in the larger fight between those who believe in Complete Government Control and those who believe in Individual Freedom.
Is there no one in between those two world views? Why is politics always a fight between extremists with voices of reason being excluded from the contest? Climate change should have nothing to do with politics, except that so money have placed their political fortunes on denying climate change.
This was not "connecting" brains, they used EEGs. If that's connecting brains, then so would touching fingertips, using a mobile phone to call someone, etc.
I never figured out Excel. It's help just wasn't very good, and it takes too much for granted that you're an expert. I don't use it much which is another issue. Lotus-123 or Visicalc never game me the same headaches.
So when I try to do something simple it rarely works out. I can't even make a chart that give useful information, I dont' know how to zoom in or out on the chart or change it without deleting it and starting over. I don't know how to use a variable instead of clunky $X$Y notation, I don't know how to tell who uses a cell or not so that I essentially have write-only sheets. I avoid Excel like the plague. I'd rather have used a script or a program, but no, someone said I needed excel and refused to accept that it was the wrong tool.
Other people I see use Excel constantly for the most trivial of stuff - text into rows and colums. Which means I have to use excel to look at something that is just a plain text file. So even this simple stuff has no place in Excel either.
However it is true that one remembers lectures more when they write it down rather than just being handed a copy of the notes. The effort to write it down means you are expending effort to actually listening to what is being said.
First thing I did when the assistant showed up was to disable it. The benefits are far too small to justify giving up privacy. I can figure out this stuff on my own.
Are things being anonymized? I don't think so. The advertising becomes too targeted to the point that it's creepy. Everytime you visit a new web site they always seem to know everything about you already.
To be honest, I recently got a new phone and switched from Android to iPhone. A major factor is that the iPhone was actually cheaper! (I don't go with latest models so the older iPhones were still on sale whereas the only the latest Android models were available)
Someone paying $500-$1000 for a phone and then being asked to share all their data to help defray costs is being conned.
It's not BS. Giving your data to corporations because they tell you it's good for you is stupid. Do not trust corporations! (including Apple) Keep your data to yourself, even if some company whines that this hurts their profits.
Lots of money creates a reality distortion field. Thus most supporters aren't necessarily advocating harm to people they don't care about, instead they honestly believe that there is no harm.
The medical profession determines if the benefits outweigh the harm and risks from a procedure or not. This applies to many things; such as whether or not you should have minor surgery.
Chemotherapy is only used when cancer alreay exists. And at that point the wide variety of chemotherapy options available are weighed and chosen against, as well as the balance between surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and/or others.
Also compare reality versus fantasy. Ie, there are MANY on the conservative side who believe the Bible is the literal world of God, not just divinely inspired. These people claim to now exactly how the world will end, and because of this they firmly believe that climate change is not an issue.
Another factor about "reality" is what you take as your base assumptions. Such as is it more important to make money (or create jobs) or to protect safety of others. These days, liberals these days tend to assume that safety is more improtant while conservatives tend to assume economic activity is more important. Different base assumptions and therefore different conclusions arise from the same facts.
Of course, there are those who want to have both better economics while having public safety who then attack the data as being false so that they don't have any internal conflicts; ie, they redefine reality. This happens on both sides of the issue, they may either attack the data showing something is unsafe or they may attack the data showing potential economic advantages.
The fitbit and video evidence shows that the suspect lied about his activities. This points the finger of suspicion back at him, the police investigate and get more evicence. So far we only have a small fraction of the evidence, as police are not usually so likely to give out the entirety of the case to the local newspaper.
Any are there so many anonymous cowards today trying to prove this guy was innocent? Are you indeed Mr Aiello using the internet from your jail cell?
The jury of your peers will decide this, not Slashdot. And there is much more evidence than the fitbit. Perhaps you should not have falsely claimed that you saw the deceased driving in her car with a friend past your window?
Even if she died shortly after he left, the heart rate logging can show other details. Ie, was she sedentary most of the time until it appeared that she walked around shortly before dying - ie, she met one person only? The times are useful but not vital to proving that the investigation should move forward. And of course the date is most likely to be correctly timestamped, it would be a hard sell to try to convince a jury that the time was way off and that this creates "reasonable" doubt. Also, of course, this will not be the only evidence in the case, there was also video evidence that contradicts the suspect's assertion that he saw his daughter driving later.
The times needed for this case have a lot of leeway. There's not going to be doubt that something happened an hour later than the device claimed. Combine with video evidence that she didn't leave the house, which also corroborates the time, the logging of heart rate is going to show that she probably only met one person.
Your theory is more along the lines of "omg, I'm going to jail, I have to invent some desparate theory to confuse the jury!" But convictions are based upon "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
Time on a PC is not going to drift by very much if disconnected from NTP. The crystals used have accuracies measured in parts per million (10 for good ones, 50 or 100 for crappy ones), or just a few seconds per day. If the crystal is very inaccurate then that inaccuraty will not vary much and so can be measured.
Did you watch the proceedings? He was going to get that nomination easily if he could maintained his cool and denied the allegations with a level head and treated the senators with respect. He did not maintain his cool. He would have known what was going to happen, and he had time to prepare for it. However, he walked in their expecting to have a fight, and he actually argued with some senators who were on his side. Before even being asked the first question he started off angy. There are countless adults who are able to maintain their cool in the face of adversity. He has since apologized, and while this is good it would have been much better to have been able to keep his emotions in control in the first place.
Are you waying that anyone with a shred of integrity has to prove it by losing their temper?
He went and accused the Clintons of behind behind these allegations, which is a completely bizarre idea full of conspiracy theory. That alone should have been enough to disqualify him. As for the original allegations, there is no solid evidence either way, and I am not concerned about those allegations.
He has no innate right to have that job. Only 9 people in the entire country will have that job at a time, so no body with whatever qualification should ever feel entitled to it. It would not be a grave injustice to deny him this super special job and hand it to one from the long list of equally conservative judges standing in line behind him for the same job.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why you put the ark on wheels!
in the larger fight between those who believe in Complete Government Control and those who believe in Individual Freedom.
Is there no one in between those two world views? Why is politics always a fight between extremists with voices of reason being excluded from the contest? Climate change should have nothing to do with politics, except that so money have placed their political fortunes on denying climate change.
This was not "connecting" brains, they used EEGs. If that's connecting brains, then so would touching fingertips, using a mobile phone to call someone, etc.
I never figured out Excel. It's help just wasn't very good, and it takes too much for granted that you're an expert. I don't use it much which is another issue. Lotus-123 or Visicalc never game me the same headaches.
So when I try to do something simple it rarely works out. I can't even make a chart that give useful information, I dont' know how to zoom in or out on the chart or change it without deleting it and starting over. I don't know how to use a variable instead of clunky $X$Y notation, I don't know how to tell who uses a cell or not so that I essentially have write-only sheets. I avoid Excel like the plague. I'd rather have used a script or a program, but no, someone said I needed excel and refused to accept that it was the wrong tool.
Other people I see use Excel constantly for the most trivial of stuff - text into rows and colums. Which means I have to use excel to look at something that is just a plain text file. So even this simple stuff has no place in Excel either.
Because banks are stupid. As long as the losses are less than the cost of beefing up security then that's what they'll do.
People with basic Windows 10, not Pro or Enterprise, are essentially the QA department for Microsoft. The longer you can postpone updates the better.
I don't think they do increase comprehension. Most speed reading is essentially skimming.
Hate to add real info to slashdot, but... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
However it is true that one remembers lectures more when they write it down rather than just being handed a copy of the notes. The effort to write it down means you are expending effort to actually listening to what is being said.
First thing I did when the assistant showed up was to disable it. The benefits are far too small to justify giving up privacy. I can figure out this stuff on my own.
Are things being anonymized? I don't think so. The advertising becomes too targeted to the point that it's creepy. Everytime you visit a new web site they always seem to know everything about you already.
Then Google must give it away for free, because the information is leaking out.
To be honest, I recently got a new phone and switched from Android to iPhone. A major factor is that the iPhone was actually cheaper!
(I don't go with latest models so the older iPhones were still on sale whereas the only the latest Android models were available)
Someone paying $500-$1000 for a phone and then being asked to share all their data to help defray costs is being conned.
It's not BS. Giving your data to corporations because they tell you it's good for you is stupid. Do not trust corporations! (including Apple) Keep your data to yourself, even if some company whines that this hurts their profits.
Lots of money creates a reality distortion field. Thus most supporters aren't necessarily advocating harm to people they don't care about, instead they honestly believe that there is no harm.
Many of the reasons are similar as well: profits and power.
The medical profession determines if the benefits outweigh the harm and risks from a procedure or not. This applies to many things; such as whether or not you should have minor surgery.
Chemotherapy is only used when cancer alreay exists. And at that point the wide variety of chemotherapy options available are weighed and chosen against, as well as the balance between surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and/or others.
Also compare reality versus fantasy. Ie, there are MANY on the conservative side who believe the Bible is the literal world of God, not just divinely inspired. These people claim to now exactly how the world will end, and because of this they firmly believe that climate change is not an issue.
Another factor about "reality" is what you take as your base assumptions. Such as is it more important to make money (or create jobs) or to protect safety of others. These days, liberals these days tend to assume that safety is more improtant while conservatives tend to assume economic activity is more important. Different base assumptions and therefore different conclusions arise from the same facts.
Of course, there are those who want to have both better economics while having public safety who then attack the data as being false so that they don't have any internal conflicts; ie, they redefine reality. This happens on both sides of the issue, they may either attack the data showing something is unsafe or they may attack the data showing potential economic advantages.
The fitbit and video evidence shows that the suspect lied about his activities. This points the finger of suspicion back at him, the police investigate and get more evicence. So far we only have a small fraction of the evidence, as police are not usually so likely to give out the entirety of the case to the local newspaper.
Any are there so many anonymous cowards today trying to prove this guy was innocent? Are you indeed Mr Aiello using the internet from your jail cell?
The jury of your peers will decide this, not Slashdot. And there is much more evidence than the fitbit. Perhaps you should not have falsely claimed that you saw the deceased driving in her car with a friend past your window?
I would assume any reasonable coroner already thought of that.
That's a strange theory, Bruce!
They will if they need to get the data in the first place if it's not at the murder scene but stored in Fitbit's back office.
Even if she died shortly after he left, the heart rate logging can show other details. Ie, was she sedentary most of the time until it appeared that she walked around shortly before dying - ie, she met one person only? The times are useful but not vital to proving that the investigation should move forward. And of course the date is most likely to be correctly timestamped, it would be a hard sell to try to convince a jury that the time was way off and that this creates "reasonable" doubt. Also, of course, this will not be the only evidence in the case, there was also video evidence that contradicts the suspect's assertion that he saw his daughter driving later.
The times needed for this case have a lot of leeway. There's not going to be doubt that something happened an hour later than the device claimed. Combine with video evidence that she didn't leave the house, which also corroborates the time, the logging of heart rate is going to show that she probably only met one person.
Your theory is more along the lines of "omg, I'm going to jail, I have to invent some desparate theory to confuse the jury!" But convictions are based upon "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
Time on a PC is not going to drift by very much if disconnected from NTP. The crystals used have accuracies measured in parts per million (10 for good ones, 50 or 100 for crappy ones), or just a few seconds per day. If the crystal is very inaccurate then that inaccuraty will not vary much and so can be measured.
Did you watch the proceedings? He was going to get that nomination easily if he could maintained his cool and denied the allegations with a level head and treated the senators with respect. He did not maintain his cool. He would have known what was going to happen, and he had time to prepare for it. However, he walked in their expecting to have a fight, and he actually argued with some senators who were on his side. Before even being asked the first question he started off angy. There are countless adults who are able to maintain their cool in the face of adversity. He has since apologized, and while this is good it would have been much better to have been able to keep his emotions in control in the first place.
Are you waying that anyone with a shred of integrity has to prove it by losing their temper?
He went and accused the Clintons of behind behind these allegations, which is a completely bizarre idea full of conspiracy theory. That alone should have been enough to disqualify him. As for the original allegations, there is no solid evidence either way, and I am not concerned about those allegations.
He has no innate right to have that job. Only 9 people in the entire country will have that job at a time, so no body with whatever qualification should ever feel entitled to it. It would not be a grave injustice to deny him this super special job and hand it to one from the long list of equally conservative judges standing in line behind him for the same job.