Slashdot Mirror

The best sound blocker is lead such as acoustilead that can attenuate 30 dB or more. Mass loaded vinyl barriers can work as well.

Most noise is going to enter your room though the window or the door.

The window you can "plug" with foam. For a big window, you may need to spray glue the foam to a flat piece of wood.

For your door, try door seals.

For your head, use NRR 31 ear muffs with NRR 33 ear plugs physically in your ears.

Ever wonder why the distance from north pole to equator is 10,000 km?

I recommend you get a copy of The Handy Physics Answer Book before making any more attempts at science humor.

For fiction about intelligence under the sea, try Franz Schätzing's The Swarm: http://www.amazon.com/Swarm-Novel-Frank-Schatzing/dp/0060859806

I wear Radians molded earplugs with a pair of these voice amplifying earmuffs on top when I go shooting, and I can barely hear the people right in front of me (and they're not talking softly).
Combine the in ear molded plugs with a bigger set of outer muffs, rather than ones designed to amplify voices, and you'd probably miss your neighbors screaming and killing each other.
Nothing will do much for loud thuds, like bass, stomping on your ceiling, Barry White, or slamming things against the wall, because our bodies propagate low frequency sound really well, while the higher frequency stuff needs to travel through the open air to get very far.
Also, if you have a particularly loud neighbor something that helps is putting furniture (particularly furniture that holds clothing) on the adjoining wall.

I wear Radians molded earplugs with a pair of these voice amplifying earmuffs on top when I go shooting, and I can barely hear the people right in front of me (and they're not talking softly).
Combine the in ear molded plugs with a bigger set of outer muffs, rather than ones designed to amplify voices, and you'd probably miss your neighbors screaming and killing each other.
Nothing will do much for loud thuds, like bass, stomping on your ceiling, Barry White, or slamming things against the wall, because our bodies propagate low frequency sound really well, while the higher frequency stuff needs to travel through the open air to get very far.
Also, if you have a particularly loud neighbor something that helps is putting furniture (particularly furniture that holds clothing) on the adjoining wall.

Thomas Gold wrote a book that seems very pertinent to this.

I swear by the Sleepmate noise generator . It works fantastic for blocking out noise to help me sleep, work, or whatever. I like that the tone is adjustable and it has a low/high setting.

Note: I am not affiliated with the manufacturer at all... just a happy customer.

Or if you really need lots of battery (and live in the USA, as they don't ship internationally yet), there's this massive thing.

if you can't spend ~$100 on aviation headphones, you could also look at a pair of shooting earmuffs. probably won't do as good a job as the aviation ones, but there are lots of different ones and they cost less. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_9?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=shooting+ear+protection&sprefix=shooting+%2Caps%2C330

Assuming a standard office layout, there are a few things you can do to tweak your fitness quotient a bit, but it's mostly through harm reduction rather than positive benefits. Don't smoke, avoid junk food, stand and walk around. Consider a standing desk, use stairs, manage your stress, work sensible hours, walk somewhere for lunch. Incorporate walking in your commute, consider moving to where a healthier lifestyle is a matter of course, not a decision to be made daily.

But the realities of human physiological response to training stimulus means that intensity matters, and you're simply not going to reach appropriate levels of stimulation at the office without radically changing your workspace and creating a considerable distraction and disruption for those around you.

The good news is that an effective workout can be packed into a short time -- 20 - 60 minutes -- and a few workouts a week can make a significant difference in health and appearance. The biggest hurdle for most people is sorting out good information from bad on diet, exercise, and lifestyle. Pointers I like to put in front of folks include Liam Rosen's "Beginners' Health & Fitness Guide, the Reddit Fitness FAQ, and books such as The New Rules of Lifting. A healthy diet and a solid 8 hours of nightly sleep are your foundation. A good a strength training routine, and HIIT cardio can fit inside a 20-60 minute workout period.

The best tools are relatively simple: a barbell, plates, rack stand or power cage, and a basic piece of cardio: your body, a barbell, kettlebells, a jump rope, a rowing machine (and if you're going to row, that's among the best technique videos out there).

That said, few offices are optimized for deadlifts, kettlebell swings, Oly lifting, or Tabata erging sessions. Whether you build it or buy it, a gym is a worthwhile investment. Consider it a workshop for improving and sustaining your body.

Assuming a standard office layout, there are a few things you can do to tweak your fitness quotient a bit, but it's mostly through harm reduction rather than positive benefits. Don't smoke, avoid junk food, stand and walk around. Consider a standing desk, use stairs, manage your stress, work sensible hours, walk somewhere for lunch. Incorporate walking in your commute, consider moving to where a healthier lifestyle is a matter of course, not a decision to be made daily.

But the realities of human physiological response to training stimulus means that intensity matters, and you're simply not going to reach appropriate levels of stimulation at the office without radically changing your workspace and creating a considerable distraction and disruption for those around you.

The good news is that an effective workout can be packed into a short time -- 20 - 60 minutes -- and a few workouts a week can make a significant difference in health and appearance. The biggest hurdle for most people is sorting out good information from bad on diet, exercise, and lifestyle. Pointers I like to put in front of folks include Liam Rosen's "Beginners' Health & Fitness Guide, the Reddit Fitness FAQ, and books such as The New Rules of Lifting. A healthy diet and a solid 8 hours of nightly sleep are your foundation. A good a strength training routine, and HIIT cardio can fit inside a 20-60 minute workout period.

The best tools are relatively simple: a barbell, plates, rack stand or power cage, and a basic piece of cardio: your body, a barbell, kettlebells, a jump rope, a rowing machine (and if you're going to row, that's among the best technique videos out there).

That said, few offices are optimized for deadlifts, kettlebell swings, Oly lifting, or Tabata erging sessions. Whether you build it or buy it, a gym is a worthwhile investment. Consider it a workshop for improving and sustaining your body.

This is how I dealt with the problem. If you combine both solutions, it'll be super quiet but I found just the headsets to be enough - usually:

1) Foam ear plugs:
1a) The foam earplugs have a trick. You have to roll them between your fingers so they become long and thin. Then put them into deep into your ear (not too deep). They'll expand and provide a good seal. Don't pull them out quickly because of the seal. It can hurt your ear drum. Pull them out slowly.
1b) Cost: Maybe 5 dollars.
1c) How to correctly put in foam earplugs. Can't just shove them in. They don't work that way.
1d) It says they're to be used only once. I use mine multiple times and put them in the case that usually comes with them. You can wash them if you want.
1e) Ear plugs from Bass Pro Shops. You can go to Dick's or whatever sporting goods store you'd like.

2) Shooting headsets: Put these over your ears after you put in your earplugs:
2a) Cost: Not too expense, like 30-50 dollars.
2b) http://www.basspro.com/Remington-M30-Earmuffs/product/26026/
2c) Amazon search

3) The best book on how to study I ever read: "College Study Skills" by Deanna L. Van Blerkom. Side note - When I was in school some *cough* years ago, this book was a fraction of the 2013 price. It is unreal how much they gouge students nowadays. Unreal. It was like 20 or 30 bucks back then, and like 110 bucks today. Unreal.

Don't go crazy with the headsets. They're a good investment but you don't need the microphones or anything else. Just get a basic set and save yourself some money. A high decibel rating from a reputable company. Look on Amazon for the reviews.

This is how I dealt with the problem. If you combine both solutions, it'll be super quiet but I found just the headsets to be enough - usually:

1) Foam ear plugs:
1a) The foam earplugs have a trick. You have to roll them between your fingers so they become long and thin. Then put them into deep into your ear (not too deep). They'll expand and provide a good seal. Don't pull them out quickly because of the seal. It can hurt your ear drum. Pull them out slowly.
1b) Cost: Maybe 5 dollars.
1c) How to correctly put in foam earplugs. Can't just shove them in. They don't work that way.
1d) It says they're to be used only once. I use mine multiple times and put them in the case that usually comes with them. You can wash them if you want.
1e) Ear plugs from Bass Pro Shops. You can go to Dick's or whatever sporting goods store you'd like.

2) Shooting headsets: Put these over your ears after you put in your earplugs:
2a) Cost: Not too expense, like 30-50 dollars.
2b) http://www.basspro.com/Remington-M30-Earmuffs/product/26026/
2c) Amazon search

3) The best book on how to study I ever read: "College Study Skills" by Deanna L. Van Blerkom. Side note - When I was in school some *cough* years ago, this book was a fraction of the 2013 price. It is unreal how much they gouge students nowadays. Unreal. It was like 20 or 30 bucks back then, and like 110 bucks today. Unreal.

Don't go crazy with the headsets. They're a good investment but you don't need the microphones or anything else. Just get a basic set and save yourself some money. A high decibel rating from a reputable company. Look on Amazon for the reviews.

http://www.amazon.com/MARPAC-Dohm-DS-Electro-Mechanical-Machine-Sleeping/dp/B002GTR902

Goofy but they work and are extremely reliable. They are especially good at masking talking and music.

I got it from Amazon.. http://www.amazon.com/Stamina-55-1610-InMotion-Elliptical-Trainer/dp/B000VICRO8/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1363286153

Based on the results of his polling, Rasmussen has come up with a similar theory. Instead of dividing America into Democrat and Republican, he considers America to be divided into the "political class" and "everyone else." Basically it's what you said, the political class are the people interested in getting power who don't really care much about the hot topic of the day but are willing to use it to divide the rest and get votes. You can see his book here. He says, "Americans are united in the belief that our political system is broken, that politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers. We don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or the center. We want to govern ourselves."

You might not like the guy, but his idea is worth thinking about anyway.

This is the top positive review on Amazon:

You'd think I'd be mega unhappy like everyone else at the constant waiting and lack of actually being able to play a game I purchased.

Well, you'd be wrong.

The hours upon hours since launch that I haven't been able to log in, whether it be sitting in queues, or server busy messages, or just plain old not working screens, I've managed to do a heap of things that I never do when I'm locked in my man cave playing video games.

I've washed the dishes, the laundry, changed the oil in the car, mopped the floors, dusted, did a spot of gardening, greeted my children who I hadn't really seen since Christmas, walked the dog, asked how my wife's day has been and listened to the entire response, restocked the groceries and many more things! My family has never been happier that they've got a father and husband again.

In fact, I feel like Simcity has given me a new lease on life. This wouldn't have been possible without the seemingly crazy decision to have constant online connections and server side save points even for single player.

So I can only thank EA and Maxis. Your failures have been my rewards. 5 stars!

Somebody has read The Great Apostasy ;)

For anyone interested, the book is a pretty interesting examination of the doctrinal changes the Catholic Church underwent in the centuries following Christ's death, and the book bases its assessment on writings from early Catholic priests among others.

My personal favorite example of mishandling the Papacy is either the time the Papacy was put up for auction, or the time the Pope had a baby with a prostitute, and then was killed by that prostitute, who put her son on the Papal throne. If memory serves, that young Pope was among the most depraved and immoral to hold that particular office. (I might have some small details wrong, it's been a while since I read the book linked above.)

Just because something is 2000 years old doesn't make it right.

Doesn't make it wrong, either. The age of an idea is irrelevant to whether it is correct or not. (And in religious debates, whether an idea is "correct" or not is often either impossible to prove or entirely irrelevant... at least, that's true if your goal is something other than hurling insults.)

But where I do have a problem is when the members of the church try to deprive the rights of homosexuals outside of church.

The fundamental problem with arguments about gays and/or homosexuality in general is simple: nobody bothers to agree on terminology up front. If terminology were agreed on before a debate were started, then the nature of these debates would be quite different. This is the mistake you are making.

Suppose I create a club whose only requirement for membership is that every club member must wear a red shirt at all times. Now suppose I tell a club member that I will kick him out if he continues to wear blue shirts. Would you embark on a campaign to get the Red Shirt Club to change its rules so that the member who wants to wear blue shirts can feel included?

Now suppose I create a chain of nonprofit clothing stores using my club's logo, and the store only sells red shirts and red-shirt-related items. How would you respond to salaried store employees who complain that the requirement that they wear red shirts at all times, even off the clock, stifles their freedom of expression?

Suppose I set up a club-funded hospital, and open it to everyone, but only provide red hospital gowns. What would you say if a Blue Shirt Club member comes in for treatment, then later refers to the doctors' unwillingness to provide a blue hospital gown as persecution or intolerance?

Suppose I fund an adoption agency, under the restriction that the adoption agency can only place children in homes where only red shirts are worn (whether or not the prospective family is part of the club). What would you say when a Blue Shirt Club member complains that the Red Shirt Adoption Agency denies their adoption application?

My point is, it's not relevant whether the club's rules are frivolous or even plain stupid. It's not even relevant whether they're right or wrong. What's relevant is that these are the rules applied to club members and people who want certain types of service from club members. Is it really reasonable to force that club to change its fundamental rules in the name of being "open-minded" or "accepting" or "tolerant" or whatever?

It's a waste of time to tell red shirt club members that they're being bigoted or whatever for not allowing blue shirts in their club -- and it misses the point entirely. Furthermore, none of the above scenarios require that the Red Shirt Club members believe themselves superior to anyone else in any way, and it's a mistake to assume otherwise.

In this situation, if you want to argue about something, argue about whether the behavior in question is itself acceptable, not about whether it's acceptable for the group to deny membership to people who engage in it. Of course, at that point you leave the realm of what can be proven as fact and enter the realm of doctrine... That's probably why most non-religious people simply don't try, instead accusing Catholics of bigotry or being anti-gay or whatever, without actually trying to understand what Catholics believe and, more importantly, why.

Personally I don't see why it's a problem for a group that believes a particular behavior is a sin to ask its members to not engage in that behavior, or to prohibit hospitals it funds from providing services it finds morally objectionable, or to go around trying to convince everyone else to share those opinions.

He has no analytical skills. He's probably one of the type that reads i.e. The New Rational Manager and goes "This is a waste of time and all bullshit and common sense can't believe morons fall for this scam" ... particularly, his comment directly claims that only morons use Potential Problem Analysis, abbreviated or otherwise.

Maybe it was called the 'grand chessboard' in the 18th century. I've been curious where the title of this book came from: http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

Yes. You would probably like the following book, Three Felonies a Day: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363180505&sr=8-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day

Please read "Extraordinary Knowing" by Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer. Amazon link is:http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Knowing-Science-Skepticism-Inexplicable/dp/0553382233/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363131413&sr=1-1&keywords=Extraordinary+Knowing. Before she died, Elizabeth Mayer was a Doctor of Psychology at Berkeley whose unexpected encounter with the supernatural in locating her daughter's harp led her to do some very rigorous testing and studies on paranormal phenomena contained within human beings. But then again, I don't expect someone of your rigid insistence on being a pedantic ass to read it in the first place.

Or "Ghost Hunters" by Deborah Blum. Amazon link is: http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Hunters-William-Search-Scientific/dp/0143038958 [amazon.com]. She happens to be a Science Journalist, who wrote a book intending to debunk William James and the SPR, but came away convinced that there is something more. Oh, and there's a very large bibliography full of eyewitness accounts and experiments that meet scientific rigor.

I assume that you've read and understood those books, or else you wouldn't be so foolish as to invoke them in support of your argument.

That being the cause, to which we can add the auxiliary assumption that you're not foolish, I conclude that you can easily state the most convincing argument or observation from each book that supports your claims. That way we can get down to business without waiting for everyone who wants to participate in this discussion to go out and read the books.[*]

[*] Which I unabashedly predict will prove to be not-worth-reading. You can, of course, refute my prediction by posting the astounding arguments/observations you found in them.

Happily, douchebag supreme.

"Douchebag supreme"? Oookay...

Prepare to suck on your wrongness, provided you're willing to do a little reading, which I highly doubt, oh skeptical one. By the way, nice rhetorical dodge on the Sol Invictus issue. Today we know that the sun is a star, but back in Roman times there were an awful lot of people who thought the Sun was an omnipotent god capable of responding to prayer and sacrifice. Because the god was falsifiable, eventually we were able to prove that it was not a god--but that in no way negates the history that for most of recorded history, many cultures thought it was, and could not prove otherwise.

It doesn't matter whether or not people thought the god Sol Invictus existed. That in no way shows that it did. It did not, as you state.

So, any evidence for your god?

Please read "Extraordinary Knowing" by Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer. Amazon link is:http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Knowing-Science-Skepticism-Inexplicable/dp/0553382233/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363131413&sr=1-1&keywords=Extraordinary+Knowing. Before she died, Elizabeth Mayer was a Doctor of Psychology at Berkeley whose unexpected encounter with the supernatural in locating her daughter's harp led her to do some very rigorous testing and studies on paranormal phenomena contained within human beings. But then again, I don't expect someone of your rigid insistence on being a pedantic ass to read it in the first place.

Or "Ghost Hunters" by Deborah Blum. Amazon link is: http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Hunters-William-Search-Scientific/dp/0143038958. She happens to be a Science Journalist, who wrote a book intending to debunk William James and the SPR, but came away convinced that there is something more. Oh, and there's a very large bibliography full of eyewitness accounts and experiments that meet scientific rigor.

Anecdotes with what controls again? If it's proven with evidence, there's no reason at all for me to not believe in it.

and why am I insulting you, you know-nothing? Because I'm tired of your rigorous clinging to logic and reason as a way to assert your moral superiority.

Huh? I assert my moral superiority? You have me confused with someone else. My memory sometimes fails me, so would you be so kind as to point out where I either said that or implied that I am morally superior to anyone? At least in this thread, I ask for coherent, logical, and meaningful definitions and the evidence which leads to that god.

Got any?

You, and those like you, don't know the first thing about having faith or embracing ambiguity, or what it really means.

If it makes you sleep better at night thinking this, then that's cool.

You've never once known what it's like to realize that everything you've ever believed in is a lie, find a new philosophical foundation, and then discover that too is a lie, and then realize that there are no ultimate truths, just another unfolding of the onion layer. You've never had to endure utter failure of the spirit, and you have no humility, or empathy for those who have.

It's a hackneyed phrase, but it is appropriate here: you don't know me or what I went through, so please stop stating things you have no knowledge of. But you could do the scientific method and... ask me. There's a concept! I don't think you care enough to ask, but I'm always willing to explain myself better.

What's worse is that if you have, you're not courageous enough to admit that kind of vulnerability--which makes you a coward in a way.

I see now that you don't read much. I had already said I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, even in public or on f

Happily, douchebag supreme. Prepare to suck on your wrongness, provided you're willing to do a little reading, which I highly doubt, oh skeptical one. By the way, nice rhetorical dodge on the Sol Invictus issue. Today we know that the sun is a star, but back in Roman times there were an awful lot of people who thought the Sun was an omnipotent god capable of responding to prayer and sacrifice. Because the god was falsifiable, eventually we were able to prove that it was not a god--but that in no way negates the history that for most of recorded history, many cultures thought it was, and could not prove otherwise.

Please read "Extraordinary Knowing" by Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer. Amazon link is:http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Knowing-Science-Skepticism-Inexplicable/dp/0553382233/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363131413&sr=1-1&keywords=Extraordinary+Knowing. Before she died, Elizabeth Mayer was a Doctor of Psychology at Berkeley whose unexpected encounter with the supernatural in locating her daughter's harp led her to do some very rigorous testing and studies on paranormal phenomena contained within human beings. But then again, I don't expect someone of your rigid insistence on being a pedantic ass to read it in the first place.

Or "Ghost Hunters" by Deborah Blum. Amazon link is: http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Hunters-William-Search-Scientific/dp/0143038958. She happens to be a Science Journalist, who wrote a book intending to debunk William James and the SPR, but came away convinced that there is something more. Oh, and there's a very large bibliography full of eyewitness accounts and experiments that meet scientific rigor.

and why am I insulting you, you know-nothing? Because I'm tired of your rigorous clinging to logic and reason as a way to assert your moral superiority. You, and those like you, don't know the first thing about having faith or embracing ambiguity, or what it really means. You've never once known what it's like to realize that everything you've ever believed in is a lie, find a new philosophical foundation, and then discover that too is a lie, and then realize that there are no ultimate truths, just another unfolding of the onion layer. You've never had to endure utter failure of the spirit, and you have no humility, or empathy for those who have. What's worse is that if you have, you're not courageous enough to admit that kind of vulnerability--which makes you a coward in a way. You just come on here and pontificate about using your philosophy and the scientific method as being core truths, when you and those like you never acknowledge that you could be wrong (or if you do, it's always with a caveat so that you're never really wrong). And if I'm wrong? Whoop-de-shit! I'll take the karmic beating for the chance to hit you and those like you with a big metaphorical stick because your attitude is just that damn infuriating. And you come across as being incredibly pompous, arrogant, and a know-it-all, so I'm going to enjoy shoving this to you.

I've pointed out to you before that your view is largely a myth. I'll just leave this here for anyone interested.

The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Robber-Barons-Business-America/dp/0963020315

That period of the 19th century you lament so much saw the largest rise in wages and standards of living that workers had ever seen, increase in safety (as technology allowed), and the effective elimination of the 10,000 year history of child labor by allowing parents to earn enough money that the children did not have to. Workers went from 14 hour days 6 days a week on the farm to 12 hour days in the factories, which soon went to 10 and eventually 8, all the while earning more than they could have at 16 hours on a farm thanks to the capital equipment at their disposal. Things were rough and primitive because the technology available was rough and primitive compared to today. They did the best with what they had just like we did 10 or 20 years ago with computers.

The problem of pollution was a problem caused by government refusing to enforce private property rights. Not to mention that one of the largest polluters was government agencies or organizations, especially municipal water systems.

The Libertarian Manifesto on Pollution
https://mises.org/daily/5978/The-Libertarian-Manifesto-on-Pollution

Before the mid and late 19th century, any injurious air pollution was considered a tort, a nuisance against which the victim could sue for damages and against which he could take out an injunction to cease and desist from any further invasion of his property rights. But during the 19th century, the courts systematically altered the law of negligence and the law of nuisance to permit any air pollution which was not unusually greater than any similar manufacturing firm, one that was not more extensive than the customary practice of fellow polluters.

As factories began to arise and emit smoke, blighting the orchards of neighboring farmers, the farmers would take the manufacturers to court, asking for damages and injunctions against further invasion of their property. But the judges said, in effect, "Sorry. We know that industrial smoke (i.e., air pollution) invades and interferes with your property rights. But there is something more important than mere property rights: and that is public policy, the 'common good.' And the common good decrees that industry is a good thing, industrial progress is a good thing, and therefore your mere private property rights must be overridden on behalf of the general welfare." And now all of us are paying the bitter price for this overriding of private property, in the form of lung disease and countless other ailments. And all for the "common good"

Not to mention that the long term effects of some of these chemicals were not known at the time, so even if there was an EPA in 1870, they would have just dumped them in a hole anyway.

It's not like Libertarians haven't been thinking about these things, it's that the solutions don't fit into a 30 second sound bite. No solution is going to be perfect, so we are going to have to chose which imperfections we are most willing to deal with.

" It is possible that another million years of human evolution will change this game entirely. "

Unfortunately, it appears United States Progressive Atheism is not evolutionary viable:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Expect-When-Ones-Expecting/dp/1594036411

I don't think you fully understood me so I'll explain a little more. I agree with you: sjbe's comment is excellent. I also agree with you that “To level criticism at providers is not a compelling answer.” You ask a generic question, though: why do patients need access to their records.

Nobody cares about my health more than me. Nobody will investigate my ailments more than me.

That cuts both ways.

I agree. To just go full helter skelter is a bad idea. People need to understand that there will be things that they do not understand. I'm not good at hardware nor O.S. systems. I like to think I'm an uber nerd, but the reality is that I'm not. However, to withhold any information from me concerning my ailment is bad. I have a chronic ailment that I'll never get rid of. Doctor gave me some bad advice. At the risk of TMI, a book from a woman who's helped people with the disorder (because she's had it for more than twenty years) worked wonders. (She's not a doctor.) I almost had to stop working because of it. She saved me. Not the doctors. The last doctor I saw doctor could have cared less about me and he was the best of the bunch. It would be nice to know everything the doctors saw and noted so that I can look up the specifics about me. Apparently, this woman encountered the same thing. "Personally, I simply couldn't wait for my doctors to get their acts together -- I had to get mine together without them." (Introduction, page xxii, 2nd paragraph). Also, "... by the time someone is finally diagnosed they are often desperate for information, may well have turned to searching for answers on their own, and they not only want to know absolutely everything there is to know about the illness, they also want to know it all right now." (Introduction, page xxiii, last paragraph). That struck a very strong chord with me.

Maybe there is some mundane detail in the records that isn't so mundane to me. I just got done speaking with a guy on Slashdot who's allergic to aspartame. More knowledge. More power. Every detail is invaluable for searching on the Internet.Doctors don't give that up easily. Yes, sometimes people will be buffoons with the information, but nothing can stop that anyway.

I've lived in three different states (in the U.S.) and in two different countries (U.S. and Germany) in 12 years. That's why.

That's not compelling. Medical records are not secured documents (meaning they are not useful as factual evidence). Saying I went to such and such is much safer and is the only way you will see foreign (foreign meaning not a medical entity) records used is via direct communication. You bring in physical records, they will simply ask for copies from the remote source. When you presume to think that doctors trust patients, you've made a serious medical error and a basic error in why the medical profession works in any capacity.

I didn't mean medical records are secured documents. As a matter of fact, having lived in so many places, and not remembering what I ate for breakfast, it's better to have the records in my hands so I can give the doctor the papers. He can do what he wants with it... and I'd be very happy if they talked to the other office.

I've had doctors give diagnosis and "remedies" to me that other doctors said was blatantly wrong and in one case unethical. I can't correct my record so subsequent doctors may be incorrectly influenced. That's why.

I'm sorry you think you've bene wronged. However, you're expanding on the reason I mentioned, that is not compelling.

For some interesting predictions on how iglasses might develop, check out some short stories by Bruce Sterling who is very prescient in this area. In particular Deep Eddy from the Chattanooga series. "Deep Eddy is a 22 year old spec user who belongs to a group called CAPCLUG (Computer-Assisted Perception Civil Liberties Users Group). It is a collection of like minded people that use specs to alter and enhance their visual perceptions. Think sunglasses that are able to show you the internet, allow you to process multimedia, including type as if a keyboard existed at the ends of you finger tips, and has the ability to color the world around you as you see fit (or as other spec programs see fit)." http://www.soullessmachine.com/2008/04/deep-eddy-by-bruce-sterling.html Sterling along with Doctorow and others, is one of a new generation of enlightened authors who see copyright as being the barbed wired fence in the field of human creativity, and so much of their work readily available in digital format. Alternatively, the dead tree version is still available at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Good-Old-Fashioned-Future-Bruce-Sterling/dp/0553576429

It is excellent. You linked the 2nd edition from 2001. The third edition from 2007 is the current one.

Here is the book's home page: www.calendarists.com which also has a software package.

http://www.amazon.com/Calendrical-Calculations-Millennium-Edward-Reingold/dp/0521777526 while it doesn't necessarily answer the question posed, people interested in computing calendars shouldn't miss this book.

I have no vested interest, it's not my name on the cover ;>

Plus, give it a nice review.

Ouch. That's gotta send some kind of message.

From the linked article:

"As for price, the 10 to 20 euros mentioned before is the subsidized price; I don’t know what the actual retail will be. If you want the lower price you will need to contact a cell network which carries it and buy it from them – with contract, probably."

So it was only a $13 ereader in the same sense that this is a $0.01 cellphone.

Plus, give it a nice review.

One of the big criticisms of MS is that it did not start with how humans were going to interact with it's equipment. I know in the past several years it has, but that may be one issue with MS mobile technology. A mobile device is very intimate, much more than the personal computer, and therefore the interaction between user and device is much more critical. Than Android did start with the user is not surprising.

http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=vacuum+roomba&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=3277722441&hvpos=1t2&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=15525844751505260305&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_9jgayv3tx_b

The content creator never has the right to restrict usage of copies, which I think is the gist of your post (e.g. using some text as toilet paper is a perfectly valid use, which I actually actively approve, see below). However I feel that it is important to clarify why that is the case.

I wrote down what I thought about this topic when publishing my first book, and the following is what I put on page 2 of the book:

Your book - your property

This is your copy of the book. Do not treat it lesser than any other
property you own. I own the copyright of the original book, and you own
the right to use your copy of the book - which is completely
unlimited by me as a copyright owner.

The owner of any copyrighted work never has any rights concerning the
use of copies. I cannot, for instance, claim that this book cannot be read
on Mondays. Or that it only can be read for a limited time period or a
limited number of times. Or that your book is ``personal'' and cannot
be lent to others. Or any other such claims.

The book is yours and you can use it in absolutely any way you want,
even when it goes against the will of the author. You are free to read
the last page first in a murder mystery book, no matter how wrong the
author might think that is. You can use the pages of this book as wall
paper if you like. If you dislike this book you are free to use the pages
as toilet paper. Or you can burn it publicly on the market in protest.
I have absolutely no rights to stop you from doing that.

Now there are a few things you are not allowed to do with this book.
You are not allowed to go to a publisher and publish it in your name. And
it might be the case that the police would have some objections to you
burning books publicly on the market. But this is independent of your
ownership of the book; it does not matter if the book comes from your
or your neighbour's book shelf. And the objection from the police would
still be the case even if you were burning books you had written yourself
and owned the copyright for.

So my point is, any restrictions on use are always only imposed by the
society through laws and regulations and never by any individual copyright
owners. Unfortunately many big media and software companies constantly
try to bend this line, trying to impose ridiculous unfair restrictions
on your usage. Never give in to such theft of your freedom and ownership.

In addition I see that I had the following drafted text that did not make it into the final version of the page

Ikea cannot sell a StudentTable, claiming that only a maximum of two
persons are alowed to use it at the same time; if you want to do that
you have to buy their FamilyTable edition.

Toyota cannot sell cars on conditions "you cannot use this car as an
escape car when doing bank robbery". They have absolutely no rights to
do so, even if such a restriction could be claimed to be beneficial for
the society.

A pencil manefacturer cannot sell their pencils with the claim that
you are only allowed to write in your mother tounge using them, if you
want to write in foreign languages you will have to buy an additional
InernationalLicense.

For What Its Worth... the Amazon link

SimCity at Amazon

Amazon (like every retailer) does not accept returns of opened software or video games:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_15015721_RRlandingFAQ3?nodeId=15015721

...that other states keep driving business out with higher taxes, more bureaucratic red tape, burdensome regulations, and corrupt closed shop union cronyism.

This is why California keeps driving businesses to Texas.

Also, Texas now ranks higher than California in standardized test scores, both in aggregate, and in each demographic ethnic group.

For a more in-depth discussion of these points (with numerous statistics to back it up), see Chuck DeVore's The Texas Model: Prosperity in the Lone Star State and Lessons for America.

I'm sorry but this really surprises me. Anyone ever hear of Lasership?

Look here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html?cdForum=Fx20DX5GEB7TUX8&cdThread=TxM0IX0I78173Y
Or here: http://www.amazon.com/forum/amazon%20carrier%20feedback/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2KOZSYK6OUZ6Y&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx27GEWWFTOKU9T

It is absolutely unbelievable. I found those forums because I was deeply disturbed that this "Lasership" was used to deliver my media player which was delivered to the wrong address and then opened by "someone" and then delivered to me. I found rather quickly that I am not alone and that Amazon has a practice of simply replacing whatever was lost or stolen by Lasership out of their own pockets.

I don't buy from Amazon any longer and I won't until I find out that Lasership is either out of business or no longer shipping for Amazon. That Amazon hosts the forums which have nothing good to say about Lasership and continues throwing money their way amazes me. And now to find out that they actually read these forums and in some cases RESPOND leaves me puzzled as to why they do nothing about Lasership.

I'm sorry but this really surprises me. Anyone ever hear of Lasership?

Look here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html?cdForum=Fx20DX5GEB7TUX8&cdThread=TxM0IX0I78173Y
Or here: http://www.amazon.com/forum/amazon%20carrier%20feedback/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2KOZSYK6OUZ6Y&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx27GEWWFTOKU9T

It is absolutely unbelievable. I found those forums because I was deeply disturbed that this "Lasership" was used to deliver my media player which was delivered to the wrong address and then opened by "someone" and then delivered to me. I found rather quickly that I am not alone and that Amazon has a practice of simply replacing whatever was lost or stolen by Lasership out of their own pockets.

I don't buy from Amazon any longer and I won't until I find out that Lasership is either out of business or no longer shipping for Amazon. That Amazon hosts the forums which have nothing good to say about Lasership and continues throwing money their way amazes me. And now to find out that they actually read these forums and in some cases RESPOND leaves me puzzled as to why they do nothing about Lasership.

Seriously - they're like the Mountain Three Wolf Moon Short Sleeve Tee

Here are some choice examples of 5-star reviews:
"Got me off my video game addiction!"
"Like Russian Roulette, slot machines and slicing your wrists all in one!"
"Great Loading and Queue screen simulator!"

The boxed version only has a few 1-star reviews left before the average drops from 1.5 stars to 1 star. Review on!

Well you can actually read the reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/Electronic-Arts-41018ted-Edition2-SimCity/product-reviews/B007VTVRFA/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_5?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addFiveStar&showViewpoints=0

3/22 are joke reviews, a couple are just saying how easy it was to download, there are a handful of actual reviews that look into the gameplay and rating that while disqualifying the brokenness, and the rest are people saying "it's just a launch issue, it'll get better"

Since it's not in the summary, here's a (referral-free!) link to the download, where you can read the reviews.

g) Add an HDHomeRun DUAL - High Definition Digital TV Tuner so you can watch and DVR OTA TV over your network.

h) If you're not boycotting Sony, consider getting a Sony BDP-SP390 which streams Netflix, Hulu+, Amazon and plays Blu-ray Discs for a little more than a Roku.

You're right. I taught everyone in the house how to use torrents. Now we only watch what we want when we want. Haven't had TV service in over 5 years, went from xbmc to roku and plex with torrents, Netflix, and basic Hulu. It's not bad at all, everyone does this anyway with DVR, recording everything and watching it later. I am considering a Android PC for a good all-in-one solution.

If you are doing a PhD, your subject matter will have to become your hobby. it shouldn't be your only one, but you should be absolutely enraptured with what you're studying. You are guaranteed to run into a dichotomous moment in your 5-7 year program where you will honestly consider quitting. It will only be through your personal passion and drive that gets you through the 'salmon of doubt'.

Since your spot is secured, you either have obtained grants, you have an academic advisor, or both. Spend the summer reading everything your advisor has written, and read everything in your field. If you are coming into a new PhD program you will most likely have a comprehensive exam (ours is verbal) where your committee will test your knowledge in the field to the point they would be comfortable allowing you to research independently. If you have not formed a research committee, use the summer to select internal and external examiners for your project. Selecting your committee is like drafting for a hockey team: there are heavy hitters and there are marginal academics. you may even encounter, as i have, a committee member that will attempt to sabotage your research. that's all part of grad school, so investigate who you're working with through previous students. Your prospective committee's individual publications is a good first step.

Spend the summer reading to the level where you can converse with someone in your field and be able to drop first and last names of the most pertinent research done between the last 50-100 years ago; much of this research (at least in my field of fish larval development) will be in the stacks and in the library; it is incredibly irksome to encounter a PhD candidate that has no references out of what they could pull out of an online paywall. A lack of understanding the foundational research makes the researcher rootless; it is as if a leaf has no idea it is attached to a tree.

Don't stop reading. keep reading. you should be reading already, but keep reading throughout the summer. clearcut an entire state of trees if you need to; keep reading. This is a primary failure mode of the graduate student: not everyone can take graduate school because not everybody can stand having their brain physiologically rewired on a daily basis as they encounter conflicting research, bad research, obscure research, and science-related gossip. Read until you feel comfortable holding conflicting ideas in your head. read until you find yourself asking a question that leads to no answer, and begin to formulate your project from there.

Changing gears slightly, the second most important thing to knowing your pertinent research intimately is the ability to communicate science to non scientists. My program stresses and indoctrinates strong presentation skills. i would highly recommend reading a book like Randy Olson's Don't Be Such a Scientist. Learn the jargon, and learn to internalise the jargon and be able to speak to non-technical audiences. the more you can communicate your message and research, the better you will be.

Good luck!

The jokes started long before WWII. Blue and Gray Laughing, a book about the humor of soldiers during the American Civil War, has a number of them scattered throughout (end shameless plug for a book written by my relative).

During the war, the "Dutch", a catch-all term for Germanic and similar-enough-to-Germanic-that-Americans-didn't-care European immigrants (Germans, Dutch, Finns, etc.) were generally derided by both sides. Their communities seemed generally disinterested in the war, and their corps in the Union army collapsed spectacularly at both Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, inviting frequent and harsh ridicule. It's very possible that the Poles got swept up in that sentiment, though Polish immigration to the US really didn't kick into gear until decades later.