Now that we are approaching the end of his term, was Obama or Bush, Jr. was more full of shit?

Many RadioShack stores do not consistently have electronic component bins and, without going to the store, you don't really know which ones do or how large their selection is. They had a core following for the do-it-yourselfer (DIYers)s for decades and then they effectively stopped carrying what those people wanted in favor of products with larger profit margins. Nothing is more frustrating than on a 30-minute driving round trip to find out that you just should have ordered a capacitor and resistor online because the 18 year old at the store doesn't even know what those parts are, much less if they stock them.

In my opinion, this is how they really blew it. They could have grown their online presence (like Newark Electronics or Digikey) and used that capability to more easily stock their storefronts with electronic components. They could have also brought in more computer components into their stores and also added that to their online stock (like Fry's or NewEgg). They could have continued to embrace DIY electronics. Instead, they kept their stores small, were not proactive on internet sales, and tried to copy larger appliance stores like BestBuy. In doing that, they lost most of their core customers and did not effective replace them.

In reality, they died decades ago but their management didn't realize it.

If you only need glasses for reading, you do not need progressive lenses. You need reading glasses, which you will only wear when you are reading.

You can just buy an over-the-counter set of glasses ($15) with your prescription. Or you can have a fancier (lighter or more stylish) pair made, but they will be called single-vision lenses (meaning that they have a single correction factor per eye).

Optometrists prefer you to get the most expensive lens option though their shop. Reading glasses are the cheapest. Single visions are the next cheapest. They have a higher profit margin on progressive lenses, multi-focal lenses, bifocals, etc. They also have a nice profit margin on coatings for anti-reflection or transition lenses. (Contact lenses too!)

I recommend you do the following:
1. Visit your optometrist's office and ask for a copy of your eyeglasses prescription. By law (in the US), they must give this to you at the end of the exam. You should always request this, at every visit, as you have paid for it.
2. If you got your lenses at the optometrist, tell them that they simply are not working for you. Usually, if it has been a few weeks to a month, they will remake your lenses in a different option at no cost to you. (This is generally the only advantage of getting your lenses at your optometrist.)
3. Read online about how your prescription works and figure out if you can get by with a simple set of cheap reading glasses. (You can do this if your eyes both require the same diopter correction value.)
4. Go to a drug store and try out cheap reading glasses.

Good luck. Look at the bright side, some people need glasses for both distance and reading!

Do any of these stars have planets? Because otherwise, there is nothing to land on when you starhop to them!

(This would have been a good point to discuss in the article!!!)

Actually, the GP was correct. The passenger has the option of having the bag returned at the gate or at the final destination carousel.

(You've clearly never traveled with a child and their stroller!)

... is to give the movie away for free download.

Nothing would piss of North Korea more, unless they could convince Apple to force you to download it, like U2 did!

I think that the GP was just making a point that many of the global warming proponents have oversold their agenda.

You can't remain credible by simultaneously implying (with "weasel" words) that each natural disaster is a direct result of global warming, while ignoring the growing arctic ice thickness and decrease in tornado activity.

Yes, nature is stochastic. But the sword cuts both ways, but pandering to sensationalism will ultimately undercut any scientific argument.

http://science.time.com/2014/0...
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/globa...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie...
     

I have tried this years ago.

It is incredibly uncomfortable to have to angle your head up or down to view content outside of the natural position of your neck, which only accommodates a very small angular range. Thus, a tall vertical monitor really increases body and eye strain. You will end up not using the top or bottom of that monitor.

Turning your head side to side induces much less strain. Additionally, most eyeglasses wearers (and people in general) have wider corrected fields of view horizontally than vertically.

The most comfortable solution is to have your primary monitor horizontally oriented and a secondary monitor vertically oriented. Either way, properly oriented textual content should be adjustable with the window aspect ratio.

What if he sold anti-aircraft missile designs to a terrorist organization, who then used those designs to shoot an airliner out of the sky that had your family in it? Would you still think that this was being blown out of proportion?

Someone with a security clearance could do that and a whole lot worse. In the process of agreeing to receive the clearance, employees also agree not to do that, in writing, under penalty of law. They also agree to be surveilled while using government resources. So it is completely acceptable for a government to test their employees to see if they are susceptible to treason or espionage.

This guy should be tried and if found guilty, put to death or locked away for life.

Dude, this is /., where you must express your opinion without informing yourself or reading the article.

The best part of the listed articles is the picture of the sheriff pointing a gun at the dalek with his finger on the trigger, while two employees stand directly on the other side of the robot!

Awesome: 2nd article, go to last picture.

Maybe this is a cunning advertisement by Knightscope to demonstrate why police need to be robotized.

So, if I push it over, can it get back up?

Because that thing looks like it was made to be pushed over.

Um, if you read the article, you would know that it is entirely the fault of the individual.

If you are not willing to swap fecal microbes, you won't be able to change your body weight as easily.

Thus, like most things in life (work, pleasing your spouse either physically or metaphorically), good things come to those who bend over and bear it.

What?

This isn't true at all. Cheaters get better grades than many fair students. The cheaters then get better jobs and make more money, while the fair students may miss out. If this issue corrects itself, it can take decades, during which the fair students have missed out.

I also have a theory that cheaters that can't hack the workload as a regular worker just become managers to better hide the fact that they can't "do." Thus, these people are more likely to company leaders. This may be why you see such poor ethical behavior at the highest levels of any company.

The only way to even remotely try to fix this issue is to not give a degree to any cheater.