Whatever you do, don't buy a bunch of dark chocolate candy bars (or Snickers bars), break it up into bite-sized pieces, and toss it over the fence late one night, because chocolate (especially dark chocolate) is extremely toxic to most breeds of dogs.
Eating chocolate isn't fatal to all canines, but it is to many of them.
So, like I said, whatever you do....don't do that, m'kay? *cough*
As an ex-Boeing guy, one of the driving forces behind the whole glass cockpit thing was the versatility of the system- the fact that a given area on the dashboard (where space is always at a premium) could be used to display anything, ie. whatever was most needed or most useful to the pilot at that moment. Infinite flexibility coupled with easy customization was a huge step forward.
Don't need the engine temp readouts at the moment? Use the same space to display the oil-pressure readings or the intake temps or whatever you want.
The problem that glass cockpits produced was potential information overload, which often leads to "analysis paralysis" where they spend all their time wading through data and forget to fly the plane.
"We forced excellence into the process" "caused a paradigm shift in how engineers thought about problems" "even if you fail sometimes, overall you are doing better"
Lol, no shit...I'm going to print this out and frame it. And if anyone in my office ever utters any of those phrases, I'm going to hit them over the head with the framed print.
Anonymous pesters one of his web sites. Yeah, and I'm sure that fucking buffoon Trump is just scared to death. lol
The fascist prick doesn't give a shit about some website somewhere. He pays someone to worry about that shit for him.
In this case, Anonymous going after Trump is like a flea going after an elephant. Yes, the flea may bite the elephant, but does the elephant care, or even notice?
Now if Anonymous got into his financials and mucked about with that stuff, that might actually have some follow-on effects....
Because. That's all. There doesn't have to be a reason. The mystery is the puzzlement.
I think there's always a "reason", but the reason doesn't have to have any meaning behind it.
I drop a ball and it falls to the ground. The reason is gravity (in this case) but there's no meaning involved; that's just how things work or interact.
To me, meaning implies some sort of value applied or assigned in relation to some context, and it's optional at best when talking about physics or the fundamental laws of space and time.
Meaning is actually more along the lines of "irrelevant", but people love to frame things in such a way as to attach some sort of intelligence or agency to whatever it is they're discussing...and it's understandable. Wrong, but understandable.
But is there a reason? Yes, there's always a reason, even if it's just "this thing behaves this way under this set of conditions". And we can keep drilling down, finding the reason(s) for why things are the way they are until we hit the most fundamental level of interaction available to us. (That doesn't mean there aren't more "levels" underneath that, it just means that's where we'll have to stop due to the limits of our technology or understanding or whatever.)
Next time, you might want to read the part where I said I wasn't buying it.
Remember all the "scientific studies" the tobacco industry did that proved smoking wasn't bad for you? Just because it's a "scientific study" doesn't mean it was done properly or reached the right conclusions. "Scientific studies" can and do come up with incorrect results sometimes.
So, no, I'm not buying the results of their study. Let them do a few more and if they all agree and the methodology seems sound, then I'll probably change my mind.
So, does happiness have a direct effect on longevity, or is it a matter of taking better care of yourself when you're happy?
I guess you'd have to take two identical twins, remove their brains, and let their brains live in jars while you made one "happy" brain and one "unhappy" brain (or just "not happy") and then we could see for sure if the happy brain lived longer.
(And for all you pedants and humor-impaired numbnuts, I am joking. No need to piss yourselves silly while hammering your keyboards to bits telling me how "that wouldn't prove anything!" or whatever.)
Absolutely - however it seems possible to interpret the results that happy people take better care of themselves, thus improving their probable lifespan.
Bingo.
Also, sometimes correlation is evidence of causation. Not always, of course, but sometimes correlation is most certainly an indicator of causation.
I think that happiness (however you define it) translates into a lot of behaviors (or avoidance of certain behaviors) that can influence how long you live, or more importantly, how you live. And how you live does have an effect on how long you live, but it can be hard to quantify the big picture.
If you're unhappy you may choose (consciously or unconsciously) to take more "risky" chances, you may choose to engage in behaviors that have statistically worse outcomes, you may take poorer care of yourself in various ways, and so on.
In other words, I think the study is simplistic and provably meaningless. It doesn't really address the follow-on effects of unhappiness and the attendant outcomes.
If you're trying to draw a straight line between "happiness" and "living a long time", I think that's going to fail, but I do think that being happy gives you a better likelihood of living longer because of the overall effect on your life when viewed in context with your choices and behavior.
There is a range of what people want and what they are willing to pay and yours is probably different than mine.
Exactly. If someone feels that it's a fair deal for the money, who am I to say no?
If they offered something like $10/month of 10 channels of my choice, that would appeal to me.
I just place a lower value on TV than a lot of other people do, it doesn't mean they're "wrong", we simply have different price points in terms of what we think something is worth.
For me it depends upon whether I get to pick the 14 channels.
Not me, but that's just a reflection of what TV is (or isn't) worth to me personally. But I understand a lot of people would jump at that kind of deal and if they feel it's worth it, I'm fine with that.
Sorry, but for $40 a month I'd sure as hell want more than 14 channels.
Why? From my experience the more TV channels a country has the less decent TV there is and the harder it is to find. 14 Channels of decent quality material would be incredibly good value at $40.
For you perhaps, but not for me. No way, no how.
Basically we just place different values on this. No way I'd pay $40/month for 14 channels (even if I got to pick them).
If you gave me 14 channels where I could pick what was on them a la carte, without the compression artifacting (color dithering) we get from cable and satellite, including live sporting events, I'd drop Time Warner like a paper bag of dog shit and sign up today.
We simply have differing values in regards to TV...I wouldn't pay $40 a month for 14 channels no matter which ones I got to pick.
Shrug, congratulations media companies, you just lost to Netflix... AGAIN.
What the fuck will it take to get through your thick ass skulls that we are not going to continue paying for your shitty commercial laden bullcrap.
Bingo.
They really seem to be out of touch with reality in terms of the market. Why in the world would the average person pay $40 a month for 14 channels? That's ridiculously overpriced by nearly any measure.
"its plan to sell a package of 14 or so channels for $30 to $40 a month has run into resistance from media companies that want more money for their programming"...its plan to sell a package of 14 or so channels for $30 to $40 a month has run into resistance from potential subscribers that want more programming for their money,
Fixed that for ya.
Sorry, but for $40 a month I'd sure as hell want more than 14 channels. Talk about being clueless in the marketplace. Hulu, Netfilx, etc all offer much more bang for the buck. Admittedly TV in general has less value to me than it does for a lot of people, but $40 a month for 14 channels just seems ridiculously overpriced to me.
Slashdot Mirror
But seriously, if you have single-pane windows, moving to double-pane or triple-pane windows will do more than anything else you can do.
But seriously, chocolate is so much cheaper than new windows.
Whatever you do, don't buy a bunch of dark chocolate candy bars (or Snickers bars), break it up into bite-sized pieces, and toss it over the fence late one night, because chocolate (especially dark chocolate) is extremely toxic to most breeds of dogs.
Eating chocolate isn't fatal to all canines, but it is to many of them.
So, like I said, whatever you do....don't do that, m'kay? *cough*
As an ex-Boeing guy, one of the driving forces behind the whole glass cockpit thing was the versatility of the system- the fact that a given area on the dashboard (where space is always at a premium) could be used to display anything, ie. whatever was most needed or most useful to the pilot at that moment. Infinite flexibility coupled with easy customization was a huge step forward.
Don't need the engine temp readouts at the moment? Use the same space to display the oil-pressure readings or the intake temps or whatever you want.
The problem that glass cockpits produced was potential information overload, which often leads to "analysis paralysis" where they spend all their time wading through data and forget to fly the plane.
Hilariously full of idiot speak:
"We forced excellence into the process"
"caused a paradigm shift in how engineers thought about problems"
"even if you fail sometimes, overall you are doing better"
Lol, no shit...I'm going to print this out and frame it. And if anyone in my office ever utters any of those phrases, I'm going to hit them over the head with the framed print.
Anonymous pesters one of his web sites. Yeah, and I'm sure that fucking buffoon Trump is just scared to death. lol
The fascist prick doesn't give a shit about some website somewhere. He pays someone to worry about that shit for him.
In this case, Anonymous going after Trump is like a flea going after an elephant. Yes, the flea may bite the elephant, but does the elephant care, or even notice?
Now if Anonymous got into his financials and mucked about with that stuff, that might actually have some follow-on effects....
We didn't get our Friday SJW thread. I'm kind of disappointed.
Lol, I noticed that too...maybe it was some sort of SJW holiday or something.
Because. That's all. There doesn't have to be a reason. The mystery is the puzzlement.
I think there's always a "reason", but the reason doesn't have to have any meaning behind it.
I drop a ball and it falls to the ground. The reason is gravity (in this case) but there's no meaning involved; that's just how things work or interact.
To me, meaning implies some sort of value applied or assigned in relation to some context, and it's optional at best when talking about physics or the fundamental laws of space and time.
Meaning is actually more along the lines of "irrelevant", but people love to frame things in such a way as to attach some sort of intelligence or agency to whatever it is they're discussing...and it's understandable. Wrong, but understandable.
But is there a reason? Yes, there's always a reason, even if it's just "this thing behaves this way under this set of conditions". And we can keep drilling down, finding the reason(s) for why things are the way they are until we hit the most fundamental level of interaction available to us. (That doesn't mean there aren't more "levels" underneath that, it just means that's where we'll have to stop due to the limits of our technology or understanding or whatever.)
I think theft of art is a serious crime. Good thing no such crime was committed here.
No shit.
Q: How much would they have to pay me to watch that piece of drek?
A: A lot more than they're willing to.
Next time, you might want to read TFA.
Next time, you might want to read the part where I said I wasn't buying it.
Remember all the "scientific studies" the tobacco industry did that proved smoking wasn't bad for you? Just because it's a "scientific study" doesn't mean it was done properly or reached the right conclusions. "Scientific studies" can and do come up with incorrect results sometimes.
So, no, I'm not buying the results of their study. Let them do a few more and if they all agree and the methodology seems sound, then I'll probably change my mind.
So, does happiness have a direct effect on longevity, or is it a matter of taking better care of yourself when you're happy?
I guess you'd have to take two identical twins, remove their brains, and let their brains live in jars while you made one "happy" brain and one "unhappy" brain (or just "not happy") and then we could see for sure if the happy brain lived longer.
(And for all you pedants and humor-impaired numbnuts, I am joking. No need to piss yourselves silly while hammering your keyboards to bits telling me how "that wouldn't prove anything!" or whatever.)
Sometimes correlation is most certainly an indicator of causation.
Absolutely - however it seems possible to interpret the results that happy people take better care of themselves, thus improving their probable lifespan.
Bingo.
Also, sometimes correlation is evidence of causation. Not always, of course, but sometimes correlation is most certainly an indicator of causation.
Not sure I'm buying the results of this study.
I think that happiness (however you define it) translates into a lot of behaviors (or avoidance of certain behaviors) that can influence how long you live, or more importantly, how you live. And how you live does have an effect on how long you live, but it can be hard to quantify the big picture.
If you're unhappy you may choose (consciously or unconsciously) to take more "risky" chances, you may choose to engage in behaviors that have statistically worse outcomes, you may take poorer care of yourself in various ways, and so on.
In other words, I think the study is simplistic and provably meaningless. It doesn't really address the follow-on effects of unhappiness and the attendant outcomes.
If you're trying to draw a straight line between "happiness" and "living a long time", I think that's going to fail, but I do think that being happy gives you a better likelihood of living longer because of the overall effect on your life when viewed in context with your choices and behavior.
There is a range of what people want and what they are willing to pay and yours is probably different than mine.
Exactly. If someone feels that it's a fair deal for the money, who am I to say no?
If they offered something like $10/month of 10 channels of my choice, that would appeal to me.
I just place a lower value on TV than a lot of other people do, it doesn't mean they're "wrong", we simply have different price points in terms of what we think something is worth.
For me it depends upon whether I get to pick the 14 channels.
Not me, but that's just a reflection of what TV is (or isn't) worth to me personally. But I understand a lot of people would jump at that kind of deal and if they feel it's worth it, I'm fine with that.
You're making a huge assumption that those 14 channels are 1980's style cable channels, where you get no say in the programming.
And you're making a huge assumption as what I think TV is worth. Even if I got to pick my 14 channels, I still wouldn't pay $40 a month for them.
What if they added a tab to iTunes where you can drag and drop shows.......
Even if they added a tab that said "Free Blowjobs On Demand", it still wouldn't be worth $40 a month to me. (I get all I need and want already.)
That would sure as shit be worth $40/month for me, as long as the content I'm looking for is there.
We simply place a different value on the worth of TV programming. If you think it's worth it, I say go for it.
That depends heavily on the content of the 14 channels.
Not to me. Even if I got to pick the channels, it's just not worth that much to me.
Why? From my experience the more TV channels a country has the less decent TV there is and the harder it is to find. 14 Channels of decent quality material would be incredibly good value at $40.
For you perhaps, but not for me. No way, no how.
Basically we just place different values on this. No way I'd pay $40/month for 14 channels (even if I got to pick them).
If you gave me 14 channels where I could pick what was on them a la carte, without the compression artifacting (color dithering) we get from cable and satellite, including live sporting events, I'd drop Time Warner like a paper bag of dog shit and sign up today.
We simply have differing values in regards to TV...I wouldn't pay $40 a month for 14 channels no matter which ones I got to pick.
Thanks for telling us what we already knew.
Seriously, this is somewhat interesting but hardly qualifies as "news".
The only news in this admission is that they're admitting to doing it, not that they're doing it.
Shrug, congratulations media companies, you just lost to Netflix ... AGAIN.
What the fuck will it take to get through your thick ass skulls that we are not going to continue paying for your shitty commercial laden bullcrap.
Bingo.
They really seem to be out of touch with reality in terms of the market. Why in the world would the average person pay $40 a month for 14 channels? That's ridiculously overpriced by nearly any measure.
"its plan to sell a package of 14 or so channels for $30 to $40 a month has run into resistance from media companies that want more money for their programming" ...its plan to sell a package of 14 or so channels for $30 to $40 a month has run into resistance from potential subscribers that want more programming for their money,
Fixed that for ya.
Sorry, but for $40 a month I'd sure as hell want more than 14 channels. Talk about being clueless in the marketplace. Hulu, Netfilx, etc all offer much more bang for the buck. Admittedly TV in general has less value to me than it does for a lot of people, but $40 a month for 14 channels just seems ridiculously overpriced to me.
*sheer
"It turns out that OEM helper software is still often quite fragile and can expose systems wide open to attack"
Yes, we know.
In other news, water is still wet, the Sun still rises in the East.
"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) will seek legislation requiring the ability to "pierce" through encryption..."
Someone should tell Sen. Feinstein that it's mathematics, not a hymen.