Yeah cows have a 'carbon footprint' but whether Apple uses the leather or not, the cows are still being grown for other primary reasons.

By using leather Apple _was_ making sure the bovine resource was being used as efficiently as possible. Instead, their alternative is "fossil fuel" derived.

The use of the word seems to imply that the water gets used irrevocably, disappeared, when in fact it is just drawn for cooling and returned to source, So what?

Sure, why not? The ocean is infinitely able to absorb whatever we toss in it. This has been proven over and over in the same way that there are infinite fish to take out of it.

Bottom line: if you make people scared enough you can convince them to do anything and profit from it. The fear-mongering on climate change is a double-edged sword.

IF we are going to continue using ICE's why not invest in cutting emissions at the source ie. the engines, the mining?

BECAUSE the way the climate change fear has been fomented, people were convinced and are willing to invest in something different, not better just different. The billions upon billions poured in to all the supposed 'green' technologies and CO2 clean up scams if otherwise invested, probably could have led to cleaner or maybe emissions free ICE's and especially cleaner ways to extract 'fossil' fuels.

Lacking any first principles like a real science (eg physics), biology is almost purely observational, "collecting butterflies" . So we get from this observational pass time posing as a science things like "Let's stitch these animals together and see what happens." Think about it: instead of these macabre experiments a physicist might look in detail at the young and old blood, then identify the differences and begin to theorize about how any differences might have an impact. In other words, you wouldn't have to conduct any horrific experiments on living creatures. The overall conclusion is that one doesn't get in to biology for a "love of animals". Seems like the kids who go in to the pass time are the ones who liked to pull the wings off flies or burn ants with a magnifying glass.

BTW, has it occurred to anyone what happens if in fact the young blood improves the life of the old? Just think it through from a Capitalist perspective.

The costs of publishing ie. editing, printing, distributing, and advertising have all dropped steadily esp. over the past two decades.

The cost of published material however has risen steadily.

And that's the problem. So while publishers charge $30+ for a hardcover, $25+ for a softcover, $100+ for a textbook, almost the same for the E-COPY as for a paper versions, and charge $30+ per journal paper (even though they're written, edited, and submitted for free)... then expect people to seek out alternatives.

... we could spend money improving ICE which is a far more efficient means of storing energy and converting than anything but nuclear

OR ... we could get serious profits pitching less efficient means of storing and converting ...

all while continuing the same environmentally ruinous practices of mining and refining the minerals needed for both. Case in point: after decades and decades of polluting the ocean in the hunt for oil, we will now do the same stripping the seabed of minerals needed for the 'green' technologies.

Just to be clear: a 'model' in biology is a living thing. Embryo, mouse, rat, cat, dog, pig ... are all "models".

When engineers, physicists, mathematicians, or genuine scientists use the term "models" they are talking about mathematical, theoretical, or mechanical constructs that replicate or approximate an observed phenomenon. Biology has no first principles and as a consequence observes, usually destructively and fatally, living organisms. That is why biology is not a science. It is nothing more than butterfly collection and pulling the wings off flies ... and much worse.

The idea that this current "model" is a valid model is kind of funny. It's totally like an embryo but it can't come to term. So ... it's not like an embryo? Then as usual there will follow a series of 'best guesses' about early development based on a flawed "model". Hopefully the consequences will be minimal as those results find their way in to the medical system and affect the lives of human "models".

It's cynical but not incorrect. The mod also assumes that someone feels the climate shouldn't change which, given the current historical record, is absolutely absurd.

Pointing a phased array antenna has be done for half a century at least.

Interesting is the deployment of a 'sail-like' solar array. Wouldn't that just send the satellite wafting off in to the void ... or was Thomas Gold correct and the whole solar sail thing is a scam?

You can see the concern: if AI's can't get credit then Google can claim ownership of any invention so developed. There is no awkward dealing with a human inventor. This also strengthens the unstated assumption that an AI is not sentient and is very similar to saying that a particular race cannot own land in that even when public opinion changes, the law continues to be an obstruction until challenged and struck down (not trivial).

This circles back to the question that wasn't raised when a Google scientist claimed their AI was sentient: "What would you [Google] do if the AI _was_ sentient?"

It really does look like Google is trying to ensure that it never has to address the true elephant in the room, a sentient AI.

I have been heavy user of our library since they started loaning ebooks. I put a hold on what I want, read the books conveniently on my phone when they come available, and when they are due, the app I use (Libby) automatically returns the book. Yes, some books I haven't finished yet but then I put another hold in and finish when they come back. And the auto return benefits me b/c nobody can disappear a book from the library for months (or forever). The biggest plus is not having to handled some dirty, damaged, and/or defaced book which was the main reason I stopped going to the library.

Bottom line: get rid of hard copy as much as possible, stop the loan of hard copy, and expand the e-book catalogues.

Seems like a pretty big gap to fill no? That have any impact on the Dyson sphere and other planets?

Isn't it odd that despite confidently predicting future climate, 'scientists' remain surprised by how things actually evolve. There is seemingly a constant string of "Oh, never saw that coming! Well we speculate (guess) that ..." Don't get me wrong, that is the nature of science and that is fine in and of itself. What is not fine is the constant fear mongering based on the science. That fear mongering makes people the target of charlatans happy to peddle snake oil 'cures' to the perceived problem.

Climate change will likely not be zero, will probably be not as bad as predicted BUT panic adoption of 'solutions' will certainly be a source of consequences that are unexpected, ineffective, and detrimental to the environment.

It could at best 'sail' one way ... down wind. Gravitation assist to redirect towards a sun/star? The concept resurfaces every couple of years usually from someone looking for money. Thomas Gold didn't believe in it and frankly there really doesn't seem to be any evidence that it works as promoted.