Drive home in the dark? Surely not from work, because if that were the case DST does nothing to help the 5-7pm commute since you're already in daylight at that time of year anyway.
Not where I live. On the winter solstice sundown is at 5:04pm where I live. That means I'm driving home in the dark without DST.
If you don't want to drive home in the dark then you would be best to simply advance your time zone by one hour permanently so you get an extra hour of daylight in Winter, when you actually need it.
In case you hadn't noticed, that is exactly what DST does.
I'd like to see DST disappear, and a system of time zones based on lines of longitude. Every 15 degrees of longitude from the IDL being an additional hour of timezone offset.
That causes even more problems. You get weird effects like half of a town being on one time zone and the other half being and hour different. If you think that isn't a problem I can introduce you to some folks who live right next the the border of a time zone. Trust me, it's a problem and it's a bigger problem if it doesn't follow municipal or preferably state boundaries. I used to work at a company that had a plant in Indiana back when the state was bisected between EST and CST. It caused no end of headaches.
Knowing the timezone for a particular place would become dead simple. Know the location and you know the timezone.
I don' t know a single person aside from a few surveyors who could tell you what their longitude is. That's not something anyone who isn't a pilot or ship navigator pays attention to.
At the latitude where I live, the sun sets after 2100 PDT in the summer. That would still be 2000 PST, with an hour and a half of twilight after that. What more do people want?
I want exactly that. I want it to be light as long into the evening as practical.
In the winter the sun sets at 1600 PST. Even 1700 PDT wouldn't buy much, particularly since that would mean sunrise at 0900 PDT.
It would buy me an hour of daylight during my waking hours in the winter. It's depressing going to work when it is dark and coming home when it is dark again.
The whole premise of daylight saving time is that you have an extra hour of daylight in the morning
Umm, no. It is so you have an extra hour of daylight in the evening. Spring FORWARD. That means 8pm becomes 9pm. Without DST the sun would set where I live at 8pm instead of 9pm. I will happily sacrifice an hour of darkness in the morning to gain it after work where it is actually useful to me.
This results in Florida staying at GMT +5, which is the same as EST now.
That's because Florida IS in the east. Except for some of the panhandle most of Florida is east of Michigan which is in EST and even the most western parts of Florida are no further west than Chicago which is close to the eastern edge of the Central time zone.
I'm also heartily sick of changing the time on like a dozen gadgets twice a year.
All my clocks except for the one on my microwave adjust automatically. All my computers, phones, wall clocks, etc. Time to upgrade I guess.
Belive it or not, the days were as long, and the weather as nice without federal legislation.
Believe it or not our clock system is arbitrary so we should set it to the way that makes us the happiest.
What good will that do? It's dark when I get up and without DST it's dark when I get home too. I don't get to pick my work hours and DST maximizes the daylight I do get.
But DST is a hangover from the stone age and should be abolished.
Daylight Saving Time is a less than 100 years old. The first implementation was in 1916 in Germany.
You don't think that bright sunlight streaming into bedrooms for an extra hour all summer won't screw with peoples' sleep cycles even more?
Unless you go to bed before 9PM that is a non-problem. And yes I LIKE it to be light out as long as possible in the evening. Where I live sundown is around 9PM during the summer solstice and I love it. What I don't like is having it be dark when I go to work AND when I get home. That's just depressing...
I hear a lot of complaining about daylight savings time, but I really don't hear much in the way of support in favor of it.
That's because people tend to be loud if they don't like something but tend not to say much if they either like it or don't care. After all - what's the point of cheering for DST since that is what we already have? Yea for the status quo?
Personally I wish we would go to Daylight Saving Time year around. I want as much time with sunlight after work as possible. When we shift back to standard time I go to work when it's dark and come home when it is dark. With DST I would at least get an hour or so of daylight in the winter.
Well, then, you should check out MOND, which is a gravitational model, which fits really well most (but not all) of the observations, and is still hanging in there by the skin of its teeth (due to the other observations).
There is no model I am aware of (and yes I'm aware of MOND) that reconciles relativity with the Standard Model. If someone had worked out such a model we would be hearing about it and there would be Nobel prizes involved. Such a breakthrough would be huge news. Some very smart folks are working hard on it but so far the definitive answer has been elusive.
No clue who this Tyson guy is but either he, or you, have confused Dark Energy with Dark Matter.
Then you should spend 20 seconds on Wikipedia before making an idiot of yourself in public by not knowing who one of the most famous astrophyscists in the world is. Here's a clue - watch the series Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. He certainly isn't confused about the difference between dark matter and dark energy and I'm pretty certain I'm not confused either.
Physics is not determined by majority vote...
I don't recall anyone claiming that it was.
...but I very strongly suspect that the numbers will come down massively in favour of Dark Matter being an exotic form of matter by which I mean some as yet undiscovered particle.
Based on what evidence? You might be right and it may very well be exotic matter but like you said it isn't a vote. Show me any credible evidence that favors exotic matter over a flaw in the model or vice-versa. Science works on proof so go get some. Until then I remain skeptical.
No disrespect to them, but these guys weren't explorers.
That is very disrespectful to them and they most certainly were/are explorers. Being a test pilot is most definitely a form of exploration. You think those aircraft are safe the moment they roll out of the factory? You think that anything involving spaceflight is routine? That's pretty clueless. They were flying an unproven aircraft which is part of an unproven space launch platform. If that isn't exploration then nothing is.
I thank the explorers who take these risks, sometimes at the cost of their lives. Without them the world would be a much smaller and worse place. It's hard to even imagine the courage it must take to cross an ocean to an unknown continent or to fly into space. People who do these things have my everlasting respect.
Nothing really. Just a hunch. But nobody else really seems to know either so I put the odds at 50/50 either way.
Indeed the last time we had a problem like this - the non-conservation of energy in beta decay - the solution was a missing particle and not a rewrite of the laws of physics.
There are times when the model is wrong and there are times when there is a physical discovery. Easy to show examples of both. General relativity was an example of an improved model. Your example is a great example of a missing part particle (new discovery). Both occur. When it comes to dark matter/energy I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me one way or the other. I have a hunch that the answer will lie in the model but that's just a hunch. I'm guessing that when we figure out how to reconcile general relativity to the Standard Model that a bunch of things like dark matter will fall out as a second order effect. Of course I could be completely wrong...
Waiting half an hour to buy a ticket for about ten bucks
I have NEVER waited more than about 5 minutes for a movie ticket ever. Not once in over 40 years.
then suffering for 3 hours in 100+ degrees heat
Ohh bullshit. Movie theaters are almost always too cold if anything.
Anyone still masochist enough for that "authentic experience"?
We can talk about it when you actually describe one. I get people not liking the experience at a movie theater but it's nothing like the nonsense you were claiming.
As an example that worked out -- the neutrino was originally proposed as an unobserved, mysterious matter particle to avoid having to modify the laws of conservation of momentum and energy when applied to nuclear beta decays.
All I'm saying is that "dark matter" may or may not turn out to be matter at all. Nobody really seems to know at all. We have some observations that don't fit our models. That is good because it gives us something to look for. What's bad is that we are invoking some mysterious exotic "matter" with no actual model to explain what we are seeing. We should simply be saying it is a mystery rather than saying there "must be matter we cannot see". Maybe there is but that's not the only possible explanation.
A lot of physicists, including Neil deGrasse Tyson, have said that "Dark Matter" is actually a pretty poor name for the phenomenon because it's almost certainly not just some exotic form of matter
Unfortunately a lot more physicists talk about dark matter (in public anyway) as if it is actually matter of some sort despite the fact that we have no actual direct evidence that such a thing actually exists. Now maybe dark matter really does exist but all we have right now are some observations that don't match our models. Could be that our powers of observation are simply too limited in some way right now OR it could just as easily mean we have a flawed math model. I tend to think the latter is significantly more likely but obviously cannot rule out the former.
Physicists and scientists in general though are pretty bad at explaining concepts to the general public. I'm more educated than most people are with regard to physics and I have yet to find an explanation of the Standard Model that is even vaguely approachable to a layman such as myself. They also are pretty bad at communicating where the lines between what we know and what we do not know actually are.
Dark matter accounts for something like 90% of the gravitational effects that we see.
I've always suspected that "dark matter" very likely isn't matter at all. I suspect it is simply a gap in our model similar to how relativity filled in gaps for Newtonian mechanics. Dark matter (and dark energy) are basically placeholders for observations that do not match our model. That means one of two things. Either there is something we haven't observed yet OR there is something missing from our model. Both are quite possible but we seem fixated on that former when it could very easily be the later.
I actually do have some background in physics (college minor and worked in some research labs) and I've never have any "real" physicist give me a satisfactory explanation as to why invoking some mysterious matter/energy is a more likely answer than a gap in our models. We understand gravity probably the least of the four forces and we don't have a model that integrates it into our Standard Model. Seems to me that the place to look may very well be in the math rather than in the stars.
Apple has had plenty of flops over the years. Newton, Lisa, Apple III, Pippin, Macintosh TV, QuickTake, the 20th Anniversary Mac, the ROKR E1 phone, Ping, and more besides.
Apple sells a lot of stuff because they normally make pretty good products but people don't buy shit solely because it has an Apple logo on it.
But I'm on a 15 minute schedule so taking my phone out of my pocket and looking at it all the time would be a pain in the ass.
So look at the clock on the wall or the one on your PC or the one in your car or the one on your appliances...
Maybe it's different for you but I rarely find myself without a clock of some sort within eyeshot unless I'm actively exercising outdoors. Not to say watches aren't useful in the right circumstances but they really don't help me track time in my routine day any better than I already do.
Will millions of people really want to charge and fuss with their watch at least once a day?
Wrong question. Of course they won't want to any more than they want to charge their cell phones nightly. They might do it anyway but they won't want to.
No the real question is whether the device scratches a figurative itch. I know relatively few people my age and younger who regularly wear a watch. Some do but almost never because they actually need to or because it solves a significant problem for them. When I was young wearing a watch had some practical value. Today not so much. Maybe it will be a breakout product but it seems to be a solution in search of a problem to me.
To be honest I haven't seen any smartwatch that really would make me want to add a device or replace the watches I do own. The only real practical value I can see in one is as a chronometer (duh) and a portable sensor package for certain activities like running or health management. I suppose there is a fashion angle to it too. Pack a thermometer, barometer, accelerometer, altimeter, GPS, humistor, gyroscope, photodetector, etc into a compact watch and there are some very awesome uses for that even if the battery life is relatively short. But I cannot really see myself wearing one all the time because my phone already does much of that and is more generally useful to me.
Yes, it will cost a fortune to skip commercials, but that is because the commercials are still tied to the legacy business model. They exist to make money for broadcast television, and have been a solid revenue stream for cable television for decades.
Advertisements make money for both the broadcaster AND for the company doing the advertizing. Ads exist because there is a market for companies that are trying to sell to customers. Broadcast TV is merely the medium and the broadcasters happen to have a platform for reaching customers. This is no different than newspapers or Google. The business model of having a platform to get ads in front of potential customers is alive and well. The only difference is WHICH platform works today. Google and Facebook are on the rise, TV is holding steady and newspapers/magazines are having a tough go of it. But they all have basically the same business model - it's just that certain platforms work better than others and thus are more profitable.
But you do have to sit at your computer and read it, as opposed to listening to it while you put on your clothes and makeup and the like.
Radio and podcasts is better for that plus I can listen to radio or podcasts in my car. Bear in mind that you aren't going to absorb much in the way of news while listening to a broadcast which dressing yourself. You really do have to read to get serious amounts of information in a short time.
How do you get your news , both local and national?
You are staring at it. I get the majority of my news through the internet and some through print and radio. Using TV to get news is a great way to be out of touch if you actually want to know what is going on. TV is really bad at providing context or depth. You need to step out of the 1980s and join us here in the modern world.
Do you not keep up with or care about real news of the world and your local community?
A TV is pretty much the least useful way to keep up with real news most of the time. The internet is faster and has more content. Newspapers and magazines have more depth and usually are more timely. I can listen to the radio while driving. TV wastes a LOT of my time with advertisements and banal fluff pieces. There are times when TV is a great source of coverage but most of the time there are better options out there.
Oh, and it has been documented that many Yogi masters can slow their metabolism to the point that they would appear dead even to most modern medical practitioners without sophisticated tools, much less Roman soldiers.
Citation needed. I don't believe that for a moment unless you can provide a evidence that such an act was performed in front of credible medical practitioners and the results were repeatable and tested. I don't know if you've ever actually seen a dead person but I have and it's not something that could be easily faked.
I've seen plenty of claims of similarly astonishing claims by martial arts "masters" and other charlatans over the years and virtually none of them stand up to proper scientific scrutiny. Most such claims are either puffery or what amounts to stage magic.
Can't think of any explanations for the pillars of salt though.
Because there is no point. The point is that there are plenty of things in the bible that contradict scientific evidence, often quite clearly. You don't even have to look very hard.
Well, it's been repeatedly confirmed that yes, virgins *can* give birth - it's extremely rare, but it does happen
Find me a single confirmed instance of a human virgin giving birth. (and no the one in the bible does not count as confirmed) Or are you really so dense as to not realize we're talking about human birth here? The claim was that "The bible doesn't contradict science" which is easily and demonstrably false. People try to equivocate and claim this bit or that bit is really just literary license but they always do so at a moment that turns out to be oddly convenient to whatever argument they are making at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Drive home in the dark? Surely not from work, because if that were the case DST does nothing to help the 5-7pm commute since you're already in daylight at that time of year anyway.
Not where I live. On the winter solstice sundown is at 5:04pm where I live. That means I'm driving home in the dark without DST.
If you don't want to drive home in the dark then you would be best to simply advance your time zone by one hour permanently so you get an extra hour of daylight in Winter, when you actually need it.
In case you hadn't noticed, that is exactly what DST does.
I'd like to see DST disappear, and a system of time zones based on lines of longitude. Every 15 degrees of longitude from the IDL being an additional hour of timezone offset.
That causes even more problems. You get weird effects like half of a town being on one time zone and the other half being and hour different. If you think that isn't a problem I can introduce you to some folks who live right next the the border of a time zone. Trust me, it's a problem and it's a bigger problem if it doesn't follow municipal or preferably state boundaries. I used to work at a company that had a plant in Indiana back when the state was bisected between EST and CST. It caused no end of headaches.
Knowing the timezone for a particular place would become dead simple. Know the location and you know the timezone.
I don' t know a single person aside from a few surveyors who could tell you what their longitude is. That's not something anyone who isn't a pilot or ship navigator pays attention to.
I think it's completely pointless.
I agree. We should go to DST year around.
At the latitude where I live, the sun sets after 2100 PDT in the summer. That would still be 2000 PST, with an hour and a half of twilight after that. What more do people want?
I want exactly that. I want it to be light as long into the evening as practical.
In the winter the sun sets at 1600 PST. Even 1700 PDT wouldn't buy much, particularly since that would mean sunrise at 0900 PDT.
It would buy me an hour of daylight during my waking hours in the winter. It's depressing going to work when it is dark and coming home when it is dark again.
The whole premise of daylight saving time is that you have an extra hour of daylight in the morning
Umm, no. It is so you have an extra hour of daylight in the evening. Spring FORWARD. That means 8pm becomes 9pm. Without DST the sun would set where I live at 8pm instead of 9pm. I will happily sacrifice an hour of darkness in the morning to gain it after work where it is actually useful to me.
This results in Florida staying at GMT +5, which is the same as EST now.
That's because Florida IS in the east. Except for some of the panhandle most of Florida is east of Michigan which is in EST and even the most western parts of Florida are no further west than Chicago which is close to the eastern edge of the Central time zone.
I'm also heartily sick of changing the time on like a dozen gadgets twice a year.
All my clocks except for the one on my microwave adjust automatically. All my computers, phones, wall clocks, etc. Time to upgrade I guess.
Belive it or not, the days were as long, and the weather as nice without federal legislation.
Believe it or not our clock system is arbitrary so we should set it to the way that makes us the happiest.
If it turns your crank, get up an hour early.
What good will that do? It's dark when I get up and without DST it's dark when I get home too. I don't get to pick my work hours and DST maximizes the daylight I do get.
But DST is a hangover from the stone age and should be abolished.
Daylight Saving Time is a less than 100 years old. The first implementation was in 1916 in Germany.
You don't think that bright sunlight streaming into bedrooms for an extra hour all summer won't screw with peoples' sleep cycles even more?
Unless you go to bed before 9PM that is a non-problem. And yes I LIKE it to be light out as long as possible in the evening. Where I live sundown is around 9PM during the summer solstice and I love it. What I don't like is having it be dark when I go to work AND when I get home. That's just depressing...
I hear a lot of complaining about daylight savings time, but I really don't hear much in the way of support in favor of it.
That's because people tend to be loud if they don't like something but tend not to say much if they either like it or don't care. After all - what's the point of cheering for DST since that is what we already have? Yea for the status quo?
Personally I wish we would go to Daylight Saving Time year around. I want as much time with sunlight after work as possible. When we shift back to standard time I go to work when it's dark and come home when it is dark. With DST I would at least get an hour or so of daylight in the winter.
Kind of gives a new meaning to giving the cops the finger...
Well, then, you should check out MOND, which is a gravitational model, which fits really well most (but not all) of the observations, and is still hanging in there by the skin of its teeth (due to the other observations).
There is no model I am aware of (and yes I'm aware of MOND) that reconciles relativity with the Standard Model. If someone had worked out such a model we would be hearing about it and there would be Nobel prizes involved. Such a breakthrough would be huge news. Some very smart folks are working hard on it but so far the definitive answer has been elusive.
No clue who this Tyson guy is but either he, or you, have confused Dark Energy with Dark Matter.
Then you should spend 20 seconds on Wikipedia before making an idiot of yourself in public by not knowing who one of the most famous astrophyscists in the world is. Here's a clue - watch the series Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. He certainly isn't confused about the difference between dark matter and dark energy and I'm pretty certain I'm not confused either.
Physics is not determined by majority vote...
I don't recall anyone claiming that it was.
...but I very strongly suspect that the numbers will come down massively in favour of Dark Matter being an exotic form of matter by which I mean some as yet undiscovered particle.
Based on what evidence? You might be right and it may very well be exotic matter but like you said it isn't a vote. Show me any credible evidence that favors exotic matter over a flaw in the model or vice-versa. Science works on proof so go get some. Until then I remain skeptical.
Are you out of your friggin mind?
No. My mother had me checked.
No disrespect to them, but these guys weren't explorers.
That is very disrespectful to them and they most certainly were/are explorers. Being a test pilot is most definitely a form of exploration. You think those aircraft are safe the moment they roll out of the factory? You think that anything involving spaceflight is routine? That's pretty clueless. They were flying an unproven aircraft which is part of an unproven space launch platform. If that isn't exploration then nothing is.
Spaceflight is dangerous. I think the best quote ever was by Mary Shafer of NASA who said "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." These people clearly don't suffer that problem.
I thank the explorers who take these risks, sometimes at the cost of their lives. Without them the world would be a much smaller and worse place. It's hard to even imagine the courage it must take to cross an ocean to an unknown continent or to fly into space. People who do these things have my everlasting respect.
Based on what?
Nothing really. Just a hunch. But nobody else really seems to know either so I put the odds at 50/50 either way.
Indeed the last time we had a problem like this - the non-conservation of energy in beta decay - the solution was a missing particle and not a rewrite of the laws of physics.
There are times when the model is wrong and there are times when there is a physical discovery. Easy to show examples of both. General relativity was an example of an improved model. Your example is a great example of a missing part particle (new discovery). Both occur. When it comes to dark matter/energy I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me one way or the other. I have a hunch that the answer will lie in the model but that's just a hunch. I'm guessing that when we figure out how to reconcile general relativity to the Standard Model that a bunch of things like dark matter will fall out as a second order effect. Of course I could be completely wrong...
Waiting half an hour to buy a ticket for about ten bucks
I have NEVER waited more than about 5 minutes for a movie ticket ever. Not once in over 40 years.
then suffering for 3 hours in 100+ degrees heat
Ohh bullshit. Movie theaters are almost always too cold if anything.
Anyone still masochist enough for that "authentic experience"?
We can talk about it when you actually describe one. I get people not liking the experience at a movie theater but it's nothing like the nonsense you were claiming.
As an example that worked out -- the neutrino was originally proposed as an unobserved, mysterious matter particle to avoid having to modify the laws of conservation of momentum and energy when applied to nuclear beta decays.
All I'm saying is that "dark matter" may or may not turn out to be matter at all. Nobody really seems to know at all. We have some observations that don't fit our models. That is good because it gives us something to look for. What's bad is that we are invoking some mysterious exotic "matter" with no actual model to explain what we are seeing. We should simply be saying it is a mystery rather than saying there "must be matter we cannot see". Maybe there is but that's not the only possible explanation.
A lot of physicists, including Neil deGrasse Tyson, have said that "Dark Matter" is actually a pretty poor name for the phenomenon because it's almost certainly not just some exotic form of matter
Unfortunately a lot more physicists talk about dark matter (in public anyway) as if it is actually matter of some sort despite the fact that we have no actual direct evidence that such a thing actually exists. Now maybe dark matter really does exist but all we have right now are some observations that don't match our models. Could be that our powers of observation are simply too limited in some way right now OR it could just as easily mean we have a flawed math model. I tend to think the latter is significantly more likely but obviously cannot rule out the former.
Physicists and scientists in general though are pretty bad at explaining concepts to the general public. I'm more educated than most people are with regard to physics and I have yet to find an explanation of the Standard Model that is even vaguely approachable to a layman such as myself. They also are pretty bad at communicating where the lines between what we know and what we do not know actually are.
Dark matter accounts for something like 90% of the gravitational effects that we see.
I've always suspected that "dark matter" very likely isn't matter at all. I suspect it is simply a gap in our model similar to how relativity filled in gaps for Newtonian mechanics. Dark matter (and dark energy) are basically placeholders for observations that do not match our model. That means one of two things. Either there is something we haven't observed yet OR there is something missing from our model. Both are quite possible but we seem fixated on that former when it could very easily be the later.
I actually do have some background in physics (college minor and worked in some research labs) and I've never have any "real" physicist give me a satisfactory explanation as to why invoking some mysterious matter/energy is a more likely answer than a gap in our models. We understand gravity probably the least of the four forces and we don't have a model that integrates it into our Standard Model. Seems to me that the place to look may very well be in the math rather than in the stars.
The hordes will buy it because it is Apple.
Apple has had plenty of flops over the years. Newton, Lisa, Apple III, Pippin, Macintosh TV, QuickTake, the 20th Anniversary Mac, the ROKR E1 phone, Ping, and more besides.
Apple sells a lot of stuff because they normally make pretty good products but people don't buy shit solely because it has an Apple logo on it.
But I'm on a 15 minute schedule so taking my phone out of my pocket and looking at it all the time would be a pain in the ass.
So look at the clock on the wall or the one on your PC or the one in your car or the one on your appliances...
Maybe it's different for you but I rarely find myself without a clock of some sort within eyeshot unless I'm actively exercising outdoors. Not to say watches aren't useful in the right circumstances but they really don't help me track time in my routine day any better than I already do.
Will millions of people really want to charge and fuss with their watch at least once a day?
Wrong question. Of course they won't want to any more than they want to charge their cell phones nightly. They might do it anyway but they won't want to.
No the real question is whether the device scratches a figurative itch. I know relatively few people my age and younger who regularly wear a watch. Some do but almost never because they actually need to or because it solves a significant problem for them. When I was young wearing a watch had some practical value. Today not so much. Maybe it will be a breakout product but it seems to be a solution in search of a problem to me.
To be honest I haven't seen any smartwatch that really would make me want to add a device or replace the watches I do own. The only real practical value I can see in one is as a chronometer (duh) and a portable sensor package for certain activities like running or health management. I suppose there is a fashion angle to it too. Pack a thermometer, barometer, accelerometer, altimeter, GPS, humistor, gyroscope, photodetector, etc into a compact watch and there are some very awesome uses for that even if the battery life is relatively short. But I cannot really see myself wearing one all the time because my phone already does much of that and is more generally useful to me.
Yes, it will cost a fortune to skip commercials, but that is because the commercials are still tied to the legacy business model. They exist to make money for broadcast television, and have been a solid revenue stream for cable television for decades.
Advertisements make money for both the broadcaster AND for the company doing the advertizing. Ads exist because there is a market for companies that are trying to sell to customers. Broadcast TV is merely the medium and the broadcasters happen to have a platform for reaching customers. This is no different than newspapers or Google. The business model of having a platform to get ads in front of potential customers is alive and well. The only difference is WHICH platform works today. Google and Facebook are on the rise, TV is holding steady and newspapers/magazines are having a tough go of it. But they all have basically the same business model - it's just that certain platforms work better than others and thus are more profitable.
But you do have to sit at your computer and read it, as opposed to listening to it while you put on your clothes and makeup and the like.
Radio and podcasts is better for that plus I can listen to radio or podcasts in my car. Bear in mind that you aren't going to absorb much in the way of news while listening to a broadcast which dressing yourself. You really do have to read to get serious amounts of information in a short time.
How do you get your news , both local and national?
You are staring at it. I get the majority of my news through the internet and some through print and radio. Using TV to get news is a great way to be out of touch if you actually want to know what is going on. TV is really bad at providing context or depth. You need to step out of the 1980s and join us here in the modern world.
Do you not keep up with or care about real news of the world and your local community?
A TV is pretty much the least useful way to keep up with real news most of the time. The internet is faster and has more content. Newspapers and magazines have more depth and usually are more timely. I can listen to the radio while driving. TV wastes a LOT of my time with advertisements and banal fluff pieces. There are times when TV is a great source of coverage but most of the time there are better options out there.
Oh, and it has been documented that many Yogi masters can slow their metabolism to the point that they would appear dead even to most modern medical practitioners without sophisticated tools, much less Roman soldiers.
Citation needed. I don't believe that for a moment unless you can provide a evidence that such an act was performed in front of credible medical practitioners and the results were repeatable and tested. I don't know if you've ever actually seen a dead person but I have and it's not something that could be easily faked.
I've seen plenty of claims of similarly astonishing claims by martial arts "masters" and other charlatans over the years and virtually none of them stand up to proper scientific scrutiny. Most such claims are either puffery or what amounts to stage magic.
Can't think of any explanations for the pillars of salt though.
Because there is no point. The point is that there are plenty of things in the bible that contradict scientific evidence, often quite clearly. You don't even have to look very hard.
Well, it's been repeatedly confirmed that yes, virgins *can* give birth - it's extremely rare, but it does happen
Find me a single confirmed instance of a human virgin giving birth. (and no the one in the bible does not count as confirmed) Or are you really so dense as to not realize we're talking about human birth here? The claim was that "The bible doesn't contradict science" which is easily and demonstrably false. People try to equivocate and claim this bit or that bit is really just literary license but they always do so at a moment that turns out to be oddly convenient to whatever argument they are making at the time.