Of course this whole scenario with super 1000x intelligent beings you concocted is just as far fetched as aliens travelling here to meet us.
I am guessing Apple couldn't pay right away since a 1,000,000 Yuan note is probably the smallest bill any of their people carry.
High school diplomas are almost as worthless as college degrees these days due to the plunging standards in schools. People will just lie and say they have a high school diploma 90% of the time anyway, and no one ever checks up on them. With "no child left behind" they should already have gotten the diploma just for reaching age 18 anyway since that's all schools require of students anymore.
The future is crab people!!!!
Dear South Korean government, The stupid need a voice too. How can people learn how stupid they are if they are not allowed to display their stupidity. Thanks, Concerned Citizen of the World
I am wondering how the child with "Extreme neglect" was determined to be such a child. Surely they didn't intentionally neglect the child just for the study? Someone should apply SCIENCE to this question, rather than making conclusions from anecdotal evidence.
If you are paying for the energy, you should be able to use it. The logical next step to limiting sale of devices that use too much energy is to start punishing individuals for using too much energy. After all I can buy three energy efficient video cards and Crossfire them, using more power than a single energy efficient GPU, so better just limit the amount of energy per person in a household and impose harsh penalties on households that violate this cap. This is the same problem I see with 16oz limit on soda drinks in NY. People who want to drink more soda will buy several sodas. People who want more performance from their PC will buy more devices when possible if government limitations make a single device inadequate to meet their needs. If you impose a limit on a single factor, say energy consumption per unit or calories per drink, people will buy more GPU's or more sodas. You need to convince people that using less energy (or getting less empty calories) is in their best interest if you truly want to enact change. You'll never convince everyone, but just look at the amount of people who are recycling voluntarily today compared to 10 years ago. We didn't have to arrest anyone for generating too much trash either. Ultimately, I just don't think an "Iron Fist" approach to energy conservation such as this will have any meaningful effect, and will clearly limit the personal freedom of individuals who are graphics enthusiasts, so as an advocate of personal freedom I am against this type of thing, and I think many others would agree.
If we start banning all speech that someone threatens to respond to violently, that only gives those who would resort to violence the ability to silence their opposition. I for one would prefer that those who are opposed to the advancement of groups who use violence as a political tool not have their voice taken away. Also, jokes are jokes, and humor is universal. People need to realize that offensive jokes are not a war on their beliefs. I don't think there is anyone who hasn't made a joke that was offensive to someone else, and probably wouldn't like if if the reaction of those people offended was to commit acts of violence against them or people who have the misfortune to share ethnic traits with them which make them a target for such overreaction.
Yummy, that kool-aid tastes good! Keep Drinking!