That said, there's a lot of variance due to latitude, and "about the same time" still ranges from 20-40 minutes later each day for most of the US. But that'll be my something new learned this day.
Man, I couldn't care less about most audio, but even I drew the line at the built-in TV speakers. They were so tinny and weak it was terrible, and if pushed loud enough to hear across the room then prone to really noticeable distortion. I only bought a $100 soundbar and that by comparison is great. (I actually tried to get by with old computer desktop speakers, and they would have been fine except the TV pushed an enormous electrostatic pop over the old audio jack when it powered on. The soundbar had digital audio and no crackling explosions, so that was better.)
I actually remember Apple's earbuds being a pretty big improvement when they first came out over older headsets, which might have been over-ear foam pads from my Walkman. Probably just being in-ear made a difference, but I think it was a bump up in quality, too. Again, that was enough to notice... and probably the last time I really noticed. I do have a slightly nicer over-ear headset (like $35, maybe on sale) and it may be a touch better, but it also may be I'm using them at home where it's quiet instead of outside. Mostly that's for comfort.
A huge majority of my audio listening happens in the car, where the road noise is bad enough and 4 months of studded snow tires means I couldn't tell the sublime from a literal garage band most of the time.
The others have said it, but you're confusing "science" and "atheists" and also inventing a lot of strawman arguments.
The point of science is to explain things. The things that it is able to explain are things that in a physical universe that obeys natural laws, and *has no need for God* as part of the explanation. Scientific explanations have encroached on territory that used to be attributed to God, in a way that some see as combative with religion and others see as making it likely God would be removed as an explanation from anything else, while others just look at the facts.
Now, atheism. That has a range, too, from "God doesn't seem necessary" to "it doesn't seem likely God exists" to the most extreme "I know God doesn't exist." Everyone who wants to argue about the arrogance and logical inconsistency of atheists latches on to the latter statement, but most atheists when speaking for themselves seem to claim something closer to one of the former two.
"It's possible that the rings are the remnants of a comet or some other icy object that made a chance encounter with Saturn and got ripped up, he says. Or, perhaps one of Saturn's icy moons got whacked by an impact with a large comet."
Now, how it would make sense to both be "a remnant from some comet" but also "they're new, and not contaminated by dirty comets" - that one I don't get.
CYOA isn't dark and disturbing? What I remember of the books from when I was a kid: - dying in a blizzard - dying by falling off a cliff - dying from choking on a bone - dying from a shaman's curse - being shrunk by aliens - dying by being eating by ants - dying by aliens
The one "win condition" I remember involved finding some angry magical sword that cut my palm and killed a bunch of people, but let me survive.
Yes, derivative works from Steamboat Willie, for sure. But that was the grandparent's fifth post on this page acting as if "Mickey Mouse" in general was going public domain, and not just the one film. Something like a coffee mug with a frame from Willie might be fair game, but not just any old Mickey Mouse mug. Or were you objecting to some other part?
I think what needs to be recognized here is software has a very different life cycle than movies or books. I'd be for different term lengths. For software, a decade may be plenty, whereas a book may need 30 to fully run its course.
Then again, software may be slowing down as home computer specs plateau, and emulation gives new life to old products. I can buy and get more things running from the 90's now than I could a decade ago.
You seem to be confused, and talking about Trademark stuff. "Mickey" doesn't go public domain. The 1923 film, Steamboat Willie, does. That means people can use SW clips, or have it on the TV in the background of a film they're making, or remix it with other things. But only Steamboat Willie. They still can't sell coffee mugs with Mickey on it, they still can't show clips of the Mickey Mouse Christmas special, etc. Disneyland will not close. It only lets them re-use a 95-year-old piece of film, and that's it.
Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. Once we figure out more, can we work backward? What caused them? How big/bright did they used to be? Did Jupiter used to look like Saturn, but clear out its rings faster, or are they of a different origin and type?
I hear you. I've trimmed enough backgrounds out of things over the years. Though I think it was in part my first attempt with Photoshop, cleaning up an image of Beavis and Butthead pulled from some MTv ad to put it in the college newspaper, that was one of my first awestruck moments where I realized "wow, I can do amazing things with computer graphics!" It's a skill that has served me well for decades.
Yeah. Why is it always "with a single click?" Nothing is ever with a single click. You have to double-click just to open your damn browser. In what world does everything amount to "the very last thing I did"? In that case, I'd like to swim across the English Channel with "a single stroke," write a novel with "a single word," drive across the country on "a single gallon of gas, in a single minute". It's stupid, and for damn near 30 years there hasn't been a software marketing person capable of advertising their product without using the phrase.
"I promoted something on a computer without using a single outrageous cliche" - now THAT is a statement someone should be proud of!
My taxes often fluctuate by up to $1k from year to year, sometimes $2k with bigger changes. I prefer to keep my refund small, but I'd rather not take chances on owing. Is everyone else so consistent year over year they can predict it down to less than that?
Well, I was mostly riffing on the old "half of all people have below average IQ" truism people spout here before making some argument based on things being distributed on a bell curve. But you're absolutely right. In fact, a few unreasonably high salaries might mean more than half of people take below-average compensation!
- I never get promotional spam. Only order-related info.
- However, for third-party sellers, the email setting is all or nothing. Either they can hit you up 3-5 times for every single order, including begging for reviews, or they're not allowed to talk to you at all, not even for canceled or other completely failed orders. This doesn't make much sense, and I wish there was more granularity. I eventually got so fed up I turned it off. If a package ever fails somehow I'll have to remember to turn this back on in order to talk to the third party. But I can live with that better than the alternative.
So, counting from the origin we get: the safest number, the lonliest number, the lonliest number after one, the number of strikes and you're out, the horsemen of the apocalypse, the alive number, the of one that's like half dozen of another, and the lucky number. I see why numbers eventually got names.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. That really didn't sound right to me, but research bears it out:
https://www.space.com/38319-wh...
That said, there's a lot of variance due to latitude, and "about the same time" still ranges from 20-40 minutes later each day for most of the US. But that'll be my something new learned this day.
Man, I couldn't care less about most audio, but even I drew the line at the built-in TV speakers. They were so tinny and weak it was terrible, and if pushed loud enough to hear across the room then prone to really noticeable distortion. I only bought a $100 soundbar and that by comparison is great. (I actually tried to get by with old computer desktop speakers, and they would have been fine except the TV pushed an enormous electrostatic pop over the old audio jack when it powered on. The soundbar had digital audio and no crackling explosions, so that was better.)
I actually remember Apple's earbuds being a pretty big improvement when they first came out over older headsets, which might have been over-ear foam pads from my Walkman. Probably just being in-ear made a difference, but I think it was a bump up in quality, too. Again, that was enough to notice ... and probably the last time I really noticed. I do have a slightly nicer over-ear headset (like $35, maybe on sale) and it may be a touch better, but it also may be I'm using them at home where it's quiet instead of outside. Mostly that's for comfort.
A huge majority of my audio listening happens in the car, where the road noise is bad enough and 4 months of studded snow tires means I couldn't tell the sublime from a literal garage band most of the time.
The others have said it, but you're confusing "science" and "atheists" and also inventing a lot of strawman arguments.
The point of science is to explain things. The things that it is able to explain are things that in a physical universe that obeys natural laws, and *has no need for God* as part of the explanation. Scientific explanations have encroached on territory that used to be attributed to God, in a way that some see as combative with religion and others see as making it likely God would be removed as an explanation from anything else, while others just look at the facts.
Now, atheism. That has a range, too, from "God doesn't seem necessary" to "it doesn't seem likely God exists" to the most extreme "I know God doesn't exist." Everyone who wants to argue about the arrogance and logical inconsistency of atheists latches on to the latter statement, but most atheists when speaking for themselves seem to claim something closer to one of the former two.
Man, as cool as it was when Shoemaker-Levy hit Jupiter, I can't even imagine what that kind of show might have been like, when Saturn got its rings.
From the article:
"It's possible that the rings are the remnants of a comet or some other icy object that made a chance encounter with Saturn and got ripped up, he says. Or, perhaps one of Saturn's icy moons got whacked by an impact with a large comet."
Now, how it would make sense to both be "a remnant from some comet" but also "they're new, and not contaminated by dirty comets" - that one I don't get.
Then we'll just get viruses instead. If they don't evolve naturally, someone will make them.
Oddly, the two subjects I cite most as contributing to my future business success have been art history and philosophy.
My actual degree, physics, hasn't done a damn thing for me, other than maybe some extra exposure to computer labs.
CYOA isn't dark and disturbing? What I remember of the books from when I was a kid:
- dying in a blizzard
- dying by falling off a cliff
- dying from choking on a bone
- dying from a shaman's curse
- being shrunk by aliens
- dying by being eating by ants
- dying by aliens
The one "win condition" I remember involved finding some angry magical sword that cut my palm and killed a bunch of people, but let me survive.
1) The Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expects that.
The Good Place. No TV show has amused me more.
Spiderverse was lots of fun.
Those are the only two that stuck out so much I've gone around recommending them to others.
I like the way you think!
Yes, derivative works from Steamboat Willie, for sure. But that was the grandparent's fifth post on this page acting as if "Mickey Mouse" in general was going public domain, and not just the one film. Something like a coffee mug with a frame from Willie might be fair game, but not just any old Mickey Mouse mug. Or were you objecting to some other part?
I think what needs to be recognized here is software has a very different life cycle than movies or books. I'd be for different term lengths. For software, a decade may be plenty, whereas a book may need 30 to fully run its course.
Then again, software may be slowing down as home computer specs plateau, and emulation gives new life to old products. I can buy and get more things running from the 90's now than I could a decade ago.
You seem to be confused, and talking about Trademark stuff. "Mickey" doesn't go public domain. The 1923 film, Steamboat Willie, does. That means people can use SW clips, or have it on the TV in the background of a film they're making, or remix it with other things. But only Steamboat Willie. They still can't sell coffee mugs with Mickey on it, they still can't show clips of the Mickey Mouse Christmas special, etc. Disneyland will not close. It only lets them re-use a 95-year-old piece of film, and that's it.
Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. Once we figure out more, can we work backward? What caused them? How big/bright did they used to be? Did Jupiter used to look like Saturn, but clear out its rings faster, or are they of a different origin and type?
Not really.
*shakes cane* *shouts "get off my lawn!"*
There. Now I'm better.
I hear you. I've trimmed enough backgrounds out of things over the years. Though I think it was in part my first attempt with Photoshop, cleaning up an image of Beavis and Butthead pulled from some MTv ad to put it in the college newspaper, that was one of my first awestruck moments where I realized "wow, I can do amazing things with computer graphics!" It's a skill that has served me well for decades.
Yeah. Why is it always "with a single click?" Nothing is ever with a single click. You have to double-click just to open your damn browser. In what world does everything amount to "the very last thing I did"? In that case, I'd like to swim across the English Channel with "a single stroke," write a novel with "a single word," drive across the country on "a single gallon of gas, in a single minute". It's stupid, and for damn near 30 years there hasn't been a software marketing person capable of advertising their product without using the phrase.
"I promoted something on a computer without using a single outrageous cliche" - now THAT is a statement someone should be proud of!
My taxes often fluctuate by up to $1k from year to year, sometimes $2k with bigger changes. I prefer to keep my refund small, but I'd rather not take chances on owing. Is everyone else so consistent year over year they can predict it down to less than that?
I fed 1000 AI research papers to an AI, and you'll never believe what it came up with!
Well, I was mostly riffing on the old "half of all people have below average IQ" truism people spout here before making some argument based on things being distributed on a bell curve. But you're absolutely right. In fact, a few unreasonably high salaries might mean more than half of people take below-average compensation!
Really? I would have thought it likely that half of all employees accept below-average salaries.
I'm in between the two stated experiences.
- I never get promotional spam. Only order-related info.
- However, for third-party sellers, the email setting is all or nothing. Either they can hit you up 3-5 times for every single order, including begging for reviews, or they're not allowed to talk to you at all, not even for canceled or other completely failed orders. This doesn't make much sense, and I wish there was more granularity. I eventually got so fed up I turned it off. If a package ever fails somehow I'll have to remember to turn this back on in order to talk to the third party. But I can live with that better than the alternative.
For once, I agree with Tom Cruise. May be the first thing he's said in 20 years that I agree with.
The Soap Opera setting is terrible. I turn it off immediately, even in hotel rooms. Cannot abide the weirdness of it.
The safest number is zero.
So, counting from the origin we get: the safest number, the lonliest number, the lonliest number after one, the number of strikes and you're out, the horsemen of the apocalypse, the alive number, the of one that's like half dozen of another, and the lucky number. I see why numbers eventually got names.