I picked up a Nokia 520 (Windows Phone 8.0 -- upgradable to 8.1) brand new for ~$30 on Amazon. You can find it around at that price (for example. Fry's has it for $29 after their "promo code" takes off $10). It's a "prepaid go phone" but just drop an ATT sim in it and you are golden with any type of account.
I picked it up as a spare in case my iphone 5 dies (son somehow talked me in to giving him my old 4s).
It's actually a decent phone. Snappy, responsive, light and decent battery life. The interface takes some getting used to, but it's not terrible.
"I am over 50 and have always had astigmatism, and deal with the lingering and ever-changing effects of a shingles scar on one cornea, so my glasses are anything by simple. "
I got lucky. My eyes were originally astigmatic (and at 90 degree axis difference per eye) but for some reason they magically went normal around my 30th birthday. Further, I was slightly nearsighted in one eye and slightly far sighted in the other. Again, they magically changed around my 30th birthday. One of my retinas does sport a scar from looking at a solar eclipse back in the 70's (I was a stupid 5th grader) -- not much I can do about that.
Then around my 40-something year, my arms stared to grow short... My solution is a single, short lens pair of glasses that sit on the tip of my nose which I push up for "normal use" when sitting in front of a computer or reading a book. My guess is I'll be moving on the progressives or bi/tri focals eventually, but for now, this works very well for me.
"They are for older individuals who still can focus at distance, but who have lost the muscles and lens plasticity to focus their eyes on closer objects."
I made certain assumptions which I believe to be valid based on the original author of the article.
From the AC author: "I'm at the age now where I need reading glasses,"
My assumption is that he is "an older individual" and understands why he needs reading glasses. Further, I am an "older individual (47 in my case)" and I understand why I need reading glasses. I provided my solution for his/her consideration.
"One practical solution for computer work is 40" 1080p monitors at a farther distance."
You have an odd definition of 'practical'. Not many people have a desk or work space where they can position a 40" monitor far enough a way that they can focus with presbyopia -- particularly if they are at a +1.75 or more. I'll agree with you that it is 'one solution' but I would argue about how practical it is.
She calls them that because of the WAY a wear them. They actually look fairly decent when they sit normally and as designed. But when they sit on the tip of my nose and I'm looking over them, not so much.
AC author should go to his nearest CVS (or rite-aid or whatever) and pick up a cheap pair of reading glasses to try. Hell, you can find some at your local $0.99 store. Test them out for reading.
I opted for a pair of Birth Control Glasses (as my wife calls them). They basically look like 'Santa' or 'Ben Franklin' glasses. Little half-sized rectangular lenses that sit at the tip of my nose most of the time. I just look over them for EVERYTHING except reading. When I sit down to work or read a book I push them back up to the bridge of my nose and read comfortably. They ran me something like $4. For "events", I have a normal looking pair of bi-focal glasses (not progressive). They are just clear glass on top and 1.25 mag on the bottom (those I spent ~$40 -- they are also transition lenses). They look decent for weddings and parties where I wont embarrass my wife (heh).
The reason why *I* opted for this is because I HATE taking glasses on/off all the time. This works for me. You might find that glasses with some type of string or cord that hangs at your neck works for you. Or glasses you hang on your collar when you aren't reading/working works for you. The point is that there are cheap alternatives and it's easy to test.
I've also tried progressives and don't have a problem with them -- you just need to learn to use your neck in place of your eye muscles. Tilt replaces eye focus. I prefer my little glasses right now, but I may move to progressives eventually.
"Whoever was offended apparently wants their beliefs to not only be the universal truth; but to get all the airtime, when they want it."
I'm a Christian and the tweet didn't offend me. I thought it was cute and I had forgotten Newton's birthday.
However, It was obvious by the language Tyson chose that he was deliberately using terms a Christian would use to celebrate the birth of Jesus. "On this day a child was born...". That's just not how we talk about ANYONE to celebrate their birth -- particularly on the 25th of December. To say that it was "entirely orthogonal" is just fabrication. He MEANT it to SOUND like a "Christian" statement about Christ and then added a surprise twist. This is where some Christians may feel offended. It CAN SOUND like you are elevating Newton to that of a deity. People can get very up-tight about their beliefs -- particularly when it can appear they are being mocked.
This "race" to be offended is one of the problems we have right now in our government. Everything is seen in terms of "good" and "evil" so that if one side (say the Democrats) have a position, the opposite position is evil (that held by Republicans). Vise versa.
"Has anyone ever been convicted of the crime of violating the 4th Amendment? Ever?"
It doesn't really work that way. Actions taken by the government which violate the 4th amendment can be reversed and penalties applied via civil law suites. Has that happened? Yes. Countless times. If you pay federal taxes, you are helping to pay for those "mistakes".
I disagree. There should be an elevation of discipline that should start with a written warning and ending with suspension and/or loss of their job should the issue be repeated. The loss of their pension and benefits will be intensive enough to keep it from happening.
"Yeah, what it actually does is permit the flyover states to leech money from the populated states, and also permit gaming the vote."
Of course you would like to dictate cookie-cutter one-size fits all laws and regulations that would alienate that segment of the population right? Laws that dont line up with their economic/ethnic/religious interests? It's also known as a tyranny and will make governing a nation that is spread over a wide geographic area and has a varied population impossible. We're already seeing the effects in CONGRESS being locked and indecisive and you are beginning to hear the non-wack-job rumblings of session talk.
"Oh yeah, they were so against tyranny that they left back doors in the constitution that let them write new laws at will in the future."
It's statements like this which demonstrate your ignorance of the history the US and of the Constitution. Claiming you are ignorant isn't an insult -- that can be fixed. Read.
"My argument is that it worked as designed, and the design was not to prevent mob rule, but to prevent the popular vote from ruling."
Which is wrong. It was designed so that states like New York or Virginia and THEIR interests did not dominate the union over the interests of the smaller states. The interest was how to govern a varied population (both economically, ethnically and religiously) without creating a tyranny.
Again, I recommend A Constitutional Journal. Its fairly short and the author does an excellent job presenting the information to the average layman.
Why be a prat? You asked a truly irrelevant question which I ignored (rather than ridicule). I, however, corrected a factual error of yours and provided you with a suggestion to follow up should you be so inclined.
BTW, there's a strong argument argument that Nixon actually one the popular vote in the 1960 election against Kennedy -- so your answer should have an "*" by it to include that little factoid.
And why was your question irreverent? Because the system was designed so that the STATES choose a President (by popular vote), not people directly. When a candidate wins the popular vote (say, like Gore in 2000), all that means is states like California wanted him by a large percentage which over-shadowed the wins of other states.
That it worked as designed isn't interesting or useful in your argument.
"Yeah, a serious threat to their wealthy, racially privileged position at the top of the pyramid."
While there may have been a few present at the constitutional convention with that rationale, they were very few. Most representatives were much more altruistic than that. The argued reasons were that PASSIONS were a threat to the stability of any government. The sudden swings and moods of the people can destroy a country. Read Federalist 10.
To get a better understanding of what transpired I would highly recommend A Constitutional Journal (by St. John). It's an excellent laymens account. I prefer the notes of Madison as well as various journal entries and letters from the members, but St John is not only informative, it's entertaining.
Another serious thread was noted by Franklin: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."
"Democracy means any government the people vote on. "
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Democracy is a form of government where those ELIGIBLE can vote. And my point about this (the US) *NOT* being a democracy is accurate. While most offices/posts are filled democratically, not all are -- and each of those posts are for representatives who will decide upon the direction government takes. The people take no direct roll in the direction of government.
What actually weakens the "vote" are uninformed and irresponsible voters.
" If you don't have a job, I guess you have a lower threshold for crime. "
I've been homeless and I've been jobless and I cannot disagree with you more. I think the reason it MIGHT appear that way is that people are willing to risk potential punishment for quick rewards rather than put in the work necessary to earn them. It's really as simple as that. There is virtually no place in the US where someone who is homeless and jobless cannot get enough assistance from city/state/private agency to change their situation. The exceptions are those in similar circumstance who are UNABLE to work or manage their own care/life due to mental illness or substance abuse.
" It's a fundamental right to participate in democracy, "
Two points... (1) The US isn't a democracy. It's a republic ("...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."). (2) Voting isn't a "right" in the US. It's a privilege.
I think we're on the same page as this being a bad idea -- but I'm no where near as far along that page as you.
They most likely won't be able to read/write CURSIVE. They'll be able to read JUST fine. They'll be able to WRITE (print little letters that look like the letters they read). Will they be able to write quickly? Probably not, but they'll be able to write just fine.
I read the article. The rock didn't leave Mars 4.4 billion years ago.
"It began its journey to Earth more than 5 million years ago, about the time humans and chimpanzees were splitting from a common ancestor. That is when an asteroid struck Mars, catapulting the rock into space. "
5 million years is still a long time but is really a drop in the bucket and I doubt the rocks would have changed much.
"And states should be allowed to legalise (sp) slavery. Because that worked so well the last time."
Sigh... Why not look at the history of the world as a whole. What nation ever fought itself over the issue of slavery? To the tune of over 600k dead?
Many of our abolitionist founders believed that slavery was a dead end doomed to end in the near future but elected to allow the south to maintain it for the interest of the union. It was essentially the cotton gin's invention which allowed slavery to remain economically viable far longer than they expected.
Without that economic leep after the 1790s, attitudes would have changed in the south as much they had in the north regarding slavery and it would have ended -- WITHOUT bloodshed. You've effectively made my point -- when a powerful central government makes a uniform law across a heterogeneous population, someone's rights are going to feel violated and they could very well go the route of the US in 1776 or the South in 1862.
I'm not saying that slavery or the south was in any way honorable. That war needed to be fought and is an exception brought on be a dramatic and swift economic change..
"thanks for letting us know you don't know what average means."
Your example shows you don't know what an IQ measures. Thanks for letting us know.
It's pretty apparent he meant half are below an IQ of 100, assuming 100 as the average (mean) and intelligence is evenly distributed (which basically defines an IQ test score) .
While an IQ of 99 isn't REALLY below average, his statement about expectations is appropriate.
Still, with a REAL number of about 25% below average intelligence (90 and below) we are left with about 80 million dullards out of about 320 million fellow citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
I picked up a Nokia 520 (Windows Phone 8.0 -- upgradable to 8.1) brand new for ~$30 on Amazon. You can find it around at that price (for example. Fry's has it for $29 after their "promo code" takes off $10). It's a "prepaid go phone" but just drop an ATT sim in it and you are golden with any type of account.
I picked it up as a spare in case my iphone 5 dies (son somehow talked me in to giving him my old 4s).
It's actually a decent phone. Snappy, responsive, light and decent battery life. The interface takes some getting used to, but it's not terrible.
Yes. She refuses until I remove them. (heh).
"I am over 50 and have always had astigmatism, and deal with the lingering and ever-changing effects of a shingles scar on one cornea, so my glasses are anything by simple. "
I got lucky. My eyes were originally astigmatic (and at 90 degree axis difference per eye) but for some reason they magically went normal around my 30th birthday. Further, I was slightly nearsighted in one eye and slightly far sighted in the other. Again, they magically changed around my 30th birthday. One of my retinas does sport a scar from looking at a solar eclipse back in the 70's (I was a stupid 5th grader) -- not much I can do about that.
Then around my 40-something year, my arms stared to grow short... My solution is a single, short lens pair of glasses that sit on the tip of my nose which I push up for "normal use" when sitting in front of a computer or reading a book. My guess is I'll be moving on the progressives or bi/tri focals eventually, but for now, this works very well for me.
"They are for older individuals who still can focus at distance, but who have lost the muscles and lens plasticity to focus their eyes on closer objects."
I made certain assumptions which I believe to be valid based on the original author of the article.
From the AC author: "I'm at the age now where I need reading glasses,"
My assumption is that he is "an older individual" and understands why he needs reading glasses. Further, I am an "older individual (47 in my case)" and I understand why I need reading glasses. I provided my solution for his/her consideration.
"One practical solution for computer work is 40" 1080p monitors at a farther distance."
You have an odd definition of 'practical'. Not many people have a desk or work space where they can position a 40" monitor far enough a way that they can focus with presbyopia -- particularly if they are at a +1.75 or more. I'll agree with you that it is 'one solution' but I would argue about how practical it is.
She calls them that because of the WAY a wear them. They actually look fairly decent when they sit normally and as designed. But when they sit on the tip of my nose and I'm looking over them, not so much.
AC author should go to his nearest CVS (or rite-aid or whatever) and pick up a cheap pair of reading glasses to try. Hell, you can find some at your local $0.99 store. Test them out for reading.
I opted for a pair of Birth Control Glasses (as my wife calls them). They basically look like 'Santa' or 'Ben Franklin' glasses. Little half-sized rectangular lenses that sit at the tip of my nose most of the time. I just look over them for EVERYTHING except reading. When I sit down to work or read a book I push them back up to the bridge of my nose and read comfortably. They ran me something like $4. For "events", I have a normal looking pair of bi-focal glasses (not progressive). They are just clear glass on top and 1.25 mag on the bottom (those I spent ~$40 -- they are also transition lenses). They look decent for weddings and parties where I wont embarrass my wife (heh).
The reason why *I* opted for this is because I HATE taking glasses on/off all the time. This works for me. You might find that glasses with some type of string or cord that hangs at your neck works for you. Or glasses you hang on your collar when you aren't reading/working works for you. The point is that there are cheap alternatives and it's easy to test.
I've also tried progressives and don't have a problem with them -- you just need to learn to use your neck in place of your eye muscles. Tilt replaces eye focus. I prefer my little glasses right now, but I may move to progressives eventually.
"Whoever was offended apparently wants their beliefs to not only be the universal truth; but to get all the airtime, when they want it."
I'm a Christian and the tweet didn't offend me. I thought it was cute and I had forgotten Newton's birthday.
However, It was obvious by the language Tyson chose that he was deliberately using terms a Christian would use to celebrate the birth of Jesus. "On this day a child was born...". That's just not how we talk about ANYONE to celebrate their birth -- particularly on the 25th of December. To say that it was "entirely orthogonal" is just fabrication. He MEANT it to SOUND like a "Christian" statement about Christ and then added a surprise twist. This is where some Christians may feel offended. It CAN SOUND like you are elevating Newton to that of a deity. People can get very up-tight about their beliefs -- particularly when it can appear they are being mocked.
This "race" to be offended is one of the problems we have right now in our government. Everything is seen in terms of "good" and "evil" so that if one side (say the Democrats) have a position, the opposite position is evil (that held by Republicans). Vise versa.
With Stephen Hawking and Hawklad.
We keep flying in those gas-guzzling SUV rovers to take snapshots for our albums...
"Would you really start at step 1 when this is an issue which has been happening with other officers "
I'd say that "step 1" should have started a long time ago and that discipline really hasn't been enforced, so yes.
If the problem doesn't go away, then start disciplining their supervisors.
The answer isn't to go from zero to "jail" in 15 seconds for something that is most likely due to piss-poor training.
"Has anyone ever been convicted of the crime of violating the 4th Amendment? Ever?"
It doesn't really work that way. Actions taken by the government which violate the 4th amendment can be reversed and penalties applied via civil law suites. Has that happened? Yes. Countless times. If you pay federal taxes, you are helping to pay for those "mistakes".
I disagree. There should be an elevation of discipline that should start with a written warning and ending with suspension and/or loss of their job should the issue be repeated. The loss of their pension and benefits will be intensive enough to keep it from happening.
"Yeah, what it actually does is permit the flyover states to leech money from the populated states, and also permit gaming the vote."
Of course you would like to dictate cookie-cutter one-size fits all laws and regulations that would alienate that segment of the population right? Laws that dont line up with their economic/ethnic/religious interests? It's also known as a tyranny and will make governing a nation that is spread over a wide geographic area and has a varied population impossible. We're already seeing the effects in CONGRESS being locked and indecisive and you are beginning to hear the non-wack-job rumblings of session talk.
"Oh yeah, they were so against tyranny that they left back doors in the constitution that let them write new laws at will in the future."
It's statements like this which demonstrate your ignorance of the history the US and of the Constitution. Claiming you are ignorant isn't an insult -- that can be fixed. Read.
"My argument is that it worked as designed, and the design was not to prevent mob rule, but to prevent the popular vote from ruling."
Which is wrong. It was designed so that states like New York or Virginia and THEIR interests did not dominate the union over the interests of the smaller states. The interest was how to govern a varied population (both economically, ethnically and religiously) without creating a tyranny.
Again, I recommend A Constitutional Journal. Its fairly short and the author does an excellent job presenting the information to the average layman.
Why be a prat? You asked a truly irrelevant question which I ignored (rather than ridicule). I, however, corrected a factual error of yours and provided you with a suggestion to follow up should you be so inclined.
BTW, there's a strong argument argument that Nixon actually one the popular vote in the 1960 election against Kennedy -- so your answer should have an "*" by it to include that little factoid.
And why was your question irreverent? Because the system was designed so that the STATES choose a President (by popular vote), not people directly. When a candidate wins the popular vote (say, like Gore in 2000), all that means is states like California wanted him by a large percentage which over-shadowed the wins of other states.
That it worked as designed isn't interesting or useful in your argument.
"Yeah, a serious threat to their wealthy, racially privileged position at the top of the pyramid."
While there may have been a few present at the constitutional convention with that rationale, they were very few. Most representatives were much more altruistic than that. The argued reasons were that PASSIONS were a threat to the stability of any government. The sudden swings and moods of the people can destroy a country. Read Federalist 10.
To get a better understanding of what transpired I would highly recommend A Constitutional Journal (by St. John). It's an excellent laymens account. I prefer the notes of Madison as well as various journal entries and letters from the members, but St John is not only informative, it's entertaining.
Another serious thread was noted by Franklin: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."
"Democracy means any government the people vote on. "
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Democracy is a form of government where those ELIGIBLE can vote. And my point about this (the US) *NOT* being a democracy is accurate. While most offices/posts are filled democratically, not all are -- and each of those posts are for representatives who will decide upon the direction government takes. The people take no direct roll in the direction of government.
What actually weakens the "vote" are uninformed and irresponsible voters.
" If you don't have a job, I guess you have a lower threshold for crime. "
I've been homeless and I've been jobless and I cannot disagree with you more. I think the reason it MIGHT appear that way is that people are willing to risk potential punishment for quick rewards rather than put in the work necessary to earn them. It's really as simple as that. There is virtually no place in the US where someone who is homeless and jobless cannot get enough assistance from city/state/private agency to change their situation. The exceptions are those in similar circumstance who are UNABLE to work or manage their own care/life due to mental illness or substance abuse.
" It's a fundamental right to participate in democracy, "
Two points... (1) The US isn't a democracy. It's a republic ("...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."). (2) Voting isn't a "right" in the US. It's a privilege.
" Stroke of fucking genius."
I think we're on the same page as this being a bad idea -- but I'm no where near as far along that page as you.
They most likely won't be able to read/write CURSIVE. They'll be able to read JUST fine. They'll be able to WRITE (print little letters that look like the letters they read). Will they be able to write quickly? Probably not, but they'll be able to write just fine.
"I haven't read how they know it's from Mars, just how exactly do they know?"
When they turned it over, there was a little sticker that said "Made on Mars".
I read the article. The rock didn't leave Mars 4.4 billion years ago.
"It began its journey to Earth more than 5 million years ago, about the time humans and chimpanzees were splitting from a common ancestor. That is when an asteroid struck Mars, catapulting the rock into space. "
5 million years is still a long time but is really a drop in the bucket and I doubt the rocks would have changed much.
Kind of a cross between "Transcendence" and "Limitless".
What could go wrong?
"And states should be allowed to legalise (sp) slavery. Because that worked so well the last time."
Sigh... Why not look at the history of the world as a whole. What nation ever fought itself over the issue of slavery? To the tune of over 600k dead?
Many of our abolitionist founders believed that slavery was a dead end doomed to end in the near future but elected to allow the south to maintain it for the interest of the union. It was essentially the cotton gin's invention which allowed slavery to remain economically viable far longer than they expected.
Without that economic leep after the 1790s, attitudes would have changed in the south as much they had in the north regarding slavery and it would have ended -- WITHOUT bloodshed. You've effectively made my point -- when a powerful central government makes a uniform law across a heterogeneous population, someone's rights are going to feel violated and they could very well go the route of the US in 1776 or the South in 1862.
I'm not saying that slavery or the south was in any way honorable. That war needed to be fought and is an exception brought on be a dramatic and swift economic change..
"thanks for letting us know you don't know what average means."
Your example shows you don't know what an IQ measures. Thanks for letting us know.
It's pretty apparent he meant half are below an IQ of 100, assuming 100 as the average (mean) and intelligence is evenly distributed (which basically defines an IQ test score) .
While an IQ of 99 isn't REALLY below average, his statement about expectations is appropriate.
Still, with a REAL number of about 25% below average intelligence (90 and below) we are left with about 80 million dullards out of about 320 million fellow citizens.