foxbunny

I'm interested in seeing where this is going.

Yes, the arm out is an exaggeration, but it wouldn't actually affect everyone. Some of suggestions have issues (the confusion of color and pigment, for example--you want to do exactly the opposite of what you suggest). But you are right on about others (top of monitor at eye level or below). Here's some useful information. http://lookafteryoureyes.org/eye-care/computers-and-other-screens/

You can use something like F.lux to change the color temperature on phones, tablets, and computers. The downside is that it changes the color on your screen (bad for doing color artwork). However, there are easy ways to avoid eyestrain. Try something real quick: stand so that you can touch the wall. Put your finger on one point and leave it there. Do that for the next few hours. Just kidding. You already know what will happen--your shoulder will get sore, your arm will get tired. That's the same thing happening with your eyes. Note that eyestrain isn't dangerous, just painful. It's like a cramp from sitting in one position for too long... or standing for too long... or running for too long. Essentially, the muscles need a break from the close focus. Working near a window is a good option as you can easily take breaks and look outside (if you can't go outside) and change your focus. The conditions that cause eyestrain can eventually cause problems with focus, just as sitting around all the time will eventually cause problems. So, exercise your eyes by giving them more things to focus one and limiting how much time you spend staring at a close point. You can get eyestrain from reading plain old paper books too much (consider: avid readers often end up in glasses). The light quality and pixilation are factors, but the biggest issue is the fact that you are staring at something less than a meter from your face for hours at a time.

And a bunny I did today.

Playing with Blender a bit. Here's the image.

It's not being kept secret. There is currently no trade deal agreed to, only "leaked" proposals from more than 6 months ago. So, there is only speculation about what might be in a possible future deal that may or may not happen. Essentially there are two lenses through which one can view the world: the lens of hope or the lens of fear. There is no fear in love, and Christians live love.

Actually, the TPP not being voted on. There's currently no completed agreement up for vote for the TPP in the House or Senate. What was voted on (and passed) today was a "fast track" bill. Essentially this bill prevents amendments from being added to trade deals sent to the Congress for approval and requires a simple "up or down" vote on the proposal. The copyright rules that are being proposed will require the other countries involved to offer copyright protections in line with what is currently in the US. That is, if you are operating in the US right now, nothing should change. If you are in a country with lax copyright enforcement you could be in trouble. Think of how Cease and Desist or takedown requests work now on youtube, etc. That's what they're trying to implement, only stretching outside the US. I personally think the TPP is not a good move. It's a lot like NAFTA, which hasn't really done much good for the US.

The best way to practice meter is to write formal poems (those with a specific form you have to follow). Prosody is hard, though. It starts to leak over into your prose, too, which is a plus.

I got stuck on the opening lines because I look less at "what" than "how" poems mean. "the sloth is so slow" is cool to me because it has so many stresses. u'u'' That spondee at the end of the line puts so much pressure on the sloth. It puts impatience into the line. It could be tightened into a line of only stresses by eliminating "the" and "is" and it would match the triple stress of "digging through."

That's why I like collaborative work--things go in all sorts of different directions.

The pics are live on the word doc linked above. Here's the link again: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bt2m4zhk3jxm81a/Voice%20Actor%20info%202015.docx?dl=0 I would audition, but I have a cold, so my voice is jacked up.

Re-hi.

**I made some changes and added part of another scene.** Emily ran her pencil over her notebook in mindless doodles. Class was always so boring. English Composition I felt like a review of her high school English classes. She didn’t see the point. She did the writing and reading and turned everything in on time (if not early), but it wasn’t interesting. Dr. Brand’s voice, though, was the worst part. It was a weird mid-tone drone that ran on for an hour and a half every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon. It felt like a punishment. A class she had to pay for. She didn’t really pay, her scholarship did, but it still felt like a waste. She could mostly tune out during class. Not completely, though. She needed to pick up on assignments and catch a few notes here and there. Things about Horace and Shakespeare and prosody. She could answer when called, but that wasn’t common. Pass the tests, turn in the papers, and get through the class. Her advisor, Dr. Angleton, said to think of the first three semesters as a way to see if a student is serious about college. Easy, almost mind-numbing classes, weed out the malcontents. Classwork was non-existent. Everything was homework. She considered, halfway through the semester, while unlistening to Brand buzzing on and on about the beauty of the words ‘whan that aprill with his shoures soote,’ that she might be one of those malcontents. She could do the work. She was smart enough, she was sure, and she wasn’t averse to digging in to her studies. That wasn’t the problem. It was the school. The culture. She felt like she didn’t belong. She was one of maybe ten mice out of six-thousand undergraduate students. There were more students in her freshman class than the entire population of the town where she grew up. And she figured that the girls in her dorm could have probably pooled their allowance to buy every house on the street where her parents lived. So she kept quiet. Turned in. Tuned out. Emily folded her spiral shut and pushed it into her bag. The strangest thing about college was having no bells. No signal that class was over until someone started packing up and the professor called out the reading for the next class. Tasha, her roommate, said she should skip class sometime. A lot of students did. Two or three absences over a semester don’t really hurt and can be refreshing. Emily’s athletic scholarship kept that from being an option for her. Someone at a desk outside her classes had a clipboard where she had to sign in and out. It was usually the rabbit girl who ran errands for Coach McEwen. If Emily missed a class, she would have to be sick or at a competition. She couldn’t just skip because she needed a break. It initially seemed a small price to pay. After all, if not for the scholarship she wouldn’t be there. She sat down on the steps outside Manger Hall. There was an hour before she needed to be at Athletics for her workout. Mandatory, Coach said. Emily didn’t mind the workouts. She enjoyed them, in fact. Focusing on technique and routine, controlling every muscle precisely took her mind off slog of her classes. That was also the time when she was around the most of her own kind. She wasn’t prejudiced, she would say, just more comfortable around other mice. She probably should have used that time to study or get ahead in her coursework, but she didn’t want to. Those minutes between class and practice were hers. She could dictate what she did and where she went. Mostly. She couldn’t go home. She couldn’t go back and tell herself to not take the scholarship. Stay in Herndon. Go to the junior college and get a nursing certificate like her mother said. Closed doors are closed. The past is gone. Keep on keeping on. All those sayings her grandma used to turn to when the little white mouse with the big blue eyes would miss a quarter-turn or fall off a beam went through her head. “Y’all OK, M&M?†came Lily’s slow drawl from off Emily’s shoulder. Coach’s little helper. A lop-eared rabbit with creamy fur and a ready smile. There was a sort of instinct to dislike her among the athletes. She was a little on the heavy side and had a tic that made her squince up her face when she blinked behind her thick glasses. Coach was always nice to her. There were rumors. She does spend a lot of time alone with Coach. If nothing else, a common target strengthened the camaraderie of the team. Emily felt badly for the times she had been cold to her, though. The rumors were baseless. She’d never heard Lily say something bad about anyone. “I’m good,†Emily said, nodding without turning around. “You sure?†Lily pressed, stepping down to sit next to Emily. Even then, sitting at the same level, the rabbit was still more than a head taller the mouse. “It looks like y’all are working something over in your head that don’t want to be worked.†“I just need some time to think about things.†Emily pulled her hands into the sleeves of her sweatshirt and hugged her knees up to her chest. Lily nodded. “Well, I just wanted to say that I’m good at listening.†She nudged Emily and flipped her long ears between her fingers. “I got plenty of ears to spare.†Emily forced a smile. “Thanks.â€

Combos are good. Yes they are.

Yes, we're quite rare.

Hello and welcome.

The actual rules changes constitute only 8 pages. The many other pages are the history of the internet, explanation of how the decision was reached, potential issues, dissent, support, definitions of various types of internet service, and the intent of the ruling. Also quotes and footnotes. Pretty much every change is quoted at least a dozen times. The footnotes restate what was said in the area referenced. So much redundancy. Ugh. Here's the "general conduct" thing we're talking about: § 8.11 No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage standard for Internet conduct. Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule. It says that that nobody who works for an ISP can block content or throttle connections between content providers and end users. In case there's any confusion, "lawful content" is the opposite of "unlawful content" and the specific definitions are addressed throughout the document. Lawful and legal are not the same thing.

That the same as the one on the FCC site. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

We're really on the same page here in a way, we just get there by different routes. I don't think the Order is a good move. I think it is reactionary and doesn't address the issues it's intended to address. I, however, don't believe that the people who were involved in coming to this decision are stupid or intentionally evil. Like most things, it's not the best scenario, but it's also not doomsday. "In other words, the reality is almost certainly worse than we can definitively say it is, and we should account for that." I guess my difficulty is that I can't assume the worst.

Yes, if something is affecting all government agencies (government agencies across the board), then one could rightly claim that FCC would similarly be affected. However, we have not proven that there is something affecting all government agencies. Additionally, this condition is vague (what do you mean by "effected?") and cannot be disproved because of the true believer problem which is usually stated as "people who believe in a conspiracy cannot be convinced that there is no conspiracy because that's what the conspirators want you to think." We, therefore, cannot reasonably cite this as evidence as it is not proved. Other agencies' scandals are also problematic to consider. Without proving a connection between the various scandals/problems, one cannot reasonably claim a relationship between them. That is, the fact that the IRS had a scandal and the fact that the NSA has been spying need to be proven to be connected in order for them to make sense as a pattern. Rather, the two scandals have vastly different MOs. The IRS targeted groups based on name information. The NSA indiscriminately stockpiled records without a target. These agencies also have different leadership (the IRS is under the DOT and the NSA is under the DOD), different cultures, different offices, etc. Without proving direct connections between such scandals, it is not reasonable to present them as evidence of a future scandal. Any presented connection could neither be proved nor disproved, only suspected. We, therefore, cannot reasonably cite this as evidence as it is not proved. The only evidence of FCC corruption that has been presented is the "monitoring news rooms" that didn't occur. A study (i.e. the gathering of sample data) was proposed, but never conducted. There is no evidence that, had this study been conducted, that anything would have happened other than the collection of data. Regardless, it is speculation as to the intent which can nether be proved nor disproved. We, therefore, cannot reasonably cite this as evidence as it is not proved. The assertion that the government lies to us is, I would agree, a fact. However, when you cite the ACA as an example you point out a problem with using such as evidence for the FCC using the recent Order for censorship. The ACA has neither lived up to promises nor caused the utter destruction warned against. If the ACA not living up to government promises is evidence of government lies, then the ACA failing to cause the extreme negatives promised by conservative media means conservative media also lies. If the conservative media lies, then the site you linked is at least suspect. I would not reason this way because it is faulty in the way that "police officers shoot people for no reason" is faulty. Yes, it is true that police officers shoot people for no reason and that the government lies, but these are not always the case. The government does not always lie and police officers do not always shoot people for no reason. This is valid evidence, but it can potentially be so broad as to be irrelevant if there is no evidence of organized lying. It would be helpful to have specific instances of the FCC lying. Even if demonstrated valid, this evidence is not enough on its own to prove that the FCC is likely to use the Order as is claimed. I'm not arguing that the FCC is doing a good thing by putting the internet under Title II. I'm also not saying the federal government is awesome and beyond reproach. Instead, I'm saying that I haven't seen any evidence that the FCC putting the internet under Title II will result in China-like censorship. In fact, the evidence I have seen points the opposite direction. Consider this claim: The FCC placing the internet under Title II is unnecessary and a bad idea. EDIT: Pleas note that my goal in this post is to direct us to a discussion on the merits of the FCC's decision rather than arguing that the FCCs decision will lead to internet censorship like China has.

I must have misunderstood. Here's is what I have gathered your reasoning is. Let me know where this is incorrect. The FCC previously did not regulate the Internet beyond issues of criminal activity The FCC has moved to place the Internet under Title II. All government agencies are the same. Government agencies, for example have done the following: The FCC "tried to place monitors in news rooms" The IRS's rejection of and slow handling of social welfare organization applications NSA spying Affordable Care Act All government agencies are the same. Therefore the Open Internet Order will be misused to censor legitimate websites in a way resembling China's government censorship. Have I missed something?

Then again, I haven't been reacting in a very Christian way. Sorry for being rude and unkind. That's not right.

To apply your reasoning: The logical fallacies you commit are intentional and calculated. When you started the thread with a slippery slope fallacy that was not a mistake. Again, to use your logic, because you began with a slippery slope fallacy, you are disingenuous and are intentionally obfuscating the conversation. I would say you made an honest mistake, just as when you said "if you are wrong in your logic, then the conclusions you reach based on that logic are also wrong," you were mistaken. If I were to read into your thoughts, assumptions, and intentions (which is not possible), I would think you were trying to mislead people. This is where I have the issue with your argument about the FCC's actions/order: it requires the assumption of ill-motive based on previous assumptions of ill-motive (not evidence thereof). In other words, the belief that the FCC is going to act like the Chinese government is based on the assumption of evil intent. That's exactly what you're doing to me. I just don't believe that to be a Christian way of thinking.

I disagree with your opinion.

That would be wonderful, JR.