Yes, trucks have always been around
Yes, trucks have always been around
But much as car manufacturers change the cosmetics of cars each year to sell new models to people who don't really need to replace their old ones, we can expect Microsoft, Apple, Dell, et. al. to continue to change the cosmetics to convince us to "upgrade".
I have been stocking up on car analogies for years in preparation for exactly this moment.
PCs are going to be like trucks. They are still going to be around
So decades after they've almost vanished from mainstream use, they'll suddenly become faddish again, and manufacturers will be competing with each other to see who can build the biggest box to take up the most space on the desktop? Cool. I can't wait for the resurgence of 50-pound CRTs.
I know I'll get marked as a troll for this
"Mod me up! Mod me up!"
from the euro-centric crowd, but this is exactly why you embrace freedom-loving society and not authoritarian socialism like they have in Europe. As John Green has said, you cannot declare war on an idea or noun because nouns are so amazingly resilient.
Your argument would be a lot more convincing if you'd left off the second sentence there. The freedom-loving US has declared "War on $NON_MATERIAL_THING" more often than any other country I can think of.
Google glass is at least visible, many people in the future will simply put the camera in a piece of jewelry or a pen just because it looks less geeky.
Especially if the business in question caters to hipsters and half the customers are wearing those godawful chunky plastic BCGs. You can hide a lot of recording and processing power in those things these days
Unfortunately, the corporate world has become very much like the political arena.
Honesty is no longer treasured.
"Has become"? "No longer"? Look, whistleblowers have always been treated badly. Governmental, corporate, academic--no matter what kind of organization you're in, the organization will react badly to anything it sees as a threat. And the problem gets worse the larger the organizations are. In small groups, human beings act like human beings, but in large groups, they act more like the cells of some vast organism. Imagine how you'd react if some of your muscle cells suddenly started refusing to contract when you told them to, even if by that refusal they were preventing you from doing something you really shouldn't do.
So, welcome to the real world then
where uncertainty rules.
be glad you get 3 years in between.
I've worked in government, industry, and now academia each for about a third of my adult life. Believe me when I say that the uncertainty in academia is much, much greater than in the others. There are rewards, obviously, or people wouldn't do it at all, but security is not one of them. By comparison, the other sectors are much safer.
Of course, if you're one of those people who thinks "academics don't know anything about the real world," this probably won't get through to you.
Hey there, Internet Tough Guy. It's been a while. How ya been?
Stepping in to save a stranger's life is pretty much the opposite of predation. If you're using this as an example of psychopathy, you're defining the word so broadly as to have no meaning.
It's not a disease, it's simply the trait of a predator. It means that he can manipulate people more easily, which is a useful skill. Rejecting it because it's badly seen by society is a mistake.
When people in a society prey on other people in that society, we usually identify their behavior a a disease, and rightly so.
Okay, tell you what: bury half a human skeleton in your yard, call the cops, and tell them you've found some interesting bones but you're not sure what they are. Be sure to let us know what happens next.
It is idiotic to claim that there is no difference between free markets and socialism
It would indeed be idiotic, if anyone were making that claim. Who's making it?
"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
This is called "Lewontin's fallacy" and has been debunked far and wide.
Calling something a fallacy does not make it fallacious, nor does claiming it has been debunked constitute a debunking. I recommend you follow the links from the Hsu article and learn some more about what is still a very active debate.
So we have a world where many biologists are in denial and just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALAAA I cannot hear you LALALALAAA" when people start wondering about the potential for viable hybrids to occur in nature.
Um, biologists have been aware of the fuzziness of species boundaries for a very long time. It's non-biologists who remember the archaic "mate and produce fertile offspring" definition of "species" from high school science class who make comments like OP's.