Perhaps I'm missing something, but if the goal was to take wind currently moving through a wind power center, and store that potential energy somewhere for later use when it wasn't windy... haven't we solved that issue many decades ago, with a technology called "batteries"?
It *will* happen eventually. That is 100% guaranteed, at least if you include disasters much larger than those affecting merely our planet as being "global" catastrophic events. Granted, I agree that if the function of how likely a catastrohy is, is going down, then the sum of likelinesses isn't guaranteed to hit one as you go to infinity. But disregarding that completely, as you look out far enough, the likeliness that the sun will nova starts to increase dramatically, and further still, you hit heat death of the whole universe. That's pretty catastrophic, and pretty certain.:p
My two screens at work are at an angle to each other. If I could get a third screen, I'd put that one to the right of the middle one, at the opposite angle of the one on the left. I certainly wouldn't want one giant monitor all in a line.
I can also full-screen applications in each monitor. You couldn't do that if it was a single monitor. I don't need or want a 3-monitor-wide Firefox display, I want a one-monitor Firefox window and a one-monitor remote desktop and a one-monitor Visual Studio.
You can have my 16:10 monitors when you pry them from my cold, dead hands. (Or, you know, when they stop working and I can't replace them because monitor manufacturers are dumb. Which is more likely, sadly.)
Right. I agree with everything said completely. My complaint, and it bothered me quite a lot, is that I explained all of that to the bank in question, and they completely didn't even understand at all why I was complaining. *I* know to check whether it was a phishing scam or not by calling the number listed on my card (which, oh by the way, the email also had a number listed that you could call if you had questions... which was not the number on my card, and in fact, wasn't mentioned, as far as I could tell, anywhere on the bank's web site). But, if it had been a phish instead of a really terribly crafted legitimate helpful email, would my computer-illiterate mom have known? We spend so much effort trying to educate people less knowledgeable about computery things in important matters like "how do you recognize a phish", that it completely blew my mind that they would ruin that with an email that *did* look like a phish, and expect us to click on the link and be happy.
Ah. So the old bait and switch, where they tell you "we will give you 5% extra on your paycheck", and then 3 months later they go like, "psych! Just kidding! By the way you can't switch back." So basically, the Verizon method.
That does sound more like something companies would do, yes (and would get sued over. And would probably win, because they would have much better paid lawyers and more experience in creative totally-not-bribery.)
Unlike an email sent to me a few months ago by a major credit card provider I had a card with, telling me I may have had a card theft, and asking me to click a link to confirm whether or not I had made a particular purchase. The link went to a completely gibberish link that had no obvious connection to the bank in question. It was very obviously a phish.
Turns out, nope, it was totally legitimate, that card *had* been used to make an unauthorized transaction, and that bank completely failed to understand that emails which aren't phishes, shouldn't look like phishes. Even when I submitted a complaint to them. (Their response: this is a legitimate email. My response, which they completely ignored: "I know it is. I'm telling you it doesn't *look* like one, at all, and perhaps you should fix that." Grah.)
Except the employer would never do any of that, because the whole point of doing this is to save company money at employees' expense. If they compensated the employees for the inconvenience, that would completely defeat the entire purpose of inconveniencing them. It's not like companies are doing it just to piss their employees off - they just don't *care* if they piss their employees off, as long as they're saving money.
Yes, obviously, if it cost me 5 dollars to move my paycheck from the card to my checking account, and my employer paid me 10 dollars to take the stupid card, then it would be in my best interest to take the card. Equally obviously, they would never do that, cause why would they?
Lulwat? I've played that board game. It is completely unrelated to any of the Civ computer games in anything other than "both are about ancient civilizations in competition with each other". That's not really something you can "steal". Ok, so the article on the first Civ's page mentions he took some inspiration from the board game - I actually didn't know Civ the board game was the first game to have come up with the idea of tech trees, as it's been used in hundreds of board and video games since. But seriously - what game *hasn't* taken some inspiration from other games? Ok, so maybe he could've come up with a different name, to reduce confusion, but they aren't particularly similar games. (Though it is sort of amusing that there's now a board-game-ization of the computer game, to further increase the confusion.)
I've said way worse things, just as sarcastically. I've learned not to say things like YES, I AM TOTALLY A TERRORIST, I HAVE BOMBS ALL OVER MY PERSON while in an airplane, but I can't possibly imagine anyone arresting me for posting that on a freaking internet site.
I AM TOTALLY A TERRORIST, I HAVE BOMBS ALL OVER MY PERSON.
Clearly he wants to bring a bunch of hearts to school in a bag, and beat on them while eating the school's still (it's within the bounds of believability that they might have one in their chemistry lab...)
I just lost the game. I'm amazed I didn't lose it previously, as the article about the game is the quintessential example of something notable that kept getting deleted for non-notability and/or nonverifiability. I'd argue personally that if a bunch of people are talking about a band on the internet, that's probably good enough evidence that the band isn't a fake, unless someone offers proof that it is. But that's not wikipedia's way, and whatever, I can live with it. It does, however, make me far happier editing tvtropes (where "There Is No Such Thing As Notability" is an official rule) than wikipedia.
In any case, I would also argue that notability and verifiability, while related, are not the same. There are lot of things that are completely verifiable, that deletionists would still argue shouldn't be on wikipedia.
I don't think anyone, even the most rabid inclusionist, would argue that statement. *Anyone* (other than the troll that put it up) would agree that hoaxes and ads should be deleted, speedily if possible. Inclusionists (and yes, I know it's a range, not a binary, but most people generally categorize themselves as one or the other to some extent) just feel that legitimate, accurate articles deserve to exist mostly regardless of notability. Even they would generally agree that a "band" consisting of two guys in their garage who had never played a real concert for anyone but their moms doesn't deserve to continue to exist on wikipedia, but many, myself included, would argue that there's no need to delete a page for a band that has a few hundred followers in their home town, even if they've never made it big, changed the nature of anything, or released any cds.
Given that I'm sure if you tried enough, you could convince some moron working the phone at any of various financial establishments I have alerts sent from to let you draw money out of my accounts there, even though they shouldn't.
Other than that, I doubt it'd be worth very much, unless the crook *really* liked Kingdom of Loathing.
Why would they care that you're bringing a hard drive? Why would they bother to look at it, let alone make you turn your computer on, attach it to the hard drive and look at its contents? I'm with basically everyone else: just don't bring a pile of dvds that look like bootlegs. If you really want to bring a pile of dvds, you're still probably fine as long as they don't look like bootlegs you bought from a bootlegger... but why would you bring piles of dvds, as opposed to just leaving them digital on a hard drive?
I tried DuckDuckGo last year for a bit. I loved their philosophy, and I loved some of the enhancements they made to the whole search experience... but at least when I tried it, their actual search results were kinda crap. When I realized about 2/3s of the time I just ended up typing !google [search terms], I said screw it and went back to google.
I'd rather Google get all my searches and everything than Microsoft anyway, though. At least Google knows how to do useful things with all that data.
I would say, don't ever take anything *anyone* says at face value. Let's not be sexist. Yes, men and women have slightly different brains and thus act in slightly different ways on average, and yes, it is also sadly true that in some circumstances, the law is more likely to side with a woman than a man regardless of who's actually telling the truth. Still, when it comes to rape, yes, there are a good number of piece-of-shit girls claiming falsely to have been raped for their own purposes... but there are also a good number of actual piece-of-shit guys who've raped people, too. So by all means do get facts and evidence, that's what the legal system should be (and *generally* is) about. But your first sentence kind of rubs me the wrong way.
I'd totally buy apps developers make, if they'd run on my phone. Yes, I did buy a cheap phone, though, because being able to run any app wasn't worth a couple hundred dollars. Actually, for that matter, maybe it would've been if I found a Ting-eligible phone that allowed tethering, had a physical keyboard *and* ran Android 4.x, but I only saw phones with 2 out of 3, so I bought the one I could get for 25 bucks (refurb, after discount). It's a great phone, even if I do wish it could run more apps.
Sadly, I don't seem to have it written down anywhere, but the gist of it was that advertisers and politicians have long known that the best way to get people to eat rat-shit sandwiches is to heavily advertise a "rat-shit and garbage" sandwich, then after that media blitz, start another blitz saying "we listened to you! Our sandwiches no longer have garbage in them!"
The post I planned to make: "no, I will still use svn like I have, but unless there's actually a good reason not to, I'll stick with the svn I was already using, because why upgrade just because someone tells you to, without a clear reason why the new version is actually better?"
Finally fixing the messy pseudo-rename component is a darn good reason to upgrade, though. I will let people know (he company I work at exclusively uses svn. I really see no reason to use a distributed versioning system, especially not in the context of an actual whole software company. And Svn is a fine technology. This sounds like actual improvements have been made, though.)
"You've got subscriptions and you already said ok, ok, agree and you agree that every right in the world belongs to them and you got no rights and anything you put in my butt, you don't even know,' says Woz. "
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I'm missing something, but if the goal was to take wind currently moving through a wind power center, and store that potential energy somewhere for later use when it wasn't windy... haven't we solved that issue many decades ago, with a technology called "batteries"?
It *will* happen eventually. That is 100% guaranteed, at least if you include disasters much larger than those affecting merely our planet as being "global" catastrophic events. Granted, I agree that if the function of how likely a catastrohy is, is going down, then the sum of likelinesses isn't guaranteed to hit one as you go to infinity. But disregarding that completely, as you look out far enough, the likeliness that the sun will nova starts to increase dramatically, and further still, you hit heat death of the whole universe. That's pretty catastrophic, and pretty certain. :p
My two screens at work are at an angle to each other. If I could get a third screen, I'd put that one to the right of the middle one, at the opposite angle of the one on the left. I certainly wouldn't want one giant monitor all in a line.
I can also full-screen applications in each monitor. You couldn't do that if it was a single monitor. I don't need or want a 3-monitor-wide Firefox display, I want a one-monitor Firefox window and a one-monitor remote desktop and a one-monitor Visual Studio.
You can have my 16:10 monitors when you pry them from my cold, dead hands. (Or, you know, when they stop working and I can't replace them because monitor manufacturers are dumb. Which is more likely, sadly.)
Right. I agree with everything said completely. My complaint, and it bothered me quite a lot, is that I explained all of that to the bank in question, and they completely didn't even understand at all why I was complaining. *I* know to check whether it was a phishing scam or not by calling the number listed on my card (which, oh by the way, the email also had a number listed that you could call if you had questions... which was not the number on my card, and in fact, wasn't mentioned, as far as I could tell, anywhere on the bank's web site). But, if it had been a phish instead of a really terribly crafted legitimate helpful email, would my computer-illiterate mom have known?
We spend so much effort trying to educate people less knowledgeable about computery things in important matters like "how do you recognize a phish", that it completely blew my mind that they would ruin that with an email that *did* look like a phish, and expect us to click on the link and be happy.
Ah. So the old bait and switch, where they tell you "we will give you 5% extra on your paycheck", and then 3 months later they go like, "psych! Just kidding! By the way you can't switch back." So basically, the Verizon method.
That does sound more like something companies would do, yes (and would get sued over. And would probably win, because they would have much better paid lawyers and more experience in creative totally-not-bribery.)
That last one is the most important.
Unlike an email sent to me a few months ago by a major credit card provider I had a card with, telling me I may have had a card theft, and asking me to click a link to confirm whether or not I had made a particular purchase. The link went to a completely gibberish link that had no obvious connection to the bank in question. It was very obviously a phish.
Turns out, nope, it was totally legitimate, that card *had* been used to make an unauthorized transaction, and that bank completely failed to understand that emails which aren't phishes, shouldn't look like phishes. Even when I submitted a complaint to them. (Their response: this is a legitimate email. My response, which they completely ignored: "I know it is. I'm telling you it doesn't *look* like one, at all, and perhaps you should fix that." Grah.)
Except the employer would never do any of that, because the whole point of doing this is to save company money at employees' expense. If they compensated the employees for the inconvenience, that would completely defeat the entire purpose of inconveniencing them. It's not like companies are doing it just to piss their employees off - they just don't *care* if they piss their employees off, as long as they're saving money.
Yes, obviously, if it cost me 5 dollars to move my paycheck from the card to my checking account, and my employer paid me 10 dollars to take the stupid card, then it would be in my best interest to take the card. Equally obviously, they would never do that, cause why would they?
Lulwat? I've played that board game. It is completely unrelated to any of the Civ computer games in anything other than "both are about ancient civilizations in competition with each other". That's not really something you can "steal". Ok, so the article on the first Civ's page mentions he took some inspiration from the board game - I actually didn't know Civ the board game was the first game to have come up with the idea of tech trees, as it's been used in hundreds of board and video games since. But seriously - what game *hasn't* taken some inspiration from other games? Ok, so maybe he could've come up with a different name, to reduce confusion, but they aren't particularly similar games. (Though it is sort of amusing that there's now a board-game-ization of the computer game, to further increase the confusion.)
Any references to that theme song just get Stairway to Heaven stuck my head. It's much better that way.
I've said way worse things, just as sarcastically. I've learned not to say things like YES, I AM TOTALLY A TERRORIST, I HAVE BOMBS ALL OVER MY PERSON while in an airplane, but I can't possibly imagine anyone arresting me for posting that on a freaking internet site.
I AM TOTALLY A TERRORIST, I HAVE BOMBS ALL OVER MY PERSON.
(No. No I do not.)
Clearly he wants to bring a bunch of hearts to school in a bag, and beat on them while eating the school's still (it's within the bounds of believability that they might have one in their chemistry lab...)
I just lost the game. I'm amazed I didn't lose it previously, as the article about the game is the quintessential example of something notable that kept getting deleted for non-notability and/or nonverifiability. I'd argue personally that if a bunch of people are talking about a band on the internet, that's probably good enough evidence that the band isn't a fake, unless someone offers proof that it is. But that's not wikipedia's way, and whatever, I can live with it. It does, however, make me far happier editing tvtropes (where "There Is No Such Thing As Notability" is an official rule) than wikipedia.
In any case, I would also argue that notability and verifiability, while related, are not the same. There are lot of things that are completely verifiable, that deletionists would still argue shouldn't be on wikipedia.
I don't think anyone, even the most rabid inclusionist, would argue that statement. *Anyone* (other than the troll that put it up) would agree that hoaxes and ads should be deleted, speedily if possible. Inclusionists (and yes, I know it's a range, not a binary, but most people generally categorize themselves as one or the other to some extent) just feel that legitimate, accurate articles deserve to exist mostly regardless of notability. Even they would generally agree that a "band" consisting of two guys in their garage who had never played a real concert for anyone but their moms doesn't deserve to continue to exist on wikipedia, but many, myself included, would argue that there's no need to delete a page for a band that has a few hundred followers in their home town, even if they've never made it big, changed the nature of anything, or released any cds.
I dunno why you can't... I "consume and browse" just freaking fine on my Win7 desktop with no Metro. Why would I "need two different devices"??
I really hope in 1-2 years I won't have a touch screen. If touch screens are the future, that's a pretty crappy future.
Nope. I do, however, have a rainbow pearl. :p
(Well, it's not mine, but it is on an account I have the password to.)
Given that I'm sure if you tried enough, you could convince some moron working the phone at any of various financial establishments I have alerts sent from to let you draw money out of my accounts there, even though they shouldn't.
Other than that, I doubt it'd be worth very much, unless the crook *really* liked Kingdom of Loathing.
Why would they care that you're bringing a hard drive? Why would they bother to look at it, let alone make you turn your computer on, attach it to the hard drive and look at its contents? I'm with basically everyone else: just don't bring a pile of dvds that look like bootlegs. If you really want to bring a pile of dvds, you're still probably fine as long as they don't look like bootlegs you bought from a bootlegger... but why would you bring piles of dvds, as opposed to just leaving them digital on a hard drive?
I tried DuckDuckGo last year for a bit. I loved their philosophy, and I loved some of the enhancements they made to the whole search experience... but at least when I tried it, their actual search results were kinda crap. When I realized about 2/3s of the time I just ended up typing !google [search terms], I said screw it and went back to google.
I'd rather Google get all my searches and everything than Microsoft anyway, though. At least Google knows how to do useful things with all that data.
I would say, don't ever take anything *anyone* says at face value. Let's not be sexist. Yes, men and women have slightly different brains and thus act in slightly different ways on average, and yes, it is also sadly true that in some circumstances, the law is more likely to side with a woman than a man regardless of who's actually telling the truth. Still, when it comes to rape, yes, there are a good number of piece-of-shit girls claiming falsely to have been raped for their own purposes... but there are also a good number of actual piece-of-shit guys who've raped people, too. So by all means do get facts and evidence, that's what the legal system should be (and *generally* is) about. But your first sentence kind of rubs me the wrong way.
I'd totally buy apps developers make, if they'd run on my phone. Yes, I did buy a cheap phone, though, because being able to run any app wasn't worth a couple hundred dollars. Actually, for that matter, maybe it would've been if I found a Ting-eligible phone that allowed tethering, had a physical keyboard *and* ran Android 4.x, but I only saw phones with 2 out of 3, so I bought the one I could get for 25 bucks (refurb, after discount). It's a great phone, even if I do wish it could run more apps.
Sadly, I don't seem to have it written down anywhere, but the gist of it was that advertisers and politicians have long known that the best way to get people to eat rat-shit sandwiches is to heavily advertise a "rat-shit and garbage" sandwich, then after that media blitz, start another blitz saying "we listened to you! Our sandwiches no longer have garbage in them!"
The post I planned to make: "no, I will still use svn like I have, but unless there's actually a good reason not to, I'll stick with the svn I was already using, because why upgrade just because someone tells you to, without a clear reason why the new version is actually better?"
Finally fixing the messy pseudo-rename component is a darn good reason to upgrade, though. I will let people know (he company I work at exclusively uses svn. I really see no reason to use a distributed versioning system, especially not in the context of an actual whole software company. And Svn is a fine technology. This sounds like actual improvements have been made, though.)
We lead the world by many measures:
* cost
* crappiness of service
* downtime
* annoyance
"You've got subscriptions and you already said ok, ok, agree and you agree that every right in the world belongs to them and you got no rights and anything you put in my butt, you don't even know,' says Woz. "
With theoldreader, it does everything greader does (by design: that was its goal, hence the name.) I'm perfectly happy with it as a replacement.