This was the only period of my life where I experienced degradation in my eyesight. Yes, some other members of my family wear glasses, but there is no discernable pattern.
I don't deny I would have likely needed glasses as some point either way, but I am certain that my heavy CRT usage speed up and increased the problem.
Additionally, the eye strain and feeling of my eyes being hot stopped as soon as I switched to using LCD's. The problem also worsened exponentially as I needed to lean closer and closer to read, thus getting closer and closer to the source of damage. The feeling of heat and fatige in my eyes was extreme by the time I went in to get glasses. I used glasses with the CRT for a while, then switched to LCD's.
For me the contrast between the two experiences is unmistakeable and signifigant.
When you look at the design of a CRT, with a stream of electrons and radiation being shot directly at a peice of glass with your eyeballs directly on the other side, is it so hard to believe it could cause damage to the eyes?
This was the only period of my life where I experienced degradation in my eyesight.
Additionally, the eye strain and feeling of my eyes being hot stopped as soon as I switched to using LCD's.
For me the contrast between the two experiences is unmistakeable and signifigant.
When you look at the design of a CRT, with a stream of electrons and radiation being shot directly at a peice of glass with your eyeballs directly on the other side, is it so hard to believe it could cause damage to the eyes?
I can only speak for my own experience, and I don't know whether this study differentiates between CRT and LCD users, but when I first became a programmer using a CRT for 3 or 4 years straight, my eyesight deteriorated rapidly from 20 / 20 to needing glasses to read comfortably without getting headaches. Since switching to a dual LCD setup my prescription hasn't changed in about 2 years.
Your mileage may vary. But I'll never use a CRT again.
I do think it's a bit funny how minimal / ugly the site is for IE:
http://www.google.com/ie
Which isn't just a default page since random text errors out:
http://www.google.com/slashdot
Looking at all the pages cited, I do have to say that Firefox certainly was given the most time and effort, including a nice, clean layout and Firefox specific tips.
You think this war started today? And Novell started it?
Go to the US Patent Office website and do a patent search for "Microsoft" and one for "Novell" (under the field "Assignee Name").
See who has been doing it more, and longer. I'll save you the trouble:
Microsoft: 3,520, since March 21, 1985 Novell: 243, September 24, 1990
Microsoft has Novell beat by an order of magnitude and then some. To give you some perspective, Amazon.com are famous for their patents, and they only have 41.
Microsoft is the poster boy for patenting anything and everything, and trying to use their "licensing" schemes to control and monopolize the market.
Nobody but William Gates is "forcing" Microsoft into this patent war. They are the agressors, not the victims. And they know exactly what they are doing.
I don't care who or why Microsoft loses a lawsuit to someone, I just like to see them lose.
After all the little guys they've screwed over getting to where they are now, and since they're patenting everything under the sun whether they had anything to do with it or not, I'm happy to see them have to fork over the loot.
But if I were a betting man, my money would still be on Rutan. Someone else may spring up that far surpasses him, but for the non-government people on the scene right now, my money is on Burt.
If you like warmer temperatures, please move somewhere else. Global warming may have some short term conveniences, but it brings a host of negatives that I'd rather not see.
The negatives outweight the positives by several orders of magnitude, at the minimum.
There are no "crimes by accident". It's either a crime, or it's an accident. It's never both.
And if it were my kid or wife that got killed, I wouldn't care what label you stuck on it, they're still dead.
As far as stolen guns not counting somehow or being different, that's just plain stupid. Again, if it's my loved one that's dead, I don't care if the gun has been stolen 500 times, they're still dead. Part of gun ownership is responsibility, and that means keeping your guns locked up. You leave a gun and bullets in the closet and your kid kills the neighbor kid, you are responsible and should be held accountable.
I don't know what you think my argument is, but it is simply that we need more gun safety awareness and accountability. Personal accountability, not gun companies.
With stuff like this already being detected, and such weaknesses in the system (one man being able to "lose" or otherwise destroy or alter all votes in an entire precinct), non-open source electronic voting is a dangerous situation.
We're on the verge (or way past it) of the average citizen losing all power and control within their country, and electronic voting is just another step.
The only hope is for citizens and groups to adamantly insist on open source, safety procedures, regular audits, and paper trails. Unfortunatley, I see few if any of those things happening anytime soon.
Either greater gun safety can save lives or it can't. At least 1,500 people a year are killed in gun accidents. They're age, ethnicity, and location are entirely irrelevent. More gun safety is absolutely necessary. Less guns is not.
If you're going to fight with semantics, please don't play around. Provide some perspective instead of a tiny out-of-context slice. Anything less is deliberate ignorance on your part.
My argument stands. Gun safety is the critical element. Criminals can always get their hands on guns. But many, many accidents, spur of the moment homicides / suicides could be prevented with increased safety, care, and accountability.
Why shouldn't suicide count? I have a family that are close personal friends whose 16 year old son had a fight with his girlfriend, grabbed the family's.22, drove down the road and shot himself in the head.
According to this study you are 16 times more likely to have a suicide occur in your home when guns are accessible.
It is my opinion that my 16 year old friend would not have killed himself if he had to go in search of a means. With a gun readily available an impulse decision to kill himself was easily acted upon. Yes, there are other means. Yes, if he was determined, it would have happened anyway. But in this case and many others it is my opinion that gun availabiliyy was a factor. I am a lifelong hunter and gun owner, and no counter-argument will change that opinion.
There are plenty of sources for statistics. But statistics rarely change opinions, so it's a moot point.
By saying that far more care needs to be taken, you are ruining your own argument. If people took more care, they would not be getting shot with their own gun.
I ruin my argument? You just restated it perfectly for me. More care needs to be take SO THAT people do not get shot with their own gun, or have another kind of accidental shooting.
However, your argument is flawed. You argue that you want your gun in your home so that you can protect yourself, but then say that you use gun locks and keep your guns in safes. I hardly think if your house is broken into, you'll have time to get it out of the safe and remove the trigger lock.
My argument is simple. I keep my guns in my home because I choose to. I take the precautions that make me feel safe that I won't be a statistic. But on the whole, more care needs to be taken.
Statistically more people are killed every year in the United States in their own homes or a friends home by guns than times the guns are used to successfully defend said homes.
In other words, if you keep a gun in your home it is far more likely that you, your wife, one of your kids, or a family friend will die accidentally with that gun than that you will wield it in your time of need and successfully defend your home.
And for the record, I have 2, and don't intend that number to ever decrease.
But far more care needs to be taken than is taken. I don't pretend that ring locks or any other locks are the ideal solution. But they are one possible solution to a very real problem.
Slashdot Mirror
And there are plenty of people who smoke their entire life and never get cancer or drive every day without a seatbelt and never die in a car accident.
That doesn't mean there isn't increased risk by smoking.
This was the only period of my life where I experienced degradation in my eyesight. Yes, some other members of my family wear glasses, but there is no discernable pattern.
I don't deny I would have likely needed glasses as some point either way, but I am certain that my heavy CRT usage speed up and increased the problem.
Additionally, the eye strain and feeling of my eyes being hot stopped as soon as I switched to using LCD's. The problem also worsened exponentially as I needed to lean closer and closer to read, thus getting closer and closer to the source of damage. The feeling of heat and fatige in my eyes was extreme by the time I went in to get glasses. I used glasses with the CRT for a while, then switched to LCD's.
For me the contrast between the two experiences is unmistakeable and signifigant.
When you look at the design of a CRT, with a stream of electrons and radiation being shot directly at a peice of glass with your eyeballs directly on the other side, is it so hard to believe it could cause damage to the eyes?
This was the only period of my life where I experienced degradation in my eyesight.
Additionally, the eye strain and feeling of my eyes being hot stopped as soon as I switched to using LCD's.
For me the contrast between the two experiences is unmistakeable and signifigant.
When you look at the design of a CRT, with a stream of electrons and radiation being shot directly at a peice of glass with your eyeballs directly on the other side, is it so hard to believe it could cause damage to the eyes?
I can only speak for my own experience, and I don't know whether this study differentiates between CRT and LCD users, but when I first became a programmer using a CRT for 3 or 4 years straight, my eyesight deteriorated rapidly from 20 / 20 to needing glasses to read comfortably without getting headaches. Since switching to a dual LCD setup my prescription hasn't changed in about 2 years.
Your mileage may vary. But I'll never use a CRT again.
I hate to break it to you. All statistics lie. It's in their nature.
SoundForge has nothing to do with Linux, but Microsoft does (or at least did) use Unix for the storage servers for Hotmail email.
In fact, their best engineers spent 2 months trying to move Hotmail over to NT and finally gave up.
I'm not sure what OS is behind the scense there now.
I do think it's a bit funny how minimal / ugly the site is for IE:
http://www.google.com/ie
Which isn't just a default page since random text errors out:
http://www.google.com/slashdot
Looking at all the pages cited, I do have to say that Firefox certainly was given the most time and effort, including a nice, clean layout and Firefox specific tips.
Then the earth can't possibly revolve around the sun, because almost all scientists believe that today...
First shots?
You think this war started today? And Novell started it?
Go to the US Patent Office website and do a patent search for "Microsoft" and one for "Novell" (under the field "Assignee Name").
See who has been doing it more, and longer. I'll save you the trouble:
Microsoft: 3,520, since March 21, 1985
Novell: 243, September 24, 1990
Microsoft has Novell beat by an order of magnitude and then some. To give you some perspective, Amazon.com are famous for their patents, and they only have 41.
Microsoft is the poster boy for patenting anything and everything, and trying to use their "licensing" schemes to control and monopolize the market.
Nobody but William Gates is "forcing" Microsoft into this patent war. They are the agressors, not the victims. And they know exactly what they are doing.
I don't care who or why Microsoft loses a lawsuit to someone, I just like to see them lose.
After all the little guys they've screwed over getting to where they are now, and since they're patenting everything under the sun whether they had anything to do with it or not, I'm happy to see them have to fork over the loot.
Toasted my links somehow:
250 Scientists
300 Scientists
550 of todays scientists disagree with you. And so do I.
You are right on both accounts.
But if I were a betting man, my money would still be on Rutan. Someone else may spring up that far surpasses him, but for the non-government people on the scene right now, my money is on Burt.
And my prediction is by the end of 2008.
Really?
So all of those rocks orbiting Saturn have little jet packs on them that keep them in orbit?
And all of our satellites have vast supplies of fuel that constantly burn, keeping them in orbit?
If you like warmer temperatures, please move somewhere else. Global warming may have some short term conveniences, but it brings a host of negatives that I'd rather not see.
The negatives outweight the positives by several orders of magnitude, at the minimum.
Look at the stats again:
. ....18,940e rmined..........563
Type..................Number
Suicide..........
Firearm homicide......18,571
Handgun homicide......13,980
Justifiable homicide..251
Accidental............1,521
Undet
Total.................39,595
There are no "crimes by accident". It's either a crime, or it's an accident. It's never both.
And if it were my kid or wife that got killed, I wouldn't care what label you stuck on it, they're still dead.
As far as stolen guns not counting somehow or being different, that's just plain stupid. Again, if it's my loved one that's dead, I don't care if the gun has been stolen 500 times, they're still dead. Part of gun ownership is responsibility, and that means keeping your guns locked up. You leave a gun and bullets in the closet and your kid kills the neighbor kid, you are responsible and should be held accountable.
I don't know what you think my argument is, but it is simply that we need more gun safety awareness and accountability. Personal accountability, not gun companies.
With stuff like this already being detected, and such weaknesses in the system (one man being able to "lose" or otherwise destroy or alter all votes in an entire precinct), non-open source electronic voting is a dangerous situation.
We're on the verge (or way past it) of the average citizen losing all power and control within their country, and electronic voting is just another step.
The only hope is for citizens and groups to adamantly insist on open source, safety procedures, regular audits, and paper trails. Unfortunatley, I see few if any of those things happening anytime soon.
Yes, here is the source.
n determined............563
Type....................Number
Suicide.................18,940
Firearm homicide........18,571
Handgun homicide........13,980
Justifiable homicide....251
Accidental..............1,521
U
That is a fairly telling breakdown.
1) Who gives a crap.
2) Irrelevent.
Either greater gun safety can save lives or it can't. At least 1,500 people a year are killed in gun accidents. They're age, ethnicity, and location are entirely irrelevent. More gun safety is absolutely necessary. Less guns is not.
If you're going to fight with semantics, please don't play around. Provide some perspective instead of a tiny out-of-context slice. Anything less is deliberate ignorance on your part.
79% of suicide fatalities are by self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Not that guns are the most attempted, just the most successful.
I'm not making an argument againsts guns. I'm making an argument FOR gun safety.
That's a lovely visual image.
Except that in 1993 (the year I could find stats for) there were 251 justifiable homicides (self-defense), and 1,521 accidental gun deaths.
So for every case where someone protected themselves with a gun, 6 people (mostly kids) were killed in an accident.
I'd like to see a source for a statistic that crime rates are inversely proportional to gun ownership. I think you'll be hard pressed to find one.
Murder rates are almost directly proportional to gun ownership.
My argument stands. Gun safety is the critical element. Criminals can always get their hands on guns. But many, many accidents, spur of the moment homicides / suicides could be prevented with increased safety, care, and accountability.
Why shouldn't suicide count? I have a family that are close personal friends whose 16 year old son had a fight with his girlfriend, grabbed the family's .22, drove down the road and shot himself in the head.
According to this study you are 16 times more likely to have a suicide occur in your home when guns are accessible.
It is my opinion that my 16 year old friend would not have killed himself if he had to go in search of a means. With a gun readily available an impulse decision to kill himself was easily acted upon. Yes, there are other means. Yes, if he was determined, it would have happened anyway. But in this case and many others it is my opinion that gun availabiliyy was a factor. I am a lifelong hunter and gun owner, and no counter-argument will change that opinion.
There are plenty of sources for statistics. But statistics rarely change opinions, so it's a moot point.
By saying that far more care needs to be taken, you are ruining your own argument. If people took more care, they would not be getting shot with their own gun.
I ruin my argument? You just restated it perfectly for me. More care needs to be take SO THAT people do not get shot with their own gun, or have another kind of accidental shooting.
However, your argument is flawed. You argue that you want your gun in your home so that you can protect yourself, but then say that you use gun locks and keep your guns in safes. I hardly think if your house is broken into, you'll have time to get it out of the safe and remove the trigger lock.
My argument is simple. I keep my guns in my home because I choose to. I take the precautions that make me feel safe that I won't be a statistic. But on the whole, more care needs to be taken.
Well, statistically you're wrong.
Statistically more people are killed every year in the United States in their own homes or a friends home by guns than times the guns are used to successfully defend said homes.
In other words, if you keep a gun in your home it is far more likely that you, your wife, one of your kids, or a family friend will die accidentally with that gun than that you will wield it in your time of need and successfully defend your home.
And for the record, I have 2, and don't intend that number to ever decrease.
But far more care needs to be taken than is taken. I don't pretend that ring locks or any other locks are the ideal solution. But they are one possible solution to a very real problem.