Where did you buy your CFL light bulbs from - 1994? I have seen ones that aren't fully bright instantly when turned on, but haven't seen one that takes more than 5 seconds to get to full brightness. Here is a hint: don't buy the absolute cheapest bulbs made in China. (The last CFL bulbs I got were made in the US and had no "warm up" time to get to full brightness at all. They were about 75 cents more than the super cheap ones.) Maybe it would be cheaper just to buy your wife some night-vision goggles. Even not at full brightness CFL bulbs are good enough to manage walking up or down some stairs - it isn't like it takes them minutes to get bright enough to see with.
So you are in favor of locking people up who you think may commit a crime in the future? And who gets to decide who will be likely to commit these future crimes? Maybe some weird looking pre-cogs floating in a pool, possibly rolling balls down with the guilty party's name on it? Sounds like a slippery slope to me...
So if someone commits a crime in a foreign country, it is entirely up to his home country to pay for locking him up for something he did somewhere else? Yeah, that is pretty sound logic. I am sure that system would work out just great. Let's start by sending those Somali pirates back to Somalia. I am sure Somalia is willing to lock them up and pay for all of it.
I was replying to a single statement - "Being alive with emotional issues is better than being dead." Anything else you think I was implying is on you, not me. Don't try to put words I didn't say (or even infer) into my mouth.
Correct. An accusation is just that, and nothing more. However, once a grand jury decides there is enough to proceed to a trial, and evidence is presented from both sides at the trial, anybody with a brain is then able to form their own independent opinions. (Especially if the presumed innocent party explains in great detail the crime he supposedly didn't commit, "hypothetically".
I would guess that people who had so many emotional issues that they would rather be dead and end up committing suicide may disagree with your assessment.
Yes, and we all know that being declared innocent in court means you didn't actually commit the crime. Just ask O.J. - he was found not guilty and then wrote a book detailing exactly how he did it. And FYI not guilty != innocent. Not guilty means that there wasn't enough evidence to convict you of a crime. Whether you committed the crime or not is irrelevant.
So 24 different news stories is not enough to make you believe. Which raises the obvious question - How many will it take for you to believe it to be true? What is your exact threshold of belief? I am going to guess 42, simply because that is a great number.
And I have done it with, and without Facebook too. So between me and you, who do you think is more qualified to judge the merits of both ways - the person who has actually done it both ways, or the person who assumes he knows how something he has never used works?
You are preaching to the choir. I was pointing out there isn't much difference between sending email or a Facebook message except for some people's misguided view that email is somehow vastly superior to a FB message. I know FB is more convenient for some things than email - I use it for this purpose all the time.
If you don't ever go to see bands, attend parties, find old acquaintances, know about local events, keep track of people in far away places, etc. then no, I suppose it wouldn't be valuable. But seeing I do all of those things, it is valuable to me. You see, TIME is very valuable to me, and Facebook saves me a lot of time finding out about events I am interested in. Just because your short-sighted view doesn't see any value does not mean the rest of the world doesn't either. I could think of oh, at least 500 million people who may see some value in Facebook.
Exactly. But somehow sending an email is a vastly superior method according to others. Facebook is a great tool for the purposes I use it for. It isn't meant to replace email, snail mail, phone calls, personal visits, etc. but rather to be another tool in the communication toolbox. People seem to think once you get a Facebook account, you must give up all other forms of communication. It just isn't so. You are free to use as many methods as you please.
Really? Because Gmail goes down at times too. Either way, email or Facebook you are relying on a server to get the message out. But I guess since you see email as valuable and Facebook as not, we should all conform to your way of thought. Sorry, but to me sending an electronic message is sending an electronic message.
Yes, you should be solely using your cell phone and relying on closed telecommunication network platforms because that is so much different and better.
Yes, because it is much easier to personally call 50 people and tell them the same piece of information over and over again than it is to send out a group message in Facebook. I suppose you take the time to write everyone actual letters than use email, right? Or is email to you a convenience, but you can't see how Facebook may be convenient in some situations to others?
Re: Facebook Is Down
on
Facebook Is Down
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Does anything serious get done on Facebook?
About as much serious stuff that gets done on Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did you buy your CFL light bulbs from - 1994? I have seen ones that aren't fully bright instantly when turned on, but haven't seen one that takes more than 5 seconds to get to full brightness. Here is a hint: don't buy the absolute cheapest bulbs made in China. (The last CFL bulbs I got were made in the US and had no "warm up" time to get to full brightness at all. They were about 75 cents more than the super cheap ones.) Maybe it would be cheaper just to buy your wife some night-vision goggles. Even not at full brightness CFL bulbs are good enough to manage walking up or down some stairs - it isn't like it takes them minutes to get bright enough to see with.
There is malware that runs on network printers already. There was the Hoots worm that printed out the picture of an owl with "O RLY" on it.
My wife insists that we keep the stairway light on all night so that the stairs are well lit, so I am not exactly sure we save any energy.
Exactly how is this problem related to the efficiency of the light bulbs being used?
So you are in favor of locking people up who you think may commit a crime in the future? And who gets to decide who will be likely to commit these future crimes? Maybe some weird looking pre-cogs floating in a pool, possibly rolling balls down with the guilty party's name on it? Sounds like a slippery slope to me...
So if someone commits a crime in a foreign country, it is entirely up to his home country to pay for locking him up for something he did somewhere else? Yeah, that is pretty sound logic. I am sure that system would work out just great. Let's start by sending those Somali pirates back to Somalia. I am sure Somalia is willing to lock them up and pay for all of it.
Wow, where have we recently seen that strategy used over and over?
No, but they did kill the protagonist.
I was replying to a single statement - "Being alive with emotional issues is better than being dead." Anything else you think I was implying is on you, not me. Don't try to put words I didn't say (or even infer) into my mouth.
Correct. An accusation is just that, and nothing more. However, once a grand jury decides there is enough to proceed to a trial, and evidence is presented from both sides at the trial, anybody with a brain is then able to form their own independent opinions. (Especially if the presumed innocent party explains in great detail the crime he supposedly didn't commit, "hypothetically".
How do you know this? Have you been dead before?
I would guess that people who had so many emotional issues that they would rather be dead and end up committing suicide may disagree with your assessment.
Yes, and we all know that being declared innocent in court means you didn't actually commit the crime. Just ask O.J. - he was found not guilty and then wrote a book detailing exactly how he did it. And FYI not guilty != innocent. Not guilty means that there wasn't enough evidence to convict you of a crime. Whether you committed the crime or not is irrelevant.
Well, news outlets hardly ever let "facts" stop them from running a great sounding story.
So 24 different news stories is not enough to make you believe. Which raises the obvious question - How many will it take for you to believe it to be true? What is your exact threshold of belief? I am going to guess 42, simply because that is a great number.
And I have done it with, and without Facebook too. So between me and you, who do you think is more qualified to judge the merits of both ways - the person who has actually done it both ways, or the person who assumes he knows how something he has never used works?
You are preaching to the choir. I was pointing out there isn't much difference between sending email or a Facebook message except for some people's misguided view that email is somehow vastly superior to a FB message. I know FB is more convenient for some things than email - I use it for this purpose all the time.
If you don't ever go to see bands, attend parties, find old acquaintances, know about local events, keep track of people in far away places, etc. then no, I suppose it wouldn't be valuable. But seeing I do all of those things, it is valuable to me. You see, TIME is very valuable to me, and Facebook saves me a lot of time finding out about events I am interested in. Just because your short-sighted view doesn't see any value does not mean the rest of the world doesn't either. I could think of oh, at least 500 million people who may see some value in Facebook.
Exactly. But somehow sending an email is a vastly superior method according to others. Facebook is a great tool for the purposes I use it for. It isn't meant to replace email, snail mail, phone calls, personal visits, etc. but rather to be another tool in the communication toolbox. People seem to think once you get a Facebook account, you must give up all other forms of communication. It just isn't so. You are free to use as many methods as you please.
Oh, I get it now. They are essentially the same yet "email = good" and "Facebook = bad". Thanks for the clarification!
Really? Because Gmail goes down at times too. Either way, email or Facebook you are relying on a server to get the message out. But I guess since you see email as valuable and Facebook as not, we should all conform to your way of thought. Sorry, but to me sending an electronic message is sending an electronic message.
Their nerdy angst!
Yes, you should be solely using your cell phone and relying on closed telecommunication network platforms because that is so much different and better.
How is email any different than sending a message on Facebook?
Hint: it isn't at all.
How is sending an email SOOOOO much different then sending messages on Facebook?
Hint: it isn't at all.
Yes, because it is much easier to personally call 50 people and tell them the same piece of information over and over again than it is to send out a group message in Facebook. I suppose you take the time to write everyone actual letters than use email, right? Or is email to you a convenience, but you can't see how Facebook may be convenient in some situations to others?
Does anything serious get done on Facebook?
About as much serious stuff that gets done on Slashdot.