For me it's a choice of spending less money. If the average year round temperature where I live was 3deg higher I wouldn't have the heater on right now.
You're already spending money, who do you think is paying for Obama to go to Paris? The cost may not be obvious to you directly, but that doesn't mean those costs don't exist.
That isn't adapting, that is kidding yourself. You're doing something so you're patting yourself on the back. But it won't make enough of a difference to change anything.
If you didn't selectrively snip my post you will know that it already changed something. I'm fitter and more active and enjoying a new way of doing things.
But they won't, and that is the reality that you miss.
If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right.
You must be real fun at parties.
Here's something that's real that you can do with only a minor inconvenience... You could stop eating meat.
Not feasible. A more realistic option would be growing meat in a lab, which doesn't sound too far away...
What, so that you can spend a crap load of MY money trying to fix the unfixable?
Sorry, no thanks.
Your choice is spend money or spend more money. There is no option to spend no money.
Another way to look at it is this: Assume Global Warming is complete fiction, but we go with it anyway. We create an entire new clean energy industry, which stimulates the economy, and creates more jobs and therefore more wealth, less poverty, and less crime.
The worst case case is we have less pollution, generate cleaner energy, more efficiently, and create more jobs for more people.
Even hard-core conservatives love creating new jobs. What other plan do you have that could achieve this?
You saying we can, and actually being able to do it, are two different things.
Part of the issue seem to be a lot of people sitting on their fat arses waiting for someone else to do something.
I can't speak for anyone else, but me personally I've started adapting already. I'm sourcing most of my supplies from local stores that I can cycle or walk to. I have a scooter for longer trips (uses about 5 litres of fuel a week), which I can either use for work or catch the bus, and the car is now reserved for special occasions and touring.
My house of 5 people uses about 11-13kwh of energy per month, which the power company tells me equivalent to a 2 person household. My car has done 5000kms in the last 12 months down from 15000.
If everyone did something similar we'd be done (I realise not everyone is in the same position as me, but this is without solar power or an EV, so everyone should be able to put in some effort).
The funny part is my life has improved since making the changes. I find I'm getting out more, engaging more in my local neighbourhood, being more active, and spending more time outdoors which is generally free. Winning!
The terms Stupid or gimmicky has never been applied to the Apple ][ series.
That's why I qualified the statement with "other than that". With the "that" being the Apple 2 and original iPhone.
I'm not sure what metrics you use to determine "Stupidity" or "Gimmicky-ness"
Cost more, did less, tried to justify it with shineyness.
Most Apple 2 owners upgraded them for 286's when they came out and never looked back. There is a reason Apple almost went bankrupt in the 90's.
Fast-forward to the present: Apple makes the best laptops
Only since the Macbook became a shinier Wintel box. Not really thinking different now is it?
Giving money to people who are real experts in a domain and giving them room to find solutions is a hundred times better than coming in as a celebrity and taking over with your own random idea.
You know that Bill Gates isn't one guy doing all the work all by himself right? He employs thousands of people who are experts in their fields, and they do most of the hard slog. He just sits on top and uses his clout to open doors that wouldn't otherwise open.
Or it's like the peacocks tail, guys don't like thinness because it's healthy, they like it because it's difficult to achieve.
I don't know many guys who like thin women. Thin women look like boys, so most guys I know would prefer a Kim K physique to a Kate Moss.
Also worth noting, back when I went to school you could count the number fatties on one hand (in a school of 2000). Even then I remember the go to girls had curves (tits and ass, not waistline).
Yeah, I've heard two competing theories and I think they're both right, albeit more the first one than the second one. The first one is that when women are attractive people look at the women and not the clothes,
Not quite. I used to work in the fashion industry, and it's all about the clothes. People in that industry love clothes, and the look of the clothes themselves, not the person wearing them. When I look at a woman, I'm checking her face, her boobs, her arse, and clothes are merely a prop to help show those off.
In fashion, the clothes are the focus, and the person is merely a prop, so the closer to a coat hanger or ironing board, the less impact the human body will have on the product.
The bias towards gay men in the industry is probably due to the fact the a hetero man would be too distracted by the tits and ass, where a gay man can look straight past these.
365 Days of drinking Lo-Cal beer. = 1 Lite-year