Yeah then you have the best of both worlds. However that is not as easy to set up and support so I doubt most IT-departments will do something like that.
I didn't need two monitors either, had the same arguments as well. "Waste of desk space and electricity, can just as well use virtual desktops and alt-tab". But then my employer put a second monitor and if he is ever going to come back to his usual penny scrounging senses he's going to have to pry it from my cold fingers.
The most obvious difference over virtual desktops is probably that you can read data from one program and enter it in a different one. If you have to continuously switch desktops for such a task it's going to be much slower.
But what I use it for the most is to have a reference guide, manual or letter I am replying to in the other screen to be accessible within the glance of an eye. Which is a lot faster and more comfortable than switching back and forth all the time.
Also I often have to multitask with two programs, and when I say multitask I mean I have to swith between both programs several times a minute. In such cases two screens give you a much better work experience.
Using two computers has some serious disadvantages over just two monitors. 1) Copy paste won't work. 2) You'll need two keyboards and mice. 3) Windows opened from within a program can't be moved to the other screen.
Having two computers obviously has advantages as well, but for regular office work I strongly prefer one pc with two screens.
We are talking about first aid here, which is done by inexperienced people like you and me to bridge the time until the professionals can take over. They usually get hardly any training (maybe a few hours once a year). Synchronizing mouth to mouth with the compressions is way too hard, especially when cooperating with a stranger (just whoever happens to be there when it happens).
Besides that, compressions really take a lot of energy, if you have more then one person, you'd be switching every few minutes.
How exactly are they judging here? Telling the truth or pointing out flaws is not the same as judging. If you actualy read the press release you'll notice that they are generally positive about the wii, but think that parents should be more aware of the "dangers".
Besides that, taking one sentence from the bible out of context and then using it literary is rather silly.
It is a matter of where to draw the line. Some responsibility should still be with the parents. The commercial was broadcasted in the adult time slot and shouldn't even be seen by a young child. He should not be able to leave the house in the middle of the night. He should not be able to get the car keys and shouldn't even know how to start a car. If it still happened, it would most likely not cause a severe accident, and in any case I would classify it as a freak accident.
I agree with your points though, and it is a matter of which wheigh more. I suppose this is a gray area; more white to me, but black to you.
I don't think your religion should matter. It annoys me when people mention their christianity to strengthen their argument. As if they have the authority to say "This amount of compassion and responsiblity is enough."
I suppose you don't watch a lot of movies, play computer games, read books. You can (easily) find all possible kinds of fantasy there. That there are some people who try to also protect children (whether or not they did the right thing here is another question) hardly means that fantasy is no longer allowed.
The world becoming serious? The world has always been a serious place, and I don't think that ever in the history of the planet a place has been so free and playful as modern Australia, USA and Europe. You're seriously missing perspective if you think the world is "becoming" serious or frightened.
And yes, if something is less realistic, for example because of exaggerated scale, it's more acceptable, also to me.
First let me say that I think pulling the ad was over the top. But,
it seems obvious to me that these people actually do want to watch television. And possbly they want to let their children watch it occasionally without (full-time) supervision. So instead of entirely avoiding it because of a small flaw they try to improve it. Sounds like a more reasonable approach then turning it off completely. Even if that takes an extra efford.
Also, it is likely that some people don't only care about their own children, but also about other peoples children. If they think that it is wrong for children to watch the ad, switching the tv off won't help because there are many more tv's and children in the world.
Now I realise that this concept is offensive to a lot of people, especially on slashdot, but some people consider it "good" to take responsibility for things that don't concern them directly. In this case I don't agree with the result, but it is hardly "way out of hand". In fact it's good that people try to be responsible, even though they are pushing it too far sometimes. And I'm not even a christian.
What the? A spelling nazi who is actually racist to people who don't spell correctly? And even though you don't make a lot of spelling errors, your writing style sucks. You're not part of my culture I suppose.
(It's possessive, not possesive, twit. Rule one from the spelling nazi handbook: spell check. And from your other post: "don't meaning"???)
I played a racist character in Everquest for a while, which to my surprise genuinly upset people.
I played a dark elf and would not team with any of the light races, except in some cases when they clearly were evil. But even then, I would act racist to for example ogres and trolls, making clear that I despised them and considered them inferior, while in contrast being moderately respectful to other dark elves.
Almost every day someone would send me a private message complaining about my racist attitude, and many a dwarf was surprised to get a friendly reply which explained that I was roleplaying.
I thought it was rather strange that even though we were playing characters, and I am obviously not a dwarf-hating dark elf in real life, a lot of people couldn't accept racism in the game. Maybe it means that there is something good in humanity. Or maybe just something silly.
But to answer the question, do I care about race in games, I'd say: no, except when my character has stereotypical attitude or dialog. But that's not strictly related to race. I find it very hard to indentify with a character if he keeps talking in a way that I would not.
In holand we also have cheaper night energy, but this is not about day and night cycle. It's about compensating the fluctuations in wind and solar energy. Same basic idea though, but a little harder to inmplement.
My mainstream paper newspaper did report on this. Actually it reported on the rumor going around the internet.
It claims: - It has not been fully tested, and not all researchers agree on the resuts yet. - Even if it works, it will not work on all types of cancer. - There are actually several research projects (with funding) working on this. - The medicine is in fact known to also CAUSE cancer in mice. - Michelakis is using the internet to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) in order to collect money. Which is not helping the search for a cure at all.
Don't know if it's true, but it is something to think about...
It depends on your intention anyway. If you are just traveling somewhere and make a stop at Heathrow Airport in between, most would agree that you're not a tourist. If you are however interested in airports and travel from airport to airport just to see them, then yes, you are a tourist.
I think you make a good point about the grind, but that's bad game design and not necesarily connected to game length.
However, if you forget parts of the game, I don't think you should blame the game for that. If it takes extra long because you have to do things twice because you forgot, maybe you should take some notes? Personally, I don't even like it when there are too many logs, checklists and minimaps. Lowers the immersion.
A lot of people probably can still spend 60 hours in a game. For example the people who are in the same situation now as you used to be when you had that time?
For me, sometimes these 60 hours are spread over three months, and sometimes I play 3 days in a row with hardly any sleep.
by increasing the demand or decreasing the supply. Both seem feasable to me.
Offer easy acces to high bandwith content, demand goes up (good?). Buy up large parts of the infrastructure and shut parts of it down (evil?). Or create demand but don't add extra bandwith. (good? evil?)
Of course there will be other bandwith providers filling the gaps, especially when the demand goes up, but if you are a large player you could probably make some good money with such strategies anyway.
I usually use milk instead of water, and add some or all of the following: banana, apple, berries, raisins, cinamon, sugar, honey.
Because it's easy to stock plenty of oatmeal and you can make it with just water and salt, it's a great backup meal in case you forgot to buy enough food.
However, my favourite breakfast is: - two or three slices of bread (freshly from the breadmachine) with old cheese, fish or honey. - some yoghurt with cereal and fruit. - fruit juice (usually oranje or grape) or milk - tea (usually plain green or grey, sometimes flavoured) - morning paper and some quiet music.
It could be healthier but I believe it's a lot better than the most things I read here!
And what's more, Rasmus Bjoerk's hypothesis was mean to solve the Fermi Paradox, which is based on the assumption that there are countless alien civilisations. So it's not unreasonable to expect Bjoerk to assume the same thing, otherwise his whole mentioning of the paradox would be meaninglss.
So today is the 7th day of january in the year 2013?
It's only "impossible" to confuse because of the context. It's hard to confuse "today is 13/1/07" as well. In 20 years, how will anyone know what you meant? And what about 04/JAN/05?
A better solution would be 13/JAN/2007, or "13/01/07 (d/m/y)".
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah then you have the best of both worlds. However that is not as easy to set up and support so I doubt most IT-departments will do something like that.
Well in that example the saved desk space argument really brings in a lot of weight.
I didn't need two monitors either, had the same arguments as well. "Waste of desk space and electricity, can just as well use virtual desktops and alt-tab". But then my employer put a second monitor and if he is ever going to come back to his usual penny scrounging senses he's going to have to pry it from my cold fingers.
The most obvious difference over virtual desktops is probably that you can read data from one program and enter it in a different one. If you have to continuously switch desktops for such a task it's going to be much slower.
But what I use it for the most is to have a reference guide, manual or letter I am replying to in the other screen to be accessible within the glance of an eye. Which is a lot faster and more comfortable than switching back and forth all the time.
Also I often have to multitask with two programs, and when I say multitask I mean I have to swith between both programs several times a minute. In such cases two screens give you a much better work experience.
Using two computers has some serious disadvantages over just two monitors.
1) Copy paste won't work.
2) You'll need two keyboards and mice.
3) Windows opened from within a program can't be moved to the other screen.
Having two computers obviously has advantages as well, but for regular office work I strongly prefer one pc with two screens.
Like the Motorola Motofone?
That's too complicated.
We are talking about first aid here, which is done by inexperienced people like you and me to bridge the time until the professionals can take over. They usually get hardly any training (maybe a few hours once a year). Synchronizing mouth to mouth with the compressions is way too hard, especially when cooperating with a stranger (just whoever happens to be there when it happens).
Besides that, compressions really take a lot of energy, if you have more then one person, you'd be switching every few minutes.
How exactly are they judging here? Telling the truth or pointing out flaws is not the same as judging. If you actualy read the press release you'll notice that they are generally positive about the wii, but think that parents should be more aware of the "dangers".
Besides that, taking one sentence from the bible out of context and then using it literary is rather silly.
It is a matter of where to draw the line. Some responsibility should still be with the parents. The commercial was broadcasted in the adult time slot and shouldn't even be seen by a young child. He should not be able to leave the house in the middle of the night. He should not be able to get the car keys and shouldn't even know how to start a car. If it still happened, it would most likely not cause a severe accident, and in any case I would classify it as a freak accident.
I agree with your points though, and it is a matter of which wheigh more. I suppose this is a gray area; more white to me, but black to you.
I don't think your religion should matter. It annoys me when people mention their christianity to strengthen their argument. As if they have the authority to say "This amount of compassion and responsiblity is enough."
I suppose you don't watch a lot of movies, play computer games, read books. You can (easily) find all possible kinds of fantasy there. That there are some people who try to also protect children (whether or not they did the right thing here is another question) hardly means that fantasy is no longer allowed.
The world becoming serious? The world has always been a serious place, and I don't think that ever in the history of the planet a place has been so free and playful as modern Australia, USA and Europe. You're seriously missing perspective if you think the world is "becoming" serious or frightened.
And yes, if something is less realistic, for example because of exaggerated scale, it's more acceptable, also to me.
First let me say that I think pulling the ad was over the top. But,
it seems obvious to me that these people actually do want to watch television. And possbly they want to let their children watch it occasionally without (full-time) supervision. So instead of entirely avoiding it because of a small flaw they try to improve it. Sounds like a more reasonable approach then turning it off completely. Even if that takes an extra efford.
Also, it is likely that some people don't only care about their own children, but also about other peoples children. If they think that it is wrong for children to watch the ad, switching the tv off won't help because there are many more tv's and children in the world.
Now I realise that this concept is offensive to a lot of people, especially on slashdot, but some people consider it "good" to take responsibility for things that don't concern them directly. In this case I don't agree with the result, but it is hardly "way out of hand". In fact it's good that people try to be responsible, even though they are pushing it too far sometimes. And I'm not even a christian.
What the? A spelling nazi who is actually racist to people who don't spell correctly?
And even though you don't make a lot of spelling errors, your writing style sucks. You're not part of my culture I suppose.
(It's possessive, not possesive, twit. Rule one from the spelling nazi handbook: spell check. And from your other post: "don't meaning"???)
I played a racist character in Everquest for a while, which to my surprise genuinly upset people.
I played a dark elf and would not team with any of the light races, except in some cases when they clearly were evil. But even then, I would act racist to for example ogres and trolls, making clear that I despised them and considered them inferior, while in contrast being moderately respectful to other dark elves.
Almost every day someone would send me a private message complaining about my racist attitude, and many a dwarf was surprised to get a friendly reply which explained that I was roleplaying.
I thought it was rather strange that even though we were playing characters, and I am obviously not a dwarf-hating dark elf in real life, a lot of people couldn't accept racism in the game. Maybe it means that there is something good in humanity. Or maybe just something silly.
But to answer the question, do I care about race in games, I'd say: no, except when my character has stereotypical attitude or dialog. But that's not strictly related to race. I find it very hard to indentify with a character if he keeps talking in a way that I would not.
Very clever, but (obviously?) I meant the whole country.
In holand we also have cheaper night energy, but this is not about day and night cycle. It's about compensating the fluctuations in wind and solar energy. Same basic idea though, but a little harder to inmplement.
Heat engine? Insightful? They're switching the refridgerators off when there's an energy shortage, what does that have to do with entropy?
My mainstream paper newspaper did report on this. Actually it reported on the rumor going around the internet.
It claims:
- It has not been fully tested, and not all researchers agree on the resuts yet.
- Even if it works, it will not work on all types of cancer.
- There are actually several research projects (with funding) working on this.
- The medicine is in fact known to also CAUSE cancer in mice.
- Michelakis is using the internet to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) in order to collect money. Which is not helping the search for a cure at all.
Don't know if it's true, but it is something to think about...
What analogy?
It depends on your intention anyway. If you are just traveling somewhere and make a stop at Heathrow Airport in between, most would agree that you're not a tourist.
If you are however interested in airports and travel from airport to airport just to see them, then yes, you are a tourist.
As far as I know staying somewhere is not a requirement for tourism. Actually I think that if you stayed it would be immigration.
Brings the saying "defective by design" to a whole new level.
I think you make a good point about the grind, but that's bad game design and not necesarily connected to game length.
However, if you forget parts of the game, I don't think you should blame the game for that. If it takes extra long because you have to do things twice because you forgot, maybe you should take some notes? Personally, I don't even like it when there are too many logs, checklists and minimaps. Lowers the immersion.
A lot of people probably can still spend 60 hours in a game. For example the people who are in the same situation now as you used to be when you had that time?
For me, sometimes these 60 hours are spread over three months, and sometimes I play 3 days in a row with hardly any sleep.
by increasing the demand or decreasing the supply. Both seem feasable to me.
Offer easy acces to high bandwith content, demand goes up (good?).
Buy up large parts of the infrastructure and shut parts of it down (evil?).
Or create demand but don't add extra bandwith. (good? evil?)
Of course there will be other bandwith providers filling the gaps, especially when the demand goes up, but if you are a large player you could probably make some good money with such strategies anyway.
I usually use milk instead of water, and add some or all of the following: banana, apple, berries, raisins, cinamon, sugar, honey.
Because it's easy to stock plenty of oatmeal and you can make it with just water and salt, it's a great backup meal in case you forgot to buy enough food.
However, my favourite breakfast is:
- two or three slices of bread (freshly from the breadmachine) with old cheese, fish or honey.
- some yoghurt with cereal and fruit.
- fruit juice (usually oranje or grape) or milk
- tea (usually plain green or grey, sometimes flavoured)
- morning paper and some quiet music.
It could be healthier but I believe it's a lot better than the most things I read here!
And what's more, Rasmus Bjoerk's hypothesis was mean to solve the Fermi Paradox, which is based on the assumption that there are countless alien civilisations.
So it's not unreasonable to expect Bjoerk to assume the same thing, otherwise his whole mentioning of the paradox would be meaninglss.
So today is the 7th day of january in the year 2013?
It's only "impossible" to confuse because of the context. It's hard to confuse "today is 13/1/07" as well.
In 20 years, how will anyone know what you meant? And what about 04/JAN/05?
A better solution would be 13/JAN/2007, or "13/01/07 (d/m/y)".