Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:yes. tried one. (Score 1) 299 299

Easier - include an elevated chair so that the desk does not have to be adjusted.

It might be easier but it is likely even more costly.

I evaluated a number of options. And in general, a good standing desk together with a good tall chair came to more $$ than a good adjustable desk.

I do most of my work at the computer, so a good chair is a must.

I did end up buying an electric adjustable desk but it hasn't arrived yet.

Comment: Re:yes. tried one. (Score 2) 299 299

At best, you'll see a temporary relief of the symptoms specific to sitting before you start to develop the symptoms specific to standing.

You seem to be assuming that this is a trade between sitting all the time or standing all the time. Not so. The "ideal" situation is an adjustable desk that will let you sit or stand. You then do each part of the day.

There is definite evidence that switching up your working position has real benefits. You don't have to -- probably should not -- do all of one or all of the other.

Comment:'s the LAW! (Score 1) 369 369

The question is who defines a mental health check?

This. Mod up.

I don't understand why so many people don't get this. I think many do, but pretend not to for ideological reasons, or are simply afraid of their own shadows, or are power-mongers. Or some combination of the three.

The USSR was a prime example: disagree with somebody in power? Suddenly you're in a "mental health" hospital, being sedated or worse.

Comment: Re: Good for greece (Score 1) 1224 1224

It was a case of a single country trying to help out its own economy.

There. Fixed that for you.

It isn't and wasn't a freebie. All it accomplished was shoving the problem further down the road. The result: massively increased debt AND a sluggish economy that has never recovered from 2008-2009. (Stock market levels are not, and never have been, a good indicator of the general state of the economy.)

Real unemployment (as opposed to official government figures re: "job market") remain high. Inflation remains a problem. Income disparity has continued to increase.

Obamanomics doesn't work. It didn't work for FDR (his own Treasury Secretary though he was completely nuts). It didn't work for Carter. It doesn't work now.

Comment: Re:Already covered over at Hacker News (Score 0) 310 310

Also, OP's

Google is pushing the web as far as it will go

is just plain BS. Google is pushing the web where Google wants it to go, and that is neither near its capability or, if you just ask people, very close to WHERE it wants to go.

I dumped Chrome a long time ago, for very good reasons (bloated, slow, Google-centric) and even if they've improved those things, it's still not good enough. No thanks.

Comment: Re:So, ignorant people are easily influenced (Score 1) 133 133

Why the neverending insults and accusations, Jane?

Please explain what they are.

I repeat: I'm only responding to YOUR OWN insults and accusations. I point out the fallacies in your arguments and accusations.

For the most part the only things I've "accused" you of are things I can prove beyond reasonable doubt: misrepresentation, misrepresentation out-of-context, outright libel, and intentional, malicious defamation of character.

What else do I need to say? In fact I don't think I've "accused" you of anything else, and the truth isn't an "insult". It is just the truth.

Comment: Re:Bill Hadley is going to be disappointed (Score 1) 233 233

I don't make "baseless" comments, as I have explained to you innumerable times. And you have never -- not once -- demonstrated that my comments were "baseless".

You seem to think you can "wear me down" by making the same false accusations over and over.

All that really accomplishes is another entry in the journal.

Comment: Re:So, ignorant people are easily influenced (Score 1) 133 133

Does distorting what other people actually say make YOU feel like a big man, Bryan?

Seriously... if you had the courage of your convictions, wouldn't you just repeat what other people actually said and then refute it?

As opposed to, say, your actual habit of misrepresenting what other people say so you can try to knock THAT down with straw-man or out-of-context misrepresentations?

Do you really want to have a testerone contest? Ooops... wait... you already did, and you didn't come out smelling very good.

I will ask again: WTF is wrong with you?

Comment: Re:I'm not American so why would I care? (Score 1) 144 144

What the hell is wrong with making an actual rational argument with what I actually wrote, rather than your fevered imagination?

Repeat: what is wrong with being held LIABLE for your transgressions? You have a problem with that?

So hmm, whom do you sue when they blow themselves up as well as others?

The same people you sue when anybody else does the same thing. What, you think any of this is new?

Do you think any of your answers are new? That they haven't been done before?

He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.