Just... be careful about keeping dogs and babies in the same house when they're not being observed. For whatever reason, a lot of dogs have a tendency to gnaw on heads. I personally don't understand it, although I've had dog owners tell me it's everything from a way of showing affection to a domination ritual. For the dog owner, it's not that much of a problem because the heads are big enough that the dog can't exert much jaw power, not to mention that the average dog owner is able to dissuade the dog if the head gnawing is painful. (I know some who continue the practice even as their dog gets larger, protecting their heads with heavy blankets and the like.) Anyhow, the average young baby still has a small, relatively soft skull and has limitted mobility. Head gnawing is bad at that age. *sigh* I remember reading an article talking about it, but I'm having trouble finding a cite right now. Eh, anyhow...
As for baby monitoring, my family never had a baby monitor while I was growing up, but then again, my mother was a housemom. While in the house, she could hear us crying, and if she was going to be out of earshot (in the basement doing laundry or outside), she'd take us with her.
I am not an avid cyclist. I biked to and from work while I was co-opping in California because it didn't make sense to buy a car for 7 months up there and I was too young to rent a car at affordable rates. Recently, I picked up a $15 bike at a yard sale and have started biking to and from work and other various activities (works really nicely for those late-night bar visits. If I crash, it's at much slower speeds, not to mention that knowing I'll be biking home gives me good reason to drink less around closing time) when convenient. I don't reach speeds that even approach the speed limit generally and therefore, I feel leery about sitting in the middle of the lane. For one, people get really irate when someone's going less than the speed limit and will often blare the horn or unsafely pass you. For two, for all that I carry all the blinker stuff when out at night, I'd be bound to get rear-ended one day by some driver more concerned by his girlfriend on the cell phone or the hot coffee dumped on his lap (perhaps by irate girlfriend not on the cell phone). If there's a bike lane (None here in Newark, OH. It makes me really miss California...), I take that. Otherwise, there's usually some degree of extra space on the shoulder that I can ride, although that way is fraught with broken pavement, badly lipped culverts, and low-hanging branches, not to mention the detritus of a littering society. I avoid the sidewalk whenever possible, as I had it drummed into my head from a young age that bicycles are considered vehicles and therefore are illegal on sidewalks, much the same as cars. (I'm a strong believer in the bike-as-vehicle, subject to the same rights and rules as any vehicle on the road, ideally the same courtesy, but I'm not holding my breath) I do pull into the lane at stop lights, as I figure it's a good way of making sure a motorist doesn't turn right as I'm going straight, thereby broadsiding me. I also pull into the lane when there are turn lanes, generally riding the painted line of the demarcataion seperating the right-turn and stright lanes if such a beast exists. What's really unnerving for me is when you have to make a left turn on a two-lane road, particularly as the locals seem to feel that two-lane roads are highways with commensurate speed limits.
So to summarize, I'm not going to take up a lane until my average speed is closer to a reasonable car speed, definitely not going to do it until my top speed at least reaches the speed limit. *shrug* Until then, I take as much advantage as I can of back roads, bike trails, and pedestrian bridges to avoid the main traffic routes.
I am not a doctor, although I have played one on stage. According to my psychology books (admittedly about 20 years old, as I picked them up in a yard sale), seizures are caused by a feedback loop between the two hemispheres of the brain, generally from a lesion on one hemisphere. This is why butting the corpus callosum (the tissue that connects the two hemispheres and allows them to communicate) was an effective way of ending seizures at one time. Now admittedly, it also caused you to develop a literal split personality where your non-dominant arm would act on it's own when you weren't thinking about it, but eh...
That said, any brain stimulus that involves coordinating the hemispheres could trigger a seizure if it's in the damaged area. And at that, last I looked at current research, they're saying that the right hemisphere controls the left field of vision on both sides and vice versa for the right, entirely contrary to the earlier theory that the each hemisphere of the brain controlled one eye. *wry grin* Where it gets really weird was that it was proven in experiments that each hemisphere handled the input from one eye and now they've proven it the other way. It really makes you wonder how much of our brain's deelopment may rely on how we believe it should work.
Gosh, I remember Rainbow Magazine for the TRS-80 Color Computer advertising software to "print money" over a decade ago. And this was in the days of dot-matrix printers...
Something to keep in mind is that these Home-Owner Agreements have almost no legal standing and cases against them are won almost every time. *wry grin* Heck, half of them never even bother writing down all the rules, so they really have no proof as to what you signed up for. That said, this is the first time I've heard of a group that actually charges for their services as some of the child posters seem to be stating. Usually it's just a bunch of busybodies with more time than sense on their hands...
This isn't a new issue, although this is the first time I've heard of a civilian being injured in this manner. This has been reported as a problem in a few military encounters, enemy pilots using high-powered laser pointers to blind other pilots. A fellow at the University of Dayton created a deisgn for the cockpits which essentially scatters such incoming light, preventing it from being unifed enough to damage an eye. Unfortunately, I lack cites, as my information comes from reading a magazine clipping posted on my professor's door almost 4 years ago...
The business owner has the right to make a decision about his business. The 60-year-old was involved in a relationship with that business for a number of years. It worked: he delivered value, he got compensated back for it. Why is it wrong to terminate such a relationship if it doesn't make sense for the employer any more? It would be wrong to keep it artificially, wouldn't it? If I am a business owner and I am forced to loose an opportunity to contribute extra into the domestic product by employing (and paying) someone with whom my business is not extracting the value it is interested in, isn't that bad for the economy?
There is some truth to what you say. Outside of the idea of corporate loyalty, I think there's an issue going on here with the definition of profits here. The average person thinks about profit-making moves as being a situation where, overall, the company winds up making more money. However, in today's CEO-driven world, it's also an option to profit by making moves that in the short-term show reduced costs and therefore produce bonuses and raised stock prices. Yes, in a couple of years, your company may be hurt from having retired the older, more experienced workers and replacing them with younger people, but for a few years, you don't have to pay the higher wages due for seniority and, well, experience. And so the CEO leaves for another job, resume glowing with another situation where he was shown to reduce costs and thereby raise prices. Never mind that the company may have trouble later and that people are out jobs...
Please debunk to me what is "wrong" with situations like your example: people over 60 getting fired just because the company doesn't need them any more?
Is it the fact that the company doesn't need him but the poor fellow still needs them because he is scared of potential difficulties of finding a different job?
*wry grin* Nothing technically "wrong" with it, at least under current job philosophy. People take it as a given that most companies don't hold much loyalty to their employees anymore. And, honestly, the younger generation is thereby showing less loyalty to the companies, taking jobs for shorter terms and moving on, taking skill sets with them. It can make for a very agile and versatile skill set. The problem, I think, comes when you have people who started on the old system, and who have spent 20+ years of their life doing one thing, becoming very good at it. *shrug* And honestly, they probably are "scared of the potential difficulties" because they have spent their lives learning to be perfect employees for the one company and now they're adrift again in a job market flooded with new college graduates willing to work for subsistence wages. Complicating the matter, someone who has been working that long for one company may not even be able to use half of their skillset because it involves proprietary information.
Why isn't it realized by people that the job market is nothing more than a big match-making service where people or businesses go and try to find out who fits whose needs at the moment?
You know, I honestly think you've hit the nail on the head here. The job market highly resembles the state of marriage these days. There was a time when people settled down with a spouse, loved and lived with them until the end of their days. There was a loyalty, a sense that they were together for better or for worse. Now, well, how many people do you know who are on their second or third marriage? Or, for that matter, aren't even bothering getting married because they're not interested in permanence? Similarly, companies no longer feel loyalty to their workers to support them. And therefore, the current generation is tending more towards contracting, part time jobs.
Please shed some light on this "moral" issue for me, as I truly am frustrated with the kind of vagueness that people here often use to hide the reality that they simply can't justify something because it "feels right/wrong".
^_^ Honestly, I pull
*shrug* Again, it all depends upon who's doing the defining. Killing someone to defend yourself or another is generally not considered to be murder legally or morally, at least within US Government or the Christian church. Similarly, defending your country tends to come in under the set of rules. Now, we start getting into issues of how premeditated all of this is. If someone jumps you with a knife and in the scuffle you kill him, that's definitely non-premeditated self-defense. If a guy is waving a gun around in a supermarket and you shoot him while his back's turned, it still pretty much fits in there because while you had the time to stop and decide "Yes, I'm going to kill this person to stop myself and others," there really wasn't a lot of planning involved and you likely have no particular grudge against this person other than them trying to snuff you and those around you. For a more extreme case, you have abused people who kill their abusers while said abuser is sleeping or the like. That's pre-meditated IMHO, but it's also self-defense and I believe they generally manage some degree of defense, a reduction to a lower charge, that type of thing.
Then, there's war. I believe this to be a larger subset of the above cases. You're defending yourself and you're defending the people of your country against an armed agressor. Again, a large amount of the killings are in the heat of the moment. While you are prepared to kill and have trained in it, you generally don't know the guy you're offing. Even in an ambush type of situation, you don't have anything personal against the person and it's self-defense. Things get a bit stickier when it comes to snipers and assassination. I personally think snipers are seen in a bad light simply because it seems "not fair" in people's minds. Assassinations... those require a fair amount of planning and pre-meditation and are often done when the person in question is not actually directly threatening you. I see it as not actually murder as you are still defending innocent people (members of your country generally) from the threat this person poses, but I definitely feel it's not something to be entered into lightly.
As for myself, I've never been in a situation of life-and-death, I hope I never have to make that kind of a choice. I think I could kill a person if they presented a threat to me or my kin, but I don't think one can ever truly know until you're there.
And if concealed weapons are allowed in your area (or even if they aren't), you may be able to get some cheap CYA action by posting one of those signs with the gun in the "no-no" sign with a caption of "No concealed weapons allowed." After Ohio passed the concealed-carry law, you could see those things all over town. Only catch is... I think this may have been a provision stating that churches, theaters, public entertainment places, etc could post such notices and ban concealed weapons. I'm not sure how binding it is for a private home.
^_^ As always, IANAL although I've played one on stage.
For a widespread practical case, look at how duels are handled legally, or rather how they're illegal. Despite the fact that both parties are entering into the ring of their own will, it's still illegal for them to duel to the death. The person who survives will be prosecuted for murder assuming the law notices. (Note, in times and places where dueling was technically illegal but socially acceptable, there may be no legal investigation at all. Obviously, the fellow accidentally shot himself in the chest with his friend's gun while they were discussing a matter of honor) In a situation where death is accidental in a duel, such as in a martial arts exhibition or sparring match, their asses are generally covered by statements showing that they knew there were dangers and by the fact that it's generally demonstrable that the killer really didn't mean to kill the other guy. Human beings are just really fragile sometimes...
Really, it does make sense. After all, we have at least two races (Hutts and whatever Watto was) who are apparently immune to the Force. Nature has a way of adapting to circumstances and I don't see it as all that unlikely that some creature out there would develop some abaility to "jam" something like the Force; it likely gave them some kind of evolutionary advantage.
As to why it would work, I don't remember an explanation from the books, but I could see it as being a matter of actually generating their own version of the Force that happens to jam regular users much in the same was as jammers are used in electronic warfare measures.
For instance, as a retailer if someone uses a fradulent card or claims they never authorized the purchase, I not only get dinged the amount of the merchandise I'm out, but also for a fuck you fee (as I call it). The bank accepted that the card was legit when my software called it in, but they can come back and claim it was my responsibility to do more than that. So we have purchased their products that allow us to verify addresses and other pieces of information and we can only ship the products to that.
Given the situation that stores are in for fraudulent transactions, I'm frankly baffled as to why stores don't do better checking of credit cards. Heck, they require a photo ID if I use a check. Why not a credit card? I've seen a cashier check my signature once (not that that helps a lot, as I'm sure that anyone could learn to do my signature within 15 minutes practice based on my card's back). I remember reading an article posted by someone on Slashdot who was involved in early tests with putting photos on credit cards. The results of their testing? The majority of cashiers would take the card whether or not the picture matched, even if the gender or race were entirely wrong. Moreover, when the tester added notes on the credit card records to say to check the ID first, the rate of checks did not increase. When they required a phone call to the credit card company to clear the card, the cashiers would hit the override button and pass the card through. While I understand it from the cashier's point of view (there's a line of people behind the credit card user who will get impatient and snappy if made to wait, not to mention that many retail stores don't exactly inspire employee loyalty so they often don't care), it illustrates that credit cards are highly insecure. Again, I'm surprised that retailers don't take greater measures against credit card fraud.
The problem with waiting for a system to collapse in its own absurdity is that often it stubbornly stays up. Even worse when you try to hurry said collapse by adding absurdities, as you sometimes wind up having benefitted your opponent. It's like trying to shift into a throw in a fight to unbalance your opponent and finding that they're quite happy with you moving in that direction and would like to help you accelerate just a bit more on your way to the floor.
Where the hell do you live? The Upgrade costs $99 retail.
It's $99 retail for an upgrade of Home. Add another $100 each if you want an independent install (nice if you don't want to have to keep your Win 95 disks on hand for every time you re-install) or Professional edition.
I wouldn't call her a lunatic. She definitely had some really bizarre ideas and some of the plot is, well, even more bizarre (Witness Dominique hating Roark until he randomly rapes her, then coming to respect him), but it was nonetheless an interesting read. *wry grin* However, without the pressure of an English teacher requiring me to write synopses of chapters, I haven't felt inclined to read further books of hers, although I have had people tell me that it's like reading books David Eddings and Piers Anthony, all one book with changed names.
Sadly, I can't think of Ayn Rand without remembering the Sluggy Freelance arc involving her ghost and a hyperactive ferret...
While the above post was marked flamebait, there is some truth to it. The people involved don't even have to know why they're doing it, so in a sense, you get a perfect crime. Sure, they could probably trace it back to your cell-phone eventually, but you'll have probably disposed of it by then. This would probably be more likely if the character in question was travelling incognito, as I'd like to think that "flashmobs" would realize something was fishy if they were all told to stand in the middle of a road that has a limousine surrounded by people in black suits with earpieces on motorcycles. *sigh* Well, I'd like to think so at least, although I've my doubts.
"The basic trouble with the modern world is the intellectual fallacy that freedom and compulsion are opposites..... Let me give you a simple illustration. Traffic lights restrain your freedom to cross a street whenever you wish. But this restraint gives you the freedom from being run over by a truck. If you were assigned to a job and prohibited from leaving it, it would restrain the freedom of your career. But it would give you the freedom from the fear of unemployment. Whenever a new compulsion is imposed upon us, we automatically gain a new freedom. The two are inseparable. Only by accepting total compulsion can we achieve total freedom."
'Ellsworth Touhey', the villain of Ayn RAND's The Fountainhead.
London : Cassell, 1947.
^_^ I knew that one day, staying awake in English class would come in handy. We debated this one fairly extensively in class when it came up. It's got some points, at in terms of sometimes having to give up a bit of freedom for a bit of safety. But honestly, I don't think it works on a grander sense. While constraints may give you freedom from danger, they also constrict your path to that single safe one, which you have to trust not to end in a greater danger at that.
IIRC, the infamous "code to explode a monitor" trick involved setting monitors to refresh rates that the monitor could not handle, causing the monitor to burn out or, in extreme cases, explode. It was a small subset of the monitors, but it was one of those things that made it into popular lore. I belive they even referenced it in Cryptonomicon, having a character who supposed had his face mangled by an exploding monitor triggered by a virus of some sort.
I don't quite agree with you here. Sure, Bush is well-known for mis-speaking and mis-pronouncing things on a regular basis. However, the masses, for whatever reason seem to have given him a pass on this [non]issue.
I suspect that a lot of it is that most people are not apt public speakers. Therefore, Bush, with his verbal mishaps and awkward style, appeals to people. They can say, "Hey, I get the same way when I get onto a podium. He's just like me." *shrug* Honestly, my opinion on Bush's speaking style has gone back and forth. At first, I thought he simply was a lousy public speaker who was over his head, but more and more, I get the impression that part of it's a persona that he uses to ingratiate himself to people. He's brighter than he looks or sounds most of the time.
As I understand it, the product still emits radiation. You just have less of a chance of a barrel developing a leak and dispersing the actual material. Dumping this glass on the sea floor still means we'd wind up with irradiated fish and coral.
Although then again, given much of the world, including ocean floors, has a degree of low-level radiation, maybe it's not really such a problem.
Getting off track from the original topic, but basically it's a matter of them supporting groups I don't agree with such as Planned Parenthood. I know it's virtually impossible to maintain a boycott of all organizations that support such groups, but I do the best I can.
Well, the main advantages of debit cards are that that you can use them in ATMs to get cash without incurring 14% fees on the transaction (similarly, many grocery stores let you get back money on a transaction if you tell them you're using a debit card, a way of avoiding service fees sometimes if the local ATMs don't interface with your bank) and theoretically, you're limitted to what's already in your bank account (I think they allow some degree of overdraft and if you've got an associated savings account, they may automatically draft money between accounts to cover overdraft). And, like most posters have said, you can use them just like a credit card in almost all situations.
Advantage of credit cards is that a) you can exceed your available money (although I don't reccomend this, as the interest rates approach loan shark proportions) b) Because there's an extra buffer between you and your bank accounts, there's a fair amount of theft protection built in. You're only liable for $X of a stolen credit card, usually about $50, assuming you report it promptly. Debit cards, well, you may have a bit more trouble getting the money back from your bank. c) Using a credit card improves your credit rating. This is why I pay for everything by credit card, then pay off my bill in full every billing cycle. As a result, I've built a solid record as someone who makes use of credit and is also reliable. *shrug* It can make a big difference when it comes time for you to purchase your first car or house.
At the end of the day, I tend to carry my Discover card for credit (cash back is miniscule, but better than nothing) and a check card marked with a Visa logo for places that don't take Discover and for ATMs. ^_^ And I carry another credit card, a MasterCard, which I use if I run into places that don't carry Visa or Discover. I used to also keep an American Express card, but it seemed to be overkill. (Plus there's some political issues there, but that's another matter entirely)
One of my college friends makes a fairly tidy sum doing "emergency maintenace" on computers which essentially comes down to adware and virus removal. His boom times are right after a new virus variant comes out. He just shows up with a disc holding the latest fix. *shrug* Reminds me of the time I saved a friend's computer in high school by running ScanDisk, finding the 60 MB of lost clusters that had choked the harddrive.
But back on the topic of low-power computing, I'm completely in agreement. I suspect a lot of the bloat is new versions of Windows. I know that Microsoft-bashing is the norm around here, but there's a serious concern when the OS can easily take half of the resources of a computer... How was it that the one Cathy cartoon put it? "5 years ago, my computer with 128K of memory could run a word processor and everything I ever wrote could fit on a handful of floppy disks." Ok, highly paraphrased, but they've got a point...
I've got you covered there. Er... sort of. This plastic thingie will actually do the covering. For those not wishing to click on the link, someone introduced a little device called the Internet Urinal, basically a little plastic jug for if you/really/ can't step away from the computer. Holds 32 oz, the size of a Big Gulp, according to the ads. Um... yeah.
Slashdot Mirror
As for baby monitoring, my family never had a baby monitor while I was growing up, but then again, my mother was a housemom. While in the house, she could hear us crying, and if she was going to be out of earshot (in the basement doing laundry or outside), she'd take us with her.
So to summarize, I'm not going to take up a lane until my average speed is closer to a reasonable car speed, definitely not going to do it until my top speed at least reaches the speed limit. *shrug* Until then, I take as much advantage as I can of back roads, bike trails, and pedestrian bridges to avoid the main traffic routes.
That said, any brain stimulus that involves coordinating the hemispheres could trigger a seizure if it's in the damaged area. And at that, last I looked at current research, they're saying that the right hemisphere controls the left field of vision on both sides and vice versa for the right, entirely contrary to the earlier theory that the each hemisphere of the brain controlled one eye. *wry grin* Where it gets really weird was that it was proven in experiments that each hemisphere handled the input from one eye and now they've proven it the other way. It really makes you wonder how much of our brain's deelopment may rely on how we believe it should work.
Gosh, I remember Rainbow Magazine for the TRS-80 Color Computer advertising software to "print money" over a decade ago. And this was in the days of dot-matrix printers...
Something to keep in mind is that these Home-Owner Agreements have almost no legal standing and cases against them are won almost every time. *wry grin* Heck, half of them never even bother writing down all the rules, so they really have no proof as to what you signed up for. That said, this is the first time I've heard of a group that actually charges for their services as some of the child posters seem to be stating. Usually it's just a bunch of busybodies with more time than sense on their hands...
This isn't a new issue, although this is the first time I've heard of a civilian being injured in this manner. This has been reported as a problem in a few military encounters, enemy pilots using high-powered laser pointers to blind other pilots. A fellow at the University of Dayton created a deisgn for the cockpits which essentially scatters such incoming light, preventing it from being unifed enough to damage an eye. Unfortunately, I lack cites, as my information comes from reading a magazine clipping posted on my professor's door almost 4 years ago...
There is some truth to what you say. Outside of the idea of corporate loyalty, I think there's an issue going on here with the definition of profits here. The average person thinks about profit-making moves as being a situation where, overall, the company winds up making more money. However, in today's CEO-driven world, it's also an option to profit by making moves that in the short-term show reduced costs and therefore produce bonuses and raised stock prices. Yes, in a couple of years, your company may be hurt from having retired the older, more experienced workers and replacing them with younger people, but for a few years, you don't have to pay the higher wages due for seniority and, well, experience. And so the CEO leaves for another job, resume glowing with another situation where he was shown to reduce costs and thereby raise prices. Never mind that the company may have trouble later and that people are out jobs...
Please debunk to me what is "wrong" with situations like your example: people over 60 getting fired just because the company doesn't need them any more?
Is it the fact that the company doesn't need him but the poor fellow still needs them because he is scared of potential difficulties of finding a different job?
*wry grin* Nothing technically "wrong" with it, at least under current job philosophy. People take it as a given that most companies don't hold much loyalty to their employees anymore. And, honestly, the younger generation is thereby showing less loyalty to the companies, taking jobs for shorter terms and moving on, taking skill sets with them. It can make for a very agile and versatile skill set. The problem, I think, comes when you have people who started on the old system, and who have spent 20+ years of their life doing one thing, becoming very good at it. *shrug* And honestly, they probably are "scared of the potential difficulties" because they have spent their lives learning to be perfect employees for the one company and now they're adrift again in a job market flooded with new college graduates willing to work for subsistence wages. Complicating the matter, someone who has been working that long for one company may not even be able to use half of their skillset because it involves proprietary information.
Why isn't it realized by people that the job market is nothing more than a big match-making service where people or businesses go and try to find out who fits whose needs at the moment?
You know, I honestly think you've hit the nail on the head here. The job market highly resembles the state of marriage these days. There was a time when people settled down with a spouse, loved and lived with them until the end of their days. There was a loyalty, a sense that they were together for better or for worse. Now, well, how many people do you know who are on their second or third marriage? Or, for that matter, aren't even bothering getting married because they're not interested in permanence? Similarly, companies no longer feel loyalty to their workers to support them. And therefore, the current generation is tending more towards contracting, part time jobs.
Please shed some light on this "moral" issue for me, as I truly am frustrated with the kind of vagueness that people here often use to hide the reality that they simply can't justify something because it "feels right/wrong".
^_^ Honestly, I pull
Then, there's war. I believe this to be a larger subset of the above cases. You're defending yourself and you're defending the people of your country against an armed agressor. Again, a large amount of the killings are in the heat of the moment. While you are prepared to kill and have trained in it, you generally don't know the guy you're offing. Even in an ambush type of situation, you don't have anything personal against the person and it's self-defense. Things get a bit stickier when it comes to snipers and assassination. I personally think snipers are seen in a bad light simply because it seems "not fair" in people's minds. Assassinations... those require a fair amount of planning and pre-meditation and are often done when the person in question is not actually directly threatening you. I see it as not actually murder as you are still defending innocent people (members of your country generally) from the threat this person poses, but I definitely feel it's not something to be entered into lightly.
As for myself, I've never been in a situation of life-and-death, I hope I never have to make that kind of a choice. I think I could kill a person if they presented a threat to me or my kin, but I don't think one can ever truly know until you're there.
^_^ As always, IANAL although I've played one on stage.
For a widespread practical case, look at how duels are handled legally, or rather how they're illegal. Despite the fact that both parties are entering into the ring of their own will, it's still illegal for them to duel to the death. The person who survives will be prosecuted for murder assuming the law notices. (Note, in times and places where dueling was technically illegal but socially acceptable, there may be no legal investigation at all. Obviously, the fellow accidentally shot himself in the chest with his friend's gun while they were discussing a matter of honor) In a situation where death is accidental in a duel, such as in a martial arts exhibition or sparring match, their asses are generally covered by statements showing that they knew there were dangers and by the fact that it's generally demonstrable that the killer really didn't mean to kill the other guy. Human beings are just really fragile sometimes...
As to why it would work, I don't remember an explanation from the books, but I could see it as being a matter of actually generating their own version of the Force that happens to jam regular users much in the same was as jammers are used in electronic warfare measures.
The problem with waiting for a system to collapse in its own absurdity is that often it stubbornly stays up. Even worse when you try to hurry said collapse by adding absurdities, as you sometimes wind up having benefitted your opponent. It's like trying to shift into a throw in a fight to unbalance your opponent and finding that they're quite happy with you moving in that direction and would like to help you accelerate just a bit more on your way to the floor.
Where the hell do you live? The Upgrade costs $99 retail.
It's $99 retail for an upgrade of Home. Add another $100 each if you want an independent install (nice if you don't want to have to keep your Win 95 disks on hand for every time you re-install) or Professional edition.
Sadly, I can't think of Ayn Rand without remembering the Sluggy Freelance arc involving her ghost and a hyperactive ferret...
While the above post was marked flamebait, there is some truth to it. The people involved don't even have to know why they're doing it, so in a sense, you get a perfect crime. Sure, they could probably trace it back to your cell-phone eventually, but you'll have probably disposed of it by then. This would probably be more likely if the character in question was travelling incognito, as I'd like to think that "flashmobs" would realize something was fishy if they were all told to stand in the middle of a road that has a limousine surrounded by people in black suits with earpieces on motorcycles. *sigh* Well, I'd like to think so at least, although I've my doubts.
IIRC, the infamous "code to explode a monitor" trick involved setting monitors to refresh rates that the monitor could not handle, causing the monitor to burn out or, in extreme cases, explode. It was a small subset of the monitors, but it was one of those things that made it into popular lore. I belive they even referenced it in Cryptonomicon, having a character who supposed had his face mangled by an exploding monitor triggered by a virus of some sort.
I suspect that a lot of it is that most people are not apt public speakers. Therefore, Bush, with his verbal mishaps and awkward style, appeals to people. They can say, "Hey, I get the same way when I get onto a podium. He's just like me." *shrug* Honestly, my opinion on Bush's speaking style has gone back and forth. At first, I thought he simply was a lousy public speaker who was over his head, but more and more, I get the impression that part of it's a persona that he uses to ingratiate himself to people. He's brighter than he looks or sounds most of the time.
Although then again, given much of the world, including ocean floors, has a degree of low-level radiation, maybe it's not really such a problem.
Getting off track from the original topic, but basically it's a matter of them supporting groups I don't agree with such as Planned Parenthood. I know it's virtually impossible to maintain a boycott of all organizations that support such groups, but I do the best I can.
Advantage of credit cards is that a) you can exceed your available money (although I don't reccomend this, as the interest rates approach loan shark proportions) b) Because there's an extra buffer between you and your bank accounts, there's a fair amount of theft protection built in. You're only liable for $X of a stolen credit card, usually about $50, assuming you report it promptly. Debit cards, well, you may have a bit more trouble getting the money back from your bank. c) Using a credit card improves your credit rating. This is why I pay for everything by credit card, then pay off my bill in full every billing cycle. As a result, I've built a solid record as someone who makes use of credit and is also reliable. *shrug* It can make a big difference when it comes time for you to purchase your first car or house.
At the end of the day, I tend to carry my Discover card for credit (cash back is miniscule, but better than nothing) and a check card marked with a Visa logo for places that don't take Discover and for ATMs. ^_^ And I carry another credit card, a MasterCard, which I use if I run into places that don't carry Visa or Discover. I used to also keep an American Express card, but it seemed to be overkill. (Plus there's some political issues there, but that's another matter entirely)
But back on the topic of low-power computing, I'm completely in agreement. I suspect a lot of the bloat is new versions of Windows. I know that Microsoft-bashing is the norm around here, but there's a serious concern when the OS can easily take half of the resources of a computer... How was it that the one Cathy cartoon put it? "5 years ago, my computer with 128K of memory could run a word processor and everything I ever wrote could fit on a handful of floppy disks." Ok, highly paraphrased, but they've got a point...
^_^ Well, given it's in the advertising copy almost every time I've seen this sucker sold...
I've got you covered there. Er... sort of. This plastic thingie will actually do the covering. For those not wishing to click on the link, someone introduced a little device called the Internet Urinal, basically a little plastic jug for if you /really/ can't step away from the computer. Holds 32 oz, the size of a Big Gulp, according to the ads. Um... yeah.