I empathize with your description; I recall many similar situations in school myself.
Fortunately, I was almost always in the advanced classes so group projects involved enough smart kids that it was collaborative rather than one person doing a lot of the work. Group projects were rarer in the few classes without advanced versions where I was foisted in with the general population. The one time that wasn't the case was when I was in drama during my senior year. My class had a number of the students who took part in the theater extracurricular activities as well as those that did not. For our first group project those of us in the extracurricular theater made groups largely because we were all friends with each other the teacher let us do that but warned us that we would only be allowed to do it once and that warning occurred during our extracurricular theater project not during class. Those two group projects were the best of the classes by far. After that we split up into other groups without indication that we had forewarning that we wouldn't be allowed to stay with the same group. Some of the students showed measurable improvement for the second group project and I feel that the two biggest parts of that were having first seen the experienced groups do their project then also the presence of one of the experienced students served to motivate through confidence.
I personally think that everyone has their natural aptitudes defined by their soft skill set that's difficult to judge and measure and this in turn influences how well an individual performs in hard skills. The major issue that I have with group projects in primary and secondary education is that most people haven't yet had enough time to start to understand their own aptitudes. Identifying who can and who cannot can be difficult outside of narrow categories so you can end up with those situations where people with no aptitude for the task at hand being tossed into a group with one person with the aptitude and knowledge.
The cost of games plays a factor but I don't think it's necessarily the largest contributor. It can also do with platform penetration and stigma. I would expect that with that age group console games are really only socially acceptable in the FPS, racing, and sports genres. These genres are all glorified in other media (war films, fast and furious style movies, the prevalence of sports media). From the penetration perspective the console is a cost that only provides benefit for gaming. The mobile device is going to be a smart phone which parents have justification to acquire for their child for non-gaming purposes.
The US rejected Hobart's funnies because most of them were based on the Churchill tank. Nothing more. Nothing less. The US had standardized around the Sherman in order to simplified the maintenance costs by making sure every chassis was using the same parts. Bringing in the funnies would have expanded the logistic requirement.
> The moon would be an easier starting point than Mars, sure, but that's why Mars would be a more suitable target for developing the technology to go even further.
It's really not. The only reasonable reason to go further is smaller outposts for the purpose of raw materials for Earth until such time that we can master terraforming on a planetary scale or colonize planets that, without terraforming, can sustain substantial human populations. Suggesting that the atmospheric qualities of Mars are somehow beneficial is short sighted. We're not going to necessarily run into Mars-like planets which makes all the effort to build a Mars colonize pointless further out. The moon and Mars already share a common feature which is that the "atmosphere" of both bodies is deadly to humans.
It doesn't do any good to establish a colony that is just capable of self-sustaining. It needs to be capable of self growth in order to establish a colony of its own otherwise the primary population is wiped out with the "redundant" population stuck at the bottom of a gravity well in a far more hostile environment.
It exists, assuming we don't demand a single ground launch for said spacecraft or the trajectory skirts the outer edges of the belts rather than pass through the middle (what the Apollo missions did). Without strong magnetic fields you aren't going to catch radiation in heavy concentrations that would be dangerous.
It's so frustrating for me because I have an Aunt who is theistic but not religious. She fully subscribes to the anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, anti-traditional medicine, yadda yadda yadda. She has a very poor grasp of the science behind all this stuff, her defense against vaccines when I suggest that those that do not take vaccines should not be permitted in public schools was, "I know that my child is protected from those viruses because I gave my child the right nutrients and exposed him in a way that he can't possibly be infected." A serious WTF moment to me. Her fights against GMO are constantly centered around Monsanto and how evil that company is, usually by misquoting what happened in various cases. When I bring up the problems with total food production and how the population would not be sustainable without GMO she behaves dismissively.
Discussing anything that was a creation from the human mind is pretty much pointless but neither her or her boyfriend ever seek to challenge their preconceived notions. They brought up whether the moon landing occurred! I pointed out the physical evidence (reflectors) on the surface and the simple fact that if it were faked the Soviets would have been in a prime position to prove it wrong. Then they brought up some pointless red herring about how the film from the moon doesn't behave right and some recent statement from NASA about how a trip to Mars is complicated by the Van Allen belts when they had to do it to get to the moon in the first place.
The question makes perfect sense. First, the context a Sales Force conference. For the unenlightened, Sales Force is a Customer Relations Software (CRM) platform that larger sales departments will use to track what they call opportunities which is basically leads for potential sales. So when Satya asked Cortana to show him the most at-risk opportunities he was asking Cortana to show him contacts or companies that he was at risk of losing.
That accounts for 0.2% of the Linux library. Name another 12 more and you'll be at 1%. Name 8 more on top of that and you'll account for rounding up/down.
And without that staunch US support it would have been more likely that Germany could have slowly strangled and starved Britain. Despite what Portal and Harris thought a bombing campaign directed at Germany was not going to win the war. Boots on the ground were going to be needed and Britain lacked the manpower to field divisions sufficient to conduct good operations on mainland Europe.
Losing the oil in the middle east was more a consequence of losing the Middle East. Shipping around the cape was being used for far more than just oil shipments. It was moving troops and supplies to India and Egypt. All of that shipping capacity was being locked up to keep those places from folding over and having to use the longer trip required more shipping to be locked to support it. Simply opening up the Mediterranean freed up a lot of shipping by shortening the trip.
Following the German invasion of France the BEF had to abandon most of its equipment at Dunkirk. While they brought back men the loss of equipment was painful and would be a source of strain for awhile. Following the evacuations of British soldiers from France Britain had the equivalent of 11 infantry and 1 armored divisions. They also had around 1/6th of the artillery that the divisions would have normally been equipped with. They were plagued with tank shortages which would have made counterattacking the invasion more difficult and the air arm was not very cooperative with the army ground forces. Alan Brooke himself, in charge of the entire Home Army later to become CIGS of Britain, confided to his war diary that it was questionable as to how well the British could have met an invasion by German troops.
Britain constantly faced a manpower situation throughout the entire war. That was a crucial pain point for them with conducting operations. They could never field anything close to the number of men that Germany could and British war production was no where close to Germany's. What made a German invasion of Britain untenable was the Royal Navy. Germany could not realistically mount an invasion against Britain as long as they couldn't control the channel.
Could American oil have replaced the loss of Middle East oil? Possibly but you have to take into consideration that it was a loss of total overall oil production and that oil production was crucial to shipping men and material around the globe as well as allow British air forces the fuel to operate.
Britain's ability to avoid being starved would have been significantly hindered had she lost the Persian and Middle East oil fields. Her navy couldn't protect her convoys from submarines if her navy doesn't have fuel.
> They didn't have a clue how to fully mobilize their economy on a war footing.
It was both a blessing and a curse. Germany industry was never operated at full capacity for the war effort. As such the industrial bombing against Germany was of limited value since there was so much surplus capacity lying unused towards the war, both in factory and manpower.
> No way in hell. Britain plus the USSR would have finished it without us.
Britain was in such a crap position. Axis domination of the Mediterranean basically shit on their ability to conduct operations. Britain was, without the US in the war, entirely unable to perform any operations on mainland Europe. Supplies for the Middle East, Egypt, and the Far East theaters required that shipping go around the Cape of Good Hope rather through the Suez Canal. The amount of shipping capacity that was lost because of being unable to use the Suez was ridiculous. The British would have had to basically abandon all their empire territory in order to avoid needing to ship supplies so they could retain that capacity to conduct an entry into Europe but that ignores two excruciating factors. The first that by abandoning the Middle East the British would be abandoning their primary source of oil to fuel their navy and air force making them more susceptible to submarine warfare. This would have impeded the flow of supplies from Britain to Russia. The second is that Britain was constantly suffering from manpower problems which would have basically prevented the British from landing any sort of army in a force size sufficient to not be beaten back into the sea by the Germans. Under those circumstances the Germans could have trivially shifted divisions from France and other locations to the eastern front to face the Russians.
The Germans made a lot of fuck ups and fixing even a small portion of some of them would have had the war go far more favorably for them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd take a mosey through the Greek pantheon. You'll probably find a couple that meddled in the affairs of mortals.
I'll be honest. I don't think I would particularly care who cleans my dead body out of my apartment. I'm dead.
Resign.
I empathize with your description; I recall many similar situations in school myself.
Fortunately, I was almost always in the advanced classes so group projects involved enough smart kids that it was collaborative rather than one person doing a lot of the work. Group projects were rarer in the few classes without advanced versions where I was foisted in with the general population. The one time that wasn't the case was when I was in drama during my senior year. My class had a number of the students who took part in the theater extracurricular activities as well as those that did not. For our first group project those of us in the extracurricular theater made groups largely because we were all friends with each other the teacher let us do that but warned us that we would only be allowed to do it once and that warning occurred during our extracurricular theater project not during class. Those two group projects were the best of the classes by far. After that we split up into other groups without indication that we had forewarning that we wouldn't be allowed to stay with the same group. Some of the students showed measurable improvement for the second group project and I feel that the two biggest parts of that were having first seen the experienced groups do their project then also the presence of one of the experienced students served to motivate through confidence.
I personally think that everyone has their natural aptitudes defined by their soft skill set that's difficult to judge and measure and this in turn influences how well an individual performs in hard skills. The major issue that I have with group projects in primary and secondary education is that most people haven't yet had enough time to start to understand their own aptitudes. Identifying who can and who cannot can be difficult outside of narrow categories so you can end up with those situations where people with no aptitude for the task at hand being tossed into a group with one person with the aptitude and knowledge.
I couldn't take the movie seriously after the presence of duck boobs within the opening scene.
Not be part of the statistic in question. =)
The cost of games plays a factor but I don't think it's necessarily the largest contributor. It can also do with platform penetration and stigma. I would expect that with that age group console games are really only socially acceptable in the FPS, racing, and sports genres. These genres are all glorified in other media (war films, fast and furious style movies, the prevalence of sports media). From the penetration perspective the console is a cost that only provides benefit for gaming. The mobile device is going to be a smart phone which parents have justification to acquire for their child for non-gaming purposes.
The US rejected Hobart's funnies because most of them were based on the Churchill tank. Nothing more. Nothing less. The US had standardized around the Sherman in order to simplified the maintenance costs by making sure every chassis was using the same parts. Bringing in the funnies would have expanded the logistic requirement.
> The moon would be an easier starting point than Mars, sure, but that's why Mars would be a more suitable target for developing the technology to go even further.
It's really not. The only reasonable reason to go further is smaller outposts for the purpose of raw materials for Earth until such time that we can master terraforming on a planetary scale or colonize planets that, without terraforming, can sustain substantial human populations. Suggesting that the atmospheric qualities of Mars are somehow beneficial is short sighted. We're not going to necessarily run into Mars-like planets which makes all the effort to build a Mars colonize pointless further out. The moon and Mars already share a common feature which is that the "atmosphere" of both bodies is deadly to humans.
It doesn't do any good to establish a colony that is just capable of self-sustaining. It needs to be capable of self growth in order to establish a colony of its own otherwise the primary population is wiped out with the "redundant" population stuck at the bottom of a gravity well in a far more hostile environment.
Enough gullible people to cause this scammer to get 7% of bitcoins in his control.
It exists, assuming we don't demand a single ground launch for said spacecraft or the trajectory skirts the outer edges of the belts rather than pass through the middle (what the Apollo missions did). Without strong magnetic fields you aren't going to catch radiation in heavy concentrations that would be dangerous.
Wasn't that a Star Trek episode?
It's so frustrating for me because I have an Aunt who is theistic but not religious. She fully subscribes to the anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, anti-traditional medicine, yadda yadda yadda. She has a very poor grasp of the science behind all this stuff, her defense against vaccines when I suggest that those that do not take vaccines should not be permitted in public schools was, "I know that my child is protected from those viruses because I gave my child the right nutrients and exposed him in a way that he can't possibly be infected." A serious WTF moment to me. Her fights against GMO are constantly centered around Monsanto and how evil that company is, usually by misquoting what happened in various cases. When I bring up the problems with total food production and how the population would not be sustainable without GMO she behaves dismissively.
Discussing anything that was a creation from the human mind is pretty much pointless but neither her or her boyfriend ever seek to challenge their preconceived notions. They brought up whether the moon landing occurred! I pointed out the physical evidence (reflectors) on the surface and the simple fact that if it were faked the Soviets would have been in a prime position to prove it wrong. Then they brought up some pointless red herring about how the film from the moon doesn't behave right and some recent statement from NASA about how a trip to Mars is complicated by the Van Allen belts when they had to do it to get to the moon in the first place.
Bah!
Like create humans.
Customer Relations Management. Sales departments use it to track customers as well as leads and opportunities for new sales/customers.
The question makes perfect sense. First, the context a Sales Force conference. For the unenlightened, Sales Force is a Customer Relations Software (CRM) platform that larger sales departments will use to track what they call opportunities which is basically leads for potential sales. So when Satya asked Cortana to show him the most at-risk opportunities he was asking Cortana to show him contacts or companies that he was at risk of losing.
That accounts for 0.2% of the Linux library. Name another 12 more and you'll be at 1%. Name 8 more on top of that and you'll account for rounding up/down.
> Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity, sucker!
As long as three babies come around you increase the number of virgins.
And without that staunch US support it would have been more likely that Germany could have slowly strangled and starved Britain. Despite what Portal and Harris thought a bombing campaign directed at Germany was not going to win the war. Boots on the ground were going to be needed and Britain lacked the manpower to field divisions sufficient to conduct good operations on mainland Europe.
Losing the oil in the middle east was more a consequence of losing the Middle East. Shipping around the cape was being used for far more than just oil shipments. It was moving troops and supplies to India and Egypt. All of that shipping capacity was being locked up to keep those places from folding over and having to use the longer trip required more shipping to be locked to support it. Simply opening up the Mediterranean freed up a lot of shipping by shortening the trip.
Following the German invasion of France the BEF had to abandon most of its equipment at Dunkirk. While they brought back men the loss of equipment was painful and would be a source of strain for awhile. Following the evacuations of British soldiers from France Britain had the equivalent of 11 infantry and 1 armored divisions. They also had around 1/6th of the artillery that the divisions would have normally been equipped with. They were plagued with tank shortages which would have made counterattacking the invasion more difficult and the air arm was not very cooperative with the army ground forces. Alan Brooke himself, in charge of the entire Home Army later to become CIGS of Britain, confided to his war diary that it was questionable as to how well the British could have met an invasion by German troops.
Britain constantly faced a manpower situation throughout the entire war. That was a crucial pain point for them with conducting operations. They could never field anything close to the number of men that Germany could and British war production was no where close to Germany's. What made a German invasion of Britain untenable was the Royal Navy. Germany could not realistically mount an invasion against Britain as long as they couldn't control the channel.
Could American oil have replaced the loss of Middle East oil? Possibly but you have to take into consideration that it was a loss of total overall oil production and that oil production was crucial to shipping men and material around the globe as well as allow British air forces the fuel to operate.
Britain's ability to avoid being starved would have been significantly hindered had she lost the Persian and Middle East oil fields. Her navy couldn't protect her convoys from submarines if her navy doesn't have fuel.
> They didn't have a clue how to fully mobilize their economy on a war footing.
It was both a blessing and a curse. Germany industry was never operated at full capacity for the war effort. As such the industrial bombing against Germany was of limited value since there was so much surplus capacity lying unused towards the war, both in factory and manpower.
> No way in hell. Britain plus the USSR would have finished it without us.
Britain was in such a crap position. Axis domination of the Mediterranean basically shit on their ability to conduct operations. Britain was, without the US in the war, entirely unable to perform any operations on mainland Europe. Supplies for the Middle East, Egypt, and the Far East theaters required that shipping go around the Cape of Good Hope rather through the Suez Canal. The amount of shipping capacity that was lost because of being unable to use the Suez was ridiculous. The British would have had to basically abandon all their empire territory in order to avoid needing to ship supplies so they could retain that capacity to conduct an entry into Europe but that ignores two excruciating factors. The first that by abandoning the Middle East the British would be abandoning their primary source of oil to fuel their navy and air force making them more susceptible to submarine warfare. This would have impeded the flow of supplies from Britain to Russia. The second is that Britain was constantly suffering from manpower problems which would have basically prevented the British from landing any sort of army in a force size sufficient to not be beaten back into the sea by the Germans. Under those circumstances the Germans could have trivially shifted divisions from France and other locations to the eastern front to face the Russians.
The Germans made a lot of fuck ups and fixing even a small portion of some of them would have had the war go far more favorably for them.
There was also an attempted military coup to prevent surrender.
I suspect you would achieve a greater success by writing "not a bomb" on the post-it notes.