What we care about is the interstitial page the browser throws up that prevents us from reaching the device until we click agree twice, add an exception, click advanced, click yes, we really mean it, click settings click enable user to view insecure sites... just to get it done. Its not this bad yet, but its getting there.
It kind of does make sense. This is just one of the reasons things like HumbleBundle and GoG and Steam are popular. Not every title is available on every platform but a lot of titles are available on windows + osx + linux for one purchase.
Humblebundle in particular supports windows + mac + linux + android; and there are a number of titles that cross the divide, for example: https://www.humblebundle.com/s...
You'll notice what is missing though... iOS.
The trouble here with Apple doing it is that the apple store itself is single platform, and on ios at least its also the only store you are allowed to use. The upshot is that anything you buy on the apple store will still only ever work on your apple devices. And anything you buy on another store will not be allowed on iOS.
Let me know when Apple allows GoG and Steam and HumbleBundle etc onto iOS. Until then: Fuck iOS and the apple app stores.
"Funny how the best sellers are NOT an inch thick."
No. That's no surprise at all. People don't want inch thick phones. Who said they do?
If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of putting words in my mouth maybe you'd stop chasing strawmen in every post.
The the iphone 4 and 5 weren't thick. They were thin enough. The iphoneX being thinner isn't winning any new fans... there wasn't anybody out there with an iphone 4 saying... "you know I'd buy one if they were just a bit thinner."
"Hint: Not everyone that frequents/. lives in your neighborhood or even the U.S."
Thank's cap'n obvious.
"Apple knows far, far more about what people will buy than you do."
Apple releases turds on a regular basis (g4 cube, trash can mac); some of them even sell well and are still turds (puck mouse anyone?).
Reality -- apple is a fashion brand now. And this is apples new phone, as long as they don't fuck it up and its thin enough then it will sell. There's nothing really exciting about the iphone X vs the last one; and its 'z'-axis measurement is the among the least exciting thing about it.
"I have needed to charge and wanted to listen music over earphones at the same time _twice_ in the 2 years I've had my 7+."
Good for you. I've needed to do that exactly zero times. I'd still choose a phone with a headphone jack given the choice. My daughter easily spends 4-6 hours a day with her headphones and she uses the same pair with her phone and her laptop. Different people need different things.
"I suppose you also choose your 911/pickup by choosing the model that has the most convenient ashtrays? Because THAT's what 's _important_ to you so it _must_ be the same for everyone..."
Nobody cares how much thinner the new iphone X is vs the last one. Really. Nobody cares. Even the people who bought one... they don't really care. The 7 was thin enough.
I think that sums up my use of the windows store too; across 2 desktops, and an HTPC... oh wait... the HTPC, right... I also have the netflix app, which sucks but is a bit better than using web browser from the couch.
"So you want a bigger battery phone instead of a functionally equivalent phone+battery case because it isn't fetching."
No. They're clunky and awkward, and the reviews are pretty mixed, with lots of them having tons of 1 star reviews; with many of the available options made by shitty generics with lousy QA and QC. Don't reduce this to a simple 'fasion' statement, although yes, that's part of it too.
"I look around the roads around me and very rarely see any pickup trucks,"
I look around the roads around me and about 20%+ are pickup trucks.
"Nor do people say that they actually want/need a pickup."
The people around here definitely seem to want them.
"Ahh, but what you're really trying to say is that pick-ups are the _in_ thing among the people around you which is why you desire _that_ and only _that_."
No. I drive a 911. I rent a u-haul the few times a year I need a pickup. But I don't presume that is a good solution for the people around me who buy trucks.
"Isn't that also what some people say about Apple products?"
Apple doesn't give us a choice. They make 2 models. They sell the one with the big screen and the little one, and the one from last year. That's it.
The whole industry doesn't give us much choice. All the premium brand name phones are basically the same. The niche phones are a huge gamble of functionality, support, QA, and so. I buy Samsung galaxy's because they work well and get good support... I'm super wary of niche products not because its not "popular"; i couldn't care less about that, but a phone that only sells a few thousand is going to have more app compatibility issues, fewer os updates, etc. At least with a galaxy I know I've got a phone that samsung is going to stand behind and all the apps and accesories will be sure to work with it.
If Apple's iphone X had been 2mm thicker and lasted an extra day do you really think it would have sold worse? Did removing the headphone jack just so it could be thinner really do anything the consumers wanted? Really? Apple didn't give consumers a choice.
"Those that complain "phones ere too thin. I want a bigger battery" and that do NOT buy a battery case to have exactly what they claim they want are lying about what they want anyway."
Imagine a world with no pickup trucks. Now imagine someone said, hey i'd really like a pickup truck. You're the guy who says, "anyone that claims they want a pickup truck but doesn't buy a utility trailer is lying about what they want."
A battery case is not the same thing as a bigger battery. Just as a car + utility trailer is not the same thing as a pickup truck. It embodies a whole set of compromises that inevitably result from trying to bolt a 3rd party solution on after-the-fact versus having an integrated solution.
" well I much prefer having the water resistance that has saved my phone a few times than a removable battery"
For a $1000+ phone with the largest profit margin in the industry; you could very reasonably expect to get both.
What I don't need or particularly want is the thinnest phone ever made. The original iphone was thin enough. I like the bigger screens of todays phones (and use an S7 Edge now), but I haven't really been looking for a thinner phone since the StarTAC replaced my DPC650.
The Dems winning in Alabama was, in my opinion more a reflection on Roy Moore than any real political shift.
I suspect if the republicans had come to there senses, and cut Moore loose even a week before the election, and then stuck an inoffensive nobody in his stead, they'd have won Alabama.
That said, I *DO* think actual swing states are likely to swing blue next time around; people in the middle voted against Hillary and for Trump "Change"; but I think they've all had quite enough of Trump's nonsense by now (people in the middle that is).
As long as the Dem's don't run people that aren't as unpalatable as Roy Moore they should do alright with the swing voters.
"If a car needs a detailed map to drive itself, instead of responding to visual cues like signs, curb position, road markings, then it's not truly "self driving."
What it if it doesn't 'need', what if it just 'benefits from' it?
I mean, are you personally better at driving on streets that you know? You know which lights are stupid, the road with really bad potholes, you know about the blind driveway on the corner of X, you know that there's a school at Z where kids are often playing. You know there's always a lineup that backs out onto the road from the starbucks at Q between 7am and 9am, and that the construction at F is makes left turns hard, etc. You know every driveway, twist, turn, and ramp, and elevation change, where its safe to pass, where its safe to pull over, where to get gas, where to park.
Are you really just as comfortable looking at an out of date map for a city you've never been to?
You don't need the extra information, but it sure helps.
Proof: Suppose, by way of contradiction, that untouched gummybears exist. The one could be picked up as an example. But then it would have been touched, contrary to the assumption that it is not. This is a contradiction. Therefore there are no untouched gummybears.
The problem with the proof? There is no contradiction. It was untouched. Then we touched it. That is not a contraction, that is a state change. For it to be a contradiction it needs to remain untouched even after we touched it.
" i just don't see the big deal in leaving people responsible for getting their own lenses"
The issue is that if you can get your lenses without seeing a dr, without getting a prescription, without having your eyes checked... people will and some do. Rather than see a dr. they'll just order the Rx their friend wears because they tried their friends glasses and they could see better.
" Clearly contacts gets me brand name lenses at a price cheaper than i can get from any of the optical stores locally."
Yeah, as I said, there were some businesses trying to get into that market -- but they were trying to work with the eye care industry to ensure they were complying with the legal requirements to get prescriptions properly. You don't have to get your contacts from your Dr. and nobody argues that you should have to. But like any other prescription product, the law was that you had to actually have a Dr.s prescription. Just as you can't order controlled medicine online either -- you get a prescription and you take it to the pharmacy of your choice. Then Clearly showed up... and just started selling lenses with little more than a disclaimer that said they were taking your word for it that you had a proper Rx. That obviously wouldn't fly for an online pharmacy, and a lot of people didn't expect it to work for lenses... but it did.
"TBH, i think it is a waste to have a physical location dedicated to corrective lenses in this day and age. with a simple picture of my face, i can try on different frames and order the lenses to spec"
Conflating glasses and contacts isn't helping your argument. They do not have remotely the same risk profiles.
But again, you can buy glasses anywhere you like, you just need your prescription. Many eyeglass places have an optician or optometrist associated with it, but if you didn't like their selection or prices you could just ask for your prescription and go buy glasses somewhere else. Lots of people do just that. It's even against the law for the Dr not to give you your Rx.
Finally glasses frames are a fashion item; and not trivial to fit properly either... what with all the adjustment to get them on your face straight, even if your ears aren't 100% symmetric, so they sit on your nose in the right place, the right distance from your eyes, properly align the lenses with your eyes, and where they don't slide down your nose all the time. And some frames just won't work on some people. Some are available in different sizes. If you have bifocals its even more important to get them positioned properly... or you can walk around like chuck shumer.
All that said, I agree glasses frames should be available online... but I don't agree that its a waste to do it properly in a shop. Some people obviously care a lot more than you do about how their glasses look and fit. A picture of your face and some instagram photo editing only gets you so far.
Heh, Clearly violated the law so thoroughly it was disgusting.
Then they changed the law to allow what clearly was doing. I know companies who were trying to get into the direct to consumer mail-order contacts business legally but the overhead and complexity made it a more complex and expensive transaction, and Clearly just came along and... uber'd them. (That's the verb I'm looking for right? Where a company just shows up and wantonly breaks the law and succeeds.)
Everyone in the industry was initially waiting to see them get smacked down... but it never happened. And then it was too late.
"I don't see what the big deal is?"
You're putting a corrective device directly onto your eyeball. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a doctor look at you periodically to confirm that its still the correct device for your eye, and that its not causing any adverse affects, and that your eye is still healthy.
If your eyes are oxygen starved for example, blood vessels in your cornea will enlarge to bring more blood, and new vessels will grow as well. No pain. no problem... but you can't see through blood vessels so you'll gradually suffer vision loss.
Contact lenses also trap dirt, bacteria, fungal spores and increase the risk of infection and disease.
Anyone wearing contacts should have their eyes checked periodically. Its common sense.
Hell... even if you don't wear contacts you should have your eyes checked periodically. Detecting problems early is always a good thing.
. Not know-how, or even money, but a certain lack of imagination.
Getting to space isn't the hard part -- the hard part is figuring out why we're there. [...] It doesn't build industries, establish settlements and scientific research stations, or scale up solutions from expensive one-offs to mass production...[...]
You answered your own question. Despite your declaration to the contrary it is about the money. Nobody has figured out how to make money at being there. Industries go where the money is. Mass production happens when it is profitable.
"Because people fill glasses like those. You just don't know them."
Or maybe I just don't consider them 'people'.;)
Seriously, if you want to go full pedant, fine... "Nobody who has the slightest clue how how to use those glasses, and how to behave in polite society, would ever fill them to the top with wine."
Any use of the phrase 'nobody' applied to a 'thing' that is 'physically possible' is going to have some exception for a bunch of fringe idiots who do the 'thing'. That doesn't need to be pointed out, every single time, does it?
"A part of wine snobbery seems to be sloshing around the wine in the glass."
The purpose of something like wine to anyone one not just looking to get sloshed themselves is to "enjoy the wine".
The larger glasses have several real purposes. The idea that larger glasses make the wine taste better is real. The exposure to oxygen makes a big difference. And letting the aromas gather in the glass makes a big difference... most of taste is really smell after all.
Sure, the idea that you need a different shape glass for each wine... is just to sell more glasses, and there lies the way to snobbery and pretentious nonsense. At least in my opinion.
But pretty much anyone with any appreciation for wine will tell you that it tastes better from a larger glass. That it increases their enjoyment of the whole experience. And the ritual of swirl, sniff, sip to engage all their senses is more fun than simply sucking it up a straw out of the bottle.;)
It's a 21oz+ glass. (0.6L) But see the picture... that's about how full you full them. You can swirl the wine in them, see the legs, and enjoy the 'bouquet'.
Nobody would ever fill them, even halfway would be pretty absurd.
"you're the outsourced people who we pay do this shit, and not only can't you actually fucking to it, but you think I'm going to do this shit?"
In a lot of cases, sending the instructions is the most useful response. If its something that's going to come up often, and the person who raised the item is capable... just getting them to do it instead of having them open tickets and wait each time is a better use of everyone's time.
It also is sometimes the best way to deal with people who are never available. I've seen people open tickets to get something adjusted on their computer where the help desk will need remote access to their desktop, while they are logged in -- and then they ignore any calls from the help desk, and ignore any followup email from the help desk trying to schedule access. At least if the help desk just sends the instructions the information is there if you need it right now.
"you end up an adult who doesn't put up with childish bullshit, because you learned that it's non-productive to tolerate the bad apples."
Where did they learn that? In all the hours you spent never being exposed to them?
That doesn't add up.
People who did spend time with them are going to be better at identifying them, better at getting what they need from them, etc.
Learning 'not to tolerate the bad apples' doesn't really get you anywhere in a world where the bad apples frequently stand between you and something you need or want.
You got me.:) I'm not sure I can cite a study. I am aware of the studies you likely found.
I can tell you what I don't find satisfying about those studies though: the metrics I've seen don't work. They talk about employment, voting, volunteering, etc. And that's all valid to look at, and homeschoolers do well there.
Where my experience with homeschoolers falls apart is that they aren't as self-reliant, and they don't cope as well with difficult people.
They were raised by helicopter parents, who were always there to tell them how to cope with things, so they have the benefit of all that personalized time and that shows -- but many of them have also missed out on how to deal with NOT having that resource available.
And secondly, they were never in the crucible that is public school; homeshoolers were socialized with other people who were like them. If they volunteered to something and the people were miserable cliquish pricks they never had to see them again, they don't have school 'crucible' experience.
When you read homeschooling literature, they count that as a positive. And I can understand why, but I think there is some value in it, the same way a little dirt in your life makes you healthier overall, public school toughens you up a in way you just don't get from Mom & Dad and their specially planned and curated and catered and chaperoned events with other Mom's & Dad's just like them.
I think there is value in learning how to succeed in a place that a homeschooling parent would never expose their kid.
I think the studies show better outcomes for homeschoolers, because there's a lot of kids in public schools whose parents just don't care and aren't involved (and that's tragic). But I also think the outcomes for kids in public school whose parents actually do care just as much as homeschooler parents are going to be better. I don't have a study for that and don't know how I'd even do one. But it isn't inconsistent with what we know -- I mean if we filtered out the results of the kids in highschool whose parents weren't involved with the kids, whose kids were little more than delinquents waiting to graduate to welfare and prison; if those were filtered out, the results of the remaining set would surge.
Criminals tend to be pretty average people. If anything, they tend to be below average. Most criminals wouldn't be able to tell you what steganography even is.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't care.
What we care about is the interstitial page the browser throws up that prevents us from reaching the device until we click agree twice, add an exception, click advanced, click yes, we really mean it, click settings click enable user to view insecure sites... just to get it done. Its not this bad yet, but its getting there.
It kind of does make sense. This is just one of the reasons things like HumbleBundle and GoG and Steam are popular. Not every title is available on every platform but a lot of titles are available on windows + osx + linux for one purchase.
Humblebundle in particular supports windows + mac + linux + android; and there are a number of titles that cross the divide, for example:
https://www.humblebundle.com/s...
You'll notice what is missing though... iOS.
The trouble here with Apple doing it is that the apple store itself is single platform, and on ios at least its also the only store you are allowed to use. The upshot is that anything you buy on the apple store will still only ever work on your apple devices. And anything you buy on another store will not be allowed on iOS.
Let me know when Apple allows GoG and Steam and HumbleBundle etc onto iOS. Until then: Fuck iOS and the apple app stores.
"Funny how the best sellers are NOT an inch thick."
No. That's no surprise at all. People don't want inch thick phones. Who said they do?
If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of putting words in my mouth maybe you'd stop chasing strawmen in every post.
The the iphone 4 and 5 weren't thick. They were thin enough. The iphoneX being thinner isn't winning any new fans... there wasn't anybody out there with an iphone 4 saying ... "you know I'd buy one if they were just a bit thinner."
"Hint: Not everyone that frequents /. lives in your neighborhood or even the U.S."
Thank's cap'n obvious.
"Apple knows far, far more about what people will buy than you do."
Apple releases turds on a regular basis (g4 cube, trash can mac); some of them even sell well and are still turds (puck mouse anyone?).
Reality -- apple is a fashion brand now. And this is apples new phone, as long as they don't fuck it up and its thin enough then it will sell. There's nothing really exciting about the iphone X vs the last one; and its 'z'-axis measurement is the among the least exciting thing about it.
"I have needed to charge and wanted to listen music over earphones at the same time _twice_ in the 2 years I've had my 7+."
Good for you. I've needed to do that exactly zero times. I'd still choose a phone with a headphone jack given the choice. My daughter easily spends 4-6 hours a day with her headphones and she uses the same pair with her phone and her laptop. Different people need different things.
"I suppose you also choose your 911/pickup by choosing the model that has the most convenient ashtrays? Because THAT's what 's _important_ to you so it _must_ be the same for everyone..."
Nobody cares how much thinner the new iphone X is vs the last one. Really. Nobody cares. Even the people who bought one... they don't really care. The 7 was thin enough.
I think that sums up my use of the windows store too; across 2 desktops, and an HTPC ... oh wait... the HTPC, right... I also have the netflix app, which sucks but is a bit better than using web browser from the couch.
"So you want a bigger battery phone instead of a functionally equivalent phone+battery case because it isn't fetching."
No. They're clunky and awkward, and the reviews are pretty mixed, with lots of them having tons of 1 star reviews; with many of the available options made by shitty generics with lousy QA and QC. Don't reduce this to a simple 'fasion' statement, although yes, that's part of it too.
"I look around the roads around me and very rarely see any pickup trucks,"
I look around the roads around me and about 20%+ are pickup trucks.
"Nor do people say that they actually want/need a pickup."
The people around here definitely seem to want them.
"Ahh, but what you're really trying to say is that pick-ups are the _in_ thing among the people around you which is why you desire _that_ and only _that_."
No. I drive a 911. I rent a u-haul the few times a year I need a pickup. But I don't presume that is a good solution for the people around me who buy trucks.
"Isn't that also what some people say about Apple products?"
Apple doesn't give us a choice. They make 2 models. They sell the one with the big screen and the little one, and the one from last year. That's it.
The whole industry doesn't give us much choice. All the premium brand name phones are basically the same. The niche phones are a huge gamble of functionality, support, QA, and so. I buy Samsung galaxy's because they work well and get good support... I'm super wary of niche products not because its not "popular"; i couldn't care less about that, but a phone that only sells a few thousand is going to have more app compatibility issues, fewer os updates, etc. At least with a galaxy I know I've got a phone that samsung is going to stand behind and all the apps and accesories will be sure to work with it.
If Apple's iphone X had been 2mm thicker and lasted an extra day do you really think it would have sold worse? Did removing the headphone jack just so it could be thinner really do anything the consumers wanted? Really? Apple didn't give consumers a choice.
"Those that complain "phones ere too thin. I want a bigger battery" and that do NOT buy a battery case to have exactly what they claim they want are lying about what they want anyway."
Imagine a world with no pickup trucks.
Now imagine someone said, hey i'd really like a pickup truck.
You're the guy who says, "anyone that claims they want a pickup truck but doesn't buy a utility trailer is lying about what they want."
A battery case is not the same thing as a bigger battery. Just as a car + utility trailer is not the same thing as a pickup truck. It embodies a whole set of compromises that inevitably result from trying to bolt a 3rd party solution on after-the-fact versus having an integrated solution.
" well I much prefer having the water resistance that has saved my phone a few times than a removable battery"
For a $1000+ phone with the largest profit margin in the industry; you could very reasonably expect to get both.
What I don't need or particularly want is the thinnest phone ever made. The original iphone was thin enough. I like the bigger screens of todays phones (and use an S7 Edge now), but I haven't really been looking for a thinner phone since the StarTAC replaced my DPC650.
The Dems winning in Alabama was, in my opinion more a reflection on Roy Moore than any real political shift.
I suspect if the republicans had come to there senses, and cut Moore loose even a week before the election, and then stuck an inoffensive nobody in his stead, they'd have won Alabama.
That said, I *DO* think actual swing states are likely to swing blue next time around; people in the middle voted against Hillary and for Trump "Change"; but I think they've all had quite enough of Trump's nonsense by now (people in the middle that is).
As long as the Dem's don't run people that aren't as unpalatable as Roy Moore they should do alright with the swing voters.
Your post makes no sense.
"If a car needs a detailed map to drive itself, instead of responding to visual cues like signs, curb position, road markings, then it's not truly "self driving."
What it if it doesn't 'need', what if it just 'benefits from' it?
I mean, are you personally better at driving on streets that you know? You know which lights are stupid, the road with really bad potholes, you know about the blind driveway on the corner of X, you know that there's a school at Z where kids are often playing. You know there's always a lineup that backs out onto the road from the starbucks at Q between 7am and 9am, and that the construction at F is makes left turns hard, etc. You know every driveway, twist, turn, and ramp, and elevation change, where its safe to pass, where its safe to pull over, where to get gas, where to park.
Are you really just as comfortable looking at an out of date map for a city you've never been to?
You don't need the extra information, but it sure helps.
Nice try. Here's an equivalent formulation...
Proof: Suppose, by way of contradiction, that untouched gummybears exist. The one could be picked up as an example. But then it would have been touched, contrary to the assumption that it is not. This is a contradiction. Therefore there are no untouched gummybears.
The problem with the proof? There is no contradiction. It was untouched. Then we touched it. That is not a contraction, that is a state change. For it to be a contradiction it needs to remain untouched even after we touched it.
Anyone invested in Telus, Rogers, and Bell have had a good decade.
" i just don't see the big deal in leaving people responsible for getting their own lenses"
The issue is that if you can get your lenses without seeing a dr, without getting a prescription, without having your eyes checked... people will and some do. Rather than see a dr. they'll just order the Rx their friend wears because they tried their friends glasses and they could see better.
" Clearly contacts gets me brand name lenses at a price cheaper than i can get from any of the optical stores locally."
Yeah, as I said, there were some businesses trying to get into that market -- but they were trying to work with the eye care industry to ensure they were complying with the legal requirements to get prescriptions properly. You don't have to get your contacts from your Dr. and nobody argues that you should have to. But like any other prescription product, the law was that you had to actually have a Dr.s prescription. Just as you can't order controlled medicine online either -- you get a prescription and you take it to the pharmacy of your choice. Then Clearly showed up... and just started selling lenses with little more than a disclaimer that said they were taking your word for it that you had a proper Rx. That obviously wouldn't fly for an online pharmacy, and a lot of people didn't expect it to work for lenses... but it did.
"TBH, i think it is a waste to have a physical location dedicated to corrective lenses in this day and age. with a simple picture of my face, i can try on different frames and order the lenses to spec"
Conflating glasses and contacts isn't helping your argument. They do not have remotely the same risk profiles.
But again, you can buy glasses anywhere you like, you just need your prescription. Many eyeglass places have an optician or optometrist associated with it, but if you didn't like their selection or prices you could just ask for your prescription and go buy glasses somewhere else. Lots of people do just that. It's even against the law for the Dr not to give you your Rx.
Finally glasses frames are a fashion item; and not trivial to fit properly either... what with all the adjustment to get them on your face straight, even if your ears aren't 100% symmetric, so they sit on your nose in the right place, the right distance from your eyes, properly align the lenses with your eyes, and where they don't slide down your nose all the time. And some frames just won't work on some people. Some are available in different sizes. If you have bifocals its even more important to get them positioned properly... or you can walk around like chuck shumer.
All that said, I agree glasses frames should be available online... but I don't agree that its a waste to do it properly in a shop. Some people obviously care a lot more than you do about how their glasses look and fit. A picture of your face and some instagram photo editing only gets you so far.
Heh, Clearly violated the law so thoroughly it was disgusting.
Then they changed the law to allow what clearly was doing. I know companies who were trying to get into the direct to consumer mail-order contacts business legally but the overhead and complexity made it a more complex and expensive transaction, and Clearly just came along and... uber'd them. (That's the verb I'm looking for right? Where a company just shows up and wantonly breaks the law and succeeds.)
Everyone in the industry was initially waiting to see them get smacked down... but it never happened. And then it was too late.
"I don't see what the big deal is?"
You're putting a corrective device directly onto your eyeball. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a doctor look at you periodically to confirm that its still the correct device for your eye, and that its not causing any adverse affects, and that your eye is still healthy.
If your eyes are oxygen starved for example, blood vessels in your cornea will enlarge to bring more blood, and new vessels will grow as well. No pain. no problem... but you can't see through blood vessels so you'll gradually suffer vision loss.
Contact lenses also trap dirt, bacteria, fungal spores and increase the risk of infection and disease.
Anyone wearing contacts should have their eyes checked periodically. Its common sense.
Hell... even if you don't wear contacts you should have your eyes checked periodically. Detecting problems early is always a good thing.
. Not know-how, or even money, but a certain lack of imagination.
Getting to space isn't the hard part -- the hard part is figuring out why we're there. [...] It doesn't build industries, establish settlements and scientific research stations, or scale up solutions from expensive one-offs to mass production...[...]
You answered your own question. Despite your declaration to the contrary it is about the money. Nobody has figured out how to make money at being there. Industries go where the money is. Mass production happens when it is profitable.
"Because people fill glasses like those. You just don't know them."
Or maybe I just don't consider them 'people'. ;)
Seriously, if you want to go full pedant, fine... "Nobody who has the slightest clue how how to use those glasses, and how to behave in polite society, would ever fill them to the top with wine."
Any use of the phrase 'nobody' applied to a 'thing' that is 'physically possible' is going to have some exception for a bunch of fringe idiots who do the 'thing'. That doesn't need to be pointed out, every single time, does it?
"A part of wine snobbery seems to be sloshing around the wine in the glass."
The purpose of something like wine to anyone one not just looking to get sloshed themselves is to "enjoy the wine".
The larger glasses have several real purposes. The idea that larger glasses make the wine taste better is real. The exposure to oxygen makes a big difference. And letting the aromas gather in the glass makes a big difference... most of taste is really smell after all.
Sure, the idea that you need a different shape glass for each wine... is just to sell more glasses, and there lies the way to snobbery and pretentious nonsense. At least in my opinion.
But pretty much anyone with any appreciation for wine will tell you that it tastes better from a larger glass. That it increases their enjoyment of the whole experience. And the ritual of swirl, sniff, sip to engage all their senses is more fun than simply sucking it up a straw out of the bottle. ;)
yup pretty much. we use these at home...
https://www.amazon.com/Riedel-...
It's a 21oz+ glass. (0.6L) But see the picture... that's about how full you full them. You can swirl the wine in them, see the legs, and enjoy the 'bouquet'.
Nobody would ever fill them, even halfway would be pretty absurd.
Did you mean Agenda 21 ?
"you're the outsourced people who we pay do this shit, and not only can't you actually fucking to it, but you think I'm going to do this shit?"
In a lot of cases, sending the instructions is the most useful response. If its something that's going to come up often, and the person who raised the item is capable... just getting them to do it instead of having them open tickets and wait each time is a better use of everyone's time.
It also is sometimes the best way to deal with people who are never available. I've seen people open tickets to get something adjusted on their computer where the help desk will need remote access to their desktop, while they are logged in -- and then they ignore any calls from the help desk, and ignore any followup email from the help desk trying to schedule access. At least if the help desk just sends the instructions the information is there if you need it right now.
Its even stupider than that. The critical embedded system in deep space has about zero malicious hackers analyzing it and attacking it.
And this particular windows flaw would not be a much of a risk on a computer floating in deep space.
"you end up an adult who doesn't put up with childish bullshit, because you learned that it's non-productive to tolerate the bad apples."
Where did they learn that? In all the hours you spent never being exposed to them?
That doesn't add up.
People who did spend time with them are going to be better at identifying them, better at getting what they need from them, etc.
Learning 'not to tolerate the bad apples' doesn't really get you anywhere in a world where the bad apples frequently stand between you and something you need or want.
You got me. :) I'm not sure I can cite a study. I am aware of the studies you likely found.
I can tell you what I don't find satisfying about those studies though: the metrics I've seen don't work. They talk about employment, voting, volunteering, etc. And that's all valid to look at, and homeschoolers do well there.
Where my experience with homeschoolers falls apart is that they aren't as self-reliant, and they don't cope as well with difficult people.
They were raised by helicopter parents, who were always there to tell them how to cope with things, so they have the benefit of all that personalized time and that shows -- but many of them have also missed out on how to deal with NOT having that resource available.
And secondly, they were never in the crucible that is public school; homeshoolers were socialized with other people who were like them. If they volunteered to something and the people were miserable cliquish pricks they never had to see them again, they don't have school 'crucible' experience.
When you read homeschooling literature, they count that as a positive. And I can understand why, but I think there is some value in it, the same way a little dirt in your life makes you healthier overall, public school toughens you up a in way you just don't get from Mom & Dad and their specially planned and curated and catered and chaperoned events with other Mom's & Dad's just like them.
I think there is value in learning how to succeed in a place that a homeschooling parent would never expose their kid.
I think the studies show better outcomes for homeschoolers, because there's a lot of kids in public schools whose parents just don't care and aren't involved (and that's tragic). But I also think the outcomes for kids in public school whose parents actually do care just as much as homeschooler parents are going to be better. I don't have a study for that and don't know how I'd even do one. But it isn't inconsistent with what we know -- I mean if we filtered out the results of the kids in highschool whose parents weren't involved with the kids, whose kids were little more than delinquents waiting to graduate to welfare and prison; if those were filtered out, the results of the remaining set would surge.
Criminals tend to be pretty average people. If anything, they tend to be below average. Most criminals wouldn't be able to tell you what steganography even is.