According to Table 1 of the study, the choices of religious affiliation include "Roman Catholic," "Other Christian," and "Muslim."
That would seem to ignore much of the world's population, beginning with Jews and continuing on to the various religions that believe in reincarnation.
They claim to have drawn their data from publicly available sources. I'd love to hear how they spun that data to achieve their sample.
The cheapest 1bdrm apt you can really hope for is around $350/mo.
(whistle) Living in California, I've literally never seen that kind of rent my whole life. That was about what I paid for my first apartment, but that was with a roommate, and the rate went up steadily with every move. Right now in San Francisco, they say that the average price of a studio (no-bedroom) apartment is about $2,000. That figure is misleading for a number of reasons, and most people I know don't pay that, but most people I know who have been in the market for a new apartment recently have ended up moving out of town. Mind you, San Francisco also sets its own minimum wage, which is currently $10.24 -- but that will still easily leave you in the position of needing a second job or one that pays really good tips. (Bartending is a pretty desirable job for a lot of people of a certain age around here.)
Back when I lived in Minnesota there was a big todo over welfare moms having more children simply to get an increase in welfare aid.
Classic GOP talking point. "We are the party of Family Values. But when I see all these poor people, with their families and children, it makes me sick, sick, SICK!"
The other thing this whole thread seems to have ignored so far is that even as universities are raising tuition, they've also been cutting staff, eliminating tenure, dropping courses, increasing class sizes, and capping enrollment.
My friends who are currently doing undergrad degrees have seen core classes explode in size, just in the time they've been at their schools. Many of them have been forced to take five or six years to complete their degrees solely because their college only offers some of the classes they need to graduate every other semester, and they might be too impacted to get in.
So if student aid is what's causing tuition to go up so fast, what's causing all of this other stuff?
There are regional variations also. The current minimum wage for businesses in the City of San Francisco is $10.24/hour, and it has been raised incrementally every year for the past decade (with some exemptions for small businesses).
I wish people would post where they actually live when they make claims like this. It's hardly some legal liability issue, where you have to say, "I'm employed by one of the leading automakers," and "my part of the country" is pretty vague.
A lot of my friends have gone back to vinyl records for their music.
Admittedly, most of them are collector types to begin with. But I think they also like the whole physical/tactile engagement with the record. Also, I think playing your music from records tends to imply you've gone out and bought a record player, an amplifier, and a decent pair of speakers, rather than just playing it through whatever your PC came with.
I've thought about going that route myself. I find I don't have much connection with the music I listen to anymore. It's very rare that I get really excited about a new release.
The 3D in Prometheus (filmed in stereo) was really good and I think if the "effect dissolves" for you then that's properly done 3D IMO
I just don't understand that. If, even as you're watching the movie, you're acutely aware that it would make no difference whether the movie is in 3D or not, how is that good use of the technology?
I don't wear glasses. I don't see why I should have to wear glasses to watch a movie if it's going to add nothing to the experience of watching the film.
And, as I've pointed out, it actually detracts from the experience, as there's usually a little ghosting if you should happen to turn your head the wrong way, and the glasses cut down on the color range and brightness of the screen.
That's a gimmick. That's getting you to pay more money for an "enhanced experience" that is never delivered. 3D movies that actually take advantage of the 3D make sense. 3D movies that advertise how little you're going to notice the 3D, as if that was a reason to see them in 3D, seem crazy to me.
I saw Prometheus twice. (That's a whole other topic.) The first time I saw it in regular 3D, in the evening, for $16. The second time I saw it in IMAX, at 10am, for $12. Not only did it look really nice in IMAX (I think their 3D process/glasses are a little better), but I think they had maybe two previews (Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit), then straight on to the movie. That actually might be the way I do it for Dark Knight, too, since it seems to be the way to go and that movie was actually shot with IMAX cameras.
My Bloody Valentine 3D. Come on! You didn't see that? Within like the first 5 minutes of the film, a guy got a pickaxe to the back of the head and the tip of the pickaxe came toward the camera with his eyeball on the end of it! Now that's 3D. A lot of these movies people are mentioning, the 3D illusion is so subtle that it all but dissolves for me by the second act. I barely notice I'm watching a 3D movie anymore, except there's ghosting and I have to wear glasses.
(That said, I do agree it was used to good effect in Prometheus, even though I also agree the movie sucked. Maybe I was seeing the difference between a movie shot using 3D cameras and one that had all the 3D laid on in postprocessing in a computer.)
Please, if you want to help me, tell me what I was supposed to do with the quote in this article.
That's obvious. Don't use it. It's not a quote that's suitable for reprinting. Paraphrase, in as few words as possible. If/. readers don't believe you, they have the link and they can read for themselves.
As far as Forbes being "a reputable news source," you should have done your homework and noticed that Dave Thier is a freelance "contributor" to a Forbes blog, not to the magazine. Blogs are generally given less rigorous editorial treatment than news articles. You don't need to take everything written as gospel, punctuation, capitalization and all.
Also, skip all the "well it appears," "speaking of," "one more detail," etc. All of these phrases are totally superfluous. All they do is add words to the summary.
And kill the adverbs. Nobody cares whether you think the details are "juicy," just like nobody cares whether you think The Oatmeal's lawyer is "fully competent" (are you a lawyer yourself?). What's more, the overall sarcastic tone ("he only garnered 900 percent of his goal") doesn't help your case much, either.
Finally, it is incumbent upon you, as submitter, to explain what the story is about. Your summary starts with, "You may recall the story last week..." Sorry, no. I don't. What now? I'm afraid your summary leaves me totally in the dark as to who the players are and who did what to whom.
In short, this is meant to be a summary of a news story, not a post on your personal blog.
Except that if you read the summary, this is about more than just secure email. They also want to do it for text messaging, phone calls, and videoconferencing. I think it would be pretty hard to use SMTP for all of that.
Also, you might be surprised to learn the value of the jewelry that many travelers (usually older) like to wear around. If a thief was skilled enough to enter hotel rooms and break into the safes, I highly doubt that he'd be thinking "jackpot!" if all he found was a MacBook Air.
Last time I was in a hotel with an in room safe, I was pretty sure that every employee in the hotel had access to it.
What made you "pretty sure" of that? On every hotel safe I can remember seeing, you set the password yourself. Plus, if you came back to your locked room and your locked safe was empty, it would be a pretty sure bet who stole from it. I can't imagine a more clear-cut liability case.
You could have made the same argument about pearl harbour. Well the japanese only attacked pearl harbour on one day, so if the US had just ignored it everything would have been fine.
Pearl Harbor was a little different, Fox News's rhetoric aside. Pearl Harbor was a coordinated attack by Japanese military planes on a U.S. naval base, a legitimate military target. The Japanese were conducting a war; they weren't walking into crowded discotheques and blowing themselves up. We were pretty mad that they gave us no warning, but how much warning did FDR give Hitler that we were landing on Normandy? (Answer: None, and in fact we even conducted decoy operations to confuse the enemy.) When a government sends over 300 planes, destroys hundreds of your planes and sinks eight battleships (not cheap, those), I don't think it really accounts as "a one-day attack" -- as opposed to the type of attack where the solution is to lock the cabin doors on your own planes.
It's taken 11 years to tear apart al qaeda and they're still not gone, and their ideology, even if not their senior membership, is still resilient.
Some generations hence, people will tell stories to children where the mean, greedy third little pig is the villain because he did not build houses for the other two little pigs and the wolf.
I think Ayn Rand already wrote that fairy tale. The difference was that when she tried it, it was over 1,000 pages long.
Click and clack have done 25 years of persuading Americans that the American suburban culture built around the gasoline burning passenger car is OK.... That is the nature of mass media. Car Talk has been facilitating the acceptance of American automobile based culture for 25 years.
Look, America has an automobile-based culture. Click and Clack aren't going to change that on their own. "The Hey People, You Shouldn't Be Driving a Car Show" wouldn't have lasted two weeks on the radio. On the other hand, a lot of people drive cars, their cars break down in various ways, and they can use advice on how to fix them. Click and Clack provided that advice in an entertaining way that helped to relieve what can otherwise be a very stressful situation for people who rely on their cars.
But to claim that they're stumping for the car lobby is just you getting up on your soapbox. They regularly advocated energy efficient cars, hybrids, and so forth, and their driving recommendations had more to do with safe driving and fuel efficiency than the middle-aged fantasies of sports car owners. And despite all that "don't drive like my brother" fun and games, they never made any secret of the fact that Tom Magliozzi doesn't own a car and doesn't drive.
Perhaps that's what happened to you? It explains the Red Bull situation.
I won't rule it out, but the sensations I get when I have an "attack" are very acutely physical. It's not in my head. I can be doing... whatever... and all of a sudden I'll think, "Hold on. I feel really... weird." Maybe 20 minutes later the nausea will kick in and who knows what's next. No matter what degree the reaction will be, pretty much all I'll want to do is walk around outside. The fresh air in my face staves off the nausea, and since I can't concentrate on anything and I'll just fidget if I sit down, I might as well walk. I've ended up doing laps in a parking lot more than once. The previous day I might have drank the same amount of coffee and felt fine. The fact that I can't seem to predict my reaction anymore is what makes me think it's better just to knock it off completely.
I know what the negative effects on me are... about ten years ago I overdosed on caffeine by taking two No-Doz pills and washing them down with two pots of strong black coffee. That resulted in me feeling intensely nauseated and tweaked-out for 24 hours straight. I've never been the same since. Sometimes a little bit of coffee is just fine. But other times (probably depends on how much/what I've eaten) a single kitchen coffee cup worth of coffee will make me nauseated, I'll have hot and cold flashes, my limbs will tremble, I'll feel slightly confused and unable to concentrate, and on rare occasions it'll trigger a panic attack -- that is, I don't actually "panic," but my hands will shake violently and go numb, I'll have overall muscle weakness (I'll walk really slowly), and I'll probably throw up.
I know what you're thinking: Yeah, I kinda decided I wouldn't drink coffee anymore. Which sucks, because I really like coffee.
The interesting thing (relative to this article) is that I don't remember ever having a bad caffeine reaction from anything but coffee. I never drink more than the basic 8 oz Red Bull, but that's always fine. The same amount of coffee, though, could really set me off.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Table 1 of the study, the choices of religious affiliation include "Roman Catholic," "Other Christian," and "Muslim."
That would seem to ignore much of the world's population, beginning with Jews and continuing on to the various religions that believe in reincarnation.
They claim to have drawn their data from publicly available sources. I'd love to hear how they spun that data to achieve their sample.
The cheapest 1bdrm apt you can really hope for is around $350/mo.
(whistle) Living in California, I've literally never seen that kind of rent my whole life. That was about what I paid for my first apartment, but that was with a roommate, and the rate went up steadily with every move. Right now in San Francisco, they say that the average price of a studio (no-bedroom) apartment is about $2,000. That figure is misleading for a number of reasons, and most people I know don't pay that, but most people I know who have been in the market for a new apartment recently have ended up moving out of town. Mind you, San Francisco also sets its own minimum wage, which is currently $10.24 -- but that will still easily leave you in the position of needing a second job or one that pays really good tips. (Bartending is a pretty desirable job for a lot of people of a certain age around here.)
Back when I lived in Minnesota there was a big todo over welfare moms having more children simply to get an increase in welfare aid.
Classic GOP talking point. "We are the party of Family Values. But when I see all these poor people, with their families and children, it makes me sick, sick, SICK!"
The other thing this whole thread seems to have ignored so far is that even as universities are raising tuition, they've also been cutting staff, eliminating tenure, dropping courses, increasing class sizes, and capping enrollment.
My friends who are currently doing undergrad degrees have seen core classes explode in size, just in the time they've been at their schools. Many of them have been forced to take five or six years to complete their degrees solely because their college only offers some of the classes they need to graduate every other semester, and they might be too impacted to get in.
So if student aid is what's causing tuition to go up so fast, what's causing all of this other stuff?
There are regional variations also. The current minimum wage for businesses in the City of San Francisco is $10.24/hour, and it has been raised incrementally every year for the past decade (with some exemptions for small businesses).
I wish people would post where they actually live when they make claims like this. It's hardly some legal liability issue, where you have to say, "I'm employed by one of the leading automakers," and "my part of the country" is pretty vague.
A lot of my friends have gone back to vinyl records for their music.
Admittedly, most of them are collector types to begin with. But I think they also like the whole physical/tactile engagement with the record. Also, I think playing your music from records tends to imply you've gone out and bought a record player, an amplifier, and a decent pair of speakers, rather than just playing it through whatever your PC came with.
I've thought about going that route myself. I find I don't have much connection with the music I listen to anymore. It's very rare that I get really excited about a new release.
The 3D in Prometheus (filmed in stereo) was really good and I think if the "effect dissolves" for you then that's properly done 3D IMO
I just don't understand that. If, even as you're watching the movie, you're acutely aware that it would make no difference whether the movie is in 3D or not, how is that good use of the technology?
I don't wear glasses. I don't see why I should have to wear glasses to watch a movie if it's going to add nothing to the experience of watching the film.
And, as I've pointed out, it actually detracts from the experience, as there's usually a little ghosting if you should happen to turn your head the wrong way, and the glasses cut down on the color range and brightness of the screen.
That's a gimmick. That's getting you to pay more money for an "enhanced experience" that is never delivered. 3D movies that actually take advantage of the 3D make sense. 3D movies that advertise how little you're going to notice the 3D, as if that was a reason to see them in 3D, seem crazy to me.
I saw Prometheus twice. (That's a whole other topic.) The first time I saw it in regular 3D, in the evening, for $16. The second time I saw it in IMAX, at 10am, for $12. Not only did it look really nice in IMAX (I think their 3D process/glasses are a little better), but I think they had maybe two previews (Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit), then straight on to the movie. That actually might be the way I do it for Dark Knight, too, since it seems to be the way to go and that movie was actually shot with IMAX cameras.
My Bloody Valentine 3D. Come on! You didn't see that? Within like the first 5 minutes of the film, a guy got a pickaxe to the back of the head and the tip of the pickaxe came toward the camera with his eyeball on the end of it! Now that's 3D. A lot of these movies people are mentioning, the 3D illusion is so subtle that it all but dissolves for me by the second act. I barely notice I'm watching a 3D movie anymore, except there's ghosting and I have to wear glasses.
(That said, I do agree it was used to good effect in Prometheus, even though I also agree the movie sucked. Maybe I was seeing the difference between a movie shot using 3D cameras and one that had all the 3D laid on in postprocessing in a computer.)
Please, if you want to help me, tell me what I was supposed to do with the quote in this article.
That's obvious. Don't use it. It's not a quote that's suitable for reprinting. Paraphrase, in as few words as possible. If /. readers don't believe you, they have the link and they can read for themselves.
As far as Forbes being "a reputable news source," you should have done your homework and noticed that Dave Thier is a freelance "contributor" to a Forbes blog, not to the magazine. Blogs are generally given less rigorous editorial treatment than news articles. You don't need to take everything written as gospel, punctuation, capitalization and all.
Also, skip all the "well it appears," "speaking of," "one more detail," etc. All of these phrases are totally superfluous. All they do is add words to the summary.
And kill the adverbs. Nobody cares whether you think the details are "juicy," just like nobody cares whether you think The Oatmeal's lawyer is "fully competent" (are you a lawyer yourself?). What's more, the overall sarcastic tone ("he only garnered 900 percent of his goal") doesn't help your case much, either.
Finally, it is incumbent upon you, as submitter, to explain what the story is about. Your summary starts with, "You may recall the story last week..." Sorry, no. I don't. What now? I'm afraid your summary leaves me totally in the dark as to who the players are and who did what to whom.
In short, this is meant to be a summary of a news story, not a post on your personal blog.
Except that if you read the summary, this is about more than just secure email. They also want to do it for text messaging, phone calls, and videoconferencing. I think it would be pretty hard to use SMTP for all of that.
Also, you might be surprised to learn the value of the jewelry that many travelers (usually older) like to wear around. If a thief was skilled enough to enter hotel rooms and break into the safes, I highly doubt that he'd be thinking "jackpot!" if all he found was a MacBook Air.
Last time I was in a hotel with an in room safe, I was pretty sure that every employee in the hotel had access to it.
What made you "pretty sure" of that? On every hotel safe I can remember seeing, you set the password yourself. Plus, if you came back to your locked room and your locked safe was empty, it would be a pretty sure bet who stole from it. I can't imagine a more clear-cut liability case.
Programmers with zero *nix background puzzle me.
It's about the size and weight of a hardback book and is not so expensive that I can't leave it in my hotel room when I'm out.
I can't remember the last time I was in a hotel room that didn't have an in-room safe large enough to accommodate a laptop.
You could have made the same argument about pearl harbour. Well the japanese only attacked pearl harbour on one day, so if the US had just ignored it everything would have been fine.
Pearl Harbor was a little different, Fox News's rhetoric aside. Pearl Harbor was a coordinated attack by Japanese military planes on a U.S. naval base, a legitimate military target. The Japanese were conducting a war; they weren't walking into crowded discotheques and blowing themselves up. We were pretty mad that they gave us no warning, but how much warning did FDR give Hitler that we were landing on Normandy? (Answer: None, and in fact we even conducted decoy operations to confuse the enemy.) When a government sends over 300 planes, destroys hundreds of your planes and sinks eight battleships (not cheap, those), I don't think it really accounts as "a one-day attack" -- as opposed to the type of attack where the solution is to lock the cabin doors on your own planes.
It's taken 11 years to tear apart al qaeda and they're still not gone, and their ideology, even if not their senior membership, is still resilient.
Possibly more so than ever. Mission accomplished?
Some generations hence, people will tell stories to children where the mean, greedy third little pig is the villain because he did not build houses for the other two little pigs and the wolf.
I think Ayn Rand already wrote that fairy tale. The difference was that when she tried it, it was over 1,000 pages long.
I think the percentage of "young adults" who actually have any idea what their future career is likely to be is less that 17 percent.
Click and clack have done 25 years of persuading Americans that the American suburban culture built around the gasoline burning passenger car is OK. ...
That is the nature of mass media. Car Talk has been facilitating the acceptance of American automobile based culture for 25 years.
Look, America has an automobile-based culture. Click and Clack aren't going to change that on their own. "The Hey People, You Shouldn't Be Driving a Car Show" wouldn't have lasted two weeks on the radio. On the other hand, a lot of people drive cars, their cars break down in various ways, and they can use advice on how to fix them. Click and Clack provided that advice in an entertaining way that helped to relieve what can otherwise be a very stressful situation for people who rely on their cars.
But to claim that they're stumping for the car lobby is just you getting up on your soapbox. They regularly advocated energy efficient cars, hybrids, and so forth, and their driving recommendations had more to do with safe driving and fuel efficiency than the middle-aged fantasies of sports car owners. And despite all that "don't drive like my brother" fun and games, they never made any secret of the fact that Tom Magliozzi doesn't own a car and doesn't drive.
"Her other part-time job as a dancer" ... dads, it's up to you to keep your daughters off the pole. 'Nuff said.
Perhaps that's what happened to you? It explains the Red Bull situation.
I won't rule it out, but the sensations I get when I have an "attack" are very acutely physical. It's not in my head. I can be doing ... whatever ... and all of a sudden I'll think, "Hold on. I feel really... weird." Maybe 20 minutes later the nausea will kick in and who knows what's next. No matter what degree the reaction will be, pretty much all I'll want to do is walk around outside. The fresh air in my face staves off the nausea, and since I can't concentrate on anything and I'll just fidget if I sit down, I might as well walk. I've ended up doing laps in a parking lot more than once. The previous day I might have drank the same amount of coffee and felt fine. The fact that I can't seem to predict my reaction anymore is what makes me think it's better just to knock it off completely.
Yeah, except as I recall, the quote his joke references doesn't come from Frank Herbert's Dune. Only the movie.
I know what the negative effects on me are... about ten years ago I overdosed on caffeine by taking two No-Doz pills and washing them down with two pots of strong black coffee. That resulted in me feeling intensely nauseated and tweaked-out for 24 hours straight. I've never been the same since. Sometimes a little bit of coffee is just fine. But other times (probably depends on how much/what I've eaten) a single kitchen coffee cup worth of coffee will make me nauseated, I'll have hot and cold flashes, my limbs will tremble, I'll feel slightly confused and unable to concentrate, and on rare occasions it'll trigger a panic attack -- that is, I don't actually "panic," but my hands will shake violently and go numb, I'll have overall muscle weakness (I'll walk really slowly), and I'll probably throw up.
I know what you're thinking: Yeah, I kinda decided I wouldn't drink coffee anymore. Which sucks, because I really like coffee.
The interesting thing (relative to this article) is that I don't remember ever having a bad caffeine reaction from anything but coffee. I never drink more than the basic 8 oz Red Bull, but that's always fine. The same amount of coffee, though, could really set me off.
Yeah, whoosh.