I take a camping trip at the end of March every year and it will be SO nice to have that extra hour of daylight to get camp setup, cook dinner, and enjoy the park.
Am I missing something? If you're on vacation camping, nobody's going to make you get up or go to bed at any certain hour...DST isn't giving you any more or less daylight than you would have without it.
As for DST's usefulness during workdays...I hate it. I have to try and adjust my body's rhythm twice a year and it gains me nothing. Between long work days and long commutes, it doesn't matter what the clock is set to. It will be dark (or close to it) when I get home.
I grew up without DST (in Indiana) and somehow we lived. We got everything done that needed done. We had plenty of daylight to play and work and shop and so on. Maybe we were just more efficient in Indiana than the rest of the world. I hope everybody else catches up someday.
I would argue that most people are already paying on a mortgage that is at or near their financial limits. How could they possibly add 15% (plus interest)...let alone 100%? I know I couldn't add 50% - 100% to my mortgage and hope to stay afloat. Even 15% would be pushing it sometimes. On a loan with a decent interest rate, that $100k is going to cost almost $7,000 a year. That's a lot of extra money to come up with where I live: not even covered by my company's "cost of living" raises each year.
BTW...there are lots of places in rural U.S. where 3 bedroom bungalows don't even cost $100k (unless you have to have a brand new house)..and 6-digit salaries are the exception rather than the rule. In those cases it would more than double the price of the home to add this solar system and probably price a lot of people out of a home that were able to buy one before.
It's a nice thing to do if you can afford it, but I doubt that most people could.
Unfortunately, even that is somewhat of a catch-22. If the local government isn't getting the income to pay for the programs, roads, employees, etc. from the cable companies, then they have to get the money from somewhere. Let's guess who's checkbook those taxes will be pulled from. It's gonna cost us in either money or communication/entertainment options.
Of course, if it's being paid by the cable companies, they're just passing on the expense to the consumers and they're paying for it anyway...an indirect tax. But at least it's only the people who actually use it who are paying. (That would be somebody besides me.)
I don't think there's any winning no matter which way you go here.
That button is no "F5"...it's the up volume. If you want "F5" you need to press "fn" and that button. Then it will work (the same as command-r) in Firefox and MSIE at least. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in Safari. But unless you're on a desktop system, or have a full keyboard hooked up to your laptop, it's no easier than pressing command-r anyway.
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
If you want to get Biblical:
"...by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." (Jesus in Matthew 7:2)
I think a lot of cultures have phrases that carry that basic feeling that what goes around comes around (see, there's another one).
I think the point being made is that if you have to have one power cable for the monitor anyway, why not use the iMac with its one power cable and not have to worry about your power running out in only two hours.
And here I was just happy that he hadn't stepped on my pet peeve and misspelled "braking". As often as I hear on/. about people breaking their cars, I'm surprised there are any vehicles left to brake at stop signs.
I'm not sure what "competitive means to you, but to me it means within 5% - 10% at the most. Not "costs 60% more in a best case scenario" and "166% more for 'average industrial cost'". I think your definition of "competitive" needs some rethinking. I probably pay around $800 / year for electricity now. I'm sure I could find a better use for the $480 - $1,328 more I would be paying every year for solar. 160% - 266% of what I'm paying now is not competitive by any stretch.
(Note: These comparisons are based on the 7.5c average listed above. I'm actually getting my electricity at an avg. of about 6.2c, so any differences are even more in my favor.)
They weren't being asked to show that something didn't exist. They were being asked to show that something known to exist had been destroyed. If you destroyed the drugs in your room, you could offer the charred remains or chemically neutralized results as proof of their destruction.
If you want to call an AppleScript command from a shell script, you don't need to open it (which will essentially call it from the Finder). You can run it from the shell with the osascript command. e.g.:
osascript -e 'tell application "Stupid App" to quit' osascript/path/to/applescript_script_as_text
You can pass data back to the shell by including a return statement in your AppleScript code (something like a subroutine in some languages).
In the same way, you can call a shell command/script from AppleScript without having to invoke the Terminal app (or ever even seeing from the user perspective that anything but AppleScript was ever used). Use the do shell script command. e.g.:
set up_time to (do shell script "uptime") display dialog up_time
And it'll display the results of the uptime command in a typical GUI dialog box without the user ever seeing a CLI.
Seamlessly passing data back and forth between AppleScript and shell processes is a beautiful and useful thing for writing scripts to adjust CLI parameters for users that are CLI-phobic.
Of course, it is not completely unbiased, but you should be able to figure which articles are right and which are not.
This is *so* true. Because if you're looking something up in an encyclopedia, it's because you already know everything about the subject and can determine its veracity.
As a follow up to my previous post, I do agree with your point (I believe it's your point) that people need dictionaries in their native language in order to express themselves more clearly in their secondary languages.
But (and here I'll diverge from your view)...if you can only publish it in one language...use a language that is widely used internationally. I think that English fits that mold fairly well.
Equating "cultured" and "multilingual" is laughable. If you're European you know several languages because you need to know them.
Many of the EU countries are about the size of a U.S. state. So you travel between countries like we travel between states. And when you do, you need to know a new language to communicate there.
We don't need to know a different language every time we travel a couple hundred miles from home. And so most don't.
If all of Europe spoke the same language, I'm betting most Europeans would be monolingual as well. The environment causes the multilingual effect...not some great "culture".
You don't get out of the big city much do you? Even after decades of paved roads there are many areas of the country that are barely paved, badly paved, or not paved at all. The idea that "all roads will be autodrive only" when we can't even get all roads well paved seems a pipe dream.
It comes out to about 1.5 cents...not a one-hundredth of a cent.
You're still right about it being an insignificant amount, but it's 150 times more significant than your calculator said.
Still, you have to take into account the cost of RFID readers for each pharmacy.
A quick search on RFID readers shows them to be between $90 and $1,500, with most falling around the $600 range. Let's assume a pharmacy only sells 100 prescriptions a month (probably not unreasonable for any place outside of Mayberry). If they spread the RFID reader cost out over the first year, then they only add about 50 cents to the price per prescription (and as high as $1.25).
So the grand total extra cost of your prescription is $.52 - $1.27. That doesn't seem very significant in a world where prescriptions cost dozens of dollars.
If it was my life on the line, I'd pay a dollar and a quarter to ensure I got the medicine that would keep me alive instead of one that was switched out by a greedy supplier. If your life isn't worth $1.27, then don't buy the medicine.
And don't forget to add to the cost of medicine the extra tax used to pay for the "universal health care" that guarantees these low medication costs in Canada and Europe. If you do that, is it ever really cheaper?
Slashdot Mirror
I know they did. I still visit there regularly. But I still remember the "good ol' days".
Am I missing something? If you're on vacation camping, nobody's going to make you get up or go to bed at any certain hour...DST isn't giving you any more or less daylight than you would have without it.
As for DST's usefulness during workdays...I hate it. I have to try and adjust my body's rhythm twice a year and it gains me nothing. Between long work days and long commutes, it doesn't matter what the clock is set to. It will be dark (or close to it) when I get home.
I grew up without DST (in Indiana) and somehow we lived. We got everything done that needed done. We had plenty of daylight to play and work and shop and so on. Maybe we were just more efficient in Indiana than the rest of the world. I hope everybody else catches up someday.
I would argue that most people are already paying on a mortgage that is at or near their financial limits. How could they possibly add 15% (plus interest)...let alone 100%? I know I couldn't add 50% - 100% to my mortgage and hope to stay afloat. Even 15% would be pushing it sometimes. On a loan with a decent interest rate, that $100k is going to cost almost $7,000 a year. That's a lot of extra money to come up with where I live: not even covered by my company's "cost of living" raises each year.
BTW...there are lots of places in rural U.S. where 3 bedroom bungalows don't even cost $100k (unless you have to have a brand new house)..and 6-digit salaries are the exception rather than the rule. In those cases it would more than double the price of the home to add this solar system and probably price a lot of people out of a home that were able to buy one before.
It's a nice thing to do if you can afford it, but I doubt that most people could.
yes.
Unfortunately, even that is somewhat of a catch-22. If the local government isn't getting the income to pay for the programs, roads, employees, etc. from the cable companies, then they have to get the money from somewhere. Let's guess who's checkbook those taxes will be pulled from. It's gonna cost us in either money or communication/entertainment options.
Of course, if it's being paid by the cable companies, they're just passing on the expense to the consumers and they're paying for it anyway...an indirect tax. But at least it's only the people who actually use it who are paying. (That would be somebody besides me.)
I don't think there's any winning no matter which way you go here.
Um...so you could be Singing in the Rain of course.
And yet we're forced to do both once a year. [Insert whine about the pointlessness of daylight savings time.]
That button is no "F5"...it's the up volume. If you want "F5" you need to press "fn" and that button. Then it will work (the same as command-r) in Firefox and MSIE at least. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in Safari. But unless you're on a desktop system, or have a full keyboard hooked up to your laptop, it's no easier than pressing command-r anyway.
In English there is one:
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
If you want to get Biblical:
"...by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." (Jesus in Matthew 7:2)
I think a lot of cultures have phrases that carry that basic feeling that what goes around comes around (see, there's another one).
"Observed results" are based on the theory that our five senses are reliably able to observe reality.
I think the point being made is that if you have to have one power cable for the monitor anyway, why not use the iMac with its one power cable and not have to worry about your power running out in only two hours.
And here I was just happy that he hadn't stepped on my pet peeve and misspelled "braking". As often as I hear on /. about people breaking their cars, I'm surprised there are any vehicles left to brake at stop signs.
I'm not sure what "competitive means to you, but to me it means within 5% - 10% at the most. Not "costs 60% more in a best case scenario" and "166% more for 'average industrial cost'". I think your definition of "competitive" needs some rethinking. I probably pay around $800 / year for electricity now. I'm sure I could find a better use for the $480 - $1,328 more I would be paying every year for solar. 160% - 266% of what I'm paying now is not competitive by any stretch.
(Note: These comparisons are based on the 7.5c average listed above. I'm actually getting my electricity at an avg. of about 6.2c, so any differences are even more in my favor.)
They weren't being asked to show that something didn't exist. They were being asked to show that something known to exist had been destroyed. If you destroyed the drugs in your room, you could offer the charred remains or chemically neutralized results as proof of their destruction.
You can pass data back to the shell by including a return statement in your AppleScript code (something like a subroutine in some languages). In the same way, you can call a shell command/script from AppleScript without having to invoke the Terminal app (or ever even seeing from the user perspective that anything but AppleScript was ever used). Use the do shell script command. e.g.:And it'll display the results of the uptime command in a typical GUI dialog box without the user ever seeing a CLI.
Seamlessly passing data back and forth between AppleScript and shell processes is a beautiful and useful thing for writing scripts to adjust CLI parameters for users that are CLI-phobic.
From the Specs:
Interface
Four high-speed USB 2.0 A connectors (for external USB devices).
As a follow up to my previous post, I do agree with your point (I believe it's your point) that people need dictionaries in their native language in order to express themselves more clearly in their secondary languages.
But (and here I'll diverge from your view)...if you can only publish it in one language...use a language that is widely used internationally. I think that English fits that mold fairly well.
Equating "cultured" and "multilingual" is laughable. If you're European you know several languages because you need to know them.
Many of the EU countries are about the size of a U.S. state. So you travel between countries like we travel between states. And when you do, you need to know a new language to communicate there.
We don't need to know a different language every time we travel a couple hundred miles from home. And so most don't.
If all of Europe spoke the same language, I'm betting most Europeans would be monolingual as well. The environment causes the multilingual effect...not some great "culture".
--Eravau (a bi-lingual American)
Thank you. I just had the best laugh I've had in a long time. I had to stiffle it a bit to keep from disturbing my office mates.
You don't get out of the big city much do you? Even after decades of paved roads there are many areas of the country that are barely paved, badly paved, or not paved at all. The idea that "all roads will be autodrive only" when we can't even get all roads well paved seems a pipe dream.
I can't imagine why anyone who doesn't value their lives at more than $1.00 would be wasting their money on medication anyway.
It comes out to about 1.5 cents...not a one-hundredth of a cent.
You're still right about it being an insignificant amount, but it's 150 times more significant than your calculator said.
Still, you have to take into account the cost of RFID readers for each pharmacy.
A quick search on RFID readers shows them to be between $90 and $1,500, with most falling around the $600 range. Let's assume a pharmacy only sells 100 prescriptions a month (probably not unreasonable for any place outside of Mayberry). If they spread the RFID reader cost out over the first year, then they only add about 50 cents to the price per prescription (and as high as $1.25).
So the grand total extra cost of your prescription is $.52 - $1.27. That doesn't seem very significant in a world where prescriptions cost dozens of dollars.
If it was my life on the line, I'd pay a dollar and a quarter to ensure I got the medicine that would keep me alive instead of one that was switched out by a greedy supplier. If your life isn't worth $1.27, then don't buy the medicine.
And don't forget to add to the cost of medicine the extra tax used to pay for the "universal health care" that guarantees these low medication costs in Canada and Europe. If you do that, is it ever really cheaper?
I'll take one, please:
[tony.colter]
[at]
[tonycolter.com]
(Remove the [brackets])