The detriments are real and proven you say? Okay, please give me a link to a scientifically conducted study that shows negative effects (mental, physical or social) in excess of those of alcohol, for LSD or Ecstasy. I'm sure the information is quite easy to find for things like Crack Cocaine or Heroin, but really, Ecstasy is "fairly safe" (compared to alcohol) and LSD is "very safe" (compared to pretty much any other "drug" (legal or illegal)).
"Getting High" (which by the way isn't really a suitable term for taking psychedelics since the effect is very different to "uppers", which is where the term comes from) may not be a human right, but I think it's fair to say that something being illegal just because it's fun is not a good thing.
I am a regular, but light LSD user. I take it about half as often as I drink alcohol in quantities sufficient to notice the effects. That equates to approximately 10 times a year. I actually find the effects of it improve my ability to do my job (once the "trip" is over that is) due to the way it allows me to be more creative by thinking of things in new ways that I might not have otherwise considered - important for the software design phase of any projects I'm working on.
I am likely to be modded in to oblivion for this, but here goes...
...but i don't think people are that altruistic.
I think it's probably (unfortunately) closer to the truth to say that I don't think AMERICANS are that altruistic. (but please note: I have met many fine Americans that I consider good friends and very likely to be altruistic in general. As a general rule though, I find the attitude of a disproportionately high percentage of the population there to be self-centred, small-minded, racist people that have no clue what the rest of the world is like, when they realise it exists at all)
Yep, excellent proof that many people are idiots... it says nothing about my point though, which was about scientists in the field of climate research, rather than "random people on the street".
I'd also be sceptical of the "agreed with the sentiment" comment as an implication that they thought the vandalism was okay... *I* agree with the sentiment from one point of view, but I certainly do NOT think it justifies the vandalism.
No, just people that don't understand Climate Change isn't JUST about "getting warmer" will CALL the same Climate Change scientists "nuts" for saying that the cooling is the same thing as the warming that we've also seen.
The world is getting warmer, on average, little by little. But the MUCH bigger thing you'll find is extremes - of cold as well as warm - becoming a lot more common.
full disclosure of the methods used to determine the proof that "global warming" is all due to humans (emphasis added by me)
I don't want to flame you here, so please realise this post is directed at this type of comment in general, and not you specifically.
This is the kind of wording you have to be very careful with. I honestly don't think ANY serious scientist is saying that global warming is ALL due to humans. And many disagree on the amount that IS caused by humans, but VERY FEW (if any at all) will say that Global Warming has NOTHING to do with humans.
So, what we can take from that is that, on the balance of probabilities (in fact, possibly even "beyond reasonable doubt"), we are having an effect on our environment. And since we don't fully understand the effect we are having, it should be treated as a VERY scary situation. If we knew EXACTLY what the effects would be, we could compensate as necessary, but since we really don't, it's best to err on the side of caution.
I really don't think your fundamental rights, taxes or way of life would be significantly altered by sensible policies dealing with global warming. I also enjoy driving my car, using all my tech toys, and doing other things that are potentially part of the cause - but I ALSO turn off the lights in my office when I leave, don't drive somewhere that I could walk to, encourage (financially) organisations that spend money on protecting green zones and so on. I really think if everyone lived more like me (a happy medium between consumerism and "greeny life"), many of the factors involved in global warming would reduced significantly.
On the negative side, assuming many predictions are correct, we're already in trouble anyway - even if we stopped polluting COMPLETELY and IMMEDIATELY, the amount that is still to "go through the system" as it were pretty much has us screwed. I just hope those predictions are also somewhat inaccurate. I don't "worry" about it as such, since if they're wrong, I'm fine, and if they're right, there's nothing I can do about it now... but it's a good way to keep in mind that if we're lucky, they're wrong, and we're NOT already screwed, it'd be wise not to continue towards putting ourselves in that situation. A similar example is the smoker who had a new chest pain that wouldn't go away, was terrified for days that it would turn out to be lung cancer, and then was told by the doctor that he doesn't have cancer, so just carried on smoking! Shouldn't that be sort of a wake-up call? (and yes, I'm a smoker... I hate it though, and have taken the first steps to kicking the nasty things for good)
Apparently actually, dolphins have been known to enjoy and encourage "intimate relations" with human beings. I don't really know about other animals, but if you believe the occasional urban legend, dogs have been said to orally pleasure girls under some circumstances (from the dog's perspective, it's probably not a sexual encounter, but for the girl it certainly is!).
Not saying I would ever do it myself, but I honestly have no problem with it in the same way that I have no problem (but am not interested in) homosexuality. No harm, no problem!
I'm sorry, I think you perhaps misunderstood my point, which is at least partly my own fault for not being clearer.
I agree wholeheartedly that any distraction is bad, and DEFINITELY that using a cellphone is a risk. However it is my opinion (and yes, JUST my opinion) that the conversation the person has on the phone is at least, if not more, distracting than any advertising which may be played to them. While I don't have any evidence of this, it is what I would personally consider "common knowledge" that most people these days effectively filter ads very effectively in their own minds. This is why advertisers try more and more to make ads more noticeable ("eye catching" in the case of visual ads) - people are good at NOT noticing them. This is in direct contrast to a conversation on the phone, which is something I can assume the person wants to do (as opposed to listening to the ad, which they really don't want to), and therefore is more distracting.
And so, the conclusion from these observations/opinions is that ads played via a phone are not likely to have any effect, except perhaps a very small one based on the fact that it keeps you on the phone longer.
However, I think we agree that we disagree on whether or not ads (as a general concept) are a serious distraction (you say yes, I say no, you have some backing (which I consider fairly invalid (in that I consider the entire field of advertising to be a joke and the majority of the research to be extraordinarily flakey and non-scientific), but that's a discussion I don't really want to have and is getting pretty far off topic anyway), and I don't have any evidence at all that isn't simply anecdotal), so we'll just have to accept each others differences there. It seems we do both agree however that use of a phone in general while driving is "a very bad thing" (tm)
And, more to the original topic, but not the topic of this thread, I don't think ads being played over the phone is what's being talked about here anyway - there is no mention of that anywhere beyond a potentially very offhand comment from someone that doesn't know the full story and REALLY doesn't seem like Google's style (I think they'd be more likely to use targeted ads in data connections with your phone than while you're using it to talk to someone)
No, but I guarantee you I could solve it MORE quickly with ads "distracting" me, than a friend talking to me about what he got up to last night with random girl of the week (unless it was sitting in his room solving partial differential equations, in which case, maybe that would help).
So yes, ads are distracting, but no matter what the "psychology of advertising" says, they're really only a very minor distraction. If you think it's a bad idea for people to hear ads while driving, what about having a conversation with a passenger? I'd consider that FAR more distracting, but to say it should be disallowed is just silly.
Your post was a little offtopic; and now mine is WAY offtopic, but I have to respond. Hopefully the mods will look kindly and my "Offtopic" mods will equal my "insightful" for a break-even;)
I disagree with your basic premise here completely. Everything you say about KNOWLEDGE is correct, but that doesn't address stupidity, which "Overzeetop"'s sig is about. There are indeed many more stupid people in the world than there used to be, and I put it down to many factors - a noticeable one that is different in today's society compared to the recent past being personal responsibility.
First let me define intelligence (and therefore also stupidity): The very definition of intelligence is debated and in some people's definition does include such things as knowledge. But if we're going for a "purist" definition, then it boils down to "the ability to figure stuff out" (reasoning). Naturally, those WITH more knowledge are likely to be more intelligent, and those who are intelligent will likely gain more knowledge, however knowledge itself is not a factor in the definition of intelligence itself.
Now, back to personal responsibility: Once upon a time, if someone did something stupid, they'd suffer the consequences for it. These days, they can blame others for their own mistakes. Because of this, they generally don't learn "the hard lessons" and will continue to do stupid things. So we can see from this that personal responsibility has a direct effect on learned intelligence. Now, there is also a direct effect the other way as well - those who are intelligent are less likely to blame others when they do something stupid once in a while, and they will learn "the hard lesson" from it. I put this down to innate intelligence (be it genetic or learned at a young age, that's a debate I won't discuss here).
Other factors which I'll mention, but not go in to such great depth on, include: less practical and more faith based adherence to religious ideals (somewhat related to personal responsibility); less importance placed on intelligence in many modern education systems (it's okay to be stupid; we'll teach you how to get by as you are); and games that don't include as much critical thinking in order to win (games of chance or reaction vs games of skill (I'm thinking mainly of non-computer games here, but it does apply to both)).
To try and save my "on-topicness" a little, I'll just say I agree completely with your analysis of people's lack of desire to learn about the things they need to know in order to be good at what they want to - they want an "easy fix". Some of this may actually fall back to my definition of stupidity above, but it probably falls more back to sheer laziness, which is closely related to stupidity and has many of the same factors, but I'd class as a mostly independent phenomenon.
Paint.NET is really great for those who need a quick and dirty image editor with a lot more power than MSPaint. However be careful - on most systems, it's a SERIOUS resource hog when dealing with large images (such as the 8 megapixel images from my camera). I find Paint.NET is great for anything that fits on my screen without scaling to less than about 50%, but go above that and my poor little work laptop (Dell Latitude D510 - 512MB RAM, 1.73GHz Pentium-M) will choke and die with lots of swap file use. Photoshop (CS) and the GIMP on the other hand hardly run like a dream, but they both deal with large images in a much nicer way.
I assume the problem is pretty much entirely RAM related and if you throw a decent amount of RAM at it, you'll be able to work with much larger images, but you'll quickly find you do have a very definite threshold and it'd be wise to avoid going above that.
Note to anyone that plans on doing this - good digital SLRs have this kind of function built in and you should only consider this if your camera doesn't. The quality of the adjustment will actually be significantly worse unless you ensure:
The light is hitting the white paper evenly
The white paper is a nice bright and clean white (don't even THINK of using standard office copy paper)
The paper is of a very short grain
There is no curving or folding in the paper
It might be better to consider the alternative black reference - while a good system would use both, a system which has neither is easier to do with a black reference than a white one.
(disclaimer: I don't know much about photography, but I know a LOT about paper, colour theory and image editing)
They already do - the long international flights I take regularly (QANTAS Boeing flights flying AU to EU - approx 24hrs) have everything you say minus the touchscreen. Unless you mean LIVE TV, in which case, no, it's all pre-recorded stuff. It's controlled via the controller/phone built in to the armrest, and has games, movies, TV and flight info. The movies and TV can be paused, fast forwarded, rewound etc etc.
Last time I flew Sydney to LAX on QANTAS it was the same system as well.
However I've seen the exact same systems on QANTAS Airbus planes, so I do wonder if it's a QANTAS thing rather than an airplane manufacturer thing.
Try a 24hr flight to Europe from Australia and then 24hrs back again - I do that trip a LOT and would love to have internet access. By the time I get back home I've watched every movie they're offering that I'm even slightly interested in and I'd far rather do something more productive with my brain than watch movies anyway.
Yeah but the reverse is also true Lets face it both sides lack evidence to be able to prove they are right.
You either have an odd definition of "evidence" or an odd definition of "proof". I'd say both sides have evidence supporting their ideas, but the evidence on the "it is happening" side is significantly (many many factors) stronger than the evidence against.
Remember, the only country in the world where there's even a debate is the US. Everywhere else considers it a given at this point. Do you really think if the science supporting it was so weak that billions of people would be so easily duped? We have critical thinkers outside the US too!
As for forcing the opinion - it's something which really must be done unfortunately. If we're wrong (very slim chance, but of course possible) and are listened to, then our actions will have wasted some money for nothing. But if we're RIGHT and NOT listened to, the situation will be MUCH, MUCH worse.
I wouldn't consider it a flaw in my argument at all... I fully agree I'm not happy ALL the time. I just work on the theory that my own happiness is the most important thing to me and therefore try to maximise the amount of happiness I have in my life. After careful consideration, I think I'll have MORE happiness by not exercising than by doing so.
Another good example of this theory (although a little offtopic) is that I recently turned down a $20k/yr payrise moving to a new position within the company because I would've hated the work and don't think that the extra pay would've increased my happiness enough to compensate for the lack of happiness during those 8 to 10 hours a day.
Re:Socrates would be disappointed
on
New Ice Age Theory
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No it isn't. Of COURSE there are many other factors involved in global climate change, but only the truly stubborn or drastically deluded (note: I also include "deluded by others") would think that global climate change isn't being affected by the behaviour of humans over the last century or so. Having ice ages before there were humans around to affect the environment has no bearing on whether or not our actions can ALSO cause climate change.
From a philosophical perspective, and thinking specifically about the Anthropic Principle, I PREFER String Theory in this regard. String Theory can be used to define an infinite number of universes, each with their own "universal constants". The Anthropic Principle explains quite simply why we live in the one we do - because we couldn't possibly exist in the others! I really feel it's quite a no-brainer looking at that aspect of it.
Furthermore, as I understand it, even if you managed to define some notion of "closeness" to the correct topology, one topology which was "closer" to right than another one would not produce a universe which was necessarily any "closer" in its various properties to correct than the other one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that just mean it's painfully difficult to work with to get to the correct understanding of the theory, and once the correct understanding (of the topology) is sorted, the rest of it kind of falls in to place and is extremely elegant?
Basically, I don't see that as an inelegant theory, just that determining what the part of the theory that describes our universe truly is is going to be a painful experience.
Thin people die too! I think you mean "fat and dying earlier" or "thin and dying later" which is roughly true (there are many other factors involved including general health as well of course). And to be happy, I'd rather cut 10 years off my life than be miserable for an extra 10 years!
Chatswood West (Sydney), on the border of Chatswood and North Ryde. Nearest post office is in Chatswood centre. I don't know the exact distance, but www.131500.info tells me it's a 7 minute bus journey, so assuming 50km/hr for the bus (it's a 60km/hr zone, but I'll make it slower to factor in the 2 or 3 stops) it works out to around 6km away. I walk at about 4km/hr (6km/hr that you suggest is damn near a slow jog or very fast walk), so that's an hour and a half either way.
Now, even if my estimates are way off and it's only half that distance (3km away) that's still an hour and a half both ways, which is time I just don't have to spare (during post office opening hours).
I get the same problem here in Sydney though - assuming I wanted to walk to the post office, it'd take me a good couple of hours (uphill on the way there, so riding a bike wouldn't be a fun option either). Thankfully on the rare occasions I need to send something via post, I just put it in the "outbox" at work and our admin people take care of it. But the point being, we don't have the whole "put the outgoing letter in your box" here in Australia, so if I didn't have the work option, I'd have to make that journey somehow and I can guarantee it'd be by car.
Having lived in both Amsterdam and Sydney, I can't agree with you more. In Amsterdam, I wasn't particularly central, but getting around was simple without a car - I could walk or bike pretty much anywhere I needed to be, and anywhere further I'd just walk to the train station. Here in Sydney however, I have to drive to get anywhere unless I want to take the horribly convoluted public transport (from where I live to where a good friend of mine lives, I'd have to take a bus, then a train, then change to a different train, then another bus)
Actually, lack of exercise does it pretty well on its own... I eat fairly well, but am still seriously overweight, and I attribute it entirely to the fact that the most exercise I get each day is walking from where I park my car to my desk at work, or my front door.
(no, please don't reply telling me if I should just exercise - I KNOW that if I want to lose weight that's what I should do, but given the choice of being fat and happy or thin and unhappy (due to the time I'd spend exercising which I HATE), I'll pick fat and happy any day)
Perhaps you missed it, but I didn't say "1.3", I said "3.1"... and yes, all those screenshots look very much like 3.1 with some fancier icons and running on a system with a graphics card (which realistically, any serious Amiga user has). I'd even go so far as to say those screenshots look significantly more primitive than OS3.9, which itself is dwarfed by OS4 in almost every regard.
The TCP config tool is a good step in the right direction, but looks primitive compared to OS4's Sys:Prefs/Internet
There's nothing really there that would make me want it *OVER* OS4 (if I didn't have OS4 of course, AROS would be my preferred OS for sure (that said though, if I'm allowed to emulate in this hypothetical scenario, I'd probably go for OS3.9 under WinUAE instead))
Slashdot Mirror
The detriments are real and proven you say? Okay, please give me a link to a scientifically conducted study that shows negative effects (mental, physical or social) in excess of those of alcohol, for LSD or Ecstasy. I'm sure the information is quite easy to find for things like Crack Cocaine or Heroin, but really, Ecstasy is "fairly safe" (compared to alcohol) and LSD is "very safe" (compared to pretty much any other "drug" (legal or illegal)).
"Getting High" (which by the way isn't really a suitable term for taking psychedelics since the effect is very different to "uppers", which is where the term comes from) may not be a human right, but I think it's fair to say that something being illegal just because it's fun is not a good thing.
I am a regular, but light LSD user. I take it about half as often as I drink alcohol in quantities sufficient to notice the effects. That equates to approximately 10 times a year. I actually find the effects of it improve my ability to do my job (once the "trip" is over that is) due to the way it allows me to be more creative by thinking of things in new ways that I might not have otherwise considered - important for the software design phase of any projects I'm working on.
I am likely to be modded in to oblivion for this, but here goes...
...but i don't think people are that altruistic.I think it's probably (unfortunately) closer to the truth to say that I don't think AMERICANS are that altruistic. (but please note: I have met many fine Americans that I consider good friends and very likely to be altruistic in general. As a general rule though, I find the attitude of a disproportionately high percentage of the population there to be self-centred, small-minded, racist people that have no clue what the rest of the world is like, when they realise it exists at all)
Yep, excellent proof that many people are idiots... it says nothing about my point though, which was about scientists in the field of climate research, rather than "random people on the street".
I'd also be sceptical of the "agreed with the sentiment" comment as an implication that they thought the vandalism was okay... *I* agree with the sentiment from one point of view, but I certainly do NOT think it justifies the vandalism.
No, just people that don't understand Climate Change isn't JUST about "getting warmer" will CALL the same Climate Change scientists "nuts" for saying that the cooling is the same thing as the warming that we've also seen.
The world is getting warmer, on average, little by little. But the MUCH bigger thing you'll find is extremes - of cold as well as warm - becoming a lot more common.
I don't want to flame you here, so please realise this post is directed at this type of comment in general, and not you specifically.
This is the kind of wording you have to be very careful with. I honestly don't think ANY serious scientist is saying that global warming is ALL due to humans. And many disagree on the amount that IS caused by humans, but VERY FEW (if any at all) will say that Global Warming has NOTHING to do with humans.
So, what we can take from that is that, on the balance of probabilities (in fact, possibly even "beyond reasonable doubt"), we are having an effect on our environment. And since we don't fully understand the effect we are having, it should be treated as a VERY scary situation. If we knew EXACTLY what the effects would be, we could compensate as necessary, but since we really don't, it's best to err on the side of caution.
I really don't think your fundamental rights, taxes or way of life would be significantly altered by sensible policies dealing with global warming. I also enjoy driving my car, using all my tech toys, and doing other things that are potentially part of the cause - but I ALSO turn off the lights in my office when I leave, don't drive somewhere that I could walk to, encourage (financially) organisations that spend money on protecting green zones and so on. I really think if everyone lived more like me (a happy medium between consumerism and "greeny life"), many of the factors involved in global warming would reduced significantly.
On the negative side, assuming many predictions are correct, we're already in trouble anyway - even if we stopped polluting COMPLETELY and IMMEDIATELY, the amount that is still to "go through the system" as it were pretty much has us screwed. I just hope those predictions are also somewhat inaccurate. I don't "worry" about it as such, since if they're wrong, I'm fine, and if they're right, there's nothing I can do about it now... but it's a good way to keep in mind that if we're lucky, they're wrong, and we're NOT already screwed, it'd be wise not to continue towards putting ourselves in that situation. A similar example is the smoker who had a new chest pain that wouldn't go away, was terrified for days that it would turn out to be lung cancer, and then was told by the doctor that he doesn't have cancer, so just carried on smoking! Shouldn't that be sort of a wake-up call? (and yes, I'm a smoker... I hate it though, and have taken the first steps to kicking the nasty things for good)
Apparently actually, dolphins have been known to enjoy and encourage "intimate relations" with human beings. I don't really know about other animals, but if you believe the occasional urban legend, dogs have been said to orally pleasure girls under some circumstances (from the dog's perspective, it's probably not a sexual encounter, but for the girl it certainly is!).
Not saying I would ever do it myself, but I honestly have no problem with it in the same way that I have no problem (but am not interested in) homosexuality. No harm, no problem!
I'm sorry, I think you perhaps misunderstood my point, which is at least partly my own fault for not being clearer.
I agree wholeheartedly that any distraction is bad, and DEFINITELY that using a cellphone is a risk. However it is my opinion (and yes, JUST my opinion) that the conversation the person has on the phone is at least, if not more, distracting than any advertising which may be played to them.
While I don't have any evidence of this, it is what I would personally consider "common knowledge" that most people these days effectively filter ads very effectively in their own minds. This is why advertisers try more and more to make ads more noticeable ("eye catching" in the case of visual ads) - people are good at NOT noticing them. This is in direct contrast to a conversation on the phone, which is something I can assume the person wants to do (as opposed to listening to the ad, which they really don't want to), and therefore is more distracting.
And so, the conclusion from these observations/opinions is that ads played via a phone are not likely to have any effect, except perhaps a very small one based on the fact that it keeps you on the phone longer.
However, I think we agree that we disagree on whether or not ads (as a general concept) are a serious distraction (you say yes, I say no, you have some backing (which I consider fairly invalid (in that I consider the entire field of advertising to be a joke and the majority of the research to be extraordinarily flakey and non-scientific), but that's a discussion I don't really want to have and is getting pretty far off topic anyway), and I don't have any evidence at all that isn't simply anecdotal), so we'll just have to accept each others differences there. It seems we do both agree however that use of a phone in general while driving is "a very bad thing" (tm)
And, more to the original topic, but not the topic of this thread, I don't think ads being played over the phone is what's being talked about here anyway - there is no mention of that anywhere beyond a potentially very offhand comment from someone that doesn't know the full story and REALLY doesn't seem like Google's style (I think they'd be more likely to use targeted ads in data connections with your phone than while you're using it to talk to someone)
No, but I guarantee you I could solve it MORE quickly with ads "distracting" me, than a friend talking to me about what he got up to last night with random girl of the week (unless it was sitting in his room solving partial differential equations, in which case, maybe that would help).
So yes, ads are distracting, but no matter what the "psychology of advertising" says, they're really only a very minor distraction. If you think it's a bad idea for people to hear ads while driving, what about having a conversation with a passenger? I'd consider that FAR more distracting, but to say it should be disallowed is just silly.
Your post was a little offtopic; and now mine is WAY offtopic, but I have to respond. Hopefully the mods will look kindly and my "Offtopic" mods will equal my "insightful" for a break-even ;)
I disagree with your basic premise here completely. Everything you say about KNOWLEDGE is correct, but that doesn't address stupidity, which "Overzeetop"'s sig is about. There are indeed many more stupid people in the world than there used to be, and I put it down to many factors - a noticeable one that is different in today's society compared to the recent past being personal responsibility.
First let me define intelligence (and therefore also stupidity): The very definition of intelligence is debated and in some people's definition does include such things as knowledge. But if we're going for a "purist" definition, then it boils down to "the ability to figure stuff out" (reasoning). Naturally, those WITH more knowledge are likely to be more intelligent, and those who are intelligent will likely gain more knowledge, however knowledge itself is not a factor in the definition of intelligence itself.
Now, back to personal responsibility: Once upon a time, if someone did something stupid, they'd suffer the consequences for it. These days, they can blame others for their own mistakes. Because of this, they generally don't learn "the hard lessons" and will continue to do stupid things. So we can see from this that personal responsibility has a direct effect on learned intelligence. Now, there is also a direct effect the other way as well - those who are intelligent are less likely to blame others when they do something stupid once in a while, and they will learn "the hard lesson" from it. I put this down to innate intelligence (be it genetic or learned at a young age, that's a debate I won't discuss here).
Other factors which I'll mention, but not go in to such great depth on, include: less practical and more faith based adherence to religious ideals (somewhat related to personal responsibility); less importance placed on intelligence in many modern education systems (it's okay to be stupid; we'll teach you how to get by as you are); and games that don't include as much critical thinking in order to win (games of chance or reaction vs games of skill (I'm thinking mainly of non-computer games here, but it does apply to both)).
To try and save my "on-topicness" a little, I'll just say I agree completely with your analysis of people's lack of desire to learn about the things they need to know in order to be good at what they want to - they want an "easy fix". Some of this may actually fall back to my definition of stupidity above, but it probably falls more back to sheer laziness, which is closely related to stupidity and has many of the same factors, but I'd class as a mostly independent phenomenon.
Paint.NET is really great for those who need a quick and dirty image editor with a lot more power than MSPaint. However be careful - on most systems, it's a SERIOUS resource hog when dealing with large images (such as the 8 megapixel images from my camera). I find Paint.NET is great for anything that fits on my screen without scaling to less than about 50%, but go above that and my poor little work laptop (Dell Latitude D510 - 512MB RAM, 1.73GHz Pentium-M) will choke and die with lots of swap file use. Photoshop (CS) and the GIMP on the other hand hardly run like a dream, but they both deal with large images in a much nicer way.
I assume the problem is pretty much entirely RAM related and if you throw a decent amount of RAM at it, you'll be able to work with much larger images, but you'll quickly find you do have a very definite threshold and it'd be wise to avoid going above that.
Note to anyone that plans on doing this - good digital SLRs have this kind of function built in and you should only consider this if your camera doesn't. The quality of the adjustment will actually be significantly worse unless you ensure:
- The light is hitting the white paper evenly
- The white paper is a nice bright and clean white (don't even THINK of using standard office copy paper)
- The paper is of a very short grain
- There is no curving or folding in the paper
It might be better to consider the alternative black reference - while a good system would use both, a system which has neither is easier to do with a black reference than a white one.(disclaimer: I don't know much about photography, but I know a LOT about paper, colour theory and image editing)
They already do - the long international flights I take regularly (QANTAS Boeing flights flying AU to EU - approx 24hrs) have everything you say minus the touchscreen. Unless you mean LIVE TV, in which case, no, it's all pre-recorded stuff. It's controlled via the controller/phone built in to the armrest, and has games, movies, TV and flight info. The movies and TV can be paused, fast forwarded, rewound etc etc.
Last time I flew Sydney to LAX on QANTAS it was the same system as well.
However I've seen the exact same systems on QANTAS Airbus planes, so I do wonder if it's a QANTAS thing rather than an airplane manufacturer thing.
Try a 24hr flight to Europe from Australia and then 24hrs back again - I do that trip a LOT and would love to have internet access. By the time I get back home I've watched every movie they're offering that I'm even slightly interested in and I'd far rather do something more productive with my brain than watch movies anyway.
Lets face it both sides lack evidence to be able to prove they are right.
You either have an odd definition of "evidence" or an odd definition of "proof". I'd say both sides have evidence supporting their ideas, but the evidence on the "it is happening" side is significantly (many many factors) stronger than the evidence against.
Remember, the only country in the world where there's even a debate is the US. Everywhere else considers it a given at this point. Do you really think if the science supporting it was so weak that billions of people would be so easily duped? We have critical thinkers outside the US too!
As for forcing the opinion - it's something which really must be done unfortunately. If we're wrong (very slim chance, but of course possible) and are listened to, then our actions will have wasted some money for nothing. But if we're RIGHT and NOT listened to, the situation will be MUCH, MUCH worse.
I wouldn't consider it a flaw in my argument at all... I fully agree I'm not happy ALL the time. I just work on the theory that my own happiness is the most important thing to me and therefore try to maximise the amount of happiness I have in my life. After careful consideration, I think I'll have MORE happiness by not exercising than by doing so.
Another good example of this theory (although a little offtopic) is that I recently turned down a $20k/yr payrise moving to a new position within the company because I would've hated the work and don't think that the extra pay would've increased my happiness enough to compensate for the lack of happiness during those 8 to 10 hours a day.
No it isn't. Of COURSE there are many other factors involved in global climate change, but only the truly stubborn or drastically deluded (note: I also include "deluded by others") would think that global climate change isn't being affected by the behaviour of humans over the last century or so. Having ice ages before there were humans around to affect the environment has no bearing on whether or not our actions can ALSO cause climate change.
Mod parent UP, not down... he's not trolling - he's pointing out the differences between the basic goals of engineering and theoretical physics.
From a philosophical perspective, and thinking specifically about the Anthropic Principle, I PREFER String Theory in this regard. String Theory can be used to define an infinite number of universes, each with their own "universal constants". The Anthropic Principle explains quite simply why we live in the one we do - because we couldn't possibly exist in the others! I really feel it's quite a no-brainer looking at that aspect of it.
Basically, I don't see that as an inelegant theory, just that determining what the part of the theory that describes our universe truly is is going to be a painful experience.
Thin people die too! I think you mean "fat and dying earlier" or "thin and dying later" which is roughly true (there are many other factors involved including general health as well of course). And to be happy, I'd rather cut 10 years off my life than be miserable for an extra 10 years!
Chatswood West (Sydney), on the border of Chatswood and North Ryde. Nearest post office is in Chatswood centre. I don't know the exact distance, but www.131500.info tells me it's a 7 minute bus journey, so assuming 50km/hr for the bus (it's a 60km/hr zone, but I'll make it slower to factor in the 2 or 3 stops) it works out to around 6km away. I walk at about 4km/hr (6km/hr that you suggest is damn near a slow jog or very fast walk), so that's an hour and a half either way. Now, even if my estimates are way off and it's only half that distance (3km away) that's still an hour and a half both ways, which is time I just don't have to spare (during post office opening hours).
I get the same problem here in Sydney though - assuming I wanted to walk to the post office, it'd take me a good couple of hours (uphill on the way there, so riding a bike wouldn't be a fun option either). Thankfully on the rare occasions I need to send something via post, I just put it in the "outbox" at work and our admin people take care of it. But the point being, we don't have the whole "put the outgoing letter in your box" here in Australia, so if I didn't have the work option, I'd have to make that journey somehow and I can guarantee it'd be by car.
Having lived in both Amsterdam and Sydney, I can't agree with you more. In Amsterdam, I wasn't particularly central, but getting around was simple without a car - I could walk or bike pretty much anywhere I needed to be, and anywhere further I'd just walk to the train station. Here in Sydney however, I have to drive to get anywhere unless I want to take the horribly convoluted public transport (from where I live to where a good friend of mine lives, I'd have to take a bus, then a train, then change to a different train, then another bus)
Actually, lack of exercise does it pretty well on its own... I eat fairly well, but am still seriously overweight, and I attribute it entirely to the fact that the most exercise I get each day is walking from where I park my car to my desk at work, or my front door.
(no, please don't reply telling me if I should just exercise - I KNOW that if I want to lose weight that's what I should do, but given the choice of being fat and happy or thin and unhappy (due to the time I'd spend exercising which I HATE), I'll pick fat and happy any day)
Perhaps you missed it, but I didn't say "1.3", I said "3.1"... and yes, all those screenshots look very much like 3.1 with some fancier icons and running on a system with a graphics card (which realistically, any serious Amiga user has). I'd even go so far as to say those screenshots look significantly more primitive than OS3.9, which itself is dwarfed by OS4 in almost every regard.
The TCP config tool is a good step in the right direction, but looks primitive compared to OS4's Sys:Prefs/Internet
There's nothing really there that would make me want it *OVER* OS4 (if I didn't have OS4 of course, AROS would be my preferred OS for sure (that said though, if I'm allowed to emulate in this hypothetical scenario, I'd probably go for OS3.9 under WinUAE instead))