They'll move on to the study of multiverse theory.

Maybe. I don't think the discovery rules out the same gas existing within galaxies.

Yeah, OK. IMO they deserve neither the credit, nor the blame.

If Accenture didn't invent it, somebody else would have.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fkilledbygoogle.com%2F

Few companies that do something else, are actually good at marketing.

With that said, I'm not sure Accenture is a go-to name for marketing, they're more of a staff augmentation company. Not sure they'll be much better at it than Intel itself.

Your argument starts with the assumption that data is not a legitimate thing to buy and sell. All of your other arguments stem from that premise. Not everyone, and certainly not the laws of nations, agrees with that premise.

If data is a legitimate thing to buy and sell, then the definition of "necessary to collect" becomes a moot point. Some businesses, such as credit rating agencies, literally specialize in the buying and selling of data. They provide a valuable service both to businesses and to individuals, a service that would not be possible without the large-scale buying and selling of data.

Yes, a large percentage of lawsuit money goes to the lawyers. The company that was sued, still has to pay enormous fees to defend itself, providing a significant motive to act in a way that keeps them from getting sued. So the question of who gets paid in a lawsuit, isn't really relevant to this discussion. It's more about who *pays*.

The US has its problems, but it also has its benefits. So does New Zealand. You point to lax regulation of food additives. Fair point That by itself doesn't make the US a terrible place to live. Your characterization that "no one cares about anyone else in the USA" is completely false. We just care about different things than you do. For example, we value our freedom more than being protected from food additives. If a US citizen cares about food additives, it is very possible to avoid them. If they care more about cheap food, they're going to get the additives. It's a very first-world problem.

I agree with you that Kennedy is an anti-vax nonjob. Don't lump me in with him, at least half of America is diametrically opposed to his policies, and those of the current administration.

Yes, the victims are the people whose information was stolen. We agree on that.

What we don't agree on, is who the criminals are. I say the criminals are the thieves, you say the criminals are the companies who were stolen from.

Thankfully, our laws punish people who break laws. It's not a crime to collect data, however "needless" that might seem to you. If you wan it to be punishable by law, then the law needs to change. As it stands, collecting data isn't a crime in either your country or mine.

Funny that you say your country has laws that protect people, and yet mine has better protection for homeowners who suffer from theft of property. I suppose it's all in what protections one considers important.

Yes, net reduction is good, though I don't think there are viable paper / cardboard gallon-sized milk cartons.

Those cardboard cartons...are covered with polystyrene, a plastic. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F....

Polystyrene is made from petroleum.

And the older wax-coated cardboard cartons were covered with paraffin wax...also made from petroleum.

What kind of foot-dragging, and by whom?

Sounds like the scale of oil refining is *less* than the scale of desalination, making it even more possible to scale the process.

Academically, OP is right, leaving the oil in the ground would eliminate most of the carbon problem. My point was that this isn't realistic, so why are we talking about it?

Your ideas are good. Why aren't they happening already? That's simple...cost.

You can't make milk jugs out of wood, but you can make them out of glass. Glass is far more expensive, and breaks easily. Glass itself requires fossil fuels to melt and mold. Even recycling glass jars requires burning of fossil fuels for transportation and processing.

Cost is not a trivial or incidental factor. To make greener products, we have to solve the cost problem.

We should pursue all sorts of ways to reduce carbon emissions. Your ideas aren't wrong. It's just that we can't "just stop" getting oil out of the ground. Reducing refining emissions is an important and useful step along that path.

It's true that more pollution comes from burning fossil fuels than on refining them. But a 90% reduction of 1% of global carbon emissions, is still significant. Advances like these, combined with advances in other areas, are what it takes. There is no one silver bullet, and there certainly is no way to get people to stop using modern technology altogether in the name of keeping oil "in the ground."

If a company violates GDPR, that is grounds for fines or other legal ramifications. That is altogether different from punishing companies for being breached.

Liability is a thing, if your company holds data and loses it, the company is certainly liable for losses. This is similar to a driver being liable for damages in a car accident he caused, even if the accident was completely unavoidable. You don't punish the driver beyond the liability to cover the other drivers' repairs. In a data breach, people who were harmed can certainly sue for damages, and this is appropriate and reasonable. But you wouldn't throw people in jail, any more than you would throw a driver in jail who caused an accident, unless the driver was doing something egregious such as driving under the influence.

As for "unnecessary" data...what is the standard for "necessary"?