Ironic. You imply that the person that wants to stay on the road is sad. I know when I take a road trip, I don't need to choke down a snack since I actually have people to take road trips with. I can leisurely eat a meal in the passenger seat while the other driver takes over driving. I also like to take my stops at places that I would actually enjoy being instead of hanging out at a gas station. Maybe if you actually made contact with other humans, you might understand and stop projecting your sorrow onto other people.
Pretty much everyone, whether they realize it or not. It is sad, but most people see cars as a giant toy instead of the heavy machinery that it is. Just look at 95% of car commercials. They stress how much fun it is to drive. They brag about how the cars are inspired by race cars. They show them doing all sorts of dangerous things.
Once in a while you get a commercial that focuses on efficiency or comfort, but the majority are all about speed and power. I'm with you. I would much rather see them make concept cars that are cutting edge and extreme in practicality.
I have found that the not "overly privileged" don't know how to live on a budget. They just tell themselves that they do. I have been poor. Your comment is right in there with the people who say that they can't pay off their credit cards because they are poor, so they keep the cards maxed out, pay off a little each month, and then recharge the amount they paid off.
If you put $5 of gas into your empty tank, you will be able to drive $5 worth of distance. If you put $5 of gas into your mostly full tank and drive $5 distance, you have traveled the same distance and spent the same amount of money. Being poor was hard. I didn't like it, but even then I would watch other poor people rationalize why being poor made their self destructive habits a requirement.
No, people who take jobs as human shields and then complain that they get an arrow or two are the dicks. This includes telemarketers, collection agency thugs, receptionists for disreputable businesses, and anyone else who is acting as the mouthpiece for unscrupulous businesses.
Yep. I had a pal I was with that was ticketed for not stopping at a stop sign. When asked how he could have seen my pal's car given that there was a field between them where the weeds were 1 1/2 feet higher than the height of my friends car, the cop's answer was "I don't know, but i did." The ticket was upheld, as that was apparently good enough for the judge.
Not me. I could do with more. I am at my healthiest when my diet is almost entirely carnivorous. Particularly with a lot of fat in the diet. As I start adding more vegetation to my diet, I gain weight and have less energy. Unfortunately, being a carnivore in our society is really difficult to do.
"Hide the decline" refers to the fact that temperatures inferred from tree ring sizes in the last couple decades haven't matched actual temperature readings (possibly because of other human influence on tree growth). When presenting tree ring data, they replace very recent data with actual temps, usually using a different color or something to indicate that it has been swapped out.
I have always had a problem with this explanation. The problem is that what you just said doesn't explain why "Hide the decline" isn't relevant. It just acknowledges that the decline was hidden, and comes to the conclusion that obviously the data is correct because it was manipulated.
If you propose that tree rings are a good proxy for temperature, and upon testing, you find that the proxy doesn't match the actual data, you better have a good reason not to toss the whole thing out. Saying "Well, we just changed the data for the time we can actually verify and kept the data that we can't verify." is not a valid way to do science.
When presenting tree ring data, they replace very recent data with actual temps,
Think about what you wrote here. It should raise flags.
An electric blanket will be no more dangerous than a light bulb and the reliability is at least a magnitude higher. You also won't wast energy on that wasteful light. Needing incandescent lights as a heat source is pure rationalization.
Your confusion on drivers is that you are under the impression that drivers written for Windows 3.1,95,XP will work on Windows 7. Linux has drivers for more software because most of the drivers can be, and more of the are, updated to work on each new version of Linux. Where as with Windows, the manufacturers frequently don't bring their drivers forward to new versions of Windows, so the hardware is not compatible with Windows 7.
You would be wrong. I have 3 XP systems running running in my home. All three are up to date. One is a nettop that my son uses for car trips. It plays movies fine, and most games from GOG run just fine on it. One is an Acer Revo that is used as an HTPC, and one runs on my server in a VM for an application that I want accessible from any desktop in the house, and is shared between me and my wife.
None of these are insurmountable in 2 years. My son's nettop should really be replaced with a laptop at this point. The HTPC is pretty much EOL for it's current purpose anyways, so it will likely get relegated to being a Linux File/Print Server. And, the VM could just as easily be a Win7 VM.
All of these systems have all security patches installed. None of them have been replaced with Win 7 because there is currently no gain in doing so.
The only problem is people claiming that the people needing to upgrade have a 14 year old OS. 4 years in not a problem. We just need to be honest about the length of time.
5 years when they cut off support. There is no generosity in offering support for a product 5 years before you sell it. You count the age of an OS from the last date of sale. Not the first.
No honest doctor or scientist would make any kind of claim concerning the inherent effectiveness of vaccinations. Vaccines are a class of medical care. Each one is different, and the effectiveness of one has no bearing on the effectiveness of a different one. Thinking that anything that gets the 'Vaccine' label on it is good because 'Vaccines are very effective' is just as bad as thinking that anything that gets a 'Vaccine' label is bad because 'Vaccines cause Autism".
Right now we have Vaccines like the one for Polio, which has been proven very effective, and even if it did cause autism, would have leave fewer permanently disabled kids that not having the vaccine. So, even if it turned out to cause autism (which I am aware it does not) you would still be better off having gotten the vaccine.
On the other hand, we have vaccines like the Chicken Pox vaccine that is designed to protect against a fairly mild childhood disease. Has proven to be very INeffective, and is set to INCREASE the death and disability rate over pre-vaccination rates, but is a money maker across the board for everyone but the poor kid that has a small childhood risk increased by 10x for their adulthood.
Your a sexist. You want get women making as much as men? You want to have as many females in traditionally male dominated jobs? Convince the female population to buy things for men just for the chance that they might get the opportunity to sleep with them. Convince women that paying for men to live is a good idea, and that the men that stay at home are doing 100s of thousands of dollars worth of labor.
PEOPLE are lazy. Half of our population is taught from birth that they CAN get a job and work if they want a good life. The other half is taught from birth that they MUST get a job and work if they want a good life. Denial that the extreme correlation between being taught that they CAN/MUST have a job and whether people actually do have a well paying job flies directly in the face of all evidence.
Times are changing. All the way into my thirties, a woman who stayed home was a 'housewife' (or 'homemaker'). A man that stayed home was a 'bum'. Today, we see a little more acceptance of men who stay home while their wife works, but not nearly the acceptance that we see of women in virtually any traditionally male job.
I think people here are over selling Fry's because they are so much better than the alternatives. Fry's have plenty of clueless employees that will just make stuff up. They also have a lot of crap, and broken merchandise on the shelves. The difference is that Fry's runs their stores more like grocery stores. If some tries to sell you on something and you tell them to go away, they generally will. While a lot of the stuff on their shelves is junk, their inventory is so huge that the non-junk still dwarfs Best buy's entire inventory.
With Fry's, it is a matter of understanding what they are, and shopping the right way for the environment. with Best Buy, there is no right way to shop their environment. It sucks from the ground up.
Mail order sucks for anything that can be broken. Buying an item in person means that when I leave the store, I at least know that the item hasn't been used as a hammer. The last thing I bought from Amazon was a pair of Himalayan salt bricks. When they arrived, one was severely cracked,and the other one was shattered. If I had bought them in person at a B&M store, there would have been a 0% chance that they would been broken when I received them. Amazon made the return just about as easy as a mail order return could be, but the problem was an inevitability of mail order, and I still had to drive to a B&M to do the return.
Slashdot Mirror
Ironic. You imply that the person that wants to stay on the road is sad. I know when I take a road trip, I don't need to choke down a snack since I actually have people to take road trips with. I can leisurely eat a meal in the passenger seat while the other driver takes over driving. I also like to take my stops at places that I would actually enjoy being instead of hanging out at a gas station. Maybe if you actually made contact with other humans, you might understand and stop projecting your sorrow onto other people.
Pretty much everyone, whether they realize it or not. It is sad, but most people see cars as a giant toy instead of the heavy machinery that it is. Just look at 95% of car commercials. They stress how much fun it is to drive. They brag about how the cars are inspired by race cars. They show them doing all sorts of dangerous things.
Once in a while you get a commercial that focuses on efficiency or comfort, but the majority are all about speed and power. I'm with you. I would much rather see them make concept cars that are cutting edge and extreme in practicality.
I have found that the not "overly privileged" don't know how to live on a budget. They just tell themselves that they do. I have been poor. Your comment is right in there with the people who say that they can't pay off their credit cards because they are poor, so they keep the cards maxed out, pay off a little each month, and then recharge the amount they paid off.
If you put $5 of gas into your empty tank, you will be able to drive $5 worth of distance. If you put $5 of gas into your mostly full tank and drive $5 distance, you have traveled the same distance and spent the same amount of money. Being poor was hard. I didn't like it, but even then I would watch other poor people rationalize why being poor made their self destructive habits a requirement.
That's why the cars need a standard connector on the back. So you can hook up that generator trailer and recharge while you drive.
No, people who take jobs as human shields and then complain that they get an arrow or two are the dicks. This includes telemarketers, collection agency thugs, receptionists for disreputable businesses, and anyone else who is acting as the mouthpiece for unscrupulous businesses.
Once you are dealing with the TSA, "sane" is not really a word that holds a lot of meaning.
Yep. I had a pal I was with that was ticketed for not stopping at a stop sign. When asked how he could have seen my pal's car given that there was a field between them where the weeds were 1 1/2 feet higher than the height of my friends car, the cop's answer was "I don't know, but i did." The ticket was upheld, as that was apparently good enough for the judge.
Not me. I could do with more. I am at my healthiest when my diet is almost entirely carnivorous. Particularly with a lot of fat in the diet. As I start adding more vegetation to my diet, I gain weight and have less energy. Unfortunately, being a carnivore in our society is really difficult to do.
"Hide the decline" refers to the fact that temperatures inferred from tree ring sizes in the last couple decades haven't matched actual temperature readings (possibly because of other human influence on tree growth). When presenting tree ring data, they replace very recent data with actual temps, usually using a different color or something to indicate that it has been swapped out.
I have always had a problem with this explanation. The problem is that what you just said doesn't explain why "Hide the decline" isn't relevant. It just acknowledges that the decline was hidden, and comes to the conclusion that obviously the data is correct because it was manipulated.
If you propose that tree rings are a good proxy for temperature, and upon testing, you find that the proxy doesn't match the actual data, you better have a good reason not to toss the whole thing out. Saying "Well, we just changed the data for the time we can actually verify and kept the data that we can't verify." is not a valid way to do science.
When presenting tree ring data, they replace very recent data with actual temps,
Think about what you wrote here. It should raise flags.
That is a big part of why many are skeptical. Another part is that most 'environmentalists' arn't. (environmentalists that is)
An electric blanket will be no more dangerous than a light bulb and the reliability is at least a magnitude higher. You also won't wast energy on that wasteful light. Needing incandescent lights as a heat source is pure rationalization.
Plus the dams can be used to generate electricity without using fossil fuels.
You were not the last sale of either of those products.
Your confusion on drivers is that you are under the impression that drivers written for Windows 3.1,95,XP will work on Windows 7. Linux has drivers for more software because most of the drivers can be, and more of the are, updated to work on each new version of Linux. Where as with Windows, the manufacturers frequently don't bring their drivers forward to new versions of Windows, so the hardware is not compatible with Windows 7.
You would be wrong. I have 3 XP systems running running in my home. All three are up to date. One is a nettop that my son uses for car trips. It plays movies fine, and most games from GOG run just fine on it. One is an Acer Revo that is used as an HTPC, and one runs on my server in a VM for an application that I want accessible from any desktop in the house, and is shared between me and my wife.
None of these are insurmountable in 2 years. My son's nettop should really be replaced with a laptop at this point. The HTPC is pretty much EOL for it's current purpose anyways, so it will likely get relegated to being a Linux File/Print Server. And, the VM could just as easily be a Win7 VM.
All of these systems have all security patches installed. None of them have been replaced with Win 7 because there is currently no gain in doing so.
The only problem is people claiming that the people needing to upgrade have a 14 year old OS. 4 years in not a problem. We just need to be honest about the length of time.
5 years when they cut off support. There is no generosity in offering support for a product 5 years before you sell it. You count the age of an OS from the last date of sale. Not the first.
You count the age of an OS from the last date of sale. Not the first. So, for many people, in 2014, the OS will only be 5 years old.
5 years seems like a reasonable cutoff point for supporting an OS that has had 2 new versions, but lets be honest about the OS's age.
No. You count the age of an OS from the last date of sale. Not the first.
Another 2 years, and MS will have done more than enough in supporting the OS, but lets not use irrational numbers when arguing that point.
Except with the Chicken Pox vaccine where the vaccinated are an epidemic waiting to happen.
No honest doctor or scientist would make any kind of claim concerning the inherent effectiveness of vaccinations. Vaccines are a class of medical care. Each one is different, and the effectiveness of one has no bearing on the effectiveness of a different one. Thinking that anything that gets the 'Vaccine' label on it is good because 'Vaccines are very effective' is just as bad as thinking that anything that gets a 'Vaccine' label is bad because 'Vaccines cause Autism".
Right now we have Vaccines like the one for Polio, which has been proven very effective, and even if it did cause autism, would have leave fewer permanently disabled kids that not having the vaccine. So, even if it turned out to cause autism (which I am aware it does not) you would still be better off having gotten the vaccine.
On the other hand, we have vaccines like the Chicken Pox vaccine that is designed to protect against a fairly mild childhood disease. Has proven to be very INeffective, and is set to INCREASE the death and disability rate over pre-vaccination rates, but is a money maker across the board for everyone but the poor kid that has a small childhood risk increased by 10x for their adulthood.
Your a sexist. You want get women making as much as men? You want to have as many females in traditionally male dominated jobs? Convince the female population to buy things for men just for the chance that they might get the opportunity to sleep with them. Convince women that paying for men to live is a good idea, and that the men that stay at home are doing 100s of thousands of dollars worth of labor.
PEOPLE are lazy. Half of our population is taught from birth that they CAN get a job and work if they want a good life. The other half is taught from birth that they MUST get a job and work if they want a good life. Denial that the extreme correlation between being taught that they CAN/MUST have a job and whether people actually do have a well paying job flies directly in the face of all evidence.
Times are changing. All the way into my thirties, a woman who stayed home was a 'housewife' (or 'homemaker'). A man that stayed home was a 'bum'. Today, we see a little more acceptance of men who stay home while their wife works, but not nearly the acceptance that we see of women in virtually any traditionally male job.
You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word 'discrimination'.
I think people here are over selling Fry's because they are so much better than the alternatives. Fry's have plenty of clueless employees that will just make stuff up. They also have a lot of crap, and broken merchandise on the shelves. The difference is that Fry's runs their stores more like grocery stores. If some tries to sell you on something and you tell them to go away, they generally will. While a lot of the stuff on their shelves is junk, their inventory is so huge that the non-junk still dwarfs Best buy's entire inventory.
With Fry's, it is a matter of understanding what they are, and shopping the right way for the environment. with Best Buy, there is no right way to shop their environment. It sucks from the ground up.
Mail order sucks for anything that can be broken. Buying an item in person means that when I leave the store, I at least know that the item hasn't been used as a hammer. The last thing I bought from Amazon was a pair of Himalayan salt bricks. When they arrived, one was severely cracked,and the other one was shattered. If I had bought them in person at a B&M store, there would have been a 0% chance that they would been broken when I received them. Amazon made the return just about as easy as a mail order return could be, but the problem was an inevitability of mail order, and I still had to drive to a B&M to do the return.