I'm not surprised - there have been many cases where people say cannabis improves their concentration, or makes things seem slower.
Lastly I suspect if people grow cannabis with phosphate fertilizers there'll be the same polonium/radioactivity problem there is with tobacco - e.g. it'll become unhealthier to smoke.
I prefer polarized sunglasses or clip-ons. They cut out the glare a lot better - especially the very annoying and bright "sun reflected off other car windscreens".
Even leaves tend to look greener (since most of the reflections are blocked). Plus it's easier to look through the car windscreens to see other cars ahead.
The technology has improved since. My plastic lenses seem rather scratch resistant. I've dropped them a few times etc, and they are still ok.
If you are keen on surgery, don't do it yet. Hold out till the intra-ocular lens technology improves further. No point doing the keratomy stuff, since most people's natural eye lenses will harden/stiffen with age.
The current tech is OK, but my guess is the ranges of accommodation (diopters) will increase. You might even be able to get better than 20/20 vision:).
Uh, they do that. There are thousands of laws. Many not enforced in practice.
If they enforced them all, they might not even get out of their neighborhood. Might be a bit like Robocop when he was loaded with hundreds of directives:).
According to the laws in Michigan, committing adultery would get you a life sentence. Seems the courts and prosecutors there are talking about repealing the relevant law. So that's selective prosecution as well.
But you know, maybe one should take a poll of betrayed spouses (and maybe even their children) and ask them what their opinion on adultery is. Do they view it as less or more negative than being mugged at gunpoint? How about being beaten up (but resulting in no broken bones or major scarring)? I won't be surprised if many of them would get over being mugged at gunpoint far more easily.
The average sentence for robbery in the 1st degree when armed with a deadly weapon (not necessarily a gun) appears to be 10 years.
Of course one has to factor in that a robber could in theory more easily rob more people than a person could commit adultery with. Perhaps a robber is a danger to more people and thus should be put in jail for longer?
Well if I'm a cop, even if someone said something "Someone stole my domain", I'd have to verify that I heard correctly, and I'd also have to verify the _intended_ meaning of that sentence. Especially if they want me to come to their location...
After all there are all sorts[1] of people in the world who might contact a police officer. It's hard to be sure what they actually said and meant.
[1] Which is why it's a big problem if cops are often in scenarios where for their own safety they have to tase or assault people who appear to be uncooperative. There are lots of people who can appear uncooperative - they could be deaf for instance. Maybe in the Good Old Days the cops could approach the person and in more cases nobody ends up hurt.
But I can't figure out the power consumption from that document - there are no units in the relevant graphs. And that doesn't include the fans/blowers.
> The SM58 is a stage mic. It produces sound that is usable for demos or a "raw" sound for punk. For vocals, you will be needing something a lot better that has the headroom and audio fidelity that professional audio requires.
Professional audio maybe.
But commercial audio is what is produced nowadays. Most people seem happy to listen to mp3s of recordings that have had their dynamic range compressed.
It's a waste to spend lots of money recording stuff at 24 bit @ 96 kilosamples/sec only to compress it to a 48dB range for "easy listening".
I guess they're expecting all of us to learn to drive a bit like the way commercial airline pilots fly.
Go through check list before take off. Not enough fuel including reserves for emergencies (and allowing for weather)? No go. Always keep in mind potential "landing spots" in case "stuff happens".
That's not really a bad thing, but I doubt they're going to get enough "buy in".
Lastly, I can still easily travel for 40 miles after that "fuel warning" light comes on in my car. About 10 litres left = 80km left (assuming 8km/litre).
Turn off airconditioning if I'm stuck in a traffic jam? That's crazy talk. I'll keep my old battered petrol powered car then, thank you very much.
If we all wanted to sweat all the way to work, we'd all be cycling or walking.
I only do that "turn off aircond to save power" thing if my fuel tank gauge shows "below E". And even in that scenario I can probably squeeze out half the max range of a typical battery powered car.
It takes about 2-5kW to run a car airconditioner (from the figures Toyota give for their Prius).
That's a significant amount for a battery powered car (especially one with a pathetic 160km range in "rose tinted scenarios"). Not so much for a petrol powered car.
When batteries store more and become cheaper, I might get myself an EV - it'll make sense then. But as long as EVs with decent performance cost the same as "petrol car + 10 years of fuel" they do not make sense.
Maybe when China also gets into the game the pace might increase. They're going into nuclear energy in a _huge_ way, so electric vehicles would make good sense for them too. I'm sure they are busy buying up the necessary resource rights for making batteries and other necessary goodies (good idea to spend their USD while it's worth more).
> Despite mixing (Loudly)for 20 + years I have no hearing damage!
Maybe you're tougher or more resilient. But have you actually had your hearing tested?
I know a musician who went to get tested and he found that there are some frequencies in the normal range that he totally cannot hear - I guess the relevant hair cells have been blasted to death. But his hearing is still reasonably functional (I'm sure he did notice some problems that's why he went to get tested).
It doesn't get better with age though (unless the technology improves a lot;) ).
On my own self tests my hearing is crap. I don't think I have a 90dB dynamic range - I think it's more like 50-60dB:(. But at least I can still hear 18KHz though I'm in my 30s.
The hearing damage thing can be a vicious circle - you get damaged, so you turn up the volume on your headphones, then you get even more damaged.
Ears aren't as easily damaged by very loud and very low bass. Unless it gets to ridiculously loud levels, in which case there are also other risks e.g. ruptured lungs http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3614180.stm
Post some of your stuff on Youtube, link to Amazon or wherever people can buy more of your stuff, get your friends to spread the word. If you're good enough, you get new fans and maybe even sales.
If Amazon steps up to the task they could be more _useful_ than those snobbish critics. e.g. "Others who bought Britney Spears latest stuff also bought X" Many critics might not like Ms. Spears, but it's clear she has many fans.
The unfortunate fact is, most people aren't good enough to capture such a huge market share.
The musician industry is like tennis and other "Star" industries. The top 10 at anytime get most of the mind share. That said, it's not as bad as tennis - since if you're not as obscure even if you're the number 412th most famous "pop artist" in the world.
> unless the band is willing to turn down on stage, and let me tell you that virtually never happens
Yeah, because a band that plays that loud is usually extremely hearing impaired. If they turn it down they won't be able to hear themselves.
So kids, if you do that "band thing" remember to use ear protection. Too bad so many musicians think they don't need it. Many end up being so deaf that they have problems hearing stuff even when the monitors are at max.
In the racing industry the professionals don't think they're too cool to wear safety gear. Yes it does negatively affect their performance a bit, but it's worth it in the long term.
> Did you not read the etymology section of those definitions? You see the relationship between the two words and didn't look into it a bit more?
I did, but did you even understand what you read and wrote?
As you said it was a term used for STDs since the 1600s. It was most certainly not a term used for the meaning the OP claimed. To quote the OP: "The proper adjective form to refer to the 2nd solar planet is not Venusian".
So even in the 1600s when you're actually referring to things of the _actual_ planet, you don't say venereal, since if you said venereal you'd be talking about STDs.
My guess is in the 1600s "venereal" was a slightly more euphemistic term. Sounds better to say your disease was "of the Planet of Love", than to say that you caught it from a prostitute.
In 2009 venereal is not such an euphemistic term, but it still is not used to refer to things of the actual planet Venus, which if you notice is the planet the Slashdot story is referring to.
Try to keep up OK? I know reading is very hard for some people, but practice helps.
Yep. If I see a tiger on the street, I'll discriminate against it based on the track record of tigers in general. Too bad it was born a tiger and can't do anything about that.
I'd treat it differently if we meet in a different scenario and find it's not like other tigers.
It doesn't help the blacks that so many black kids want to be "gangstas" when they grow up, and if black kids do well in school they get accused by their peers of not being black enough.
Anecdotally I know of at least one African black in the USA who was told by his parents to not to be like the American blacks (especially the "gangsta culture").
The gangsta culture is a disease that's infecting and weakening the blacks.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe there's some research to indicate that at low doses the driving actually improves. At higher doses the driving gets worse.
See: http://www.autoweb.co.uk/article/675
I'm not surprised - there have been many cases where people say cannabis improves their concentration, or makes things seem slower.
Lastly I suspect if people grow cannabis with phosphate fertilizers there'll be the same polonium/radioactivity problem there is with tobacco - e.g. it'll become unhealthier to smoke.
I prefer polarized sunglasses or clip-ons. They cut out the glare a lot better - especially the very annoying and bright "sun reflected off other car windscreens".
Even leaves tend to look greener (since most of the reflections are blocked). Plus it's easier to look through the car windscreens to see other cars ahead.
Car analogy: starting a car.
In the old days you had to turn the engine manually to start it.
Nowadays there's an electric motor that does the dirty work for you.
The technology has improved since. My plastic lenses seem rather scratch resistant. I've dropped them a few times etc, and they are still ok.
:).
If you are keen on surgery, don't do it yet. Hold out till the intra-ocular lens technology improves further. No point doing the keratomy stuff, since most people's natural eye lenses will harden/stiffen with age.
The current tech is OK, but my guess is the ranges of accommodation (diopters) will increase. You might even be able to get better than 20/20 vision
Uh, they do that. There are thousands of laws. Many not enforced in practice.
If they enforced them all, they might not even get out of their neighborhood. Might be a bit like Robocop when he was loaded with hundreds of directives :).
According to the laws in Michigan, committing adultery would get you a life sentence. Seems the courts and prosecutors there are talking about repealing the relevant law. So that's selective prosecution as well.
But you know, maybe one should take a poll of betrayed spouses (and maybe even their children) and ask them what their opinion on adultery is. Do they view it as less or more negative than being mugged at gunpoint? How about being beaten up (but resulting in no broken bones or major scarring)? I won't be surprised if many of them would get over being mugged at gunpoint far more easily.
The average sentence for robbery in the 1st degree when armed with a deadly weapon (not necessarily a gun) appears to be 10 years.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/olr/htm/2000-r-0510.htm
Of course one has to factor in that a robber could in theory more easily rob more people than a person could commit adultery with. Perhaps a robber is a danger to more people and thus should be put in jail for longer?
At least 1 million people might care?
They sold at least 1.4 million copies in the first week of release.
Maybe it means she should start her own business? :)
She might as well, since she just made herself even more unemployable.
Who'd want to hire you, if you get a 2.7 and then sue your college because you haven't managed to get a job after 3 months?
If the college mistakenly gave her a 2.7 when she should have got something better, but refused to fix it, then sure sue.
But that's because it's not standard procedure for garbagemen to tase uncooperative garbage cans from a safe distance.
:)
The cops are doing what they think is the safe thing (for them anyway).
Well if I'm a cop, even if someone said something "Someone stole my domain", I'd have to verify that I heard correctly, and I'd also have to verify the _intended_ meaning of that sentence. Especially if they want me to come to their location...
After all there are all sorts[1] of people in the world who might contact a police officer. It's hard to be sure what they actually said and meant.
[1] Which is why it's a big problem if cops are often in scenarios where for their own safety they have to tase or assault people who appear to be uncooperative. There are lots of people who can appear uncooperative - they could be deaf for instance. Maybe in the Good Old Days the cops could approach the person and in more cases nobody ends up hurt.
So far that's what I see:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9984384-54.html
Maybe it's 5kW to start and 2kW to run.
The compressor has a cooling performance of 3.4kW, according to: http://www.epa.gov/cppd/Presentations/Matsunaga%20electric%20inverter.pdf
But I can't figure out the power consumption from that document - there are no units in the relevant graphs. And that doesn't include the fans/blowers.
Yeah it's a bad law.
> Nobody's forcing them to surf around the Internet at random
Spam is invasive though.
I'm fine with them jailing fraudsters.
Is Youtube sustainable though?
Would be a shame if they go bust and there's no replacement.
For one it'll be harder to listen to some random guitarist play in a bar in Singapore: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-g45767Tbk
> The SM58 is a stage mic. It produces sound that is usable for demos or a "raw" sound for punk. For vocals, you will be needing something a lot better that has the headroom and audio fidelity that professional audio requires.
Professional audio maybe.
But commercial audio is what is produced nowadays. Most people seem happy to listen to mp3s of recordings that have had their dynamic range compressed.
It's a waste to spend lots of money recording stuff at 24 bit @ 96 kilosamples/sec only to compress it to a 48dB range for "easy listening".
You only get a max of 1 kilowatt of sunlight per square metre, at noon, at the equator, on a clear day. At other times you only get 400-600 watts.
If you have 30% efficiency panels that makes it 120-300W. Enough to spin a few fans/blowers, but not enough to run the heat pump.
Better than nothing I guess, but the solar panels are rather expensive too.
The big plus I can see is the fans can be kept running even while the car is parked, that'll help stop the car from becoming an oven.
I guess they're expecting all of us to learn to drive a bit like the way commercial airline pilots fly.
Go through check list before take off. Not enough fuel including reserves for emergencies (and allowing for weather)? No go.
Always keep in mind potential "landing spots" in case "stuff happens".
That's not really a bad thing, but I doubt they're going to get enough "buy in".
Lastly, I can still easily travel for 40 miles after that "fuel warning" light comes on in my car. About 10 litres left = 80km left (assuming 8km/litre).
Turn off airconditioning if I'm stuck in a traffic jam? That's crazy talk. I'll keep my old battered petrol powered car then, thank you very much.
If we all wanted to sweat all the way to work, we'd all be cycling or walking.
I only do that "turn off aircond to save power" thing if my fuel tank gauge shows "below E". And even in that scenario I can probably squeeze out half the max range of a typical battery powered car.
It takes about 2-5kW to run a car airconditioner (from the figures Toyota give for their Prius).
That's a significant amount for a battery powered car (especially one with a pathetic 160km range in "rose tinted scenarios"). Not so much for a petrol powered car.
When batteries store more and become cheaper, I might get myself an EV - it'll make sense then. But as long as EVs with decent performance cost the same as "petrol car + 10 years of fuel" they do not make sense.
Maybe when China also gets into the game the pace might increase. They're going into nuclear energy in a _huge_ way, so electric vehicles would make good sense for them too. I'm sure they are busy buying up the necessary resource rights for making batteries and other necessary goodies (good idea to spend their USD while it's worth more).
> Despite mixing (Loudly)for 20 + years I have no hearing damage!
Maybe you're tougher or more resilient. But have you actually had your hearing tested?
I know a musician who went to get tested and he found that there are some frequencies in the normal range that he totally cannot hear - I guess the relevant hair cells have been blasted to death. But his hearing is still reasonably functional (I'm sure he did notice some problems that's why he went to get tested).
It doesn't get better with age though (unless the technology improves a lot ;) ).
On my own self tests my hearing is crap. I don't think I have a 90dB dynamic range - I think it's more like 50-60dB :(. But at least I can still hear 18KHz though I'm in my 30s.
The hearing damage thing can be a vicious circle - you get damaged, so you turn up the volume on your headphones, then you get even more damaged.
Ears aren't as easily damaged by very loud and very low bass. Unless it gets to ridiculously loud levels, in which case there are also other risks e.g. ruptured lungs http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3614180.stm
Word of mouth works pretty well nowadays.
Post some of your stuff on Youtube, link to Amazon or wherever people can buy more of your stuff, get your friends to spread the word. If you're good enough, you get new fans and maybe even sales.
If Amazon steps up to the task they could be more _useful_ than those snobbish critics. e.g. "Others who bought Britney Spears latest stuff also bought X"
Many critics might not like Ms. Spears, but it's clear she has many fans.
The unfortunate fact is, most people aren't good enough to capture such a huge market share.
The musician industry is like tennis and other "Star" industries. The top 10 at anytime get most of the mind share. That said, it's not as bad as tennis - since if you're not as obscure even if you're the number 412th most famous "pop artist" in the world.
> unless the band is willing to turn down on stage, and let me tell you that virtually never happens
Yeah, because a band that plays that loud is usually extremely hearing impaired. If they turn it down they won't be able to hear themselves.
So kids, if you do that "band thing" remember to use ear protection. Too bad so many musicians think they don't need it. Many end up being so deaf that they have problems hearing stuff even when the monitors are at max.
In the racing industry the professionals don't think they're too cool to wear safety gear. Yes it does negatively affect their performance a bit, but it's worth it in the long term.
Football players? That's a waste.
:).
Why not send a few politicians? With options for "return" and "one way".
Create a reality show to fund it - "Vote Them Off The Planet".
For those who tend to miss the forest for the trees, please read "Planet of Love" as "Goddess of Love" in my above post.
> Did you not read the etymology section of those definitions? You see the relationship between the two words and didn't look into it a bit more?
I did, but did you even understand what you read and wrote?
As you said it was a term used for STDs since the 1600s. It was most certainly not a term used for the meaning the OP claimed. To quote the OP: "The proper adjective form to refer to the 2nd solar planet is not Venusian".
So even in the 1600s when you're actually referring to things of the _actual_ planet, you don't say venereal, since if you said venereal you'd be talking about STDs.
My guess is in the 1600s "venereal" was a slightly more euphemistic term. Sounds better to say your disease was "of the Planet of Love", than to say that you caught it from a prostitute.
In 2009 venereal is not such an euphemistic term, but it still is not used to refer to things of the actual planet Venus, which if you notice is the planet the Slashdot story is referring to.
Try to keep up OK? I know reading is very hard for some people, but practice helps.
Not according to these:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/venereal
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venereal
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/venereal
If it is, it must be a very obscure reference. I doubt you'd be able to use it and convey the meaning you claimed.
> Discrimination is not a bad thing.
Yep. If I see a tiger on the street, I'll discriminate against it based on the track record of tigers in general. Too bad it was born a tiger and can't do anything about that.
I'd treat it differently if we meet in a different scenario and find it's not like other tigers.
It doesn't help the blacks that so many black kids want to be "gangstas" when they grow up, and if black kids do well in school they get accused by their peers of not being black enough.
Anecdotally I know of at least one African black in the USA who was told by his parents to not to be like the American blacks (especially the "gangsta culture").
The gangsta culture is a disease that's infecting and weakening the blacks.