The fun part about this article is that the text and comments appear to show that marketers realise we hate them but the continue to do these things anyway.
On the plus side, if all marketers are using the same domain for tracking URLs, then it only takes one line in/etc/hosts to block them all.
And am I the only one who just does not click on any 'shortened' URL because you never know what it's going to take you to? OK, so www.fluffybunnies.com could still take me to a goatse site, but it's far less likely to do so.
I have in front of me the Wardroom Diary of a British battleship in the Great War. There is a note that the Wardroom Committee has found that Osram bulbs are by far the most resistant to shellfire. Presumably it was legal to buy them then.
These days, if a CFL breaks on a British warship in the middle of a battle the ship will have to stop fighting until the 'health and safety taskforce' ensure the mercury is cleaned up safely.
You're missing the obvious point ON PURPOSE. The point is that no one will switch to a cheaper version that requires more initial investment, even if it clearly saves a lot of energy.
Yes, and? Where do you get the right to _FORCE_ people to do something that they wouldn't otherwise have chosen to do?
The reality is that CFLs don't come close to saving enough money to justify their costs, and they have real issues compared to incandescent bulbs. For example, we have two CFL lights here that the previous owners installed and we've already had to replace one of those light fixtures because it melted; having my house burn down because of an overheating CFL bulb would certainly eliminate any cost benefit of a small decrease in electricity usage.
Which is why people like you have to get the government to force people to use them when we don't want to. The funny part is that the left is pushing this nonsense when the primary beneficiaries will be the profits of EVIL CORPORATIONS like GE who the left would ordinarily be campaigning against.
That's horse shit, regardless of what that EPA pamphlet (which reeks of people wanting to add all kinds of good but not really necessary ideas but no one wanting to risk challenging any of them) says.
I tend to agree that it's overkill, but the OP was claiming that CFL mercury risks were part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, and the EPA are far left.
But just think of all the extra jobs that will be created for 'garbage inspectors' to check that people aren't throwing out dangerous light bulbs in their trash. It's a win all around.
If GE were smarter they would have invested more in other types of lighting before the ban. Why didn't they innovate earlier? Innovate or die.
Uh, GE is laughing all the way to the bank, because the government have banned low-margin incandescent bulbs that people like in favor of high-margin CFLs that most people hate. It's the American GE workers who are fucked.
I'd say "but there isn't a furor over the mercury that coal puts into the environment" but there will be, because the right loves symbols, and the CFL is a symbol of the left wing greeniacs and everything about which they are wrong, and therefore the CFL will be held to a higher standard than opposing interests that are harder to distill into a single image or concept.
Even the EPA says that if you break a CFL then you should send everyone out of the room, open the windows for 15 minutes, shut down any forced air systems so that the mercury vapor doesn't spread around the house, and throw away any material that comes into contact with the bulb fragments. Not only that, but to remain within the law you may have to make special arrangements for disposal of the debris.
Sounds like a fscking good idea when it's -40C outside. All for a freaking light-bulb.
Please explain how the government mandating energy efficiency is equivalent to the government screwing us.
Uh, most people I know hate CFLs, but they're forced to use them because assholes in government have mandated their use; in Britain they've failed to even give the damn things away. How is that _NOT_ government screwing the people?
And, of course, in two or three years once everyone has replaced their old bulbs with CFLs, the government will suddenly discover that CFLs contain mercury and therefore we must all replace them with LEDs instead.
If CFLs are really so wonderful then there's no need for the government to get involved because people will buy them instead of ordinary bulbs. But they're not, so they're being forced on people who don't want them.
A year or two ago I posted to some thread where I remarked that "global warming" was a self-limiting concern, because of declining oil production. I was blasted as being a selfish, ignorant &)*(&%&$$.
The funny part is that many of the 'peak oil' doomers I know are also 'global warming' doomers and don't see any inconsistency in these positions; we're all about to die because oil is about to run out, but we're also all about to die because the ice caps are melting due to burning oil.
People have been planning for this since the 70's. If you think gas is expensive now, wait ten years.
I remember back in the 70s that oil was going to run out by the 90s. Now in 2010, oil is going to run out by the 2030s. In 2030 I guess oil will be going to run out by the 2050s.
The process of viewing it on LDR/SDR monitors is tone-mapping, which over the years has been tuned to represent the best known science of what the eyes actually see at once - our retinas already make us susceptible to only being able to view certain ranges of light at a time.
Yet the end result looks far less real than a normal photograph. Odd, that.
Does Adobe employ the the worst programmers on the planet?
As someone who used to use Premiere on a regular basis, my assumption can only be 'yes'; that was the software that got me into the habit of saving my work after every change because the program would crash at least every couple of hours, and to make backups of old saves because it also had an amusing habit of corrupting new ones.
I've never worked with any Adobe software that wasn't a bug-ridden mess. Maybe Photoshop is better (and I hear that Premiere has improved over the last few years since I stopped using it).
So, what *exactly* are these two, somewhat overlapping niches you are referring to?
To me there are four big differences between the netbook and the Apple i-things:
1. Netbook has a keyboard you can type on, even if adapting to it takes some time. 2. Netbook will run Windows and random Windows software. 3. Netbook generally has better performance and is capable of running a lot of older Windows games (video is different as I believe i-things have hardware H.264 support and the netbook probably doesn't?). 4. The netbook costs half as much.
To me it's more a question of whether you want a small but real keyboard and the ability to run arbitrary software than anything else. If, say, you really want to run Windows for some reason then the i-things are a total non-starter.
So I don't see how anyone can claim that they're interchangeable. Price, lack of keyboard and inability to run my applications mean I wouldn't even consider an i-thingy.
As for netbooks, people buy them for one reason - they don't cost a lot of money.
Not true. I bought mine because I was visiting my relatives in England and it's half the size of my laptop so it was much easier to carry around.
Certainly cost is part of the reason for buying them, but not the only reason... you can buy a low-end laptop for not much more than the cost of a mid-range netbook.
They only thing they really have going for them is that they're cheap, and it shows in the construction of the things.
Weird. My $300 EeePc feels far more solid than my $1000 Toshiba laptop.
I agree about the size, but they're not intended for typing eight hours a day... and neither is a 'pad'. A netbook is great for doing basic stuff on the road and cheap enough that if it's stolen I don't have to worry too much about buying another one; it's also probably less likely to be stolen than something with the magic Apple logo on the back.
-Or they could just design a new one with secure messaging, end-to-end authentication, non-repudiation, etc, etc, etc and keep it to themselves.
And they could give us FREE PONIES at the same time.
I think they were right, as most Internet users would LOL@ someone being duped out of large sums of money at fake EBay auctions using obvious (in the technical sense, not to the user) email forgeries.
How would tying those emails to an 'Internet Drivers' License' claiming that I'm 'Samuel El Jackson, Nigeria 90210' help prevent such scams?
Slashdot Mirror
The fun part about this article is that the text and comments appear to show that marketers realise we hate them but the continue to do these things anyway.
I believe we have a name for people like that?
On the plus side, if all marketers are using the same domain for tracking URLs, then it only takes one line in /etc/hosts to block them all.
And am I the only one who just does not click on any 'shortened' URL because you never know what it's going to take you to? OK, so www.fluffybunnies.com could still take me to a goatse site, but it's far less likely to do so.
What's innovative about hardware-accelerated browsers? Mosaic on Windows 3.1 had hardware-accelerated graphics.
The real question is when the heck did the stop, and why?
Who the fuck at m$ thought this could bring them anything but ridicule?
Presumably the same people who think that anyone would intentionally buy a phone that runs Windows?
Don't US officers have to agree to let the military vet any books about their experiences if they want the job?
I have in front of me the Wardroom Diary of a British battleship in the Great War. There is a note that the Wardroom Committee has found that Osram bulbs are by far the most resistant to shellfire. Presumably it was legal to buy them then.
These days, if a CFL breaks on a British warship in the middle of a battle the ship will have to stop fighting until the 'health and safety taskforce' ensure the mercury is cleaned up safely.
You're missing the obvious point ON PURPOSE. The point is that no one will switch to a cheaper version that requires more initial investment, even if it clearly saves a lot of energy.
Yes, and? Where do you get the right to _FORCE_ people to do something that they wouldn't otherwise have chosen to do?
The reality is that CFLs don't come close to saving enough money to justify their costs, and they have real issues compared to incandescent bulbs. For example, we have two CFL lights here that the previous owners installed and we've already had to replace one of those light fixtures because it melted; having my house burn down because of an overheating CFL bulb would certainly eliminate any cost benefit of a small decrease in electricity usage.
Which is why people like you have to get the government to force people to use them when we don't want to. The funny part is that the left is pushing this nonsense when the primary beneficiaries will be the profits of EVIL CORPORATIONS like GE who the left would ordinarily be campaigning against.
That's horse shit, regardless of what that EPA pamphlet (which reeks of people wanting to add all kinds of good but not really necessary ideas but no one wanting to risk challenging any of them) says.
I tend to agree that it's overkill, but the OP was claiming that CFL mercury risks were part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, and the EPA are far left.
But just think of all the extra jobs that will be created for 'garbage inspectors' to check that people aren't throwing out dangerous light bulbs in their trash. It's a win all around.
if energy five times the price means the products of such mean more local jobs, and more people off the streets,
If the US government increased the price of energy by a factor of five, then that would be even more of an incentive to ship manufacturing abroad.
If GE were smarter they would have invested more in other types of lighting before the ban. Why didn't they innovate earlier? Innovate or die.
Uh, GE is laughing all the way to the bank, because the government have banned low-margin incandescent bulbs that people like in favor of high-margin CFLs that most people hate. It's the American GE workers who are fucked.
I'd say "but there isn't a furor over the mercury that coal puts into the environment" but there will be, because the right loves symbols, and the CFL is a symbol of the left wing greeniacs and everything about which they are wrong, and therefore the CFL will be held to a higher standard than opposing interests that are harder to distill into a single image or concept.
Even the EPA says that if you break a CFL then you should send everyone out of the room, open the windows for 15 minutes, shut down any forced air systems so that the mercury vapor doesn't spread around the house, and throw away any material that comes into contact with the bulb fragments. Not only that, but to remain within the law you may have to make special arrangements for disposal of the debris.
Sounds like a fscking good idea when it's -40C outside. All for a freaking light-bulb.
Please explain how the government mandating energy efficiency is equivalent to the government screwing us.
Uh, most people I know hate CFLs, but they're forced to use them because assholes in government have mandated their use; in Britain they've failed to even give the damn things away. How is that _NOT_ government screwing the people?
And, of course, in two or three years once everyone has replaced their old bulbs with CFLs, the government will suddenly discover that CFLs contain mercury and therefore we must all replace them with LEDs instead.
If CFLs are really so wonderful then there's no need for the government to get involved because people will buy them instead of ordinary bulbs. But they're not, so they're being forced on people who don't want them.
A year or two ago I posted to some thread where I remarked that "global warming" was a self-limiting concern, because of declining oil production. I was blasted as being a selfish, ignorant &)*(&%&$$.
The funny part is that many of the 'peak oil' doomers I know are also 'global warming' doomers and don't see any inconsistency in these positions; we're all about to die because oil is about to run out, but we're also all about to die because the ice caps are melting due to burning oil.
People have been planning for this since the 70's. If you think gas is expensive now, wait ten years.
I remember back in the 70s that oil was going to run out by the 90s. Now in 2010, oil is going to run out by the 2030s. In 2030 I guess oil will be going to run out by the 2050s.
Or the 90% of the market that they own either, I guess.
The 90% of the _desktop_ market, which is no longer the cash cow it once was.
And when you do own 90% of the market, there's really nowhere to go but down.
The process of viewing it on LDR/SDR monitors is tone-mapping, which over the years has been tuned to represent the best known science of what the eyes actually see at once - our retinas already make us susceptible to only being able to view certain ranges of light at a time.
Yet the end result looks far less real than a normal photograph. Odd, that.
Is it me or does that look exactly like newer videogames with heavy textures?
That was my first thought: 'hey, it's Half-Life 2!'
Stupidity is not reading the actual URL and realizing it in NOT A PDF file... it is a .SCR file with some mumbo jumbo about PDF to play mental tricks..
These days I think I'd be more worried by a PDF file that pretends to be a screensaver than a screensaver that pretends to be a PDF file...
Does Adobe employ the the worst programmers on the planet?
As someone who used to use Premiere on a regular basis, my assumption can only be 'yes'; that was the software that got me into the habit of saving my work after every change because the program would crash at least every couple of hours, and to make backups of old saves because it also had an amusing habit of corrupting new ones.
I've never worked with any Adobe software that wasn't a bug-ridden mess. Maybe Photoshop is better (and I hear that Premiere has improved over the last few years since I stopped using it).
No, this is like sears fighting shoplifting by sending assassins after shoplifters.
DOS attacks are unlikely to kill anyone, unless they rely on VOIP and can't make a call when they have a heart attack.
It's more a store fighting shoplifting by tracking down people they think might be shoplifters and setting fire to their cars.
So, what *exactly* are these two, somewhat overlapping niches you are referring to?
To me there are four big differences between the netbook and the Apple i-things:
1. Netbook has a keyboard you can type on, even if adapting to it takes some time.
2. Netbook will run Windows and random Windows software.
3. Netbook generally has better performance and is capable of running a lot of older Windows games (video is different as I believe i-things have hardware H.264 support and the netbook probably doesn't?).
4. The netbook costs half as much.
To me it's more a question of whether you want a small but real keyboard and the ability to run arbitrary software than anything else. If, say, you really want to run Windows for some reason then the i-things are a total non-starter.
So I don't see how anyone can claim that they're interchangeable. Price, lack of keyboard and inability to run my applications mean I wouldn't even consider an i-thingy.
As for netbooks, people buy them for one reason - they don't cost a lot of money.
Not true. I bought mine because I was visiting my relatives in England and it's half the size of my laptop so it was much easier to carry around.
Certainly cost is part of the reason for buying them, but not the only reason... you can buy a low-end laptop for not much more than the cost of a mid-range netbook.
They only thing they really have going for them is that they're cheap, and it shows in the construction of the things.
Weird. My $300 EeePc feels far more solid than my $1000 Toshiba laptop.
I agree about the size, but they're not intended for typing eight hours a day... and neither is a 'pad'. A netbook is great for doing basic stuff on the road and cheap enough that if it's stolen I don't have to worry too much about buying another one; it's also probably less likely to be stolen than something with the magic Apple logo on the back.
-Or they could just design a new one with secure messaging, end-to-end authentication, non-repudiation, etc, etc, etc and keep it to themselves.
And they could give us FREE PONIES at the same time.
I think they were right, as most Internet users would LOL@ someone being duped out of large sums of money at fake EBay auctions using obvious (in the technical sense, not to the user) email forgeries.
How would tying those emails to an 'Internet Drivers' License' claiming that I'm 'Samuel El Jackson, Nigeria 90210' help prevent such scams?