I weigh about 150 pounds, I see people who weigh more than twice as much as me every day, and they seem to be able to walk ok (although the fatsos my age are using canes and walkers because their knees are shot). I would imagine that you would simply get used to it after a while, and would bet that you would wind up looking like a weightlifter if you lived there very long.
They are in fact sometimes written by editors. I've submitted stories that were posted, with me as submitter, with TFS completely different than what I'd written. And most of the time, the ones posed were better than the original I submitted.
That assumes that you think that revenues are where they should be. It is quite possible that the problem is not on the spending side of the equation, but the revenue side
The revenues are down because tax collections are down -- you can't tax un unemployed guy very hard. Plus, the Bush cuts for the rich were supposed to help the economy, we saw how well that trickle down bullshit worked, with Bush being the only President to leave office with fewer jobs than he came in with. Taxes don't affect the rich at all unless the tax is especially onerous. An employer isn't going to hire new workers because his taxes are lower, he'll only hire new workers iif his supply can't meet his demand.
Some argue that the Obama payroll cuts din't help, but it has to be pointed out that unemployment dropped a point last month and new jobs are being created daily, mostly by the small business owner who didn't get either the Bush or Obama cuts, because the people with lower payroll taxes are spending that surplus at the small businessman's establishment.
If you can make ten widgets a day and can only sell nine per day, what would possibly convince you to more workers? The "tax the rich less and the economy grows" isn't just insane, it's moronic. I don't know how they convinced anyone of that rank bullshit (and bullshit really isn't a strong enough word for that blatant lie).
I'd say the government is about on par with God in terms of delivering on promises.
He's kept all the ones he made to me. Not so the government. The GP said "It used to be that ${God} would listen to everything you thought and prayed for", guess what? He still does. But you can't expect someone you don't even believe in to make promises, let alone keep them.
I agree with you that Konqueror sucks, but I don't see what's wrong with Firefox. Everything renders well, it's plenty fast, etc. Now, the browser at work, IE 7, is even worse than Konqueror. I'm happy with Firefox and really don't give a rat's ass how they number the versions.
Besides, it is still GPL, anybody can keep it alive. To quote Twain, "reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." GPL software needs no big corporation to survive.
As to the "you can uncheck the boxes", I shouldn't have to uncheck anything. What Google is doing with Chrome is underhanded, sneaky, unethical, and... well, it should be opt-in like the supermarket stalking cards; having to opt out of being stalked is evil. Why is it that it's legal for Doubleclick to stalk people but illegal for a person to? Why do corporations have more rights than people?
Ban the opt out, everything should be opt-in, otherwise it's slavery. When Chrome makes its stalking opt-in, I'll try Chrome, but not a day sooner. I try to avoid helpng evil.
Another myth is that the social security you get is what paid for.
You pay for the previous generation, the next generation pays for you. What you pay in you should expect to get back; that's how the syetem was set up. But they've been raiding SS and Medicare for a long time or it would be solvent.
No, it's not like a 401k -- if the stock market tanks you lose your 401k pension. It's more like a savings account that you earn interest on; the bank doesn't stuff the money oin a mattress or just let it sit in a vault, it's invested. The money I deposit isn't the same money I withdraw; they invest the money and if they lose, tough for them, I still get my money back with interest.
So redo your numbers with Mediacre and SS out of it, because that 36% and 31% have been going to the wars, TANF, LINK, interest, and infrastructure (etc).
As opposed to posting a URL that can't be clicked on? That's more like 1987ish.
I never saw any unclickable links on Compuserve or the bulletin boards, and damned few on the internet in 1997. OTOH I'm constantly annoyed at sites that use javascript fo rtheir links for no reason whatever, making it so you can't open the link in a new tab, or worse, Flash which forces a new window to open. And I see more and more of it.
If you use javascript for links, you're a moron. Period.
Charity? WTF? SS and Medicare are no more charity than the bank giving me money next week, with interest, that I deposit today. If the bank can't keep their books straight, that's their own problem and they're the only ones at fault.
I've been paying SS and Medicare taxes for four decades, son. If I were moderating, your comment would get a "flamebait" from me, because God damn it, you piss me off with that "Social Security and Medicare are charity" shit. Or troll; it's both untrue and inflammatory.
Fair enough; 1997 was probably the height of the browser wars, and there was a lot of "this site best viewed in..." crap floating around.
That's true, but it's only because folks were (stupidly imo) biting off more than they could chew. My sites were pretty much W3C compliant, and I often put (as a parody of the stupid sites) "best viewed in any browser." It even worked in Mosaic. And I had mouseovers, javascript (which degraded gracefully if your browser didn't support it), music, animations... pretty much everything that you would consider "web 2.0" today.
The secret? Nobody comes to your site because it's pretty, they come because there's useful or entertaining information. The looks simply matched the content.
Today's problem more than then is folks writing web sites using some automated tool rather than bothering to learn HTML.
Most people think that when you flip the light switch and the light comes on it's magic.
So true. A couple of years ago I was at my little sister's for Christmas, and her grandson asked her how a computer worked. Those were her exact words -- "it's magic".
You're not going to see the eclipse in India, so what difference does it make what they use? Most people who will be able to see it are in that time zone. Putting local events in UDT is just stupid. If it were ioonly visible in India, it would be best to use Indian time.
That's why the PC is on the road to becoming a niche platform. PC sales are *declining* in the US, Canada, and Western Europe.
Sales are declining because everybody has one and nobody needs a new one. Before recently you needed a new PC every few years befause faster PCs kept coming out, and the old PCs wouldn't run the newer programs. But PCs have gotten fast enough to watch a streamed TV show while uploading torrents and sending large files as email attachments. These days you only buy a new PC when the old one breaks. It will be quite a while befor a PC is a "niche" platform.
The same with TVs. The press says "TV ownership is declining", but the only thing that's declining is TV sales. I have a perfectly good TV set, why do I need to buy another? The market is saturated.
That said, I don't really have a traditional PC; the computer sits next to the TV, which I use as a monitor, and have a cordless keyboard and mouse (I'm slowly building it into a media center). My other computer is a $250 notebook that does everything I need it to do.
SS ran into a couple of problems besides being raided. One was the entrance of most of the 50% of adults who kept a home into the workforce. This crated a labor surplus, so wages were stagnant in an inflationary economy.
Another is the boomers retiring (my turn in 2 years!), but that is a temporary problem; we boomers will all be dead in forty years, and by then the population may be rising again. If it isn't, and if supply and demand isn't a fairy tale, the fact that we're retiring should make labor more rare, and your labor should be better compensated.
You mention taxes, I'd like to see them get rid of that $75k cap on taxes. Keep the caps on benefits, but tax Bill Gates and Microsoft at the same 15% I and my employer pay jointly rather than the.00001% he and they are paying now.
You probably work longer hours, and have less say over your daily schedule than a medieval serf.
That's very, very doubtful. The seven day workweek with twelve hour days (without time and a half) was the norm until the 20th century. The serfs didn't get weekends or holidays off, nor did they get vacations or sick time. Those things didn't exist except for craft guild members until the union movement in the 20th century. The teabagging 1%ers want to remove that from us.
And, in my sixty years (next April) I have yet to see a single technological advance that didn't make my life better, and I've seen a LOT. When McCoy exclaims in STIV "Barbarians!" in the 20th century hospital, that's the attitude a modern physician would have if transported to an OR in 1960. Things were incredibly primitive back then.
There's a certain something about model shots in movies that CGI just doesn't quite match.
I don't know, it's been a while since I watched the "making of" documentary on the Star Trek DVD, but they spoke of the CGI and the tricks they used to make it look like film and models rather than CGI. It looke real to me.
The problem is that 'When you create elements of a shot entirely in a computer, you have to generate everything that physics and the natural world offers you from scratch
I don't see that as a problem, and the thing is, with GCI you can do things that are impossible, impractical, or incredibly dangerous without it.
I was impressed with Apollo 13. I don't know if they used models or CGI for the outside the capsule shots, but the weightless scenes were shot in the Vomit Comet".
The goal of special effects shouldn't necessarily be to look realistic, they should be works of art themselves and help create a mood or tell a story.
I disagree; unless you're shooting a cartoon, everything should be as realistic and beleivable as possible. And everything in the movie should strive to be a work of art in itself.
They hope to change this with their upcoming sci-fi film, 'C,' which will be shot entirely without CGI or green screens
Yeah, do that scene in Star Trek where Spock walks into the lift from one part of the ship and walks back out in another. Without a green screen they'd have had to have an acutual elevator.
I think it a bit ironic that a sci-fi movie would eschew real-world technology.
Odd, that's what they were called. And think about the term "prehistoric", they've been writing things down for six or eight thousand years now. The stone age was way before green CRTs, it was the '70s when everyone was getting stoned.
I don't mind product placement a bit. In fact, I'd rather have the character drinking a Budweiser or a Guiness than some obviously made up brand. It makes the show more realistic.
The other shit you mention, yeah, I absolutely hate it.
With customers increasing their demand for bandwidth, ISPs and cable providers have to increase their network to meet that demand
I'm not sure exactly what you meant by "ISPs and cable providers have to increase their network". That seems to say they need to lay cable and fiber, when what they need is more bandwidth. Odd how I get snail junk mail from Comcast every week begging me to sign up; I see no evidence at all they they're out of bandwidth, or they wouldn't be able to add customers.
Slashdot Mirror
I weigh about 150 pounds, I see people who weigh more than twice as much as me every day, and they seem to be able to walk ok (although the fatsos my age are using canes and walkers because their knees are shot). I would imagine that you would simply get used to it after a while, and would bet that you would wind up looking like a weightlifter if you lived there very long.
Not only that, I could get fired for it. Besides, WHY?? I don't understand why anyone would want to snoop unless they're selling the data to someone.
They are in fact sometimes written by editors. I've submitted stories that were posted, with me as submitter, with TFS completely different than what I'd written. And most of the time, the ones posed were better than the original I submitted.
That assumes that you think that revenues are where they should be. It is quite possible that the problem is not on the spending side of the equation, but the revenue side
The revenues are down because tax collections are down -- you can't tax un unemployed guy very hard. Plus, the Bush cuts for the rich were supposed to help the economy, we saw how well that trickle down bullshit worked, with Bush being the only President to leave office with fewer jobs than he came in with. Taxes don't affect the rich at all unless the tax is especially onerous. An employer isn't going to hire new workers because his taxes are lower, he'll only hire new workers iif his supply can't meet his demand.
Some argue that the Obama payroll cuts din't help, but it has to be pointed out that unemployment dropped a point last month and new jobs are being created daily, mostly by the small business owner who didn't get either the Bush or Obama cuts, because the people with lower payroll taxes are spending that surplus at the small businessman's establishment.
If you can make ten widgets a day and can only sell nine per day, what would possibly convince you to more workers? The "tax the rich less and the economy grows" isn't just insane, it's moronic. I don't know how they convinced anyone of that rank bullshit (and bullshit really isn't a strong enough word for that blatant lie).
I'd say the government is about on par with God in terms of delivering on promises.
He's kept all the ones he made to me. Not so the government. The GP said "It used to be that ${God} would listen to everything you thought and prayed for", guess what? He still does. But you can't expect someone you don't even believe in to make promises, let alone keep them.
I assure you tha tthe world as I know it will end -- I'm eligibe to retire next December!
I agree with you that Konqueror sucks, but I don't see what's wrong with Firefox. Everything renders well, it's plenty fast, etc. Now, the browser at work, IE 7, is even worse than Konqueror. I'm happy with Firefox and really don't give a rat's ass how they number the versions.
Besides, it is still GPL, anybody can keep it alive. To quote Twain, "reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." GPL software needs no big corporation to survive.
As to the "you can uncheck the boxes", I shouldn't have to uncheck anything. What Google is doing with Chrome is underhanded, sneaky, unethical, and... well, it should be opt-in like the supermarket stalking cards; having to opt out of being stalked is evil. Why is it that it's legal for Doubleclick to stalk people but illegal for a person to? Why do corporations have more rights than people?
Ban the opt out, everything should be opt-in, otherwise it's slavery. When Chrome makes its stalking opt-in, I'll try Chrome, but not a day sooner. I try to avoid helpng evil.
Another myth is that the social security you get is what paid for.
You pay for the previous generation, the next generation pays for you. What you pay in you should expect to get back; that's how the syetem was set up. But they've been raiding SS and Medicare for a long time or it would be solvent.
No, it's not like a 401k -- if the stock market tanks you lose your 401k pension. It's more like a savings account that you earn interest on; the bank doesn't stuff the money oin a mattress or just let it sit in a vault, it's invested. The money I deposit isn't the same money I withdraw; they invest the money and if they lose, tough for them, I still get my money back with interest.
So redo your numbers with Mediacre and SS out of it, because that 36% and 31% have been going to the wars, TANF, LINK, interest, and infrastructure (etc).
As opposed to posting a URL that can't be clicked on? That's more like 1987ish.
I never saw any unclickable links on Compuserve or the bulletin boards, and damned few on the internet in 1997. OTOH I'm constantly annoyed at sites that use javascript fo rtheir links for no reason whatever, making it so you can't open the link in a new tab, or worse, Flash which forces a new window to open. And I see more and more of it.
If you use javascript for links, you're a moron. Period.
Charity? WTF? SS and Medicare are no more charity than the bank giving me money next week, with interest, that I deposit today. If the bank can't keep their books straight, that's their own problem and they're the only ones at fault.
I've been paying SS and Medicare taxes for four decades, son. If I were moderating, your comment would get a "flamebait" from me, because God damn it, you piss me off with that "Social Security and Medicare are charity" shit. Or troll; it's both untrue and inflammatory.
Fair enough; 1997 was probably the height of the browser wars, and there was a lot of "this site best viewed in ..." crap floating around.
That's true, but it's only because folks were (stupidly imo) biting off more than they could chew. My sites were pretty much W3C compliant, and I often put (as a parody of the stupid sites) "best viewed in any browser." It even worked in Mosaic. And I had mouseovers, javascript (which degraded gracefully if your browser didn't support it), music, animations... pretty much everything that you would consider "web 2.0" today.
The secret? Nobody comes to your site because it's pretty, they come because there's useful or entertaining information. The looks simply matched the content.
Today's problem more than then is folks writing web sites using some automated tool rather than bothering to learn HTML.
Most people think that when you flip the light switch and the light comes on it's magic.
So true. A couple of years ago I was at my little sister's for Christmas, and her grandson asked her how a computer worked. Those were her exact words -- "it's magic".
You're not going to see the eclipse in India, so what difference does it make what they use? Most people who will be able to see it are in that time zone. Putting local events in UDT is just stupid. If it were ioonly visible in India, it would be best to use Indian time.
That's why the PC is on the road to becoming a niche platform. PC sales are *declining* in the US, Canada, and Western Europe.
Sales are declining because everybody has one and nobody needs a new one. Before recently you needed a new PC every few years befause faster PCs kept coming out, and the old PCs wouldn't run the newer programs. But PCs have gotten fast enough to watch a streamed TV show while uploading torrents and sending large files as email attachments. These days you only buy a new PC when the old one breaks. It will be quite a while befor a PC is a "niche" platform.
The same with TVs. The press says "TV ownership is declining", but the only thing that's declining is TV sales. I have a perfectly good TV set, why do I need to buy another? The market is saturated.
That said, I don't really have a traditional PC; the computer sits next to the TV, which I use as a monitor, and have a cordless keyboard and mouse (I'm slowly building it into a media center). My other computer is a $250 notebook that does everything I need it to do.
SS ran into a couple of problems besides being raided. One was the entrance of most of the 50% of adults who kept a home into the workforce. This crated a labor surplus, so wages were stagnant in an inflationary economy.
Another is the boomers retiring (my turn in 2 years!), but that is a temporary problem; we boomers will all be dead in forty years, and by then the population may be rising again. If it isn't, and if supply and demand isn't a fairy tale, the fact that we're retiring should make labor more rare, and your labor should be better compensated.
You mention taxes, I'd like to see them get rid of that $75k cap on taxes. Keep the caps on benefits, but tax Bill Gates and Microsoft at the same 15% I and my employer pay jointly rather than the .00001% he and they are paying now.
I think "content generation" is a phrase used in a more all-encompassing manner, including writing, music, image manipulation, filmmaking, etc.
You probably work longer hours, and have less say over your daily schedule than a medieval serf.
That's very, very doubtful. The seven day workweek with twelve hour days (without time and a half) was the norm until the 20th century. The serfs didn't get weekends or holidays off, nor did they get vacations or sick time. Those things didn't exist except for craft guild members until the union movement in the 20th century. The teabagging 1%ers want to remove that from us.
And, in my sixty years (next April) I have yet to see a single technological advance that didn't make my life better, and I've seen a LOT. When McCoy exclaims in STIV "Barbarians!" in the 20th century hospital, that's the attitude a modern physician would have if transported to an OR in 1960. Things were incredibly primitive back then.
There's a certain something about model shots in movies that CGI just doesn't quite match.
I don't know, it's been a while since I watched the "making of" documentary on the Star Trek DVD, but they spoke of the CGI and the tricks they used to make it look like film and models rather than CGI. It looke real to me.
The problem is that 'When you create elements of a shot entirely in a computer, you have to generate everything that physics and the natural world offers you from scratch
I don't see that as a problem, and the thing is, with GCI you can do things that are impossible, impractical, or incredibly dangerous without it.
I was impressed with Apollo 13. I don't know if they used models or CGI for the outside the capsule shots, but the weightless scenes were shot in the Vomit Comet".
The goal of special effects shouldn't necessarily be to look realistic, they should be works of art themselves and help create a mood or tell a story.
I disagree; unless you're shooting a cartoon, everything should be as realistic and beleivable as possible. And everything in the movie should strive to be a work of art in itself.
They hope to change this with their upcoming sci-fi film, 'C,' which will be shot entirely without CGI or green screens
Yeah, do that scene in Star Trek where Spock walks into the lift from one part of the ship and walks back out in another. Without a green screen they'd have had to have an acutual elevator.
I think it a bit ironic that a sci-fi movie would eschew real-world technology.
Odd, that's what they were called. And think about the term "prehistoric", they've been writing things down for six or eight thousand years now. The stone age was way before green CRTs, it was the '70s when everyone was getting stoned.
I would if I weren't already in a good union. If you work in networking or telecommunications, the CWA would be a good outfit to contact.
I don't mind product placement a bit. In fact, I'd rather have the character drinking a Budweiser or a Guiness than some obviously made up brand. It makes the show more realistic.
The other shit you mention, yeah, I absolutely hate it.
This money does not grow on trees.
It's funny how people parrot the most ignorant things. Money does indeed grow on trees.
With customers increasing their demand for bandwidth, ISPs and cable providers have to increase their network to meet that demand
I'm not sure exactly what you meant by "ISPs and cable providers have to increase their network". That seems to say they need to lay cable and fiber, when what they need is more bandwidth. Odd how I get snail junk mail from Comcast every week begging me to sign up; I see no evidence at all they they're out of bandwidth, or they wouldn't be able to add customers.
I wonder if the advent of entertainment media in the technological age is why SETI has failed to detect any signals.
Maybe they don't know where to look?
An even larger part of me regrets that I won't be around to see the day when they make contact with another civilisation.
That assumes that there are other civilizations in our galaxy. If there are, I'm not sure I want to be around when we meet them.