You beat me to it

I wonder to what extent the rise of this phenomenon correlates with the âoebraveryâ of removing headphone jacks from phones. Maybe a lot of people can afford $10 wired headphones but not $100 wireless ones, so they end up on speakerâ¦

Itâ(TM)s not that we are setting clocks back from normal. DST (setting them forward) is actually the adjustment from normal.

Personally, Iâ(TM)ve found it interesting that a lot of studies apparently show increased physiological problems (increased heart disease, for example, iirc) associated with DST and as DST is lengthened...

Franklinâ(TM)s idea may have been good in its time â" though Iâ(TM)ve never understood why having a day when we change the meaning of time was easier than having a day when we change hours of operation, but I digress â" but it doesnâ(TM)t really seem necessary for most people now, as most of us arenâ(TM)t farmers these days. Iâ(TM)d prefer standard time, I think, and if we decide we still want to see the sun more, use DST changeover days to change hours of operation by an hour.

I don't usually bother to post anymore, but what the holy hell is this supposed to mean? This isn't a sentence.

for those who don't wish to read TFA:

Peter Kasting said...

I'm a Chromium developer. It's not clear from your blog post: are the majority of the bugs you're complaining about things that are still broken on the WebKit trunk? Or things that you have to hack around because of the number of out-of-date WebKit-based UAs? If the former, are there bugs on file at bugs.webkit.org?

I ask this because we spend a lot of time fixing bugs in each release, and if there are major problems we're missing, then I'd like to ensure they get triaged and investigated properly. But the complaint you write here isn't really actionable, because it's short on details.

Feel free to ping me directly -- pkasting@google.com -- and I will try to ensure someone takes a look at your issues.

BBC News: Europe: Switzerland and the gun

Thursday, 27 September, 2001, 13:19 GMT 14:19 UK

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.

Few restrictions

In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not.

The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced.

Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions.

But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.

Mark Eisenecker, a sociologist from the University of Zurich told BBC News Online that guns are "anchored" in Swiss society and that gun control is simply not an issue.

Some pro-gun groups argue that Switzerland proves their contention that there is not necessarily a link between the availability of guns and violent crime in society.

Low crime

But other commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated.

Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.

It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.

Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.

I logged in to write this. Thank you.

This is the difference between the traditional concepts of "college" and "trade school". A college education is supposed to include learning in a wide array of subjects. If you don't want a liberal arts education, you shouldn't be at a school that provides (requires) one.

From Wikipedia:

From Oxford:

Are there engineering trade schools? I'm guessing not, and I'm guessing that if there are, they're not as respected as colleges are. But should there be well-respected engineering trade schools, for people who have this attitude? Yes. If a well-developed but narrow-scope education is what you want, fine, but allowing the corruption of the system put in place for those who do want to develop "broad general knowledge and...general intellectual capacities" is a bad idea.

Both explanations were very helpful. Thanks!

Nice! Is there a font file one can download?

If I recall correctly, that is *exactly* how the idea of digital downloads was sold to the public: no physical media, therefore lower costs.

I disagree with your assertion that A gift from person A to person B should be a symbol saying "I know you, and I believe that you should have this gift I am giving you."

If you're giving someone a gift (truly, not out of obligation or social pressure or what have you), you have affection for this person--you care for his or her welfare and happiness; therefore, I would say that to give a gift, in the highest sense, says "I believe you will like this gift I am giving you." If this were not the case, then why, in such cases, is the giver upset if he detects that the recipient doesn't like the gift? The giver is not upset because the recipient "is ungrateful", but because he is hurt. The "ungrateful" response refers, inherently, to the sentiment (whatever that may specifically be) behind the gift, but the giver masks his hurt, perhaps even to himself, by making the recipient the "bad guy" and changing the focus of his reaction. Perhaps the giver feels that he's being told that he didn't pick well (which can imply things about the strength of the relationship, which hurts further still), or that he has handed the recipient something which is intended to mean "I like you we're pals yay" and when recipient doesn't react that way to the object, the giver then transfers that reaction to the sentiment behind the gift.

Alternately, if the gift is given because of social obligation or what have you, why should the giver care whether the recipient likes it or not? The giver is obviously not close enough with the recipient to have already chosen to give the gift independently, so why should he expect to have an accurate understanding of what the recipient would actually like? If the recipient is grateful for having received a token of appreciation but doesn't like the form it took, why not be gracious and understanding about the fact that the person might not like the actual object?

I've known people who approach gift-giving in the way that you describe (in both meaningful and social situations), and their gifts are often more a reflection of what they, the givers, would enjoy receiving rather than what the actual recipient would enjoy. The giver genuinely wants the recipient to be pleased with the gift, but inadvertently picks something that the giver likes more than the recipient does. Those givers are often upset and pouty (sometimes privately, sometimes not) if the recipient does not express sufficient pleasure toward the object gifted. Others I've known, who approach gift-giving the other way, tend to be either happy if they see that the recipient acknowledges the sentiment behind the gift, or, at most, disappointed or even sad that the object they picked wasn't well-received, but still happy if the recipient has acknowledged the sentiment behind the gift. In either case, the reaction is still based on the giver's attitudes, not on the recipient's response (over which the giver has no control).

On the other hand, if the person is ungrateful for the token of appreciation, regardless of the form it takes, I suppose being upset would be understandable. But even then, as the giver, you still only have control over how you react to it, internally and externally. ; )

from the article:

While the Milky Way's black hole lacks such a jet - which is powered by matter falling inside the black hole, scientists believe it may have had one millions of years ago.

I thought that a black hole was a matter-&-light-gobbling monster that never stopped. What does the quote from the article mean? How does a black hole cease to exist? What happens to it?

Poo. I got to it too late. Thanks for the effort, though.