I solved this problem ages ago, but nobody listens to me. I guess it's a curse: I'm some kind of miraculous oracle, I solve the world's problems on the backs of napkins, and nobody fucking cares. It's what I do.
Look, maybe if I say it enough somebody will listen. When you make a bill, you add a mission statement. A statement of purpose. It's legally binding. This bill has the purpose of... improving the robustness of the economy of the United States of America by means of regulating the trading of securities. That's a statement of purpose.
Does banning abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy improve the robustness of the US economy? Does it do so by means of regulating the trading of securities?
No?
Well THAT LAW IS INVALID.
When you go to court, it should be a sound legal argument that the law is BULLSHIT and has nothing to do with what it's supposed to be about. It can be as far as showing that the intent of the law was to solve a particular social injustice and that the "criminal behavior" engaged in did not in fact perpetrate such injustice; or it can be as simple as showing that the law was intended to attack one problem and the section of the law in question has absolutely nothing to do with whatever the fuck it was supposed to address. These are actually the same thing. If you want a law against gun control, create a bill about controlling guns.
On the other hand, the law prescribes HOW to address the problem it seeks to control. That the law attempts to address "the proliferation of marijuana use" doesn't mean you can arrest someone for a clear case of marijuana use. The law must specify something about marijuana that is now illegal. If it's illegal to smoke marijuana, but not to grow and sell it, you can grow and sell it. If it's illegal to traffic marijuana, you can still PRODUCE it, and CONSUME it, but apparently you can't sell or trade it. If you want it to be illegal, you better say so. And if you say something that's not related to marijuana is suddenly illegal, THAT'S NOT FUCKING RELEVANT SO IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE IN COURT.
Yes, it will cause problems with the legal interpretation of laws down the road. You know what? THAT HAPPENS ANYWAY. I've actually just suggested that we make INTENT more clear, so fuck off, this actually makes things work as expected. It, of course, takes power out of certain peoples' hands--in theory. In reality legislature has no power, and they're too stupid to utilize the power they do have to any effect. Still it's effectively binding the legislative body, and they'll never pass such a resolution so as to bind themselves.
You gave the 0.28W/m^2 number. I just multiplied that by the entire surface area of the earth in square meters. Obviously your 0.28W/m^2 number is faulty.
Try using non-faulty numbers. Did you mean 0.28kW/m^2? That's still off by my calculations. The 4 second from sun = 1 day by human output would indicate.004% rather than 47%, about 10000 times as much. 2.8kW/m^2 would be a closer fit. The 1 hour versus 1 year number is even more fanciful... these measurements are completely unrelated to each other it seems.
So it seems you've given me a bunch of numbers that indicate 47%, 0.0041%, 0.01%, and a possible adjustment speculating between the closeness of two of these that comes to about 40%--that one I completely made up trying to make other numbers look related. Your argument is ridiculous, it can't even pretend to stay within the same order of magnitude.
I'm interested in how much is retained. 0.28W/m^2 is 33600 gigawats (just like a 33.6k modem?). A big coal power plant can output 4GW, not much. France's peak electricity usage is 101GW, still not much. The USA consumes over 3000GW of power per year, now we're talking. And the whole world consumes about 16TW.
Currently the world energy usage is 16TW. The sun gives us 33.6TW. So we're releasing 47.6% as much energy from human activity as the sun bestows onto our planet. The US alone consumes just under 10% of what the sun gives us. 74GW (0.2%) of our power comes from weather-disrupting wind generation, and maybe a third or half as much comes from hydroelectric--these move existing energy, rather than drawing in (i.e. anything solar captures that would have been reflected) or releasing (i.e. anything you burn, like coal or oil), which means using wind or hydro power doesn't change the average surface temperature. So maybe we're releasing 47.35% as much energy as the sun is bestowing onto our shiny blue planet.
I told you, we're running a giant fucking furnace here.
I don't even go that far. I'm a fan of Lands' End and I buy direct... around December. Last time they gave $40 off and free shipping per $100 order, so I made 3 $100 orders. I shopped overstock, got $70 pants for $40 each, packed in some socks and shirts I needed to round to $101 $105 $107, with the 40% off that brings my $70 pants down to $24 each overall. Solomon Grundy want pants too!
In the end I got some $600 of stuff for $220-ish. Good Will is cheaper, sure, but I make 3 times as much as I spend. My expenses amount to around $1200/mo (gotta eliminate that car loan soon...) and I make over $60k/year. My clothes are in good working order, I sew and repair them and then dump them at Good Will after 2-3 years and buy new stuff. That doesn't mean I'm going to go spend $150 on 2 shirts, though; hell no, I get my correct size in tailor fit at $20-$25 per shirt, THEN discounts (and you can break a 30% discount so often on Lands' End that I won't buy if they're not running that deep a sale). If I wanted to spend so much money, I'll have my clothes actually tailored to fit me; off the shelf stuff is cheap or I'm not buying it.
Looks to me like the big impact here is "you can compare quotes online!" while all the funny stuff is just funny stuff. Some of these places are doing a major image shift; Progressive and Geico don't want to do that, so Progressive is keeping their spokeswench and shifting attention away from her and onto everyone and everything else. She's on-screen, but she's going to become VERY unimportant as they stop trying to make Flo look funny and start talking about how gas prices are so expensive and how annoying it is to spend a lot of money.
They're dumping the laugh fest strategy in favor of other things.
No, jeans are casual. Lands' End sells top quality business casual stuff. And jeans, which are nice--though honestly I'm a traditionalist, although Levis has eliminated the traditional cuts (like the 509) that people respected since the dawn of time. Levis are more authentic for the simple reason that Levis invented the damn things.
In any case, business casual usually involves a clean-cut style with subdued colors and polo shirts (with buttons, but not a full button up shirt), an undershirt, and some form of linen trousers. I point at Lands' End because Polo seems to be more of a boating thing--everything they make looks like something you'd wear on vacation day, hanging out by the pier drinking shitty beer and eating crabs. Though Doc Martin and a few others are also respectable (not my style).
T-shirts, jeans, and shorts are casual-wear. Jeans and t-shirts are allowed in some environments out of necessity (durable, cheap), in others as a dress code compromise. Jeans are still trousers; shorts aren't, and aren't work-appropriate in a business casual environment at ANY time. As I said, people like women's legs, and so skirts are fine on women; it's really that arbitrary. "Male dominated society" is the usual explanation, but really even women like women's legs.
It's different when it's either explicitly mentioned in policy or when everybody's doing it. I walk around work in Vibrams, but I also have Merrell Barefoot shoes I usually wear. The Merrells have a zero-millimeter heel-toe drop, but a stiff 14mm thick heel.
Most shoes have a thick heel--my combat boots (goretex lined, thinsulate, etc, waterproof and warm for $150--girls pay that much for Uggs that warn not to walk in them "too much"!) are the most awkward shit, the heel is like 3 inches thick and they're 1/2 inch at the ball of the foot. Most shoes seem to have some 1/2 to 3/4 inch sole at the ball, then 1 1/2-2 1/2 inch at the heel.
Barefoot is natural. It's also hazardous, hence the Vibrams; in an office environment this isn't a problem, and honestly I've walked 9 miles on pavement through a poorly maintained city (rats, rusty nails and broken glass) barefoot and not got a scratch or a blister. Raised heels can cause or aggravate back, knee, and hip problems; and a firm, raised arch can (read: does) weaken the tendons in the foot. I've experienced that first-hand: I used to wear Reeboks with a raised arch for a few years, then switched back to Converse with the absolutely flat soles (I wore those for a good decade or so growing up)... it was incredibly painful. Months of physical therapy (read: walking in flat shoes or no shoes, and for a while I had insoles in the flat shoes to supply some support) fixed the issue; I use raised arches in bicycle shoes now, I don't walk in them.
In any case, I have some smooth, shiny black linen pants (almost but not quite slacks, Lands' End Twill Pants really) and I've noticed that they really do look somewhat stylish with no shoes. NOTHING makes Vibrams look stylish. Technical issues (read: traction) aside, though, I think you could get away with formal-wear (tie and tails, gowns) ballroom dancing with no shoes. A woman in a gown can DEFINITELY pull it off barefoot; a man has to overcome a little dissonance with the slacks, but it's more a curiosity than a clashing.
In any case, it's harmless if there are no workplace hazards (workplace hazards call for boots; severe crushing hazards call for steel or brass toed boots), and tactful. Shorts are less tactful (kilts are actually pretty gaudy in American culture standards). It's really a matter of people LIKING women's legs and nobody liking men's legs, hence why women can get away with skirts but men need appropriate length trousers.
Still, if you're trying to keep a professional image, it's valuable to push it as far as you can. A workplace still FEELS professional with a minor deviation; it becomes part of local business culture. Major deviation changes the established image, instead of amending it. Think suits vs business casual, you really have different expectations of a business casual environment versus a formal environment, but they're both professional... but if the business casual folks all wear baseball caps during baseball season, you take a second look and then just shrug and accept that as a little expression (and you expect that kind of expression in a casual environment, whereas a formal environment you wouldn't expect some suited-up lawyer to wear a fucking baseball cap).
Manual labor (packing off boxes, crawling under desks, racking servers), jeans are mandatory. If you command someone to crawl around on a rough cement floor or mess with pointy server racks in slacks, you better give them hella paycheck to pay for expensive new pants all the time. Jeans take a beating, so you let your employees wear jeans if their pants are gonna take a beating.
Everything else, business casual. Go ahead and put on a good show when you're out dealing with other execs, if you want to wear casual do it. A suit is normal, but only so you don't frighten CEOs who can't dress themselves. Why should I match my shirt and pants and belt when I can just wear a white button shirt and a $200 monkey suit? (Belts are always black, by the way) Wearing business casual to a meeting full of suits is taboo because it makes the suits think about the uncomfortable fact that some people don't need their mommy to dress them in the morning.
If you really want to have some fun, put bare feet in your dress code. Like, really, put in that gaudy shoes like knee-high boots with six thousand buckles are not business professional, but that unshod is acceptable attire within the office.
GEICO and Progressive ad campaigns generate giggles, but they're being dumped because they actually don't generate any increase in revenue.
Personally I can't see how anyone thought it was a good move to label Apple technicians "Geniuses". If they were geniuses, they would be doing something useful.
I put a 32GB SD card into my cell phone. I put headphones into my cell phone. I paid AOL $5 and got the full pro version of WinAmp with graphic equalizers and all. I can listen to my music without a working 3G signal, and I pay $10/mo for a 2GB 3G capped connection that overflows into EDGE with no additional fee (the $5/mo 500MB one stays 3G and charges you $10/GB over 500MB). I'm not transferring the same music over and over since I listen to the same song 50 times in a month.
A single data point is not enough to draw a conclusion. A single person has made an assertion and given a lot of fancy sciency data to sound smart. Call me when a hundred independent groups come up with the same. Or when that Chinese doctor that's gotten 176 completely faked papers published in respected journals also confirms.
Actually, CalliGrapher was acquired by Microsoft in 1999.
My ideas of how Swype works are not imaginative. It works by moving your finger from A, to P, to L, to E. Somehow it figures out PP instead of one P. Because A, P, L, and E are on fixed positions in the screen, the symbol you must draw must be of a specific shape, size, orientation, and position. Shift it down-right and you get ';sve' which is nonsense, yet it's the exact same shape traced across a QWERTY keymap.
In the end, you're learning to draw shapes on the screen. One shape per word. I am not Chinese.
What do you mean, move your mouse to opposite ends of the screen?
Ctrl+Alt+[up|down] - swap virtual desktops. Because it's faster than tap top left, hit page down... or top left, roll mouse wheel over desktops on the right.. or, really, I tap top left and use Ctrl+Alt+[up|down] to move between desktops.
Tap top-left, start typing - search. Yes there's a search box... you don't have to use it.
And why are you whining about touch pads? I'm using a 24 inch wide screen monitor here and a mouse can go top left to bottom right in a short motion. Touch pads never gave me trouble: use two fingers. Index in the top left, ring on the bottom right, lift index, repeat. A few quick taps and the mouse races to the bottom right in a quarter second flat (two thirds of a second if you're new). This probably doesn't work on multi-touch, but afaik that's just for touch screens.
In a reactor, uranium is kept critical. That means it experiences a chain reaction by which neutrons released at high speeds from radioactive decay strike other atoms, causing them to decay and release more neutrons.
In a bomb, uranium is made super-critical. Highly enriched uranium is compressed uniformly by conventional explosives. Metal doesn't compress well, but 4 tons of C4 in an inward-facing spherical shape charge is hard to argue with. The slightest decrease in total volume (increase in density--in this case a UNIFORM increase in density) pushes the uranium (or plutonium) beyond the critical point. Rather than simply chaining, it chains FAST: The outer surface of radioactive material compresses and begins efficiently capturing neutrons. This causes the atoms to break and release neutrons, many of which are directed in ward toward more compressed uranium, which quickly vaporizes in the same way. This creates more and more force due to creating an inward-expanding shell of nuclear explosion event horizon, compressing the metal and blasting it with a large load of released neutrons. In a fraction of a millisecond, the entire mass vaporizes by fission, which is significantly different from any other form of vaporization (for example, being heated until it boils off into metallic gas).
This doesn't happen just 'cause you pulled out the control rods. Trust me. A quick, efficient way to breed good, high-quality fissile material is a good thing; it won't blow up in your reactor. It might be a lot better quality than you really need, but we can always tone things down and just make better-than-good-enough refined nuclear material. If you can get to X, you can get to some point somewhat before X.
Gnome-shell is pretty excellent... it seems to follow a design philosophy where once you get into something it throws context-relevant stuff in your face. Hit Activities, it shows the launcher, the current windows, the desktops, a tab to show you all your applications, and a search bar to search through applications. Hit applications, and it shows you all the categories for applications. It's pretty much that simple. Unity seems to make little to no sense to me; it's similar, but misses out on being obvious to stupidity.
But Gnome 3 comes with a Gnome Classic mode. Failing viable 3D, Gnome Shell even falls back to it automatically. What's this MATE thing even for?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any idea how fast that would get somebody a red card? The entire TSA would have to move their headquarters to Jagd.
Somebody's gotta go to prison.
I solved this problem ages ago, but nobody listens to me. I guess it's a curse: I'm some kind of miraculous oracle, I solve the world's problems on the backs of napkins, and nobody fucking cares. It's what I do.
Look, maybe if I say it enough somebody will listen. When you make a bill, you add a mission statement. A statement of purpose. It's legally binding. This bill has the purpose of ... improving the robustness of the economy of the United States of America by means of regulating the trading of securities. That's a statement of purpose.
Does banning abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy improve the robustness of the US economy? Does it do so by means of regulating the trading of securities?
No?
Well THAT LAW IS INVALID.
When you go to court, it should be a sound legal argument that the law is BULLSHIT and has nothing to do with what it's supposed to be about. It can be as far as showing that the intent of the law was to solve a particular social injustice and that the "criminal behavior" engaged in did not in fact perpetrate such injustice; or it can be as simple as showing that the law was intended to attack one problem and the section of the law in question has absolutely nothing to do with whatever the fuck it was supposed to address. These are actually the same thing. If you want a law against gun control, create a bill about controlling guns.
On the other hand, the law prescribes HOW to address the problem it seeks to control. That the law attempts to address "the proliferation of marijuana use" doesn't mean you can arrest someone for a clear case of marijuana use. The law must specify something about marijuana that is now illegal. If it's illegal to smoke marijuana, but not to grow and sell it, you can grow and sell it. If it's illegal to traffic marijuana, you can still PRODUCE it, and CONSUME it, but apparently you can't sell or trade it. If you want it to be illegal, you better say so. And if you say something that's not related to marijuana is suddenly illegal, THAT'S NOT FUCKING RELEVANT SO IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE IN COURT.
Yes, it will cause problems with the legal interpretation of laws down the road. You know what? THAT HAPPENS ANYWAY. I've actually just suggested that we make INTENT more clear, so fuck off, this actually makes things work as expected. It, of course, takes power out of certain peoples' hands--in theory. In reality legislature has no power, and they're too stupid to utilize the power they do have to any effect. Still it's effectively binding the legislative body, and they'll never pass such a resolution so as to bind themselves.
You gave the 0.28W/m^2 number. I just multiplied that by the entire surface area of the earth in square meters. Obviously your 0.28W/m^2 number is faulty.
Try using non-faulty numbers. Did you mean 0.28kW/m^2? That's still off by my calculations. The 4 second from sun = 1 day by human output would indicate .004% rather than 47%, about 10000 times as much. 2.8kW/m^2 would be a closer fit. The 1 hour versus 1 year number is even more fanciful... these measurements are completely unrelated to each other it seems.
So it seems you've given me a bunch of numbers that indicate 47%, 0.0041%, 0.01%, and a possible adjustment speculating between the closeness of two of these that comes to about 40%--that one I completely made up trying to make other numbers look related. Your argument is ridiculous, it can't even pretend to stay within the same order of magnitude.
I'm interested in how much is retained. 0.28W/m^2 is 33600 gigawats (just like a 33.6k modem?). A big coal power plant can output 4GW, not much. France's peak electricity usage is 101GW, still not much. The USA consumes over 3000GW of power per year, now we're talking. And the whole world consumes about 16TW.
Currently the world energy usage is 16TW. The sun gives us 33.6TW. So we're releasing 47.6% as much energy from human activity as the sun bestows onto our planet. The US alone consumes just under 10% of what the sun gives us. 74GW (0.2%) of our power comes from weather-disrupting wind generation, and maybe a third or half as much comes from hydroelectric--these move existing energy, rather than drawing in (i.e. anything solar captures that would have been reflected) or releasing (i.e. anything you burn, like coal or oil), which means using wind or hydro power doesn't change the average surface temperature. So maybe we're releasing 47.35% as much energy as the sun is bestowing onto our shiny blue planet.
I told you, we're running a giant fucking furnace here.
It's too gaudy and immediately tells me the whole company is stuck up and full of shit.
I don't even go that far. I'm a fan of Lands' End and I buy direct ... around December. Last time they gave $40 off and free shipping per $100 order, so I made 3 $100 orders. I shopped overstock, got $70 pants for $40 each, packed in some socks and shirts I needed to round to $101 $105 $107, with the 40% off that brings my $70 pants down to $24 each overall. Solomon Grundy want pants too!
In the end I got some $600 of stuff for $220-ish. Good Will is cheaper, sure, but I make 3 times as much as I spend. My expenses amount to around $1200/mo (gotta eliminate that car loan soon...) and I make over $60k/year. My clothes are in good working order, I sew and repair them and then dump them at Good Will after 2-3 years and buy new stuff. That doesn't mean I'm going to go spend $150 on 2 shirts, though; hell no, I get my correct size in tailor fit at $20-$25 per shirt, THEN discounts (and you can break a 30% discount so often on Lands' End that I won't buy if they're not running that deep a sale). If I wanted to spend so much money, I'll have my clothes actually tailored to fit me; off the shelf stuff is cheap or I'm not buying it.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/story/2012-07-26/insurers-funny-ads/56489910/1
Looks to me like the big impact here is "you can compare quotes online!" while all the funny stuff is just funny stuff. Some of these places are doing a major image shift; Progressive and Geico don't want to do that, so Progressive is keeping their spokeswench and shifting attention away from her and onto everyone and everything else. She's on-screen, but she's going to become VERY unimportant as they stop trying to make Flo look funny and start talking about how gas prices are so expensive and how annoying it is to spend a lot of money.
They're dumping the laugh fest strategy in favor of other things.
No, jeans are casual. Lands' End sells top quality business casual stuff. And jeans, which are nice--though honestly I'm a traditionalist, although Levis has eliminated the traditional cuts (like the 509) that people respected since the dawn of time. Levis are more authentic for the simple reason that Levis invented the damn things.
In any case, business casual usually involves a clean-cut style with subdued colors and polo shirts (with buttons, but not a full button up shirt), an undershirt, and some form of linen trousers. I point at Lands' End because Polo seems to be more of a boating thing--everything they make looks like something you'd wear on vacation day, hanging out by the pier drinking shitty beer and eating crabs. Though Doc Martin and a few others are also respectable (not my style).
T-shirts, jeans, and shorts are casual-wear. Jeans and t-shirts are allowed in some environments out of necessity (durable, cheap), in others as a dress code compromise. Jeans are still trousers; shorts aren't, and aren't work-appropriate in a business casual environment at ANY time. As I said, people like women's legs, and so skirts are fine on women; it's really that arbitrary. "Male dominated society" is the usual explanation, but really even women like women's legs.
KETCHUP?! With LOBSTER you want KETCHUP?!
White is less formal?! Are you kidding me?!
BROWN belt with BLACK or BLUE pants?????
It's different when it's either explicitly mentioned in policy or when everybody's doing it. I walk around work in Vibrams, but I also have Merrell Barefoot shoes I usually wear. The Merrells have a zero-millimeter heel-toe drop, but a stiff 14mm thick heel.
Most shoes have a thick heel--my combat boots (goretex lined, thinsulate, etc, waterproof and warm for $150--girls pay that much for Uggs that warn not to walk in them "too much"!) are the most awkward shit, the heel is like 3 inches thick and they're 1/2 inch at the ball of the foot. Most shoes seem to have some 1/2 to 3/4 inch sole at the ball, then 1 1/2-2 1/2 inch at the heel.
Barefoot is natural. It's also hazardous, hence the Vibrams; in an office environment this isn't a problem, and honestly I've walked 9 miles on pavement through a poorly maintained city (rats, rusty nails and broken glass) barefoot and not got a scratch or a blister. Raised heels can cause or aggravate back, knee, and hip problems; and a firm, raised arch can (read: does) weaken the tendons in the foot. I've experienced that first-hand: I used to wear Reeboks with a raised arch for a few years, then switched back to Converse with the absolutely flat soles (I wore those for a good decade or so growing up)... it was incredibly painful. Months of physical therapy (read: walking in flat shoes or no shoes, and for a while I had insoles in the flat shoes to supply some support) fixed the issue; I use raised arches in bicycle shoes now, I don't walk in them.
In any case, I have some smooth, shiny black linen pants (almost but not quite slacks, Lands' End Twill Pants really) and I've noticed that they really do look somewhat stylish with no shoes. NOTHING makes Vibrams look stylish. Technical issues (read: traction) aside, though, I think you could get away with formal-wear (tie and tails, gowns) ballroom dancing with no shoes. A woman in a gown can DEFINITELY pull it off barefoot; a man has to overcome a little dissonance with the slacks, but it's more a curiosity than a clashing.
In any case, it's harmless if there are no workplace hazards (workplace hazards call for boots; severe crushing hazards call for steel or brass toed boots), and tactful. Shorts are less tactful (kilts are actually pretty gaudy in American culture standards). It's really a matter of people LIKING women's legs and nobody liking men's legs, hence why women can get away with skirts but men need appropriate length trousers.
Still, if you're trying to keep a professional image, it's valuable to push it as far as you can. A workplace still FEELS professional with a minor deviation; it becomes part of local business culture. Major deviation changes the established image, instead of amending it. Think suits vs business casual, you really have different expectations of a business casual environment versus a formal environment, but they're both professional... but if the business casual folks all wear baseball caps during baseball season, you take a second look and then just shrug and accept that as a little expression (and you expect that kind of expression in a casual environment, whereas a formal environment you wouldn't expect some suited-up lawyer to wear a fucking baseball cap).
Pretty much this.
Dresscodes are simple.
Manual labor (packing off boxes, crawling under desks, racking servers), jeans are mandatory. If you command someone to crawl around on a rough cement floor or mess with pointy server racks in slacks, you better give them hella paycheck to pay for expensive new pants all the time. Jeans take a beating, so you let your employees wear jeans if their pants are gonna take a beating.
Everything else, business casual. Go ahead and put on a good show when you're out dealing with other execs, if you want to wear casual do it. A suit is normal, but only so you don't frighten CEOs who can't dress themselves. Why should I match my shirt and pants and belt when I can just wear a white button shirt and a $200 monkey suit? (Belts are always black, by the way) Wearing business casual to a meeting full of suits is taboo because it makes the suits think about the uncomfortable fact that some people don't need their mommy to dress them in the morning.
If you really want to have some fun, put bare feet in your dress code. Like, really, put in that gaudy shoes like knee-high boots with six thousand buckles are not business professional, but that unshod is acceptable attire within the office.
What "people"? 80%? Are you telling me 240 million people called Congress?
GEICO and Progressive ad campaigns generate giggles, but they're being dumped because they actually don't generate any increase in revenue.
Personally I can't see how anyone thought it was a good move to label Apple technicians "Geniuses". If they were geniuses, they would be doing something useful.
I thought clones were identical, while reproductions were recombinant from two parent donors getttin' jiggy wit it
Conflict of interest. Demand a new judge citing her work history.
Interesting...
I put a 32GB SD card into my cell phone. I put headphones into my cell phone. I paid AOL $5 and got the full pro version of WinAmp with graphic equalizers and all. I can listen to my music without a working 3G signal, and I pay $10/mo for a 2GB 3G capped connection that overflows into EDGE with no additional fee (the $5/mo 500MB one stays 3G and charges you $10/GB over 500MB). I'm not transferring the same music over and over since I listen to the same song 50 times in a month.
A single data point is not enough to draw a conclusion. A single person has made an assertion and given a lot of fancy sciency data to sound smart. Call me when a hundred independent groups come up with the same. Or when that Chinese doctor that's gotten 176 completely faked papers published in respected journals also confirms.
Actually, CalliGrapher was acquired by Microsoft in 1999.
My ideas of how Swype works are not imaginative. It works by moving your finger from A, to P, to L, to E. Somehow it figures out PP instead of one P. Because A, P, L, and E are on fixed positions in the screen, the symbol you must draw must be of a specific shape, size, orientation, and position. Shift it down-right and you get ';sve' which is nonsense, yet it's the exact same shape traced across a QWERTY keymap.
In the end, you're learning to draw shapes on the screen. One shape per word. I am not Chinese.
What do you mean, move your mouse to opposite ends of the screen?
Ctrl+Alt+[up|down] - swap virtual desktops. Because it's faster than tap top left, hit page down... or top left, roll mouse wheel over desktops on the right.. or, really, I tap top left and use Ctrl+Alt+[up|down] to move between desktops.
Tap top-left, start typing - search. Yes there's a search box... you don't have to use it.
And why are you whining about touch pads? I'm using a 24 inch wide screen monitor here and a mouse can go top left to bottom right in a short motion. Touch pads never gave me trouble: use two fingers. Index in the top left, ring on the bottom right, lift index, repeat. A few quick taps and the mouse races to the bottom right in a quarter second flat (two thirds of a second if you're new). This probably doesn't work on multi-touch, but afaik that's just for touch screens.
In a reactor, uranium is kept critical. That means it experiences a chain reaction by which neutrons released at high speeds from radioactive decay strike other atoms, causing them to decay and release more neutrons.
In a bomb, uranium is made super-critical. Highly enriched uranium is compressed uniformly by conventional explosives. Metal doesn't compress well, but 4 tons of C4 in an inward-facing spherical shape charge is hard to argue with. The slightest decrease in total volume (increase in density--in this case a UNIFORM increase in density) pushes the uranium (or plutonium) beyond the critical point. Rather than simply chaining, it chains FAST: The outer surface of radioactive material compresses and begins efficiently capturing neutrons. This causes the atoms to break and release neutrons, many of which are directed in ward toward more compressed uranium, which quickly vaporizes in the same way. This creates more and more force due to creating an inward-expanding shell of nuclear explosion event horizon, compressing the metal and blasting it with a large load of released neutrons. In a fraction of a millisecond, the entire mass vaporizes by fission, which is significantly different from any other form of vaporization (for example, being heated until it boils off into metallic gas).
This doesn't happen just 'cause you pulled out the control rods. Trust me. A quick, efficient way to breed good, high-quality fissile material is a good thing; it won't blow up in your reactor. It might be a lot better quality than you really need, but we can always tone things down and just make better-than-good-enough refined nuclear material. If you can get to X, you can get to some point somewhat before X.
Gnome-shell is pretty excellent... it seems to follow a design philosophy where once you get into something it throws context-relevant stuff in your face. Hit Activities, it shows the launcher, the current windows, the desktops, a tab to show you all your applications, and a search bar to search through applications. Hit applications, and it shows you all the categories for applications. It's pretty much that simple. Unity seems to make little to no sense to me; it's similar, but misses out on being obvious to stupidity.
But Gnome 3 comes with a Gnome Classic mode. Failing viable 3D, Gnome Shell even falls back to it automatically. What's this MATE thing even for?