I've used a number of higher end desk chairs that are supposed to be ergonomically correct, etc, but in the end, I just sit in something like this. Yup, an el-cheapo office arm chair. Everything else gives me back aches.
Of course, this could have something to do with my height. See, I'm short. And finding a comfortable chair when you don't have a "normal" build is surprisingly hard. Most of the time, the seat rides too high, or the back curves in the wrong place, etc, etc. But the arm chair sits fairly low, allows my feet to sit flat on the floor while my knees rest at a comfortable 90 degrees, and because it doesn't tilt or swivel, once I'm comfortable, the chair stays put.
As such, here's my advice: nothing beats trying out a chair, as everyone's body is different, and so in the end, it might not make the greatest gift. It's like trying to buy someone clothes... odds are good you just won't get it right, so you're probably better off going with something else (or giving them a gift certificate or an IOU and then bringing them along to shop for themselves).
Umm... I don't care? It doesn't change the fact that the original post was off-topic. Meanwhile, go submit an article about Opera being released... then we can go post about Firefox there.;)
I've seen it usually go the other way on regulations, though.
Says you. Here are a few examples where deregulation *seriously* fucked things up:
1. California power industry. 2. New York power industry (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/politics/16blackout.html). 2. Media/telecom deregulation. 3. The mortgage/banking industry.
I'm sure I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
In short, yeah, sometimes regulations are barriers to entry. Interestingly, those are often regulations the very industry being regulated supported (because it allows them to keep out competitors). That said, blind deregulation is *not* the way, either.
but the people who are getting hit hardest by these loans are those who were trying to exploit the system without taking the time to learn about it or the time to do it properly.
You mean the people who's investments and savings have tanked because their banks, unbeknownst to them, bought these bad investments? Or the people who's banks have had to shut down completely for the same reason? Or perhaps you mean the rest of the population who now have to suffer through a recession?
Yeah, there were some very stupid players in the system who were out simply to make a quick buck, or who got into a mortgage not realizing they would be unable to afford it. But you know what? The entire *purpose* of regulation is to prevent those people from gaming the system while screwing things up for the rest of us.
Yeah, because the Social Safety Net in place since the Depression has really succeeded in reducing the underclass who turn to crime - crime is SO much less of a problem now!
Looking to the broken social system in the US as evidence that all social programs are, by definition, broken, only highlights your own shortsightedness.
Or, to put it another way: just because American can't pull it off, doesn't mean the idea is bad. One need only look at public transit for an example of a good idea that America has, by and large, managed to completely fuck up.
but it almost halves the effect we can blame ourselves for.
Yeah, pity that the sun's output hasn't changing significantly in the last 50 years. You know, the 50 years during which the earth's temperature has significantly spiked.
Everyone thinks they are in the politically repressed minority.
Who said anything about political repression?
Here's the situation: we have a group of people bringing up "evidence" for why global warming isn't happening, or isn't being caused by humans. We have another group of people who then refute their (old, well-worn) arguments and evidence using well-known counter-arguments and data, counter-arguments and data that they would've found themselves if they were truly serious about understanding the issue. The former are being modded up. The latter are being modded down. This isn't a complaint about political repression. It's a complaint about biased moderators modding posts based on their own political/religious views, rather than the content of the post or the validity of the arguments. It's a complaint about faith-based thinking instead of fact-based thinking.
'course, this has been happening on Slashdot for years... the problem is, it's been getting a lot worse lately (at least IMHO).
So you're saying he was also duped by the President and his cronies, who knowingly mislead the public by spinning evidence in order to make their case? Shocking!
It says "out of nothing, everything" which, to come full circle, is just a semantic blob.
Not at all. The Big Bang theory says, presuming these initial conditions, here's how the universe came to exist as it does today. It makes no claim to explain how those conditions came about, and it never could. The initial conditions? Yup, that's a semantic blob. So?
Now, is it possible we may never come to understand why those initial conditions came about? Sure. As I've already stated, I wouldn't be surprised if, after drilling down far enough, there are things we simply can't explain (eg, the "why" behind the value of the cosmological constant). That said, the theories that are built on those initial conditions, those things we believe to be true but can't explain, are still immensely powerful, far more so than any creationists myth.
That's still a bullshit answer, though... the Big Bang explains a ton of observations, and so as a theory, if the Big Bang occurred as theorized, then it explains the Why for many things.
Now, you are right, we can't explain why the Big Bang itself occurred, but that doesn't change the fact that the theory *does* explain the how and why of the events it attempts to explain.
Basically, your blanket statement that *all* theories are at the same level of creationism, as far as explanatory power goes, is BS. Can we ever drill down to the very basics of why our universe exists the way it does? Possibly not... the best we can do is the anthropic principle, which, while sound, is unfortunately decidedly hand-wavy. That said, if you're willing to take certain basic axioms as true (and this is where the anthropic pricinple comes in), the scientific theories built on top of them, which are capable of both explanation and prediction (unlike ID), are sound.
You're technically correct, but that doesn't make the action acceptable.
I couldn't disagree more. See, these creationist believers are fighting tooth and nail to get their ideas included in school curriculae, etc, in order to make themselves appear legitimate. They're feeding on, and also fostering, rampant anti-intellectualism, particularly in the United States, and historically, people have just sat back and let it happen. "It's their right to believe what they want", they'd say. "Gotta respect their beliefs!"
Luckily, scientists and the educated public have finally started to realize that they can't just sit back and let the anti-intellectuals foster an environment of anti-science. They *must* be challenged. And so, when stories like this come up, you can damn well be sure that those fighting on the side of science will hold up those results and say, "See, we were right!". Otherwise, the anti-intellectuals will continue to dominate the debate, by virtue of simply yelling louder, and things will never improve.
Huh? The Big Bang theory explains *many* things. Evolution, ditto. In fact, for a scientific theory to actually be a theory, it has to have explanatory and predictive power.
The sickest thing is that they'll just keep shouting their "rebuttals". And most disturbing of all, apparently the mods are falling for it, upmodding the deniers and modding down those who try to refute them. It's really depressing... *sigh*
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
Incidentally, I meant FWD... RWD is murder in snow...
Meh, SciAm isn't a whole lot better... they get the science right, but they're definitely leaning more toward popsci these days (at least IMHO).
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
Ask ppl who live in alberta if they see a lot of cars or SUVs. I am guessing that anybody from that region will be happy to tell you that a car will serve many uses, but they probably drive an SUV if available.
I live in Alberta. No, we wouldn't tell you that. My wife and I have always driven a sedan, and we just bought a sub-compact. None of my friends own a truck, nor do they plan to get one.
People around here by trucks and SUV for two reasons: 1) because they're farmers or ranchers and need them, or 2) because they have small dicks. Basically, it's like anywhere else in the world.
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
hmmm; do you get 2-3 feet of snow in a drop?
In Canada we do. And you still don't need an SUV. A decent RWD sedan does just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
I've used a number of higher end desk chairs that are supposed to be ergonomically correct, etc, but in the end, I just sit in something like this. Yup, an el-cheapo office arm chair. Everything else gives me back aches.
Of course, this could have something to do with my height. See, I'm short. And finding a comfortable chair when you don't have a "normal" build is surprisingly hard. Most of the time, the seat rides too high, or the back curves in the wrong place, etc, etc. But the arm chair sits fairly low, allows my feet to sit flat on the floor while my knees rest at a comfortable 90 degrees, and because it doesn't tilt or swivel, once I'm comfortable, the chair stays put.
As such, here's my advice: nothing beats trying out a chair, as everyone's body is different, and so in the end, it might not make the greatest gift. It's like trying to buy someone clothes... odds are good you just won't get it right, so you're probably better off going with something else (or giving them a gift certificate or an IOU and then bringing them along to shop for themselves).
Umm... I don't care? It doesn't change the fact that the original post was off-topic. Meanwhile, go submit an article about Opera being released... then we can go post about Firefox there. ;)
I fail to see how this is offtopic.
Because this is an article about Firefox? And, at least AFAICT, Opera != Firefox. I mean, perhaps I'm wrong, but...
You stop at ice on the roads? Never heard of studded tires? ;)
Yeah, I've long said the same thing about geologists classifying rock formations, or biologists classifying life forms...
I've seen it usually go the other way on regulations, though.
Says you. Here are a few examples where deregulation *seriously* fucked things up:
1. California power industry.
2. New York power industry (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/politics/16blackout.html).
2. Media/telecom deregulation.
3. The mortgage/banking industry.
I'm sure I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
In short, yeah, sometimes regulations are barriers to entry. Interestingly, those are often regulations the very industry being regulated supported (because it allows them to keep out competitors). That said, blind deregulation is *not* the way, either.
but the people who are getting hit hardest by these loans are those who were trying to exploit the system without taking the time to learn about it or the time to do it properly.
You mean the people who's investments and savings have tanked because their banks, unbeknownst to them, bought these bad investments? Or the people who's banks have had to shut down completely for the same reason? Or perhaps you mean the rest of the population who now have to suffer through a recession?
Yeah, there were some very stupid players in the system who were out simply to make a quick buck, or who got into a mortgage not realizing they would be unable to afford it. But you know what? The entire *purpose* of regulation is to prevent those people from gaming the system while screwing things up for the rest of us.
Yeah, because the Social Safety Net in place since the Depression has really succeeded in reducing the underclass who turn to crime - crime is SO much less of a problem now!
Looking to the broken social system in the US as evidence that all social programs are, by definition, broken, only highlights your own shortsightedness.
Or, to put it another way: just because American can't pull it off, doesn't mean the idea is bad. One need only look at public transit for an example of a good idea that America has, by and large, managed to completely fuck up.
And no matter how many times people state the opposite, IPC for graphics calls, carries a not insignificant overhead.
Benchmarks? Tests? Hard numbers that aren't just gutfeel?
Yeah... didn't think so.
Which is why a) no one ever writes directly against Xlib, and b) Xlib is being replaced by Xcb.
You *do* realize that people do more with oil than just burn it, right?
but it almost halves the effect we can blame ourselves for.
Yeah, pity that the sun's output hasn't changing significantly in the last 50 years. You know, the 50 years during which the earth's temperature has significantly spiked.
Everyone thinks they are in the politically repressed minority.
Who said anything about political repression?
Here's the situation: we have a group of people bringing up "evidence" for why global warming isn't happening, or isn't being caused by humans. We have another group of people who then refute their (old, well-worn) arguments and evidence using well-known counter-arguments and data, counter-arguments and data that they would've found themselves if they were truly serious about understanding the issue. The former are being modded up. The latter are being modded down. This isn't a complaint about political repression. It's a complaint about biased moderators modding posts based on their own political/religious views, rather than the content of the post or the validity of the arguments. It's a complaint about faith-based thinking instead of fact-based thinking.
'course, this has been happening on Slashdot for years... the problem is, it's been getting a lot worse lately (at least IMHO).
So you're saying he was also duped by the President and his cronies, who knowingly mislead the public by spinning evidence in order to make their case? Shocking!
It says "out of nothing, everything" which, to come full circle, is just a semantic blob.
Not at all. The Big Bang theory says, presuming these initial conditions, here's how the universe came to exist as it does today. It makes no claim to explain how those conditions came about, and it never could. The initial conditions? Yup, that's a semantic blob. So?
Now, is it possible we may never come to understand why those initial conditions came about? Sure. As I've already stated, I wouldn't be surprised if, after drilling down far enough, there are things we simply can't explain (eg, the "why" behind the value of the cosmological constant). That said, the theories that are built on those initial conditions, those things we believe to be true but can't explain, are still immensely powerful, far more so than any creationists myth.
That's still a bullshit answer, though... the Big Bang explains a ton of observations, and so as a theory, if the Big Bang occurred as theorized, then it explains the Why for many things.
Now, you are right, we can't explain why the Big Bang itself occurred, but that doesn't change the fact that the theory *does* explain the how and why of the events it attempts to explain.
Basically, your blanket statement that *all* theories are at the same level of creationism, as far as explanatory power goes, is BS. Can we ever drill down to the very basics of why our universe exists the way it does? Possibly not... the best we can do is the anthropic principle, which, while sound, is unfortunately decidedly hand-wavy. That said, if you're willing to take certain basic axioms as true (and this is where the anthropic pricinple comes in), the scientific theories built on top of them, which are capable of both explanation and prediction (unlike ID), are sound.
Umm... what?
You're technically correct, but that doesn't make the action acceptable.
I couldn't disagree more. See, these creationist believers are fighting tooth and nail to get their ideas included in school curriculae, etc, in order to make themselves appear legitimate. They're feeding on, and also fostering, rampant anti-intellectualism, particularly in the United States, and historically, people have just sat back and let it happen. "It's their right to believe what they want", they'd say. "Gotta respect their beliefs!"
Luckily, scientists and the educated public have finally started to realize that they can't just sit back and let the anti-intellectuals foster an environment of anti-science. They *must* be challenged. And so, when stories like this come up, you can damn well be sure that those fighting on the side of science will hold up those results and say, "See, we were right!". Otherwise, the anti-intellectuals will continue to dominate the debate, by virtue of simply yelling louder, and things will never improve.
Huh? The Big Bang theory explains *many* things. Evolution, ditto. In fact, for a scientific theory to actually be a theory, it has to have explanatory and predictive power.
So, what theories are you talking about, exactly?
The sickest thing is that they'll just keep shouting their "rebuttals". And most disturbing of all, apparently the mods are falling for it, upmodding the deniers and modding down those who try to refute them. It's really depressing... *sigh*
Incidentally, I meant FWD... RWD is murder in snow...
Meh, SciAm isn't a whole lot better... they get the science right, but they're definitely leaning more toward popsci these days (at least IMHO).
Ask ppl who live in alberta if they see a lot of cars or SUVs. I am guessing that anybody from that region will be happy to tell you that a car will serve many uses, but they probably drive an SUV if available.
I live in Alberta. No, we wouldn't tell you that. My wife and I have always driven a sedan, and we just bought a sub-compact. None of my friends own a truck, nor do they plan to get one.
People around here by trucks and SUV for two reasons: 1) because they're farmers or ranchers and need them, or 2) because they have small dicks. Basically, it's like anywhere else in the world.
hmmm; do you get 2-3 feet of snow in a drop?
In Canada we do. And you still don't need an SUV. A decent RWD sedan does just fine.
Yup, completely agreed. And I've been cycle commuting off and on for roughly ten years, now.
That said, as a vehicular cyclist, I've had drivers yell at me and give me the finger for simply riding on the road.
They're also making smart people more visible. I'd call that a win, overall.