His point is that there are monitors that are designed to work fine in portrait mode. Their primary intended mode is landscape, but it's not like portrait is completely ignored as a possible option by manufacturers. It's largely based on which type of panel the monitor uses, and since you didn't mention that, here's the differences:
TN Panels generally have horrible viewing angles and generally bad color representation (relative). IPS Panels generally have much better viewing angles and colors but cost more to produce.
Most high quality IPS based monitors have viewing angles in the ~170 degree range (landscape) or ~90-110 degree range (portrait).
TN Panels have other advantages like faster refresh rate (for the gamers) and generally being cheaper to produce, so most people have these just due to the cheap factor and they are good enough for a good portion of the population.
TL;DR: TN panels suck for portrait while IPS panels are much better for it, and since most people use monitors in landscape anyway, they see less need for the more expensive IPS panel based monitors.
I'm not saying Uber is a great company. Though I'd say they are innovative (applying a basic internet principle, i.e. P2P where the peers are the drivers/customers, to a real life thing such as a taxi service).
Terrible company or not, I fail to see where/how the regulations actually apply. Again, probably because I don't fully understand what all they do (aside from what I've mentioned).
While I agree that the taxi industry is not the illuminati, I don't understand how Uber is a commercial vehicle for hire. Then again, I might not fully understand the extent of what Uber does that's applicable under law.
My understanding is that they offer a service through an app & the Internet that allows people to schedule another (basically) random person to drive them somewhere for a fee. Then Uber takes the fee, takes their percentage, then gives the driver their percentage. The driver can only do that after they register with Uber which is effectively Uber hiring the driver.
What I see Uber has done that is an issue is the actual "hiring the driver" part as that is what makes them "like a taxi company".
If I made an app for the exact same thing, but charged drivers to use the portion of the app that they needed (where riders would get to schedule a pickup for free and pay the fee at the end through Paypal or something), effectively an "in-app purchase" for both of them, I don't see where I'd be a commercial vehicle for hire.
Like, I'd be making money on every transaction since it uses my app, and my app's purpose is solely to connect riders to drivers, but I wouldn't be the one supplying the vehicles or drivers.
We need to change public opinion about nuclear then. Thorium reactors are the future (or Fusion if we get a breakthrough that makes it possible then a lot more viable).
Wind power generation pulls energy from the motion of the air. Air/Wind is what moves Heat around the atmosphere, thus managing it's distribution. Converting that to energy to fight AGW is asinine. Plus it's not sustainable/consistent (i.e. wind isn't in a location 100% of the time).
Solar isn't efficient or cost effect enough yet (as your Germany example shows) to be worth it, and although that could change in the future, I'm not holding my breath for it. Plus although it's mostly consistent (aside from clouds), it isn't sustainable 24/7.
Geothermal is good but only in certain locations and we don't know what potential pitfalls it has (think what fracking has caused, but with heat and lava although Geo isn't nearly as extreme as Fracking is).
I honestly only see Nuclear Fission/Fusion as a viable, sustainable, and cheap/abundant energy source for the near (20-100 years) future.
What if someone funds them switching over? i.e. subsidizes a conversion from coal to renewables so the only thing they lose is money lost during the time it'd take to do that.
This is incidentally part of my plan, although I hadn't considered going to current coal power plants and offering this. I thought from a more competitive perspective.
Yes! When you consider that your actions will affect every life to come after you, both in direct and indirect ways, forever to come, nothing is quite as important.
Wonderful. That's gonna give me more reasons to push for this. Thanks! Your letters will be a great resource, as is this post.
Yes. I'm still working some of them out, but my goal is to have this on it's way by 2034. I know it's a long time, but relative to when we'll need it and how reasonable a request such a thing is, it's soon.
My plan is to get enough funds to get past one of the major hurtles. Specifically, the initial cost. From my research, Thorium reactors generally cost a lot to build, but after that, regular maintenance/upkeep is relatively cheap in comparison. If I can find a way to actually cover the building costs, that will give major incentive to power companies (who are natural monopolies anyway) to do the other heavy lifting (connecting it to the grid, permits, generally what power company do in this case).
The other major hurdle will be the US laws against this and general US views on Nuclear power. That will be harder to change and I'm still working that out. Thankfully I have time to brain storm on it.
"MARK MY WORDS...! This drill, will open a hole in the universe. And that hole will be a path for those behind us. The dreams of those who have fallen! The hopes of those who will follow! Those two sets of dreams weave together into a double helix, drilling a path towards tomorrow! And THAT'S Tengen Toppa! That's Gurren-Lagann! My drill is the drill, that creates the HEAVENS!"
I'm just going to hazard a guess and say that the cardinal directions have to do with the magnetic field of the body itself. At least, that's what I always thought growing up.
i.e. If we were to go to Mars, we'd define the poles as North and South (not sure if there are specific characteristics or if we just pick randomly), then define East/West based on that.
This comet probably doesn't have a magnetic field though.
Right, I left the question way too open ended. I mean based on what we currently define as Republican & Democratic parties. Possibly even counting when they flipped ideologies (i.e. Republicans used to be liberal while the Democrats conservative).
I think that's actually another perfect example of the problem. All of those people died in the 19th century. It is time for real change.
+1 to this. I voted purely Green & Libertarian (aside from where there was no option for such choices and depending on the specific issues). Then I saw my state's election results and realized how pointless it was for those two parties to even exist.
Has there ever even been someone voted to a major political office (i.e. Senator, House Representative, or Governor of a state) that wasn't R or D?
I experienced the full brunt of voter stupidity when a relative of mine asked me who I was voting for, then proceeded to tell me she always voted for Republicans if she didn't have any knowledge about the candidates and she never bothered studying the issues to have that knowledge.
I believe that displays a perfect example of the problem.
Well that was an amazingly detailed post. Thank you. If I had mod points and could use them, you'd get them.
Overall, after reading all of that along with what you yourself have said, it seems that you are saying the assertion that it's not a choice is baseless, but regardless of whether it's a choice or not, the more important issue is our acceptance of homosexuals.
I agree with that. I'm personally of the mind that homosexuality is wrong (that's my personal moral choice), but that they should be treated no differently than the rest of humanity. I'm sure everyone has lied at some point in their life. I don't see it differently. I'm also pro same sex marriage interestingly due to the financial considerations.
Overall, I'm pro freedom-to-do-as-we-wish as long as people are taught the responsibility that goes along with such things. i.e. abortion, guns, same sex marriage, etc.
i.e. I don't think it's right that people do it, but I don't think they should be treated as they are for what they do.
Strawman. You said, "you'd best do it using correct grammar." No mention of what sounds good when said verbally, or of what people would normally say & understand it as.
Grammatically, that is correct. I'm not saying I didn't typo. I did. However, it's grammatically correct and has the same meaning both ways. There is no real difference aside from the irrelevant one of how it sounds when said. This is the internet. We're not saying any of this. We are typing it.
Cite. Your. Sources. I'd understand if I hadn't asked, but I most certainly did ask. Just saying "This is true." is worthless on the internet.
The reason I say what I say is because I've read about it from institutes who research the stuff. Yes, I didn't cite a research paper, but I did cite the general consensus of a major institution's stance on the issue which is in their subject field to study, which says your wrong.
Other institutions might say they are wrong. Show me to support your assertion.
Your thought experiment is fruitless because there is no discernible way to tell if people could choose because they are bisexual or because sexuality is a choice. Or that if they can't "choose", if it's because it's not a choice, or if it's because of their psychology regarding the issue regarding any of the possible factors that make humans choose what they choose growing up.
In other words, the thought experiment is pointless without the very information that quote says we don't have.
Humans psychology is vastly complex. Solving for whether something is truly a choice or not, when that thing is deeply embedded in something we don't understand very well (our desires) is nigh impossible without a lot more information.
I'm not arguing that it's a choice. I'm arguing that the claims that it isn't a choice are baseless.
I chose after experiencing attraction for both genders. I understand what you are saying about "those people are probably just bisexual", but I think actually discerning that for certain is difficult because it requires a person to be introspective enough to understand the difference between their choice and their desire. I'm very introverted, so introspection is all I can really do well.
If I had the desire for same gender relations, but chose to get rid of that desire, and it's really gone now, is it gone because of my choice, or because I wasn't done developing? Or due to some life event that affected my psychology? Or what-have-you. There's just not enough information to discern that effectively & reliably imo. I only know what I've experienced.
From my perspective, there are 3 things related to sexual relations to be considered: Biological reaction, i.e. blood flowing and whatnot, emotional reaction, i.e. desire to fornicate, and psychological action, i.e. "I'm going to have sex with that person." Usually biological & emotional are tied together, but if I just experience the biological, but not the emotional, is that relevant to what sexual orientation defines?
I personally always thought sexual orientation was purely based on your choice of who you fornicated with when I was growing up. Then, as the LGBT movement has grown, I've come to understand that what most people view that as is "what you are sexually attracted to", and not "what you actively sleep with". I'm still lost on the definition of actual sexual attraction though. Does it mean the emotional response, the biological response, or both/neither, and it appears most people consider the psychological choice irrelevant now-a-days.
For me, it's always been a choice. It's hard for me to understand how it's not one for others, but I didn't live their lives, so yeah. I'm just a bit perplexed at how so many people are certain of something that science has yet to point to in any significant or meaningful way, according to the bodies studying this very subject intently.
The problem with universal healthcare is that it lacks incentive for actually curing people and adds pressure to cut corners in their treatment. I personally am for a hybrid system. I'm not sure what it'd look like, but I've learned so far in life that the best answer rarely lies in extremes and is usually a balance of those extremes.
In the public healthcare system, as you've said, "Doctors order test after test to cover their asses against malpractice suits", but there's another side effect of that: diseases/illnesses are more likely to be found. A higher screening rate generally leads to more lives saved, admittedly at greater cost. I agree there's way too much waste and lack of efficiency in the system, but in a system that is set up to save people's lives, how do we establish efficiency if, to be more efficient, we have to let more people slip through the cracks?
Admittedly, that's probably counter-acted by the number of people who don't get treatment when they should due to cost, but in a universal healthcare system, even if tax payers do foot the bill, there is a budget. So in that system, you take the incentive of more tests for CYA & profits and trade it for pressure to avoid more tests as it cuts into what budget you have. i.e. less screening means more people fall through the cracks due to budget concerns.
To me, that choice between private & public health care is a catch-22 as, either way, the system is set up in a way that an excessive amount of people fall through the cracks. Which is why I'd prefer a hybrid system.
I don't see where the validity to this "We can't control our sexual orientation" idea came from. According to the American Psychiatry Association, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality".
I suppose it's more likely it's environmental, but what we get from our environment is dependent upon our perception of it which, as many religious people have shown, is something we can freely control if we choose to. Ranging from tuning out a noise in the background to "This is the Matrix and our choices are pointless in a false, digital, world", depending on how you think our body interacts with the world.
Full Disclosure: I'm a homophobe. That means I irrationally fear homosexuals the same way I irrationally fear heights or spiders. I despise the fact that people use that as a slur, ignoring what the word actually means (reminds me of what happened to mental retardation, being a completely legitimate medical term turned into a hateful word used against people).
I mean no hatred with this comment/question. I sincerely want to know where the certainty, which saturates this entire post, comes from that it's not a choice, when a governing body that actively studies this isn't certain at all. Admittedly, that page hasn't been updated in a while, but I'd figure it would be if something as important as that were discovered to be true, and it represents a key location people who know little about the subject would go to get more information.
Slashdot Mirror
His point is that there are monitors that are designed to work fine in portrait mode. Their primary intended mode is landscape, but it's not like portrait is completely ignored as a possible option by manufacturers. It's largely based on which type of panel the monitor uses, and since you didn't mention that, here's the differences:
TN Panels generally have horrible viewing angles and generally bad color representation (relative). IPS Panels generally have much better viewing angles and colors but cost more to produce.
Most high quality IPS based monitors have viewing angles in the ~170 degree range (landscape) or ~90-110 degree range (portrait).
TN Panels have other advantages like faster refresh rate (for the gamers) and generally being cheaper to produce, so most people have these just due to the cheap factor and they are good enough for a good portion of the population.
TL;DR: TN panels suck for portrait while IPS panels are much better for it, and since most people use monitors in landscape anyway, they see less need for the more expensive IPS panel based monitors.
I'm not saying Uber is a great company. Though I'd say they are innovative (applying a basic internet principle, i.e. P2P where the peers are the drivers/customers, to a real life thing such as a taxi service).
Terrible company or not, I fail to see where/how the regulations actually apply. Again, probably because I don't fully understand what all they do (aside from what I've mentioned).
While I agree that the taxi industry is not the illuminati, I don't understand how Uber is a commercial vehicle for hire. Then again, I might not fully understand the extent of what Uber does that's applicable under law.
My understanding is that they offer a service through an app & the Internet that allows people to schedule another (basically) random person to drive them somewhere for a fee. Then Uber takes the fee, takes their percentage, then gives the driver their percentage. The driver can only do that after they register with Uber which is effectively Uber hiring the driver.
What I see Uber has done that is an issue is the actual "hiring the driver" part as that is what makes them "like a taxi company".
If I made an app for the exact same thing, but charged drivers to use the portion of the app that they needed (where riders would get to schedule a pickup for free and pay the fee at the end through Paypal or something), effectively an "in-app purchase" for both of them, I don't see where I'd be a commercial vehicle for hire.
Like, I'd be making money on every transaction since it uses my app, and my app's purpose is solely to connect riders to drivers, but I wouldn't be the one supplying the vehicles or drivers.
I can see how it's a grey area however.
Crazy.
We need to change public opinion about nuclear then. Thorium reactors are the future (or Fusion if we get a breakthrough that makes it possible then a lot more viable).
Wind power generation pulls energy from the motion of the air. Air/Wind is what moves Heat around the atmosphere, thus managing it's distribution. Converting that to energy to fight AGW is asinine. Plus it's not sustainable/consistent (i.e. wind isn't in a location 100% of the time).
Solar isn't efficient or cost effect enough yet (as your Germany example shows) to be worth it, and although that could change in the future, I'm not holding my breath for it. Plus although it's mostly consistent (aside from clouds), it isn't sustainable 24/7.
Geothermal is good but only in certain locations and we don't know what potential pitfalls it has (think what fracking has caused, but with heat and lava although Geo isn't nearly as extreme as Fracking is).
I honestly only see Nuclear Fission/Fusion as a viable, sustainable, and cheap/abundant energy source for the near (20-100 years) future.
What if someone funds them switching over? i.e. subsidizes a conversion from coal to renewables so the only thing they lose is money lost during the time it'd take to do that.
This is incidentally part of my plan, although I hadn't considered going to current coal power plants and offering this. I thought from a more competitive perspective.
Yes! When you consider that your actions will affect every life to come after you, both in direct and indirect ways, forever to come, nothing is quite as important.
Wonderful. That's gonna give me more reasons to push for this. Thanks! Your letters will be a great resource, as is this post.
Yes. I'm still working some of them out, but my goal is to have this on it's way by 2034. I know it's a long time, but relative to when we'll need it and how reasonable a request such a thing is, it's soon.
My plan is to get enough funds to get past one of the major hurtles. Specifically, the initial cost. From my research, Thorium reactors generally cost a lot to build, but after that, regular maintenance/upkeep is relatively cheap in comparison. If I can find a way to actually cover the building costs, that will give major incentive to power companies (who are natural monopolies anyway) to do the other heavy lifting (connecting it to the grid, permits, generally what power company do in this case).
The other major hurdle will be the US laws against this and general US views on Nuclear power. That will be harder to change and I'm still working that out. Thankfully I have time to brain storm on it.
Oh, it goes a wee bit beyond that.
"MARK MY WORDS...! This drill, will open a hole in the universe. And that hole will be a path for those behind us. The dreams of those who have fallen! The hopes of those who will follow! Those two sets of dreams weave together into a double helix, drilling a path towards tomorrow! And THAT'S Tengen Toppa! That's Gurren-Lagann! My drill is the drill, that creates the HEAVENS!"
- Simon; Episode 27 - Tengen Toppen Gurren Lagann English Dub
This really hit me. I don't know why. "The dreams of those who have fallen! The hopes of those will follow!" really puts it in perspective for me.
I will do it.
This is one of my primary goals in life. Get nuclear more accepted in the US, then start building Thorium reactors across the country.
Soon
I'm just going to hazard a guess and say that the cardinal directions have to do with the magnetic field of the body itself. At least, that's what I always thought growing up.
i.e. If we were to go to Mars, we'd define the poles as North and South (not sure if there are specific characteristics or if we just pick randomly), then define East/West based on that.
This comet probably doesn't have a magnetic field though.
East. Now in space.
Right, I left the question way too open ended. I mean based on what we currently define as Republican & Democratic parties. Possibly even counting when they flipped ideologies (i.e. Republicans used to be liberal while the Democrats conservative).
I think that's actually another perfect example of the problem. All of those people died in the 19th century. It is time for real change.
If I had the mod points....
+1 to this. I voted purely Green & Libertarian (aside from where there was no option for such choices and depending on the specific issues). Then I saw my state's election results and realized how pointless it was for those two parties to even exist.
Has there ever even been someone voted to a major political office (i.e. Senator, House Representative, or Governor of a state) that wasn't R or D?
I experienced the full brunt of voter stupidity when a relative of mine asked me who I was voting for, then proceeded to tell me she always voted for Republicans if she didn't have any knowledge about the candidates and she never bothered studying the issues to have that knowledge.
I believe that displays a perfect example of the problem.
Well that was an amazingly detailed post. Thank you. If I had mod points and could use them, you'd get them.
Overall, after reading all of that along with what you yourself have said, it seems that you are saying the assertion that it's not a choice is baseless, but regardless of whether it's a choice or not, the more important issue is our acceptance of homosexuals.
I agree with that. I'm personally of the mind that homosexuality is wrong (that's my personal moral choice), but that they should be treated no differently than the rest of humanity. I'm sure everyone has lied at some point in their life. I don't see it differently. I'm also pro same sex marriage interestingly due to the financial considerations.
Overall, I'm pro freedom-to-do-as-we-wish as long as people are taught the responsibility that goes along with such things. i.e. abortion, guns, same sex marriage, etc.
i.e. I don't think it's right that people do it, but I don't think they should be treated as they are for what they do.
Strawman. You said, "you'd best do it using correct grammar." No mention of what sounds good when said verbally, or of what people would normally say & understand it as.
Grammatically, that is correct. I'm not saying I didn't typo. I did. However, it's grammatically correct and has the same meaning both ways. There is no real difference aside from the irrelevant one of how it sounds when said. This is the internet. We're not saying any of this. We are typing it.
Remember, we were all pushed head-first out of someone's vaginal tract. Why are we acting so dignified?
It's actually correct both ways. Wrong has a noun form which this wrong is specifically his.
Potentially esoteric definitions for words make English very pliable.
Cite. Your. Sources. I'd understand if I hadn't asked, but I most certainly did ask. Just saying "This is true." is worthless on the internet.
The reason I say what I say is because I've read about it from institutes who research the stuff. Yes, I didn't cite a research paper, but I did cite the general consensus of a major institution's stance on the issue which is in their subject field to study, which says your wrong.
Other institutions might say they are wrong. Show me to support your assertion.
Your thought experiment is fruitless because there is no discernible way to tell if people could choose because they are bisexual or because sexuality is a choice. Or that if they can't "choose", if it's because it's not a choice, or if it's because of their psychology regarding the issue regarding any of the possible factors that make humans choose what they choose growing up.
In other words, the thought experiment is pointless without the very information that quote says we don't have.
Humans psychology is vastly complex. Solving for whether something is truly a choice or not, when that thing is deeply embedded in something we don't understand very well (our desires) is nigh impossible without a lot more information.
I'm not arguing that it's a choice. I'm arguing that the claims that it isn't a choice are baseless.
+5 Funny? I was actually serious.
"However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."
Saying that's not how it works implies you know how it works. Please cite sources.
I love how hilarity comes out of misinterpreted comments on the interwebs. It's lovely. I now see the humor in my comment. Still, Please cite sources.
Just because it's erotic doesn't mean its homoerotic. /s
Besides... You should know by now that the rules are different for the Kremlin & their cronies.
Then how does it work? Please cite sources.
From what I've heard and experienced, that's exactly how it works in the European countries that have UHC.
Thank you for being civil.
I chose after experiencing attraction for both genders. I understand what you are saying about "those people are probably just bisexual", but I think actually discerning that for certain is difficult because it requires a person to be introspective enough to understand the difference between their choice and their desire. I'm very introverted, so introspection is all I can really do well.
If I had the desire for same gender relations, but chose to get rid of that desire, and it's really gone now, is it gone because of my choice, or because I wasn't done developing? Or due to some life event that affected my psychology? Or what-have-you. There's just not enough information to discern that effectively & reliably imo. I only know what I've experienced.
From my perspective, there are 3 things related to sexual relations to be considered: Biological reaction, i.e. blood flowing and whatnot, emotional reaction, i.e. desire to fornicate, and psychological action, i.e. "I'm going to have sex with that person." Usually biological & emotional are tied together, but if I just experience the biological, but not the emotional, is that relevant to what sexual orientation defines?
I personally always thought sexual orientation was purely based on your choice of who you fornicated with when I was growing up. Then, as the LGBT movement has grown, I've come to understand that what most people view that as is "what you are sexually attracted to", and not "what you actively sleep with". I'm still lost on the definition of actual sexual attraction though. Does it mean the emotional response, the biological response, or both/neither, and it appears most people consider the psychological choice irrelevant now-a-days.
For me, it's always been a choice. It's hard for me to understand how it's not one for others, but I didn't live their lives, so yeah. I'm just a bit perplexed at how so many people are certain of something that science has yet to point to in any significant or meaningful way, according to the bodies studying this very subject intently.
The problem with universal healthcare is that it lacks incentive for actually curing people and adds pressure to cut corners in their treatment. I personally am for a hybrid system. I'm not sure what it'd look like, but I've learned so far in life that the best answer rarely lies in extremes and is usually a balance of those extremes.
In the public healthcare system, as you've said, "Doctors order test after test to cover their asses against malpractice suits", but there's another side effect of that: diseases/illnesses are more likely to be found. A higher screening rate generally leads to more lives saved, admittedly at greater cost. I agree there's way too much waste and lack of efficiency in the system, but in a system that is set up to save people's lives, how do we establish efficiency if, to be more efficient, we have to let more people slip through the cracks?
Admittedly, that's probably counter-acted by the number of people who don't get treatment when they should due to cost, but in a universal healthcare system, even if tax payers do foot the bill, there is a budget. So in that system, you take the incentive of more tests for CYA & profits and trade it for pressure to avoid more tests as it cuts into what budget you have. i.e. less screening means more people fall through the cracks due to budget concerns.
To me, that choice between private & public health care is a catch-22 as, either way, the system is set up in a way that an excessive amount of people fall through the cracks. Which is why I'd prefer a hybrid system.
I don't see where the validity to this "We can't control our sexual orientation" idea came from. According to the American Psychiatry Association, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality".
I suppose it's more likely it's environmental, but what we get from our environment is dependent upon our perception of it which, as many religious people have shown, is something we can freely control if we choose to. Ranging from tuning out a noise in the background to "This is the Matrix and our choices are pointless in a false, digital, world", depending on how you think our body interacts with the world.
Full Disclosure: I'm a homophobe. That means I irrationally fear homosexuals the same way I irrationally fear heights or spiders. I despise the fact that people use that as a slur, ignoring what the word actually means (reminds me of what happened to mental retardation, being a completely legitimate medical term turned into a hateful word used against people).
I mean no hatred with this comment/question. I sincerely want to know where the certainty, which saturates this entire post, comes from that it's not a choice, when a governing body that actively studies this isn't certain at all. Admittedly, that page hasn't been updated in a while, but I'd figure it would be if something as important as that were discovered to be true, and it represents a key location people who know little about the subject would go to get more information.