1. EU mandates 6 month + 18 months of warranty for manufacturing defects. Six months the burden of proof is on the seller, 18 on the consumer. There are some exceptions and the rules are defined quite well, but this is the general way it works. This warranty doesn't cover wear and tear (unless wear and tear is caused by manufacturing defect). 2. Apple complied with the warranty, but tried to market apprecare plan by obfuscating the fact that customer had the right to warranty during two years anyway. 3. Apple got fined for illegal form of marketing.
1. Use of logical fallacy of "trying to prove a negative". An atheist sees that there is no evidence of existence of God, and significant evidence that none of the current existence exists because of any higher being, but because of the way world works. Agnostic is someone who simply doesn't recognize existence of a higher being. Atheist is someone who has examined the evidence available to him and decided based on this evidence that such higher being doesn't exist.
There was a great line on "penn and teller's bullshit" when they talked about organic farming.
"We can feed about four billion if entire world goes to organic farming for food supply. There are six billion of us now. I don't see two billion volunteers to vanish..."
Actually I was one of the people who were raised without religion. My parents gave me "bible for kids" when I was eleven. I read it front to back 3 times. It was a great fiction book, full of exciting stuff. It encouraged me to study religion in general, and I ended up quite knowledgeable about many mainstream religions.
And in the end, I did end up "reasoning myself" into atheism. I could have chosen any religion I wanted if I felt that these had any weight (and for a while, buddhism's re-incarnation concepts felt very interesting and close to reality, as the matter we're made of is constantly recycled back into ecosystem).
Yes, I'm sure kid is sorry that his mom got involved with his dead. Being born into this world sucks. Do you even read what you're writing?
Fun part: I was replying to the guy who said how funny this whole incident is. I point out that all of those participating are actually suffering one way or another and the only ones having fun are the internet mob members. Where the hell did I actually say that the guy losing his job is unjustified?
My point was that it's tragic for all involved (including the guy who fucked up), and the only ones having fun are the internet mob members who like to laugh at other peoples' misfortune.
I wasn't trying to take a stance defending or attacking anyone involved.
I'm not really finding it funny. One guy isn't getting stuff he needed to give gifts for christmas. Other guy just lost his livelihood to a stupid and unprofessional emotional outburst.
Finally the guy who invented a harness that made playing more accessible to disabled kids is getting smeared all across the sites for things he had little to do with.
I'd say this is mostly a tragedy of how internet rage can fuck up lives of people that don't deserve it, and those who do deserve it get a whole lot more fucking up then they should (guy's wife and child apparently getting hit by internet mob now). And in the end, the original guy is still not getting the stuff he wanted for christmas. Everyone loses, and I really find that quite tragic rather then funny.
On the other hand Penny-Arcade must be earning a boatload of money from it. Their site is slashdotted to hell which means that in spite of them being one of the more popular webcomics on the net, they are getting overloaded.
Must be a lot more of ad impressions going on in there then on normal day.
The reason is simple. Many if not most atheists (and what you really mean by that word, agnostics) do in fact "reason themselves into" that state.
Religion, specifically the religion of the masses such as major variations of Christianity on the other hand is often the thing you're taught from small age and taught to never question beyond the surface.
For the record, I do know of ONE person who came to religion himself personally (as well as dosens of "average" religious people of several religions and I'm from Nordic Europe). He's very different even from priests of local churches in his passion about religion and views mainstream religion and all mainstream Christianity (as well as all other religions) as "heretics" openly. He's Christian.
No, because having a mobile phone was a very clear revolution in terms of accessibility. Smart phones are evolution at best, and older smartphones vs the modern touchscreen smartphones are essentially tools vs toys.
Your assumption that everyone has a handful of conveniently placed online research papers to back up their knowledge is rather intriguing. I studied from dead tree books, and that's what they said.
Considering that you're alone with your disagreement I would suggest that you instead present research that human eye cannot perceive more then 24 frames per second. Or you can go what I did - get an university education that touches on these things.
It doesn't rebuke HDMI specification. The reason for 24 fps being the typical video speed is hidden in the fact that our brain stop perceiving individual images and starts perceiving concurrent frames as motion around that number.
It doesn't mean that eye and brain are incapable of distinguishing or things in motion across the screen being "jerky" (i.e. tell that it's separate frames) without either significant smoothing effects typically used in movie industry or other similar methods.
The intentional blurring is a part of it, yes, but it's just a part. There is also the issue of how we as humans process the visual data (i.e. over 24 pictures per second gets interpreted as continuous movement).
While I can't "link you papers" as I've studied from actual dead tree books back in university, the structure of human eye can be accessed pretty well just by looking at wikipedia. You have focus in the center, highly populated with slow and data-heavy color-sensitive receptors, and periphery highly populated with intensity-sensing fast receptors. Peripheral vision is designed by evolutionary process to track movement, and as a result is capable to distinguish a lot more images every second then focus. Another part of the reason why focus is largely incapable of tracking faster movement is because optical nerve compresses raw data extremely efficiently before it's sent to the brain. Much of the compressions is related to the "smoothing of movement" (and many of the so called "optical illusions" you can see on paper are usually a result of this compression). Nature is essentially saving on resources where they're not judged as necessary for survival.
I'm not sure where you're getting the info that human eye can't track over 24 images per second when pretty much any doctor, or person who studied usability in terms of human perception will be able to tell you you're wrong. There are a couple of ways in which you can test it yourself on yourself if you're doubtful, such as looking at a 50hz CRT television with your focus, and then peripheral vision and noting how you begin to be able to tell that image is in fact blinking as it shifts to peripheral vision.
False. The human eye's focus is indeed typically incapable of sensing more then 24 frames every second. On the other hand, peripheral vision can in some cases distinguish over 100 images every second. This was very visible back in CRT days when monitors caused headaches as peripheral vision saw the blinking on the crappy 60hz and sometimes 75hz monitors stressing the hell out of your eyes.
The issue dates from the way out eye evolved, the way it processes the image, compresses it and sends it to the brain via optic nerve. Our peripheral vision is almost purely light intensity based and designed to track movement, while focus is mostly color-based, far more populated with receptors then peripheral and designed to accurately access objects deemed important. As a result, when passively watching TV from long distance, you can usually fit entire image into focus = 24 fps is enough. When playing on a big screen near you and actively tracking movement over entire screen, 60 fps can be insufficient in some cases.
In perfect honesty, it's better to buy a single powerful card (to avoid early problems in games) for 200-250 range, and upgrade every couple of years. Cheaper and you should be able to max or near max all games that come during lifetime of the card.
Obvious exceptions are the extreme resolutions, 3D vision and multi-monitor gameplay.
Still is. Granted I can't push the resolution beyond 1080p, but with everything maxed it, the fact that it's a console port is very visible. Because at that point the screen size is big enough that you start seeing the textures for what they really are - dirty smudges. You also start seeing them cheating on geometry in comparison to more PC-optimized offerings like BF3.
Witcher 2 is a bad example anyway, because with ubersampling it will rape pretty much any modern graphics card when everything else is on ultra. You'll need SLI or the card above for that workload.
That said, most modern 200ish cards will handle B3 high and W2 high just fine at sub-1080p. It's the best possible settings and very high resolutions where you need the high end offerings.
Your claim is stretching the wording at best, because the world is perceived by YOU when you play it, not by other players. Therefore when world changes around you as a result of your actions, the world is dynamic. There is no way to "travel back in time" and go to previous phase - once you have done necessary requirements, you enter the next phase and are in it permanently - as far as your character is concerned, the world has been irreversibly changed by your actions.
Raid isn't really workable in laptops for power and format factor reasons, which is what work computers are for many if not most of the people in important positions.
Slashdot Mirror
We're talking japanese vending machines, so "usedpanties" and "adultvideosforthenight" would be the more obvious choices!
It can be both, they're not mutually exclusive.
You'd be surprised how well nature reclaims and rejuvenates itself when extreme load from human activity is removed.
What really happened:
1. EU mandates 6 month + 18 months of warranty for manufacturing defects. Six months the burden of proof is on the seller, 18 on the consumer. There are some exceptions and the rules are defined quite well, but this is the general way it works. This warranty doesn't cover wear and tear (unless wear and tear is caused by manufacturing defect).
2. Apple complied with the warranty, but tried to market apprecare plan by obfuscating the fact that customer had the right to warranty during two years anyway.
3. Apple got fined for illegal form of marketing.
1. Use of logical fallacy of "trying to prove a negative". An atheist sees that there is no evidence of existence of God, and significant evidence that none of the current existence exists because of any higher being, but because of the way world works.
Agnostic is someone who simply doesn't recognize existence of a higher being. Atheist is someone who has examined the evidence available to him and decided based on this evidence that such higher being doesn't exist.
2. Cogito, ergo sum.
There was a great line on "penn and teller's bullshit" when they talked about organic farming.
"We can feed about four billion if entire world goes to organic farming for food supply. There are six billion of us now. I don't see two billion volunteers to vanish..."
Ration and take it away from corporations?
I'm not saying he shouldn't suffer a penalty. I'm saying it's a tragedy for him.
Actually I was one of the people who were raised without religion. My parents gave me "bible for kids" when I was eleven. I read it front to back 3 times. It was a great fiction book, full of exciting stuff. It encouraged me to study religion in general, and I ended up quite knowledgeable about many mainstream religions.
And in the end, I did end up "reasoning myself" into atheism. I could have chosen any religion I wanted if I felt that these had any weight (and for a while, buddhism's re-incarnation concepts felt very interesting and close to reality, as the matter we're made of is constantly recycled back into ecosystem).
Yes, I'm sure kid is sorry that his mom got involved with his dead. Being born into this world sucks. Do you even read what you're writing?
Fun part: I was replying to the guy who said how funny this whole incident is. I point out that all of those participating are actually suffering one way or another and the only ones having fun are the internet mob members. Where the hell did I actually say that the guy losing his job is unjustified?
My point was that it's tragic for all involved (including the guy who fucked up), and the only ones having fun are the internet mob members who like to laugh at other peoples' misfortune.
I wasn't trying to take a stance defending or attacking anyone involved.
I'm not really finding it funny. One guy isn't getting stuff he needed to give gifts for christmas. Other guy just lost his livelihood to a stupid and unprofessional emotional outburst.
Finally the guy who invented a harness that made playing more accessible to disabled kids is getting smeared all across the sites for things he had little to do with.
I'd say this is mostly a tragedy of how internet rage can fuck up lives of people that don't deserve it, and those who do deserve it get a whole lot more fucking up then they should (guy's wife and child apparently getting hit by internet mob now).
And in the end, the original guy is still not getting the stuff he wanted for christmas. Everyone loses, and I really find that quite tragic rather then funny.
On the other hand Penny-Arcade must be earning a boatload of money from it. Their site is slashdotted to hell which means that in spite of them being one of the more popular webcomics on the net, they are getting overloaded.
Must be a lot more of ad impressions going on in there then on normal day.
The reason is simple. Many if not most atheists (and what you really mean by that word, agnostics) do in fact "reason themselves into" that state.
Religion, specifically the religion of the masses such as major variations of Christianity on the other hand is often the thing you're taught from small age and taught to never question beyond the surface.
For the record, I do know of ONE person who came to religion himself personally (as well as dosens of "average" religious people of several religions and I'm from Nordic Europe). He's very different even from priests of local churches in his passion about religion and views mainstream religion and all mainstream Christianity (as well as all other religions) as "heretics" openly. He's Christian.
No, because having a mobile phone was a very clear revolution in terms of accessibility. Smart phones are evolution at best, and older smartphones vs the modern touchscreen smartphones are essentially tools vs toys.
Your assumption that everyone has a handful of conveniently placed online research papers to back up their knowledge is rather intriguing. I studied from dead tree books, and that's what they said.
Considering that you're alone with your disagreement I would suggest that you instead present research that human eye cannot perceive more then 24 frames per second. Or you can go what I did - get an university education that touches on these things.
It doesn't rebuke HDMI specification. The reason for 24 fps being the typical video speed is hidden in the fact that our brain stop perceiving individual images and starts perceiving concurrent frames as motion around that number.
It doesn't mean that eye and brain are incapable of distinguishing or things in motion across the screen being "jerky" (i.e. tell that it's separate frames) without either significant smoothing effects typically used in movie industry or other similar methods.
The intentional blurring is a part of it, yes, but it's just a part. There is also the issue of how we as humans process the visual data (i.e. over 24 pictures per second gets interpreted as continuous movement).
While I can't "link you papers" as I've studied from actual dead tree books back in university, the structure of human eye can be accessed pretty well just by looking at wikipedia. You have focus in the center, highly populated with slow and data-heavy color-sensitive receptors, and periphery highly populated with intensity-sensing fast receptors. Peripheral vision is designed by evolutionary process to track movement, and as a result is capable to distinguish a lot more images every second then focus.
Another part of the reason why focus is largely incapable of tracking faster movement is because optical nerve compresses raw data extremely efficiently before it's sent to the brain. Much of the compressions is related to the "smoothing of movement" (and many of the so called "optical illusions" you can see on paper are usually a result of this compression). Nature is essentially saving on resources where they're not judged as necessary for survival.
I'm not sure where you're getting the info that human eye can't track over 24 images per second when pretty much any doctor, or person who studied usability in terms of human perception will be able to tell you you're wrong. There are a couple of ways in which you can test it yourself on yourself if you're doubtful, such as looking at a 50hz CRT television with your focus, and then peripheral vision and noting how you begin to be able to tell that image is in fact blinking as it shifts to peripheral vision.
False. The human eye's focus is indeed typically incapable of sensing more then 24 frames every second. On the other hand, peripheral vision can in some cases distinguish over 100 images every second. This was very visible back in CRT days when monitors caused headaches as peripheral vision saw the blinking on the crappy 60hz and sometimes 75hz monitors stressing the hell out of your eyes.
The issue dates from the way out eye evolved, the way it processes the image, compresses it and sends it to the brain via optic nerve. Our peripheral vision is almost purely light intensity based and designed to track movement, while focus is mostly color-based, far more populated with receptors then peripheral and designed to accurately access objects deemed important. As a result, when passively watching TV from long distance, you can usually fit entire image into focus = 24 fps is enough. When playing on a big screen near you and actively tracking movement over entire screen, 60 fps can be insufficient in some cases.
In perfect honesty, it's better to buy a single powerful card (to avoid early problems in games) for 200-250 range, and upgrade every couple of years. Cheaper and you should be able to max or near max all games that come during lifetime of the card.
Obvious exceptions are the extreme resolutions, 3D vision and multi-monitor gameplay.
Still is. Granted I can't push the resolution beyond 1080p, but with everything maxed it, the fact that it's a console port is very visible. Because at that point the screen size is big enough that you start seeing the textures for what they really are - dirty smudges. You also start seeing them cheating on geometry in comparison to more PC-optimized offerings like BF3.
Witcher 2 is a bad example anyway, because with ubersampling it will rape pretty much any modern graphics card when everything else is on ultra. You'll need SLI or the card above for that workload.
That said, most modern 200ish cards will handle B3 high and W2 high just fine at sub-1080p. It's the best possible settings and very high resolutions where you need the high end offerings.
Your claim is stretching the wording at best, because the world is perceived by YOU when you play it, not by other players. Therefore when world changes around you as a result of your actions, the world is dynamic. There is no way to "travel back in time" and go to previous phase - once you have done necessary requirements, you enter the next phase and are in it permanently - as far as your character is concerned, the world has been irreversibly changed by your actions.
Hence, dynamic world.
Raid isn't really workable in laptops for power and format factor reasons, which is what work computers are for many if not most of the people in important positions.