You also don't see a 10 year old with a deep man's voice, so I guess it's a choice when your vocal pitch drops too.
If you're not totally fine with your son being the way he was born, then you need to rethink your parenting.
I.e. does not mean 'for example'.
It means 'that is to say'.
E.g., "You messed up an amirite post to do with grammar. I.e., you're an idiot."
So people aren't entitled to enjoy the music they choose?
I enjoy a lot of mainstream music. Just because I don't listen to much indie stuff doesn't mean your taste is 'better' than mine, or that I don't appreciate it as much as you do.
Avoid this hipster thinking that if something is obscure it's better or more worthy than something popular.
This has definitely been considered multiple times, and Samsung almost released a smartphone with a solar panel a few years ago. However, the major issues that made it pointless:
1) As you pointed out, even covering an entire face of the phone would barely have any effect on battery life compared to simply designing more efficient processors, screens and software.
2) The solar panel would either need to go on the front, making the phone bigger but screen smaller, or on the back where it would not get any sunlight.
3) Phones are usually either in your hand with the screen facing up (so no sun for panel on back), or in your pocket (no sun at all), or sitting on a table / desk where you can just plug it into a computer or wall.
4) It would make your phone a lot thicker.
5) It would weaken the phone structure (dropping or hitting it).
6) The added space / volume needed for the solar panel would be put to better use by sticking in a larger battery, which negates the need for the solar panel in the first place.
I think what would make more sense is for flexible (and not ugly) solar panels to be integrated into clothing with the pockets containing inductive chargers for phones.
I think you adjusted it a bit, losing some of the original moral dilemma.
The five people are tied to the tracks, while the one person is completely uninvolved. This makes it a bit more of a difficult decision, because you would be executing someone who is completely unaware and has nothing to do with the situation, compared to the five people who are aware of their imminent deaths.
It's similar to killing one soldier to save five soldiers, compared to killing one innocent bystander to save five soldiers. It's a much harder decision.
If we can prevent it in the first place, isn't that better than trying to fix it once it's there?
I would rather bad things didn't happen than letting it happen and THEN working out what to do about it.
Except when it's wasteful, illegal or an endangered species.
For example: shark fin soup. Sharks are captured, only their fins removed, and then dumped back in the ocean to bleed to death. Nothing else is taken. Think of how many people a dead shark feeds compared to a cow.
No, it's warm.
I didn't read this amirite post. I just clicked Agree.
There are always going to be people overlooked in their achievements, but that doesn't mean no-one should be recognized and awarded. It follows the ridiculous logic of 'if someone doesn't get something, no-one should get it'.
Eg: there are kids starving in Africa. Therefore, no-one should get food.
The real question is: what is the difference between sex and French sex then?
You realise that's just communism?
Money is one of the things that encourages contribution. If there's no money, why would anyone work? How would scientists obtain the resources to cure diseases? How would products be created if you don't get anything for doing so? In fact, why would anyone even be educated if there's no difference or payoff for curing cancer compared to being a cashier?
Why would anyone obey road rules if you don't get fined? How would great products be created if EVERYONE can have everything, resulting in not enough for any (see: poverty).
In your explanation, you state "In this system, a person can have everything he needs and all the reasonable material wants he desires so long as he contributes to the society in some positive fashion". How will you judge what a positive contribution is? How will you decide what amount of 'reasonable material' he is then entitled to, without everyone just claiming everything?
Oh I know. How about providing them a suitable amount of resources equal to the amount of contribution, rarity of the job or quality of what is produced?
You know, kind of like money does.
This is one of the most stupid, short-sighted posts I've ever seen. Please go to school and learn why this is the worst idea imaginable unless you enjoy mass unemployment, poverty (no-one's farming or manufacturing because they don't have to, since there is no incentive to do any job in particular), anarchy and fighting / rioting over resources.
Having next to no money and equal access to resources has worked great for North Korea. Perhaps you should start there?
I'm not sure that really hold much weight. A tree doesn't feel pain and isn't aware, so is that murder too?
Personally the sentience and awareness arguments are the more important issues.
..But then on Valentine's Day you'd get pissed at the guy for not doing anything while all your friends are walking around with roses and chocolate. :P