I'm not disagreeing with the fact there are cops that are clearly wrong, I'm saying 95% or more of police confrontations don't lead to physical violence, and I've just as often - if not more often, seen the "citizen" being the instigator. I really think you have a selective memory, some real confirmation bias going on.
I know this is the dumbest complaint about this device, but why circular? Why do these people design devices as if they'll be the only thing on our desks, shelves, whatever? There should be a new standard "desktop rack" that these devices can fit in.
Thanks! That was definitely interesting, but it still comes off as a bit conspiracy theory - nothing really there really backs it up (although it certainly sounds reasonable). Back in the day (around '92 or so, when I was a lot more into things like this), I had a lot of discussions with people about it; I lived in Las Vegas and had two friends (one eventually a roommate) that were in the Air Force stationed there - they both said the same thing, that any pilot would choose the F-16 for a dogfight.
Well, I'm not going to look up statistics on it, but I really don't think you are correct - most criminal justice majors don't go on to be uniformed cops. In fact, I don't think most cops even have college degrees at all. Criminal justice majors often go on to be social workers, and parole and probation officers.
Except 99% of the time it's not the cop that starts off being confrontational, it's some idiot wailing about their right to speed, or don't you have a "real" criminal to catch, or don't you know I pay your salary?!?! Complying when asked for your ID is not being "submissive." I'm not saying there aren't idiot cops who go on power trips, but if you're willing to see the forest for the trees, I'd like you to name a single occupation with millions of employees who must confront the public on a daily basis that doesn't have a idiots.
An obvious answer would be to buy a car with limited or archaic computer control — but doing so probably comes with the trade-off of losing other modern safety technology.
What modern safety technology is necessarily tied to a hackable computer? Traction control? No. Anti-Lock brakes? No. ESC? No. Airbags? No. A "non" fancy car can have all those things and not be hackable. I don't see the problem.
You might be right - my information just came from F16 Fighting Falcon flight simulator, which came with a book on the history of the plane. From what I remember, the 18 was bigger, had a longer potential range, and could carry more.
The F-16 was built to counter the smaller, cheaper, more nimble fighters we were facing in Vietnam - it's a great fighter, perhaps still one of the best, if not the best fighter for dogfights out there - small, fast, nimble... these other planes have other requirements, though. The F-18 was also built at that time for the same reason - it's ostensibly a better overall plane than the F-16, but if you were in a dogfight, the F-16 was the plane of choice. The Navy went for F-18s because it combined good fighting with better all-around capabilities (distance and payload capacities).
The problem is that the F-35 shouldn't be in a dogfight with a smaller, more nimble fighter - it's supposed to work in conjunction with other technology to be able to approach stealthily and take out (perhaps even beyond visible range) other aircraft. When it comes down to a dogfight, it's out matched by any number of other planes.
Your reasons are all good, but there's a few caveats for a lot of other people. My kids don't buy their textbooks in high school, so they aren't writing in the margins or making notes. They also have to carry them around ALL DAY (the lockers are not satisfactory), and my son's latest books are as big as the biggest physics books I had in college.
What I wish they could do is have them as e-books while in school and leave the huge, physical book at home. The school offers "online" textbooks, but the stupid school has a mixed message about using tablets in school, and doesn't even give them wifi access when they can (and no, I don't pay for cell access for their tablets). For the same reasons (mixed message on tablets) my daughter prefers a physical book even for regular reading, because she can carry it around and read it anywhere. My son is happy enough to leave the reading for home, so gets e-books.
But on the whole, text and reference books are simply different... again, a single e-reader is a damn site better than carrying around 2 or more huge textbooks, but for doing homework or something, having the physical book there is nice.
You're being sarcastic, right? That's exactly what they're doing, and they are lying through their teeth when they claim it costs just as much to publish an e-book, and all the people supporting the companies by claiming it costs just as much because of editing are either lying or stupidly buying the nonsense the book companies are selling.
E-books are great for a lot of reasons - I have shelves of physical books at home that I have no idea what to do with; libraries don't want them (they have too many of these kinds of books that our kids are reading, they have enough); you can't sell them at garage sales (nobody buys them), you can't donate them to the school (they don't want to be overwhelmed with everybody's used books - they get enough). I can sell them to the used book store for credit, but now I have hundreds of dollars in credit and they have few things I want... I can't use the credit on new books.
E-books let me:
Keep them forever and reread them years in the future without having to take up physical space.
While looking up things in physical text books is easier, my kids have 2 or 3 really huge books that they carry around all day and have to bring home, so having the physical book at home and taking an e-book to school would be great.
Take my whole library on vacation.
Theoretically should never go out of print.
Physical books:
Don't violate my rights to resell them.
I don't get screwed if I somehow lose my Amazon or Barnes and Noble accounts.
Are nice to hold while reading, and don't need batteries.
Can be lent indefinitely to as many people as I want.
Textbooks are easier to use this way; any reference book is easier to use this way, although reference books (where you look something up) should rather be turned into apps in the future that allow for easier searching.
As it is, with the absurd pricing of e-books, it often makes more sense to buy the physical book. The publishers are %#king 4$#holes.
No - the problem here is you did not open your mind to what I was saying. It's NOT starvation mode, it's ketosis. Your body does NOT go into starvation mode, it's simply releasing the fat stores and you are filtering them out - not burning calories - you are literally pissing out fat, and THAT is why you CAN lose FAT weight that fast. You don't restrict your intake of food, just a reduction in simple carbs that raise your blood sugar. There's no starvation - in fact, people doing low-carb are rarely hungry at all.
Good points. People might have had a couple of those bottles a week as a treat, now they have a couple of big gulps every day. A big gulp size coke has over FORTY teaspoons of sugar in it (a single can has around 12). There's also the switch to high-fructose corn syrup, as well - many people think that plays a huge role. I still don't believe the government should be able to tell people they can't abuse themselves, but I do believe in educating people.
I favor low-carb, too (not necessarily Atkins). The science is there and it works - you can lose more weight than you burn because your body triggers the release of fat that can get filtered out in other ways (like through urine). Even if you're not doing "induction," low-carb is a great diet - and unlike what the nay-sayers seem to think, I ate more fruits and vegetables on low-carb than otherwise. Nobody actually recommends eating "a plate of bacon with a stick of butter on top," the low-carb proponents always suggest a much more healthy diet (including lean meats, nuts, fruits and vegetables), and you can lose weight VERY quickly without exercise (although that doesn't mean you shouldn't exercise, either).
Although what you're saying is "common wisdom," it's really not true.
1: it's not psychology. When your blood sugar goes up, you create more insulin to store that excess energy as fat - when you make your blood sugar spike quickly, a LOT of insulin is produced, when your blood sugar drops because the insulin is triggering it's storage as fat, your body REALLY DOES trigger the feeling of hunger.
2: you can lose weight without burning calories. It's the science behind low carb diets, and yes, it really works. You keep your blood sugar low, and your body is triggering the release of fat for energy into your blood stream, but that doesn't cause your body to generate insulin to re-store that energy as fat (because it's not blood sugar). When you don't burn that fat as energy, it gets filtered out in other ways - through urine, for example, and even just breathing (why low carb dieters often have bad breath). Yes, low carb dieters can lose 5+ lbs a week without exercising.
That's what they say about wheat - those golden waves of grain are no longer what we're eating; we eat a dwarf variety of wheat now, that is great because it's more resistant to insects and disease, and grows more densely, and is widely credited for preventing worldwide food shortages - but it's not as good, or good for you, as ancient grains. But that's not GMO, that's just selective breeding.
Well, now I need the rest of the story. I know seedless oranges were luck of normal, natural genetic chaos, and they propagated the seedless trees through grafting. Are you saying seedless grapes and watermelon (which have been around for more than 20 years) are not the same?
Agree - many of the forums I use have a banner ad at the top and bottom, and that's it. I have no problem with that. What happens, though, is some people do - and they block it, which then starts the race between advertisers making ever more annoying ads and blockers blocking them. All because advertisers couldn't accept some loss from people who would never have clicked on the ads anyway.
Ok, so maybe classic shell should have been a default, but I have to customize Linux, too. So after installing classic shell I don't see the "bad UI" complaint. I may not use Windows all that much, but I've had no problems with either 8 or 8.1 after installing classic shell and having it log in directly to the desktop instead of tiles.
I do most of my work on Linux, but have to use windows occasionally. Last year I upgraded my computer for the first time in like 10 years, and decided to skip 7 and go to 8.1 for the Windows booting. So, OK, I don't use it a lot - but after installing classic shell and having it boot straight to the desktop, I don't see what all the whining is about. Every time I upgrade or install Linux, I have to customize it to my liking, too, so it's a bit annoying when I hear that as a complaint from Linux users about windows. I'm glad I get to mostly use Linux, but I didn't see what all the fuss was about - plus it had better support for my ssd and, yes, it seems to run better/be more responsive than Windows 7 or XP.
I've heard a couple of legitimate complaints from power users, but by and large what I see is a bunch of people essentially complaining it's not exactly like it was before.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not disagreeing with the fact there are cops that are clearly wrong, I'm saying 95% or more of police confrontations don't lead to physical violence, and I've just as often - if not more often, seen the "citizen" being the instigator. I really think you have a selective memory, some real confirmation bias going on.
So Sandra Bland represents 100% of the cases now? Good to know. How many traffic stops DON'T end up with a physical confrontation?
Why? A ventilated rack sounds like a great idea, then.
I know this is the dumbest complaint about this device, but why circular? Why do these people design devices as if they'll be the only thing on our desks, shelves, whatever? There should be a new standard "desktop rack" that these devices can fit in.
Thanks! That was definitely interesting, but it still comes off as a bit conspiracy theory - nothing really there really backs it up (although it certainly sounds reasonable). Back in the day (around '92 or so, when I was a lot more into things like this), I had a lot of discussions with people about it; I lived in Las Vegas and had two friends (one eventually a roommate) that were in the Air Force stationed there - they both said the same thing, that any pilot would choose the F-16 for a dogfight.
Well, I'm not going to look up statistics on it, but I really don't think you are correct - most criminal justice majors don't go on to be uniformed cops. In fact, I don't think most cops even have college degrees at all. Criminal justice majors often go on to be social workers, and parole and probation officers.
Except 99% of the time it's not the cop that starts off being confrontational, it's some idiot wailing about their right to speed, or don't you have a "real" criminal to catch, or don't you know I pay your salary?!?! Complying when asked for your ID is not being "submissive." I'm not saying there aren't idiot cops who go on power trips, but if you're willing to see the forest for the trees, I'd like you to name a single occupation with millions of employees who must confront the public on a daily basis that doesn't have a idiots.
Agreed... but also:
What modern safety technology is necessarily tied to a hackable computer? Traction control? No. Anti-Lock brakes? No. ESC? No. Airbags? No. A "non" fancy car can have all those things and not be hackable. I don't see the problem.
You might be right - my information just came from F16 Fighting Falcon flight simulator, which came with a book on the history of the plane. From what I remember, the 18 was bigger, had a longer potential range, and could carry more.
The F-16 was built to counter the smaller, cheaper, more nimble fighters we were facing in Vietnam - it's a great fighter, perhaps still one of the best, if not the best fighter for dogfights out there - small, fast, nimble... these other planes have other requirements, though. The F-18 was also built at that time for the same reason - it's ostensibly a better overall plane than the F-16, but if you were in a dogfight, the F-16 was the plane of choice. The Navy went for F-18s because it combined good fighting with better all-around capabilities (distance and payload capacities).
The problem is that the F-35 shouldn't be in a dogfight with a smaller, more nimble fighter - it's supposed to work in conjunction with other technology to be able to approach stealthily and take out (perhaps even beyond visible range) other aircraft. When it comes down to a dogfight, it's out matched by any number of other planes.
African or European?
Your reasons are all good, but there's a few caveats for a lot of other people. My kids don't buy their textbooks in high school, so they aren't writing in the margins or making notes. They also have to carry them around ALL DAY (the lockers are not satisfactory), and my son's latest books are as big as the biggest physics books I had in college.
What I wish they could do is have them as e-books while in school and leave the huge, physical book at home. The school offers "online" textbooks, but the stupid school has a mixed message about using tablets in school, and doesn't even give them wifi access when they can (and no, I don't pay for cell access for their tablets). For the same reasons (mixed message on tablets) my daughter prefers a physical book even for regular reading, because she can carry it around and read it anywhere. My son is happy enough to leave the reading for home, so gets e-books.
But on the whole, text and reference books are simply different... again, a single e-reader is a damn site better than carrying around 2 or more huge textbooks, but for doing homework or something, having the physical book there is nice.
You're being sarcastic, right? That's exactly what they're doing, and they are lying through their teeth when they claim it costs just as much to publish an e-book, and all the people supporting the companies by claiming it costs just as much because of editing are either lying or stupidly buying the nonsense the book companies are selling.
E-books are great for a lot of reasons - I have shelves of physical books at home that I have no idea what to do with; libraries don't want them (they have too many of these kinds of books that our kids are reading, they have enough); you can't sell them at garage sales (nobody buys them), you can't donate them to the school (they don't want to be overwhelmed with everybody's used books - they get enough). I can sell them to the used book store for credit, but now I have hundreds of dollars in credit and they have few things I want... I can't use the credit on new books.
E-books let me:
Physical books:
As it is, with the absurd pricing of e-books, it often makes more sense to buy the physical book. The publishers are %#king 4$#holes.
No - the problem here is you did not open your mind to what I was saying. It's NOT starvation mode, it's ketosis. Your body does NOT go into starvation mode, it's simply releasing the fat stores and you are filtering them out - not burning calories - you are literally pissing out fat, and THAT is why you CAN lose FAT weight that fast. You don't restrict your intake of food, just a reduction in simple carbs that raise your blood sugar. There's no starvation - in fact, people doing low-carb are rarely hungry at all.
Good points. People might have had a couple of those bottles a week as a treat, now they have a couple of big gulps every day. A big gulp size coke has over FORTY teaspoons of sugar in it (a single can has around 12). There's also the switch to high-fructose corn syrup, as well - many people think that plays a huge role. I still don't believe the government should be able to tell people they can't abuse themselves, but I do believe in educating people.
I was hoping it would help me pick up women, but hey, if you're more into trash cans, who am I to judge?
I favor low-carb, too (not necessarily Atkins). The science is there and it works - you can lose more weight than you burn because your body triggers the release of fat that can get filtered out in other ways (like through urine). Even if you're not doing "induction," low-carb is a great diet - and unlike what the nay-sayers seem to think, I ate more fruits and vegetables on low-carb than otherwise. Nobody actually recommends eating "a plate of bacon with a stick of butter on top," the low-carb proponents always suggest a much more healthy diet (including lean meats, nuts, fruits and vegetables), and you can lose weight VERY quickly without exercise (although that doesn't mean you shouldn't exercise, either).
Yes, all the time, actually. When I got married, my wife was a diet coke-head. I'm glad I was able to get her off it.
Carbonated beverages, in any form, for whatever reason, supposedly slow the absorption of vitamins and minerals.
Although what you're saying is "common wisdom," it's really not true.
1: it's not psychology. When your blood sugar goes up, you create more insulin to store that excess energy as fat - when you make your blood sugar spike quickly, a LOT of insulin is produced, when your blood sugar drops because the insulin is triggering it's storage as fat, your body REALLY DOES trigger the feeling of hunger.
2: you can lose weight without burning calories. It's the science behind low carb diets, and yes, it really works. You keep your blood sugar low, and your body is triggering the release of fat for energy into your blood stream, but that doesn't cause your body to generate insulin to re-store that energy as fat (because it's not blood sugar). When you don't burn that fat as energy, it gets filtered out in other ways - through urine, for example, and even just breathing (why low carb dieters often have bad breath). Yes, low carb dieters can lose 5+ lbs a week without exercising.
That's what they say about wheat - those golden waves of grain are no longer what we're eating; we eat a dwarf variety of wheat now, that is great because it's more resistant to insects and disease, and grows more densely, and is widely credited for preventing worldwide food shortages - but it's not as good, or good for you, as ancient grains. But that's not GMO, that's just selective breeding.
Well, now I need the rest of the story. I know seedless oranges were luck of normal, natural genetic chaos, and they propagated the seedless trees through grafting. Are you saying seedless grapes and watermelon (which have been around for more than 20 years) are not the same?
Agree - many of the forums I use have a banner ad at the top and bottom, and that's it. I have no problem with that. What happens, though, is some people do - and they block it, which then starts the race between advertisers making ever more annoying ads and blockers blocking them. All because advertisers couldn't accept some loss from people who would never have clicked on the ads anyway.
Ok, so maybe classic shell should have been a default, but I have to customize Linux, too. So after installing classic shell I don't see the "bad UI" complaint. I may not use Windows all that much, but I've had no problems with either 8 or 8.1 after installing classic shell and having it log in directly to the desktop instead of tiles.
I do most of my work on Linux, but have to use windows occasionally. Last year I upgraded my computer for the first time in like 10 years, and decided to skip 7 and go to 8.1 for the Windows booting. So, OK, I don't use it a lot - but after installing classic shell and having it boot straight to the desktop, I don't see what all the whining is about. Every time I upgrade or install Linux, I have to customize it to my liking, too, so it's a bit annoying when I hear that as a complaint from Linux users about windows. I'm glad I get to mostly use Linux, but I didn't see what all the fuss was about - plus it had better support for my ssd and, yes, it seems to run better/be more responsive than Windows 7 or XP.
I've heard a couple of legitimate complaints from power users, but by and large what I see is a bunch of people essentially complaining it's not exactly like it was before.