It has become standard procedure for Indulgence seeking corporations to make a contribution to a charity that epitomizes the principal to which they are now committed. I suggest Pepsi might want to give the International Dark-Sky Society the same amount of money they paid for the balloon "demonstration" they don't plan to repeat.
I was just trying to think of a way to reduce the nagging feeling that I still need to forgo that cool, wet, sparkling Pepsi taste.
This might not go over as well as they think. People are kind of tired of corporations thinking they own everything. I can imagine children interested in science finding it offensive rather that cool. Pepsi has a lot of different products that could be boycotted. I run a planetarium, and I can imagine the shows I could do on light pollution, having a great big orbting billboard to point to as an example of BAD. Right now, everybody has too many bright lights. Nobody's head stands head and shoulders above the rest as offensive. But when Pepsi puts their name on a billboard, I have a bad guy to memorialize forever. It'd be terrible, but it'd be great for Pepsi to bring a whole world of opinion down upon their head as enemies of the night sky.
Your complaints about fill down are right on. (And I wondered what happened to "fill right".) Furthermore, have you tried simply scrolling through an Excel spreadsheet? It used to be that you'd press the down arrow, and the focus cell would move down ward in a predictable, one cell at a time, visual sequence. Now the page blinks, flies down x-hundred cells, and stops randomly. You really get the idea that Microsoft wants Excel to seem futile and irrelevant. And by the way, the ribbons still really, really suck.
Well, what these companies typically do is make the changes that alienate larger and larger fractions of their old customers (e.g., Ebay). Investors then accept whatever the resulting growth rate is. They accept that rate because it's the maximum they can have. And psychologically, that's all they really want: the maximum. The actual growth rate is what it is, and their greedy little minds accept that. Then everyone quits talking about that particular company. They just click along making all the money that they can make. As long as they are still profitable, all is well.
I kind of hope the court gets it "right" this time and declares APIs completely and totally protected. Then, when everything comes tumbling around our ears, it'll be obvious that everything Congress has ever written in regard to intellectual property is vague and essentially meaningless.
The Slate article is worth reading. Scandal 1: The lying, conscienceless lab workers and the short (2 and 3 year) prison terms they received for their crimes, compared to those they convicted. Scandal 2: The Massachusetts State Attorney General that knew they were using falsified evidence and covered it up. Scandal 3: Each of the wrongly convicted 30,000 to 60,000 individual prisoners has to hire an attorney to fight for his own release. Which is difficult to do without any sort of income. Scandal 4: The feds have the same problem on the same scale with hair evidence analysis that is based on non-existent science. Scandal 5: Others states have similar issues.
This kind of study is hard on the deniers because it begins moving them toward Flat Earth Society status. In a democracy, the minority just doesn't matter very much once the majority has made up its mind. They stop being a part of the conversation. The only way they will be able to get back into the conversation is to start drawing lines in the sand saying what they will and will not give up. And that will be a good thing. We need to start talking about the tradeoffs that we will have to make.
I already pay a cable box fee for each TV and a fee for a cable modem. (By the way, it's only by the grace of regulation that I am allowed to rent a cable card for my Tivo.) I guess they could start metering TV by the minute or charging us for the bandwidth we "consume" watching Jon Stewart. I like the idea of not paying for ESPN; not just because I don't watch it, but also because it would reduce the power of the sports industrial complex.
First of all, you need to make sure that the lenses you have are properly fitted. Buying progressive lenses is a bit of a minefield because they are much more sensitive to the incorrect placement of the optical center. I went through two years of hell until I stopped going to optometrists (who made their progressives in the back room on a lens molding machine) and went to an ophthalmologist who knew how to fit them properly. If you feel like the focus point is too small, you probably have a fit issue.
Once I got properly fitted, I then discovered there are differences between brands of progressives. I ended up buying Varilux Physio 360. They had a much wider field of view than the more standard lens my doctor liked. (He is a smart guy, but old. He recommends the same lens that he is used to, which he first started wearing back in the 70's).
But even they were inadequate or computer/office use. The head has to tilt back too much. For office work, you want to buy a progressive specifically made for the office. They are often called "office lenses" Shamir makes a good one they call an "occupational lens". (http://www.shamirlens.com)
They cost a lot of money, but anyone who has spent the money will tell you it is worth it.
Can they also put a switch in this to make Office usable? I can't stand that fucking ribbon interface that makes everything I used to do the most often 5 times more difficult.
Yep. The ribbon still sucks. It's funny how Microsoft wants me to buy new products, but wants to berate me for my preferences.
I was answering wisnoskij who couldn't believe that the Air Force didn't have a redundant launch capability. They do. It's called Delta IV. And yes, it may cost more. Partially because the Russian engine was artificially inexpensive. And partially because Delta IV's LOX/H2 is less dense than LOX/RP-1, and requires more machined metal tankage to put a payload in orbit.
There is a redundant system. It's called Delta IV. That's why we have two booster systems; to assure US access to space. The news media seems to not understand this.
Sometimes it seems that engineers have the lowest power to education ratio of any profession in the US. Lawyers and bean counters seem to spend their days making sure that any good that might be done by engineers is preemptively neutralized.
I am saying that global warming has been established as a fact and should no longer be argued. If you want to argue that the rational policy is to do nothing, then argue it. But you have to do three things. You have to make some effort to quantify the costs associated with doing nothing. Then you have to look at possible solutions and quantify their costs. Then you have to compare those costs. Deniers are people who won't do the first thing; admit there are any costs associated with doing nothing.
Why do we let the deniers control the conversation? We need to ignore them and figure out what we need to do about global warming. Should we turn off half the streetlights? All the streetlights? Or would we rather go without air conditioning?
How will a "free" society that has optimized itself for blind consumerism re-optimize itself for intelligent consumption? Can it even hope to do such a thing? Or do we all agree that there is nothing that can be done collectively?
Slashdot Mirror
It has become standard procedure for Indulgence seeking corporations to make a contribution to a charity that epitomizes the principal to which they are now committed. I suggest Pepsi might want to give the International Dark-Sky Society the same amount of money they paid for the balloon "demonstration" they don't plan to repeat. I was just trying to think of a way to reduce the nagging feeling that I still need to forgo that cool, wet, sparkling Pepsi taste.
This might not go over as well as they think. People are kind of tired of corporations thinking they own everything. I can imagine children interested in science finding it offensive rather that cool. Pepsi has a lot of different products that could be boycotted. I run a planetarium, and I can imagine the shows I could do on light pollution, having a great big orbting billboard to point to as an example of BAD. Right now, everybody has too many bright lights. Nobody's head stands head and shoulders above the rest as offensive. But when Pepsi puts their name on a billboard, I have a bad guy to memorialize forever. It'd be terrible, but it'd be great for Pepsi to bring a whole world of opinion down upon their head as enemies of the night sky.
Your complaints about fill down are right on. (And I wondered what happened to "fill right".) Furthermore, have you tried simply scrolling through an Excel spreadsheet? It used to be that you'd press the down arrow, and the focus cell would move down ward in a predictable, one cell at a time, visual sequence. Now the page blinks, flies down x-hundred cells, and stops randomly. You really get the idea that Microsoft wants Excel to seem futile and irrelevant. And by the way, the ribbons still really, really suck.
The Ribbon: We still hate it, after all these years.
Such an interesting point.
That show, Better off Ted, was great.
Well, what these companies typically do is make the changes that alienate larger and larger fractions of their old customers (e.g., Ebay). Investors then accept whatever the resulting growth rate is. They accept that rate because it's the maximum they can have. And psychologically, that's all they really want: the maximum. The actual growth rate is what it is, and their greedy little minds accept that. Then everyone quits talking about that particular company. They just click along making all the money that they can make. As long as they are still profitable, all is well.
Hilarious. (No mod points today, so I have to praise manually.)
I kind of hope the court gets it "right" this time and declares APIs completely and totally protected. Then, when everything comes tumbling around our ears, it'll be obvious that everything Congress has ever written in regard to intellectual property is vague and essentially meaningless.
You need a fire in the belly to go to the moon. When it comes to the moon, the Russians don't have it.
The Slate article is worth reading. Scandal 1: The lying, conscienceless lab workers and the short (2 and 3 year) prison terms they received for their crimes, compared to those they convicted. Scandal 2: The Massachusetts State Attorney General that knew they were using falsified evidence and covered it up. Scandal 3: Each of the wrongly convicted 30,000 to 60,000 individual prisoners has to hire an attorney to fight for his own release. Which is difficult to do without any sort of income. Scandal 4: The feds have the same problem on the same scale with hair evidence analysis that is based on non-existent science. Scandal 5: Others states have similar issues.
So I went into the AVG control center, turned link scanner off, reloaded the page, and now it's letting me read it.
This kind of study is hard on the deniers because it begins moving them toward Flat Earth Society status. In a democracy, the minority just doesn't matter very much once the majority has made up its mind. They stop being a part of the conversation. The only way they will be able to get back into the conversation is to start drawing lines in the sand saying what they will and will not give up. And that will be a good thing. We need to start talking about the tradeoffs that we will have to make.
I already pay a cable box fee for each TV and a fee for a cable modem. (By the way, it's only by the grace of regulation that I am allowed to rent a cable card for my Tivo.) I guess they could start metering TV by the minute or charging us for the bandwidth we "consume" watching Jon Stewart.
I like the idea of not paying for ESPN; not just because I don't watch it, but also because it would reduce the power of the sports industrial complex.
Once I got properly fitted, I then discovered there are differences between brands of progressives. I ended up buying Varilux Physio 360. They had a much wider field of view than the more standard lens my doctor liked. (He is a smart guy, but old. He recommends the same lens that he is used to, which he first started wearing back in the 70's).
But even they were inadequate or computer/office use. The head has to tilt back too much. For office work, you want to buy a progressive specifically made for the office. They are often called "office lenses" Shamir makes a good one they call an "occupational lens". (http://www.shamirlens.com)
They cost a lot of money, but anyone who has spent the money will tell you it is worth it.
That's what I'd call it.
Can they also put a switch in this to make Office usable? I can't stand that fucking ribbon interface that makes everything I used to do the most often 5 times more difficult.
Yep. The ribbon still sucks. It's funny how Microsoft wants me to buy new products, but wants to berate me for my preferences.
I don't get how you can talk about incarceration at all in this context. Once you block someone's internet, their ability to "infringe" is over.
I was answering wisnoskij who couldn't believe that the Air Force didn't have a redundant launch capability. They do. It's called Delta IV. And yes, it may cost more. Partially because the Russian engine was artificially inexpensive. And partially because Delta IV's LOX/H2 is less dense than LOX/RP-1, and requires more machined metal tankage to put a payload in orbit.
There is a redundant system. It's called Delta IV. That's why we have two booster systems; to assure US access to space. The news media seems to not understand this.
Sometimes it seems that engineers have the lowest power to education ratio of any profession in the US. Lawyers and bean counters seem to spend their days making sure that any good that might be done by engineers is preemptively neutralized.
I am saying that global warming has been established as a fact and should no longer be argued. If you want to argue that the rational policy is to do nothing, then argue it. But you have to do three things. You have to make some effort to quantify the costs associated with doing nothing. Then you have to look at possible solutions and quantify their costs. Then you have to compare those costs. Deniers are people who won't do the first thing; admit there are any costs associated with doing nothing.
Why do we let the deniers control the conversation? We need to ignore them and figure out what we need to do about global warming. Should we turn off half the streetlights? All the streetlights? Or would we rather go without air conditioning? How will a "free" society that has optimized itself for blind consumerism re-optimize itself for intelligent consumption? Can it even hope to do such a thing? Or do we all agree that there is nothing that can be done collectively?
Darn it. That is interesting.
No prior art here. A completely unique idea. I hand it to Apple for inventing the bayonet mount- on a computer.