Ah but you see this is an ADVANTAGE of an eBook over a published book. And you know those printing presses cost money to support so eBooks should be more expensive. Seriously, these are the kinds of ideas that MacMillen publishing has actually had the balls to post in their blog. They are batshit crazy!
Ever since these boobs got together with Apple and shit on the price of eBooks I have stopped buying. Just like I did with music until Amazon had nice unencumbered MP3 copies for 99 cents which I now buy quite a few of. I'm doing the same with books that I did with music - finding "alternative" sources. However with books I have noticed an interesting phenomena. You see an MP3 can be multiple megs but a book? FAR smaller. So small in fact that it doesn't make sense to just make a single book available but to instead offer an entire catalog. So these authors who's publishers are such stupid asshats as to charge as much, and sometimes MORE (I shit you not), than cover price for print are really getting screwed. Worse? They get a FAR smaller percentage of their sale of a paper book than they would with an eBook published via Amazon.
This author reveals his sales numbers, he reveals his methods, he tells anyone that will listen how to do it - and authors are slowly beginning to get a clue. Even more interesting is he's urging these authors to sell off their back catalog. He's also urging them to reclaim rights of books that publishers have left fallow and off the shelf. He's urging them to just say NO when those publishers come knocking offering to sell the books for the author out of the back catalog and he shows them how to do it themselves. Interestingly enough one of the hurdles has been the cover art on books so he's showing them where to get new quality art. His site is a really good read!
Big publishers of books for casual readers are about to get a rude awakening I think. In the next few years they are going to have their lunch eaten and I'm going to laugh and laugh. When books become affordable again, and $9.99 or less was my previous price point but might not be low enough now, I'll start buying again. Until then I'll watch them burn...
I've mentioned this guy in countless rants concerning eBook prices and the way the PUBLISHERS, not Amazon, are screwing us. MacMillen in particular who started this mess. This guy's blog is a fascinating read and it's been very interesting to see him making a living without having to tour his brains out and do all sorts of hoop jumping like he used to with paper books. Paper books sit on a shelf for a limited period of time and then go into a back catalog that the author can't do jack with. Electronic books are always right in front of any search and can be long-term money makers for an author - a point he really hammers home by revealing all sorts of information about his sales that has got to send shivers up the spine of the large publishing houses. He tells everyone who he uses for cover work, editing, and he even promotes other writers - he's doing a service. Sadly his books aren't a genre I would enjoy but as a human being this guy deserves huge props for trying to help others get the same success he has!
I'm thrilled to death to see a story about him here, I just wish I'd been the one smart enough to think to submit it:-)
Yes, I missed the point you were trying to make - thanks for the clarification. FWIW there are some software packages, games, that will refuse to load if they detect some software onboard. I refuse to buy them, that kind of crap pisses me off. My PS3 hasn't been updated since this all hit - I'm waiting for the smoke to clear and custom firmware to appear!
Sounds like something from World of Warcraft? They download code that executes and without proper handshaking they know you've done something funny. Not quite the same as the Warden stuff but close enough and a real PITA to get around I'd expect. If this is simply a hook to allow the download\execute of code it's potentially a real bear to solve short of not using their network.:-(
Yes thank you for proving my point - those are both commercial encoders. Now go look at the x.264 mailing list where the devs are approached by an Intel guy about their new hardware (to much disbelief), much trouble ensues as they try to get him into IRC, contact is made but they find the silicon is already sealed and done, and then the guy disappears. Again, is x.264 accessing this yet or is it only commercial encoders? All in all the devs didn't seem too impressed with Intel, apparently there were things that could have been done that would've been a huge help that weren't. I still hold out hope that they will find some acceleration and if nothing the brute clocks on this CPU and better architecture will be helpful.
BTW of the two you posted Mediaconverter7 is better in my experience. It actually uses a decent chunk of CPU as well as heats the GPU more than the other so it seems to load itmore. It only does base and main profiles but can be tweaked and CAN write to a MKV container. It does insist on shoving an audio track in there for some reason which is annoying. The other product barely uses the CPU at all, cannot handle writing to MKV, and doesn't appear to allow for the same level of tweaks. so, I've stuck to x.264 with meGUI as my primary front-end with some Handbrake as needed - no GPU acceleration. MediaConvert7 was able to compress a movie in about 45mins vs the 3 hours or so with my normal process but since I cannot get the settings aligned I'm not comfortable using it - their support was no help concerning using the High profile either when I asked. I know $40 isn't a ton of cash but I did sort of want some assurance it would give me at least equal results:-(
I haven't YET purchased one of these - and a good thing it seems - as I've been waiting to figure this out. If I must wait for the Z67 then so be it. My requirements are that I be able to overclock (so I'll buy the unlocked CPU) and I want access to the encoder instructions. As it stands now nothing but commercial encoders are accessing this I believe as Intel came to the table VERY late for the x.264 guys. My fingers are crossed that this is solved by the time I'm ready to upgrade else I'll simply be stuck with a way faster CPU that clocks nearly 5ghz on air - and I run water:-) This bug will be a set back it seems but fingers crossed they get it solved quickly as this sounds like a very nice upgrade from my i7 clocked a bit over 4ghz. My I/O might actually become a bottleneck!:-O
Anyway, I appreciate the links as this wasn't something I'd yet been able to find myself.
Could they pretty please make a change that allows me to use the new H.264 encoding instructions without being forced to rely upon their nice but not nice enough video display capabilities? I'd LOVE to use the encoder speedups but if I'm forced to use their CPU as my GPU I may be forced to skip it. Everything I've read says that this is what I'll be forced to do - YUCK!
Thank 60Minutes. It wasn't until that show proved that money could be made with a news program that things went from objective reporting to "how the heck can we get them to watch OUR news program?". It's been downhill ever since and no I'm not saying 60 Minutes was a bad program but it showed news directors they could make their network cash which wasn't the case previously. When it became a dog and pony show with each trying to outdo the other we were doomed. It doesn't help that the news organizations have been allowed to consolidate into the hands of the few. If they don't want you to know about it you won't in the popular media..
I once argued for term limits with a staffer of one of these guys - someone I knew who had a clue. The point he made in response was that some of our legislation is so complex and the issues so far reaching that particular legislators become experts regarding them and their knowledge of the subject is valuable. You cannot simply toss people out after just one term and expect the next guy to be able to catch-up and move forward before his time is also up. Heck, he might not even be interested or go in a totally different direction which would be jerking everyone around. So while term limits sound good on the surface there needs to be some sort of compromise, one is a bit too short IMO. Sadly I don't know what the answer is and neither did the friend I spoke with who was also quite frustrated about things. Frankly? I think it would be a great idea cap campaign contributions totals, cap campaign spending totals, and figure out a way to do this so they do not begin campaigning to come back on their first damned day! Seriously, it's gotten to the point where the legislature is in CONSTANT campaign mode... How can that be effective?
Oh sure I did that! I am not quite as old as you though. I was in the mandated car seat and then when I got older I rode the trans hump. Best of fun was laying in the rear deck and having the driver hit the brakes so you would roll off! Or hit a hill fast enough that the car rose up on it's suspension and you in the back floated. How about those fun station wagons that had you inches from the rear bumper facing backwards so you could see death coming? Yikes!
It's a wonder any of us ever survived without a million and one safety devices and laws isn't it? Kripes I never wore a damned bike helmet until I was nearly 40 and found out it was required to ride on a danged bike trail! Of all the jumps, wrecks, and crazy things I survived just fine without it as a kid. Yeah, probably better off with it but why is this forced and not voluntary?
Kids have been "required" to be restrained since I was a kid - FAR longer than seat belt laws have been around. In fact shoulder belts were just coming around when I was old enough to even notice seat belts but I'd been required to use a child seat as a kid (mind you in hindsight it sucked compared to today's). Laws requiring kids to be restrained make sense, they aren't old enough to choose to make decisions regarding the sanity of wearing a belt like adults are. I like seatbelt laws about as much as I do helmet laws for bikes of any sort but for kids? Kids don't have the awareness of the impact that adults do, pardon the pun. If an adult wants to be stupid and not wear a belt, fine by me. Smoke, drink, whatever just try not to impact me. I wear belts because I can see the benefit but why a law? It's someone else making a decision for me, that's stupid and led to things like those crap belts that slid along a track in the door that everyone hated. These laws came about long before talk of national health care too - they have been in effect in my state for at least 10 years.
As for airbags, they are at least passive. Sans belt though they can cause more harm than good. I have witnessed, up close, deployment of a bag at least 2x with no ill effects. However if I were a 5ft tall woman I doubt I would be saying the same. Likewise a child might not be so thrilled with them as you've pointed out. The new staged bags are supposed to be better, who knows.
I'm not against safety as managing risk makes sense but attempts to eliminate risk are stupid. It's why we have ever heavier cars with crap gas mileage. I owned a car many years ago that got 42mpg, my current diesel barely gets that because it's fat as hell. I almost fell over to see the new ones made lighter this year for the first time in my memory - wow! It's why we have cars that are having designs changed to prevent PEDESTRIAN injuries. Say what?! How about not hitting them in the first place? Why must hoodlines be raised, ornaments removed, and wipers changed just to accommodate this rare instance? At what point do we hit diminishing returns? People make mistakes, that won't stop. Manage risk but this ever escalating crap to try and eliminate it with laws and regulations is nutz.
Nope, seat back collapsed and my feet were thrown completely off the pedals and I had NO view of the road in front of me. I was stepping on the clutch thinking it was the brake trying to stop and was unable to pull myself upright. I also know of someone else who ended up with their head in the passenger side somehow after being struck.
This might come as a shock but YouTube isn't the authority on anything. I spoke from personal experience, call me a liar if you want.
Again, where has this ever been argued as a reason why we're REQUIRED to wear seat belts? What's next, bubble wrap and spray foam deployment on impact?
Okay, well that makes sense. Here in the US I don't see them selling so much make-up like others have described as they do mostly natural bath products. I also don't see them in the likes of Macey's as has been described here. At least not that I've noticed. They DO have their own shops however and I've visited them at several malls and at an airport of all things. I always have some of their soap here and while I don't use it all the time the stuff smells great. I've actually found that when women smell it on you they like it too so bonus!
From the "diary" entry posted elsewhere they do really sound like they have a small IT operation. Like three guys and a hosting company which surprises me if they are big enough to have sites for multiple countries and at least 4 shops that I know of here. I guess I would expect them to be using more than just a couple of guys and apparently a Win2K web server at least. I guess if nothing this is working out to be free publicity for them:-)
Smells good to me. You can buy their soaps and your bathroom smells wonderful as well. I buy their stuff here in the States and like it actually. Is Lush Canada, Lush UK, and the Lush company here in the US all the same? I wonder what the other web sites are running...:-O
This point I can concede although I'd argue that in the case of a car seatbelt it's the driver's responsibility to take and on him\her if somehow his flying body hurt someone. For that matter, I think on a plane that's having an issue chances are pretty good the peeps in the aisle seats aren't going to be too much of an obstacle or too distracted as they will be wanting out too. I think the thread of probability that someone is going to be SO distracted by a phone or MP3 player as to miss the fact a plane is going down is pretty thin but if possible yeah it might be an issue. Pretty soon we're all going to be wrapped in bubble wrap for fear of ever possibly taking any sort of chance I swear...
As I said - not perfectly. The reason, if I'm understanding you correctly, is because the coin isn't perfectly balanced and over enough times this becomes more obvious. If this isn't what you're pointing out then you're going to have to better explain your reasoning for me to understand.
Hrm, thinking about this - you're flipping it 60 times faster so yes it's going to occur 60 times more often but still 50/50 or nearly so yes? My point stands but I think you're point is that doing the action more frequently just means we eat up the odds more quickly. Since this supposition was what 1 in 100million I think we're pretty safe!
Umm, you have a citation for this? It's crap IMO. For years cars had NO seatbelts, then seatbelts that no one wore, and now seatbelts with airbags and who knows what's next. Now suddenly this is an issue? Where has this ever been argued as something other than a nanny law and where is the research citing this as reasons for the laws? Sorry, this is others deciding what should be imposed on others in the name of safety. I'm okay with that when it comes to children but when I became of age I became responsible for myself. I choose to wear a seatbelt but I do not believe I should be doing it because of some law and indeed the law had no effect on me - I began wearing one the moment I became more aware of what could happen when I was 15 years old and driving. Until then I'd never worn one nor had anyone in my family - ever.
Here's a shocker - I've been in an accident wearing a seat belt properly and it most certainly did NOT keep my feet on the pedals or me in the seat. Logically this might sound like it should but that's not been my experience when I was rearended.
If I flip a coin my chances of getting heads are 50/50 (okay not perfectly that but close enough). If I flip it a second time are my chances of getting heads greater or lesser?
The answer is 50/50, previous performance doesn't modify subsequent flips. So, for EVERY flight it's a 1-in-100million chance assuming you're correct. The chances of the plane being struck by lightning and crashing are likely higher - at least we KNOW planes get struck by lightning and suffer issues.
This is TRUE - but no longer applicable. A friend of mine used to fly hot air balloons and used one of the old brick cells to notify the chase crew as to his location. This was obviously many years ago but what he discovered when he got up a bit high was that the cell would FREAK! And it was exactly this - connecting to many towers at once. I have mentioned that here before so it's possible the parent even got that from me. However I believe that this is OBE and that it's not longer the issue it once was if an issue at all.
As for Farady cage - yeah the plane DOES actually work pretty well for this. Not perfect but well. You will notice that antenna for the plane are OUTSIDE the plane for instance. I have had calls drop when the door is closed at take off. However I have also had a ton of SMS show up upon landing. So at the very least management packets make it through and yeah occasionally a call. IMO cells do NOT pose a flight risk. Hell I've been told that pilots up front often leave them on - and do occasionally suffer the BZZT BUZZ BZZT RF interference with their headphones, PA, and radio.
So why turn them off during takeoff and landing? Mostly because the flight crew would rather have you focused on WTF is going on during those times since those are time periods where an aircraft is most vulnerable and stressed so you need to be aware not plugged into your MP3 player. Personally, being an adult and recognizing this, I find that I'm capable of making my own life\death decisions and would prefer they not bother me about it. Sort of like seat belt laws - those piss me off for adults. If someone really wants to take that risk I don't need to nag them not to.
Now all that said - no one seems to have informed the flight crews as to why this is an issue. Some of them are like Gestapo with the whole turn it off or we'll crash and burn sort of attitude. These sorts terrify the less aware passengers and we get this crap like morons punching each other or getting out of their seat during takeoff. Want to screw up a plane on takeoff or landing? Shift some weight around in the back. A good brawl on final approach would be just perfect It would be really nice if the FAA would get their crap straight on this and the flight attendants would get a clue too.
Frankly, I would be willing to bet money that on nearly every single commercial passenger flight there's at LEAST one cell turned on for the duration (not counting the pilots). Possibly intentionally, possibly an accident. I know for a fact I have done it on at least 3 flights accidentally. Normally I go into airplane mode, it saves power big-time since cells ramp power for weak signals, but a few times now I've simply forgotten about the silly thing. I am 100% sure I'm not alone either and out of a hundred plus peeps on a plane of which nearly all have cells you can bet at least one is doing it almost every flight...
They drop physical media, I drop Netflix and rely more on RedBox. I LIKE 1080P video, full 7.1 surround sound, and all of the other goodness I get from the physical media. I'm sorry it costs them more but this is what their business was founded on and while they make MORE profit from streaming they still make profit on me too. I even try to help them out by sending back disks in pairs to cut down on costs. They need to remember their core business...
I can find info easily, I highlight the stack n my left monitor, it pops up a synopsis of all windows, I go down the list to the one I need right now, it comes to the forefront. I'm sorry if I'm able to navigate this and you find you can't. But do please cite some real science about this, I'd love to see it. A study on efficient browser usage - this should be amusing. Hint: not everyone works the way you do lol
I'm sorry if you cannot understand that I do multiple research tasks at once and that I have multiple demands for topics placed upon me - especially at work. Whine that this just can't work all you want because it doesn't work for you but umm it does work for me - daily. It likely works for many others too. I know, amazing huh?
No, I'm doing it differently than you - that's not necessarily wrong.
I am interested in MANY things. I have a single normal page with all of the news, email, and tech sites I read to include status of eBay auctions and NetFlix queue. This stays open always. When I research an interest be it HTPC topics, storage solutions, or odd stuff found on sites like Slashdot I often open a new window. Each tab in that new window - often starting with Google, is a different site. If i get pulled away or it';s something I want to research over an extended period I leave the window and it's tabs open to return to as I'm able. I currently on this machine have 60 windows open including this one which I'll close when I'm done responding.:-)
I don't do the whole click on Google, follow a thread of sites to a dead-end, Google again, rinse and repeat thing. I Google, find likely sites, and follow each of those in it's own tab or couple of tabs if I need to. I close tabs and windows when I'm satisfied they're dead ends or I've learned or printed what I want.
To answer a question below - I don't focus on all of it at once. In fact my focus changes often and that's part of the reason why I have so much open. I bounce all over and I swap between things as needed either for my intellect or my job. Lots of hobbies and I work in the computer field too so the 'net is essential...
Slashdot Mirror
Ah but you see this is an ADVANTAGE of an eBook over a published book. And you know those printing presses cost money to support so eBooks should be more expensive. Seriously, these are the kinds of ideas that MacMillen publishing has actually had the balls to post in their blog. They are batshit crazy!
Ever since these boobs got together with Apple and shit on the price of eBooks I have stopped buying. Just like I did with music until Amazon had nice unencumbered MP3 copies for 99 cents which I now buy quite a few of. I'm doing the same with books that I did with music - finding "alternative" sources. However with books I have noticed an interesting phenomena. You see an MP3 can be multiple megs but a book? FAR smaller. So small in fact that it doesn't make sense to just make a single book available but to instead offer an entire catalog. So these authors who's publishers are such stupid asshats as to charge as much, and sometimes MORE (I shit you not), than cover price for print are really getting screwed. Worse? They get a FAR smaller percentage of their sale of a paper book than they would with an eBook published via Amazon.
This author reveals his sales numbers, he reveals his methods, he tells anyone that will listen how to do it - and authors are slowly beginning to get a clue. Even more interesting is he's urging these authors to sell off their back catalog. He's also urging them to reclaim rights of books that publishers have left fallow and off the shelf. He's urging them to just say NO when those publishers come knocking offering to sell the books for the author out of the back catalog and he shows them how to do it themselves. Interestingly enough one of the hurdles has been the cover art on books so he's showing them where to get new quality art. His site is a really good read!
Big publishers of books for casual readers are about to get a rude awakening I think. In the next few years they are going to have their lunch eaten and I'm going to laugh and laugh. When books become affordable again, and $9.99 or less was my previous price point but might not be low enough now, I'll start buying again. Until then I'll watch them burn...
I've mentioned this guy in countless rants concerning eBook prices and the way the PUBLISHERS, not Amazon, are screwing us. MacMillen in particular who started this mess. This guy's blog is a fascinating read and it's been very interesting to see him making a living without having to tour his brains out and do all sorts of hoop jumping like he used to with paper books. Paper books sit on a shelf for a limited period of time and then go into a back catalog that the author can't do jack with. Electronic books are always right in front of any search and can be long-term money makers for an author - a point he really hammers home by revealing all sorts of information about his sales that has got to send shivers up the spine of the large publishing houses. He tells everyone who he uses for cover work, editing, and he even promotes other writers - he's doing a service. Sadly his books aren't a genre I would enjoy but as a human being this guy deserves huge props for trying to help others get the same success he has!
I'm thrilled to death to see a story about him here, I just wish I'd been the one smart enough to think to submit it :-)
$50 from me as well. This is BS and while not everyone agrees with the work he has done the methods being used to shut him down MUST be fought!
Yes, I missed the point you were trying to make - thanks for the clarification. FWIW there are some software packages, games, that will refuse to load if they detect some software onboard. I refuse to buy them, that kind of crap pisses me off. My PS3 hasn't been updated since this all hit - I'm waiting for the smoke to clear and custom firmware to appear!
As I understand it if you run software that the Warden finds to be objectionable you can be banned. It's a watchdog not so much different than this.
Sounds like something from World of Warcraft? They download code that executes and without proper handshaking they know you've done something funny. Not quite the same as the Warden stuff but close enough and a real PITA to get around I'd expect. If this is simply a hook to allow the download\execute of code it's potentially a real bear to solve short of not using their network. :-(
Yes thank you for proving my point - those are both commercial encoders. Now go look at the x.264 mailing list where the devs are approached by an Intel guy about their new hardware (to much disbelief), much trouble ensues as they try to get him into IRC, contact is made but they find the silicon is already sealed and done, and then the guy disappears. Again, is x.264 accessing this yet or is it only commercial encoders? All in all the devs didn't seem too impressed with Intel, apparently there were things that could have been done that would've been a huge help that weren't. I still hold out hope that they will find some acceleration and if nothing the brute clocks on this CPU and better architecture will be helpful.
BTW of the two you posted Mediaconverter7 is better in my experience. It actually uses a decent chunk of CPU as well as heats the GPU more than the other so it seems to load itmore. It only does base and main profiles but can be tweaked and CAN write to a MKV container. It does insist on shoving an audio track in there for some reason which is annoying. The other product barely uses the CPU at all, cannot handle writing to MKV, and doesn't appear to allow for the same level of tweaks. so, I've stuck to x.264 with meGUI as my primary front-end with some Handbrake as needed - no GPU acceleration. MediaConvert7 was able to compress a movie in about 45mins vs the 3 hours or so with my normal process but since I cannot get the settings aligned I'm not comfortable using it - their support was no help concerning using the High profile either when I asked. I know $40 isn't a ton of cash but I did sort of want some assurance it would give me at least equal results :-(
Thank you, very helpful!
I haven't YET purchased one of these - and a good thing it seems - as I've been waiting to figure this out. If I must wait for the Z67 then so be it. My requirements are that I be able to overclock (so I'll buy the unlocked CPU) and I want access to the encoder instructions. As it stands now nothing but commercial encoders are accessing this I believe as Intel came to the table VERY late for the x.264 guys. My fingers are crossed that this is solved by the time I'm ready to upgrade else I'll simply be stuck with a way faster CPU that clocks nearly 5ghz on air - and I run water :-) This bug will be a set back it seems but fingers crossed they get it solved quickly as this sounds like a very nice upgrade from my i7 clocked a bit over 4ghz. My I/O might actually become a bottleneck! :-O
Anyway, I appreciate the links as this wasn't something I'd yet been able to find myself.
Could they pretty please make a change that allows me to use the new H.264 encoding instructions without being forced to rely upon their nice but not nice enough video display capabilities? I'd LOVE to use the encoder speedups but if I'm forced to use their CPU as my GPU I may be forced to skip it. Everything I've read says that this is what I'll be forced to do - YUCK!
Thank 60Minutes. It wasn't until that show proved that money could be made with a news program that things went from objective reporting to "how the heck can we get them to watch OUR news program?". It's been downhill ever since and no I'm not saying 60 Minutes was a bad program but it showed news directors they could make their network cash which wasn't the case previously. When it became a dog and pony show with each trying to outdo the other we were doomed. It doesn't help that the news organizations have been allowed to consolidate into the hands of the few. If they don't want you to know about it you won't in the popular media..
I once argued for term limits with a staffer of one of these guys - someone I knew who had a clue. The point he made in response was that some of our legislation is so complex and the issues so far reaching that particular legislators become experts regarding them and their knowledge of the subject is valuable. You cannot simply toss people out after just one term and expect the next guy to be able to catch-up and move forward before his time is also up. Heck, he might not even be interested or go in a totally different direction which would be jerking everyone around. So while term limits sound good on the surface there needs to be some sort of compromise, one is a bit too short IMO. Sadly I don't know what the answer is and neither did the friend I spoke with who was also quite frustrated about things. Frankly? I think it would be a great idea cap campaign contributions totals, cap campaign spending totals, and figure out a way to do this so they do not begin campaigning to come back on their first damned day! Seriously, it's gotten to the point where the legislature is in CONSTANT campaign mode... How can that be effective?
Would this be the same courts that reamed 2600 magazine for LINKING to deCSS code?
Oh sure I did that! I am not quite as old as you though. I was in the mandated car seat and then when I got older I rode the trans hump. Best of fun was laying in the rear deck and having the driver hit the brakes so you would roll off! Or hit a hill fast enough that the car rose up on it's suspension and you in the back floated. How about those fun station wagons that had you inches from the rear bumper facing backwards so you could see death coming? Yikes!
It's a wonder any of us ever survived without a million and one safety devices and laws isn't it? Kripes I never wore a damned bike helmet until I was nearly 40 and found out it was required to ride on a danged bike trail! Of all the jumps, wrecks, and crazy things I survived just fine without it as a kid. Yeah, probably better off with it but why is this forced and not voluntary?
Kids have been "required" to be restrained since I was a kid - FAR longer than seat belt laws have been around. In fact shoulder belts were just coming around when I was old enough to even notice seat belts but I'd been required to use a child seat as a kid (mind you in hindsight it sucked compared to today's). Laws requiring kids to be restrained make sense, they aren't old enough to choose to make decisions regarding the sanity of wearing a belt like adults are. I like seatbelt laws about as much as I do helmet laws for bikes of any sort but for kids? Kids don't have the awareness of the impact that adults do, pardon the pun. If an adult wants to be stupid and not wear a belt, fine by me. Smoke, drink, whatever just try not to impact me. I wear belts because I can see the benefit but why a law? It's someone else making a decision for me, that's stupid and led to things like those crap belts that slid along a track in the door that everyone hated. These laws came about long before talk of national health care too - they have been in effect in my state for at least 10 years.
As for airbags, they are at least passive. Sans belt though they can cause more harm than good. I have witnessed, up close, deployment of a bag at least 2x with no ill effects. However if I were a 5ft tall woman I doubt I would be saying the same. Likewise a child might not be so thrilled with them as you've pointed out. The new staged bags are supposed to be better, who knows.
I'm not against safety as managing risk makes sense but attempts to eliminate risk are stupid. It's why we have ever heavier cars with crap gas mileage. I owned a car many years ago that got 42mpg, my current diesel barely gets that because it's fat as hell. I almost fell over to see the new ones made lighter this year for the first time in my memory - wow! It's why we have cars that are having designs changed to prevent PEDESTRIAN injuries. Say what?! How about not hitting them in the first place? Why must hoodlines be raised, ornaments removed, and wipers changed just to accommodate this rare instance? At what point do we hit diminishing returns? People make mistakes, that won't stop. Manage risk but this ever escalating crap to try and eliminate it with laws and regulations is nutz.
Nope, seat back collapsed and my feet were thrown completely off the pedals and I had NO view of the road in front of me. I was stepping on the clutch thinking it was the brake trying to stop and was unable to pull myself upright. I also know of someone else who ended up with their head in the passenger side somehow after being struck.
This might come as a shock but YouTube isn't the authority on anything. I spoke from personal experience, call me a liar if you want.
Again, where has this ever been argued as a reason why we're REQUIRED to wear seat belts? What's next, bubble wrap and spray foam deployment on impact?
Okay, well that makes sense. Here in the US I don't see them selling so much make-up like others have described as they do mostly natural bath products. I also don't see them in the likes of Macey's as has been described here. At least not that I've noticed. They DO have their own shops however and I've visited them at several malls and at an airport of all things. I always have some of their soap here and while I don't use it all the time the stuff smells great. I've actually found that when women smell it on you they like it too so bonus!
From the "diary" entry posted elsewhere they do really sound like they have a small IT operation. Like three guys and a hosting company which surprises me if they are big enough to have sites for multiple countries and at least 4 shops that I know of here. I guess I would expect them to be using more than just a couple of guys and apparently a Win2K web server at least. I guess if nothing this is working out to be free publicity for them :-)
Smells good to me. You can buy their soaps and your bathroom smells wonderful as well. I buy their stuff here in the States and like it actually. Is Lush Canada, Lush UK, and the Lush company here in the US all the same? I wonder what the other web sites are running... :-O
This point I can concede although I'd argue that in the case of a car seatbelt it's the driver's responsibility to take and on him\her if somehow his flying body hurt someone. For that matter, I think on a plane that's having an issue chances are pretty good the peeps in the aisle seats aren't going to be too much of an obstacle or too distracted as they will be wanting out too. I think the thread of probability that someone is going to be SO distracted by a phone or MP3 player as to miss the fact a plane is going down is pretty thin but if possible yeah it might be an issue. Pretty soon we're all going to be wrapped in bubble wrap for fear of ever possibly taking any sort of chance I swear...
As I said - not perfectly. The reason, if I'm understanding you correctly, is because the coin isn't perfectly balanced and over enough times this becomes more obvious. If this isn't what you're pointing out then you're going to have to better explain your reasoning for me to understand.
Hrm, thinking about this - you're flipping it 60 times faster so yes it's going to occur 60 times more often but still 50/50 or nearly so yes? My point stands but I think you're point is that doing the action more frequently just means we eat up the odds more quickly. Since this supposition was what 1 in 100million I think we're pretty safe!
Umm, you have a citation for this? It's crap IMO. For years cars had NO seatbelts, then seatbelts that no one wore, and now seatbelts with airbags and who knows what's next. Now suddenly this is an issue? Where has this ever been argued as something other than a nanny law and where is the research citing this as reasons for the laws? Sorry, this is others deciding what should be imposed on others in the name of safety. I'm okay with that when it comes to children but when I became of age I became responsible for myself. I choose to wear a seatbelt but I do not believe I should be doing it because of some law and indeed the law had no effect on me - I began wearing one the moment I became more aware of what could happen when I was 15 years old and driving. Until then I'd never worn one nor had anyone in my family - ever.
Here's a shocker - I've been in an accident wearing a seat belt properly and it most certainly did NOT keep my feet on the pedals or me in the seat. Logically this might sound like it should but that's not been my experience when I was rearended.
If I flip a coin my chances of getting heads are 50/50 (okay not perfectly that but close enough). If I flip it a second time are my chances of getting heads greater or lesser?
The answer is 50/50, previous performance doesn't modify subsequent flips. So, for EVERY flight it's a 1-in-100million chance assuming you're correct. The chances of the plane being struck by lightning and crashing are likely higher - at least we KNOW planes get struck by lightning and suffer issues.
This is TRUE - but no longer applicable. A friend of mine used to fly hot air balloons and used one of the old brick cells to notify the chase crew as to his location. This was obviously many years ago but what he discovered when he got up a bit high was that the cell would FREAK! And it was exactly this - connecting to many towers at once. I have mentioned that here before so it's possible the parent even got that from me. However I believe that this is OBE and that it's not longer the issue it once was if an issue at all.
As for Farady cage - yeah the plane DOES actually work pretty well for this. Not perfect but well. You will notice that antenna for the plane are OUTSIDE the plane for instance. I have had calls drop when the door is closed at take off. However I have also had a ton of SMS show up upon landing. So at the very least management packets make it through and yeah occasionally a call. IMO cells do NOT pose a flight risk. Hell I've been told that pilots up front often leave them on - and do occasionally suffer the BZZT BUZZ BZZT RF interference with their headphones, PA, and radio.
So why turn them off during takeoff and landing? Mostly because the flight crew would rather have you focused on WTF is going on during those times since those are time periods where an aircraft is most vulnerable and stressed so you need to be aware not plugged into your MP3 player. Personally, being an adult and recognizing this, I find that I'm capable of making my own life\death decisions and would prefer they not bother me about it. Sort of like seat belt laws - those piss me off for adults. If someone really wants to take that risk I don't need to nag them not to.
Now all that said - no one seems to have informed the flight crews as to why this is an issue. Some of them are like Gestapo with the whole turn it off or we'll crash and burn sort of attitude. These sorts terrify the less aware passengers and we get this crap like morons punching each other or getting out of their seat during takeoff. Want to screw up a plane on takeoff or landing? Shift some weight around in the back. A good brawl on final approach would be just perfect It would be really nice if the FAA would get their crap straight on this and the flight attendants would get a clue too.
Frankly, I would be willing to bet money that on nearly every single commercial passenger flight there's at LEAST one cell turned on for the duration (not counting the pilots). Possibly intentionally, possibly an accident. I know for a fact I have done it on at least 3 flights accidentally. Normally I go into airplane mode, it saves power big-time since cells ramp power for weak signals, but a few times now I've simply forgotten about the silly thing. I am 100% sure I'm not alone either and out of a hundred plus peeps on a plane of which nearly all have cells you can bet at least one is doing it almost every flight...
They drop physical media, I drop Netflix and rely more on RedBox. I LIKE 1080P video, full 7.1 surround sound, and all of the other goodness I get from the physical media. I'm sorry it costs them more but this is what their business was founded on and while they make MORE profit from streaming they still make profit on me too. I even try to help them out by sending back disks in pairs to cut down on costs. They need to remember their core business...
I can find info easily, I highlight the stack n my left monitor, it pops up a synopsis of all windows, I go down the list to the one I need right now, it comes to the forefront. I'm sorry if I'm able to navigate this and you find you can't. But do please cite some real science about this, I'd love to see it. A study on efficient browser usage - this should be amusing. Hint: not everyone works the way you do lol
I'm sorry if you cannot understand that I do multiple research tasks at once and that I have multiple demands for topics placed upon me - especially at work. Whine that this just can't work all you want because it doesn't work for you but umm it does work for me - daily. It likely works for many others too. I know, amazing huh?
No, I'm doing it differently than you - that's not necessarily wrong.
I am interested in MANY things. I have a single normal page with all of the news, email, and tech sites I read to include status of eBay auctions and NetFlix queue. This stays open always. When I research an interest be it HTPC topics, storage solutions, or odd stuff found on sites like Slashdot I often open a new window. Each tab in that new window - often starting with Google, is a different site. If i get pulled away or it';s something I want to research over an extended period I leave the window and it's tabs open to return to as I'm able. I currently on this machine have 60 windows open including this one which I'll close when I'm done responding. :-)
I don't do the whole click on Google, follow a thread of sites to a dead-end, Google again, rinse and repeat thing. I Google, find likely sites, and follow each of those in it's own tab or couple of tabs if I need to. I close tabs and windows when I'm satisfied they're dead ends or I've learned or printed what I want.
To answer a question below - I don't focus on all of it at once. In fact my focus changes often and that's part of the reason why I have so much open. I bounce all over and I swap between things as needed either for my intellect or my job. Lots of hobbies and I work in the computer field too so the 'net is essential...