Maybe pure water, but handling pure water is a pain in the butt and the slightest contamination will make it conductive.
So, Microsoft changed the UI of Office because otherwise people would have stopped using it and started using OpenOffice or something else?
Yes and no... in reality, people would have kept right on using MS Office, but perception is reality - software companies, like MS, think they have to keep "innovating" in order to stay ahead. If they sit still, someone will pass them by... it's not true in this case, but that's the perception. It IS true w.r.t. the OS, but that doesn't mean the GUI needs to drastically change.
Now you have to worry about televisions becoming too complicated to use. Set top box user interfaces are pretty lousy too. Smartphones are portable containers of horrible interfaces so that you can be frustrated and annoyed anywhere you go. So if you give up on the computer altogether, soon you find yourself giving up on lots of things.
Interesting observation. I work in the television industry, and our studio TVs (the ones the hosts of the show watch) don't have obvious buttons anymore, they are hidden in the back, tiny black buttons on a black case with tiny black raised lettering as an indication to what they do... even in a well lit room you need a flash light and magnifying glass to be able to use them. Why? Because now they expect you to just use the remote... and every remote control is different. On top of that (and what I think you were actually referring to), the menu systems on TVs are all different... even often on different models by the same manufacturer and, as we're pointing out, every new model seems to have a different one.
Of course, it's not just those - my home TV isn't much better, but the ones in the studio are the "latest and greatest."
Even ordering food at restaurants is hard now. Oganic, vegan, vegetarian, pescetarian, paleo, low carb, high carb, free range home schooled beef, etc. There's a place my friends go to where you fill out a form for the type of burger you want; it's not always clear what's going on, like what side is included and which cost extra. Dammit, just give me my burger already and don't make me choose which type of ketchup it has.
An interesting episode of "Brain Games" discussed this - we're actually much more comfortable with a limited number of choices despite the fact our brains tell us that more choice is good.
You are co-opting the term organic to mean something extra.
I sometimes ask these UI wizards what they think would happen if I moved the keys on their keyboards around with every software release, in response to the latest theories on typing speed and accuracy, and perhaps added and/or subtracted a few just, well, just because I thought it would be a good idea. If one is, say, ten years old and just learning to touch-type, perhaps the new keyboard layout indeed would be better. However, the installed base of zillions of users that are used to, and expected to see, the old keyboard arrangement would be totally hosed, and would need to retrain themselves just to get back to the productivity levels they had before I "helped" them.
And when they complain, you can blame them for being archaic and wanting to stifle progress, that it's for their own good, and ultimately tell them "you're engineers, if you don't like it then build your own keyboards!" Because, of course, nobody is actually trying to do their work or anything.
Yep, Look at Babe Ruth, He was a perfect example of humanity.... Fat, lazy, and mean.
Consuming 40 pounds of blueberries a day will stop the aging process!
I can see lifestyle and genetics being the main drivers. Look at 3rd world citizens, some look like they are 50 when they are in their late 20's. High stress life, lack of proper nutrition, etc...
But then you have the genetics curveball. There is a guy here at work that is 70 years old and he looks like he is not a day over 40.
You back to basement and build more server! NO SLEEP YOU SLACKER!
People dont understand that.
It's why I am fending off job offers monthly. I have a skillset that is in very high demand and I am in a field that has never had a lot of people in it.
So when I get a job offer and change jobs, I can dictate my pay, compensation and work conditions. I dont start a new job with the peons and starter vacation, I start at max vacation, the desk type I want, the equipment I want, and the amount of office space and window.
This is what happens when you work hard at being someone that is very very good at the job and in a very in demand field.
I see someone discovered the planetary gear system.
I love it when kiddies discover what has been around even before steam.
Reddit was started as an experiment in free speech.
I recall Alex coming on Slashdot a lot to promote Reddit when he first launched it. "An experiment in free speech" was not anything I recall being discussed. I also remember him posting on Slashdot while still developing reddit.
What I recall, is promotion of a general interest platform that was more open than Slashdot (unlimited moderations for all!) and less susceptible to vote brigading than Digg.
It was while ago, so I may be a bit foggy on the specifics.
I think what the Libertarians fail to realize is that farmers, as a general rule, are not smart enough to diversify or maintain course.
First, I think that's a ridiculous assertion. Smart farmers don't diversify because the taxpayers bear the risk of their crop failure, or of crashing prices; they have insufficient incentive to diversify.
Second, if we had a true free market, dumb farmers would go out of business and we would be left with smart farmers allocating resources efficiently. Isn't that the point of economic libertarianism?
Note: I am far from libertarian.
Just curious, since I'm not aware of either cyclical production or crop rotation being a requirement for organic farming (although both are considered best practices).