So basically, you are trusting your mother's medical judgement over your doctor's medical judgement?
No. My mother took me to a few doctors but couldn't afford to have them perform the operation, although they unanimously recommended it. As my father was active-duty air force at the time, the AF doctor was the one we could afford to have perform the operation, and he refused to do it. Since then, I have been told by specialists that my risk of dying on the table is non-trivial if I get my tonsils taken out. It's not super high, but it's higher than I'm comfortable with. This is because of the size of the blood vessels in my tonsils, I have been told. Now, I deal with extemely large tonsils which cause me to get sick a few times a year. Sometimes I have to get the crypts cleaned out, which is fun, lemme tellya.
They also don't bounce all over the road like a pinball after collisions, though, and they *do* have crumple zones, contrary to what many posters were saying. I never said how safe or effective the car was, just that it *does* have crumple zones and it does not 'bounce' all over after a collision.
My car won't ever have to worry about driving on the small roads in Europe. That's because I don't happen to live there. I live currently in a huge city, and I have no problems whatsoever fitting on the streets. Why would you even speculate as to what my car would do in a situation that 1.) it wasn't designed for and 2.) will never occur? Oh well, I'm glad to know that my American car which will never be shipped across the ocean is better for driving in America than Europe. Wow, I sure lucked out there, huh?
I know that people often confuse working computers with 'life', but there's a difference. I realize that you're saying I don't know what I'm talking about re: my medical condition, and you are equating it with a clueless person talking to computer tech support. However, if a person came to me and said they needed a new hard drive because the old one failed due to stiction, I would at least check it out. So, for future reference, health problems actually affect people's lives. I know you think computer problems do too, but you're incorrect. However, I will say that a lot of techs don't listen. This doesn't generally lead to death, however. I salute your compassion, sir. It reminds me of the warm, loving embrace of the grave.
Having fantasies about me, are you? Sorry to burst your bubble, but I can't stand blues music. I *am* a gigantically overweight asshole with a tiny dick though. I'm 4'9", weigh 880 lbs and have a 1/4" penis. Amazing you could tell all that from what kind of car I drive. Let me try now...from your response, I can tell you're a scrawny dork with coke-bottle glasses, halitosis, and a hopeless crush on one of the MythBusters. Isn't this fun?
The problem with the system is exactly that we have been attempting to socialize it for years. Now, office visits 'cost' $70-80 bucks, although most people only pay $10 or $15. Tests 'cost' hundreds or thousands, although most people pay only a fraction of that. Aspirin in hospitals 'costs' $60-$80. It's ridiculous. Doctors who come in your room, look at your chart, and say 'hmm. Interesting,' get hundreds of dollars in 'consulting' fees. The more control we have imposed on the system, the worse the system works. Look to Canada for what will happen to us here eventually. Sure, everyone gets 'free' health care...but it certainly isn't care I would want in many cases. Why is it that we in the US have such a hard time learning from the experiences of other countries?
I love my car. It's like driving a couch. It has plenty of power without guzzling too much gas. It's a terrifically comfortable car, and I hope to keep it roadworthy for years to come.
Sigh. People were talking as though it would fly off like a pinball. I think most of us realize there will be *some* sort of adjustment after a collision, depending on its direction and the speed of both vehicles. I suppose I should have clarified for the extremely literal: it doesn't bounce more than most cars in a collision, as other posters indicated that it did.
Yes, again, I didn't say these cars were safer, just that they aren't likely to 'bounce' in a collision as many people said they were. I wouldn't drive one of these dorky (slightly) oversized RC cars. That's just me, though. I mean, I think these things are likely to bounce just like a raw egg dropped on a tile floor in a collision, that's all. Thanks on the 'sig...I just saw 4 or 5 instances of 'for all intensive purposes' in one day and...just snapped.
I'm not sure how you think informative absolutely cannot mean caustic. I never said anything about anyone being safer or not safer. I simply pointed out that these cars are not likely to 'bounce' in a collision as so many people stated ITT. If correcting a flawed assumption isn't informative....well, never mind. Apparently your definition of 'inform' is different from mine.
I've noticed that in the last few years (maybe it's just my perspective, I don't know) doctors seem less and less likely to actually listen to their patients. I have recurring tonsilitis that I get at least once a year and usually more. I have been going through this since I was 6, when the doctors refused to take my tonsils out even though my mother wanted them to. Now the blood vessels are too big to make it a safe operation. Anyhow, I know what needs to be done and what I am suffering from, as I've been dealing with this for 23 years. However, I find that I have to make appointments with 3 or 4 doctors before I find one that listens to me at all. The others will go 'uh huh, uh huh, yeah, uh huh.' Then they give me some test for strep throat or send me away with a low dose of penicillin or something else that doesn't help me get better. Why is it that even if we use technical terms, doctors won't listen? Mr. Volkerding clearly at least has *some* idea of what he's talking about, and I find it sickening that his doctors are paying so little attention to what he says. I don't even like it when it happens to me with a much less serious condition, I can't even imagine the frustration I would feel were I seriously ill and my doctor treated me with that much contempt. Health care costs keep rising, doctors keep leaving the high litigation states, and the ones who are left don't listen to (or even seem to care about) their patients... This is a serious problem that needs a solution fast.
It's always hilarious to me how people never can seem to take the time to RTFA (or other links in the submission), but they take something a poster said (that this car 'bounces' in collisions) as not only proven but gospel truth. In fact, the manufacturer's site disagrees with you. It calls the entire body a 'crumple zone'; the front wheels are also crumple zones. This thing won't be bouncing more than any other car would, especially in front collisions, as the wheels are designed to crumple and absorb impact. Why is it that 40 people commented about how bouncing around in a roll cage is a bad thing, but not one of them could be troubled to find out if the car actually behaved that way? Shame on you lazy assholes. Also, the site specifically talks about how the wheelbase is too short for this car to fold in on itself in t-bone collisions. I wouldn't drive one of these because I'm not a techno-listening super dweeb. However, it does appear that they've gone far out of their way to ensure that these dorky little things are safe. hopefully they really *are* that safe, because I have a feeling I might have to bang my '83 Ford Crown Vic off one or two of 'em in the wild... you know, just to see if they bounce.
I work for a security and access control company, and we have a ton of clients who are moving to DVRs for their cameras. This means that they can store (reasonably) decent quality video forever. Our typical system controls 16 cameras, has two 140GB hard drives, network connectivity (we only set them up on intranets) and a DVD burner. Some sites have 5 or more of these systems. That's a ton of data, but they only burn about 1 DVD per system per month or two. While the DVDs will degrade eventually, they're not losing any fidelity to rewriting. Of course, the video quality isn't nearly as good as you see on CSI/Law&Order/etc, but then cameras work best when you already have good idea who did something, you just want to be sure. They also work to deter employee mischief.
Perhpas they'll just set up a regulatory body, then. See, that's not making a law to abridge free speech, it's making a law to set up a regulatory commision which will abridge free speech. Apparently, there's enough of a difference there for our oily leaders to squirm through. Next we'll have a Federal Document Authentification Commission. Better not write the word 'fuck' on any document ever, or you'll get a nasty fine from the FDAC!
Nice troll. Unless you're counting the ball as a person, your analogy is seriously flawed. Then again, counting the ball as a person would be a flaw too, so...Your analogy is seriously flawed. Not to mention that for pro NFL salaries, there are plenty of people who would put up with implanted brain RFID monitoring devices. Finally, if you can't tell the difference between putting RFID tags in balls to get better positioning data and recording where/when someone goes...well, lemme just say that I hear it's really fun to stick your head in a gas oven turned to 'High'. Make sure to blow out the pilot light first, or you'll burn yourself!
Mister Jacobsen: Hello? Voice: Hello, Mr Jacobsen. Mr. J: Who are you? V: Mr. Jacobsen, our records indicate that you checked into the Inn 'n' Out motel last night with your wife. Mr. J: So? What's this all about? V: We verified that your charcoal suit indeed proceeded from your office to that hotel, but Mrs. Jacobsen's housedress moved around your home all evening. Mr. J: All right, who the hell is this? V: It's your cleaners, Mr. Jacobsen. Don't you think you really should have that suit cleaned? We'd hate to have to call Mrs. Jacobsen and ask her about it. Mr. J: No, no...that's okay... V: We have a full clean and press special going on today only. May we pick up the suit? Mr. J: *sigh* Yeah, it's at my office, corner of... V: That's ok, Mr. Jacobsen. We'll have someone there in a few minutes. Thank you for your business!
*RING* Mr. J: Hello? Voice #2: Hi, Mr. Jacobsen! This is Eddie, from Lingerie Etc. We have a great special going on right now on black lace teddies. Mr. J: What the hell? So what? V2: Our records indicate that your last four mistresses all wore them. We just thought you'd be interested in our special pricing, in light of your recent...activities. Mr. J: Argggghhhhhhhh
Yes, I'm scared of what the government *could* do with this technology. However, I'm even more scared of what the fucking marketeers will do. 1984? Hardly. More like $19.95.
Ahh....but if your task is to boil water, but not have it boil over, and it boils over...then you weren't paying attention. If your job is to watch it boil over, then you're paying attention. You might be unaware that 'watched pot' does not refer to a pot with someone looking at it. 'Watching', in this context, means 'tending to' not 'looking at'. Therefore, a 'watched pot' never boils over. You see, it is assumed that you will understand that not only is boiling over not a desired outcome, but the way to avoid it is by 'watching', where 'watching' means something other than 'viewing'. I realize that you may have trouble with the concept of connotation, since you are apparently of an extremely literal bent of mind. To recap, a 'watched' pot will boil. It will not boil over. If it does, it was not 'watched', thus the point of the saying. If there's anything else I can help you with, please let me know.
How does that indicate that a watched pot will boil over? I don't think the saying contains anything about unwatched pots. Also, there is a difference between 'tend not to' and 'will never'. Anyway, the point of the saying is that if you pay attention to what you are doing, you are less likely to screw it up. Furthermore, people have been using a truncated version of the old cliche to mean 'if you're paying attention to something, it takes longer to occur' which is not true. It may seem that way, but it isn't the case. Similarly, a pot of water will certainly boil, whether you are watching it or not, provided the flame is hot enough. However, if you're paying attention, it won't boil over.
Re:Regulation-Ask and yea shall receive.
on
SBC's VoIP End Run
·
· Score: 1
Face it, people are getting what they asked for, and they're finding the fruits bitter indeed.
Yes. We live in a time noted for relaxed government regulation/control. If you didn't notice the sarcasm dripping off those words, I feel sorry for you. The FCC just fined a television network over half a million dollars because an aging diva decided to show the crowd at the Super Bowl her nipple ring. How can you *possibly* state that the FCC is relaxed? Also, it is true that the libertarian platform was built upon small government. However, since there aren't any libertarians in Congress*, the White House, the Supreme Court, or state governorships, and have not been for over a hundred years, I don't see why you think that has anything to do with our current power structure. Also, please note that there is a major difference between ensuring fair access to the spectrum and regulating the content broadcast on that spectrum. Stopping SBC from remaking Ma Bell falls under the former. Fining people for saying certain words or having 'wardrobe malfunctions' is the latter. Guess which one happens more?
*Yes, I realize Ron Paul used to be libertarian. However, he ran for Congress as a Republican.
Exactly. Thank you for providing a voice of reason in a sea of 'let's have more regulation to fix the problems caused by unfair, unevenly-enforced regulation!' Remember that it was regulation which forced the monopoly in the first place.
Are we returning to the Ma Bell days? Clearchannel is buying all the radio stations, a few companies are competing over the television networks, and SBC is trying to rebuild Ma Bell. Now I'm just waiting for some oil company to gobble the others up, maybe a steel company to do the same. Good times ahead, people.
The antennas may be terrestrial, the waves are not. Space shuttles come from Wait for it
terrestrial(earth based fixed location) launchpads. Would you classify them as terrestrial vehicles? Please note that I realize 'terrestrial' is a generally accepted usage for OTA transmissions. However, I'm an exception.
The first term is Terrestrial, and I know that means over-the-air.
Actually, it does not. People use the term 'terrestrial' to refer to OTA (over the air) broadcasts, but that word does not mean 'over the air'. Terrestrial means 'of or relating to the earth'. This is because its root is 'terra' which is (was) Latin for Earth. There are a few other, less well-known meanings for 'terrestrial' as well; in biology it means 'living or growing on land, not water' and as a noun, it can be used to describe a denizen of this planet. Also, you may find a 'terrestrial lens' for your telescope. It is optimized for viewing things on the Earth. I don't agree with people who co-opt this word for use as a synonym for OTA, since OTA is a much shorter thing to type than terrestrial, and I am admittedly quite lazy.
By your logic, a paper should be harder to read than a screen. Is it?
Depends. Is there any light source in the room? If not, then a screen will be easier to read. If the room is brightly lit, a paper should be easier to read. Of course, trying to decide whether a screen is better than paper is like trying to decide if technical whitepapers are better than novels. It totally depends on your environment, needs, and other variables. I don't think there's much point to the whole 'paper v. screens' debate.
Slashdot Mirror
So basically, you are trusting your mother's medical judgement over your doctor's medical judgement?
No. My mother took me to a few doctors but couldn't afford to have them perform the operation, although they unanimously recommended it. As my father was active-duty air force at the time, the AF doctor was the one we could afford to have perform the operation, and he refused to do it. Since then, I have been told by specialists that my risk of dying on the table is non-trivial if I get my tonsils taken out. It's not super high, but it's higher than I'm comfortable with. This is because of the size of the blood vessels in my tonsils, I have been told. Now, I deal with extemely large tonsils which cause me to get sick a few times a year. Sometimes I have to get the crypts cleaned out, which is fun, lemme tellya.
They also don't bounce all over the road like a pinball after collisions, though, and they *do* have crumple zones, contrary to what many posters were saying. I never said how safe or effective the car was, just that it *does* have crumple zones and it does not 'bounce' all over after a collision.
My car won't ever have to worry about driving on the small roads in Europe. That's because I don't happen to live there. I live currently in a huge city, and I have no problems whatsoever fitting on the streets. Why would you even speculate as to what my car would do in a situation that 1.) it wasn't designed for and 2.) will never occur? Oh well, I'm glad to know that my American car which will never be shipped across the ocean is better for driving in America than Europe. Wow, I sure lucked out there, huh?
I know that people often confuse working computers with 'life', but there's a difference. I realize that you're saying I don't know what I'm talking about re: my medical condition, and you are equating it with a clueless person talking to computer tech support. However, if a person came to me and said they needed a new hard drive because the old one failed due to stiction, I would at least check it out. So, for future reference, health problems actually affect people's lives. I know you think computer problems do too, but you're incorrect. However, I will say that a lot of techs don't listen. This doesn't generally lead to death, however. I salute your compassion, sir. It reminds me of the warm, loving embrace of the grave.
Having fantasies about me, are you? Sorry to burst your bubble, but I can't stand blues music. I *am* a gigantically overweight asshole with a tiny dick though. I'm 4'9", weigh 880 lbs and have a 1/4" penis. Amazing you could tell all that from what kind of car I drive. Let me try now...from your response, I can tell you're a scrawny dork with coke-bottle glasses, halitosis, and a hopeless crush on one of the MythBusters. Isn't this fun?
The problem with the system is exactly that we have been attempting to socialize it for years. Now, office visits 'cost' $70-80 bucks, although most people only pay $10 or $15. Tests 'cost' hundreds or thousands, although most people pay only a fraction of that. Aspirin in hospitals 'costs' $60-$80. It's ridiculous. Doctors who come in your room, look at your chart, and say 'hmm. Interesting,' get hundreds of dollars in 'consulting' fees. The more control we have imposed on the system, the worse the system works. Look to Canada for what will happen to us here eventually. Sure, everyone gets 'free' health care...but it certainly isn't care I would want in many cases. Why is it that we in the US have such a hard time learning from the experiences of other countries?
I love my car. It's like driving a couch. It has plenty of power without guzzling too much gas. It's a terrifically comfortable car, and I hope to keep it roadworthy for years to come.
Sigh. People were talking as though it would fly off like a pinball. I think most of us realize there will be *some* sort of adjustment after a collision, depending on its direction and the speed of both vehicles. I suppose I should have clarified for the extremely literal: it doesn't bounce more than most cars in a collision, as other posters indicated that it did.
Yes, again, I didn't say these cars were safer, just that they aren't likely to 'bounce' in a collision as many people said they were. I wouldn't drive one of these dorky (slightly) oversized RC cars. That's just me, though. I mean, I think these things are likely to bounce just like a raw egg dropped on a tile floor in a collision, that's all. Thanks on the 'sig...I just saw 4 or 5 instances of 'for all intensive purposes' in one day and...just snapped.
I'm not sure how you think informative absolutely cannot mean caustic. I never said anything about anyone being safer or not safer. I simply pointed out that these cars are not likely to 'bounce' in a collision as so many people stated ITT. If correcting a flawed assumption isn't informative....well, never mind. Apparently your definition of 'inform' is different from mine.
I've noticed that in the last few years (maybe it's just my perspective, I don't know) doctors seem less and less likely to actually listen to their patients. I have recurring tonsilitis that I get at least once a year and usually more. I have been going through this since I was 6, when the doctors refused to take my tonsils out even though my mother wanted them to. Now the blood vessels are too big to make it a safe operation. Anyhow, I know what needs to be done and what I am suffering from, as I've been dealing with this for 23 years. However, I find that I have to make appointments with 3 or 4 doctors before I find one that listens to me at all. The others will go 'uh huh, uh huh, yeah, uh huh.' Then they give me some test for strep throat or send me away with a low dose of penicillin or something else that doesn't help me get better. Why is it that even if we use technical terms, doctors won't listen? Mr. Volkerding clearly at least has *some* idea of what he's talking about, and I find it sickening that his doctors are paying so little attention to what he says. I don't even like it when it happens to me with a much less serious condition, I can't even imagine the frustration I would feel were I seriously ill and my doctor treated me with that much contempt. Health care costs keep rising, doctors keep leaving the high litigation states, and the ones who are left don't listen to (or even seem to care about) their patients... This is a serious problem that needs a solution fast.
It's always hilarious to me how people never can seem to take the time to RTFA (or other links in the submission), but they take something a poster said (that this car 'bounces' in collisions) as not only proven but gospel truth. In fact, the manufacturer's site disagrees with you. It calls the entire body a 'crumple zone'; the front wheels are also crumple zones. This thing won't be bouncing more than any other car would, especially in front collisions, as the wheels are designed to crumple and absorb impact. Why is it that 40 people commented about how bouncing around in a roll cage is a bad thing, but not one of them could be troubled to find out if the car actually behaved that way? Shame on you lazy assholes. Also, the site specifically talks about how the wheelbase is too short for this car to fold in on itself in t-bone collisions. I wouldn't drive one of these because I'm not a techno-listening super dweeb. However, it does appear that they've gone far out of their way to ensure that these dorky little things are safe. hopefully they really *are* that safe, because I have a feeling I might have to bang my '83 Ford Crown Vic off one or two of 'em in the wild... you know, just to see if they bounce.
I work for a security and access control company, and we have a ton of clients who are moving to DVRs for their cameras. This means that they can store (reasonably) decent quality video forever. Our typical system controls 16 cameras, has two 140GB hard drives, network connectivity (we only set them up on intranets) and a DVD burner. Some sites have 5 or more of these systems. That's a ton of data, but they only burn about 1 DVD per system per month or two. While the DVDs will degrade eventually, they're not losing any fidelity to rewriting. Of course, the video quality isn't nearly as good as you see on CSI/Law&Order/etc, but then cameras work best when you already have good idea who did something, you just want to be sure. They also work to deter employee mischief.
...and Congress shall make no such law.
Perhpas they'll just set up a regulatory body, then. See, that's not making a law to abridge free speech, it's making a law to set up a regulatory commision which will abridge free speech. Apparently, there's enough of a difference there for our oily leaders to squirm through. Next we'll have a Federal Document Authentification Commission. Better not write the word 'fuck' on any document ever, or you'll get a nasty fine from the FDAC!
Nice troll. Unless you're counting the ball as a person, your analogy is seriously flawed. Then again, counting the ball as a person would be a flaw too, so...Your analogy is seriously flawed. Not to mention that for pro NFL salaries, there are plenty of people who would put up with implanted brain RFID monitoring devices. Finally, if you can't tell the difference between putting RFID tags in balls to get better positioning data and recording where/when someone goes...well, lemme just say that I hear it's really fun to stick your head in a gas oven turned to 'High'. Make sure to blow out the pilot light first, or you'll burn yourself!
*RING*
Mister Jacobsen: Hello?
Voice: Hello, Mr Jacobsen.
Mr. J: Who are you?
V: Mr. Jacobsen, our records indicate that you checked into the Inn 'n' Out motel last night with your wife.
Mr. J: So? What's this all about?
V: We verified that your charcoal suit indeed proceeded from your office to that hotel, but Mrs. Jacobsen's housedress moved around your home all evening.
Mr. J: All right, who the hell is this?
V: It's your cleaners, Mr. Jacobsen. Don't you think you really should have that suit cleaned? We'd hate to have to call Mrs. Jacobsen and ask her about it.
Mr. J: No, no...that's okay...
V: We have a full clean and press special going on today only. May we pick up the suit?
Mr. J: *sigh* Yeah, it's at my office, corner of...
V: That's ok, Mr. Jacobsen. We'll have someone there in a few minutes. Thank you for your business!
*RING*
Mr. J: Hello?
Voice #2: Hi, Mr. Jacobsen! This is Eddie, from Lingerie Etc. We have a great special going on right now on black lace teddies.
Mr. J: What the hell? So what?
V2: Our records indicate that your last four mistresses all wore them. We just thought you'd be interested in our special pricing, in light of your recent...activities.
Mr. J: Argggghhhhhhhh
Yes, I'm scared of what the government *could* do with this technology. However, I'm even more scared of what the fucking marketeers will do. 1984? Hardly. More like $19.95.
Yeah, I get that a lot :)
I do tend to go around shouting 'Theater!' in crowded fires, so perhaps I deserve it.
Ahh....but if your task is to boil water, but not have it boil over, and it boils over...then you weren't paying attention. If your job is to watch it boil over, then you're paying attention. You might be unaware that 'watched pot' does not refer to a pot with someone looking at it. 'Watching', in this context, means 'tending to' not 'looking at'. Therefore, a 'watched pot' never boils over. You see, it is assumed that you will understand that not only is boiling over not a desired outcome, but the way to avoid it is by 'watching', where 'watching' means something other than 'viewing'. I realize that you may have trouble with the concept of connotation, since you are apparently of an extremely literal bent of mind. To recap, a 'watched' pot will boil. It will not boil over. If it does, it was not 'watched', thus the point of the saying. If there's anything else I can help you with, please let me know.
How does that indicate that a watched pot will boil over? I don't think the saying contains anything about unwatched pots. Also, there is a difference between 'tend not to' and 'will never'. Anyway, the point of the saying is that if you pay attention to what you are doing, you are less likely to screw it up. Furthermore, people have been using a truncated version of the old cliche to mean 'if you're paying attention to something, it takes longer to occur' which is not true. It may seem that way, but it isn't the case. Similarly, a pot of water will certainly boil, whether you are watching it or not, provided the flame is hot enough. However, if you're paying attention, it won't boil over.
Face it, people are getting what they asked for, and they're finding the fruits bitter indeed.
Yes. We live in a time noted for relaxed government regulation/control. If you didn't notice the sarcasm dripping off those words, I feel sorry for you. The FCC just fined a television network over half a million dollars because an aging diva decided to show the crowd at the Super Bowl her nipple ring. How can you *possibly* state that the FCC is relaxed? Also, it is true that the libertarian platform was built upon small government. However, since there aren't any libertarians in Congress*, the White House, the Supreme Court, or state governorships, and have not been for over a hundred years, I don't see why you think that has anything to do with our current power structure. Also, please note that there is a major difference between ensuring fair access to the spectrum and regulating the content broadcast on that spectrum. Stopping SBC from remaking Ma Bell falls under the former. Fining people for saying certain words or having 'wardrobe malfunctions' is the latter. Guess which one happens more?
*Yes, I realize Ron Paul used to be libertarian. However, he ran for Congress as a Republican.
Exactly. Thank you for providing a voice of reason in a sea of 'let's have more regulation to fix the problems caused by unfair, unevenly-enforced regulation!' Remember that it was regulation which forced the monopoly in the first place.
Are we returning to the Ma Bell days? Clearchannel is buying all the radio stations, a few companies are competing over the television networks, and SBC is trying to rebuild Ma Bell. Now I'm just waiting for some oil company to gobble the others up, maybe a steel company to do the same. Good times ahead, people.
...what if someone forgets to wind it?
The antennas may be terrestrial, the waves are not.
Space shuttles come from Wait for it
terrestrial(earth based fixed location) launchpads. Would you classify them as terrestrial vehicles?
Please note that I realize 'terrestrial' is a generally accepted usage for OTA transmissions. However, I'm an exception.
The first term is Terrestrial, and I know that means over-the-air.
Actually, it does not. People use the term 'terrestrial' to refer to OTA (over the air) broadcasts, but that word does not mean 'over the air'. Terrestrial means 'of or relating to the earth'. This is because its root is 'terra' which is (was) Latin for Earth. There are a few other, less well-known meanings for 'terrestrial' as well; in biology it means 'living or growing on land, not water' and as a noun, it can be used to describe a denizen of this planet. Also, you may find a 'terrestrial lens' for your telescope. It is optimized for viewing things on the Earth. I don't agree with people who co-opt this word for use as a synonym for OTA, since OTA is a much shorter thing to type than terrestrial, and I am admittedly quite lazy.
By your logic, a paper should be harder to read than a screen. Is it?
Depends. Is there any light source in the room? If not, then a screen will be easier to read. If the room is brightly lit, a paper should be easier to read. Of course, trying to decide whether a screen is better than paper is like trying to decide if technical whitepapers are better than novels. It totally depends on your environment, needs, and other variables. I don't think there's much point to the whole 'paper v. screens' debate.