Comment Re:yes and no (Score 1) 181
It doesn't work so well on something you want people to keep buying and upgrading from you.
It doesn't work so well on something you want people to keep buying and upgrading from you.
Generalization fallacy.
Historically the statement is true. It has become less so over time due to progressive adoption of various authentication mechanisms (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) but is still largely accurate.
I liked Voyager quite a bit and always thought Enterprise was seriously underrated.
The 'In a Mirror, Darkly' episodes at the end of Enterprise's fourth season in particular were outstanding.
As a random aside
Senior/Editor has an entirely different meaning than Senior Editor.
Or salvage...if it is unmanned, isn't it fair game for anyone to claim?
Could be dependent on factors different on Mars like ubiquitous perchlorates just lying around in bulk.
While parent is basically a throwaway, there's a grain of truth to it completely by accident.
If there was a reasonably accessible way to do this more efficiently, plants would use that instead of photosynthesis.
Doesn't mean there is no way to do it, but it's not likely going to be some obvious or simple process that nature could have managed on its own.
System
Languages and Input
Advanced/Input Assistance
Spell Checker OFF
Autofill service OFF
i find them barely worth keeping myself, but sounds like you fall the other way.
Something is a good idea for everyone?
Can't have that! We'll just put it in as a special carve-out for some group that people can't say NO to - such as teachers, firemen, police, etc. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES do it for the average citizen on an equal and equitable basis.
. . .
Always ALWAYS vote against carve-outs. All you are doing is ensuring the general public doesn't get whatever it is.
The Hugos used to be pretty useful to pick out things I would like. Now they are a better indicator of things I won't. I purchase and read accordingly.
"the molecules freeze regardless of the temperature"
Criminy, it isn't actually a bad statement.
They're referring to upfront cost of course, as you are are aware.
However it IS common to compare the cheapest bulb you can get when comparing prices, but compare the manufacturer claimed life expectancy improvements from high end bulbs.
The cheap POS LEDs do NOT last 5x longer. I wouldn't even give them 2x.
The higher quality LED bulbs are great, but make the cost analysis closer (and of course 5x is still BS)
And I say this as someone with a handful of incandescent still burning, no remaining CFLs (hated them so much...) and almost entirely LEDs at this point.
LEDs are the better direction but it's not as overwhelming an analysis as it is made out to be. Particularly as they have significantly more efficient incandescents that became available once that sluggish industry realized it was being regulated out of existence and tried to adjust (too late). Comparisons are of course not done against the more efficient incandescent bulbs. LED still wins those comparisons, but the story is again reduced when this is done.
Their idea of an offer you can't refuse is an offer... and you'd better not refuse.