Docking station tech is lame at best. First the battery charging logic is flawed. The charger should disconnect from the battery once it is charged. It should test the battery once an hour thereafter and decide what to do. I cannot tell you how many batteries I have had die from long term over charging and lack of correct dynamics in use.
A docking station should have cooling designed to keep the battery as well as the CPU/logic cool. Most obstruct air flow and do neither well.
This depends entirely on the laptop/battery. The last two Lenovos I've had both offered smart charging where the battery would optionally not begin charging until below X% and would stop when the battery signaled it was full. The charging threshold could either be directly specified by the user or determined by the laptop based on usage pattern.
My previous machine I set to not recharge until below 85%. It was a power hog so the battery was pretty much a pack-along UPS. 15% represented a fairly small number of minutes of operation.
My current Thinkpad is vastly better on battery. I can get well in excess of 4 hours of casual use from a single charge. I quite often use it unplugged so I have the threshold set higher since I'm more likely to need that extra capacity.
I don't really want to get into a debate about whether it is or is not a good idea to ban any particular insecticide. Frankly, I'm not qualified to argue either side of such a debate.
This is exactly why I do think it makes sense to listen to the experts hired by the U.S. government to study the issue. It appears the experts feel that banning one class of pesticide won't solve the problem. Unless you think they were all paid off by Bayer or aren't really scientists or are maybe all Canadian, there would seem to be little reason to disregard their conclusions, even if they do seem to contradict those arrived at by Salon.com.
You're conflating two different things, no doubt due to the confusing nature of the post. The quote about patching holes was from a participant in the study that looked at a wide range of factors, including pesticides and viruses, and concluded there was no single culprit.
In the midst of this the OP mentions Europe banning "neocotinids" [sic] for two years. This has nothing whatever to do with the study mentioned or the quote from the study participant. So the patching holes quote isn't suggesting we shouldn't follow Europe's lead in this as that was not the topic being addressed.
Patching one hole in a boat that leaks everywhere is not going to keep it from sinking
But it is one less hole to worry about.
True, but if it costs you $billions to patch that hole and you save no colonies due to the many other factors, that's $billions wasted. I don't think the original quote was suggesting that we do nothing, but that we be highly selective about which holes we attempt to patch.
There's a great tendency with situations like this to feel that we need to do something, randomly pick something, do it, then feel good about yourself for having done something regardless of whether you've lessened the severity of the situation.
So either we start seeing stein-shaped koozies at our local dive bar... or nothing will really change from this "finding".
Bodum, the French press people, have a line of double-walled glasses that would seem to be just the thing for avoiding condensation. They even have some they call beer glasses, though, sadly, they only hold 13 oz. They also appear to have a reputation for being incredibly fragile. And rather expensive. Probably not the thing for the local dive bar. Might work at home though.
Now how about an experiment about the optimal water quantity for a wet t-shirt contest? Something about capillary action certainly has to be discovered...
Perhaps it was all bunk, but I think one does need to keep in mind we were not looking for underground water. We were looking for iron pipes that just happened to be carrying water. If this is the only concentration of iron in the area it's pretty clearly going to have an impact on the magnetic field in the immediate vicinity. If metal deposits can have an impact on magnetic compasses, it doesn't seem too far fetched for them to have some effect on steel rods that may have a slight magnetic or static charge.
My recollection is that it didn't work on newer homes that had copper pipes coming from the water main. Use of copper pipes for carrying water was still a relatively recent development at that point. Most homes at that time had iron pipes coming in from the street.
Decades ago I worked during the summer for the water department. One of our jobs was to find and mark water lines. We actually did use divining rods. No stick with a fork, though. Ours were two pieces of wire, each bent to form an 'L'. You loosely hold the shorter side, keeping the longer sides parallel to the ground and initially to each other. As you pass over the water main the wires cross. It worked quite reliably as long as the water main wasn't too deep. I always assumed it had something to do with magnetism.
Actually, it wasn't my intent to express a preference. I was simply pointing out that government interference prevents a free market from forming. Regardless of where you stand on whether this interference is necessary or not, if you're being honest, you have to admit it distorts the market, in this case to the point that nothing remotely resembling a truly free market is allowed to form.
As for Walmart, I'm afraid your one-word argument is not sufficient. It's not at all obvious to me how Walmart prevents the market entry of competing companies. I'm thinking right now of a particular Walmart I'm familiar with. Within five minutes of this Walmart are two other similar discount department stores, one smaller department store, a major electronics chain store, four grocery stores, two hardware stores, and literally dozens of other smaller specialty stores that compete with Walmart on the goods they sell. All these stores have been doing business in these locations for at least five years.
The free market works fine. The problem is you don't have a free market. There are three or more levels of government with multiple agencies, each with their own agenda, all creating barriers to entry (i.e. regulations). If it was just a matter of paying for right of way and building the infrastructure you'd see loads of competition. Admittedly, the cost of entry is high with systems like land lines, cell phones, and wired internet, but you would see it happening a lot more without all the regulations and control by various levels of government.
Initially, the competition would be for the areas most likely to provide a profit. Economically depressed areas would get slighted. But that's the free market. You take your product to the customers who are most likely to buy. Insisting that everyone have access to the same level of service for the same price may be considered fair by many, but it's not a free market.
My understanding is Google is being very selective about where they roll out service in KC. Make a deposit to demonstrate your willingness to pay for our service. When enough people in your neighborhood join in, we'll provide you with service. KC wanted this badly enough to keep their regulatory instincts in check and allow Google to develop the service with free market forces.
It'd be like Pepsi complaining that Coke were trying to use a Trojan Horse to dominate the market, if Coke gave away free drinks, and also made the recipe freely available.
Clearly the schools are failing badly on the classical education front. This is the third time recently I've seen Trojan Horse misused. (Not the quote. That's pointing out the flaw in the complaint.) For Android to be a Trojan Horse Google would have to be somehow disguising their attempt to capture the mobile market. I don't think they've fooled anyone.
My favorite was when Obama referred to a Republican plan as "disguised as a Trojan Horse". Think about that. It would be like Clark Kent dressing up as Batman. Or maybe it's like those nesting Russian dolls. It only looks like a Trojan Horse on the outside. Open it up and inside... surprise!... it's a Trojan Horse.
smile at them -- they may be idiots with no real training in some cases, but they respond to polite a whole lot better.
Be polite? Sure. Smile? What have you got to smile about? You're in a hurry. You've just been made to wait in a long line, empty your pockets, remove your shoes, unpack half your carry-on luggage, and risk having your valuables stolen while they sit unattended at the end of the conveyor while some clown in blue is checking your package for heaven knows what. What you have to look forward to is putting your shoes back on without benefit of any chairs in the area, repacking your carry-on while passengers behind you are impatiently waiting for you to get out of the way, and being sure you've actually collected all your personal effects before rushing out of this island of traveler terror. Unless you're really into having strangers of the same gender fondle your privates, smiling would seem to be one of the least natural responses to the situation. Downright suspicious.
I always do my best to look bored and mildly annoyed. Since that's how I usually feel, it's not much of a stretch. Acting natural is the best approach and I can't see smiling as a natural reaction to this major annoyance.
Overall, I think your advice is pretty good, but I'd keep the smiling to an absolute minimum. At best they'll think you're weird for apparently enjoying this circus of inconvenience and annoyance. At worst they'll think you're trying to act non-threatening and pull you aside for even more security fun.
Perhaps this depends on the state, but when I last filed for unemployment the state withheld it for several months. When I finally got hold of someone there they said my former employer claimed they'd given me a big severance package so I wasn't eligible. I laughed and said I'd not only NOT gotten a severance package, but it was like pulling teeth to get my last regular check from them. The person from unemployment said, "Oh. Okay, you're approved. You should see a direct deposit in a couple days for the full amount we owe you back to your original date of eligibility."
The most arduous part of the whole thing was playing phone tag with the unemployment folks. They accepted my word on everything.
Also, once you get good on Linux the power of having a Unix command line available really becomes a boon. It took me a good year to 18 months of primary use on Linux, but at this point I truly feel more comfortable and efficient in Linux than in Windows.
This would be a valuable observation if you had first spent 18 months at the Windows command line. Of course, very few people are going to be willing to spend 18 months to get up to speed with using an OS.
For the expert, the command line is hard to beat for speed and efficiency. For anyone who isn't an expert, the command line is a major hindrance. They do far better with the point and click graphical interface. So I'm not sure better efficiency after 18 months of training is really a big selling point to most people.
The fact that it may be psychologically easier to part with coins than bills has nothing to do with inflation. It may explain why you have less money in your pocket at the end of the week, but it has no impact on the cost of goods.
Pre-flood, you could get 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM for around $60-$70.
Nonsense. I was building a big server around that time and was keeping a very close eye on prices. The cheapest I ever saw was $89, and that was for a 5400RPM drive, not a 7200RPM. And the $89 was a sale.
Google has had my phone number for years. To my knowledge I've yet to receive a single call that originated from Google or someone to whom Google gave my phone number.
I'm all for identifying evil as evil, but it would be nice to have some actual evidence before making the accusation.
Given online prices and quality (if you know the right places to shop) combined with next day delivery in many areas, it's gotten to where you need to be REALLY desperate to pay Best Buy prices for interconnect parts. When they're charging literally 10 to 20 times what it costs to buy an equivalent item online, that instant gratification thing is really costing you.
And, actually, as Best Buy prices go, $57.63 for TWO SATA cables isn't that bad. A couple years ago I had an immediate need for a USB cable. They wanted $50 for ONE. I decided my need wasn't that great. Ordered ten online (to meet minimum order requirements) and got them for $12 plus shipping. I was tempted to take the other nine and hang out in front of Best Buy offering to sell them for "half price".
Personally, I don't see why people are so adversed to OTA HDTV. The vast majority of decent-quality original content is on the OTA broadcast networks, and with the switch to digital, the picture quality from an antenna is superior to any pay service.
I think I have all of two OTA network shows on my regular viewing schedule. Everything else I watch is either from cable-only networks or the premium stations. For my money TNT, USA. FX, and A&E have far better programming than OTA. I honestly don't remember the last time I followed a show on ABC. And NBC has had only one show in the last several years I found interesting. I don't eschew OTA channels because they're OTA, I do it because their content is of little interest.
I will grant you that the picture quality over cable is pathetic. I wish they'd dump those fringe channels watched by just a small handful of people and give the bandwidth back to the rest of the channels.
There are taxes on the electricity produced from the gas and coal. With solar panels at least some of the power will be produced at the point of consumption with no utility company or governmental agency involved, hence no taxes.
It's similar in concept to the states that are realizing the shift to electric vehicles will hit them hard in the gas tax pocket so they're making moves to shift to a tax on the miles driven regardless of the power source of the vehicle.
To say they will tax sunshine is somewhat euphemism. They'll actually find a way to tax the electricity generated by the solar panels on your roof.
Inefficient? The input -- solar radiation -- is FREE. I don't give a shit how much my panels actually convert to electricity. I'm not paying for the fuel source.
Just wait until solar energy really catches on and use of coal and natural gas drop off. Then the government, seeing their tax revenues for these energy sources drying up, will start taxing sunlight. So much for your free fuel.
Yes, there would be the same lack of market as exists for homes, large appliances, water heaters, carpeting, etc. Clearly there's a major scarcity of all these items.
It varies with the specific poker game, but I've read estimates that Texas Hold'em is about 60% skill, 40% luck. That's considered a nearly ideal split for skilled players. Any more tilt to the luck side and there's no percentage in it for the good player. Any more tilt to the skill side and unskilled players seldom win and don't find the game fun. Ideally, the unskilled players will donate most of the time, but will win just often enough to keep them interested. As they say, you can shear a sheep many times, you can only skin it once.
While all of Harrington's books are excellent, they aren't the best place for a real beginner to start. They assume the reader has pretty good knowledge of the game to begin with.
I'd start with Lee Jones' "Winning Low-Limit Hold'em" or something along those lines, then move on to Harrington once you're familiar with the basics of the game.
Slashdot Mirror
Docking station tech is lame at best. First the battery charging logic
is flawed. The charger should disconnect from the battery once it is charged.
It should test the battery once an hour thereafter and decide what to do. I cannot
tell you how many batteries I have had die from long term over charging and
lack of correct dynamics in use.
A docking station should have cooling designed to keep the battery as well
as the CPU/logic cool. Most obstruct air flow and do neither well.
This depends entirely on the laptop/battery. The last two Lenovos I've had both offered smart charging where the battery would optionally not begin charging until below X% and would stop when the battery signaled it was full. The charging threshold could either be directly specified by the user or determined by the laptop based on usage pattern.
My previous machine I set to not recharge until below 85%. It was a power hog so the battery was pretty much a pack-along UPS. 15% represented a fairly small number of minutes of operation.
My current Thinkpad is vastly better on battery. I can get well in excess of 4 hours of casual use from a single charge. I quite often use it unplugged so I have the threshold set higher since I'm more likely to need that extra capacity.
I don't really want to get into a debate about whether it is or is not a good idea to ban any particular insecticide. Frankly, I'm not qualified to argue either side of such a debate.
This is exactly why I do think it makes sense to listen to the experts hired by the U.S. government to study the issue. It appears the experts feel that banning one class of pesticide won't solve the problem. Unless you think they were all paid off by Bayer or aren't really scientists or are maybe all Canadian, there would seem to be little reason to disregard their conclusions, even if they do seem to contradict those arrived at by Salon.com.
You're conflating two different things, no doubt due to the confusing nature of the post. The quote about patching holes was from a participant in the study that looked at a wide range of factors, including pesticides and viruses, and concluded there was no single culprit.
In the midst of this the OP mentions Europe banning "neocotinids" [sic] for two years. This has nothing whatever to do with the study mentioned or the quote from the study participant. So the patching holes quote isn't suggesting we shouldn't follow Europe's lead in this as that was not the topic being addressed.
Patching one hole in a boat that leaks everywhere is not going to keep it from sinking
But it is one less hole to worry about.
True, but if it costs you $billions to patch that hole and you save no colonies due to the many other factors, that's $billions wasted. I don't think the original quote was suggesting that we do nothing, but that we be highly selective about which holes we attempt to patch.
There's a great tendency with situations like this to feel that we need to do something, randomly pick something, do it, then feel good about yourself for having done something regardless of whether you've lessened the severity of the situation.
So either we start seeing stein-shaped koozies at our local dive bar... or nothing will really change from this "finding".
Bodum, the French press people, have a line of double-walled glasses that would seem to be just the thing for avoiding condensation. They even have some they call beer glasses, though, sadly, they only hold 13 oz. They also appear to have a reputation for being incredibly fragile. And rather expensive. Probably not the thing for the local dive bar. Might work at home though.
Now how about an experiment about the optimal water quantity for a wet t-shirt contest? Something about capillary action certainly has to be discovered...
I'd rather be involved in the next 15-year study to confirm the latest findings on saggy breasts.
As a study subject?
Perhaps it was all bunk, but I think one does need to keep in mind we were not looking for underground water. We were looking for iron pipes that just happened to be carrying water. If this is the only concentration of iron in the area it's pretty clearly going to have an impact on the magnetic field in the immediate vicinity. If metal deposits can have an impact on magnetic compasses, it doesn't seem too far fetched for them to have some effect on steel rods that may have a slight magnetic or static charge.
My recollection is that it didn't work on newer homes that had copper pipes coming from the water main. Use of copper pipes for carrying water was still a relatively recent development at that point. Most homes at that time had iron pipes coming in from the street.
Decades ago I worked during the summer for the water department. One of our jobs was to find and mark water lines. We actually did use divining rods. No stick with a fork, though. Ours were two pieces of wire, each bent to form an 'L'. You loosely hold the shorter side, keeping the longer sides parallel to the ground and initially to each other. As you pass over the water main the wires cross. It worked quite reliably as long as the water main wasn't too deep. I always assumed it had something to do with magnetism.
Actually, it wasn't my intent to express a preference. I was simply pointing out that government interference prevents a free market from forming. Regardless of where you stand on whether this interference is necessary or not, if you're being honest, you have to admit it distorts the market, in this case to the point that nothing remotely resembling a truly free market is allowed to form.
As for Walmart, I'm afraid your one-word argument is not sufficient. It's not at all obvious to me how Walmart prevents the market entry of competing companies. I'm thinking right now of a particular Walmart I'm familiar with. Within five minutes of this Walmart are two other similar discount department stores, one smaller department store, a major electronics chain store, four grocery stores, two hardware stores, and literally dozens of other smaller specialty stores that compete with Walmart on the goods they sell. All these stores have been doing business in these locations for at least five years.
The free market works fine. The problem is you don't have a free market. There are three or more levels of government with multiple agencies, each with their own agenda, all creating barriers to entry (i.e. regulations). If it was just a matter of paying for right of way and building the infrastructure you'd see loads of competition. Admittedly, the cost of entry is high with systems like land lines, cell phones, and wired internet, but you would see it happening a lot more without all the regulations and control by various levels of government.
Initially, the competition would be for the areas most likely to provide a profit. Economically depressed areas would get slighted. But that's the free market. You take your product to the customers who are most likely to buy. Insisting that everyone have access to the same level of service for the same price may be considered fair by many, but it's not a free market.
My understanding is Google is being very selective about where they roll out service in KC. Make a deposit to demonstrate your willingness to pay for our service. When enough people in your neighborhood join in, we'll provide you with service. KC wanted this badly enough to keep their regulatory instincts in check and allow Google to develop the service with free market forces.
It'd be like Pepsi complaining that Coke were trying to use a Trojan Horse to dominate the market, if Coke gave away free drinks, and also made the recipe freely available.
Clearly the schools are failing badly on the classical education front. This is the third time recently I've seen Trojan Horse misused. (Not the quote. That's pointing out the flaw in the complaint.) For Android to be a Trojan Horse Google would have to be somehow disguising their attempt to capture the mobile market. I don't think they've fooled anyone.
My favorite was when Obama referred to a Republican plan as "disguised as a Trojan Horse". Think about that. It would be like Clark Kent dressing up as Batman. Or maybe it's like those nesting Russian dolls. It only looks like a Trojan Horse on the outside. Open it up and inside... surprise!... it's a Trojan Horse.
smile at them -- they may be idiots with no real training in some cases, but they respond to polite a whole lot better.
Be polite? Sure. Smile? What have you got to smile about? You're in a hurry. You've just been made to wait in a long line, empty your pockets, remove your shoes, unpack half your carry-on luggage, and risk having your valuables stolen while they sit unattended at the end of the conveyor while some clown in blue is checking your package for heaven knows what. What you have to look forward to is putting your shoes back on without benefit of any chairs in the area, repacking your carry-on while passengers behind you are impatiently waiting for you to get out of the way, and being sure you've actually collected all your personal effects before rushing out of this island of traveler terror. Unless you're really into having strangers of the same gender fondle your privates, smiling would seem to be one of the least natural responses to the situation. Downright suspicious.
I always do my best to look bored and mildly annoyed. Since that's how I usually feel, it's not much of a stretch. Acting natural is the best approach and I can't see smiling as a natural reaction to this major annoyance.
Overall, I think your advice is pretty good, but I'd keep the smiling to an absolute minimum. At best they'll think you're weird for apparently enjoying this circus of inconvenience and annoyance. At worst they'll think you're trying to act non-threatening and pull you aside for even more security fun.
Perhaps this depends on the state, but when I last filed for unemployment the state withheld it for several months. When I finally got hold of someone there they said my former employer claimed they'd given me a big severance package so I wasn't eligible. I laughed and said I'd not only NOT gotten a severance package, but it was like pulling teeth to get my last regular check from them. The person from unemployment said, "Oh. Okay, you're approved. You should see a direct deposit in a couple days for the full amount we owe you back to your original date of eligibility."
The most arduous part of the whole thing was playing phone tag with the unemployment folks. They accepted my word on everything.
Also, once you get good on Linux the power of having a Unix command line available really becomes a boon. It took me a good year to 18 months of primary use on Linux, but at this point I truly feel more comfortable and efficient in Linux than in Windows.
This would be a valuable observation if you had first spent 18 months at the Windows command line. Of course, very few people are going to be willing to spend 18 months to get up to speed with using an OS.
For the expert, the command line is hard to beat for speed and efficiency. For anyone who isn't an expert, the command line is a major hindrance. They do far better with the point and click graphical interface. So I'm not sure better efficiency after 18 months of training is really a big selling point to most people.
The fact that it may be psychologically easier to part with coins than bills has nothing to do with inflation. It may explain why you have less money in your pocket at the end of the week, but it has no impact on the cost of goods.
Pre-flood, you could get 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM for around $60-$70.
Nonsense. I was building a big server around that time and was keeping a very close eye on prices. The cheapest I ever saw was $89, and that was for a 5400RPM drive, not a 7200RPM. And the $89 was a sale.
Google has had my phone number for years. To my knowledge I've yet to receive a single call that originated from Google or someone to whom Google gave my phone number.
I'm all for identifying evil as evil, but it would be nice to have some actual evidence before making the accusation.
Given online prices and quality (if you know the right places to shop) combined with next day delivery in many areas, it's gotten to where you need to be REALLY desperate to pay Best Buy prices for interconnect parts. When they're charging literally 10 to 20 times what it costs to buy an equivalent item online, that instant gratification thing is really costing you.
Cables are to Best Buy as soda is to McDonald's.
And, actually, as Best Buy prices go, $57.63 for TWO SATA cables isn't that bad. A couple years ago I had an immediate need for a USB cable. They wanted $50 for ONE. I decided my need wasn't that great. Ordered ten online (to meet minimum order requirements) and got them for $12 plus shipping. I was tempted to take the other nine and hang out in front of Best Buy offering to sell them for "half price".
Personally, I don't see why people are so adversed to OTA HDTV. The vast majority of decent-quality original content is on the OTA broadcast networks, and with the switch to digital, the picture quality from an antenna is superior to any pay service.
I think I have all of two OTA network shows on my regular viewing schedule. Everything else I watch is either from cable-only networks or the premium stations. For my money TNT, USA. FX, and A&E have far better programming than OTA. I honestly don't remember the last time I followed a show on ABC. And NBC has had only one show in the last several years I found interesting. I don't eschew OTA channels because they're OTA, I do it because their content is of little interest.
I will grant you that the picture quality over cable is pathetic. I wish they'd dump those fringe channels watched by just a small handful of people and give the bandwidth back to the rest of the channels.
There are taxes on the electricity produced from the gas and coal. With solar panels at least some of the power will be produced at the point of consumption with no utility company or governmental agency involved, hence no taxes.
It's similar in concept to the states that are realizing the shift to electric vehicles will hit them hard in the gas tax pocket so they're making moves to shift to a tax on the miles driven regardless of the power source of the vehicle.
To say they will tax sunshine is somewhat euphemism. They'll actually find a way to tax the electricity generated by the solar panels on your roof.
Inefficient? The input -- solar radiation -- is FREE. I don't give a shit how much my panels actually convert to electricity. I'm not paying for the fuel source.
Just wait until solar energy really catches on and use of coal and natural gas drop off. Then the government, seeing their tax revenues for these energy sources drying up, will start taxing sunlight. So much for your free fuel.
Yes, there would be the same lack of market as exists for homes, large appliances, water heaters, carpeting, etc. Clearly there's a major scarcity of all these items.
It varies with the specific poker game, but I've read estimates that Texas Hold'em is about 60% skill, 40% luck. That's considered a nearly ideal split for skilled players. Any more tilt to the luck side and there's no percentage in it for the good player. Any more tilt to the skill side and unskilled players seldom win and don't find the game fun. Ideally, the unskilled players will donate most of the time, but will win just often enough to keep them interested. As they say, you can shear a sheep many times, you can only skin it once.
While all of Harrington's books are excellent, they aren't the best place for a real beginner to start. They assume the reader has pretty good knowledge of the game to begin with.
I'd start with Lee Jones' "Winning Low-Limit Hold'em" or something along those lines, then move on to Harrington once you're familiar with the basics of the game.