Sorry, but wrong in some cases. The closest store to my house that would carry this game is Wal-mart. I don't shop at Wal-mart, so the next closest is Target. Sold out. The next closest after that is Best Buy. Ok, purchased, drive home....my son has already purchased downloaded and installed DA2 and is level 3 already. So much for "10 minutes".
And did things like tying their server uptime during the demo into getting exclusive items in DA2
Which was incredibly cool and very creative on their part. I played the demo though a couple times with each character (probably around 10 times total) and never experienced server outages.
No, they can't. And babies can't read either. My point was sarcastic, but evidently nobody got it;-)
There's also the "which glass has more water in it" scenario. (I don't remember the exact age or level of development, but) children of two different developmental stages (say 2 and 7 years old) where shown two glasses of water. One glass was tall and skinny, the other short and fat. The short glass had twice as much water in it, but the 2 year olds always pick the taller glass, because the water goes up higher, so there's obviously more of it right?
Not to mention that US education is not that old. As recently as the 1940s the graduation rate was under 50%. Before 1880, most kids didn't go to school except the most privileged, urban families. We Amuricans don't got no long history of edumication as one would like to think.
Of course it's true. Unless you have an MAEd., I'll just go with my qualifications for now.
Children everywhere on the planet have similar cognitive development rates, that are measurable and predictable, and have been labeled by cognitivists like Piaget. These same developmental milestones are what are used to form educational systems across the globe. It isn't by chance or by religion that schools are grouped by "elementary, middle, and secondary" (with variations, depending on country). It's because of the way the human life form grows at similar rates and reaches similar milestones at the same ages everywhere on the planet.
I can't help it that some societies like the ones you cited want to live two centuries ago and don't educate their children. But if they did, they'd start "Kindergarten" or whatever it would be called in their language, at about age 5, because that's the appropriate age and cognitive development for humans.
I don't think replacing one natural item with another counts as "naturalism". I think replacing sweet-and-low with honey is a great idea, however. Eating bread that lacks the stuff that makes wonder bread have an 8 week shelf life can only be good as well.
It is science versus religion, because without dogmatic religious beliefs, the only thing to be opposed to stem cell research would be the "what do you have to show for all the money you've spent" argument. If you remove all the ridiculous moral barriers the researchers have to overcome, progress would probably come much quicker.
So what if they've been disappointing thus far. If there is a potential good use, and they exist already, why should we be prisoners to the dwindling religious opinion in this country? Should we stop looking for cancer cures or aids treatments because we haven't found the magical vaccine to eliminate those?
I don't deny Democrats exaggerate climate problems, but at least they understand the scientific evidence. Because they inflate the severity of the consequences of science is less moronic than discarding science altogether.
I've never heard anti-vaccine associated with Democrat/Liberal political leanings. That's more "home-school right-wing nut job" territory. I guess to the extreme opposite there's the granola naturalist who will eat green pea snaps instead of taking a measles vaccine?
I'm anti-genetic modified crops. That is a health issue, not a left/right issue.
The fact you think social sciences are made up froo-froo science says a lot about you. I have a grad degree in social sciences which required a research project. How exactly does one complete a research project in a field that isn't real science?
I don't think anyone is advocating the removal of "reply all".
What I think people advocate (and email etiquette books advocate) is not automatically using re: all for every email...especially when only one person in the re: all list needs to get a response.
Funny you talk about productivity. A growing problem in professional environments is the loss of productivity due to too many emails. Not having to wade through and delete the hundred or so reply all emails a day I get would definitely increase my productivity.
But seriously, most children of any culture throughout history develop language and behavior at roughly the same intervals. Early Childhood Development is easily understood, observed and recorded. It's frankly the reason most schools are broken down by similar grade ranges across the globe (because the human child form develops at predictable levels).
but every few months we see research come out that challenges natural-selection evolution as we understand it as the sole explanation of our existence.
And every few months the lawyer/dentist/real estate agent Orly Taitz comes on tv and says stupid shit too.
Therein lies the problem with 99% of society. Facts aren't there to be liked or disliked, they just are. As soon as we get past that and can view things for what they are, as opposed to what we want them to be or what we think they are, then society will be a much better place.
Reminds me of the rednecks here in Texas..."well my daddy beat me and I turned out all right! Damn straight I'm gonna whoop my kids!" And we are somehow tricked into thinking that public discourse of allowing schools to paddle our children is legitimate? Of course it isn't, and those who wish to continue living in the 1800s should keep their paddling to themselves and their uncle daddies and sister cousins.
Short version of TFA: "Republicans are anti-science because many of them don't believe empirical data that goes against their world-view and doesn't pander to their folklore addicted, anti-intellectual base."
With that, I admit I am a Republican. I can't help it if my party left me.
Why would he have to provide an example, when the linked NY Times story provides several?
Something tells me you don't understand the definition of theory either. In science, a theory is an explanation of empirical phenomena. Empirical means it is testable and observable, and therefore is fact.
In Rupert Murchoch and Tea Party World, "theory" means "something I don't agree with and hasn't been proven", which of course is the exact opposite of the meaning of the word "theory" as applied to science.
Not to mention the linked article clearly aligns Republicans with fact-free science by providing several examples of Republicans' actions and statements.
I'm sure there are some on the Democratic side, but by affiliation, theirs are fewer.
I said my first paycheck, not my first Apple. I was 8 when Apple was founded, but I was far ahead of my classmates in taking an interest to technology. (I used to go to the library to play a bad ascii dungeon game on a Vic-20, for example).
But I do find it interesting that you chalk up Apple's supposed demise to the era of the Macintosh, when most people on here will say it was in the mid90s after a couple non-technology CEOs in a row tried to run the company like a commodity soft drink and not like an industry leading graphic design tool.
And if anything, the Internet, followed by Steve Jobs' return saved Apple, not Bill Gates. I'd entertain the argument that Microsoft Office saved the Mac, since up to Word 4.0, the Mac versions where always better than the equivalent PC version of the time, but even that is a stretch, as there was (and still is) plenty enough creative types on this planet to give a design-oriented tool a large enough market to be profitable.
Your generation vs. my generation? Are you of my generation who earned our first salary using Aldus Freehand, PageMaker and Photoshop 1.0? You don't need to lecture me on Apple history, but you don't need to inflate the "Microsoft bailed Apple Out" myth either.
The quality of their product, regardless of profits for old white board members?
The two are inseparable. Or should be at least. Why would anyone continue to buy an inferior product?
Great question. This is the reason many of us think Microsoft sucks. They make bottom line decisions that benefit the board and not the customers, yet the customers lap it up for year after year.
My experience is the more popular something is, the more inferior it is. People are cheap and cheap sells. Quality sells to a smaller select group of consumers, which Apple has tapped into quite nicely.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but wrong in some cases. The closest store to my house that would carry this game is Wal-mart. I don't shop at Wal-mart, so the next closest is Target. Sold out. The next closest after that is Best Buy. Ok, purchased, drive home....my son has already purchased downloaded and installed DA2 and is level 3 already. So much for "10 minutes".
What is this physical media you speak of?
And did things like tying their server uptime during the demo into getting exclusive items in DA2
Which was incredibly cool and very creative on their part. I played the demo though a couple times with each character (probably around 10 times total) and never experienced server outages.
No, they can't. And babies can't read either. My point was sarcastic, but evidently nobody got it ;-)
There's also the "which glass has more water in it" scenario. (I don't remember the exact age or level of development, but) children of two different developmental stages (say 2 and 7 years old) where shown two glasses of water. One glass was tall and skinny, the other short and fat. The short glass had twice as much water in it, but the 2 year olds always pick the taller glass, because the water goes up higher, so there's obviously more of it right?
Not to mention that US education is not that old. As recently as the 1940s the graduation rate was under 50%. Before 1880, most kids didn't go to school except the most privileged, urban families. We Amuricans don't got no long history of edumication as one would like to think.
Of course it's true. Unless you have an MAEd., I'll just go with my qualifications for now.
Children everywhere on the planet have similar cognitive development rates, that are measurable and predictable, and have been labeled by cognitivists like Piaget. These same developmental milestones are what are used to form educational systems across the globe. It isn't by chance or by religion that schools are grouped by "elementary, middle, and secondary" (with variations, depending on country). It's because of the way the human life form grows at similar rates and reaches similar milestones at the same ages everywhere on the planet.
I can't help it that some societies like the ones you cited want to live two centuries ago and don't educate their children. But if they did, they'd start "Kindergarten" or whatever it would be called in their language, at about age 5, because that's the appropriate age and cognitive development for humans.
I don't think replacing one natural item with another counts as "naturalism". I think replacing sweet-and-low with honey is a great idea, however. Eating bread that lacks the stuff that makes wonder bread have an 8 week shelf life can only be good as well.
I have an example. Third grade, ca. 1979, I was taught that all of our oil would be gone by the year 2000. Still no end in sight to oil.
It's not necessarily the scientists doing the exaggeration, it's often times the "sky is falling" people who interpret findings that are doing it.
It is science versus religion, because without dogmatic religious beliefs, the only thing to be opposed to stem cell research would be the "what do you have to show for all the money you've spent" argument. If you remove all the ridiculous moral barriers the researchers have to overcome, progress would probably come much quicker.
So what if they've been disappointing thus far. If there is a potential good use, and they exist already, why should we be prisoners to the dwindling religious opinion in this country? Should we stop looking for cancer cures or aids treatments because we haven't found the magical vaccine to eliminate those?
I don't deny Democrats exaggerate climate problems, but at least they understand the scientific evidence. Because they inflate the severity of the consequences of science is less moronic than discarding science altogether.
I've never heard anti-vaccine associated with Democrat/Liberal political leanings. That's more "home-school right-wing nut job" territory. I guess to the extreme opposite there's the granola naturalist who will eat green pea snaps instead of taking a measles vaccine?
I'm anti-genetic modified crops. That is a health issue, not a left/right issue.
The fact you think social sciences are made up froo-froo science says a lot about you. I have a grad degree in social sciences which required a research project. How exactly does one complete a research project in a field that isn't real science?
These guys don't agree with you either:
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/contents.php
I don't think anyone is advocating the removal of "reply all".
What I think people advocate (and email etiquette books advocate) is not automatically using re: all for every email...especially when only one person in the re: all list needs to get a response.
Funny you talk about productivity. A growing problem in professional environments is the loss of productivity due to too many emails. Not having to wade through and delete the hundred or so reply all emails a day I get would definitely increase my productivity.
I'm pretty sure there are entire tomes of email etiquette books that universally advise against the use of "reply all".
This is slashdot. The UI is never wrong. It's always the user's fault.
Come on slashdot editors--
not a democracy, because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it."
does not appear in the linked article.
Save your editorial commentary for, I don't know, the comment section?
How can these have any potential for misidentification?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/23/the-14-funniest-police-co_n_469662.html#s69305&title=The_Graphing_Paper
A match is only likely if the description of the suspect and the subsequent police sketch are accurate, which they usually aren't.
Uni-bomber anyone?
But my baby can read, because I bought the DVDs!
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/As+Seen+On+TV+-+Your+Baby+Can+Read!+Learn+to+Read+System/9924297.p?id=1218196479432&skuId=9924297&cmp=RMX&ref=06&loc=01&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=9924297
But seriously, most children of any culture throughout history develop language and behavior at roughly the same intervals. Early Childhood Development is easily understood, observed and recorded. It's frankly the reason most schools are broken down by similar grade ranges across the globe (because the human child form develops at predictable levels).
but every few months we see research come out that challenges natural-selection evolution as we understand it as the sole explanation of our existence.
And every few months the lawyer/dentist/real estate agent Orly Taitz comes on tv and says stupid shit too.
"with a belief you dislike"...
Therein lies the problem with 99% of society. Facts aren't there to be liked or disliked, they just are. As soon as we get past that and can view things for what they are, as opposed to what we want them to be or what we think they are, then society will be a much better place.
Reminds me of the rednecks here in Texas..."well my daddy beat me and I turned out all right! Damn straight I'm gonna whoop my kids!" And we are somehow tricked into thinking that public discourse of allowing schools to paddle our children is legitimate? Of course it isn't, and those who wish to continue living in the 1800s should keep their paddling to themselves and their uncle daddies and sister cousins.
Short version of TFA: "Republicans are anti-science because many of them don't believe empirical data that goes against their world-view and doesn't pander to their folklore addicted, anti-intellectual base."
With that, I admit I am a Republican. I can't help it if my party left me.
Why would he have to provide an example, when the linked NY Times story provides several?
Something tells me you don't understand the definition of theory either. In science, a theory is an explanation of empirical phenomena. Empirical means it is testable and observable, and therefore is fact.
In Rupert Murchoch and Tea Party World, "theory" means "something I don't agree with and hasn't been proven", which of course is the exact opposite of the meaning of the word "theory" as applied to science.
Not to mention the linked article clearly aligns Republicans with fact-free science by providing several examples of Republicans' actions and statements.
I'm sure there are some on the Democratic side, but by affiliation, theirs are fewer.
I said my first paycheck, not my first Apple. I was 8 when Apple was founded, but I was far ahead of my classmates in taking an interest to technology. (I used to go to the library to play a bad ascii dungeon game on a Vic-20, for example).
But I do find it interesting that you chalk up Apple's supposed demise to the era of the Macintosh, when most people on here will say it was in the mid90s after a couple non-technology CEOs in a row tried to run the company like a commodity soft drink and not like an industry leading graphic design tool.
And if anything, the Internet, followed by Steve Jobs' return saved Apple, not Bill Gates. I'd entertain the argument that Microsoft Office saved the Mac, since up to Word 4.0, the Mac versions where always better than the equivalent PC version of the time, but even that is a stretch, as there was (and still is) plenty enough creative types on this planet to give a design-oriented tool a large enough market to be profitable.
Your generation vs. my generation? Are you of my generation who earned our first salary using Aldus Freehand, PageMaker and Photoshop 1.0? You don't need to lecture me on Apple history, but you don't need to inflate the "Microsoft bailed Apple Out" myth either.
The quality of their product, regardless of profits for old white board members?
The two are inseparable. Or should be at least. Why would anyone continue to buy an inferior product?
Great question. This is the reason many of us think Microsoft sucks. They make bottom line decisions that benefit the board and not the customers, yet the customers lap it up for year after year.
My experience is the more popular something is, the more inferior it is. People are cheap and cheap sells. Quality sells to a smaller select group of consumers, which Apple has tapped into quite nicely.