I'm sorry that you believe that the entire airplane is your own private, dark, quiet sleeping quarters. I like the feeling of openness by having that window up next to me, and helps me forget about the overweight smelly guy next to me who's snoring and leaning my way...
Would the horn and indicators stop working when it flies? That might be of some use!
Oh, that's funny right there. Wish I had some mod points for you - I think I'm going to start using that name.
"Hey, when are we planning on upgrading to...Woah?"
Some people use shortcut keys to launch applications. Some don't.
Some people put icons on the desktop. Some don't.
Some use the menu. Some don't.
Some use the task bar. Some don't.
I don't use shortcut keys.
I put icons on the desktop for apps I use once a week.
I use the start menu for apps I run seldom (like IE).
I pin daily apps to the task bar.
I guess the only point is that people aren't binary - with multiple ways of doing things, different people have different weights that they apply to each method to help them do things the way they work. Many of them don't use exclusively a single approach.
One of the big failings of Windows 8 was ignoring this, and forcing a single, completely different way of working on people.
What about "the rumor of perl's death has been greatly exaggerated?"
Did Netcraft confirm it?
Someone wanted to deliver content via webserver and then sue people who received this delivery as violating copyright?
They seem to be saying that, in addition to displaying the content on your screen, your browser also writes a copy into its cache, and that's two copies.
I wonder what they'd say of, say, a RAID1 file system, which makes two copies of the cached page, on two different disks. Would that mean two violations of the copyright? And if, after sending it from the screen to your eyes, the information in your brain is a third violation?
It's even worse. From the copy on the screen, each of your eyes makes another copy on its retina.
And on the technical side, all the routers temporarily put the data into a buffer. So it causes one extra copyright infringement for every router the data passes.
Did they also calculate how much energy would be saved if we would not waste processor power on DRM decoding?
Less than 1% of the electricity generated in the US is from oil. Solar and Wind only generate electricity.
So well under 1% of all oil is used to generate electrical power. It was less the 2% of all oil in 2004 and has gone down to under 1% of the oil used in the US.
What you say may be true. As non-American I'm not terribly interested in the details of the American energy mix. Indeed, before that post, I couldn't even know which county you are from, so even with perfect knowledge of the American energy mix I could not have decided on the truth of that statement.
But your definition of "stupid" is wrong. "Stupid" is not the same as "uninformed", "misinformed" or "wrong".
And you just flunked your skeptic and critical thinking test.
There was no critical thinking test. I didn't make any statement about the energy situation of the US or any other country. I only made a statement about your use of "stupid".
1. You assumed you knew the truth.
I didn't assume to know the truth of the statement. I did (and still do) assume I know the truth about the meaning of "stupid". And your use of that word doesn't fit that meaning.
2. You failed to question the truth.
OK, I indeed didn't consult a dictionary (but I'm convinced you didn't either). Well, let's do now (I omit the pronounciation and ethymology parts):
stupid I a: slow of mind: obtuse b: given to unwise decisions or actions 2: dulled in feeling or sensation 3: marked by or resulting from dullness: senseless (a stupid mistake) 4: dreary, boring (a stupid plot) [Source: Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary]
None of those fits your use of stupid.
3. spouted off without doing any research.
Yes, I did not do any research on the meaning of "stupid". Nor did you, apparently.
4. You trusted without question those that told you that Solar and Wind would reduce our dependence on foreign oil when it is less than 1% of our oil use.
Does not apply. I didn't make a statement about wind and solar energy, I made a statement about your use of "stupid".
5. I am willing to bet that you are proud of your critical thinking skills and consider yourself an enlightened skeptic yet you showed none of those skills.
While I do think I have some critical thinking skills, I certainly didn't need to use them on your comment. Basic language knowledge was sufficient. In that sense I agree that I didn't show any critical thinking skills in my reply, because there was no critical thinking skill needed or sufficient.
You better think about what your answer says about your critical thinking skills.
Stupid == We need solar and wind to reduce our dependance on foreign oil.
No, equalling that statement with "stupid" is stupid.
(NOTE: this is sarcasm for those of you who can't think critically)
The smiley at the end already said so. But of course this is Slashdot, so stating it twice may be appropriate.
My average age is exactly half of my actual age. I'm speaking about the time average, of course.
Probably green jelly beans.
HVAC? What HVAC?
Except for the telephone sanitizers whose job is generally undervalued. You know, a single unsanitized telephone could wipe out a complete civilization.
A reference is
I think you remembered your reference once too often.