But then you still have two email addresses you are giving out.
No, you're not. You only give out the new one from this point forward. Keeping the old one means that you don't have to bother telling older contacts about the new email address; they can just keep sending email to that, and as far as they know, you're not changing anything. That's the whole point.
Gmail/other may be better at lots of things, but if you don't care about any other those things why change?
Well, one big reason is that you look like a dinosaur if you have an AOL address still. Image is important, like it or not.
This is especially true if your old email address is first.last@aol.com and the gmail suggestions are first793976.last63789534987435987@gmail.com
If you really can't get a better Gmail address than that, you can always get some other address from another provider. The best option is to simply buy your own domain name with a $3/month hosting provider, which includes email addresses. Then you can make up any email address you want, and in fact you can make a whole bunch of them, for different things. If you're some kind of professional (suppose you run your own small business), it looks a LOT better to have an email address like "support@joesplumbing.com" rather than "joesplumbing@aol.com" (or "joesplumbing@gmail.com" for that matter). Then you can set your email addresses to all forward to Gmail so it can handle sorting them, spam blocking, etc.
I have the same email address I've used since before Gmail was around; it's a former Nameplanet email address (now owned by Hover). But I don't actually use their UI, I just forward all the mail to my Gmail account. People think my email address is cool because it's my own name, but I'm not restricted in where the mail goes to.
Surely AOL has forwarding too. In that case, it'd be trivial to get another email address (like Gmail), and then forward the AOL mail to it. Then, you don't need to tell anyone to update that email address; just tell new contacts the new email address.
Well, let's see: which countries have the highest standards of living in the world? That would be western European nations, especially Scandinavian ones. "Expansive social welfare states" as you would say. Now, which nations have the highest levels of education in the world? Again, western European nations.
Which nations have the poorest levels of education? That would be third-world shitholes in places like Africa and the Middle East and Latin America. Which nations have the worst standards of living? The same nations.
Oh yeah, which nations are the most religious? That would be those in the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. Which nations are the most irreligious? Again, western European ones.
Possibly because religous persons are more likely ti donate their own time and money more willingly
No, they don't. They'll donate their money to a megachurch or TV preacher so that they can have private jets and live lives of luxury, but they don't actually go out and help poor people unless there's strings attached, like sitting through a sermon. This allegation of yours is a common meme among religious people and it's total bullshit. If religious peoples' donations really were enough, we wouldn't have poverty, and we wouldn't have needed welfare programs.
It may have been a diesel electric unit. Many routes, such as the Northeast Regional [amtrak.com] travel from DC to NYC. But they also continue on to other places, like Richmond, VA. I can assure you that the trains continuing on to Richmond are diesel-electric since that line is not electrified. Often they will swap locomotives in DC, but not always.
They are *not allowed* to run diesel powered locomotives into NYC. So unless those diesel-electric locomotives are dual-power (meaning they can either run on diesel, or on electricity only, supplied by the overhead lines), they can't use them. Every time I've taken a Northeast Regional train through DC, they stopped the train for an hour at the DC station and swapped out the locomotive (as the electrified lines do stop at DC, as you point out). Also, the electric locomotives are faster; they get up to 125mph.
That's pretty obviously the case (politicians pander to religious people to get their votes), but it also shows how utterly stupid and gullible the religious people are for believing them, and then voting for policies which are directly against their own best self-interest.
Wrong, it's all-electric. Diesel engines are illegal to drive into NYC, because the rail tunnel going under the Hudson has insufficient ventilation for it. The track between DC and NYC is electrified (has electric wires overhead to directly power the locomotive).
From the Wikipedia article: "Its electric locomotives are confined to the Northeast Corridor and Philadelphia to Harrisburg Main Line, while its diesels may be found anywhere in the United States."
Railroad travel between DC and NYC has overtaken plane travel for that route and has effected plane routes.
That's good to hear, and it makes perfect sense. Plane travel is a PITA: the airports are far, far away from the cities and require expensive cab rides, whereas the train goes directly to the city center. And there's no long wait time, sitting on the tarmac for hours, or being molested by the TSA.
They just need to fix the track so they can run at 125+ safely (on the normal train) and they'll easily beat planes for speed when you account for all these extra factors.
That second part is of direct concern to me, and to many other people. These decisions include whether to tell the truth or lie, whether to work for the common good or grab whatever you can get, whether honor and honesty are more important to the person than status and finding an easy way toward personal goals. Persons who believe in science have substituted Newton's laws and the periodic table for religious/spiritual principles, which just doesn't work. It seemingly gives them a framework that allows them freedom from the encumbrances of morals or ethics. But those encumbrances are part of being human, and without them these persons are just shits.
What's most interesting is that it's usually the most religious people who buy into the Republican Party's ideology, which includes "grabbing whatever you can get" and espousing Ayn Rand-style objectivist philosophy.
By contrast, the irreligious people are much more liable to vote for politicians who push social welfare programs ("working for the common good").
So the idea of religion giving people any kind of decent morals or ethics is blatantly false.
Because people don't want to crawl around in 5-foot-high passenger compartments, that's why.
The coach has to be that high off the ground because of the height of the wheels.
One problem in my view is definitely the narrow width (4'8.5") of the rails, which of course we can thank the Romans for (train rails are that width so that two Roman war horses can fit between them and pull a chariot that isn't any wider than their two butts). If they made the rails wider, trains would be more stable in turns. However, they also wouldn't be able to take turns as tightly; that's the trade-off with rail gauge.
Light rail and Amtrak are two totally different things. Don't conflate them.
Light rail is extremely expensive per mile and of dubious usefulness since it usually doesn't happen to be going the way you need to go. It's an alternative to car-commuting or buses, but doesn't have the flexibility of bus routes and certainly not the convenience of cars. But it doesn't take you far, only within your city.
Amtrak is for inter-city and regional travel. (You can also take it cross-country, but that takes days and isn't really economical compared to planes.) It's an alternative to spending 8 hours in your car, or taking a short-hop plane (complete with hours waiting at the terminal plus being molested by TSA). For shorter trips (like between DC and NYC), it's a great way to travel.
Just because someone has little interest in light rail doesn't mean they don't care about long-distance heavy rail.
Ok then, what do you propose people do for work in the near future when all the easy jobs are automated? Let them starve? There simply won't be enough jobs to go around.
This is part of why I personally advocate more government grants for the arts, not less. When an artist lives or dies by sales alone, you're going to have the brilliant minds of our generation ignored
Ok, but how do you decide who's a "brilliant mind" who needs a grant, and who's a talentless hack who just wants free money for doing nothing but churning out some worthless drivel? I could press some keys on an electronic keyboard and call it "music" too; give me a grant so I don't need to work for a living!
If anything, this is another good case for a Basic Income.
Maybe, but my recent experience in a 1930 house in the northeast was that those shitty old basement windows also allowed *too much* ventilation during the winter, and as a result a pipe froze.
Windows that can't accept blinds on bathrooms due to being in the shower are probably just an example of shitty architecture. My neighbor's house is like that and they installed frosted glass, but it still doesn't cut it. That's just bad design.
Two things: 1) I see this bad design all the time. 2) I see a lot of cases where someone stuck a window in the small bathroom (because, most likely, building code requires it), and as a result, the whole bathroom has a terrible design because there just isn't any room left over in the bathroom after putting the window there. You can't put a shower where the window is, nor can you put the sink there, and it's kinda lame to put the toilet in front of the window too, so you wind up with a big chunk of floor space that you can't use for anything, and with an already-tiny bathroom this means you get a horrible bathroom layout somehow, like with a toilet crammed into a tiny corner. Eliminating the window would make the bathroom design much easier and flexible. Personally, I don't want to look outside when I'm in the bathroom, and I don't know why anyone else would want to either. For light, we have artificial lights. Windows are obsolete. Yes, I understand artificial lights aren't as desirable as natural light most times, but this is the bathroom here, and I'm talking about small bathrooms. If I want a really nice bathroom where I can lounge in the jacuzzi for an hour (and thus would probably like natural light), it's not going to be the size of two phone booths, plus you can actually put the jacuzzi next to a window. But for a tiny bathroom, I don't want a window constraining my layout.
Most humans like natural light and rooms without windows are depressing and shitty to be in.
Yes, but people also like some privacy, and some rooms just aren't meant to be occupied much.
Why do so many bathrooms have windows so your next-door neighbor (who's only 10-20 feet away on modern lots) can see you naked if you haven't put up any blinds?
Why do so many basements have windows? (And I mean old, nasty basements with boilers in them, not finished basements.)
Houses don't need as many windows as they currently have so that people can see stuff outside. The reason houses have so many windows is so that people have an escape route in the event of a fire. If it weren't for that requirement, you could make houses much more energy-efficient by reducing their number. Do you really need a window in a bathroom, for instance? Heck no.
But yes, the reason planes and trains have windows is mostly so people can see outside, especially for planes.
For cars, however, they still have the same need as houses: people need to escape in the event of a crash, and sometimes windows serve as the opening to get people out because the door is stuck or mangled. The windows aren't just there so you can see.
Cars already have crumple zones. The whole idea of crumple zones in cars is you want the passenger area to be extremely rigid and strong and to *not* deform on impact (because that will crush the passengers), and then you make the areas around the passenger area (namely the hood and trunk zones) deformable so that they absorb the energy from the crash.
You don't really think today's glass windows actually absorb a lot of crash energy, do you?
I'm not talking about GPS, I'm talking about personal data protection laws. They're common over in Europe, so there's no way we'll get them here since we didn't invent them.
Slashdot Mirror
But then you still have two email addresses you are giving out.
No, you're not. You only give out the new one from this point forward. Keeping the old one means that you don't have to bother telling older contacts about the new email address; they can just keep sending email to that, and as far as they know, you're not changing anything. That's the whole point.
Gmail/other may be better at lots of things, but if you don't care about any other those things why change?
Well, one big reason is that you look like a dinosaur if you have an AOL address still. Image is important, like it or not.
This is especially true if your old email address is first.last@aol.com and the gmail suggestions are first793976.last63789534987435987@gmail.com
If you really can't get a better Gmail address than that, you can always get some other address from another provider. The best option is to simply buy your own domain name with a $3/month hosting provider, which includes email addresses. Then you can make up any email address you want, and in fact you can make a whole bunch of them, for different things. If you're some kind of professional (suppose you run your own small business), it looks a LOT better to have an email address like "support@joesplumbing.com" rather than "joesplumbing@aol.com" (or "joesplumbing@gmail.com" for that matter). Then you can set your email addresses to all forward to Gmail so it can handle sorting them, spam blocking, etc.
So your dentist still uses those old shitty film x-rays instead of the low-power digital xrays?
I wouldn't bother with that dentist. He probably still uses mercury amalgam fillings instead of the modern tooth-colored resin fillings.
Does AOL's email service allow auto-forwarding?
I have the same email address I've used since before Gmail was around; it's a former Nameplanet email address (now owned by Hover). But I don't actually use their UI, I just forward all the mail to my Gmail account. People think my email address is cool because it's my own name, but I'm not restricted in where the mail goes to.
Surely AOL has forwarding too. In that case, it'd be trivial to get another email address (like Gmail), and then forward the AOL mail to it. Then, you don't need to tell anyone to update that email address; just tell new contacts the new email address.
Well, let's see: which countries have the highest standards of living in the world? That would be western European nations, especially Scandinavian ones. "Expansive social welfare states" as you would say. Now, which nations have the highest levels of education in the world? Again, western European nations.
Which nations have the poorest levels of education? That would be third-world shitholes in places like Africa and the Middle East and Latin America. Which nations have the worst standards of living? The same nations.
Oh yeah, which nations are the most religious? That would be those in the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. Which nations are the most irreligious? Again, western European ones.
Hmm....
Possibly because religous persons are more likely ti donate their own time and money more willingly
No, they don't. They'll donate their money to a megachurch or TV preacher so that they can have private jets and live lives of luxury, but they don't actually go out and help poor people unless there's strings attached, like sitting through a sermon. This allegation of yours is a common meme among religious people and it's total bullshit. If religious peoples' donations really were enough, we wouldn't have poverty, and we wouldn't have needed welfare programs.
Hey, if you don't want to live in a society with roads, go live in Somalia.
It may have been a diesel electric unit. Many routes, such as the Northeast Regional [amtrak.com] travel from DC to NYC. But they also continue on to other places, like Richmond, VA. I can assure you that the trains continuing on to Richmond are diesel-electric since that line is not electrified. Often they will swap locomotives in DC, but not always.
They are *not allowed* to run diesel powered locomotives into NYC. So unless those diesel-electric locomotives are dual-power (meaning they can either run on diesel, or on electricity only, supplied by the overhead lines), they can't use them. Every time I've taken a Northeast Regional train through DC, they stopped the train for an hour at the DC station and swapped out the locomotive (as the electrified lines do stop at DC, as you point out). Also, the electric locomotives are faster; they get up to 125mph.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That's pretty obviously the case (politicians pander to religious people to get their votes), but it also shows how utterly stupid and gullible the religious people are for believing them, and then voting for policies which are directly against their own best self-interest.
Wrong, it's all-electric. Diesel engines are illegal to drive into NYC, because the rail tunnel going under the Hudson has insufficient ventilation for it. The track between DC and NYC is electrified (has electric wires overhead to directly power the locomotive).
Here's some articles for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05...
From the Wikipedia article:
"Its electric locomotives are confined to the Northeast Corridor and Philadelphia to Harrisburg Main Line, while its diesels may be found anywhere in the United States."
Railroad travel between DC and NYC has overtaken plane travel for that route and has effected plane routes.
That's good to hear, and it makes perfect sense. Plane travel is a PITA: the airports are far, far away from the cities and require expensive cab rides, whereas the train goes directly to the city center. And there's no long wait time, sitting on the tarmac for hours, or being molested by the TSA.
They just need to fix the track so they can run at 125+ safely (on the normal train) and they'll easily beat planes for speed when you account for all these extra factors.
That second part is of direct concern to me, and to many other people. These decisions include whether to tell the truth or lie, whether to work for the common good or grab whatever you can get, whether honor and honesty are more important to the person than status and finding an easy way toward personal goals. Persons who believe in science have substituted Newton's laws and the periodic table for religious/spiritual principles, which just doesn't work. It seemingly gives them a framework that allows them freedom from the encumbrances of morals or ethics. But those encumbrances are part of being human, and without them these persons are just shits.
What's most interesting is that it's usually the most religious people who buy into the Republican Party's ideology, which includes "grabbing whatever you can get" and espousing Ayn Rand-style objectivist philosophy.
By contrast, the irreligious people are much more liable to vote for politicians who push social welfare programs ("working for the common good").
So the idea of religion giving people any kind of decent morals or ethics is blatantly false.
So what do they do if they can't find any jobs? There aren't going to be any low-skill jobs left pretty soon, thanks to automation and outsourcing.
Because people don't want to crawl around in 5-foot-high passenger compartments, that's why.
The coach has to be that high off the ground because of the height of the wheels.
One problem in my view is definitely the narrow width (4'8.5") of the rails, which of course we can thank the Romans for (train rails are that width so that two Roman war horses can fit between them and pull a chariot that isn't any wider than their two butts). If they made the rails wider, trains would be more stable in turns. However, they also wouldn't be able to take turns as tightly; that's the trade-off with rail gauge.
This was the Amtrak line between DC and NYC. There's no diesel fumes on that train, because it uses an electric locomotive.
Light rail and Amtrak are two totally different things. Don't conflate them.
Light rail is extremely expensive per mile and of dubious usefulness since it usually doesn't happen to be going the way you need to go. It's an alternative to car-commuting or buses, but doesn't have the flexibility of bus routes and certainly not the convenience of cars. But it doesn't take you far, only within your city.
Amtrak is for inter-city and regional travel. (You can also take it cross-country, but that takes days and isn't really economical compared to planes.) It's an alternative to spending 8 hours in your car, or taking a short-hop plane (complete with hours waiting at the terminal plus being molested by TSA). For shorter trips (like between DC and NYC), it's a great way to travel.
Just because someone has little interest in light rail doesn't mean they don't care about long-distance heavy rail.
Ok then, what do you propose people do for work in the near future when all the easy jobs are automated? Let them starve? There simply won't be enough jobs to go around.
This is part of why I personally advocate more government grants for the arts, not less. When an artist lives or dies by sales alone, you're going to have the brilliant minds of our generation ignored
Ok, but how do you decide who's a "brilliant mind" who needs a grant, and who's a talentless hack who just wants free money for doing nothing but churning out some worthless drivel? I could press some keys on an electronic keyboard and call it "music" too; give me a grant so I don't need to work for a living!
If anything, this is another good case for a Basic Income.
That explains basement windows.
Maybe, but my recent experience in a 1930 house in the northeast was that those shitty old basement windows also allowed *too much* ventilation during the winter, and as a result a pipe froze.
Windows that can't accept blinds on bathrooms due to being in the shower are probably just an example of shitty architecture. My neighbor's house is like that and they installed frosted glass, but it still doesn't cut it. That's just bad design.
Two things: 1) I see this bad design all the time. 2) I see a lot of cases where someone stuck a window in the small bathroom (because, most likely, building code requires it), and as a result, the whole bathroom has a terrible design because there just isn't any room left over in the bathroom after putting the window there. You can't put a shower where the window is, nor can you put the sink there, and it's kinda lame to put the toilet in front of the window too, so you wind up with a big chunk of floor space that you can't use for anything, and with an already-tiny bathroom this means you get a horrible bathroom layout somehow, like with a toilet crammed into a tiny corner. Eliminating the window would make the bathroom design much easier and flexible. Personally, I don't want to look outside when I'm in the bathroom, and I don't know why anyone else would want to either. For light, we have artificial lights. Windows are obsolete. Yes, I understand artificial lights aren't as desirable as natural light most times, but this is the bathroom here, and I'm talking about small bathrooms. If I want a really nice bathroom where I can lounge in the jacuzzi for an hour (and thus would probably like natural light), it's not going to be the size of two phone booths, plus you can actually put the jacuzzi next to a window. But for a tiny bathroom, I don't want a window constraining my layout.
Most humans like natural light and rooms without windows are depressing and shitty to be in.
Yes, but people also like some privacy, and some rooms just aren't meant to be occupied much.
Why do so many bathrooms have windows so your next-door neighbor (who's only 10-20 feet away on modern lots) can see you naked if you haven't put up any blinds?
Why do so many basements have windows? (And I mean old, nasty basements with boilers in them, not finished basements.)
I think the idea with your upstairs bathroom is that a fireman with a ladder would be able to rescue you from that window.
If you really wanted to shoot at tailgaters, wouldn't it be far cheaper to just mount a shotgun in the back, firing slugs?
A Phalanx CIWS (used by the US Navy) system weighs almost 14,000 pounds. That's probably about 4.5 times heavier than your car.
Houses don't need as many windows as they currently have so that people can see stuff outside. The reason houses have so many windows is so that people have an escape route in the event of a fire. If it weren't for that requirement, you could make houses much more energy-efficient by reducing their number. Do you really need a window in a bathroom, for instance? Heck no.
But yes, the reason planes and trains have windows is mostly so people can see outside, especially for planes.
For cars, however, they still have the same need as houses: people need to escape in the event of a crash, and sometimes windows serve as the opening to get people out because the door is stuck or mangled. The windows aren't just there so you can see.
Cars already have crumple zones. The whole idea of crumple zones in cars is you want the passenger area to be extremely rigid and strong and to *not* deform on impact (because that will crush the passengers), and then you make the areas around the passenger area (namely the hood and trunk zones) deformable so that they absorb the energy from the crash.
You don't really think today's glass windows actually absorb a lot of crash energy, do you?
The answer is simple: stop making windows with glass, and make them with transparent aluminum instead.
I'm not talking about GPS, I'm talking about personal data protection laws. They're common over in Europe, so there's no way we'll get them here since we didn't invent them.