The History Channel spends an inordinate amount of time on this sort of crap. Before I changed the channel, I once heard a guy ranting about how the Air Force had an officer who reported to Johnson about ufos and what a big conspiracy it was. My first thought was that of course they were keeping track of sightings of unidentified aircraft, they had aircraft that they wanted to remain unidentified. It was disappointing that they show didn't bother with that obvious angle.
My last couple of computers have come from "Dell" and "Lenovo" (that's in 10 years), so I haven't worried a great deal about what was inside (the more recent one is a laptop, so even less worrying about what is inside).
I might end up building a computer to stick by my TV, if I did, I would happily pay $100 more for the basic assurance that it would work out of the box, messing around replacing a defective board isn't worth $100 to me.
No, if I can't change something that I don't like, I don't rail against it. I will probably do want I think might reasonably effect change, but beyond that, I don't see the point in dwelling upon it. Developing a deep emotion regarding a superficial impression of a website seems very extreme to me.
"Blessed" is just such a terrible way to describe the relationship between Apple, OS X and Apple hardware. It describes it, but the connotation is awful.
But that only means anything for those boards, at the point in their life cycle that you bought them. I pretty sure that major bugs get fixed (either directly, or buy discontinuing production) by pretty much every vendor, but they release so many products and keep them around for such a short amount of time that you need to evaluate each board, not each company.
That leaves room for companies being consistently good or bad, but that doesn't really seem to be the case (maybe consistently better or worse than average).
If half of it is after dark or before dawn, that's not so bad.
It certainly isn't the best possible use of time, but I think for the most part TV watching has displaced other fairly inane activity, not high minded self enrichment.
Another way to look at it is that you calculated ~1/6th of the watching time to get the ads number, so the total watching time would be 6 times what you calculated, and the program watching time would be 5 times what you calculated.
Any point I had was related to the fact that looking at the flash image is approximately equal to looking at any life size picture of a blue whale, and that it may be possible to construct a similar flash program at almost any point in the future.
I'm not so sure. That's 21,900 hours of TV watching. If they were really worried about the 2 years of advertising, they would probably also be worried about the other 9 years of TV watching.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anybody learn anything growing up in North Carolina?
(Yeah, this is the obvious, obnoxious joke to make, but it is also the joke that you have to make when someone walks into it at full speed.)
Yes, if only the people could get the government off their back, America would be a paradise.
Get in the box.
Most people have more mass-produced objects that they find aesthetically pleasing (Ikea, Vases, "Fine" China, etc) than they do professional art.
Ask the photons man. The Harvard link mentions that the 140 years is relative to Earth's time frame.
Probably a black hole.
The History Channel spends an inordinate amount of time on this sort of crap. Before I changed the channel, I once heard a guy ranting about how the Air Force had an officer who reported to Johnson about ufos and what a big conspiracy it was. My first thought was that of course they were keeping track of sightings of unidentified aircraft, they had aircraft that they wanted to remain unidentified. It was disappointing that they show didn't bother with that obvious angle.
My last couple of computers have come from "Dell" and "Lenovo" (that's in 10 years), so I haven't worried a great deal about what was inside (the more recent one is a laptop, so even less worrying about what is inside).
I might end up building a computer to stick by my TV, if I did, I would happily pay $100 more for the basic assurance that it would work out of the box, messing around replacing a defective board isn't worth $100 to me.
No, if I can't change something that I don't like, I don't rail against it. I will probably do want I think might reasonably effect change, but beyond that, I don't see the point in dwelling upon it. Developing a deep emotion regarding a superficial impression of a website seems very extreme to me.
"Blessed" is just such a terrible way to describe the relationship between Apple, OS X and Apple hardware. It describes it, but the connotation is awful.
In the DNA of everything.
(I'll stick with my evolved DNA, you try Linux. Watch out for vendor customizations.)
But that only means anything for those boards, at the point in their life cycle that you bought them. I pretty sure that major bugs get fixed (either directly, or buy discontinuing production) by pretty much every vendor, but they release so many products and keep them around for such a short amount of time that you need to evaluate each board, not each company.
That leaves room for companies being consistently good or bad, but that doesn't really seem to be the case (maybe consistently better or worse than average).
A lot? Very little? To the extent that you simply ignore them?
Why give so much importance to people that you can't do anything about?
If half of it is after dark or before dawn, that's not so bad.
It certainly isn't the best possible use of time, but I think for the most part TV watching has displaced other fairly inane activity, not high minded self enrichment.
Another way to look at it is that you calculated ~1/6th of the watching time to get the ads number, so the total watching time would be 6 times what you calculated, and the program watching time would be 5 times what you calculated.
Nah.
2 hours * 365 days/year * 30 years = 21,900 hours.
That's 10.95 2000-hour work years. Take away the 2 2000-hour work years that are watching ads, and you have 9 2000-hour work years left.
Any point I had was related to the fact that looking at the flash image is approximately equal to looking at any life size picture of a blue whale, and that it may be possible to construct a similar flash program at almost any point in the future.
Clearly, you're aware of the alternative meaning, you just aren't informed as to what it is.
Please explain how that statement does not contradict itself.
I'm not so sure. That's 21,900 hours of TV watching. If they were really worried about the 2 years of advertising, they would probably also be worried about the other 9 years of TV watching.
I often have CNBC on when I am doing other stuff. They show old people ads constantly.
I'm pretty sure that this is already occasionally done.
They're always happy to sell you software, regardless of what platform you learned on.
Lasing is a quantum effect. If they weren't positively blase, we would probably call them quantum lasers, and then you would be in trouble.
The complaint is that the format is a standard in name only (i.e., it is vague and difficult to implement).