Using headphones is of course just common courtesy.
That said: earplugs. Earplugs, earplugs earplugs.
Not because people perhaps sit on the phone, and not because people will sometimes talk to each other. Not even for the guy snoring loudly throughout the flight or for the two-year old who's screaming himself across the pacific ocean.
An airplane cabin is _noisy_. That constant whine/hum/hiss is the single most tiring noise I know of. True, you conciously tune it out after half an hour or so, but it's incredibly fatiguing. For a long time I didn't realize that a good deal of my jetlag, fatigue and inability to sleep on the plane was actually due to that incessant noise (that, and that I never drank enough liquids - nonalcoholic liquids).
Once I started using earplugs during the entire flight (you can hear the movie just fine through the plugs) and making a point of drinking water throughout, the difference was huge. I arrive reasonably refreshed, not bleary-eyed and disoriented. The day-night cycle is still screwed up, of course, but the impact is much less.
You would of course use Morse only as the input method. whatever you tap out would be transcribed to ordinary text and sent like any other message. Only the sender needs to know Morse to utilize it.
While Morse is faster to write than typing on a mobile keypad, reading ordinary text is faster than listening to Morse.
I'm an older fogey (36), and I usually only use messaging. The reason? I'm often using the phone in noisy, bustling environments (city streets, office landscape, robotics lab), and I'm an old fogey - which means my hearing is not what it used to be. Talking on a phone is frankly often fairly difficult, and you disturb other people no matter how low-key you try to be.
With text messaging I can get or send info no matter how noisy the environment is (try understanding spoken directions while standing on a street corner in Osaka) and whatever info I receive I can refer to over and over again (my memory has never been too hot either).
I still want the ability to call or receive calls, but my preferred channel clearly is text.
Yes, there is a good deal of "friendly" voting going on. The reason may at least partly be taste, though. Neighbouring countries tend to be very close, culturally and lingustically, people tend to meve between them a lot and can usually see each others television and radio broadcasts. So they will tend to have more similar taste in music than countries far apart. I would not be surprised if that is one part (not all, obviously) of the "bloc voting".
As for your second point, why would the amount of money contributed to the EU correlate in any way with the popularity of the songs? Looking above, you'd expect the opposite, actually. A country is a large contributor because it's, well, a large country. And a large country tend (other things being equal) to be more insular and less influenced by the cultures around it. The songs will tend not to appeal as widely among its neighbours or other european countries as the smaller, more exposed, countries.
And yes, musically it's rather like a slow-motion trainwreck, but that's part of the appeal:)
And while I very occasionally receive a phone call on it, I hardly ever call anyone - it's usually more reliable to send a quick email - speaking on a phone in a noisy environment isn't very reliable; in many places (trains and subways, restaurants, shops) it's frowned upon or downright forbidden to speak on a phone; and with an email I can refer to the information afterwards if I want to, rather than having to remember what was said.
I wouldn't want to be without voice calls, but honestly the email functionailty is more important.
He is basically blowing his own horn here, and I think the idea of Windows on most cellphones is unlikey, but I think the basic premise stands.
I sometimes carry my mp3 player. I _always_ carry my mobile phone, though. It already has an excellent screen, radio, email and internet connectivity. If it had a gig of memory and an easy way to move sound files and text to it (I already read stuff on it by emailing it to the phone but that's a bit clumsy), my mp3 player would never see the outside of my desk drawer again.
The phone is already the defacto "pocket media device". Of course, Windows in any iteration is likely too expensive for it, considering just how cutthroat the mobile markets are.
A bar of soap is not damaging. Religion (in my view) is.
As I wrote in a different reply, if someone is knocking on my door trying to sell me cocain, I'd be pissed off about it.
Come to think about it, if some salesman actually approaches me out on the town, or knocks on my door early weekend mornings I don't care if they sell soap, cocain or religion - I'd be angry about it. In the case of the overly pushy salesman I can call his company and complain. With a drug pusher I cal call the police. Where do I complain about religious people?
I've found that undressing will make them leave pretty quickly.
I understand Christians think they are doing a good thing when trying to convince me (or anybody else). That doesn't mean it is. "Putting youself in someone elses shoes" means understanding their internal rationale. That doesnät change the deleterious effects as seen from my point of view, though.
I certainly understand their motivation. I still dislike their intended result. I have little sympathy for that reason.
I think that the double standard people have to refusing to read or watch a piece of fiction because the author is a Christian is quickly becoming one of the greatest pieces of evidence in favor of the Christian world view.
To begin with a pretty simple misunderstanding/misreading: I don't dislike Carroll's books. I like them. I can read them while ignoring the evangelical subtext just fine. My post had nothing to do with Lewis Carroll, but with the quote I had at the top of the post about why Christianity supposedly is the only religion allowed to be hated. My post was an answer to that, not about Carroll, for or against.
Once again, I was answering the quote, not writing about Carroll, his books or the movie adaptation.
Do you like being bothered by people who want to relieve hunger? That knock on your door asking for donations?
Fighting starvation is a good thing. Fighting poverty is good. Combat disease is good. Combat ignorance is good. Religion is, in my view, not good. It's a lot like like drug use, actually: it can be tolerated as long as it's in moderation and doesn't adversely affect other people. Once it takes over people's lives or starts to affect friends or family, it's not tolerable any more.
If I had pushers knocking on my door asking me to please take a free hit I'd be pretty pissed off as well. I get even angrier when they target children that don't yet have the maturity and experience to make a sound judgement about it. It doesn't matter to me if they see a whole world of people starving for a high out there.
I didn't list judaism among them. If you're thinking about the list of places of worship, that was just general hyperbole - I've never had anyone doing blood sacrifices try to convert me either:)
Why is that Christianity is the only religion it is still ok to hate?
Huh? Like many agnostics and atheists I dislike all religion. Christianity certainly doesn't have any particular prominence in that respect.
What does raise my hackles more than other is prozelysation, though. This of ocurse includes some Christian evangelcal sects and writers, but I am just as annoyed by prozelytising Hindu and Islamic sects as well. Hint: if I'm interested I promise to come over to your church/synagogue/temple/kiva/bloodstained sacrificial altar and discuss it, but knocking on my door, pushing leaflets in my hand or harassing me on the town is making me less - not more - likely to have a kind thought about what you believe in.
Converesly, among religions the one I dislike the least is Buddhism and especially quiet, contemplative variations of it. It tends to be philosophy as much as religion (no father figure in sight), and they never bother you unless you actively want to be bothered.
So no, Christianity is not special at all when it comes to general dislike. If you are Christian, though, you are of course a lot more attuned to criticism towards it than other religions (and more like ly to see it at all) and so it's of course easy to get the impression that it is singled out in some manner.
Many projects means developers will be spread thin, negating the old "Many eyes make all bugs shallow". Developers for Azureus will have to work harder to implement new things and fix bugs, since developers who could have helped them are working on other projects.
These would be developers who really know and like working in Python - rather than Java - to begin with. If they didn't do a Python reimplementation, they would do another Python project, not help on Azureus.
And as I wrote, doing a reimplementation does help shake out bugs and mistakes in the protocol and implementation.
"only./run-it" is enough to bring most people to a screeching halt. Not to mention you first have to figure out that you need something named Java, that you get it from Sun's website and then figure out on that site what you are supposed to download (which really isn't trivial even if you do know what you are doing - is it EE, RE or DE? Do I need stuff like JavaBeans?).
For all intents and purposes, if it can't be pulled down and installed automatically as part of the application install process, that precludes the use by the large majority of users.
No we don't. This (java) version works perfectly already. Why does this _need_ to be ported?
It doesn't _need_ to be ported. There are at least two possible reasons to do so anyhow, one "moral", one pragmatic:
* It's difficult to distribute the Java runtime environment for some Linux distributions due to licensing issues. That means that for some of the most popular distros, installing Azureus is decidedly non-trivial for someone that's not fairly familiar with non-standard installation.
* If you are using no other Java app on the system (I don't), the footprint of Azureus + JavaVM is very sizeable. Having something run under a VM that's in use anyhow makes the app use much less resources.
Bonus reasons is that more alternative clients will shake out bugs and issues with the system, and will encourage further experimentation and exploration of the system and the UI.
At the same time, porting it (or reimplementing in another client) takes away exactly zero from the Azureus developers or users. It's a win-win situation.
But this just seems to be asking for a lot of trouble. Humanitarily speaking, since they are not actually in any country, who protects the rights of those 600 laboring software engineers? Does anyone have the authority to make sure that it's not (child) slave labor? No government agency can make sure that working conditions are safe and healthy.
All commercial vessels (and perhaps all vessels over a certain size? Not sure about that) are registered to a country ("flagged"). While in international waters, it is subject to that country's laws, including labour laws, and effectively works as a tiny, mobile enclave of that country, legally. When you marry on a ship in international waters, for instance, you are effectively marrying in the coutnry the ship is flagged to.
Of course, some countries are more lax than others (which is why we have "flags of convenience"). But they are not lawless.
Of course, this also allows you to skip those embarassing and pointless "family values" and "patriotic expressions" scenes that are plastered on far too often and get straight to the violent action. You could probably shorten a typical Hollywood flick by 25% this way without losing the point of the movie.
I'm seeing Google turning too much into a niche operator today. Most new stuff is focused on IE, the Windows platform and on US data. This may be the single largest combination of browser, OS and geography, but it is still a very small niche in the big scheme of things. Unfortunately, today google seems to focus harder onto that niche, not less.
Lots more space for nimble competitors, I guess. And at least for the precence-style apps here, like mobile maps, underground GPS, line-based chats and so on, Google doesn't exist, period.
One suggested improvement: have the reflectivity control some variable (like pitch). small/dark/further away reflector will give you a low note, and a large/bright/close one will give you a high note.
Slashdot Mirror
Using headphones is of course just common courtesy.
That said: earplugs. Earplugs, earplugs earplugs.
Not because people perhaps sit on the phone, and not because people will sometimes talk to each other. Not even for the guy snoring loudly throughout the flight or for the two-year old who's screaming himself across the pacific ocean.
An airplane cabin is _noisy_. That constant whine/hum/hiss is the single most tiring noise I know of. True, you conciously tune it out after half an hour or so, but it's incredibly fatiguing. For a long time I didn't realize that a good deal of my jetlag, fatigue and inability to sleep on the plane was actually due to that incessant noise (that, and that I never drank enough liquids - nonalcoholic liquids).
Once I started using earplugs during the entire flight (you can hear the movie just fine through the plugs) and making a point of drinking water throughout, the difference was huge. I arrive reasonably refreshed, not bleary-eyed and disoriented. The day-night cycle is still screwed up, of course, but the impact is much less.
So does SAS. It turns Japan-Europe from a ten-hour purgatory into a something fairly bearable.
If a guy named Jesus cannot convince people to open source route no one can.
Let's just say that a religiously grounded argument isn't the best possible way to bring northern Europeans onboard for any idea.
You would of course use Morse only as the input method. whatever you tap out would be transcribed to ordinary text and sent like any other message. Only the sender needs to know Morse to utilize it.
While Morse is faster to write than typing on a mobile keypad, reading ordinary text is faster than listening to Morse.
I'm an older fogey (36), and I usually only use messaging. The reason? I'm often using the phone in noisy, bustling environments (city streets, office landscape, robotics lab), and I'm an old fogey - which means my hearing is not what it used to be. Talking on a phone is frankly often fairly difficult, and you disturb other people no matter how low-key you try to be.
With text messaging I can get or send info no matter how noisy the environment is (try understanding spoken directions while standing on a street corner in Osaka) and whatever info I receive I can refer to over and over again (my memory has never been too hot either).
I still want the ability to call or receive calls, but my preferred channel clearly is text.
Wake me up when they're introduced.
Anita, this is Flash Drive; Flash, this is Anita.
There, better now?
Yes, there is a good deal of "friendly" voting going on. The reason may at least partly be taste, though. Neighbouring countries tend to be very close, culturally and lingustically, people tend to meve between them a lot and can usually see each others television and radio broadcasts. So they will tend to have more similar taste in music than countries far apart. I would not be surprised if that is one part (not all, obviously) of the "bloc voting".
:)
As for your second point, why would the amount of money contributed to the EU correlate in any way with the popularity of the songs? Looking above, you'd expect the opposite, actually. A country is a large contributor because it's, well, a large country. And a large country tend (other things being equal) to be more insular and less influenced by the cultures around it. The songs will tend not to appeal as widely among its neighbours or other european countries as the smaller, more exposed, countries.
And yes, musically it's rather like a slow-motion trainwreck, but that's part of the appeal
A Sanyo A5503SA for the AU network in Japan.
And while I very occasionally receive a phone call on it, I hardly ever call anyone - it's usually more reliable to send a quick email - speaking on a phone in a noisy environment isn't very reliable; in many places (trains and subways, restaurants, shops) it's frowned upon or downright forbidden to speak on a phone; and with an email I can refer to the information afterwards if I want to, rather than having to remember what was said.
I wouldn't want to be without voice calls, but honestly the email functionailty is more important.
He is basically blowing his own horn here, and I think the idea of Windows on most cellphones is unlikey, but I think the basic premise stands.
I sometimes carry my mp3 player. I _always_ carry my mobile phone, though. It already has an excellent screen, radio, email and internet connectivity. If it had a gig of memory and an easy way to move sound files and text to it (I already read stuff on it by emailing it to the phone but that's a bit clumsy), my mp3 player would never see the outside of my desk drawer again.
The phone is already the defacto "pocket media device". Of course, Windows in any iteration is likely too expensive for it, considering just how cutthroat the mobile markets are.
Why do you feel the need to dislike something that other people do, when it has zero impact on your existence?
Because it doesn't have zero impact on my existence. If it did I could just ignore it altogether.
A bar of soap is not damaging. Religion (in my view) is.
As I wrote in a different reply, if someone is knocking on my door trying to sell me cocain, I'd be pissed off about it.
Come to think about it, if some salesman actually approaches me out on the town, or knocks on my door early weekend mornings I don't care if they sell soap, cocain or religion - I'd be angry about it. In the case of the overly pushy salesman I can call his company and complain. With a drug pusher I cal call the police. Where do I complain about religious people?
I've found that undressing will make them leave pretty quickly.
I understand Christians think they are doing a good thing when trying to convince me (or anybody else). That doesn't mean it is. "Putting youself in someone elses shoes" means understanding their internal rationale. That doesnät change the deleterious effects as seen from my point of view, though.
I certainly understand their motivation. I still dislike their intended result. I have little sympathy for that reason.
I think that the double standard people have to refusing to read or watch a piece of fiction because the author is a Christian is quickly becoming one of the greatest pieces of evidence in favor of the Christian world view.
To begin with a pretty simple misunderstanding/misreading: I don't dislike Carroll's books. I like them. I can read them while ignoring the evangelical subtext just fine. My post had nothing to do with Lewis Carroll, but with the quote I had at the top of the post about why Christianity supposedly is the only religion allowed to be hated. My post was an answer to that, not about Carroll, for or against.
Once again, I was answering the quote, not writing about Carroll, his books or the movie adaptation.
Do you like being bothered by people who want to relieve hunger? That knock on your door asking for donations?
Fighting starvation is a good thing. Fighting poverty is good. Combat disease is good. Combat ignorance is good. Religion is, in my view, not good. It's a lot like like drug use, actually: it can be tolerated as long as it's in moderation and doesn't adversely affect other people. Once it takes over people's lives or starts to affect friends or family, it's not tolerable any more.
If I had pushers knocking on my door asking me to please take a free hit I'd be pretty pissed off as well. I get even angrier when they target children that don't yet have the maturity and experience to make a sound judgement about it. It doesn't matter to me if they see a whole world of people starving for a high out there.
I didn't list judaism among them. If you're thinking about the list of places of worship, that was just general hyperbole - I've never had anyone doing blood sacrifices try to convert me either :)
Why is that Christianity is the only religion it is still ok to hate?
Huh? Like many agnostics and atheists I dislike all religion. Christianity certainly doesn't have any particular prominence in that respect.
What does raise my hackles more than other is prozelysation, though. This of ocurse includes some Christian evangelcal sects and writers, but I am just as annoyed by prozelytising Hindu and Islamic sects as well. Hint: if I'm interested I promise to come over to your church/synagogue/temple/kiva/bloodstained sacrificial altar and discuss it, but knocking on my door, pushing leaflets in my hand or harassing me on the town is making me less - not more - likely to have a kind thought about what you believe in.
Converesly, among religions the one I dislike the least is Buddhism and especially quiet, contemplative variations of it. It tends to be philosophy as much as religion (no father figure in sight), and they never bother you unless you actively want to be bothered.
So no, Christianity is not special at all when it comes to general dislike. If you are Christian, though, you are of course a lot more attuned to criticism towards it than other religions (and more like ly to see it at all) and so it's of course easy to get the impression that it is singled out in some manner.
Many projects means developers will be spread thin, negating the old "Many eyes make all bugs shallow". Developers for Azureus will have to work harder to implement new things and fix bugs, since developers who could have helped them are working on other projects.
These would be developers who really know and like working in Python - rather than Java - to begin with. If they didn't do a Python reimplementation, they would do another Python project, not help on Azureus.
And as I wrote, doing a reimplementation does help shake out bugs and mistakes in the protocol and implementation.
"only ./run-it" is enough to bring most people to a screeching halt. Not to mention you first have to figure out that you need something named Java, that you get it from Sun's website and then figure out on that site what you are supposed to download (which really isn't trivial even if you do know what you are doing - is it EE, RE or DE? Do I need stuff like JavaBeans?).
For all intents and purposes, if it can't be pulled down and installed automatically as part of the application install process, that precludes the use by the large majority of users.
No we don't. This (java) version works perfectly already. Why does this _need_ to be ported?
It doesn't _need_ to be ported. There are at least two possible reasons to do so anyhow, one "moral", one pragmatic:
* It's difficult to distribute the Java runtime environment for some Linux distributions due to licensing issues. That means that for some of the most popular distros, installing Azureus is decidedly non-trivial for someone that's not fairly familiar with non-standard installation.
* If you are using no other Java app on the system (I don't), the footprint of Azureus + JavaVM is very sizeable. Having something run under a VM that's in use anyhow makes the app use much less resources.
Bonus reasons is that more alternative clients will shake out bugs and issues with the system, and will encourage further experimentation and exploration of the system and the UI.
At the same time, porting it (or reimplementing in another client) takes away exactly zero from the Azureus developers or users. It's a win-win situation.
But this just seems to be asking for a lot of trouble. Humanitarily speaking, since they are not actually in any country, who protects the rights of those 600 laboring software engineers? Does anyone have the authority to make sure that it's not (child) slave labor? No government agency can make sure that working conditions are safe and healthy.
All commercial vessels (and perhaps all vessels over a certain size? Not sure about that) are registered to a country ("flagged"). While in international waters, it is subject to that country's laws, including labour laws, and effectively works as a tiny, mobile enclave of that country, legally. When you marry on a ship in international waters, for instance, you are effectively marrying in the coutnry the ship is flagged to.
Of course, some countries are more lax than others (which is why we have "flags of convenience"). But they are not lawless.
Of course, this also allows you to skip those embarassing and pointless "family values" and "patriotic expressions" scenes that are plastered on far too often and get straight to the violent action. You could probably shorten a typical Hollywood flick by 25% this way without losing the point of the movie.
OMG, what do blind people do with having to sign their name?
They have a problem with their eyes, not their hands. They sign their name.
Checkout Chick: Why are you using a tape-recorder to say your password?
Thief: Errr.... I have a cold. Yeah, that's it. A cold.
Checkout Chick: Ok, like it's my problem or anything anyhow. Please enjoy all your new, easily resold wide-screen tv's.
When's the last time you met an elevator operator?
Last week, at the Takashimaya department store north of Namba in Osaka.
Why?
I'm seeing Google turning too much into a niche operator today. Most new stuff is focused on IE, the Windows platform and on US data. This may be the single largest combination of browser, OS and geography, but it is still a very small niche in the big scheme of things. Unfortunately, today google seems to focus harder onto that niche, not less.
Lots more space for nimble competitors, I guess. And at least for the precence-style apps here, like mobile maps, underground GPS, line-based chats and so on, Google doesn't exist, period.
One suggested improvement: have the reflectivity control some variable (like pitch). small/dark/further away reflector will give you a low note, and a large/bright/close one will give you a high note.