I can buy another solid week's worth of power for a few bucks any place AA batteries are sold
Which is a pretty horrible thing to do, because that's just wasteful and has a negative impact on the environment. Nicad and NiMh batteries are already worse on the environment. buying batteries to throw away just multiplies the effect. The responsible thing to do as a human is to use the LiOn and use it for as long as possible before replacing it.
So, it's the people driving over the speed limit who are causing the differential. If they obeyed the law, then there wouldn't be a problem.
If everyone drives 80, that is safer than most people driving 55 and a couple driving 35.
But if everybody was driving at 35, then it would be much safer. It's those who break the limit who are responsible for the speed differential.
IF there is accident at 80, damage and injuries will be more severe, but it is far more likely that someone going 55 and someone else going 35 will have that accident.
And going at 80 means an accident is much more likely to happen, because it allows less reaction time, and causes greater stopping distance when unforseen incidents occur.
What about the cost of leasing the card reader? That's usually pretty substantial for smaller businesses. The credit/debit systems tend to have the worst impact on smaller operations - the places where you still get friendly face-to-face service, and the money goes more directly to help the family/community. Changing the money (and the ATM machines, vending machines etc.) mostly impacts the huge companies who provide anonymous/poor service and already have piles of cash.
And now we have to replace very cash register and vending machine in the country, to make life easier for a tiny minority of people.
Wouldn't that benefit the economy, by pumping more money into manufacturing and technical service? It's not like the banks and large retail chains are hurting for business - but the manufacturing sector isn't doing that well these days.
As I mentioned before, sight-impaired access is not the only drawback of the US currency. America loses millions of dollars to counterfeiting. A new currency would solve that problem, among many others.
So, is there really a need to redesign the bills so that they're accessable to the blind?
I'd say there is, even if it doesn't affect a lot of people. But US currency needs to be redesigned for other reasons as well. It is one of the easiest world currencies to counterfeit. The currency needs to be redesigned for this reason alone. This can be achieved with polymer currency that includes security mechanisms. Polymer currency also has the advantage of being more durable, and less of a health risk - they are easily washed, and don't absorb contaminants as easily as paper money. It's about time that US currency got with the times, it's quite backwards. Which is ironic for a currency that has such global importance, from a country that is considered a technological leader.
My parents have a Sony CD player deck from ~1991 and it still works great. I've gone through about three over the years.
Ahh, but you'll probably find that the old CD player has problems playing burned CDs, because CD burners were not around at the time. At work, we have some older Denon CD players that were extremely expensive, top-of-the-line units. But they are nearly worthless for our purposes, because they won't play burned CDs - and we need that function to play back sound effects and custom soundtracks created by musicians. So we use Minidisc, iPods, or computers instead.
A supply of NiMH batteries plus a charger is going to run you less than a replacement LiOn battery.
I doubt it, when a replacement LiOn battery costs around $16. Usability is also worth something. You have to use a separate charger, wheras I just plug the thing into the computer when syncing songs. I don't even have to think about batteries - well, maybe once every three years.
Yeah, but that would add thickness and sacrifice the "design", meaning the cool looking case.
"Design" is way overrated when it kills functionality.
But making an iPod thicker would affect functionality. Its function is to be very portable, to fit in pockets and other confined spaces. Making it any bigger would affect functionality. Adding a battery hatch would not increase usability or functionality. Design and function are not always opposite forces.
But your iRiver must be bulky enough to accomodate a AA battery. That's pretty big! Also, the battery hatch compromises construction, usually making the unit flimsier - and you risk losing the battery hatch cover. Not only that, but those AAs are worse for the environment.
AA batteries aren't exactly cheap, unless you use rechargeables, but then you have to pay for a charger, and more for the battery. But more importantly, they are extremely bulky and have limited capacity. That would totally screw up the design. It's more important to most people for the unit to be compact and lightweight than to have easily replaceable batteries.
Yeah, and they won't let you make human sacrifices to the gods, or have sex with 12 year old girls either! What a horribly oppressive state!
What does that have to do with personal freedoms? Sacrifice of humans, and sex with 12 year old girls infrginges on people's rights not to be sacrificed, or to be sexually abused. Smoking pot or gays getting married is a personal choice, and does not affect anyone apart from the people who choose to partake in those activities.
Yes, it is a horribly oppressive state when people spend a long time in prison simply because they choose to smoke a plant. Note that the states that do allow pot smoking and gay marriage, also prohibit human sacrifice and sex with children. So, obviously, the US does not give the most personal freedom of any country in the world.
Frankly, I don't much care about whether pot is illegal or not, nor do I care if two anal avengers want to call themselves husband and wife. What I DO have a problem with is when such decisions are made by legal activism instead of by popular decision
Why does the decision have to be popular? You speak of "personal freedoms" - but many personal freedoms are not popular. Either you are free to do something, or you are not.
You say that you don't care much about these issues - so does that mean you don't care about personal freedom? Being sent to prison is one of the greatest deprivations of liberty possible. I guess you don't care if people who exercise their freedom are sent to jail.
For instance, in Canada same sex marriage was declared to be a "right" despite the fact that no referendum was ever held, and that polls showed the people pretty equally split on the issue. That's simply not right.
Human rights should not be up to whether society finds that right to be popular or not. Why is it wrong to err on the side of freedom?
it should be a decision made by the people, and not some judge or politician. That's one thing that the US has gotten right so far.
Would you care to explain? The US enshrines many rights and laws that are not popular, but are decided by a judge or politician.
Back to the original point - why did you claim that the US is best for personal rights and freedom, when other countries have more personal rights and freedoms? And then, why did you argue against personal rights and freedoms, in favor of the idea of society deciding what rights and freedoms should be allowed, based on popularity?
You must be young. In the computing era I grew up in, an interest in video games is what drew you into computing in the first place.
Depends on what you call "young." I grew up playing Space Invaders and Pac Man at the arcades, when there were very few decent gaming options for home computers (and hardly anybody had a home computer, anyway). This doesn't change the fact that most gamers today are consumers. My generation is only a miniscule proportion of the market, and many of us have retired from gaming. Heck, most games are aimed at the young - and the ethos is totally different today. We used to program our own games. How many gamers do that today, versus the number who just consume games as a product?
Today, there's no real correlation between gaming and geekiness. Games are "cool," and a mass-consumer product.
You must have some pretty non-standard experiences with Mac users. Macs have been co-existing for years in networks dominated by Windows. Graphic designers using Macs, for example, do their design work on a Mac, but often use a Windows machine to do the RIP to a printer or imagesetter. Macs implemented interoperability with Windows file-systems a long time ago. Windows has still not implemented interoperability with Mac file systems.
Mac users have been using Virtual PC for years, and these days also run Windows via dual-boot or virtualization.
"But, It's not a Macintosh, I refuse to work with it, buy me a Macintosh" In which case IT spends 2x the cost to buy them a comperable Mac.
I think you're getting that wrong. Many prefer to work with a Mac, but don't just demand a Mac, because it is a Mac. It's because in many fields, the Mac is a more efficient platform to work with.
It's not true that Macs cost twice as much. they are around the same price as Windows machines. But if you are using a Windows machine for certain tasks, the extra costs to productivity of not using a Mac, are much more than the trivial difference in hardware cost.
All of the places I have worked have been PC places, tolerate Macs very well, even though they are maybe 100 out of 1500 computers.
That is not historically typical. Many workplaces went on vendettas against Macs. Although today, things are a lot better, and there is less hostility.
For one thing, I own a Mac. And when something goes wrong, the solutions I have gotten from the Genius bar are, 1. It's broke, buy a new one. 2. It's under warranty, we'll replace it. And you have to wait 30 minutes inline to get that? Why?
What does that have to be with Mac users being sheep? The quality of support at the "genius bar" has no relevance to the sheepishness of the users.
The reason why Apple users don't have to make policies to ban other applications and platforms, is that there are no applications, or to the extent that their are with a PC.
That doesn't make any sense. There are tons of applications for the Mac - and there are many which are not available for Windows, or have not been in the past.
Plus PC's, by virtue of being the most widely used platform are more vunerable to virus's, so the need to restrict users to certain softwares is more needed.
Windows isn't more vulnerable to viruses because it is the most widely used platform. It's more vulnerable because it is full of security holes, and Microsoft is very lazy when it comes to fixing these problems.
I don't know where all these "smart" dedicated Mac users are. Cause any reasoning I have heard from a Mac user to use a Mac product is solely based on the "shiny" aspect.
You are obviously pretty ignorant. Very few people use Macs because they are "shiny." In fact, when Apple allowed other companies to make clones, many users switched to those clones, which were much more boring-looking than the Apple machines. Most use Macs because they are more productive on that platform, and appreciate the innovative OS and applications. The Mac has a history of trail-blazing software that changes industries - not "sheep" thinking. When Photoshop and desktop publishing were set alight on the Mac, the sheep were saying that digital publishing and photo editing would never take off. When the Mac innovated with the WIMP GUI, the sheep were saying that "real computers" used a command-line, not a mouse and windows.
I have "Black Screened" Macs so many times. I think I have Blue Screened Xp, once? Maybe. Anytime I have a probelm with a Mac, the solution is 9 outta 10, reinstall the OS. I have never reinstalled the OS to fix a PC problem.
You must be pretty new to computers. All of your comments seem to imply that you have only experienced computing in recent years, and are not aware of h
I think you are bringing your biases to those Mac stores. Most Mac users I know are anything but sheep, they actively seek the best solutions, and often have to go to great trouble to go against the grain. Also, if Apple screws up, Mac users are often Apple's most vocal critics.
In the IT world, the biggest sheep would have to be corporate IT, where anything Microsoft is good - and they will go to great lengths to prevent users from making any other choices. They will even institute policies to ban other platforms and applications. I've yet to see places that use Macs implement such conformist policies.
Slashdot Mirror
Nipples are great when sauteed in butter, and served on a bed of hot grits.
Which is a pretty horrible thing to do, because that's just wasteful and has a negative impact on the environment. Nicad and NiMh batteries are already worse on the environment. buying batteries to throw away just multiplies the effect. The responsible thing to do as a human is to use the LiOn and use it for as long as possible before replacing it.
So, it's the people driving over the speed limit who are causing the differential. If they obeyed the law, then there wouldn't be a problem.
If everyone drives 80, that is safer than most people driving 55 and a couple driving 35.
But if everybody was driving at 35, then it would be much safer. It's those who break the limit who are responsible for the speed differential.
IF there is accident at 80, damage and injuries will be more severe, but it is far more likely that someone going 55 and someone else going 35 will have that accident.
And going at 80 means an accident is much more likely to happen, because it allows less reaction time, and causes greater stopping distance when unforseen incidents occur.
That doesn't make any sense. It's the people going above the speed limit who are endangering lives.
But it wouldn't work, because of competition and inflation.
Which would mean we can charge for different colored iPods based on the color of your notes! What's not to love?
You'd be surprised how often both abbreviations are relevant.
I know who I'd rather have the burden fall upon.
Wouldn't that benefit the economy, by pumping more money into manufacturing and technical service? It's not like the banks and large retail chains are hurting for business - but the manufacturing sector isn't doing that well these days.
As I mentioned before, sight-impaired access is not the only drawback of the US currency. America loses millions of dollars to counterfeiting. A new currency would solve that problem, among many others.
I'd say there is, even if it doesn't affect a lot of people. But US currency needs to be redesigned for other reasons as well. It is one of the easiest world currencies to counterfeit. The currency needs to be redesigned for this reason alone. This can be achieved with polymer currency that includes security mechanisms. Polymer currency also has the advantage of being more durable, and less of a health risk - they are easily washed, and don't absorb contaminants as easily as paper money. It's about time that US currency got with the times, it's quite backwards. Which is ironic for a currency that has such global importance, from a country that is considered a technological leader.
Ahh, but you'll probably find that the old CD player has problems playing burned CDs, because CD burners were not around at the time. At work, we have some older Denon CD players that were extremely expensive, top-of-the-line units. But they are nearly worthless for our purposes, because they won't play burned CDs - and we need that function to play back sound effects and custom soundtracks created by musicians. So we use Minidisc, iPods, or computers instead.
I doubt it, when a replacement LiOn battery costs around $16. Usability is also worth something. You have to use a separate charger, wheras I just plug the thing into the computer when syncing songs. I don't even have to think about batteries - well, maybe once every three years.
But making an iPod thicker would affect functionality. Its function is to be very portable, to fit in pockets and other confined spaces. Making it any bigger would affect functionality. Adding a battery hatch would not increase usability or functionality. Design and function are not always opposite forces.
But your iRiver must be bulky enough to accomodate a AA battery. That's pretty big! Also, the battery hatch compromises construction, usually making the unit flimsier - and you risk losing the battery hatch cover. Not only that, but those AAs are worse for the environment.
AA batteries aren't exactly cheap, unless you use rechargeables, but then you have to pay for a charger, and more for the battery. But more importantly, they are extremely bulky and have limited capacity. That would totally screw up the design. It's more important to most people for the unit to be compact and lightweight than to have easily replaceable batteries.
Universities.
I thought Mandriva was what you do to a guy with a dildo attached to a cordless drill.
What does that have to do with personal freedoms? Sacrifice of humans, and sex with 12 year old girls infrginges on people's rights not to be sacrificed, or to be sexually abused. Smoking pot or gays getting married is a personal choice, and does not affect anyone apart from the people who choose to partake in those activities.
Yes, it is a horribly oppressive state when people spend a long time in prison simply because they choose to smoke a plant. Note that the states that do allow pot smoking and gay marriage, also prohibit human sacrifice and sex with children. So, obviously, the US does not give the most personal freedom of any country in the world.
Frankly, I don't much care about whether pot is illegal or not, nor do I care if two anal avengers want to call themselves husband and wife. What I DO have a problem with is when such decisions are made by legal activism instead of by popular decision
Why does the decision have to be popular? You speak of "personal freedoms" - but many personal freedoms are not popular. Either you are free to do something, or you are not.
You say that you don't care much about these issues - so does that mean you don't care about personal freedom? Being sent to prison is one of the greatest deprivations of liberty possible. I guess you don't care if people who exercise their freedom are sent to jail.
For instance, in Canada same sex marriage was declared to be a "right" despite the fact that no referendum was ever held, and that polls showed the people pretty equally split on the issue. That's simply not right.
Human rights should not be up to whether society finds that right to be popular or not. Why is it wrong to err on the side of freedom?
it should be a decision made by the people, and not some judge or politician. That's one thing that the US has gotten right so far.
Would you care to explain? The US enshrines many rights and laws that are not popular, but are decided by a judge or politician.
Back to the original point - why did you claim that the US is best for personal rights and freedom, when other countries have more personal rights and freedoms? And then, why did you argue against personal rights and freedoms, in favor of the idea of society deciding what rights and freedoms should be allowed, based on popularity?
Depends on what you call "young." I grew up playing Space Invaders and Pac Man at the arcades, when there were very few decent gaming options for home computers (and hardly anybody had a home computer, anyway). This doesn't change the fact that most gamers today are consumers. My generation is only a miniscule proportion of the market, and many of us have retired from gaming. Heck, most games are aimed at the young - and the ethos is totally different today. We used to program our own games. How many gamers do that today, versus the number who just consume games as a product?
Today, there's no real correlation between gaming and geekiness. Games are "cool," and a mass-consumer product.
You must have some pretty non-standard experiences with Mac users. Macs have been co-existing for years in networks dominated by Windows. Graphic designers using Macs, for example, do their design work on a Mac, but often use a Windows machine to do the RIP to a printer or imagesetter. Macs implemented interoperability with Windows file-systems a long time ago. Windows has still not implemented interoperability with Mac file systems.
Mac users have been using Virtual PC for years, and these days also run Windows via dual-boot or virtualization.
"But, It's not a Macintosh, I refuse to work with it, buy me a Macintosh" In which case IT spends 2x the cost to buy them a comperable Mac.
I think you're getting that wrong. Many prefer to work with a Mac, but don't just demand a Mac, because it is a Mac. It's because in many fields, the Mac is a more efficient platform to work with.
It's not true that Macs cost twice as much. they are around the same price as Windows machines. But if you are using a Windows machine for certain tasks, the extra costs to productivity of not using a Mac, are much more than the trivial difference in hardware cost.
All of the places I have worked have been PC places, tolerate Macs very well, even though they are maybe 100 out of 1500 computers.
That is not historically typical. Many workplaces went on vendettas against Macs. Although today, things are a lot better, and there is less hostility.
For one thing, I own a Mac. And when something goes wrong, the solutions I have gotten from the Genius bar are, 1. It's broke, buy a new one. 2. It's under warranty, we'll replace it. And you have to wait 30 minutes inline to get that? Why?
What does that have to be with Mac users being sheep? The quality of support at the "genius bar" has no relevance to the sheepishness of the users.
The reason why Apple users don't have to make policies to ban other applications and platforms, is that there are no applications, or to the extent that their are with a PC.
That doesn't make any sense. There are tons of applications for the Mac - and there are many which are not available for Windows, or have not been in the past.
Plus PC's, by virtue of being the most widely used platform are more vunerable to virus's, so the need to restrict users to certain softwares is more needed.
Windows isn't more vulnerable to viruses because it is the most widely used platform. It's more vulnerable because it is full of security holes, and Microsoft is very lazy when it comes to fixing these problems.
I don't know where all these "smart" dedicated Mac users are. Cause any reasoning I have heard from a Mac user to use a Mac product is solely based on the "shiny" aspect.
You are obviously pretty ignorant. Very few people use Macs because they are "shiny." In fact, when Apple allowed other companies to make clones, many users switched to those clones, which were much more boring-looking than the Apple machines. Most use Macs because they are more productive on that platform, and appreciate the innovative OS and applications. The Mac has a history of trail-blazing software that changes industries - not "sheep" thinking. When Photoshop and desktop publishing were set alight on the Mac, the sheep were saying that digital publishing and photo editing would never take off. When the Mac innovated with the WIMP GUI, the sheep were saying that "real computers" used a command-line, not a mouse and windows.
I have "Black Screened" Macs so many times. I think I have Blue Screened Xp, once? Maybe. Anytime I have a probelm with a Mac, the solution is 9 outta 10, reinstall the OS. I have never reinstalled the OS to fix a PC problem.
You must be pretty new to computers. All of your comments seem to imply that you have only experienced computing in recent years, and are not aware of h
Or not. The US won't even allow people to smoke pot, or for gays to get married, unlike some countries.
Among many others, it was said before by James Brown and Midnight Oil.
In the IT world, the biggest sheep would have to be corporate IT, where anything Microsoft is good - and they will go to great lengths to prevent users from making any other choices. They will even institute policies to ban other platforms and applications. I've yet to see places that use Macs implement such conformist policies.
Solution: Eric Cartman's Mom.