The article talks about ways to make the bubbles form in the champagne. Why would you want to do this? Once a bubble forms, it eventually comes to the surface and is forever lost. Once all the gas has formed bubbles and escaped, the champagne is completely flat. So don't you want bubbles to NOT form? The only explanation I can think of is that if you're drinking it WHILE the bubbles are forming, it tastes better. But that doesn't really make sense to me. I mean, if I take a pristinely clean champagne flute and very carefully pour the champagne in and end up with a glass of champagne from which very little gas has been lost and in which very few bubbles are forming, I can't imagine taking a sip and thinking, "Hmm, not enough bubbles." If nothing else, the champagne is necessarily going to be doing some fizzing as it gets moved around my mouth and throat.
"An explosive decompression in the liquid"? Liquid can't be compressed or decompressed. The air pushing down on the surface of the liquid can be decompressed, which would cause the champagne to bubble, but we're obviously not talking about that. The bubbles are formed simply by transferring kinetic energy from the moving glass to the stationary glass and in turn to the champagne. Your champagne doesn't fizz for the same reason the moving ball on those desktop clacky things stops moving the instant it hits the next ball--most of its energy is transferred.
Apart from the issue of whether Craigslist can successfully be sued, think about the overarching issue here. It is categorically ILLEGAL for an individual to post an ad on Craigslist that says, "(Male/Female) Roommate Wanted". That is downright scary. Our government allows you to be JAILED for stating a preference for what kind of person you LIVE WITH!
Our eyes were not meant for the type of work we often do--close-up, unbroken, for long periods. They were meant for spotting prey, food, and predators in the distance. The easiest and most important thing you can do for your eyes is give them breaks.
AT LEAST every five minutes, turn away from your computer screen and look around. Focus on something distant. Ideally, look out a window. Blink. Breathe. Then go back to work. (20-30 seconds) I read something about schools implementing this practice in China or Japan or something with good results.
What kind of light do you use in your workspace? Are you maximizing daylight? Consider avoiding fluorescent light.
If you wear contacts, consider switching to glasses. If you wear glasses, don't wear them every waking hour. Take them off when you give your eyes a break as described above. If you don't wear corrective lenses at all, consider yourself darn lucky and don't assume this luck will continue forever.
Loss of concentration is probably due to drained energy. Vision may take far more energy than most people realize. Make sure you're using good posture and breathing deeply. Dr. Andrew Weil has a lot to say about breathing, and it's very interesting. He says most people don't breathe properly, and if they did, they would have far less stress and fewer health problems. Posture: Try sitting up so straight that you feel ridiculous. How long you can stay like that without a) forgetting and slouching, or b) collapsing from exhaustion? It's harder than you may think. Practicing good posture builds your core muscles for a better physique and better health.
Do you read books often? Make a bookmark that says, "Stop. Look up. Blink. Breathe. Now put me two pages ahead." (Or just use a plain bookmark and remember to do those things whenever you reach it.) I got this from a book called "Take Off Your Glasses and See" by Jacob Liberman. It's a little out there (metaphysical), but it's quite interesting. I am currently reading it and seeing a doctor to which the author refers as a "behavioral optometrist" (vision therapist) with the goal of reducing or eliminating my dependency on corrective lenses.
"But most of the business, he said, will be from people using wireless devices to read and send e-mail or browse the Internet."
Sounds peaceful and relaxing. Also sounds like BS. I think that's something they tell people who are afraid of the subway cars becoming a place where everyone is yelling, "What? WHAT??" into their phones.
I like riding the subway in NYC because more often than not, no one says a damn word.
"The trust said the tests were accurate but had been unable to confirm Scotsman Mr Stimpson's cure because he had declined to undergo further tests.
"A statement from the trust said: "This is a rare and complex case. When we became aware of Mr Stimpson's HIV negative test results we offered him further tests to help us investigate and find an explanation for the different results.
I was already sick of the "Hybrid cars won't save you lots of money, therefore they're all hype" argument, but this just goes way too far. What loser spent a week making all those formulas and writing it all up?
Points these nutcases seem to not get:
1) It is entirely possible that within the lifespan of a brand new car, gas will be many, many times more expensive than it is now--even more expensive than the hypotheticals of this argument allow for. A hybrid is a hedge against the possibility of out-of-control prices. Even if the event that necessitates a hedge's existence never happens, the purpose of the hedge is still valid.
2) Buying a hybrid makes people feel good. You cannot put a value on that.
3) When someone buys a hybrid, we all win, so just STFU already about the hype!
No sane person has ever or will ever use a mathematical formula to decide whether to buy a hybrid.
Slashdot Mirror
Oceania has always been at war with Titania.
The article talks about ways to make the bubbles form in the champagne. Why would you want to do this? Once a bubble forms, it eventually comes to the surface and is forever lost. Once all the gas has formed bubbles and escaped, the champagne is completely flat. So don't you want bubbles to NOT form? The only explanation I can think of is that if you're drinking it WHILE the bubbles are forming, it tastes better. But that doesn't really make sense to me. I mean, if I take a pristinely clean champagne flute and very carefully pour the champagne in and end up with a glass of champagne from which very little gas has been lost and in which very few bubbles are forming, I can't imagine taking a sip and thinking, "Hmm, not enough bubbles." If nothing else, the champagne is necessarily going to be doing some fizzing as it gets moved around my mouth and throat.
"An explosive decompression in the liquid"? Liquid can't be compressed or decompressed. The air pushing down on the surface of the liquid can be decompressed, which would cause the champagne to bubble, but we're obviously not talking about that. The bubbles are formed simply by transferring kinetic energy from the moving glass to the stationary glass and in turn to the champagne. Your champagne doesn't fizz for the same reason the moving ball on those desktop clacky things stops moving the instant it hits the next ball--most of its energy is transferred.
Usually I'm hoping to catch Thursday's column before I leave work on Friday.
Apart from the issue of whether Craigslist can successfully be sued, think about the overarching issue here. It is categorically ILLEGAL for an individual to post an ad on Craigslist that says, "(Male/Female) Roommate Wanted". That is downright scary. Our government allows you to be JAILED for stating a preference for what kind of person you LIVE WITH!
Our eyes were not meant for the type of work we often do--close-up, unbroken, for long periods. They were meant for spotting prey, food, and predators in the distance. The easiest and most important thing you can do for your eyes is give them breaks.
AT LEAST every five minutes, turn away from your computer screen and look around. Focus on something distant. Ideally, look out a window. Blink. Breathe. Then go back to work. (20-30 seconds) I read something about schools implementing this practice in China or Japan or something with good results.
What kind of light do you use in your workspace? Are you maximizing daylight? Consider avoiding fluorescent light.
If you wear contacts, consider switching to glasses. If you wear glasses, don't wear them every waking hour. Take them off when you give your eyes a break as described above. If you don't wear corrective lenses at all, consider yourself darn lucky and don't assume this luck will continue forever.
Loss of concentration is probably due to drained energy. Vision may take far more energy than most people realize. Make sure you're using good posture and breathing deeply. Dr. Andrew Weil has a lot to say about breathing, and it's very interesting. He says most people don't breathe properly, and if they did, they would have far less stress and fewer health problems. Posture: Try sitting up so straight that you feel ridiculous. How long you can stay like that without a) forgetting and slouching, or b) collapsing from exhaustion? It's harder than you may think. Practicing good posture builds your core muscles for a better physique and better health.
Do you read books often? Make a bookmark that says, "Stop. Look up. Blink. Breathe. Now put me two pages ahead." (Or just use a plain bookmark and remember to do those things whenever you reach it.) I got this from a book called "Take Off Your Glasses and See" by Jacob Liberman. It's a little out there (metaphysical), but it's quite interesting. I am currently reading it and seeing a doctor to which the author refers as a "behavioral optometrist" (vision therapist) with the goal of reducing or eliminating my dependency on corrective lenses.
Chances for an x86 PowerBook are at least 1:5 or better.
1:5? So it's five times as likely we'll see an Intel PowerBook as not?
"But most of the business, he said, will be from people using wireless devices to read and send e-mail or browse the Internet."
Sounds peaceful and relaxing. Also sounds like BS. I think that's something they tell people who are afraid of the subway cars becoming a place where everyone is yelling, "What? WHAT??" into their phones.
I like riding the subway in NYC because more often than not, no one says a damn word.
"The trust said the tests were accurate but had been unable to confirm Scotsman Mr Stimpson's cure because he had declined to undergo further tests.
"A statement from the trust said: "This is a rare and complex case. When we became aware of Mr Stimpson's HIV negative test results we offered him further tests to help us investigate and find an explanation for the different results.
"So far Mr Stimpson has declined this offer."
I was already sick of the "Hybrid cars won't save you lots of money, therefore they're all hype" argument, but this just goes way too far. What loser spent a week making all those formulas and writing it all up?
Points these nutcases seem to not get:
1) It is entirely possible that within the lifespan of a brand new car, gas will be many, many times more expensive than it is now--even more expensive than the hypotheticals of this argument allow for. A hybrid is a hedge against the possibility of out-of-control prices. Even if the event that necessitates a hedge's existence never happens, the purpose of the hedge is still valid.
2) Buying a hybrid makes people feel good. You cannot put a value on that.
3) When someone buys a hybrid, we all win, so just STFU already about the hype!
No sane person has ever or will ever use a mathematical formula to decide whether to buy a hybrid.