How about climate change? Modern hardware is far, far more energy efficient for the same level of performance than the ancient stuff they're using.
Compared to the energy bill for building new hardware it's most of the time more efficient to use the old hardware as long as possible. Molding silicon is one of the most energy intensive processes currently known to mankind. The only reason why we usually consider new hardware to be cheaper is that it's not produced where we use it and that there's no premium on environmental harm, but we'll pay it nevertheless.
If you're living here in Germany, which I guess from your statements
Bingo! However, it wasn't really hard - I don't know of any other country featuring no general speed limit...
since Germany won't do an "exchange" of an Australian license
I wasn't aware that they are not interchangeable. I never had a problem but I was just driving in Australia as a tourist with an international license - and I was sweating blood and tears back then because I'm not used to drive on "the wrong side". Might be a different story if you plan to stay for more than 3 months...
About your observation regarding alcohol related accidents I must mention that Germany was just ranked 2nd in an EU-wide study regarding drunk drivers. I don't remember who was first, but it was some small eastern country which joined the EU recently. The problem over here seems to be that so many people are quite well at driving in non-normal states. I don't really know if I'd like to appreciate or condemn it. One side of me says it can't be good that a huge percentage of drivers is piss drunk at any time, the other side says it works, so there's no reason to control it more than now. I've seen 2 general traffic controls in my life and I've never seen any driver who was obviously drunk. The system seems to work in the sense that most drunk people are more busy avoiding accidents and controls than driving like a madman because they feel so great. I simply don't know how to solve this problem without causing major contradiction.
For that reason cars have to be inspected every 4 years in the country I described above (yes, it's Germany - just didn't mention it because I hate to start posts with "In Germany we do it like this... and it works so much better;)"). Tires for high speeds are much more expensive and I would only sell them on request in a country featuring a very low speed limit. Since it's legal over here to drive cars at top speeds it's common to equip them with proper tires. However, those tires designed for winter pose a problem because they usually don't work so well at 180+, but people are quite aware of it and most shops put a big red badge in the cockpit after installing the tires, which says:"Don't go faster than 180km/h".
I don't want to glorify the German system - we have idiots on the street just like in any other country. Plus our system costs much more money than most others: The license alone costs more than 1000 or $1500 and cars have to be in good shape for the inspections - we export many cars to Africa because they do not pass the tests. I sometimes believe that we sacrifice too much for mobility (we are a small country and we have rather good public transport). The only reason why I think this system is exceptional is because we manage to deal with extreme speeds without any significant additional accidents compared to international statistics.
Of course it's still a distraction, but there is a big difference between looking for all the parts you need to receive a call and pushing the answer button on your steering wheel. I must also stress that the mindset (and even culture) of the driver seems to play an important role: If you compare speed limits and other restrictions on an international level you'll see that nations with stricter rules do not necessarily perform better regarding the driver/death ratio (especially the US or Australia).
The aim should be to to encourage drivers to act reasonably on their own and to provide technology which avoids as much distraction as possible. Based on personal experience* this works quite well compared to new laws.
*I'm living in one of the few countries not featuring a general speed limit. I love to cruise at 150 miles/h (240km) on the highway, but if there is anything distracting my focus (weather, my sister, an interesting radio feature about something) I'll switch to the slowest lane and try to make the best of my time. The general crowd over here seems to have a similar opinion regarding this - we have less accidents and less deaths per driver compared to the US. On the downside it takes more time and costs way more money to get a driver's license.
Or - since we are talking about regulation - let's just make Bluetooth SIM Access Profile mandatory (just realized there's no entry about it in the English wikipedia!).
I'm not too serious about passing laws requiring this, but the technology is IMO the best solution for the problem: The car has a build in cell phone and whenever you are in the car it utilizes the SIM card of your mobile phone to receive and make calls. From a safety standpoint it's great, because the user doesn't have to do anything after initial pairing. No danger of forgetting your handset or running out of battery. And no searching for the phone/handset if you haven't put everything in the right place before starting the engine*. Plus the benefit that you don't drain the cellphone's battery while talking and the reception is better in general.
*Ever headed on the highway slightly to late for work while your phone is ringing in your pocket and your headphones are under the seat and totally tangled? I'm sometimes wonder in what ideal world legislation passes laws allowing headsets;). And don't tell me it's easier with wireless headsets. Most of them require two hands to put them in the right place and you need to charge them at home, so it's more likely to forget them there.
Plus in this adult version of the game people tend to ignore that the next top terrorist will not have a profile on www.myspace.com/insaneplancehijacker/, because he/she knows that data mining exists. Legislation and the public in most western countries tends to ignore that any new countermeasures/laws will result in instant adaption on the other side.
Especially at airports I sometimes get so angry about all the silliness that I play some mind-game with the aim of blowing it all up. My current favorite is to put all kinds of fluids in my hand-luggage to distract them from my laptop. I'd simply replace the MBP's CD-Drive with C4 (and some perfectly centered metal rings to make it look like the actual bay). I'm sure it would work out. On the other hand I'm quite aware that some circumstances make it easier for me: Blond hair and no beard, terrorists use Dell;) and I know some European airports which don't even check your luggage if you have a gallon of fluids in your hand luggage (I usually realize on the security check flying back).Heathrow for example is more busy enforcing their non-smoking policy and tracking lost luggage. If you wanted to transport a nuke Heathrow would be the place to start your journey. But if you are simply looking for a pleasant flight avoid it at all costs:D
So why make music at all - there's always someone better than you, so invest your money to listen to them
For some strange reason the general discussion makes me want to point out two pieces which prove that rather limited electronic devices can be used to produce something interesting: iBand(2 iPhones and a Wii) and Escapehawaii(Gameboy samples). I wouldn't say that they are good in any regards, but they are making music we wouldn't have without technology and they have a bigger audience than the classic guitar "god" everyone knows from their neighborhood. It's not like I don't like good old hand made music (look here), but it's constantly getting harder to make something new and I can totally understand older friends who stopped buying/taping music around '78 (at least those listening to rock - no substantial progress in this field since then).
That is the result of attempting to make laws based on religious doctrines. Illogical, wacky, self-contradictory bullshit insues. Which is my whole point.
I'm not aware of any religious rule saying that 18 should be "it". Quite to the contrary: Age limits are a very modern concept. However, before I answer any of your points I really like to know what system you have in mind. Is it based on total freedom or case-by-case rules or do you think about lowering the current age? It's quite easy to criticize status-quo without providing a new perspective. In that case however it's a royal waste of time countering your argument, because there isn't much to argue about.
On the other hand anything but simplistic bureaucratic idiocy would lead to rather arbitrary definitions of what it legal regarding this issue. In general I would say that the legal age to do something should be defined by what works for a country or society. For example it was perfectly legal for me to buy cigarettes or beer when I was 16. This system seems to work *for us* because statistics show that we don't have more alcoholics or smokers than countries with stricter rules.
I'd argue that CP is in a different league: There is a global market for pictures/movies showing underage teens naked or performing sex. If it was legal there would be a higher incentive to produce said content, resulting in more underaged involved. Just for this reason there has to be a global consensus regarding minimal age. Otherwise some nations would deliberately set the barrier lower in order to drive their exports up.
Furthermore I believe that 18 is a quite low barrier for porn based on the mental state of the participants. The older I get the more I'm convinced that young people don't have a clue what they are doing;)
For some reason the UK is doing quite well regarding 1984'ish scenarios. Quite related: I'm more afraid of the government than some random guy in the train reading the Quran out loud - if this guy blows it all up my brain will be in parts before I can notice. Various governments in the western world on the other hand sell oppression as another layer of security. I just went to Denmark and they checked all liquids I brought along just to tell me that I have to carry them in plastic bags separately so they can look at them. Sometimes I'm planning to blow the next plane just to prove how ridiculous it really is. Just replace the DVD drive with C4 and watch them looking for perfume while you get your gear going. I'm not saying that it's easy to do, but if you really want to it's piece of cake.
Ok, there are ways around it as long as there are still drivers from the original vendor (custom install disks, modified device id and so on). I didn't want to say that it's impossible. But it's getting harder and harder and in the not so distant future there won't be XP drivers for some new chipsets/peripherals. For that reason I would not recommend anyone preferring XP to wait for the next months to purchase a new laptop.
To wo0rk around this you can get the raid drivers for the MB Manufacture to be able to see the drive or alternatively you can image the drive using all sorts of ways and insert the drive back in and 90% of the time it has worked perfectly fine for me.
How can RAID drivers help me if I'm using a laptop? 99% of laptops don't feature raid...
Nevertheless I like the idea. I'll keep it in mind in case friends of me want to downgrade. Instead of imaging one could also install on a desktop PC and swap the disks afterwards, do you have any experience with this?
Well over here in the UK, they do just that. Granted they've been forced to by government legislation, but nevertheless, you can't buy a packet of cigarettes with a message on it saying you're going to die horribly, or something similar.
I believe that's EU legislation - they all look the same and have the same messages in the EU countries I've been to recently (ok, in the UK I didn't even think about buying cigarettes, so I can't tell). Some of them are quite pointless: The pack in front of me says "Smoking is highly addictive. Don't start" (translated from German). It's not like I noticed during the ten years I've smoked;)
Since I'm already way-ot: There are also subtle differences in the translations. In Germany and Spain there's one saying "Smoking can kill" (Rauchen kann tödlich sein, Fumar puede matar). Other countries prefer "Smoking does kill" (if I remember Poland has the latter warning).
I don't think they are of much use compared to education programs or advertisements. But this law doesn't cost much and I think that they might prevent a few people from starting. For that reason alone I won't complain. Of course the packs looked nicer before they had one third covert with something looking like a letter of condolence, but what do I care, as long as they contain cigarettes...
If you want to run XP on a new laptop you are already in trouble: Many new chipsets and peripherals don't work on XP because manufacturers don't bother to write drivers for it anymore - they just ship their laptops with Vista. For example the popular Santa Rosa platform seems to cause problems when installing XP - it's very common that XP can't find the hdd. So if you are not planning to buy a low-budget laptop, you are mostly limited to Vista
Ironically it works fine on my Macbook. Boot Camp comes with all the drivers.
Yeah, but even Apple still writes some stuff in Carbon
Yes, there are some unimportant apps still using Carbon. iTunes comes to mind;)
Personally I don't care that much about 64-Bit. I would prefer efforts to reduce the startup times of the apps coming with the CS package. It's not as bad as Office 2008 (which sometimes takes more time to load on Intel than its ppc predecessor), but I expected more from native apps.
If you think it's currently a bad combination of colors you might want to look at this picture of a 90's phone booth in Germany (the one on the right). Back in the 90's everything they produced was magenta and grey. A very bad choice from an aesthetic point of view - on the other hand it really stands out, which seems to be very desirable for a company. Since magenta is their core color they can't simply change it, but at least they replaced grey with white and don't cover huge areas with pink anymore.
Sad but true. Instead of posting one really amazing april fool's they do many very obvious ones.
My favorite computer magazine on the other hand prints one very obscure and technical joke every year. It takes me a few hours of reading to find it and they are really good at convincing me that it's for real (not because I'm dumb, but it's usually at the end of the magazine and it covers a very geeky topic). One of my favorites is a story about a new video codec requiring less storage because the facial gestures of famous actors are stored in separate files. They even described the syntax of the fictional CLI-tools for encoding. I was really convinced of the idea until page 3 when they started contemplating about the possibilities to replace actors in movies based on said files. Another story was about GPS-like localisation obtained from SMART enabled HDDs (SMART was really new back then). Anyways, this magazine makes it even worthwhile to look for the joke, which is the very opposite of what most websites do...
That's why the "ugly" ones are usually quite smart - on parties I approach them if I'm looking for an intelligent conversion. It's kind of harsh to put it this way, but ugly people have to find a way to stay in the gene-pool somehow, so they have a better incentive to read books or question common sense for example. It sounds horrible, but it's just another layer of natural selection and there's no way to deny it.
On the other hand I know some intelligent and beautiful women who question their success all the time because they think it's just for their looks or for being the only female in their particular field. I don't know if we'll ever find a suitable solution for this gender-related problem, but I can attest that we are quite far away from it.
In case the cupboard doesn't produce good results you can also try the following: Place the floodlight right next to a blank wall and light the wall from the bottom. Depending on room size and layout it can produce very good results. Hardware stores sell models designed to stand on the floor. If money (and nature) didn't matter I'd have a couple of them in use.
Well, I was not aware you where looking for a light like the one I described in my original post.
It's very similar to this light. The only difference is that it's on a 2 meter stand. I made 2 pictures so you can check what it looks like: The first is the light itself and the second shows the wall at the other side. Sorry for the quality, I'm too lazy to use a decent camera...
Then I have good news for you: Over here people say: "3 beers is like one steak". My only concern is that I feel kind of different after 3 beers at lunch. Coming to think of it I never had 3 before the evening - even one makes me sleepy during daytime...
To add another point against such studies: They don't investigate cause and effect, they simply say that scientists consuming beer will produce worse/better results. Let's assume I love beer (right) but I don't drink any because I fear the consequences of alcohol consumption (wrong). Of course people can argue that my consumption will have an impact on the work I do*. But my opinion about alcohol consumption also says something about my personality - I love to do things which are not in my best interest and I'm quite confident that it influences my approach to work-problems regardless of beer consumption. So if I turn into a beer loving but non-drinking scientist I might cause the same results statistically.
In my opinion this study says as much as the "Cat owners are less likely to get cancer" study - a fun-fact, but it's not the cat's impact on my body reducing the risk. I won't reduce the probability of getting cancer by buying a cat...
*Within limits of course. Won't argue that it will make a difference if I drink excessively.
Playing the devil's advocate here: Imagine some random catholic guy would declare a religious war against some countries. Guess how fast the pope would excommunicate him...
I know that christianity doesn't serve as a great example of peaceful co-existence or moderate behavior, but having central leadership really helps to temper extreme wings. I'm not catholic and don't approve many things the pope says, but my church is organized in a similar fashion (just more presentation and more people at the top) - if I turn into a religious nutjob they will expel me right away, thereby diminishing my authority among other believers of my religion.
I don't want to judge Islam in any way - and even if I wanted to I can't cover all major variants in a general statement. There are too many and they feature very different qualities. I can't even say if it's bad that they are so loosely organized. All I'm saying is that it's a massive problem for the western world that pretty much everyone* with respect in their muslim community can pronounce a fatwah or teach his special interpretation of islam. It also makes a dialogue between religions much harder.
Ok, some muslim countries are very organized regarding religion (Turkey, Saudi Arabia...), but those denominations function like a state religion. Very easy to use for political purposes and very likely to produce "underground" doctrines if people are not happy with the official course. Turkey seems to have a very stable system - they even send teachers to schools in Europe if they have lots of Turkish immigrants. If there was any doubt about their integrity I'm sure that no country in Europe would allow such teachers. The Wahhab-denomination based in KSA on the other hand seems to be a constant source of radicals. I didn't want to point with a finger, but check the religious background of most hijackers in this decade if you are interested.
At california prices you'd be paying at minimum about.20 an hour to use it. If its in a room thats used frequently you are probably paying about 10 bucks a month to use it. The price of a typical Satellite radio service.
Even worse, I currently pay around $0.30/kWh (yes, I'm not in the states). The idea to use CFLs isn't bad - I wasn't aware that 100 W models are available. I'll definitely consider them. But as long as I keep the halogen I simply blame the room;) Seriously, it's not easy to light a room which is 11 feet high. And since there are two big paintings in it I'm not willing to make too much compromise. Maybe a combination of halogen spots for the paintings and a slightly yellow CFL close to the ceiling would do the job. Now I only have to think about something to "hide" the CFL from direct sight.
I never understood why there's no popular version featuring a slightly yellow coloration. It's a very simple solution to a very simple problem. Of course it would cost some efficiency, but still better if it makes more people switch from ordinary bulbs.
Right now I only use fluorescent bulbs in the basement and some places where everybody forgets to turn the light off - usually places where it doesn't matter what someone/something looks like. But still I have around 2000 W of light running in the evenings, even though my house isn't really a big place. I just love my old 80's halogen lamp pointing to the ceiling, thereby providing warm, indirect light in the entire room. This lamp sucks 1000 W alone. I would replace it if it wasn't for the fact that no other light source is able to fill this particular room with light in a better way (better as in more pleasing to the eye). I don't blame LED or fluorescent for not being able to provide similar light - it's simply because they work differently than halogen or normal light bulbs. But I think the manufacturers could do a lot more to make their products resemble the warmth and density of traditional electric light-sources. Heck even bulbs heating carbon wires are still available on the market - they were state of the art over hundred years ago and some people still buy them for their friendly red glow. They were replaced by carbon wires because they were easier to manufacture and way more efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
About your observation regarding alcohol related accidents I must mention that Germany was just ranked 2nd in an EU-wide study regarding drunk drivers. I don't remember who was first, but it was some small eastern country which joined the EU recently. The problem over here seems to be that so many people are quite well at driving in non-normal states. I don't really know if I'd like to appreciate or condemn it. One side of me says it can't be good that a huge percentage of drivers is piss drunk at any time, the other side says it works, so there's no reason to control it more than now. I've seen 2 general traffic controls in my life and I've never seen any driver who was obviously drunk. The system seems to work in the sense that most drunk people are more busy avoiding accidents and controls than driving like a madman because they feel so great. I simply don't know how to solve this problem without causing major contradiction.
For that reason cars have to be inspected every 4 years in the country I described above (yes, it's Germany - just didn't mention it because I hate to start posts with "In Germany we do it like this... and it works so much better ;)"). Tires for high speeds are much more expensive and I would only sell them on request in a country featuring a very low speed limit. Since it's legal over here to drive cars at top speeds it's common to equip them with proper tires.
However, those tires designed for winter pose a problem because they usually don't work so well at 180+, but people are quite aware of it and most shops put a big red badge in the cockpit after installing the tires, which says:"Don't go faster than 180km/h".
I don't want to glorify the German system - we have idiots on the street just like in any other country. Plus our system costs much more money than most others: The license alone costs more than 1000 or $1500 and cars have to be in good shape for the inspections - we export many cars to Africa because they do not pass the tests. I sometimes believe that we sacrifice too much for mobility (we are a small country and we have rather good public transport). The only reason why I think this system is exceptional is because we manage to deal with extreme speeds without any significant additional accidents compared to international statistics.
Of course it's still a distraction, but there is a big difference between looking for all the parts you need to receive a call and pushing the answer button on your steering wheel. I must also stress that the mindset (and even culture) of the driver seems to play an important role: If you compare speed limits and other restrictions on an international level you'll see that nations with stricter rules do not necessarily perform better regarding the driver/death ratio (especially the US or Australia).
The aim should be to to encourage drivers to act reasonably on their own and to provide technology which avoids as much distraction as possible. Based on personal experience* this works quite well compared to new laws.
*I'm living in one of the few countries not featuring a general speed limit. I love to cruise at 150 miles/h (240km) on the highway, but if there is anything distracting my focus (weather, my sister, an interesting radio feature about something) I'll switch to the slowest lane and try to make the best of my time. The general crowd over here seems to have a similar opinion regarding this - we have less accidents and less deaths per driver compared to the US. On the downside it takes more time and costs way more money to get a driver's license.
Or - since we are talking about regulation - let's just make Bluetooth SIM Access Profile mandatory (just realized there's no entry about it in the English wikipedia!).
;). And don't tell me it's easier with wireless headsets. Most of them require two hands to put them in the right place and you need to charge them at home, so it's more likely to forget them there.
I'm not too serious about passing laws requiring this, but the technology is IMO the best solution for the problem: The car has a build in cell phone and whenever you are in the car it utilizes the SIM card of your mobile phone to receive and make calls. From a safety standpoint it's great, because the user doesn't have to do anything after initial pairing. No danger of forgetting your handset or running out of battery. And no searching for the phone/handset if you haven't put everything in the right place before starting the engine*.
Plus the benefit that you don't drain the cellphone's battery while talking and the reception is better in general.
*Ever headed on the highway slightly to late for work while your phone is ringing in your pocket and your headphones are under the seat and totally tangled? I'm sometimes wonder in what ideal world legislation passes laws allowing headsets
Plus in this adult version of the game people tend to ignore that the next top terrorist will not have a profile on www.myspace.com/insaneplancehijacker/, because he/she knows that data mining exists. Legislation and the public in most western countries tends to ignore that any new countermeasures/laws will result in instant adaption on the other side.
;) and I know some European airports which don't even check your luggage if you have a gallon of fluids in your hand luggage (I usually realize on the security check flying back).Heathrow for example is more busy enforcing their non-smoking policy and tracking lost luggage. If you wanted to transport a nuke Heathrow would be the place to start your journey. But if you are simply looking for a pleasant flight avoid it at all costs :D
Especially at airports I sometimes get so angry about all the silliness that I play some mind-game with the aim of blowing it all up. My current favorite is to put all kinds of fluids in my hand-luggage to distract them from my laptop. I'd simply replace the MBP's CD-Drive with C4 (and some perfectly centered metal rings to make it look like the actual bay). I'm sure it would work out.
On the other hand I'm quite aware that some circumstances make it easier for me: Blond hair and no beard, terrorists use Dell
So why make music at all - there's always someone better than you, so invest your money to listen to them
For some strange reason the general discussion makes me want to point out two pieces which prove that rather limited electronic devices can be used to produce something interesting: iBand(2 iPhones and a Wii) and Escapehawaii(Gameboy samples). I wouldn't say that they are good in any regards, but they are making music we wouldn't have without technology and they have a bigger audience than the classic guitar "god" everyone knows from their neighborhood. It's not like I don't like good old hand made music (look here), but it's constantly getting harder to make something new and I can totally understand older friends who stopped buying/taping music around '78 (at least those listening to rock - no substantial progress in this field since then).
On the other hand anything but simplistic bureaucratic idiocy would lead to rather arbitrary definitions of what it legal regarding this issue. In general I would say that the legal age to do something should be defined by what works for a country or society. For example it was perfectly legal for me to buy cigarettes or beer when I was 16. This system seems to work *for us* because statistics show that we don't have more alcoholics or smokers than countries with stricter rules.
;)
I'd argue that CP is in a different league: There is a global market for pictures/movies showing underage teens naked or performing sex. If it was legal there would be a higher incentive to produce said content, resulting in more underaged involved. Just for this reason there has to be a global consensus regarding minimal age. Otherwise some nations would deliberately set the barrier lower in order to drive their exports up.
Furthermore I believe that 18 is a quite low barrier for porn based on the mental state of the participants. The older I get the more I'm convinced that young people don't have a clue what they are doing
For some reason the UK is doing quite well regarding 1984'ish scenarios. Quite related: I'm more afraid of the government than some random guy in the train reading the Quran out loud - if this guy blows it all up my brain will be in parts before I can notice. Various governments in the western world on the other hand sell oppression as another layer of security. I just went to Denmark and they checked all liquids I brought along just to tell me that I have to carry them in plastic bags separately so they can look at them. Sometimes I'm planning to blow the next plane just to prove how ridiculous it really is. Just replace the DVD drive with C4 and watch them looking for perfume while you get your gear going. I'm not saying that it's easy to do, but if you really want to it's piece of cake.
Nevertheless I like the idea. I'll keep it in mind in case friends of me want to downgrade. Instead of imaging one could also install on a desktop PC and swap the disks afterwards, do you have any experience with this?
Since I'm already way-ot: There are also subtle differences in the translations. In Germany and Spain there's one saying "Smoking can kill" (Rauchen kann tödlich sein, Fumar puede matar). Other countries prefer "Smoking does kill" (if I remember Poland has the latter warning).
I don't think they are of much use compared to education programs or advertisements. But this law doesn't cost much and I think that they might prevent a few people from starting. For that reason alone I won't complain. Of course the packs looked nicer before they had one third covert with something looking like a letter of condolence, but what do I care, as long as they contain cigarettes...
If you want to run XP on a new laptop you are already in trouble: Many new chipsets and peripherals don't work on XP because manufacturers don't bother to write drivers for it anymore - they just ship their laptops with Vista. For example the popular Santa Rosa platform seems to cause problems when installing XP - it's very common that XP can't find the hdd. So if you are not planning to buy a low-budget laptop, you are mostly limited to Vista
Ironically it works fine on my Macbook. Boot Camp comes with all the drivers.
Personally I don't care that much about 64-Bit. I would prefer efforts to reduce the startup times of the apps coming with the CS package. It's not as bad as Office 2008 (which sometimes takes more time to load on Intel than its ppc predecessor), but I expected more from native apps.
If you think it's currently a bad combination of colors you might want to look at this picture of a 90's phone booth in Germany (the one on the right). Back in the 90's everything they produced was magenta and grey. A very bad choice from an aesthetic point of view - on the other hand it really stands out, which seems to be very desirable for a company. Since magenta is their core color they can't simply change it, but at least they replaced grey with white and don't cover huge areas with pink anymore.
Sad but true. Instead of posting one really amazing april fool's they do many very obvious ones.
My favorite computer magazine on the other hand prints one very obscure and technical joke every year. It takes me a few hours of reading to find it and they are really good at convincing me that it's for real (not because I'm dumb, but it's usually at the end of the magazine and it covers a very geeky topic). One of my favorites is a story about a new video codec requiring less storage because the facial gestures of famous actors are stored in separate files. They even described the syntax of the fictional CLI-tools for encoding. I was really convinced of the idea until page 3 when they started contemplating about the possibilities to replace actors in movies based on said files. Another story was about GPS-like localisation obtained from SMART enabled HDDs (SMART was really new back then). Anyways, this magazine makes it even worthwhile to look for the joke, which is the very opposite of what most websites do...
On the other hand I know some intelligent and beautiful women who question their success all the time because they think it's just for their looks or for being the only female in their particular field. I don't know if we'll ever find a suitable solution for this gender-related problem, but I can attest that we are quite far away from it.
In case the cupboard doesn't produce good results you can also try the following: Place the floodlight right next to a blank wall and light the wall from the bottom. Depending on room size and layout it can produce very good results. Hardware stores sell models designed to stand on the floor. If money (and nature) didn't matter I'd have a couple of them in use.
Well, I was not aware you where looking for a light like the one I described in my original post.
It's very similar to this light. The only difference is that it's on a 2 meter stand. I made 2 pictures so you can check what it looks like: The first is the light itself and the second shows the wall at the other side. Sorry for the quality, I'm too lazy to use a decent camera...
Then I have good news for you: Over here people say: "3 beers is like one steak". My only concern is that I feel kind of different after 3 beers at lunch. Coming to think of it I never had 3 before the evening - even one makes me sleepy during daytime...
To add another point against such studies: They don't investigate cause and effect, they simply say that scientists consuming beer will produce worse/better results. Let's assume I love beer (right) but I don't drink any because I fear the consequences of alcohol consumption (wrong). Of course people can argue that my consumption will have an impact on the work I do*. But my opinion about alcohol consumption also says something about my personality - I love to do things which are not in my best interest and I'm quite confident that it influences my approach to work-problems regardless of beer consumption. So if I turn into a beer loving but non-drinking scientist I might cause the same results statistically.
In my opinion this study says as much as the "Cat owners are less likely to get cancer" study - a fun-fact, but it's not the cat's impact on my body reducing the risk. I won't reduce the probability of getting cancer by buying a cat...
*Within limits of course. Won't argue that it will make a difference if I drink excessively.
Playing the devil's advocate here: Imagine some random catholic guy would declare a religious war against some countries. Guess how fast the pope would excommunicate him...
I know that christianity doesn't serve as a great example of peaceful co-existence or moderate behavior, but having central leadership really helps to temper extreme wings. I'm not catholic and don't approve many things the pope says, but my church is organized in a similar fashion (just more presentation and more people at the top) - if I turn into a religious nutjob they will expel me right away, thereby diminishing my authority among other believers of my religion.
I don't want to judge Islam in any way - and even if I wanted to I can't cover all major variants in a general statement. There are too many and they feature very different qualities. I can't even say if it's bad that they are so loosely organized. All I'm saying is that it's a massive problem for the western world that pretty much everyone* with respect in their muslim community can pronounce a fatwah or teach his special interpretation of islam. It also makes a dialogue between religions much harder.
Ok, some muslim countries are very organized regarding religion (Turkey, Saudi Arabia...), but those denominations function like a state religion. Very easy to use for political purposes and very likely to produce "underground" doctrines if people are not happy with the official course. Turkey seems to have a very stable system - they even send teachers to schools in Europe if they have lots of Turkish immigrants. If there was any doubt about their integrity I'm sure that no country in Europe would allow such teachers. The Wahhab-denomination based in KSA on the other hand seems to be a constant source of radicals. I didn't want to point with a finger, but check the religious background of most hijackers in this decade if you are interested.
I'm sorry, but you asked the wrong guy - I'm currently living in Berlin and I buy everything regarding light in stores...
Seriously, it's not easy to light a room which is 11 feet high. And since there are two big paintings in it I'm not willing to make too much compromise. Maybe a combination of halogen spots for the paintings and a slightly yellow CFL close to the ceiling would do the job. Now I only have to think about something to "hide" the CFL from direct sight.
I never understood why there's no popular version featuring a slightly yellow coloration. It's a very simple solution to a very simple problem. Of course it would cost some efficiency, but still better if it makes more people switch from ordinary bulbs.
Right now I only use fluorescent bulbs in the basement and some places where everybody forgets to turn the light off - usually places where it doesn't matter what someone/something looks like. But still I have around 2000 W of light running in the evenings, even though my house isn't really a big place. I just love my old 80's halogen lamp pointing to the ceiling, thereby providing warm, indirect light in the entire room. This lamp sucks 1000 W alone. I would replace it if it wasn't for the fact that no other light source is able to fill this particular room with light in a better way (better as in more pleasing to the eye). I don't blame LED or fluorescent for not being able to provide similar light - it's simply because they work differently than halogen or normal light bulbs. But I think the manufacturers could do a lot more to make their products resemble the warmth and density of traditional electric light-sources. Heck even bulbs heating carbon wires are still available on the market - they were state of the art over hundred years ago and some people still buy them for their friendly red glow. They were replaced by carbon wires because they were easier to manufacture and way more efficient.