Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Dang... (Score 1) 92

by the gnat (#47534459) Attached to: Siberian Discovery Suggests Almost All Dinosaurs Were Feathered

Science is wrong

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Science was incomplete, in the sense that our assumptions about the appearance of dinosaurs were based on limited fossil evidence (and analogies to modern lizards rather than birds). And the raw evidence wasn't even "wrong", it was totally valid - only our interpretations were incorrect. Now we have new evidence, which is being incorporated into how we think about dinosaurs. When was the last time that anything was added to the Bible?

Comment: Re:Dang... (Score 1) 92

by the gnat (#47534427) Attached to: Siberian Discovery Suggests Almost All Dinosaurs Were Feathered

There are more models to support the scientific theory, but even then, there are something like 35 competing theories of evolution.

Possibly, but the general concept isn't even remotely controversial (at least among actual scientists). Especially the theory that humans and apes have a common ancestor, which is simultaneously the most minimal example of evolution, and the one that seems to upset people the most.

However, if one wants to be totally objective (or at least minimize biases), one has to admit that science doesn't always have the answers. The idea that science can eventually explain everything is as an untestable hypothesis as a deity creating everything. Neither can be proven.

The predictive ability of science - and the number of things it explains - does continue to improve over time, however. The same cannot be said of religion. Or, put another way, science is capable of changing as new evidence is obtained, as exemplified by this article. The Bible, however, is immutable, and the literalists have to resort to increasingly contorted explanations for how the Genesis account could be factually correct.

Comment: Amazon isn't out of expansion area (Score 1) 144

by Animats (#47533631) Attached to: Amazon's Ambitious Bets Pile Up, and Its Losses Swell

Amazon isn't out of expansion area. Their target is all of retail, and there's still a lot of non-Amazon retail. Most other big US companies with lots of cash have hit their natural limits.

Trying to go beyond those limits is tough. Google has not been successful in expanding beyond ads. (Android only makes money as an ad platform; Google's phone revenue is small.) Apple has a lot of cash, but can't find any way to use it that will yield the kind of margins Apple is used to. Facebook is still growing, but again, it's all ads.

There's only so much ad spending in the world, and the ad-based companies are all fighting over the same pot. There's more room to grow when your business model is "sell everything".

Comment: Stuck Focus = Forced Choice (Score 2) 512

by Tablizer (#47528721) Attached to: Laser Eye Surgery, Revisited 10 Years Later

As you get older, the focus range of your eyes decreases such that they more or less become "stuck" at a certain focal length from your face. Laser surgery will generally make the "stuck" range or point be further out, which could harm reading even if it improves distance vision.

The ideal "stuck" point probably depends on what you do the most. If you are at a computer screen often, then about 14 to 24 inches seems like it would be the ideal, although you couldn't see small things up close well.

My eyesight's focus is settling to around 10 inches away, which is shy of the ideal monitor range. Is surgery worth that extra 8 inches?

The bottom line is that age is a bitch and laser surgery forces you to make tradeoffs as old eyes will only have one ideal focus with or without. Choose the red distance or the blue distance, but not both.

Comment: Re:RUDEST PASSENGER EVER (Score 1) 755

According to Southwest's policy, people travelling together but with different boarding positions have the option to board together, provided the person higher up in line waits with the people further back. How this applies to families, I'm fuzzy on, but I would assume if you have a business select or other pass that allows boarding in the A1 through A15 group, it would make sense to have young children (say, under 10 years old) board with you. It seems like this is what the guy had done on several flights previously.

I have tried to find this regulation, recently, but I am fairly certain that that TSA regulations require the airline to honor any preferences and boarding assignments for all minors with the ticketed adult they traveling with, or else treat the minors as unaccompanied minors. A few times I have flow and received an automatic upgrade to first class, but not my minor travel companion. It's actually turned out to be a hassle, because they filled my old seat, there by stranding my child next to a random stranger. Obviously not acceptable. In both cases that it's happened, they ended up trading the stand-by person into my first class seat and putting me back into coach (which was fine). However, in both cases they told me that TSA regulation required them to board us together, and to use the adult traveler's cabin class, boarding priority, and seating preference. I travel for business quite a bit and I wouldn't wish my kids into 1st class with others who are traveling for business so I was happy to move back to coach, but both times the gate agent was quite adamant that they would bump a 1st class passenger to follow the reg if I wanted.

I sort of think this can't true. Someone from the TSA told me it had to with a terrorist screening database, that the children were not entered anyways, so it worked around a problem in the database with moving passengers between cabins. Could just be a myth.

Comment: Re:Customer service? (Score 3, Informative) 755

I fly a lot, and pretty sure he was in the right. The version of the story I read was that he was a Southwest A+ member, which is their (crappy) version of a frequent flyer. You get free pre-boarding priority with that status. It is customary for it to extend to any minors traveling with you on the same itinerary.

Comment: Re:Customer service? (Score 1) 755

On most 3-across, left-right configuration regional jets - like the 737 variants the Airbus 300, there is only enough overhead space for 2/3 of the passengers to bring on a rollerbag. This creates a problem where every 5-6 rows, or so, you lose 1/2 or 1/3 of an overhead bin to the preceding sections theoretical over seat compartment. By the time you get to the last rows, there is no longer any overhead space. People traveling without a rollerbag will typically get their bag or laptop bag or purse handed back to them and asked to put under the seat in front of them. Even then, it's not unusual for a full-flight to require a dozen or more rollerbags to be gate checked.

Basically all of the rollerbags now are FAA-size approved for a carry-on. A few have puff-out zippers that will add an extra inch or two but compress back down when forced.

This is basically the airlines overselling capacity and then having to do their best to accomodate. Personally, I don't mind gate checking a carry-on, but most of the time, traveling for business, I do not enjoy waiting for my luggage. It would be fine if after the 5-10 minute deplane and walk the luggage was waiting for me, but it never seems to work that way. It seems to take 30-60 minutes even in smaller airports with minimal traffic.

The bogosity meter just pegged.

Working...