Ah, it's funny because the Terminal 5 launch was a fiasco.
But I've travelled from Terminal 5 since then. The system for collecting your belongings from the X-ray was poorly designed, but other than that things couldn't have been smoother.
This seems to be for replacing the shuttle buses that take you from the car park to the terminal. The stops are sprawled out too widely to make a train service work.
My experience of these buses is that you wait a long time for one, yet when it comes it's nowhere near at capacity. Then they have to take a suboptimal route, in order to pass a load of other stops, most of which have nobody waiting.
It does seem to me that from a customer satisfaction perspective, and an efficiency perspective, reducing the MTU in this way is an improvement.
The only thing that bothers me is what happens if a unit breaks down and blocks the track. Hopefully someone's thought that through...
My impression is that they'll last pretty much indefinitely. I have 12 halogens in my ceiling, and seem to replace one every couple of weeks. Upgrading from 26 per year to none, would be a big plus.
I had no problem with the colour or the brightness of the light. The problem was that the spread was way too low, so there were pools of adequate brightness directly below the lights, while the rest of the room would be uncomfortably dim.
Of course, if they used a lens or something to spread out the light, maybe nowhere would be acceptably bright.
Still, I'm optimistic for improvements. These were *nearly* good enough, which is more than I can say for CFLs.
The same place sold colour-cycling LED GU10s. Those were dim, but cool:)
Can you imagine, with the talent Google has, what they could do with Open Office (or build a new platform with the same goal)
I think Google would much rather you used Google Docs than Open Office. I would characterise Docs as a 'serious product'. Sure you can't use it offline, but Google works on the assumption you're always online.
Actually here's Google's interests:
Anything that attracts users to see Google Ads
Anything that causes users to provide clues for the ad targeting algorithms (search terms, email contents, page contents, doc contents etc.)
Which reminds me - I didn't include Adsense in the list of Google services I use - and from a Google revenue perspective, it's the most important one.
we only have one real product, search, and we're hesitant to make big changes to it...
Well, I'm a regular user of Gmail, Reader, Maps, Docs, Notebook, Desktop Search and probably others I've forgotten.
Search is often improved - they're often adding new file types and previewers. Just recently it became possible to sort search results in a way that gets remembered next time you do the search.
there's **WAY** less detail than should be required by true scientific scrutiny
[...]
Evolutionists are far too quick to pat themselves on the back when they really have not offered sufficiently detailed explanations.
The 'sufficiently detailed explanations' you seek are not typically in popular science books or magazines. They are too technical and detailed for that audience. Here is a fascinating piece about the development of eyes which is more in-depth than usual for a pop-sci article. If that's not enough detail for you, you can pursue the papers it references.
The hard science is there. You're just not looking for it. Or you're choosing to ignore it.
Now, I haven't found an equivalent article on brains for you - but TFA demonstrates that researchers, far from 'patting themselves on the back' are looking at it in depth. You'll find papers if you look. You might need to study some undergraduate genetics textbooks first in order to understand them, mind you! And if you didn't manage to read the whole of The Blind Watchmaker... (I fail to see how you could be 'familiar with its arguments' without reading it. It doesn't waste words.)
If there really were any features that could not have arisen through natural selection, it would be big news. Exciting news. The science press would be all over it.
Think of all the cool organisms that might exist if we weren't constrained by this need for features to develop gradually. For example, why are there no animals with wheels?
Not always. Eventually you'll always run down your options til there's only one mission available. That's pretty much unavoidable. Monkey Island and its ilk would give you three or more simultaneous strands to pursue, so if one stumped you, you could work on the others. But once you'd solved two, you were left with one that you just had to solve.
Although to tell the truth, in GTA4 when I abandoned the game I was down to two available missions, both of which had the 'getting from respawn point to meat of the retry is too tedious' problem.
(Not an entirely flippant answer - I'm beginning to get the impression that the majority of normal church/chapel goers aren't fully convinced about the paranormal stuff, but go along for social reasons.)
I just started playing grand theft auto 4. The worst part of the game is exactly what the video describes -- when I get killed in a shootout, I have to go back to the start, waste a bunch of time getting across the city, only to risk more time wasting.
I enjoyed GTA4 for many hours, but exactly what you describe is the reason I put it away never to be played again. It was the strip club shootout:
while (motivated) {
Spawn at spawn point
Find mission trigger
Find car
4 minutes of driving (no challenge, no interest)
2 minutes or less of shooting: get killed }
But there's nothing novel about this. It's just a matter of sensible checkpoint placement. Here, GTA4 got it wrong.
You should not be playing games with that attitude. If you go in looking to use time wisely, you're not PLAYING a game. Unless you get paid to review games, stop caring about the time wasted, because that's what games are FOR. Wasting time.
Semantic problem. Games are for passing time pleasurably. Time passed pleasurably is not wasted.
Now, if I find the boss fight fun, but I don't enjoy replaying a level to reach the boss - than that game is wasting my time.
The difficulty for games designers is that people have different tastes. I know other people might enjoy that stretch that I find dull. So I'll pick another game and leave this one to them.
For example, I used to think that RPGs were making a terrible error in having all those grind battles. Then I discovered that lots of people actually enjoy that stuff. So I don't play RPGs, and I let other people enjoy them.
Just because you can't die, doesn't mean you can't fail. You can fail to solve a puzzle, in which case you'll never reach the end of the game.
'course in those days we didn't have gamefaqs.
Some of my friends picked up the Lego Indiana Jones game and this has the same issue, probably worse. They didn't seem to care that as soon as they died they just re-appeared and kept going, but within a few minutes I questioned why I would ever play it if you're just brute forcing through the story without consequence.
You've got to remember that Lego Star Wars is a kids' game. Just treat it as a ride. But there are challenges in there - you need to solve simple puzzles to make it through the game, and more complex puzzles to get all the collectible items.
I should have been more specific. I was referring to slight mutations in the progression towards a fully functional complex sub system. The problem with this 'theory' is that the subsystem must remain functional at every stage and slight mutations must offer substantial benefit in order for the individual to dominate the species. This domination seems quite unlikely to me to result from slight modifications (mods which are far more likely to be detrimental as your OP pointed out).
I disagree that about the need for "substantial" benefit. Very small advantages become significant across large populations and long time periods. If an individual has 0.0001% better survival prospects than its brothers, and has 1000 offspring with the same advantage, then that strain stands an excellent chance of surviving, and quite possibly (though not necessarily) dominating the species.
You seem to be giving the 'half an eye is no use' argument an airing, except with brains, or some other feature - and you treat it as a dirty little secret the 'evolutionists' brush under the carpet. *That's* intellectual dishonesty. The question has been answered over and over again, until we're bored of it. Please read The Blind Watchmaker before you suggest again that it's "one of the single biggest problems with evolutionary theory".
As for ID-- it seems to me that the science has become more dogmatic, intellectually dishonest, and hypocritical than the Catholic church ever dreamt of. They have become greater than their successor in they very ways that they so stood against
Hmm, I *think* I've managed to extract what you meant to write from what you did write. But you're going to have to cite some examples of this dogmatism, hypicrisy and intellectual dishonesty to convince me. Making sure the culprit is representative of "science", though, and not some arbitrary zealot.
If someone claiming to be God knocked on the door of your dwelling, what evidence would such a person have to provide to convince you that such claim was true? If you slam the door in such a person's face and they came in anyway, right through the wall, what other evidence would you require?
That's the weirdest question I've ever been asked. Let's face it, it's never going to happen.
I can't think of any conjuring trick that would convince me - walking through a wall is hardly on a par with, you know, creating the whole universe.
But presumably an omnipotent being, who wanted to, could simply rewire my brain to make me believe anything he wanted me to believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, it's funny because the Terminal 5 launch was a fiasco.
But I've travelled from Terminal 5 since then. The system for collecting your belongings from the X-ray was poorly designed, but other than that things couldn't have been smoother.
This seems to be for replacing the shuttle buses that take you from the car park to the terminal. The stops are sprawled out too widely to make a train service work.
My experience of these buses is that you wait a long time for one, yet when it comes it's nowhere near at capacity. Then they have to take a suboptimal route, in order to pass a load of other stops, most of which have nobody waiting.
It does seem to me that from a customer satisfaction perspective, and an efficiency perspective, reducing the MTU in this way is an improvement.
The only thing that bothers me is what happens if a unit breaks down and blocks the track. Hopefully someone's thought that through...
My impression is that they'll last pretty much indefinitely. I have 12 halogens in my ceiling, and seem to replace one every couple of weeks. Upgrading from 26 per year to none, would be a big plus.
I bought a set of LED GU10s for my kitchen.
I had no problem with the colour or the brightness of the light. The problem was that the spread was way too low, so there were pools of adequate brightness directly below the lights, while the rest of the room would be uncomfortably dim.
Of course, if they used a lens or something to spread out the light, maybe nowhere would be acceptably bright.
Still, I'm optimistic for improvements. These were *nearly* good enough, which is more than I can say for CFLs.
The same place sold colour-cycling LED GU10s. Those were dim, but cool :)
Eh?
Even if they did do all these things, take the boot media out and write whatever you want onto it.
Obviously the tablet won't be locked to that distro. If you want a more full-featured distro, you can install one.
Can you imagine, with the talent Google has, what they could do with Open Office (or build a new platform with the same goal)
I think Google would much rather you used Google Docs than Open Office. I would characterise Docs as a 'serious product'. Sure you can't use it offline, but Google works on the assumption you're always online.
Actually here's Google's interests:
Which reminds me - I didn't include Adsense in the list of Google services I use - and from a Google revenue perspective, it's the most important one.
we only have one real product, search, and we're hesitant to make big changes to it...
Well, I'm a regular user of Gmail, Reader, Maps, Docs, Notebook, Desktop Search and probably others I've forgotten.
Search is often improved - they're often adding new file types and previewers. Just recently it became possible to sort search results in a way that gets remembered next time you do the search.
Sure. It'd be a step towards MS giving me the kind of products I want. Which right now, they don't.
False positives aren't too bad. You just fall back on the old method.
False negatives would be a bigger problem.
Let's celebrate.
\o/
(The 'half an eye' argument)
Yes, that's exactly the argument.
[...]
there's **WAY** less detail than should be required by true scientific scrutiny
[...]
Evolutionists are far too quick to pat themselves on the back when they really have not offered sufficiently detailed explanations.
The 'sufficiently detailed explanations' you seek are not typically in popular science books or magazines. They are too technical and detailed for that audience. Here is a fascinating piece about the development of eyes which is more in-depth than usual for a pop-sci article. If that's not enough detail for you, you can pursue the papers it references.
The hard science is there. You're just not looking for it. Or you're choosing to ignore it.
Now, I haven't found an equivalent article on brains for you - but TFA demonstrates that researchers, far from 'patting themselves on the back' are looking at it in depth. You'll find papers if you look. You might need to study some undergraduate genetics textbooks first in order to understand them, mind you! And if you didn't manage to read the whole of The Blind Watchmaker... (I fail to see how you could be 'familiar with its arguments' without reading it. It doesn't waste words.)
If there really were any features that could not have arisen through natural selection, it would be big news. Exciting news. The science press would be all over it.
Think of all the cool organisms that might exist if we weren't constrained by this need for features to develop gradually. For example, why are there no animals with wheels?
But you can always go play a different mission.
Not always. Eventually you'll always run down your options til there's only one mission available. That's pretty much unavoidable. Monkey Island and its ilk would give you three or more simultaneous strands to pursue, so if one stumped you, you could work on the others. But once you'd solved two, you were left with one that you just had to solve.
Although to tell the truth, in GTA4 when I abandoned the game I was down to two available missions, both of which had the 'getting from respawn point to meat of the retry is too tedious' problem.
Did you watch the video? It's evident that mashing buttons would never get you past an obstacle in Prince of Persia.
Dizzy's a bugger for making you sick, because the little egg fella flips head over heels when he jumps.
I recommend you start with the Genesis version "Fantastic Dizzy" because the higher resolution graphics might help with your nausea.
The Dizzy series was really punitive. Touch an enemy and you die. Die three times and it's game over, with no save points.
Can you imagine what a typical shooting game would be like if the enemies were moved around on the map every time?
It would be like Left 4 Dead, in which replaying a level is a joy instead of a chore.
So why follow a religion?
There's cake?
(Not an entirely flippant answer - I'm beginning to get the impression that the majority of normal church/chapel goers aren't fully convinced about the paranormal stuff, but go along for social reasons.)
If you recant on your deathbed, that's setting sin=false, just in the nick of time.
No it's a widescreen version.
It's only Americans equate widescreen with HD.
I just started playing grand theft auto 4. The worst part of the game is exactly what the video describes -- when I get killed in a shootout, I have to go back to the start, waste a bunch of time getting across the city, only to risk more time wasting.
I enjoyed GTA4 for many hours, but exactly what you describe is the reason I put it away never to be played again. It was the strip club shootout:
while (motivated) {
Spawn at spawn point
Find mission trigger
Find car
4 minutes of driving (no challenge, no interest)
2 minutes or less of shooting: get killed
}
But there's nothing novel about this. It's just a matter of sensible checkpoint placement. Here, GTA4 got it wrong.
You should not be playing games with that attitude. If you go in looking to use time wisely, you're not PLAYING a game. Unless you get paid to review games, stop caring about the time wasted, because that's what games are FOR. Wasting time.
Semantic problem. Games are for passing time pleasurably. Time passed pleasurably is not wasted.
Now, if I find the boss fight fun, but I don't enjoy replaying a level to reach the boss - than that game is wasting my time.
The difficulty for games designers is that people have different tastes. I know other people might enjoy that stretch that I find dull. So I'll pick another game and leave this one to them.
For example, I used to think that RPGs were making a terrible error in having all those grind battles. Then I discovered that lots of people actually enjoy that stuff. So I don't play RPGs, and I let other people enjoy them.
There is no sense of achievement, then
You've never played Monkey Island, I take it.
Just because you can't die, doesn't mean you can't fail. You can fail to solve a puzzle, in which case you'll never reach the end of the game.
'course in those days we didn't have gamefaqs.
Some of my friends picked up the Lego Indiana Jones game and this has the same issue, probably worse. They didn't seem to care that as soon as they died they just re-appeared and kept going, but within a few minutes I questioned why I would ever play it if you're just brute forcing through the story without consequence.
You've got to remember that Lego Star Wars is a kids' game. Just treat it as a ride. But there are challenges in there - you need to solve simple puzzles to make it through the game, and more complex puzzles to get all the collectible items.
I should have been more specific. I was referring to slight mutations in the progression towards a fully functional complex sub system. The problem with this 'theory' is that the subsystem must remain functional at every stage and slight mutations must offer substantial benefit in order for the individual to dominate the species. This domination seems quite unlikely to me to result from slight modifications (mods which are far more likely to be detrimental as your OP pointed out).
I disagree that about the need for "substantial" benefit. Very small advantages become significant across large populations and long time periods. If an individual has 0.0001% better survival prospects than its brothers, and has 1000 offspring with the same advantage, then that strain stands an excellent chance of surviving, and quite possibly (though not necessarily) dominating the species.
You seem to be giving the 'half an eye is no use' argument an airing, except with brains, or some other feature - and you treat it as a dirty little secret the 'evolutionists' brush under the carpet. *That's* intellectual dishonesty. The question has been answered over and over again, until we're bored of it. Please read The Blind Watchmaker before you suggest again that it's "one of the single biggest problems with evolutionary theory".
As for ID-- it seems to me that the science has become more dogmatic, intellectually dishonest, and hypocritical than the Catholic church ever dreamt of. They have become greater than their successor in they very ways that they so stood against
Hmm, I *think* I've managed to extract what you meant to write from what you did write. But you're going to have to cite some examples of this dogmatism, hypicrisy and intellectual dishonesty to convince me. Making sure the culprit is representative of "science", though, and not some arbitrary zealot.
If someone claiming to be God knocked on the door of your dwelling, what evidence would such a person have to provide to convince you that such claim was true? If you slam the door in such a person's face and they came in anyway, right through the wall, what other evidence would you require?
That's the weirdest question I've ever been asked. Let's face it, it's never going to happen.
I can't think of any conjuring trick that would convince me - walking through a wall is hardly on a par with, you know, creating the whole universe.
But presumably an omnipotent being, who wanted to, could simply rewire my brain to make me believe anything he wanted me to believe.
If I were a Christian, I would hate you and see you as an incredibly bad person.
If you were a Christian, you would love him, you would fear for his mortal soul, and you would pray for him regularly.