Are we seriously so opposed to broccoli and other vegetables much loathed as children that we're going to eat bugs instead?
No, I'm going to have a hamburger or a steak. I have no idea why "UN says people should eat bugs to have less impact on the environment" would lead to anybody actually eating bugs.
I spent all day Thursday troubleshooting one of our all-Mac customers with six other people in the room, all shouting different ideas. Only at the end of the day did we discover the news. I was really shocked Slashdot hadn't reported it.
I went home and had nightmares about installing and reinstalling Java on Mac.
You just caused me to suddenly realize what somebody was trying to tell me about a school project twelve years ago!
If you have one, you can be fought without me needing to target innocent civilians.
Noone. It should be destroyed in the fires of Mt. Doom.
I don't want my money wasted on this. People will figure this out for themselves. Or they won't. I won't care either way. I would think all the intelligent scientists at NASA would realize that curing superstition in four short days is an extremely unlikely proposition.
So your solution to the school bully demanding you give him your lunch money everyday is to just hand over the money?
That analogy doesn't fit at all.
But if government doesn't create laws like this, then the alternative is that big business sets defacto policies for us, because they hold all the cards
The problem is the government monopolized all the cards (spectrum) in the first place, then gave out the cards to its cronies (the businesses).
I've had similar experiences with Spamhaus btw, they decided to nix my upstream provider and when I complained I was told that I should use another ISP because mine wasn't well liked.
"Wasn't well liked" == "complaints had been received that they allowed their customers to send spam."
I agree with spamhaus. This puts pressure on ISPs to police their customers, or else their decent customers will leave. And everyone can choose whether they want to use providers that allow all contact through, or providers that filter out contact from ISPs that don't police their customers.
there's no incentive for companies running mail services to ensure that legitimate mail gets delivered
Well, there's some incentive in that if their customers truly want the mail and aren't receiving it, they'll have to pick a different provider. I purchased a product once to be emailed to me and had to acquire an alternative email address because the seller wouldn't do business with gmail, yahoo, or hotmail addresses. I didn't waste time arguing with him; I just got an email account that would get his mail through.
it cost me money and effort to migrate my service.
That's the price of offering a service. If enough people want it, they will more than make up for the cost of you going with an ISP they consider reputable. If not, the world has no obligation to keep your costs low enough to keep you in business. A much cheaper thing to do would've been to quit offering your service.
Configure one little thing wrong and you could be eating hundreds of dollars in overage fees
I worked for the phone company nine years and have had a cellphone for nearly fifteen, and I've never seen this.
Right, and if the deep fryer at your McDonald's were really profitable, the deep fryer manufacturers would never sell them. They would just keep them and use them to make money.
Under your logic, no manufacturer would ever sell a piece of capital equipment, because either it is profitable and they would keep it, or it is not profitable and the purchaser is being ripped off.
The manufacturers are experts in hardware and can create it cheaply than the miners could, but the miners are experts in mining and can be much more profitable with the chips than the hardware manufacturers could. It's a matter of division of labor. Because the miners understand much more about mining, changing the owner of the equipment very well could result in it making more money.
You will be successful in your work.