Cellphone conversations are very different from ambient conversations.
It's easier to filter out ambient conversations because you can hear all of the dialog. With cellphone conversations, however, you hear only one side. Your brain then works to fill in the missing dialog. Because your brain is working harder, cellphone conversations are more intrusive and annoying.
I suggest that you spend a fair amount of time in Japan, where public cellphone conversations are frowned upon (especially in trains). After coming back to the U.S., you'll realize how annoying cellphone chatters really are.
I know the blackjack dealer is faulty and will abuse it.
For example, you walk up to a blackjack dealer who you know can't count. You hand him a $20, get $200 in chips, and then walk away. Who's at fault here?
The users are at fault. For every $1 they inserted, they received $10 in credit. Unless they were blind, there is no way they could not know about this error.
Not so silly. The Surgeon General is an authority on the potential health impacts of global warming, but not on the topic of global warming by itself.
Also, to clarify a few things:
How about the coal plants spewing toxic gases - this not only contributes to the heating of the atmosphere but is a public health menace of significant proportions. Coal-fired power plants emit:
* CO2, which is a greenhouse gas, but is not considered to be overly toxic
* Sulfur dioxide, which is somewhat more toxic, but actually cools the atmosphere
* Particulate matter, which is not a gas
I'm not trying to imply that one should have a PhD in a specific subject to speak about that subject. Rather, I am trying to say that authority figures should be careful about speaking outside of their domain of expertise because their words have more weight than ordinary people. Sure, as a soft matter physicist you can advise your friends about ecology, systems biology, whatever. But, if you're the head of APS, then you probably should careful about the subjects you speak about on an official basis.
Jim Hansen, the head of NASA's GISS, talks about global warming all the time. Here's an interview from a couple of months ago. However, whenever he speaks publicly he states that the ideas presented are his own, and not NASA's.
I don't condone censorship of scientists in any way, shape or form. But why is the Surgeon General talking about global warming? He should leave that discussion to the climate experts (e.g. Jim Hansen). There are too many armchair climatologists out there, which contributes to the misunderstandings about global warming.
From the article:
Mr Diallo was arrested after allegedly smuggling a video recorder, video player and remote control into a preview of the film in the Bronx. WTF would he need a video player? Don't most modern recorders have built-in LCDs?
Yeah, it's stored in pressurized, insulated tanks underground, which will buffer the gas from temperature fluctuations. For this reason, I think that the lawsuits won't get too far.
But, the recent Congressional testimony on this topic and the multiple lawsuits in many states (some of which are class action), makes me wonder if there's something more to the story.
A couple of interesting tidbits from the testimony:
In some states, compensating for the temperature of refined petroleum products being sold has taken place at the wholesale level -- but not at the retail gas pump (diesel included) or for deliveries of home heating fuel. Some states prohibit temperature compensation at retail and some states prohibit temperature compensation anywhere in the petroleum distribution chain. Most states require temperature compensation for certain products, such as for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) sales, or propane for home heating, but not necessarily for other products.
A review of the application of temperature compensation to petroleum volume data showing average fuel storage tank temperatures in the U.S. and possible effect on petroleum measurement. The data on storage tank temperatures, collected by a manufacturer of tank monitoring equipment, over a two year period indicated that the average temperature of product in below ground tanks across the U.S. was 64.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
1-888-5-OPTOUT is an automated service run jointly by the four main credit bureaus. With one phone call you can opt out of pre-screened mailings from all four bureaus.
Apple products also tend to cost more, which is why this is scary.
From the NYTimes:
Justice Breyer estimated that the agreements translate to a higher annual average bill for a family of four of roughly $750 to $1,000.
I just want to fix a little something:
All the Supreme Court did was establish that the manufacturers can set prices for their own products sold by others (distributors and retailers), not for all the products of the same type across the board. If the manufacturers want to shoot themselves in the foot, let them; the internet outlets should still be able to stay competitive due to lower business costs. Let's say you own a small computer store, and you want to offer customers $50 off of a Lenovo laptop to attract new business. This SCOTUS ruling means that Lenovo can step in and force your shop to raise the price to a controlled minimum value. Can't you see how this is bad for consumers?
This could affect any on-line purchase that you may make. Not just movies and music, but anything from digital cameras to PCs.
I recently saved $100 by buying a digital camera from a small shop in NYC (I live in another state). The small shop-owner heavily discounted the camera with the hopes that I'd buy lots of accessories from his shop (I didn't). With this SCOTUS ruling, discounts like this may become a thing of the past.
As with all of the recent 5-4 splits, Justice Kennedy was the swing vote.
Justice Breyer wrote the dissent. Here's a piece:
That change, other things being equal, may enable (and motivate) more retailers, accounting for a greater percentage of total retail sales volume, to seek resale price maintenance, thereby making it more difficult for price-cutting competitors (perhaps internet retailers) to obtain market share.
Slashdot Mirror
Cellphone conversations are very different from ambient conversations.
It's easier to filter out ambient conversations because you can hear all of the dialog. With cellphone conversations, however, you hear only one side. Your brain then works to fill in the missing dialog. Because your brain is working harder, cellphone conversations are more intrusive and annoying.
I suggest that you spend a fair amount of time in Japan, where public cellphone conversations are frowned upon (especially in trains). After coming back to the U.S., you'll realize how annoying cellphone chatters really are.
"Drinking from a firehose" was coined long before UHF.
MIT President ['71-'80] Jerome Weisner coined the phrase "getting an Education from MIT is like taking a drink from a Fire Hose."
binspam tag to this shameless self-promotion?
(disclaimer: just joking, I enjoy drinking from the Firehose Fountain.)
there hasn't been a new OS X release (Tiger - 10.4) since April 2005?
Let's alter this hypothetical situation a bit:
I know the blackjack dealer is faulty and will abuse it.
For example, you walk up to a blackjack dealer who you know can't count. You hand him a $20, get $200 in chips, and then walk away. Who's at fault here?
The users are at fault. For every $1 they inserted, they received $10 in credit. Unless they were blind, there is no way they could not know about this error.
Atmospheric noise
Lava lamps
Radioactive decay
Entropy
Also, to clarify a few things: How about the coal plants spewing toxic gases - this not only contributes to the heating of the atmosphere but is a public health menace of significant proportions. Coal-fired power plants emit:
* CO2, which is a greenhouse gas, but is not considered to be overly toxic
* Sulfur dioxide, which is somewhat more toxic, but actually cools the atmosphere
* Particulate matter, which is not a gas
I'm not trying to imply that one should have a PhD in a specific subject to speak about that subject. Rather, I am trying to say that authority figures should be careful about speaking outside of their domain of expertise because their words have more weight than ordinary people. Sure, as a soft matter physicist you can advise your friends about ecology, systems biology, whatever. But, if you're the head of APS, then you probably should careful about the subjects you speak about on an official basis.
Jim Hansen, the head of NASA's GISS, talks about global warming all the time. Here's an interview from a couple of months ago. However, whenever he speaks publicly he states that the ideas presented are his own, and not NASA's.
Let's say I have a PhD in climate science. Do you want me to talk to you about cancer treatments if you have cancer?
I don't condone censorship of scientists in any way, shape or form. But why is the Surgeon General talking about global warming? He should leave that discussion to the climate experts (e.g. Jim Hansen). There are too many armchair climatologists out there, which contributes to the misunderstandings about global warming.
Sorry for the bad link /. doesn't like spaces in URLs.
One more time: Recent congressional testimony on this topic: "Hot Fuels - The Impact on Commercial Transactions of the Thermal Expansion of Gasoline"
Yeah, it's stored in pressurized, insulated tanks underground, which will buffer the gas from temperature fluctuations. For this reason, I think that the lawsuits won't get too far.
But, the recent Congressional testimony on this topic and the multiple lawsuits in many states (some of which are class action), makes me wonder if there's something more to the story.
Exactly.... Canadian gas station owners don't want to lose out!
A couple of interesting tidbits from the testimony: In some states, compensating for the temperature of refined petroleum products being sold has taken place at the wholesale level -- but not at the retail gas pump (diesel included) or for deliveries of home heating fuel. Some states prohibit temperature compensation at retail and some states prohibit temperature compensation anywhere in the petroleum distribution chain. Most states require temperature compensation for certain products, such as for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) sales, or propane for home heating, but not necessarily for other products. A review of the application of temperature compensation to petroleum volume data showing average fuel storage tank temperatures in the U.S. and possible effect on petroleum measurement. The data on storage tank temperatures, collected by a manufacturer of tank monitoring equipment, over a two year period indicated that the average temperature of product in below ground tanks across the U.S. was 64.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
1-888-5-OPTOUT is an automated service run jointly by the four main credit bureaus. With one phone call you can opt out of pre-screened mailings from all four bureaus.
Do you have a spare phone for CmdrTaco?
FYI: If those with Apple stock, shares are down as we speak (and maybe for the day).
It may take longer than a day...
Both Apple and AT&T shares are down.
According to Bill Shope, an analyst at JP Morgan, "we believe initial demand may have been disappointing, but it's still early."
Apple products also tend to cost more, which is why this is scary.
From the NYTimes: Justice Breyer estimated that the agreements translate to a higher annual average bill for a family of four of roughly $750 to $1,000.
This could affect any on-line purchase that you may make. Not just movies and music, but anything from digital cameras to PCs.
I recently saved $100 by buying a digital camera from a small shop in NYC (I live in another state). The small shop-owner heavily discounted the camera with the hopes that I'd buy lots of accessories from his shop (I didn't). With this SCOTUS ruling, discounts like this may become a thing of the past.
Justice Breyer wrote the dissent. Here's a piece: That change, other things being equal, may enable (and motivate) more retailers, accounting for a greater percentage of total retail sales volume, to seek resale price maintenance, thereby making it more difficult for price-cutting competitors (perhaps internet retailers) to obtain market share.