If I cut off my foot and preserve it in such a manner as it can be re-attached at a later time. Would someone who took that foot and threw it in a dumpster commit battery, or just destruction of property?
In the US, detached bodyparts/material are considered to be property and do not receive any special protection. There have been several cases regarding this when it comes to 'Medical/surgical waste'.
They are under NO legal obligation to permit modding, much less support it.
You are correct. On the other hand, they have no legal authority to demand payment provided that the person who wrote the mod does not redistribute Bethesda IP.
This isn't just about lock-in. Car manufacturers have a huge risk in the form of damage to the brand if something happens. Unfortunately with the way our media works these days, the outrage and damage occurs first, and only later do we find out if it was justified.
No company wants their brand to be the one involved in a sudden news story where they become the punching bag (justified or not), it's extremely costly.
My built-in GPS does something similar every time I turn on my car. It puts up a warning about the dangers of using a GPS. Unfortunately I only notice the warning when I'm just trying to glance over at the map to see if my turn is coming up. So I am now distracted by a warning and have to reach over to click it off if I just want to see the damned map.
As long as they don't knock themselves out on the doorframes on their way to the pantry.
My heat pump can move more heat with less energy than a glowing wire will emit.
If it's any help I purchased a bunch of the Cree 60 Watt equivalent bulbs about a year ago (20-30 of them) and I have been very happy with them. None have burned out so far (which is all well and good since I'm not good at keeping receipts) and I've kept some running nearly 24x7 in standard lamp fixtures without seeing any noticeable decrease in output. My only complaint (a minor one) is that they have a bit of a sticky feel to the 'bulb' portion and I was worried it would make it hard to dust. Kind of like a silicone feel. However, a damp cloth slides right over it so it's not much of a hassle.
In short, I highly recommend the Cree bulbs.
Amish will use new technology if it is required. The main aspect of their culture isn't specifically the avoidance of technology, but avoiding the accoutrements of pride and vanity.
If a technology is necessary and can be incorporated without disruption (or requiring a connectedness to the 'English' world) it quite often is. Refrigeration technologies powered by propane is one of the more obvious examples. Obviously it varies from sect to sect and some are more restrictive than others.
The issue with solar efficiency is having enough space for enough panels, it scales easily. The biggest issue for Mars wouldn't be space or efficiency, but cleaning the dust from the panels.
Looks like someone was looking to win the Hyperbole of the Year Award.
If the worst thing about the future is having to buy adapter cables, sign me up.
The adapter is to the powercable that you use to keep your new artificial heart bomb GPS system charged. If it runs down or fails to report your position and data to the new totalitarian government it explodes.
See, even adapters in dystopian futures can suck.
You don't think that they will hold a grudge over the past few millennia do you?
Not unless your geneticist is stupid enough to give them hands along with the bigger brain.
It's based on the concept that a doctor should first 'Do no harm.' Let's say there are two people experiencing organ failure, one paralyzed, one not. In such a case, the probable outcome for the able-bodied person is worse than the paralyzed person. It would even be a net benefit for the paralyzed person if some limb function is restored, whereas for the able-bodied person it would inevitably result in decreased motor function at best.
If the surgery on a paralyzed person is successful, with respect to limb function, they can be no worse off even if no nerve function is preserved.
When it comes to infrastructure, the frontrunner rapidly becomes the laggard. Someone building up their infrastructure from nothing can look at the forerunners and avoid their mistakes and include the latest technology while the forerunner has become dependent on the existing infrastructure so it must be maintained while the new system is built.
Consider a 'modern' road built in 1790. It would be wide enough for two carriages to pass, it would be paved in cobblestone, and would have amazing drainage that let the water flow off to the side rather than puddle up. Imagine you built out this road system for your entire city. Now Mr. McAdam comes along with his new paving system and your neighboring town that didn't get around to 'modernizing' their roads when you did now starts their own project. Their roads will be better in many respects. Do you tear up your old cobblestones and repave your roads? Or do you live with your system until it becomes a problem?
Fast forward 200 years. The amazing two lane carriageway is barely wide enough for a single modern car, the rights of way/easements have been established so houses are built up to the edge, and any upgrade to this road system is going to require not just regarding, but purchasing/condemning hundreds of properties. Compare that to a third world nation putting in their highway system. Lots of open space to utilize, no underground utilities to worry about rerouting or damaging, No overhead bridges built 60 years ago that require replacing (since they were only wide enough to span a 2 lane road not a 4 lane divided highway.
So something as simple as adding a new lane to an existing highway for 10 miles can end up costing more than putting in an entire 4 lane expressway for 50 miles if one was in a developed country and the latter was in an undeveloped country.
It's great to get new technology, but trailblazing is always more difficult than following the trailblazer.
Artificial implies not real
No it does not. All artificial means in this case is that it was not 'built and designed' by natural processes.
You can build something to test a concept fairly easily. However, it will not be designed with economic operation in mind. When you build an operational prototype, you are going to spend a lot more time developing the design into one that can easily be developed into a production system. That means a LOT more engineering effort is expended into 'mundane' things like ensuring that you aren't using components which fail in an unreasonable amount of time, or that your design is maintainable. Imagine if they designed a prototype, only to discover that some aspect of it was a maintenance nightmare that couldn't be fixed without a redesign of the system. That would be expensive.
In short, the 1 year version proves that it can be built, the 5 year version proves that it can be built in a manner for real world use.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein
