to do?

Are you giving me the Full Damn_Registrars here?
I may have ventured into occasional hyperbole for comic effect, sir, but Let Me Be Perfectly Clear: I'm not wasting anyone's time by being less than honest about anything. So if you're accusing me of being a fear merchant, we can cease communications.
If you're making a general point about the full spectrum of "christianity", then sure: you can trivially find any example of any perversion under the sun.
Accusing me of being a fear merchant is exactly the same thing as saying that all Muslims are terrorists, based upon the madness of a fraction of the lot.

Nice. Speaking of covers, how about Soundgarden doing Devo?

I constantly wonder how they became this way.

Someday, you will get a project with physically (or at least, mathematically) impossible requirements. You will, rightly, point this out. You will end up needing to doing it anyway.

This won't happen just once. Over the course of your career, you will literally lose count of the number of such requests.

You therefore have two choices - Stop caring, or have an aneurysm from frustration and rage.

Note, however, that you don't need to lose your love of coding. You just need to learn to accept, with a calm and detached indifference, that your paycheck requires you to write defective-by-design code. If it helps, you can make little games out of it - As one of my personal favorites, I write the code to function correctly and then, as the last step before showing something to the user, I throw it all away and replace the results with the requested garbage.

"...because we would like to participate in a meaningful way with the universe"

The universe does not care and is not capable of judging our intentions or how "meaningful" (what's the measurement criteria? who decides what's meaningful?) our actions are

Stop anthropomorphizing.

You are correct that many conflicts result from competition for resources. The universe has almost infinite resources, so having cheap & plentiful resources available would tend to greatly mitigate resource-driven human conflicts.

At the very least, it will drive the conflicts away from the planet.

Strat

I've got to think that women are more likely to actually report sexual harassment than men are.

I don't think that rates of reporting substantially undermine the presence of a problem, but I do have to agree with you.

Men learn from a young age that we crave sex, think about it constantly, would bang anything with enough paper bags available, blah blah blah. And while most of us realize that doesn't actually hold true, we tend to passively accept it as part of our social identity. Thus, when some troll-woman flirts a little too shamelessly or even grabs your ass as you walk by (which in this study would have counted as an assault), we just brush it off and even take it as flattering (even while thinking "do... NOT... want!").

I would therefore agree that we very likely see a serious reporting bias here that tips the scales toward the female side. That said, where do we draw the line (for both genders) between "testing the waters" and "harassment"? Clearly it doesn't "hurt" those men who just brush it off and move on with their day; do we seriously accept, in the modern world, that females count as emotionally weaker and unable to bear similar compliments from ugly guys?

Personally, I consider this issue more complex than "just don't do it" (which will no doubt enrage the SJWs, but, fuck 'em)... We exist as a sexual species, and no amount of social conditioning can change that fact; on the flip side of that, clearly some people don't get the fact that "no" doesn't mean "try again later".

You're showing your age. KERMIT is the way to go!

It appears that U2 and Apple are proposing an interactive album format that combines the music of a record album with the interactivity of a video game.

Jokes aside, they did stress the "interactive" part of this as a key feature.

I can't speak for all Slashdotters, but personally, I listen to music primarily at times that I can't interact with it (beyond the mostly-passive* act of "listening to it") - In the car, at work, while mowing the lawn, etc. When I actually have the spare time and attention to interact with something, I will usually chose to interact with other humans, or actual video games, or playing with the cats, etc. I may still have music on, but I don't "interact" with it.

I would therefore have to consider this a complete non-starter. At least Neil Young's boondoggle actually did have some technical merit (while completely ignoring the reality that 99.9% of people will take "good enough" over "perfect" if it saves them a single penny). This? The "solution in need of a problem" trope gets somewhat overused, but it definitely applied here in full force.

* Yes, I do get that some music requires actively listening to it to fully appreciate it. U2 ain't that.

Seriously, England said that they would do better. Hopefully, they will mean it.

Hard to tell what point(s) you're attempting to make here.

So, is killing efficiency your yardstick?

I don't see how efficiency relates. Heck, there are species of marine life who eat the egg-clusters and hatchlings of their competitors, and that's upwards of tens of thousands or more.

Or is it the use of tools to kill?

Chimps and other apes will often pick up a branch to swing at another when they are angry/aggressive. Other examples of tool-use by apes is abundant. Google will supply you with examples.

Seems in that regard the only difference is the level of sophistication of the tools/weapons related to the differing complex intellectual levels of the two species.

No doubt if apes had a similar size brain and intellectual capability as humans, the technical level of their weapons would rise as well.

Many people like to attribute some sort of "perfect moral innocence" to animals while humans are somehow forever separate from animals and that all human effects upon animals are "unnatural" and inherently bad and wrong. They also tend to decry human behaviors that have roots in our animal nature as somehow evil and unnatural.

It's an emotional response motivated by compassion and I appreciate that. However, humans are just as natural on Earth as deer or whales. Everything will always effect everything else, and species will go extinct and new species arise as long as life exists.

Since our self-awareness and intelligence and ability to control our environment allows us to avoid natural systems of regulation, we must consciously choose to find a balance between not causing undue harm to animals and nature while not placing undue limitations on the advancement of humanity towards moving outwards into space.

Earth is not a perpetual-motion machine, and we need to leave the cradle. Humanity cannot afford to hunker down, slow progress, and ration out ever-dwindling resources. That's a recipe for extinction.

Balance is the key.

Balance will not be found at the extremes.

Strat

The BBC is reporting about the same result. Well except for the "fancy a shag" minority.

Cheers,
Dave

What a load of PC "humans are the only baddies in the world" bollocks.

Chimpanzees have a well documented history of intra-group hierarchical violence, violence against females and extra-group murdering raids. This is nothing new. Anthropologists have known this stuff for decades.

"Apple Warranty Canary Caught Working in a Coal Mine"