Er no. From TFA they've already had a previous incident with stray rounds from the range. Either the range is in the wrong place, or the town is in the wrong place. "Shit happens" is not good enough for sentient human beings. But alas I realize you are a "mythbusters" fan.
If you RTFA more carefully, you'd realize the stray bullet incident was from a nearby army base. Not the mythbusters, and not from this range.
Even if it had been from the same range, it makes no sense to expect that whatever procedures they corrected to prevent a second stray bullet would have been effective against a cannonball, so I don't see what your point is.
You do realize that stories are submitted well in advance of when they're actually posted, right? Sometimes DAYS in advance.
It's a television show. It was probably planned WEEKS in advance.
I will believe this the minute people involved in the show are arrested and prosecuted. Until then, the safe bet is publicity stunt.
People are not arrested and prosecuted for accidents. They were at a bomb range, not recklessly firing cannon balls in the middle of residential areas. They took appropriate precautions, but shit happens, and their insurance pays for the damage.
Any model that is inherently chaotic (read: almost all of them) cannot be simulated on a computer accurately...Indeed, one of the unsolved Millenium Challenges is to find out just how bad the Navier-Stokes equations really are.
Is that really a chaotic system problem, or an incomplete model problem? Taking the Navier-Stokes equations as an example, they actually are surprisingly accurate at describing turbulence, even though, as you've mention, we haven't proven that they describe turbulent flow properly in all cases. So typically problems with fluid flow models come from making too many simplifications, having incorrect initial conditions, or making bad assumptions, not a problem with the Navier-Stokes equations per se.
In fact, as far as chaotic systems go, wouldn't a physical model have the same problems as well? The challenge there is a very high sensitivity to certain variables, so your physical model of the system may turn out to not scale at all.
As near as I can understand this they're entangled so that vibrations in one are indistinguishable from vibrations in another, they both do the same thing at the same time (or near it at least)... doesn't this imply the ability to entangle two whatevers and transit information via entanglement induced vibrations?
No, they are in opposite states. If you measure one of them, you'll determine that it is either vibrating or not. If it is vibrating, the other diamond is not, if it's not vibrating, the other diamond is vibrating. Before the measurement, they're entangled, so they are considered to be both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously.
That said, I don't know much about quantum effects, so I can't read the paper and understand it, but the description in the article made it seem like what's actually happening is just that the experiment is set up such that only one diamond can be vibrating, but you don't know which one it's going to be. So at all times, one of the diamonds is vibrating, the other is not, and you only know which is which when you measure one of them. Which doesn't sound like anything special. It's like me getting two playing cards, an Ace and a King, and putting them in a table face down. Then I ask you, "which one is the card in the left?" and you answer, "it's both a King and Ace. Until I flip it over, and then I can tell you what the other one is." Which is ridiculous, the card is one card specifically, you just don't know which one it is. So I suspect the media writeup screwed up, although it still seems way better than most, since they didn't mention stuff like ftl communications which pops up in almost every entanglement story even though we all know entanglement can't enable ftl communication.
When Firefox appeared on the scene, it gave Microsoft the kick up the arse it needed to improve their crappy, aging browser.
Yep.
When Chrome appeared on the scene, it gave Mozilla the kick up the arse it needed to improve their crappy, aging browser.
Nope. Here's the difference: when Microsoft got its kick, they actually started doing new things with IE. They didn't try to become Firefox. Sure, they took some ideas that were in wide use in all other browsers, like tabbed browsing, but they're mostly their own thing. When Mozilla got its kick, it decided that it needed to become Chrome. That's a losing strategy, because there already is a Chrome. If I liked Chrome, I'd be using it. I kept Firefox because I disliked Chrome, and every new release (which is what, every week now?), they get closer to Chrome and I dislike them more.
Let's start with this release schedule thing. I don't care about the version numbers, they can name it Firefox 3000 if they want. However, I don't want to see a window that tells me that I need to update more often than every six months, ideally once a year. If you've got a security bug, by all means, put an update out there. If we're talking about new features, bundle them up into a big package twice a year at most. When I open my browser, I want to go to a website, so getting stopped by a window that tells me it's time to update is annoying and gets in my way.
For the users who do want new features as they come out, they can run the nightlies. The rest of us who are perfectly happy with the current feature set and just want a browser with all security fixes up to date don't want that shit.
Well, I don't agree with the way you see it. It sounds like you think that humans are more important than other species. Well, I think that's fine, but I don't much care about them.
I think I'm a member of the human species. That's what makes it the most important species to me. I don't believe humans are objectively better or worse than any other species in some type of absolute scale, but I have good reason to be biased.
I don't think a few humans dying warrants the eradication of an entire species. And I care more about bugs/animals that I can actually see.
Why not? The way I see it, there's a single thing you should care about when we're talking about the eradication of an entire species: how will it affect humans?
If it will affect humans positively, then we should do it. If it will affect humans negatively, we should not. Every species are able to manipulate their environment to some extent, and when they do it, they do it in a way that makes the environment more suited to them, that's why they evolved the ability. Just because humans can do the manipulation on a greater scale that means we should stop?
Average person doesn't understand internet. Shocking details and film at 11.
It's a little more complicated than that. Average person doesn't understand internet, but makes decisions which require such understanding and have wide reach and consequences.
The average person doesn't understand the human body, but only surgeons get to operate on them.
Skinner boxes? Hardly. People wouldn't play if the games weren't fun.
Uh...how is the fact that people find it fun mean that it's not a Skinner box? The reward is a big part of the Skinner box. The pigeon wouldn't peck the buttons if he didn't get food in return.
The question you need to ask yourself is why is it fun? If they're providing the reward in such a way that it conditions you to continually repeat the same task, that's a Skinner box. Making the game addictive is how they make their money, and from what I hear, Zynga games don't have an "ending." You just continue on accumulating more and more stuff.
Just because you don't like them doesn't make them worthless.
I'm with you on that one. If you like to play those games, by all means, play the game. I also think people have the right to smoke, but it doesn't mean the tobacco companies don't know their productive is unhealthy and addictive. It's possible to not mind that people like a product while still being able to criticize the company that makes the product. There's no logical contradiction here.
It is just too addictive. It has more or less a 100% addiction rate. So you can't do "just a little" meth or be an occasional user. You get hooked, hardcore. Combine that with the massive amount of damage it does and it is just not safe for use at all really.
I'm not sure if that's true or not, I don't know much of anything about drugs. What I don't see is why it's relevant. If some guy wants to put a gun to his head and pull the trigger, that's not safe, and it will result in his death. It's still his life, and it's his right to end it. I feel the same way about drugs. I don't care if they're safe or not.
By all means, spend the money we're using now in the drug war to educate people about the dangers. Then let them make their own damn choices.
The closest you can get are tablets that don't sign the kernel and allow you to customize the OS (load cyanogenmod or something) but increasingly vendors are on the attack against that (B&N clamping down on the Nook Tablet, Samsung pushing out an update that locks down the platform.)
Uh...would that be the same Samsung that donated Galaxy S II phones to the cyanogenmod devs, so they could get it working well with the platform? What update are you talking about? They seem very friendly to the rooting and custom rom community.
On the occasions where my 4 year old is somewhere that he watches TV, the way he looks and acts while doing it just makes my heart sink. He doesn't move. He is completely fixated on the screen. He needs me to make several attempts before his attention is diverted from the screen. He can look away breifly to talk to you but is trying to glance back at the screen.
I've heard that argument before, and I don't get it. So he's paying attention to the TV. Why is that bad? What worries you? I'll have that same level of focus in whatever it is that I'm truly engaged in. If you show up while I'm in my recliner reading a book that I'm particularly into, you might have to stand in front of me and call my name once or twice before my brain recognizes that you're there, trying to get my attention. Same thing if I'm soldering something, I tend to really focus when I'm doing that, because if I don't, I end up having to remove the solder and do it again.
Obviously if the only thing a kid does is watch TV, that's a problem, but I don't see how that is related to the level of attention he pays to it when he is watching. Seems like you have the right idea, and you limit the amount of all sorts of activities he takes part in, to make sure not one single thing dominates. You also make sure to spend a lot of time with him. That's what's important. In fact, you even said it:
I don't think anything (Besides normal TV) is intrinsically bad for kids in reasonable amounts.
What exactly are you singling out about TV? Like everything else in your list, I feel that as long as it's a reasonable amount, it's fine.
What parents should NOT do is use technology to babysit. What parents and kids benefit from is a variety of different experiences, all in reasonable duration and frequency.
Yep, that's the key. I think your kid is really lucky to have parents who understand that. I don't have anything to criticize about what you said, but I am legitimately curious about the completely anti-TV stance.
Occam's Razor doesn't say anything about correctness.
Which is more likely: All the planets in the solar system travel around the sun in approximately elliptical orbits OR All the planets in the solar system orbit the Earth in a complex arrangement of circles within circles within circles?
If they give the exact same predictions, both matching observations with the same accuracy and precision, then you take the easier to calculate one. And that is what Occam's Razor says, actually: that it makes no sense to use anything more complex than you have to. As for which one is "correct", if both give the same position to at all points to all the planets, that means they are equivalent.
And besides all that, as many people have already pointed out, the claims of 'proof' have been added by the media; the actual research just says it's one or the other making no judgement as to which.
So it's fine to piss away $443mn because it's less than $70bn?
Do you code? If I'm trying to improve the performance of a program I've written, I might notice little things here and there that could be done a bit faster. For example, I might have be saying pow(x, 2) someplace, and I know that for integers, it's far more efficient to just type x*x. I'm not wrong, that would be faster. And yet, if I waste any time fixing that type of stuff, I'm an idiot. You profile the program, you find the sections where your code is spending the most time on, and you fix that. If the profiler is telling you that the pow function is the problem, then you fix it. Otherwise I've spent a lot of time fixing things and my code will still perform super-slow.
It's not fine to piss away $443 mn. That said, it's also not fine to waste resources trying to fix that problem when there are bigger problems to be fixed. Fix the bigger problems first, then go back to the $443mn when it actually does represent a significant portion of the problem. Otherwise you waste a lot of time only to discover we're still just as broke.
And yes they are, " what you are doing is wrong, do this instead" really is telling someone what to do. Not that they can enforce it of cousre, but they are telling us what they think we should be doing.
Internet access is a officially recognized human right in some European countries, and the UN is moving in that direction as well.
You can say you don't agree with that, but then don't go complaining when countries you believe are violating human rights tell you they don't recognize your pet right as a human right.
And neither do posts like yours, unless you say why you think as you do.
'Does not... does to!' exchanges do not make for thought-provoking reading.
I agree with you on that point, but also agree with the GP that the movie is overrated and overhyped. In my opinion, it's too predictable, you can figure out what's going on far earlier than the writers intended you to. Once the main character figures it out, he behaves unrealistically and makes weird decisions. *SPOILER* I'm not exactly sure what I'd do once I found my double, but I sure as hell wouldn't be trying to ignore him in the beginning, followed by getting into fights with him *SPOILER*
Frankly, I'd rather watch Robocop to get my anti-corporatism message.
No, but just because you are protesting doesn't allow you to violate the law. If there are laws in place restricting the ability to set up a camp in a park, bring in generators, create health code violations etc., it must apply equally to all citizens.
I see your point, and I concede. I approve of civil disobedience, but the disobedience in question should apply to laws you disagree with. Unless they're protesting against laws that restrict the ability to camp in a park, they shouldn't camp in the park.
Here's a few examples...Granted, these idiots are the 1% of the 99% that really give the well meaning protesters a bad name
Yeah, I agree with you completely. People start with the reasonable intent of trying to make themselves heard and then cross the line by wanting to drown out the voices of the opposition.
I'm fairly certain the constitution says "... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It doesn't say anything about turning a public park (privately owned I know) into an encampment for the convenience of the protesters. Why can't they protest, then go home and come back the following day. Convenient, no, but that's the price of admission.
Don't misunderstand, I fully support those advocating the fight against corp and govt corruption, cronyism etc. I just don't agree they should be able to take over a public park and deny the rights of the other citizens access to it.
Because the right of the people to assemble peaceably doesn't have a time-limit? "You may assemble, but not at night. Limit your protests in public spaces to ten hours a day" isn't in the Constitution.
Denying other citizens access to the park, no they don't have the right to do that. But I don't see why they have to go home for the night.
As for the place being privately owned, once you open up a place to public access, you're voluntarily giving up some rights over your property.
Frankly, I dislike the Occupy people just about as much as I dislike the Tea Party people, I find them equally ridiculous. That said, I fully support the rights of both groups to protest, as long they're being peaceful about it. No blocking of traffic, no looting, etc. When people try to force them out, it makes me want to force a third protesting group: "I'm not affiliated with those guys, and I don't approve of their message, but let them stay!"
I also find it highly ironic that some of the protesters relying on the 1st amendment to enable their protest, also take offense to the very same freedom of the press that amendment enables.
I don't know what you're referring to here, and I'm curious about it.
DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability
If the police have no responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals what the hell are they for?
When I'm a full time project engineer and can't afford to move out of my mom's basement, It's pretty bad. Renting an apartment costs nearly twice what a house costs to buy, per month. And because i have student loans, my credit is so bad i cant get a mortgage, despite having perfect credit otherwise. Being poor sucks.
Assuming you're making your student loan payments on time (and since you say you have perfect credit otherwise, I assume you are), that really shouldn't affect your credit like that. I just bought a house, and I have student loans to pay the total of which exceed my annual salary. My credit score was 820 and the loan process went off without a hitch (although it was still a ridiculous pain in the ass, they were still getting information from my employers the day before closing day. I understand that they'd call to simply ask, "has anything changed since we've spoken with you last month?" but I don't understand why they'd be trying to get anything new from them at that stage of the game).
Most people that haven't been delinquent in their bill payments but still have credit problems have it because their credit history isn't long enough. Keep in mind that they only count *currently open credit accounts* for credit history. The other problem is that their available credit to amount owed ratio is too low, so focus on paying off any credit card debt you have as soon as it's feasible (If you have any accumulated debt, I know that's easier said than done, but it should be a priority even if you don't care about your credit score).
I got my first credit card when I was 18, and it absolutely sucked. I have a better credit card now, but I do not dare cancel the other card because it's my longest piece of credit history, and it would kill my credit score. I just don't use it, and in fact I don't keep any balances on any credit card. My only debt were the student loans. I suspect your problem is that you closed some of your older credit card accounts because you got better cards. If that's the case, just remember not to do that again, it's one of the most important parts of your credit score, second only to actually paying your bills.
Either that or the amount you have to pay every month on your student loan debt is too high relative to how much you get paid per month. That's not a credit issue though, so I assume your problem is the length of credit history.
The current Lenovo tablet PC (X220) senses the proximity of the pen to the screen and disables the touchpad automatically, so resting your wrist on the screen will no longer mess things up (my previous tablet had that problem and I just disabled the touchscreen altogether). With an i7 in it, mine has no appreciable input lag when I'm writing. The screen's a nice size, so you can get a lot onto it. I use MS OneNote, which can also convert your handwriting to text (and does a pretty good job of it that I've found). I mostly type my notes into OneNote, then past in graphics or use the pen to draw on the screen when I need to put in a formula or chemical structure (I'm working on a Master's in Biomedical Informatics and Computational Biology, so math and biology need a bit of freeform input).
I've got an older Lenovo tablet, and it *only* contains the Wacom array; it's not touch-sensitive. This lets it have a much better resolution, and it's insensitive to resting your hand on it. As for the delay... I've only noticed it when flinging the pen back and forth. At normal writing speeds, it's registered the stroke before the tip of the pen leaves the pixel. I've taken years worth of calculus and physics notes on it without once feeling like I'd rather switch to paper. And when I'm not writing stuff, I use it like a regular laptop. I've never tried writing on a capacitive or resistive touchscreen, but I can imagine that it's a pain in comparison to something that just uses wacom.
Thanks. I might look up the older model on ebay, it does sound nice.
The Lenovo tablet was designed to enable note taking, with an intelligent stylus that communicates with the tablet, and handwriting recognition software as well. My girlfriend has one and likes it quite a bit:
There were three things that annoyed me when I tried to use tablets to take notes. The first is that I couldn't rest my wrist on the screen. The second is that there was a delay between writing and seeing the results on the screen, and I just couldn't get use to that. Finally, I couldn't get enough written to compare to a paper page of the same size (probably because of the fat-finger styluses mentioned above). How does the Lenovo tablet fare in these situations? I'd love to have a tablet I could really use to write on, and I'd buy one in a second, but I just can't deal with any issues in those areas.
Slashdot Mirror
Er no. From TFA they've already had a previous incident with stray rounds from the range. Either the range is in the wrong place, or the town is in the wrong place. "Shit happens" is not good enough for sentient human beings. But alas I realize you are a "mythbusters" fan.
If you RTFA more carefully, you'd realize the stray bullet incident was from a nearby army base. Not the mythbusters, and not from this range.
Even if it had been from the same range, it makes no sense to expect that whatever procedures they corrected to prevent a second stray bullet would have been effective against a cannonball, so I don't see what your point is.
It's a television show. It was probably planned WEEKS in advance.
I will believe this the minute people involved in the show are arrested and prosecuted. Until then, the safe bet is publicity stunt.
People are not arrested and prosecuted for accidents. They were at a bomb range, not recklessly firing cannon balls in the middle of residential areas. They took appropriate precautions, but shit happens, and their insurance pays for the damage.
Acceptable simulation performance is the part of the whole thing I hadn't considered, I understand your points now.
Thanks for taking the time to draft that example, made the whole thing a lot clearer for me.
Any model that is inherently chaotic (read: almost all of them) cannot be simulated on a computer accurately...Indeed, one of the unsolved Millenium Challenges is to find out just how bad the Navier-Stokes equations really are.
Is that really a chaotic system problem, or an incomplete model problem? Taking the Navier-Stokes equations as an example, they actually are surprisingly accurate at describing turbulence, even though, as you've mention, we haven't proven that they describe turbulent flow properly in all cases. So typically problems with fluid flow models come from making too many simplifications, having incorrect initial conditions, or making bad assumptions, not a problem with the Navier-Stokes equations per se.
In fact, as far as chaotic systems go, wouldn't a physical model have the same problems as well? The challenge there is a very high sensitivity to certain variables, so your physical model of the system may turn out to not scale at all.
As near as I can understand this they're entangled so that vibrations in one are indistinguishable from vibrations in another, they both do the same thing at the same time (or near it at least)... doesn't this imply the ability to entangle two whatevers and transit information via entanglement induced vibrations?
No, they are in opposite states. If you measure one of them, you'll determine that it is either vibrating or not. If it is vibrating, the other diamond is not, if it's not vibrating, the other diamond is vibrating. Before the measurement, they're entangled, so they are considered to be both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously.
That said, I don't know much about quantum effects, so I can't read the paper and understand it, but the description in the article made it seem like what's actually happening is just that the experiment is set up such that only one diamond can be vibrating, but you don't know which one it's going to be. So at all times, one of the diamonds is vibrating, the other is not, and you only know which is which when you measure one of them. Which doesn't sound like anything special. It's like me getting two playing cards, an Ace and a King, and putting them in a table face down. Then I ask you, "which one is the card in the left?" and you answer, "it's both a King and Ace. Until I flip it over, and then I can tell you what the other one is." Which is ridiculous, the card is one card specifically, you just don't know which one it is. So I suspect the media writeup screwed up, although it still seems way better than most, since they didn't mention stuff like ftl communications which pops up in almost every entanglement story even though we all know entanglement can't enable ftl communication.
When Firefox appeared on the scene, it gave Microsoft the kick up the arse it needed to improve their crappy, aging browser.
Yep.
When Chrome appeared on the scene, it gave Mozilla the kick up the arse it needed to improve their crappy, aging browser.
Nope. Here's the difference: when Microsoft got its kick, they actually started doing new things with IE. They didn't try to become Firefox. Sure, they took some ideas that were in wide use in all other browsers, like tabbed browsing, but they're mostly their own thing. When Mozilla got its kick, it decided that it needed to become Chrome. That's a losing strategy, because there already is a Chrome. If I liked Chrome, I'd be using it. I kept Firefox because I disliked Chrome, and every new release (which is what, every week now?), they get closer to Chrome and I dislike them more.
Let's start with this release schedule thing. I don't care about the version numbers, they can name it Firefox 3000 if they want. However, I don't want to see a window that tells me that I need to update more often than every six months, ideally once a year. If you've got a security bug, by all means, put an update out there. If we're talking about new features, bundle them up into a big package twice a year at most. When I open my browser, I want to go to a website, so getting stopped by a window that tells me it's time to update is annoying and gets in my way.
For the users who do want new features as they come out, they can run the nightlies. The rest of us who are perfectly happy with the current feature set and just want a browser with all security fixes up to date don't want that shit.
Well, I don't agree with the way you see it. It sounds like you think that humans are more important than other species. Well, I think that's fine, but I don't much care about them.
I think I'm a member of the human species. That's what makes it the most important species to me. I don't believe humans are objectively better or worse than any other species in some type of absolute scale, but I have good reason to be biased.
I don't think a few humans dying warrants the eradication of an entire species. And I care more about bugs/animals that I can actually see.
Why not? The way I see it, there's a single thing you should care about when we're talking about the eradication of an entire species: how will it affect humans?
If it will affect humans positively, then we should do it. If it will affect humans negatively, we should not. Every species are able to manipulate their environment to some extent, and when they do it, they do it in a way that makes the environment more suited to them, that's why they evolved the ability. Just because humans can do the manipulation on a greater scale that means we should stop?
Average person doesn't understand internet. Shocking details and film at 11.
It's a little more complicated than that. Average person doesn't understand internet, but makes decisions which require such understanding and have wide reach and consequences.
The average person doesn't understand the human body, but only surgeons get to operate on them.
Skinner boxes? Hardly. People wouldn't play if the games weren't fun.
Uh...how is the fact that people find it fun mean that it's not a Skinner box? The reward is a big part of the Skinner box. The pigeon wouldn't peck the buttons if he didn't get food in return.
The question you need to ask yourself is why is it fun? If they're providing the reward in such a way that it conditions you to continually repeat the same task, that's a Skinner box. Making the game addictive is how they make their money, and from what I hear, Zynga games don't have an "ending." You just continue on accumulating more and more stuff.
Just because you don't like them doesn't make them worthless.
I'm with you on that one. If you like to play those games, by all means, play the game. I also think people have the right to smoke, but it doesn't mean the tobacco companies don't know their productive is unhealthy and addictive. It's possible to not mind that people like a product while still being able to criticize the company that makes the product. There's no logical contradiction here.
It is just too addictive. It has more or less a 100% addiction rate. So you can't do "just a little" meth or be an occasional user. You get hooked, hardcore. Combine that with the massive amount of damage it does and it is just not safe for use at all really.
I'm not sure if that's true or not, I don't know much of anything about drugs. What I don't see is why it's relevant. If some guy wants to put a gun to his head and pull the trigger, that's not safe, and it will result in his death. It's still his life, and it's his right to end it. I feel the same way about drugs. I don't care if they're safe or not.
By all means, spend the money we're using now in the drug war to educate people about the dangers. Then let them make their own damn choices.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/archive/index.php/t-1196125.html
Granted they haven't locked the kernel, but showing a willingness to clamp down on a platform after release is untrustworthy at best.
Thanks for the link. Yeah, I don't like that behavior either. That said, Samsung and HTC have been friendlier than most.
The closest you can get are tablets that don't sign the kernel and allow you to customize the OS (load cyanogenmod or something) but increasingly vendors are on the attack against that (B&N clamping down on the Nook Tablet, Samsung pushing out an update that locks down the platform.)
Uh...would that be the same Samsung that donated Galaxy S II phones to the cyanogenmod devs, so they could get it working well with the platform? What update are you talking about? They seem very friendly to the rooting and custom rom community.
On the occasions where my 4 year old is somewhere that he watches TV, the way he looks and acts while doing it just makes my heart sink. He doesn't move. He is completely fixated on the screen. He needs me to make several attempts before his attention is diverted from the screen. He can look away breifly to talk to you but is trying to glance back at the screen.
I've heard that argument before, and I don't get it. So he's paying attention to the TV. Why is that bad? What worries you? I'll have that same level of focus in whatever it is that I'm truly engaged in. If you show up while I'm in my recliner reading a book that I'm particularly into, you might have to stand in front of me and call my name once or twice before my brain recognizes that you're there, trying to get my attention. Same thing if I'm soldering something, I tend to really focus when I'm doing that, because if I don't, I end up having to remove the solder and do it again.
Obviously if the only thing a kid does is watch TV, that's a problem, but I don't see how that is related to the level of attention he pays to it when he is watching. Seems like you have the right idea, and you limit the amount of all sorts of activities he takes part in, to make sure not one single thing dominates. You also make sure to spend a lot of time with him. That's what's important. In fact, you even said it:
I don't think anything (Besides normal TV) is intrinsically bad for kids in reasonable amounts.
What exactly are you singling out about TV? Like everything else in your list, I feel that as long as it's a reasonable amount, it's fine.
What parents should NOT do is use technology to babysit. What parents and kids benefit from is a variety of different experiences, all in reasonable duration and frequency.
Yep, that's the key. I think your kid is really lucky to have parents who understand that. I don't have anything to criticize about what you said, but I am legitimately curious about the completely anti-TV stance.
Sure you did, it's called Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor doesn't say anything about correctness.
Which is more likely: All the planets in the solar system travel around the sun in approximately elliptical orbits OR All the planets in the solar system orbit the Earth in a complex arrangement of circles within circles within circles?
If they give the exact same predictions, both matching observations with the same accuracy and precision, then you take the easier to calculate one. And that is what Occam's Razor says, actually: that it makes no sense to use anything more complex than you have to. As for which one is "correct", if both give the same position to at all points to all the planets, that means they are equivalent.
And besides all that, as many people have already pointed out, the claims of 'proof' have been added by the media; the actual research just says it's one or the other making no judgement as to which.
Yep.
So it's fine to piss away $443mn because it's less than $70bn?
Do you code? If I'm trying to improve the performance of a program I've written, I might notice little things here and there that could be done a bit faster. For example, I might have be saying pow(x, 2) someplace, and I know that for integers, it's far more efficient to just type x*x. I'm not wrong, that would be faster. And yet, if I waste any time fixing that type of stuff, I'm an idiot. You profile the program, you find the sections where your code is spending the most time on, and you fix that. If the profiler is telling you that the pow function is the problem, then you fix it. Otherwise I've spent a lot of time fixing things and my code will still perform super-slow.
It's not fine to piss away $443 mn. That said, it's also not fine to waste resources trying to fix that problem when there are bigger problems to be fixed. Fix the bigger problems first, then go back to the $443mn when it actually does represent a significant portion of the problem. Otherwise you waste a lot of time only to discover we're still just as broke.
Umm internet access isn't a human right.
And yes they are, " what you are doing is wrong, do this instead" really is telling someone what to do. Not that they can enforce it of cousre, but they are telling us what they think we should be doing.
Internet access is a officially recognized human right in some European countries, and the UN is moving in that direction as well.
You can say you don't agree with that, but then don't go complaining when countries you believe are violating human rights tell you they don't recognize your pet right as a human right.
Posts like yours don't help.
And neither do posts like yours, unless you say why you think as you do.
'Does not... does to!' exchanges do not make for thought-provoking reading.
I agree with you on that point, but also agree with the GP that the movie is overrated and overhyped. In my opinion, it's too predictable, you can figure out what's going on far earlier than the writers intended you to. Once the main character figures it out, he behaves unrealistically and makes weird decisions. *SPOILER* I'm not exactly sure what I'd do once I found my double, but I sure as hell wouldn't be trying to ignore him in the beginning, followed by getting into fights with him *SPOILER*
Frankly, I'd rather watch Robocop to get my anti-corporatism message.
No, but just because you are protesting doesn't allow you to violate the law. If there are laws in place restricting the ability to set up a camp in a park, bring in generators, create health code violations etc., it must apply equally to all citizens.
I see your point, and I concede. I approve of civil disobedience, but the disobedience in question should apply to laws you disagree with. Unless they're protesting against laws that restrict the ability to camp in a park, they shouldn't camp in the park.
Here's a few examples...Granted, these idiots are the 1% of the 99% that really give the well meaning protesters a bad name
Yeah, I agree with you completely. People start with the reasonable intent of trying to make themselves heard and then cross the line by wanting to drown out the voices of the opposition.
I'm fairly certain the constitution says "... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It doesn't say anything about turning a public park (privately owned I know) into an encampment for the convenience of the protesters.
Why can't they protest, then go home and come back the following day. Convenient, no, but that's the price of admission.
Don't misunderstand, I fully support those advocating the fight against corp and govt corruption, cronyism etc.
I just don't agree they should be able to take over a public park and deny the rights of the other citizens access to it.
Because the right of the people to assemble peaceably doesn't have a time-limit? "You may assemble, but not at night. Limit your protests in public spaces to ten hours a day" isn't in the Constitution.
Denying other citizens access to the park, no they don't have the right to do that. But I don't see why they have to go home for the night.
As for the place being privately owned, once you open up a place to public access, you're voluntarily giving up some rights over your property.
Frankly, I dislike the Occupy people just about as much as I dislike the Tea Party people, I find them equally ridiculous. That said, I fully support the rights of both groups to protest, as long they're being peaceful about it. No blocking of traffic, no looting, etc. When people try to force them out, it makes me want to force a third protesting group: "I'm not affiliated with those guys, and I don't approve of their message, but let them stay!"
I also find it highly ironic that some of the protesters relying on the 1st amendment to enable their protest, also take offense
to the very same freedom of the press that amendment enables.
I don't know what you're referring to here, and I'm curious about it.
If a cop fails to prevent a crime due to neglicence, the city can be sued.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
From that wikipedia page:
DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability
If the police have no responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals what the hell are they for?
When I'm a full time project engineer and can't afford to move out of my mom's basement, It's pretty bad. Renting an apartment costs nearly twice what a house costs to buy, per month. And because i have student loans, my credit is so bad i cant get a mortgage, despite having perfect credit otherwise. Being poor sucks.
Assuming you're making your student loan payments on time (and since you say you have perfect credit otherwise, I assume you are), that really shouldn't affect your credit like that. I just bought a house, and I have student loans to pay the total of which exceed my annual salary. My credit score was 820 and the loan process went off without a hitch (although it was still a ridiculous pain in the ass, they were still getting information from my employers the day before closing day. I understand that they'd call to simply ask, "has anything changed since we've spoken with you last month?" but I don't understand why they'd be trying to get anything new from them at that stage of the game).
Most people that haven't been delinquent in their bill payments but still have credit problems have it because their credit history isn't long enough. Keep in mind that they only count *currently open credit accounts* for credit history. The other problem is that their available credit to amount owed ratio is too low, so focus on paying off any credit card debt you have as soon as it's feasible (If you have any accumulated debt, I know that's easier said than done, but it should be a priority even if you don't care about your credit score).
I got my first credit card when I was 18, and it absolutely sucked. I have a better credit card now, but I do not dare cancel the other card because it's my longest piece of credit history, and it would kill my credit score. I just don't use it, and in fact I don't keep any balances on any credit card. My only debt were the student loans. I suspect your problem is that you closed some of your older credit card accounts because you got better cards. If that's the case, just remember not to do that again, it's one of the most important parts of your credit score, second only to actually paying your bills.
Either that or the amount you have to pay every month on your student loan debt is too high relative to how much you get paid per month. That's not a credit issue though, so I assume your problem is the length of credit history.
The current Lenovo tablet PC (X220) senses the proximity of the pen to the screen and disables the touchpad automatically, so resting your wrist on the screen will no longer mess things up (my previous tablet had that problem and I just disabled the touchscreen altogether). With an i7 in it, mine has no appreciable input lag when I'm writing. The screen's a nice size, so you can get a lot onto it. I use MS OneNote, which can also convert your handwriting to text (and does a pretty good job of it that I've found). I mostly type my notes into OneNote, then past in graphics or use the pen to draw on the screen when I need to put in a formula or chemical structure (I'm working on a Master's in Biomedical Informatics and Computational Biology, so math and biology need a bit of freeform input).
Sounds like exactly what I want. Thanks.
I've got an older Lenovo tablet, and it *only* contains the Wacom array; it's not touch-sensitive. This lets it have a much better resolution, and it's insensitive to resting your hand on it. As for the delay... I've only noticed it when flinging the pen back and forth. At normal writing speeds, it's registered the stroke before the tip of the pen leaves the pixel.
I've taken years worth of calculus and physics notes on it without once feeling like I'd rather switch to paper. And when I'm not writing stuff, I use it like a regular laptop. I've never tried writing on a capacitive or resistive touchscreen, but I can imagine that it's a pain in comparison to something that just uses wacom.
Thanks. I might look up the older model on ebay, it does sound nice.
The Lenovo tablet was designed to enable note taking, with an intelligent stylus that communicates with the tablet, and handwriting recognition software as well. My girlfriend has one and likes it quite a bit:
http://www.lenovo.com/products/us/tablet/thinkpad/
There were three things that annoyed me when I tried to use tablets to take notes. The first is that I couldn't rest my wrist on the screen. The second is that there was a delay between writing and seeing the results on the screen, and I just couldn't get use to that. Finally, I couldn't get enough written to compare to a paper page of the same size (probably because of the fat-finger styluses mentioned above). How does the Lenovo tablet fare in these situations? I'd love to have a tablet I could really use to write on, and I'd buy one in a second, but I just can't deal with any issues in those areas.