I'm surprised that this hasn't been addressed by the academic communities. Someone with a degree in English or linguistics or something like that should have though of this decades ago.
This word (actually more than one word) has various spellings, and I've probably used all of them at one time or another. The word is email, or eMail, or e-mail, or some other variation. They're all wrong.
Yes, if I were in college I'd certainly only lug one book around -- my notebook computer. I'd keep all the schoolbooks on the computer.
As to elderly eyesight, when I was a kid, all the geezers wore glasses, but few young people. Now all the youngsters have glasses and few geezers do. Why? The young are ruining their eyesight with computers, tablets, and phones much like I ruined mine with books.
But when I was a kid, cataract surgery was still rare. The patent on the CrystaLens should expire around 2023, so most oldsters won't need any glasses, since it not only cures cataracts but nearsightedness, farsightedness, and astigmatism. It won't be long before I have to get the other eye done.
We now have a "right to work" billionaire as governor of Illinois. He's calling for "right to work" zones, fortunately the legislature isn't going to let him.
If I weren't retired and lived in a "right to work" state, I would demand that the state's government supply me with employment. After all, if it's my RIGHT to work...
"Right to work" is a flat out bald faced lie, and any working person who supports it is a moron.
The difference is that a middle class or poor person who votes Republican is voting against their own interests.
In his 1951 short story The Fun They Had, Isaac Asimov has a boy who finds something really weird in the attic -- a printed book. In this future, all reading was done on screens.
Actually, TV would use far less power than YouTube. With streaming, you're transmitting as well as receiving, and transmitting is what eats your battery (besides the screen, which each would use equally). It takes very little power to receive, a lot to transmit.
I doubt anyone would buy one just to watch TV, it would just make the tablet more useful.
Programming that would be very simple. Your link shows they've already done it. Guess I'll be buying a tablet and their expensive software.
The only difference between a smartphone and a tablet is phones can connect to cell carriers. If it will work on your Android tablet it should work on your Android phone, as long as the carrier doesn't block it. And they surely wouldn't, because if you're watching TV on it you're not streaming NetFlix on it.
I just checked wikipedia, it did have a cartridge that would play TV. And effort? The hardware is all there -- TV is digital now. A good programmer or perhaps engineer could do it in a few hours. I see no reason why nobody's done it; maybe it was the Sega flop.
I'd like to know why in the hell nobody is selling a tablet, or maybe an app for existing tablets, that will let me watch over the air TV on it?
All the necessary hardware is there. Wi-fi and bluetooth are radios. Some cell pones can pick up FM music stations, and have been able to do so and have done so for years.
The FM radio band sits between channels six and seven on the VHF television channels. If it can hear radio, it can see TV.
I have a problem when people who are under the influence go out and interfere with non-intoxicated society.
That is not and never has been one of pot's effects. You're describing alcohol, not pot. Why not outlaw beer? Sorry, dude, but your stand is illogical, irrational, and ignorant.
Coincidentally, I saw this JE this morning right after seeing a report on CBS's morning news program that said that marijuana is by far the least dangerous of all recreational drugs. They found the most dangerous was alcohol, followed by heroin, followed by cocaine. I did a quick search, it doesn't look like they've posted it to their web site.
I've found an incredible amount of misinformation about marijuana. This article says "Those who might remember pot from the 70s - the marijuana grown and sold in Colorado today is up to 10 times stronger."
The difference isn't strength of the pot, it's how its potency is measured and how pot is and was sold. They take the pot, grind up the entire bag and test it.
Today, pot is grown indoors so it has no seeds, and only the buds are sold. In the seventies, they put the whole plant; stems, seeds, leaves and all. Leaves are far less potent than buds, stems have very little THC and seeds have none at all, and the seeds are heavy. I saw pot in the '70s that the seeds were more than half the weight of the bag. So grinding up the whole bag would indicate that it's 10 times stronger, when stoners always threw the stems and seeds away and usually saved the bud for the weekend.
The best pot I ever smoked was in Thailand in 1973-4.
Now, even if pot wasn't the safest of all recreational drugs, even if it were the deadliest, how does your neighbor getting stoned affect you or society at large?
There's a chapter in a book that was required reading in a college history class in the late '70s that shows how incredibly moronic prohibition is. Alcohol and Al Capone
Look at Mexico and Columbia. Prohibition is purely stupidly evil.
I didn't have mod points for years when I was commenting a lot. As far as wasting them, that horizontal scroll bar makes everything but journals unreadable. Fucking beta wasn't even as bad. Wasting
I've seen no evidence that they have, and I doubt they will. They started it because of slashdot's infamous beta and the goal was a better slashdot than slashdot. There seem to be fewer morons over there, although one or two stupid comments crop up occasionally.
I've uploaded a new book to mcgrewbooks.com. Edgar E. Smith was a well known science fiction writer known as "the father of space opera", and Doctor Smith was a food engineer in his other life. The novel I've uploaded is Triplanetary, first published in serial form in Amazing Stories in 1934.
Some of the dialogue is a bit juvenile, but it would make a great movie.
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach
