Oh, I forgot to add: Stage 6 is the dumbest and most short-sighted one yet. It only works by ignoring the large regions of the world which will become unlivable, or nearly so, and the fact that those regions are home to billions of people. Those people won't just lay down and die, so the areas that are still livable -- and maybe even more comfortable! -- with warmer temperatures are going to have to deal with the resulting refugee flood, and the wars caused by this vast population upheaval and relocation.

But, yeah, if you ignore all the negative effects and focus only on the potentially good ones, you can convince yourself it'll be a good thing. SMDH.

I see from the comments that we've hit a new stage in climate change denialism.

Stage 1: Denial of warming: Denying that the climate is changing at all.
Stage 2: Denial of human influence: Admitting the climate is changing but denying that humans are causing it.
Stage 3: Denial of impact: Admitting human causation, but claiming the impact will be insignificant.
Stage 4: Denial of solutions: Admitting that it's real, we're causing it and that it will be significant, but denying that there is anything we can do about it.
Stage 5: Denial of timeliness: Admitting that we could have done something about it, but now it's too late.
And now, Stage 6: Denial of negative impacts: Admitting that it's real, and significant, and that maybe we could do something, but trying to spin it as beneficial.

What system component would enforce those restrictions? Unless Google modified Linux to add an entirely new access control scheme it wouldn't be the kernel, which would make the sandboxing much easier to break out of.

But that's not the biggest problem with your suggestion. The biggest problem is that users cannot be trusted to make complex security decisions, which your toggles definitely would be. That sounds condescending, I know, but it's backed up by a vast amount of experience and evidence. You have to keep in mind that approximately all of the three billion Android users know nothing about computing, nothing about security, and less than nothing about computer security.

Obviously. That's not the point I was addressing.

People have much higher expectations of mobile security. Also, most mobile phone users have never used any desktop/laptop, so they aren't even aware of the very low bar for security expectations set by desktop OSes.

When the next Democratic president waves their hand you can be sure the Supreme Court will do its duty and say that waving is not part of presidential powers and block whatever it is they want to do.

You know, your grandstanding would be funny if it was not so pathetic and clueless. Calling this very basic and very limited discovery "infinite" is really just what an asshole does that cannot admit being wrong.

Actually, you are the ignorant one here because you want to justify your denial. Because scientists are aware they are just human, there are a lot of safeguards in place. The first one being the scientific principle. But I guess you lack insight into what that actually does and why it was created.

This nicely illustrates how deep your ignorance goes. This is not why these studies are done. The reason they are done is to refine and get more detail. That will be invaluable for evaluating the impact of things that could still be done and to prepare for the effects.

I am sure if we continue to apply the fundamental principles of "greed", "arrogance", "selfishness" and "stupidity", we can make 4C or even more!

Tables are not knowledge. They are data. They are "basics" for nothing knowledge-wise. What they do is they produce a nice, meaningless rote-learning exercise that can be examined easily to produce an entirely meaningless grades. They are nothing but a waste of time and create a false impression of "something having been learned". Hence, no, we have absolutely no issue if a kid cannot answer "12x11" from _memory_. If an older kid cannot find out what 12x11 is or does not see that it is somewhere "a bit more than 100" and accepts a false result that is one order of magnitude (or more) off, then we have an issue.

It is fascinating how many people mistake data memorization for "learning". Obviously, when you teach actual understanding, then most kids do not do so well. May explain why worthless memorization is still a favorite of many "teachers". May also explain why Math teaching fails routinely and most people fear Math. Math is actually very easy on this level.

"Infinite discovery" is a fact to you? You really need to cut back on the drugs...

Well, if people were at least honest about it. But instead they push lie after lie and that makes things a lot worse. On the plus side, we are learning how incapable humans are, both as individuals and as groups.

Seems you have no clue how Science actually works. You know what would happen to climate scientists that did what you claim? Loss of job, in bad cases loss of their PhD. You know why you do not read about that happening? Because these people do not do it. All published and peer-reviewed models say pretty much the same, and hence one being radically different would be immediately obvious ans subjected to intense scrutiny.

Paying a lot more than makes sense is part of the experience.

Anybody else ever play You Don't Know Jack with three other people? I think that was the first really clean and comprehensible party quiz game, and a YDKJ title seems like it would be a good fit here.

Pretty much any cellphone can now do a decent imitation of a Wiimote (besides the sensors, you could also use camera data) and it would also be hilarious to see people accidentally chuck their phones across the room while bowling.