He needs glasses to read, but not to see things that are far away. The screen is far enough away that he doesn't need them-- but the keyboard isn't. He (still) hasn't learned to touch type-- 100% hunt'n'peck. So he'd have to put on his glasses, use the keyboard, take them off, look up, repeat. Top it off with him saying that the screen is too big, and that he can't see everything (health, map, avatar, enemy) all at once.
Well the solution to the first problem is simple.
Talk to your optometrist or optician and have them design you some glasses for that purpose. During my college summers I worked for an optometrist and designed my own specific glasses for computer use. You can design a pair of glasses that are optimized for pretty much any activity you can think of.
What I would suggest to your Fiance's father is this:
Bifocals. Since you described him as farsighted I would make the distance section with little to no correction (basically tell the doctor that you plan to sit X feet away from the screen) and the lower section I would cut for just looking down at the keyboard. There are lots of ways to cut the lenses that would make it so that he would have a pair of glasses that would be comfortable for that situation. Standard focal width for the upper part, but slightly closer for the bifocal section since he will be focusing on an object closer to him.
Pick up the frames that give you the largest field of view (it makes them much easier to cut and reduces fatigue in your eyes) Old '80s styles work the best.
Just go with generic plastic lenses, AR coating isn't necessary since you are using a projector you are likely in a low glare room to begin with. Don't bother with poly-carb lenses unless the RX is somewhere above +4.00 diopters, and even then, it won't reduce the weight by much unless you opt for the 'brand' thin lenses of choice.
You should be able to pick up a pair for less than $120, and they would make an excellent pair of backup-glasses.
I do like my xv6700 (mostly because I think it came out before Verizon could figure out how to lock down a phone running windows mobile).
Based on that, it would be hard for me to leap to an iPhone, but given that it is such a popular platform (which invariable draws eager hackers), I may sell my 6700 and go to AT&T.
I agree with you. Maybe a better way to put it is that Ron Paul never got past that first 'popular' step. Nor do I think he has the capability to do so in a political sense.
Either way, my original point was that there wasn't much as much choice available during the republican primary than there was in the Democrat Primary.
No, no, IndustrialComplex can agree with Ron Paul, and most people are just like IndustrialComplex, so most people can agree with Ron Paul.
The differences occur in the refinement.
1. Our country should work to reduce the budget deficit (near 100% approval) >This is best accomplished by careful, and fair reductions to the budget. (Less approval than the original idea) >>Decreasing our costs in program abc is a fair reduction (Less approval than before)) >>>Next year, we should only give program abc 35% of its budget (less approval than before)
When discussing Ron Paul, it is very easy to declare broad support for the top level of his beliefs. In general, they poll well. What I was trying to explain is that Ron Paul's problem wasn't the unpopularity of his positions.
Political party selects its candidate = nomination.
The people in the party that vote to select the candidate = delegate.
Each state has a certain number of delegates (based on population) Those delegates vote based on the state primary results. A few 'super' delegates may vote independant of the primary results. (This is mostly a Democrat party thing, there are fewer supers in the Republican process).
It also helps if you view the President of The US as a representative of the States, elected by the States rather than a directly elected representative of the people.
I agree that we knew what he stood for, but he never explained why WE should stand for him. Although I don't agree with the other posters use of 'idiot', Ron Paul never communicated why we should accept the gold standard, just that we should. I'm not a wizard at economics, so I really have no clue about what the gold standard would bring about. Unfortunately for Paul, one of the few things I brought away from his (unfortunately) limited debate appearances was 'Gold standard, Gold standard, back to the gold standard".
However, you are quite right that with Ron Paul, I did know what he stood for. I just don't think it would have mattered since he wouldn't have been able to make it a reality. (I just would have enjoyed seeing the veto pen worn down to a stump).
Unfortunately, the choices for Republicans ended up being between:
McCain: no change Romney: no change Huckabee: Had the best 'Obama-like' way of speaking (refreshing after 8 years of Bushisms), but unfortunately was the christian-religion candidate. Paul: In general, most people can agree with him, but the man couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag. You can have the best ideas in the world, but if you can't convince anyone, then even if elected you won't change a thing.
To be honest, I don't know if Obama will change anything internal to the United States. He IS a Democrat afterall, and we have no reason to expect him to be anything other than a Democrat just as we have no reason to expect McCain to be anything but a Republican.
He will, however, be our best chance to repair our international reputation. That, at least, is something that I can be thankful for even if I disagree with most of his policy.
Well, they still have to prove that the traffic you were sending is traffic you wanted to send. They can't charge you for zombie traffic when your machine got infected from other machines on their own network
No, they don't have to prove anything of the sort. All they have to do is point to their TOS and the clause that is likely already there today stating that YOU are responsible for all data coming from your computer, legitimate or otherwise.
The government doesn't have to HAVE total control. The people just need to think that the government is close enough for it to work. Self-censorship then takes care of the rest.
My wife is 4'10", 25 years old, and sometimes I get asked if she would like a children's menu at restaurants. I've actually had someone assault me in a parking lot because I gave her a kiss as we came out of the grocery store and they thought that she was a child.
If my budget is so thight that I can't afford my internet (which is also my TV and phone bill by the way) then i can't afford the game, let alone the $1400 rig to play it on...
Your budget isn't tight now, but it might be tight later. I've considered cutting out my cable-tv and extraneous phone bills as a way to redirect funds to other more important projects.
My gaming rig... is nothing more than leftover hardware that I threw a $100 video card into. I also don't purchase a new computer every time I buy a new game.
Not to mention, your internet is likely under contract. Wether you pay your bill or not, you STILL HAVE TO PAY THEM.
Like the song, you'd better shop around. Many of us have no contracts, or did, but had any early termination clauses expire years ago.
Eat Ramen Noodles for a few days insteak of BK burgers and you'll make the difference up.
The concept is what you view is an acceptable tradeoff when times get tight. I cook my dinner with fresh ingredients from the local farmer's market every day, that runs me about $2/day more than Ramen would. For me, healthy food is the last thing that is going to be cut from my budget.
I have had internet non-stop since 1994. I've had the TV turned off (9 months straight at one point, but I was playing so many games I didn't need beyond what rabbit ears could catch), my cell phones turned off, even rode the bus to avoid buying gas for a few weeks, and NEVER ONCE have I let my internet connection lapse. You can get DSL for $9.99 per month, by court action they're required to offer that if you ask for it. $19.99 is the going rate for basic internet. The speed is very low, but more than fast enough to stream music, play an MMO, or activate a game....
For many of us, there is no low cost alternative. It is either all or nothing. I'm glad that you have that option, but $35/month is the minimum in my area.
Of course, I don't know why I tried to refute this post for so long. The point is, turning off the internet connection to our homes is a valid way to save some money, and it would suck to have your games stop working for no other reason than the company implemented a failed anti-piracy measure.
I ran into this situation with Steam. I moved to NY and didn't have access to an internet connection for about 9 months. If I wanted to play a game, I had to go to a Dunkin Donuts to use their wireless connection to authenticate my games. I thought I had it all set up so I could play at home. Try to run HL2 Episode One and... nope, didn't work. The result was that if I wanted to play I'd have to try it again.
I can't stand Steam for this, and I'll be avoiding Spore because of it.
I travel a lot for work, and I like the games for something to do on the plane or at the airport.
When you mentioned the secretary, that reminds me of another issue with the modern office.
One of the 'casualties' of the modern office seems to have been the secretary. I suppose it is for lack of understanding of just how much productivity a competant secretary can add. Too many people seem to assume that a secretary is just a receptionist, but a good secretary should be viewed as nearly as important/necessary as the person that they are supporting.
Without getting too much into the topics, it is my view that a secretary should be viewed as more of a "Alfred from Batman" than a "Daisy the receptionist". The trick of course, is that if you expect the secretary to hold that much responsibility, then the pay needs to match.
However, I've seen people looking for true personal assistants who had no clue what they should be offering someone who will essentially be running their estate. If your income is enough that you can shrug off a 1-3 million dollar loss in an investment, then you are going to need to offer someone more than $8/hour... Unless of course, you plan to continue to shrug off those poor decisions.
The biggest talk in the office was when they started distributing 24" LCDs to all employees. Many of us now have two displays, I keep one aligned to read documents, and the other is my 'scratch' working display.
Although, when someone was testing a video teleconference system he had a 50" plasma display in his cube. He was in the bowels of the building, so one day when he was out we put a video camera in one of our windows and set it up as a participant. When he came back from his trip, he suddenly had a cube with a 'view'.:)
Although this only works if you have enough space/resources I have always preferred offices without doors. When I require privacy then I excuse myself to a conference room.
In my case, it isn't that I don't like my privacy, it is that I enjoy it too much and too easily shut the door and shut myself off from the rest of the group.
When you use an office with a door, you will still have people knock and check in to see if you are free, but when I started to use the conference room approach, it forced me to make sure that privacy was really necessary and that when I was in the conference room with a closed door, it meant it was closed for a good reason.
Not for everyone though, just my own personal (limited) experience.
Even at the places that work on 'cool' things, you will find that it is very similar to what you describe and very unlike the movies. The latest fighter planes don't get built in a facility that looks like some hobbiest's garage. Of course, when you are trying to sell those things, then all of a sudden out jump the minority report displays, the flashy graphics, and the promo videos.
Those listed are far too modern for my taste. My office hasn't changed much since this building used to be owned by IBM, but I can't help but wonder if in 40 years these unique offices don't seem hopelessly outdated. Till then, my generic flat surface works pretty well for my general office like tasks. My company gives me the option to work a bit from home, so I can implement my own personal style there.
I've tried to work in a few of the more avant garde spaces that some companies try to set up, it's hard to compete with what already 'works'. Too often I find that the curvy chair just doesn't feel as comfortable for over 10 minutes, and that the stylish workspace simply doesn't have enough space to work. And then, you still have the problem that you are working in a space designed by someone else. It won't fit anyone, and when you are dealing with something so unique, the minor annoyances end up feeling 10x worse.
At home, I can design my office to be exactly what I want in my office. It is perfect for the individual using it.
Now, that isn't to say that many of these places couldn't do with some colors other than grey and beige, but in my opinion a great workspace is the one that you barely notice when trying to do your work. My office may be grey and beige, but the facilities people here have created a beautiful nature trail that is designed to be used for a calm walk through a valley near the buildings.
It is simple, and doesn't try to force any of the employees into what almost feels like a lifestyle themed apartment instead of an office. It works great if it is your apartment, but what happens when you don't like the owner's taste in decoration?
I understand what infrastructure can help, but I was simply commenting that in the situation that exists today (and for at least 20 more years).
It wasn't a comment on the infrastructure that needs to exist, but rather that I would not be able to offset the costs of this vehicle through the use of solar panels, because of two reasons.
1. My vehicle will not be at home during the day. 2. I will NOT put roof/hood solar panels on a sports car;)
Now, even if the infrastructure was designed for electric vehicles, I'm quite certain that at least it wouldn't be cheaper to plug in my vehicle downtown or at work.
So we would save on gas, but pay more for electricity, no matter how you cut it:(
Slashdot Mirror
He needs glasses to read, but not to see things that are far away. The screen is far enough away that he doesn't need them-- but the keyboard isn't. He (still) hasn't learned to touch type-- 100% hunt'n'peck. So he'd have to put on his glasses, use the keyboard, take them off, look up, repeat. Top it off with him saying that the screen is too big, and that he can't see everything (health, map, avatar, enemy) all at once.
Well the solution to the first problem is simple.
Talk to your optometrist or optician and have them design you some glasses for that purpose. During my college summers I worked for an optometrist and designed my own specific glasses for computer use. You can design a pair of glasses that are optimized for pretty much any activity you can think of.
What I would suggest to your Fiance's father is this:
Bifocals. Since you described him as farsighted I would make the distance section with little to no correction (basically tell the doctor that you plan to sit X feet away from the screen) and the lower section I would cut for just looking down at the keyboard. There are lots of ways to cut the lenses that would make it so that he would have a pair of glasses that would be comfortable for that situation. Standard focal width for the upper part, but slightly closer for the bifocal section since he will be focusing on an object closer to him.
Pick up the frames that give you the largest field of view (it makes them much easier to cut and reduces fatigue in your eyes) Old '80s styles work the best.
Just go with generic plastic lenses, AR coating isn't necessary since you are using a projector you are likely in a low glare room to begin with. Don't bother with poly-carb lenses unless the RX is somewhere above +4.00 diopters, and even then, it won't reduce the weight by much unless you opt for the 'brand' thin lenses of choice.
You should be able to pick up a pair for less than $120, and they would make an excellent pair of backup-glasses.
I do like my xv6700 (mostly because I think it came out before Verizon could figure out how to lock down a phone running windows mobile).
Based on that, it would be hard for me to leap to an iPhone, but given that it is such a popular platform (which invariable draws eager hackers), I may sell my 6700 and go to AT&T.
Or really interest those of us who are already pissed off at Verizon.
No I think we got it, but what exactly did you expect us to say?
If you really want us to play along, then I suppose we could have you escorted out of the thread.
Maybe..
Based on my political motives, I can not vote for him without compromising them.
or,
I'm not a US citizen.
or,
a convicted felon.
or,
ALL THREE!
But the truth is that I cannot vote for Obama.
I admit, I did laugh at that.
Who do you want answering the phone at 3am?
I agree with you. Maybe a better way to put it is that Ron Paul never got past that first 'popular' step. Nor do I think he has the capability to do so in a political sense.
Either way, my original point was that there wasn't much as much choice available during the republican primary than there was in the Democrat Primary.
No, no, IndustrialComplex can agree with Ron Paul, and most people are just like IndustrialComplex, so most people can agree with Ron Paul.
The differences occur in the refinement.
1. Our country should work to reduce the budget deficit (near 100% approval)
>This is best accomplished by careful, and fair reductions to the budget. (Less approval than the original idea)
>>Decreasing our costs in program abc is a fair reduction (Less approval than before))
>>>Next year, we should only give program abc 35% of its budget (less approval than before)
When discussing Ron Paul, it is very easy to declare broad support for the top level of his beliefs. In general, they poll well. What I was trying to explain is that Ron Paul's problem wasn't the unpopularity of his positions.
Political party selects its candidate = nomination.
The people in the party that vote to select the candidate = delegate.
Each state has a certain number of delegates (based on population) Those delegates vote based on the state primary results. A few 'super' delegates may vote independant of the primary results. (This is mostly a Democrat party thing, there are fewer supers in the Republican process).
It also helps if you view the President of The US as a representative of the States, elected by the States rather than a directly elected representative of the people.
I agree that we knew what he stood for, but he never explained why WE should stand for him. Although I don't agree with the other posters use of 'idiot', Ron Paul never communicated why we should accept the gold standard, just that we should. I'm not a wizard at economics, so I really have no clue about what the gold standard would bring about. Unfortunately for Paul, one of the few things I brought away from his (unfortunately) limited debate appearances was 'Gold standard, Gold standard, back to the gold standard".
However, you are quite right that with Ron Paul, I did know what he stood for. I just don't think it would have mattered since he wouldn't have been able to make it a reality. (I just would have enjoyed seeing the veto pen worn down to a stump).
Unfortunately, the choices for Republicans ended up being between:
McCain: no change
Romney: no change
Huckabee: Had the best 'Obama-like' way of speaking (refreshing after 8 years of Bushisms), but unfortunately was the christian-religion candidate.
Paul: In general, most people can agree with him, but the man couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag. You can have the best ideas in the world, but if you can't convince anyone, then even if elected you won't change a thing.
To be honest, I don't know if Obama will change anything internal to the United States. He IS a Democrat afterall, and we have no reason to expect him to be anything other than a Democrat just as we have no reason to expect McCain to be anything but a Republican.
He will, however, be our best chance to repair our international reputation. That, at least, is something that I can be thankful for even if I disagree with most of his policy.
I just wish that I could vote for him.
Well, they still have to prove that the traffic you were sending is traffic you wanted to send. They can't charge you for zombie traffic when your machine got infected from other machines on their own network
No, they don't have to prove anything of the sort. All they have to do is point to their TOS and the clause that is likely already there today stating that YOU are responsible for all data coming from your computer, legitimate or otherwise.
The government doesn't have to HAVE total control. The people just need to think that the government is close enough for it to work. Self-censorship then takes care of the rest.
My wife is 4'10", 25 years old, and sometimes I get asked if she would like a children's menu at restaurants. I've actually had someone assault me in a parking lot because I gave her a kiss as we came out of the grocery store and they thought that she was a child.
I will take your advice... and never fight any Tasmanian Tigers while naked.
If my budget is so thight that I can't afford my internet (which is also my TV and phone bill by the way) then i can't afford the game, let alone the $1400 rig to play it on...
Your budget isn't tight now, but it might be tight later. I've considered cutting out my cable-tv and extraneous phone bills as a way to redirect funds to other more important projects.
My gaming rig... is nothing more than leftover hardware that I threw a $100 video card into. I also don't purchase a new computer every time I buy a new game.
Not to mention, your internet is likely under contract. Wether you pay your bill or not, you STILL HAVE TO PAY THEM.
Like the song, you'd better shop around. Many of us have no contracts, or did, but had any early termination clauses expire years ago.
Eat Ramen Noodles for a few days insteak of BK burgers and you'll make the difference up.
The concept is what you view is an acceptable tradeoff when times get tight. I cook my dinner with fresh ingredients from the local farmer's market every day, that runs me about $2/day more than Ramen would. For me, healthy food is the last thing that is going to be cut from my budget.
I have had internet non-stop since 1994. I've had the TV turned off (9 months straight at one point, but I was playing so many games I didn't need beyond what rabbit ears could catch), my cell phones turned off, even rode the bus to avoid buying gas for a few weeks, and NEVER ONCE have I let my internet connection lapse. You can get DSL for $9.99 per month, by court action they're required to offer that if you ask for it. $19.99 is the going rate for basic internet. The speed is very low, but more than fast enough to stream music, play an MMO, or activate a game....
For many of us, there is no low cost alternative. It is either all or nothing. I'm glad that you have that option, but $35/month is the minimum in my area.
Of course, I don't know why I tried to refute this post for so long. The point is, turning off the internet connection to our homes is a valid way to save some money, and it would suck to have your games stop working for no other reason than the company implemented a failed anti-piracy measure.
I ran into this situation with Steam. I moved to NY and didn't have access to an internet connection for about 9 months. If I wanted to play a game, I had to go to a Dunkin Donuts to use their wireless connection to authenticate my games. I thought I had it all set up so I could play at home. Try to run HL2 Episode One and... nope, didn't work. The result was that if I wanted to play I'd have to try it again.
I can't stand Steam for this, and I'll be avoiding Spore because of it.
I travel a lot for work, and I like the games for something to do on the plane or at the airport.
When you mentioned the secretary, that reminds me of another issue with the modern office.
One of the 'casualties' of the modern office seems to have been the secretary. I suppose it is for lack of understanding of just how much productivity a competant secretary can add. Too many people seem to assume that a secretary is just a receptionist, but a good secretary should be viewed as nearly as important/necessary as the person that they are supporting.
Without getting too much into the topics, it is my view that a secretary should be viewed as more of a "Alfred from Batman" than a "Daisy the receptionist". The trick of course, is that if you expect the secretary to hold that much responsibility, then the pay needs to match.
However, I've seen people looking for true personal assistants who had no clue what they should be offering someone who will essentially be running their estate. If your income is enough that you can shrug off a 1-3 million dollar loss in an investment, then you are going to need to offer someone more than $8/hour... Unless of course, you plan to continue to shrug off those poor decisions.
The biggest talk in the office was when they started distributing 24" LCDs to all employees. Many of us now have two displays, I keep one aligned to read documents, and the other is my 'scratch' working display.
:)
Although, when someone was testing a video teleconference system he had a 50" plasma display in his cube. He was in the bowels of the building, so one day when he was out we put a video camera in one of our windows and set it up as a participant. When he came back from his trip, he suddenly had a cube with a 'view'.
Although this only works if you have enough space/resources I have always preferred offices without doors. When I require privacy then I excuse myself to a conference room.
In my case, it isn't that I don't like my privacy, it is that I enjoy it too much and too easily shut the door and shut myself off from the rest of the group.
When you use an office with a door, you will still have people knock and check in to see if you are free, but when I started to use the conference room approach, it forced me to make sure that privacy was really necessary and that when I was in the conference room with a closed door, it meant it was closed for a good reason.
Not for everyone though, just my own personal (limited) experience.
Even at the places that work on 'cool' things, you will find that it is very similar to what you describe and very unlike the movies. The latest fighter planes don't get built in a facility that looks like some hobbiest's garage. Of course, when you are trying to sell those things, then all of a sudden out jump the minority report displays, the flashy graphics, and the promo videos.
The movie stuff only exists in marketing.
Those listed are far too modern for my taste. My office hasn't changed much since this building used to be owned by IBM, but I can't help but wonder if in 40 years these unique offices don't seem hopelessly outdated. Till then, my generic flat surface works pretty well for my general office like tasks. My company gives me the option to work a bit from home, so I can implement my own personal style there.
I've tried to work in a few of the more avant garde spaces that some companies try to set up, it's hard to compete with what already 'works'. Too often I find that the curvy chair just doesn't feel as comfortable for over 10 minutes, and that the stylish workspace simply doesn't have enough space to work. And then, you still have the problem that you are working in a space designed by someone else. It won't fit anyone, and when you are dealing with something so unique, the minor annoyances end up feeling 10x worse.
At home, I can design my office to be exactly what I want in my office. It is perfect for the individual using it.
Now, that isn't to say that many of these places couldn't do with some colors other than grey and beige, but in my opinion a great workspace is the one that you barely notice when trying to do your work. My office may be grey and beige, but the facilities people here have created a beautiful nature trail that is designed to be used for a calm walk through a valley near the buildings.
It is simple, and doesn't try to force any of the employees into what almost feels like a lifestyle themed apartment instead of an office. It works great if it is your apartment, but what happens when you don't like the owner's taste in decoration?
I understand what infrastructure can help, but I was simply commenting that in the situation that exists today (and for at least 20 more years).
;)
:(
It wasn't a comment on the infrastructure that needs to exist, but rather that I would not be able to offset the costs of this vehicle through the use of solar panels, because of two reasons.
1. My vehicle will not be at home during the day.
2. I will NOT put roof/hood solar panels on a sports car
Now, even if the infrastructure was designed for electric vehicles, I'm quite certain that at least it wouldn't be cheaper to plug in my vehicle downtown or at work.
So we would save on gas, but pay more for electricity, no matter how you cut it
I would think that many people who would buy an electric car might also install solar panels to charge it.
My problem would be that I would want to drive the vehicle during the period of time when solar panels do their work.
Good points, but Cisco doesn't make servers
There are lots of things that Cisco would never make, but then they went and purchased Linksys.