On the about / register splash screen type: a r n i e
The picture of the creator turns into a picture of a stuffed dinosaur, presumably names Arnie.
Various Photoshop splash logos in the past have had hidden images.
Typically you would have to grab a screenshot of the splash logo and then do CMYK separation, fiddle with brightness/contrast, grid masking, etc. to see the images.
2) Nope. Many of the effects are determined much more by duration and planetary alignment and solar winds and such. Thus, many of the effects don't correlate nicely to a single indicator (sunspots), and therefore don't appear to align with those indicators. The effects can appear to be quite delayed because several conditions have to line up nicely (and to make this more likely, the conditions need to be longer in duration) for the "full effect" to be felt.
3) Again, see 2). The Global Warming Trend (I thought it was Global Climate Change now) DOES follow solar activity, much better than any other metric we can throw at it. It doesn't necessarily follow sunspot activity, because sunspots are just an indicator of one type of solar activity, while there are tons of other things going on out in space that effect how much energy from the sun enters our atmosphere.
4) Nope. CO2 is the nice hot button now. Before then people said it was the hole in the ozone layer from CFCs.
5) And what of it? Do you have any idea of the scale we're talking about? Do you know how large the atmosphere is? You're complaining about spitting in the ocean. It makes more sense to complain about the AIG "bonuses".
6) Why would it be uninhabitable? The planet has gone through far worse heating and cooling cycles. We survived. We thrived. So did other species. Will shit potentially change? Yup. So what? Deal with it. There is no indication that the change will be anything but extremely gradual. We'll have plenty of time to adapt. There is no indication that the change will be permanent, or more extreme than what has happened before. If we're assuming that the change is caused by CO2 (it's NOT), then we have to remember that there is also no indication that completely stopping all CO2 release by humans will do anything to prevent the change.
7) It's hard to have solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. But if you insist, we sure do. It's called nuclear power, and the environmentalists won't let anyone use it.
The idea is that we had low sunspot activity, and now it's getting lower.
2008 and 2009 are the periods over which this trend occurs.
The trend is still occurring, regardless of the dates. There is no "because it's 2009" or "we should see". There is "what we see" and "when it's happening".
Compare it to all possible 90 day periods from last year then, then get the average change in % of days without spots. (Protip: Answer will be the same!)
Or try it this way: 2008: 266 / 366 2009: 78 / 90
Let's make it easier and drop off the extra day for last year. We'll assume it was a spotted day, thus dropping the percent of spotted days for 2008 down (this is in favor of saying there's been no change).
2008: 265 / 365 2009: 78 / 90
There are 275 days left for 2009's measurement period. To meet or beat (in the sense of claiming there is no reduction in sunspot activity) 2008's readings, we need 187 spotless days or less.
The rest of 2009 will need to yield 187 (out of 275) spotless days or fewer, or 68% at most.
2008 (adjusted to remove the extra day) gave us 72.6% spotless days. 2009 has thus far given us 86.666...% spotless days.
Old cars got better mileage than new hybrids. Old toilets used less water than new toilets (since you only ever had to flush once). CRTs are the best display technology we have by far. CFLs contain mercury and are absolutely not green. The production of solar cells is far more detrimental to the environment than any energy source they could replace. LI-ION batteries are inferior to NI-MH batteries, and are more detrimental to the environment. Analog phone lines are the most reliable communication method we have, yet in a time when we're told we need to worry about our "infrastructure", especially for emergencies, they're ripping it out of the ground as fast as they can. Antibacterial everything is breeding more resistant bacteria. Our economic recovery plan revolves around giving money we don't have to the very companies that lost billions of dollars that they didn't really have in the first place. Alcohol and cigarettes kill more people and cost more money (health care) than marijuana and cocaine.
Why? For the same reason people smuggle toilets across the border. The new shit is "more efficient" but at a huge cost. The government telling you what you can and can't use pisses people off, and people will resist pushes to ban what works well in favor of what works ok, and is slightly "more efficient".
The way I see it:
Pro: CFLs use less energy.
Con: CFLs do NOT last longer - all CFLs I have had (dozens) have died in less than a year. CFLs will poison you with mercury. CFLs require infinitely more effort to dispose of. CFLs cannot universally be used with dimmers. CFLs look ugly as ass. CFLs have flicker. CFLs have comparably long warm-up times. CFLs may cause some people headaches.
For me the biggest factors are the shitty light they put out, the fact that they die so quickly on me, and the whole mercury / can't toss it in the trash thing.
If you said something was 5 times something, the 5 would be a scalar (on the second something) and you would divide or multiply.
It makes perfect sense if you just stop to think about what the words slower, faster, cheaper, etc. mean. They all measure something, find out what, and the logically appropriate operation will be obvious.
5 times slower means something takes 5 times as long, and therefore runs at 1/5th the rate.
5 times cheaper means something gives 5 times as much product/service/"value" for the same cost, and therefore is 1/5th the cost for the same product/service/"value".
Slashdot Mirror
Go find me a Gamestop that still carriers PC games, then we'll talk.
On the about / register splash screen type:
a r n i e
The picture of the creator turns into a picture of a stuffed dinosaur, presumably names Arnie.
Various Photoshop splash logos in the past have had hidden images.
Typically you would have to grab a screenshot of the splash logo and then do CMYK separation, fiddle with brightness/contrast, grid masking, etc. to see the images.
LOL YOU GOT CAUGHT.
Too bad Gamestop does all of that for you.
But instead of stealing the game, they lock it up behind the counter.
Every game on display (except for the bargain bins, that's not exactly a display) is an empty box.
Incorrect!
Then changed it right after launch.
You can request a new code for free.
I Am Large And Thirsty.
Fist Prose.
And those who do still acquire it are the more determined, and they now make up a much larger percentage of those who have it.
Take away the guns and you have more violent crime.
Give the people guns and you have less violent crime.
Are you going to argue against what has actually fucking happened? Are you going to say that it's not true?
We buried our cables.
Of course I can.
And as such, I wish to protect myself from those people.
Those people will acquire, and use, guns with or without "stricter laws".
Couldn't just uninstall the update?
Couldn't check with DAZ on wtf was going on?
I clicked that link and saw the creepiest dolls I've ever seen.
And as such, when someone threatens my life, I have the right to defend myself, and "I think that right pretty much trumps any other right".
I'll defend myself with a gun if I so choose.
1) It sure does.
2) Nope. Many of the effects are determined much more by duration and planetary alignment and solar winds and such. Thus, many of the effects don't correlate nicely to a single indicator (sunspots), and therefore don't appear to align with those indicators. The effects can appear to be quite delayed because several conditions have to line up nicely (and to make this more likely, the conditions need to be longer in duration) for the "full effect" to be felt.
3) Again, see 2). The Global Warming Trend (I thought it was Global Climate Change now) DOES follow solar activity, much better than any other metric we can throw at it. It doesn't necessarily follow sunspot activity, because sunspots are just an indicator of one type of solar activity, while there are tons of other things going on out in space that effect how much energy from the sun enters our atmosphere.
4) Nope. CO2 is the nice hot button now. Before then people said it was the hole in the ozone layer from CFCs.
5) And what of it? Do you have any idea of the scale we're talking about? Do you know how large the atmosphere is? You're complaining about spitting in the ocean. It makes more sense to complain about the AIG "bonuses".
6) Why would it be uninhabitable? The planet has gone through far worse heating and cooling cycles. We survived. We thrived. So did other species. Will shit potentially change? Yup. So what? Deal with it. There is no indication that the change will be anything but extremely gradual. We'll have plenty of time to adapt. There is no indication that the change will be permanent, or more extreme than what has happened before. If we're assuming that the change is caused by CO2 (it's NOT), then we have to remember that there is also no indication that completely stopping all CO2 release by humans will do anything to prevent the change.
7) It's hard to have solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. But if you insist, we sure do. It's called nuclear power, and the environmentalists won't let anyone use it.
The idea is that we had low sunspot activity, and now it's getting lower.
2008 and 2009 are the periods over which this trend occurs.
The trend is still occurring, regardless of the dates. There is no "because it's 2009" or "we should see". There is "what we see" and "when it's happening".
Compare it to all possible 90 day periods from last year then, then get the average change in % of days without spots.
(Protip: Answer will be the same!)
Or try it this way:
2008: 266 / 366
2009: 78 / 90
Let's make it easier and drop off the extra day for last year. We'll assume it was a spotted day, thus dropping the percent of spotted days for 2008 down (this is in favor of saying there's been no change).
2008: 265 / 365
2009: 78 / 90
There are 275 days left for 2009's measurement period. To meet or beat (in the sense of claiming there is no reduction in sunspot activity) 2008's readings, we need 187 spotless days or less.
The rest of 2009 will need to yield 187 (out of 275) spotless days or fewer, or 68% at most.
2008 (adjusted to remove the extra day) gave us 72.6% spotless days. 2009 has thus far given us 86.666...% spotless days.
All signs point to fewer sunspots.
I prefer an attack with YTMNDs.
Fisting AND Debian?
Isn't that redundant?
Somebody's having a bad day.
Instead of pointing out how you're wrong about everything, I'll just tell you that you're wrong about everything. Here we go.
All your "rebuttals" to my points are wrong.
Enjoy the rest of your day!
Old cars got better mileage than new hybrids.
Old toilets used less water than new toilets (since you only ever had to flush once).
CRTs are the best display technology we have by far.
CFLs contain mercury and are absolutely not green.
The production of solar cells is far more detrimental to the environment than any energy source they could replace.
LI-ION batteries are inferior to NI-MH batteries, and are more detrimental to the environment.
Analog phone lines are the most reliable communication method we have, yet in a time when we're told we need to worry about our "infrastructure", especially for emergencies, they're ripping it out of the ground as fast as they can.
Antibacterial everything is breeding more resistant bacteria.
Our economic recovery plan revolves around giving money we don't have to the very companies that lost billions of dollars that they didn't really have in the first place.
Alcohol and cigarettes kill more people and cost more money (health care) than marijuana and cocaine.
What, you expect shit to make sense?
Why? For the same reason people smuggle toilets across the border. The new shit is "more efficient" but at a huge cost. The government telling you what you can and can't use pisses people off, and people will resist pushes to ban what works well in favor of what works ok, and is slightly "more efficient".
The way I see it:
Pro:
CFLs use less energy.
Con:
CFLs do NOT last longer - all CFLs I have had (dozens) have died in less than a year.
CFLs will poison you with mercury.
CFLs require infinitely more effort to dispose of.
CFLs cannot universally be used with dimmers.
CFLs look ugly as ass.
CFLs have flicker.
CFLs have comparably long warm-up times.
CFLs may cause some people headaches.
For me the biggest factors are the shitty light they put out, the fact that they die so quickly on me, and the whole mercury / can't toss it in the trash thing.
Transmission losses don't come close to "extra demand" the FUD in the article implies, though.
Or value your sanity/health.
Never break a CFL.
This is /.!
No thinking!
There are two "can"s there. I'm safe.
I don't know.
Humans fail the "What are your username and password?" question all the time.
And dollars is a unit, so you add and subtract.
If you said something was 5 times something, the 5 would be a scalar (on the second something) and you would divide or multiply.
It makes perfect sense if you just stop to think about what the words slower, faster, cheaper, etc. mean. They all measure something, find out what, and the logically appropriate operation will be obvious.
5 times slower means something takes 5 times as long, and therefore runs at 1/5th the rate.
5 times cheaper means something gives 5 times as much product/service/"value" for the same cost, and therefore is 1/5th the cost for the same product/service/"value".