getonit

Meh. If that's all you're going to tell us then I ain't interested... when you have something to say, SpaceX, I'll be ready.

Indeed, and I do :)

AKA Spam-by-proxy...

That's the only one I could imagine encountering, and if I've not saved the original, serves me right AFAIC.

But then, if I save the second with a higher-than-otherwise-optimal setting, then I can reduce the compounding of effects. It's cost me filesize to limit loss to the imperceptible, but it's still possible.

Could you then give me a common use where a loss not noticeable to the human eye is, in fact, important?

Viewer gullibility?

Did he mean it literally, or just that you can fiddle with compression until you don't notice any artefacts? At that point, it's as good as lossless for most uses, IMHO.

I'd imagine that their marketing department doesn't get to make too many tech descisions, even if they do seem to be more aware of their product's problems.

While I agree with the whole article, I take issue with the phrasing of the title - You are exactly as successful as you want to be if by 'you', you mean your procrastinating, excuse-seeking, risk-averse subconscious. You know, the 'real' you, as opposed to the marionette who answers questions like this and naively thinks it's control ;)

It's a simple change of perspective that, if you can hold on to it, will give the marionette some real power to notice and correct self-harming and/or restricting behaviour.

3 people, myself included, found the name synonymous with a list of girlfriends. I know the car-price meaning, but it's not what I think of first. Now there's a market indicator :)

If it's going into a database, it has an integer index that is separate from everything else. It's the law.

That - in a nutshell - is the difference between 'finding' and 'growing' staff, and I'm of the opinion that we should be shooting for growing unless there's a damned good reason to take the shortcut of just finding.

It's an easy productivity tweak for your whole operation to just switch how you look at things from the other opinions posted here to this way, IMHO.

I'd like to use it without connecting it to a bank account - I don't want that level of automation, but I'd be perfectly happy to enter the information manually. I'm currently writing my own glorified spreadsheet type system, but you've already got a framework for the kinds of things I want to do with that.

Do you have plans to do this? Automating is one thing, but you need to allow a way for users to edit the bits that the automation misses, gets wrong, etc., or that people want to disregard, IMHO.

The word 'curious' in the OP's question doesn't jive with the word 'confrontational' in your reply, IMHO.

Your personal experience appears to differ from peer-reviewed studies...

I have accidentally managed to train myself to get up, cross the room, turn my alarm off and go back to sleep... all without any conscious thought. It's not very helpful.

Hence the 'mostly'. I'm saying that the relative efficacy of that approach is lower than generally believed. It's woods-for-the-trees, IMHO.

Debunked reasoning: You still eat X calories per day, you still use Y calories per day, storing or using fat depending (mostly) on the difference between X and Y. The relative timing of consumption and use have a demonstrably negligible effect.

I watched Toy Story in 3D (with the kids! :) ) and I kept forgetting it was in 3D... I just kinda tuned it out to it, I don't know how to explain it. The 3D aspect was a complete waste after about 5/10 minutes of novelty. Like Murch says, make the atmosphere involving and don't worry about adding frills - if it's good enough, and we'll immerse ourselves without any tech help.

I get one or two spam emails a week, and my spam folder gets about 300 a day. I've even given up checking for false positives, as that was a waste of time. If that ain't perfect, I don't need perfect :)

That's awesome, but be wary of your bandwidth rocketing up faster than you can afford to pay for it...

...or you could just use gmail, and never have to worry about spam again ;)

Analysing a race performance by looking at a rostrum - those who make the rostrum have performances worth looking at in detail, and skipping those that don't can save you a lot of time.

Then they wouldn't match a (real) compass.

Asshole is subjective, and unhappiness is not automatically justified by its existence.

To reflect the fact that people didn't believe her, I'd guess.

You didn't try it, then?

"it will" != "will it"

> Did I screw the message up? Or was it difficult to comprehend?

I chose to ignore the main question, which yes, I did comprehend and no, you didn't screw up - it just doesn't interest me. The sub-point I was interested in - the broader picture - is the one I responded to, hence the quote in my reply.

How do you know it does that, then?