And what's wrong with this? The usage of 'gunships' on human targets is valid by the laws of war. There's normally nothing special on how you kill people during war.
Where I WILL get upset is the targeting of non-combatants, whether by gunship, missile, or even humble assault rifle. I understand that there can and will be collateral damage if you need to use something with explosives to take out a target, but sometimes this is necessary.
I have not seen the video either, but it was mentioned there may have been one person in a crowd of non-compatants with a gun. The near guarantee of collateral damage due to using a gunship is exactly the reason not to use it. That goes far beyond acceptable use in a crowded group of civilians.
Formal education would remove some of the need for tsunami warnings in themselves. For example, the American tourists who saw the water recede sharply before the Indian Ocean tsunami (an obvious warning sign), and took that time to explore the newly uncovered beach rather than getting to higher ground. Then we can just skip the laser satellite, and focus on education and audible warning systems (which do not depend on people looking the right direction)
Right, but it does better explain the cause-and-effect relationship. It would also prove (assuming IQ was not raised while smoking for habitual smokers) that there was no net benefit to IQ by smoking. It would just mean that while smoking you were as sharp and focused as before you began smoking, and while not smoking you were less so. A good argument against tobacco if I've ever heard one.
Say, for example, I'm a graduate student in forensics writing a paper on crime scene photography techniques. The results of my paper could make sure more guilty people are convicted and, more importantly, innocent people are not. I can't have access to crime scene photos? I have to beg a judge for access to information that was taxpayer-funded?
Of course, in this case we had two cops who used the photos for shits and giggles on haloween, not some legitimate use.
I think we can reasonably protect a family's right to privacy, while still allowing the photos only for official use in the investigation, unless the family opts-in.
I didn't see anything resembling stereotypical heaven in there. If that is what life after death is like you can count me out. I imagine it is a lot like being paralysed and brain damaged.
I think it's a mistake to assume that NDEs reveal aspects of heaven, thus it is also a mistake to assume explaining NDEs also explains heaven. Sure, there's merit toward understanding NDEs, but it doesn't have any relation to what an afterlife may or may not be like.
It's like seeing a car's door, and assuming you know what it feels like to get inside the car and drive it as fast as possible.
How I got to that conclusion to was by reading up on religions and reading the texts like the bible. The bible is actually quite interesting and there are some very good ideas in it. But most practitioners of their religion pick and choose bits or want to stick in their head in the sand about the fact the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions are so similar and all three borrow bits from previous religions. Where as the wise thing would be to say there reason for all the similarities are that the fundamentals are true and they've just come out differently due to human interpretation and therefore embrace the other religions rather than act as if they are your worst enemy.
While I agree that these three (and all) religions shouldn't make each other their worst enemies, to claim that they are all the same is silly (this may not be your intent). Obviously all worship the God of Abraham, but each have writings that theirs is the only correct way to worship him (for example, John 14:6). Thus, your ideals of 'reading and following the complete holy text' and 'buddy up with the other religions' are somewhat at odds.
It's not that hard to see that America's "Christian" right and their beliefs do not match Jesus' teachings and beliefs. For starters the bible is quite clear that you shouldn't be a loud mouth religious jerk and that your connection to the lord should be private.
Slight clarification here. While one's relationship to God is meant to be private (the teaching is to pray, give to charity, and to fast in private so it doesn't become a status symbol or lead to boasting), it does not apply to teachings. It teaches we should preach the gospel loudly, but also to admonish those who need correction in private. More applicable here is 1 Corinthians 5, particularly 5:12 "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?"
I'd go out of my way to help out someone who truly followed the word of Christ. I think for someone to sit down and actually read the bible and do their best to follow it to the letter is very admirable. By that I mean the important bits about helping your fellow man and not being a greedy douche. But there in lies the problem, I've not really met anyone like that and I've certainly not seen them on TV.
I think the problem is that they exist, yet are frequently busy helping and are absorbed within the Church rather than going out and meeting those outside. Or, the people they are meeting are elsewhere (I am connected with churches performing missionary and relief work in Mexico, Thailand, China, areas devastated by hurricane Katrina, local school districts, and multiple Indian reservations). In addition, many of this long-distance work is selflessly financed by the ones traveling, and those involved often return because they can't stand the suffering these people experience. Trust me when I say that these people exist, and they truly care about both Christ and others. The trick is to find a church where God truly is the center of all that is done (several of the churches I have attended), rather than focused on themselves (unfortunately, the church that I grew up in had a large number focused on this).
I certainly agree, though, that Christians should be seen by the world for the good they do, yet rarely are because the good they do is either less visible or nonexistant, or they instead do evil.
It's easy for people to say that Muslims need to tackle their extremists (which they should) but Christians have the same exact problem and they need to start standing up and condemning those who don't follow the bible properly rather than paying Sarah Palin to read a speech off her hand.
Again, big agreement from me. For the record, Pat Robertson and the Westboro Baptist Church do not speak for my God.
Indeed. This is precisely why I don't believe in Christians. I've never met one. I've met plenty of people who claim to be Christians but since they all selectively believe bits of the bible and not other parts I just don't see how they can claim to be Christian.
The problem is that it's the crazies who tend to be the most vocal about things (for example, the Westboro Baptist Church). The ones who do try to take the Bible as a whole and act accordingly (like myself) end up being more reserved and quiet, which in itself is counter to Biblical teachings (the whole 'go to every nation preaching the Gospel and making disciples of all' thing). But go search long enough, and you'll find them, they just might not be what you expected.
Of course, people (myself included) tend to get caught up in the judgement and doing good works, when that's supposed to be secondary to faith. Of course, that faith is meant to lead to good works, but people (both Christian and not) tend to get that backwards, and that leads to all sorts of problems.
Forza 3 seems to have plenty of opportunities for user generated content though, so clearly Microsoft isn't sitting in their heavenly throne frowning at all the game devs who want their players to be able to customize their gear a little. As far as custom maps/mods goes, I can envision a slew of technical reasons why that wouldn't be attractive to MS, in addition to the issues mentioned elsewhere of users drawing penises on every surface they can touch.
I don't think Microsoft is quite as anti-free as everyone seems to think. They just like control over what's free.
Forza 3's studio, Turn 10, is owned by MS. So, the rules are obviously different for a 1st party dev. Of course, this also means they take moderation of content very seriously, and hand out lots of bans for even relatively minor issues. They also are required to use only matchmaking with TrueSkill for public online play. The older games allowed players to set up PC-style public lobbies, but that went away with 3, likely at MS's request/mandate.
I think you're absolutely correct that MS just wants to control the terms. Sometimes it's good (keeping cheaters and douchebags off Live), and sometimes that's bad (killing free MW4).
What a sexist attitude. And, a sexist attitude that girls respond to. God knows why, but they choose to conform to this stereotype.
I'd say it's a feedback loop, really. Girls tend to have lower self esteem and self-expectations (part of why we see fewer women in science and engineering). So many expect that driving a MT is difficult and drive AT. Car manufacturers see this and increase AT production to meet demand. ATs get normalized, and (many) young girls no longer have a need or desire to push themselves to learn to drive an MT. This further fuels their self-image and expectations that they can only drive AT.
So, the issue isn't particularly that women are worse drivers (as you seem to have assumed). Rather, (many) women are less confident in their abilities and believe MT is too hard, and because they believe MT is too hard they are less confident in their driving abilities.
All that said, my sister is equally skilled with an MT as I ever was, easily out driving many boys her age. Of course, we're talking averages, here.
Really, though, they're all very well qualified in their respective fields. They may lose their jobs, sure, but I doubt they'll have trouble finding others.
I'm not too worried about the astronauts finding new jobs. I'm worried about NASA losing highly skilled specialists, in whom they have invested significant money through unique training. It's time consuming and expensive to replace an astronaut, so we had better try to hold onto them and keep them active if we want to maintain whatever edge we still have in manned space flight.
One question that the article does not pose (and can't answer due to its nature) is which is cause and which is effect. Is the reason that smokers have a lower IQ that the people that start smoking have a lower IQ, or does smoking damage your ability to reason logically?
I'd like to see a study with two test groups: smokers, and smokers who are smoking while taking the IQ test.
Nicotine increases neurotransmitter activity, but the effect is most pronounced while smoking. The biggest IQ-related effects are increases in concentration, alertness, and memory. However, nicotine is also physically addictive, and the withdrawl symptoms could result in reductions in those same traits.
I expect that while smoking, the subjects will have an equivalent or slightly higher IQ score, while those not smoking will continue to have a lower score.
I would suggest the precise opposite. When auto-tune is used to camouflage poor musicianship, it just feels dishonest, but when used to overtly alter the sound such that it can be used as an effect it is merely another form of distortion. We don't discriminate against wah pedals or guitarists who use them... why should autotune or vocalists be forced to play by different rules?
My thoughts exactly: if it's noticeable and used for effect, I'm totally alright with it.
I read that article when it first came out, a great read. My favorite quote:
The program's retune speed, which adjusts the singer's voice, can be set from zero to 400. "If you set it to 10, that means that the output pitch will get halfway to the target pitch in 10 milliseconds," says Hildebrand. "But if you let that parameter go to zero, it finds the nearest note and changes the output pitch instantaneously"--eliminating the natural transition between notes and making the singer sound jumpy and automated. "I never figured anyone in their right mind would want to do that," he says.
There's nothing wrong with auto-tune, per-se. A bit of subtle auto-tune means fewer overdubs and punch-ins. The problem only comes when it's overdone and locks the singer's voice in perfect pitch, removing any sense of emotion.
Similarly with compression, a little bit goes a long way. When there's background noise especially (which is most of the time we listen to music anymore), 20dB of headroom means the quiet bits can become inaudible. The problem isn't with compressor, it's with the loudness war. Compression makes the average level of a song louder, and psychologically louder sounds better. Cue the battle to make each pop song comparatively louder than all the others on the radio. In an ideal world, compression would be performed on the player only when needed (like on the subway with your iPod).
The page implies that it's not a reversal, like an expander to reverse the effects of a compressor. Rather, it's a de-tuner. In other words, it's totally possible to do. Just feed a couple of low-frequency oscillators to the target pitch of an auto-tuner. Bump it a few cents flat/sharp, let it drift another few cents every 5 seconds or so, and then warble a tiny bit at about 1Hz. Tada, auto de-tuned.
However, assuming the artist in question uses subtle auto-tune which results in the recording being slightly sharp or flat, a similar process to an expander could push the pitch farther sharp/flat to estimate the original recorded audio.
She may not crank it up to 100% in-tune and 0ms transition time (T-Pain/Cher level), but I'm willing to bet that either she does it herself, or the producer or record label does it for her. I doubt any pop music created in the last several years doesn't use auto tune, on at least a subtle level.
Any artist who doesn't use it probably points it out already. Unfortunately, it's about as common now as compression. I doubt we'll see it go away any time soon.
Though I do wish I could buy one and turn every singer to the Florence Foster Jenkins setting.
While the wire interconnects would not dissipate any power as heat, the transistors would continue to do so. This heat would warm the surrounding superconductors, meaning additional cooling. The vast majority of the heat generated by the processor comes from the transistors, the only ways to reduce it are to reduce the voltage, on-resistance, frequency, or capacitance, or to increase the off-resistance.
So, we still need to find a transistor with nearly 0 on-resistance and nearly infinite off-resistance before this kind of interconnect (which would be expensive to produce and maintain) would be worth investing in. Why spend so much time and effort to reduce 10% of the power consumption, when the other 90+% greatly reduces the efficiency of your efforts?
I guess not, although I've never personally missed the feature. While you're right that many common tasks take too long to perform (for me, I want to easily bookmark an 'is:unread in:inbox' search), saying GMail is behind the times ignores its other benefits. For example, I'm to busy enjoying the convenience of threaded conversations, I've rarely ever needed the other searching features.
4: Sorting by sender, subject, time of arrival etc is non existent! This is on a service that prides itself on users never having to delete email! For those with tens of thousands of email, Gmail is mediocre!
'From:{sender}', 'subject:{subject}', 'after:{mm/dd/yy}' or 'before:{mm/dd/yy}'. Problem solved?
Because vouchers in general are not about school choice, but a means of forcing taxpayers to pay for religious education: subsidizing those who already send their children to parochial schools.
The easy solution to that problem: the voucher can only pay for the non-religious portion of any classes. So if the student takes 6 classes with 2 being religious (theology, and I'll even give you science) and 4 being secular (music, math, literature, history), then the voucher can't cover more than 66% of the cost of tuition.
Any opposition to that based purely on the school rules and code of conduct being based on the attendee's religion is just as silly and petty as those who oppose public schools purely because their code of conduct is purely secular, if not more-so. The primary reason to send children to parochial schools is for the code of conduct and atmosphere, rather than to replace pointless secular elective classes with (arguably equally pointless) religious studies. Of course, this doesn't always happen (there ends up being drug use and teen sex at parochial schools as well), but it seems a reasonable desire.
It's also disingenuous to imply that the only private schools worth sending children to are parochial. They may be the most common, but they aren't the only ones. Vouchers would also encourage more of them, particularly since a well-run secular private-school could be free, while using the rule above would mean parochial schools would still cost money.
Step one is holding students (and teachers) accountable, which requires convincing everyone involved (students, parents, teachers, administrators) that it's a good idea. Good luck with that, let me know how it goes.
Once you get that taken care of, then you can worry about setting the bar higher. While a single teacher might be able to take both steps at once (Escalante prooves this can work, for a time), reforming an entire institution requires baby steps.
Slashdot Mirror
And what's wrong with this? The usage of 'gunships' on human targets is valid by the laws of war. There's normally nothing special on how you kill people during war.
Where I WILL get upset is the targeting of non-combatants, whether by gunship, missile, or even humble assault rifle. I understand that there can and will be collateral damage if you need to use something with explosives to take out a target, but sometimes this is necessary.
I have not seen the video either, but it was mentioned there may have been one person in a crowd of non-compatants with a gun. The near guarantee of collateral damage due to using a gunship is exactly the reason not to use it. That goes far beyond acceptable use in a crowded group of civilians.
You seem to presume that reality shows have any entertainment value.
It has a name: schadenfreude.
Or by assuming that 'front' and 'back' are reversed in the simulation?
Formal education would remove some of the need for tsunami warnings in themselves. For example, the American tourists who saw the water recede sharply before the Indian Ocean tsunami (an obvious warning sign), and took that time to explore the newly uncovered beach rather than getting to higher ground. Then we can just skip the laser satellite, and focus on education and audible warning systems (which do not depend on people looking the right direction)
Right, but it does better explain the cause-and-effect relationship. It would also prove (assuming IQ was not raised while smoking for habitual smokers) that there was no net benefit to IQ by smoking. It would just mean that while smoking you were as sharp and focused as before you began smoking, and while not smoking you were less so. A good argument against tobacco if I've ever heard one.
Say, for example, I'm a graduate student in forensics writing a paper on crime scene photography techniques. The results of my paper could make sure more guilty people are convicted and, more importantly, innocent people are not. I can't have access to crime scene photos? I have to beg a judge for access to information that was taxpayer-funded?
Of course, in this case we had two cops who used the photos for shits and giggles on haloween, not some legitimate use.
I think we can reasonably protect a family's right to privacy, while still allowing the photos only for official use in the investigation, unless the family opts-in.
I didn't see anything resembling stereotypical heaven in there. If that is what life after death is like you can count me out. I imagine it is a lot like being paralysed and brain damaged.
I think it's a mistake to assume that NDEs reveal aspects of heaven, thus it is also a mistake to assume explaining NDEs also explains heaven. Sure, there's merit toward understanding NDEs, but it doesn't have any relation to what an afterlife may or may not be like.
It's like seeing a car's door, and assuming you know what it feels like to get inside the car and drive it as fast as possible.
How I got to that conclusion to was by reading up on religions and reading the texts like the bible. The bible is actually quite interesting and there are some very good ideas in it. But most practitioners of their religion pick and choose bits or want to stick in their head in the sand about the fact the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions are so similar and all three borrow bits from previous religions. Where as the wise thing would be to say there reason for all the similarities are that the fundamentals are true and they've just come out differently due to human interpretation and therefore embrace the other religions rather than act as if they are your worst enemy.
While I agree that these three (and all) religions shouldn't make each other their worst enemies, to claim that they are all the same is silly (this may not be your intent). Obviously all worship the God of Abraham, but each have writings that theirs is the only correct way to worship him (for example, John 14:6). Thus, your ideals of 'reading and following the complete holy text' and 'buddy up with the other religions' are somewhat at odds.
It's not that hard to see that America's "Christian" right and their beliefs do not match Jesus' teachings and beliefs. For starters the bible is quite clear that you shouldn't be a loud mouth religious jerk and that your connection to the lord should be private.
Slight clarification here. While one's relationship to God is meant to be private (the teaching is to pray, give to charity, and to fast in private so it doesn't become a status symbol or lead to boasting), it does not apply to teachings. It teaches we should preach the gospel loudly, but also to admonish those who need correction in private. More applicable here is 1 Corinthians 5, particularly 5:12 "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?"
I'd go out of my way to help out someone who truly followed the word of Christ. I think for someone to sit down and actually read the bible and do their best to follow it to the letter is very admirable. By that I mean the important bits about helping your fellow man and not being a greedy douche. But there in lies the problem, I've not really met anyone like that and I've certainly not seen them on TV.
I think the problem is that they exist, yet are frequently busy helping and are absorbed within the Church rather than going out and meeting those outside. Or, the people they are meeting are elsewhere (I am connected with churches performing missionary and relief work in Mexico, Thailand, China, areas devastated by hurricane Katrina, local school districts, and multiple Indian reservations). In addition, many of this long-distance work is selflessly financed by the ones traveling, and those involved often return because they can't stand the suffering these people experience. Trust me when I say that these people exist, and they truly care about both Christ and others. The trick is to find a church where God truly is the center of all that is done (several of the churches I have attended), rather than focused on themselves (unfortunately, the church that I grew up in had a large number focused on this).
I certainly agree, though, that Christians should be seen by the world for the good they do, yet rarely are because the good they do is either less visible or nonexistant, or they instead do evil.
It's easy for people to say that Muslims need to tackle their extremists (which they should) but Christians have the same exact problem and they need to start standing up and condemning those who don't follow the bible properly rather than paying Sarah Palin to read a speech off her hand.
Again, big agreement from me. For the record, Pat Robertson and the Westboro Baptist Church do not speak for my God.
Indeed. This is precisely why I don't believe in Christians. I've never met one. I've met plenty of people who claim to be Christians but since they all selectively believe bits of the bible and not other parts I just don't see how they can claim to be Christian.
The problem is that it's the crazies who tend to be the most vocal about things (for example, the Westboro Baptist Church). The ones who do try to take the Bible as a whole and act accordingly (like myself) end up being more reserved and quiet, which in itself is counter to Biblical teachings (the whole 'go to every nation preaching the Gospel and making disciples of all' thing). But go search long enough, and you'll find them, they just might not be what you expected.
Of course, people (myself included) tend to get caught up in the judgement and doing good works, when that's supposed to be secondary to faith. Of course, that faith is meant to lead to good works, but people (both Christian and not) tend to get that backwards, and that leads to all sorts of problems.
Forza 3 seems to have plenty of opportunities for user generated content though, so clearly Microsoft isn't sitting in their heavenly throne frowning at all the game devs who want their players to be able to customize their gear a little. As far as custom maps/mods goes, I can envision a slew of technical reasons why that wouldn't be attractive to MS, in addition to the issues mentioned elsewhere of users drawing penises on every surface they can touch. I don't think Microsoft is quite as anti-free as everyone seems to think. They just like control over what's free.
Forza 3's studio, Turn 10, is owned by MS. So, the rules are obviously different for a 1st party dev. Of course, this also means they take moderation of content very seriously, and hand out lots of bans for even relatively minor issues. They also are required to use only matchmaking with TrueSkill for public online play. The older games allowed players to set up PC-style public lobbies, but that went away with 3, likely at MS's request/mandate.
I think you're absolutely correct that MS just wants to control the terms. Sometimes it's good (keeping cheaters and douchebags off Live), and sometimes that's bad (killing free MW4).
What a sexist attitude. And, a sexist attitude that girls respond to. God knows why, but they choose to conform to this stereotype.
I'd say it's a feedback loop, really. Girls tend to have lower self esteem and self-expectations (part of why we see fewer women in science and engineering). So many expect that driving a MT is difficult and drive AT. Car manufacturers see this and increase AT production to meet demand. ATs get normalized, and (many) young girls no longer have a need or desire to push themselves to learn to drive an MT. This further fuels their self-image and expectations that they can only drive AT.
So, the issue isn't particularly that women are worse drivers (as you seem to have assumed). Rather, (many) women are less confident in their abilities and believe MT is too hard, and because they believe MT is too hard they are less confident in their driving abilities.
All that said, my sister is equally skilled with an MT as I ever was, easily out driving many boys her age. Of course, we're talking averages, here.
Really, though, they're all very well qualified in their respective fields. They may lose their jobs, sure, but I doubt they'll have trouble finding others.
I'm not too worried about the astronauts finding new jobs. I'm worried about NASA losing highly skilled specialists, in whom they have invested significant money through unique training. It's time consuming and expensive to replace an astronaut, so we had better try to hold onto them and keep them active if we want to maintain whatever edge we still have in manned space flight.
One question that the article does not pose (and can't answer due to its nature) is which is cause and which is effect. Is the reason that smokers have a lower IQ that the people that start smoking have a lower IQ, or does smoking damage your ability to reason logically?
I'd like to see a study with two test groups: smokers, and smokers who are smoking while taking the IQ test.
Nicotine increases neurotransmitter activity, but the effect is most pronounced while smoking. The biggest IQ-related effects are increases in concentration, alertness, and memory. However, nicotine is also physically addictive, and the withdrawl symptoms could result in reductions in those same traits.
I expect that while smoking, the subjects will have an equivalent or slightly higher IQ score, while those not smoking will continue to have a lower score.
I would suggest the precise opposite. When auto-tune is used to camouflage poor musicianship, it just feels dishonest, but when used to overtly alter the sound such that it can be used as an effect it is merely another form of distortion. We don't discriminate against wah pedals or guitarists who use them... why should autotune or vocalists be forced to play by different rules?
My thoughts exactly: if it's noticeable and used for effect, I'm totally alright with it.
I read that article when it first came out, a great read. My favorite quote:
The program's retune speed, which adjusts the singer's voice, can be set from zero to 400. "If you set it to 10, that means that the output pitch will get halfway to the target pitch in 10 milliseconds," says Hildebrand. "But if you let that parameter go to zero, it finds the nearest note and changes the output pitch instantaneously"--eliminating the natural transition between notes and making the singer sound jumpy and automated. "I never figured anyone in their right mind would want to do that," he says.
Right, I was definitely agreeing with you, just expanding on what you said.
There's nothing wrong with auto-tune, per-se. A bit of subtle auto-tune means fewer overdubs and punch-ins. The problem only comes when it's overdone and locks the singer's voice in perfect pitch, removing any sense of emotion.
Similarly with compression, a little bit goes a long way. When there's background noise especially (which is most of the time we listen to music anymore), 20dB of headroom means the quiet bits can become inaudible. The problem isn't with compressor, it's with the loudness war. Compression makes the average level of a song louder, and psychologically louder sounds better. Cue the battle to make each pop song comparatively louder than all the others on the radio. In an ideal world, compression would be performed on the player only when needed (like on the subway with your iPod).
The page implies that it's not a reversal, like an expander to reverse the effects of a compressor. Rather, it's a de-tuner. In other words, it's totally possible to do. Just feed a couple of low-frequency oscillators to the target pitch of an auto-tuner. Bump it a few cents flat/sharp, let it drift another few cents every 5 seconds or so, and then warble a tiny bit at about 1Hz. Tada, auto de-tuned.
However, assuming the artist in question uses subtle auto-tune which results in the recording being slightly sharp or flat, a similar process to an expander could push the pitch farther sharp/flat to estimate the original recorded audio.
She may not crank it up to 100% in-tune and 0ms transition time (T-Pain/Cher level), but I'm willing to bet that either she does it herself, or the producer or record label does it for her. I doubt any pop music created in the last several years doesn't use auto tune, on at least a subtle level.
Any artist who doesn't use it probably points it out already. Unfortunately, it's about as common now as compression. I doubt we'll see it go away any time soon.
Though I do wish I could buy one and turn every singer to the Florence Foster Jenkins setting.
While the wire interconnects would not dissipate any power as heat, the transistors would continue to do so. This heat would warm the surrounding superconductors, meaning additional cooling. The vast majority of the heat generated by the processor comes from the transistors, the only ways to reduce it are to reduce the voltage, on-resistance, frequency, or capacitance, or to increase the off-resistance.
So, we still need to find a transistor with nearly 0 on-resistance and nearly infinite off-resistance before this kind of interconnect (which would be expensive to produce and maintain) would be worth investing in. Why spend so much time and effort to reduce 10% of the power consumption, when the other 90+% greatly reduces the efficiency of your efforts?
Awesome, thanks!
I guess not, although I've never personally missed the feature. While you're right that many common tasks take too long to perform (for me, I want to easily bookmark an 'is:unread in:inbox' search), saying GMail is behind the times ignores its other benefits. For example, I'm to busy enjoying the convenience of threaded conversations, I've rarely ever needed the other searching features.
4: Sorting by sender, subject, time of arrival etc is non existent! This is on a service that prides itself on users never having to delete email! For those with tens of thousands of email, Gmail is mediocre!
'From:{sender}', 'subject:{subject}', 'after:{mm/dd/yy}' or 'before:{mm/dd/yy}'. Problem solved?
Because vouchers in general are not about school choice, but a means of forcing taxpayers to pay for religious education: subsidizing those who already send their children to parochial schools.
The easy solution to that problem: the voucher can only pay for the non-religious portion of any classes. So if the student takes 6 classes with 2 being religious (theology, and I'll even give you science) and 4 being secular (music, math, literature, history), then the voucher can't cover more than 66% of the cost of tuition.
Any opposition to that based purely on the school rules and code of conduct being based on the attendee's religion is just as silly and petty as those who oppose public schools purely because their code of conduct is purely secular, if not more-so. The primary reason to send children to parochial schools is for the code of conduct and atmosphere, rather than to replace pointless secular elective classes with (arguably equally pointless) religious studies. Of course, this doesn't always happen (there ends up being drug use and teen sex at parochial schools as well), but it seems a reasonable desire.
It's also disingenuous to imply that the only private schools worth sending children to are parochial. They may be the most common, but they aren't the only ones. Vouchers would also encourage more of them, particularly since a well-run secular private-school could be free, while using the rule above would mean parochial schools would still cost money.
Step one is holding students (and teachers) accountable, which requires convincing everyone involved (students, parents, teachers, administrators) that it's a good idea. Good luck with that, let me know how it goes.
Once you get that taken care of, then you can worry about setting the bar higher. While a single teacher might be able to take both steps at once (Escalante prooves this can work, for a time), reforming an entire institution requires baby steps.