64 gig? I find that surprising. Samsung has had 64g for years.
So did iPhone 4s. Apple came out with iPhone 4s at the starting of the 4th quarter in 2011. Samsung came out with 64GB model -- Galaxy S III -- in May 2012. All before that, more storage spaces (up to 32GB at the time) on Sumsung phone are from external/removable, not built-in. Back in 2011, you should be surprised by 64GB storage space on a cellphone (and it was very expensive to get that kind of storage size on a phone).
If you really want to make that silly comment, please get the fact straight first (and then there wouldn't be such this kind of comment).
Eh, I buy Eddie Bauer t-shirts at Sam's for about $8 each. They aren't too bad. Not sure what they would cost at an actual Eddie Bauer store though.
Cheapest T-shirt costs $20~$23 on their web site. I am sure they are made-in-China which would cost them a couple dollars including shipping. $8 is still more expensive than other T-shirts (no name brand) I could find in Walmart.:p
You have some misconceptions about quantum key distribution. Cheifly, though, is the misconception that Alice and Bob are trying to transmit a pre-existing key. No, with QKD, they are trying to generate new key. Alice doesn't stop when she thinks Bob has "the full key" - there is no full key - but rather when she thinks Bob has received enough photons in order to generate (after sifting, error-correction, and privacy amplification) a key long enough for their intended purpose. Fundamental is that each bit Alice transmits is chosen randomly, with no repetition, no retransmission. That also implies that photon loss isn't the issue you think it is.
I'm not sure that GP explanation is a misconception as you pointed out. First, pre-existing or randomly select on the fly has nothing to do with the GP explanation. The explanation omitted or disregard how each bit is from. To be honest, is the big picture (abstract) changed in the explanation to point out that each bit is randomly generated on the fly? It is only the detail bit and specification of QKD.
The meaning of "full key" and "stop when think it is enough" look similar to me from an abstract concept. Once the encryption key length is long enough, it is a full key. Again, the GP explanation doesn't specifically said that but rather said "entire key." This may look as a misconception; however, it gives an easier understanding as an abstract. If someone really wants to get into detail of how to transmit keys, then the person could be seeing as difference.
However, I am not sure whether the transmission occurs in the back channel (or why they would implement it that way). From the wiki, it explicitly said that the transmission is via "public classical channel" which should not be a "back channel" as the GP said. Not sure why...
... However, any two pairs of conjugate states can be used for the protocol, and many optical fibre based implementations described as BB84 use phase encoded states. The sender (traditionally referred to as Alice) and the receiver (Bob) are connected by a quantum communication channel which allows quantum states to be transmitted. In the case of photons this channel is generally either an optical fibre or simply free space. In addition they communicate via a public classical channel, for example using broadcast radio or the internet....
I think a good manager can probably manage most kinds of organizations, without any specialization. By the same token, it isn't always the case that someone that works up through a specific industry will be able to manage a company within that industry.
Your statement would be true if and only if there are similar or the same features/aspects of work in those organization because similar rules can be applied (similar management style). If each organization has its own unique aspects to deal with, regardless how good a manager is, he or she will need to learn about the organization first. However, a good manager should be able to learn and adapt to the job faster than average.
We get it, Musk will blame the driver for not avoiding the collision,...
I would completely agree without if the complaint is not from a rich Chinese in China. Why? Well, most (if not all) rich Chinese in China are crooked or spoiled brad in order to become rich. These people aren't stupid either because they know how to get/extract money out of others. If you don't know, car prices selling in China are around 3x times more expensive than in the U.S. (wages in general are much lower than the U.S. and the owner is 33). So I am not certain for whatever reason the guy claimed about the faulty is from the car.
Look, if you give me something for free, I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to ask for something in return (provided you disclose that you're collecting that data). But if I'm paying for it, then please just stop. I'm the customer, not the product.
If the product can be connected to a toy-controlling smart-phone app, which should be owned from the company, then there might be some sort ToS that requires you to click "I Agree" before you can use the app. Most people don't read that kind of thing anyway, so they may agree to let the company collect data. This is typical way of getting consent from consumers without them really know what they are doing.
For that matter, I feel like suing because the Joker was in the movie.
GP said "This wasn't a movie about the Joker." Also, if the trailer shows Joker but there is no Joker in the real show, then the claim could be valid because that is a real bait-and-switch.
Not enough. The H-1B program is suppose to be to fill positions for which an American cannot be found to do and these tech companies all claim that in a country of 300+ million people they can't find someone qualified.
Even though I do not disagree with H-1B abuse from many big companies or corporations, you exaggerated the number by way too far to make the situation looks worse in order to favor your argument. Out of 300+ millions, how many actually are qualified to work? Way less than 100 millions. Then if you talk about demographic that people are living within the work place, then it would be even less.
So given that I say that H-1B holders should be the highest compensated people at the company. This would have to include such things as base pay, bonuses, medical, dental, 401k, stock options, housing allowance, relocation allowance, vehicle/transportation allowance, etc.
I'm not sure you know that the prevailing wage is the "base" salary that cannot and must not included any other benefits. 401k, insurance, stock options, etc. are not eligible as parts of prevailing wage. If a company wants to offer those, then they have to be extra. Because of these as optional, it may be one of reasons why big companies/corporations want H-1B over Americans (so that they need to pay only salary because foreign workers don't expect extra benefits)...
Even though the idea (theory) is very interesting and looks promising because it is focused to only one aspect, I still think it is not practical and will be extremely difficult (and costly) to operate. Why? It is much easier to check up/force the cause (selling vehicles) than to patch the end (vehicle consumers). There is much smaller number to deal with. If the responsibility is pushed down to the consumers, what else do you think would happen? Who is keeping the records? How to deal with them especially when there is an issue? How many people would be involved in doing so? How much it cost to implement, install, train, etc., the system? Many things will happen in both advantages and disadvantages.
Could individuals cheat by flashing their EFI control modules etc before they have their test and then putting it back after, well yes but they can do that kinda stuff in places that do checks now anyway. The smallish number of individuals that cheat won't amount to much.
Again, in theory, you are thinking of the whole situation in a controlled environment. However, reality is more dynamic. You forgot that currently there is not much incentive to cheat, so small amount of cheaters won't have any impact. If the responsibility is pushed down to consumers, there will be all kind of cheats popping up and would spread out wider than it is now.
Anyway, the ultimate reason for doing this at manufacturer level may come down to how easy the situation could be controlled (by you know who).
That isn't the problem here. The problem is that after years and years of selling products (Avaya), along comes patent troll who discovers it. The problem is that it is too late. You can't come in long after the fact, when you should have been protecting your patents from the beginning. If you don't know they are infringing, then it isn't really impacting your business, and you haven't been harmed.
Actually, it is not too late at all. In this situation, it makes perfect sense for BB to wait until Avaya make money and sue. It is both to test whether their patents work and also to gain free money from doing nothing themselves (sue for damage that Avaya get from selling patent products). That is actually the way patent trolls are using and it is the loophole in patent laws.
No one should be overreacting on this subject. On TFA, the researcher already stated that weight may not really be the cause (just a possibility and may need further research); thus, it is still inconclusive.
But, Ronan warns, it is not yet clear whether an increased BMI is driving the effect. “It could be that the genes that are responsible for obesity could also be responsible for smaller brains, or it could be that if you have a brain change that could lead to overeating,” she said.
Another researcher also confirmed that the result could be inconclusive.
Claudia Metzler-Baddeley, from Cardiff University’s Brain Research Imaging Centre, said the research backs up previous suggestions that obesity and brain structure are linked. But, she added, “It is cross-sectional study - so it is not following people up over time. That is always a limiting factor. It doesn’t allow you to make any inferences about cause and effect.” What’s more, she says, self-reports of health and lifestyle factors are prone to inaccuracies, while the use of BMI also has drawbacks. “You can have a very high BMI just simply because of high muscle mass,” she said.
But as you point out, you're the only one still developing and maintaining a single application using it. Both Ruby and RoR were fads. Nice to see them continuing their steady decline to irrelevance.
First, I don't know why you are attacking me. I've been working with it because our company is using it. I'm not the "person" who made the decision to use it. Second, my company has several applications using it (internal use). RoR is best for small companies with small to medium database size. Last, the framework becomes fad (in opinion of many people like you) because many others didn't use it properly. They jumped on the band wagon right away, and as a results, they found out later that the framework does not fit to what they needed. However, the framework fits perfectly to my company's purpose. Fad or not is irrelevant to me.
Stop being a bitter person who lashes on others already.
I worked on a project around 2007 that used Ruby on Rails. That was my first experience with Ruby and my first experience with a real web product. I liked Ruby and Rails, but it was easy to get bitten by some of the abstractions. I remember the site bogged down really bad whenever we searched for a record in a large database table. The problem was that the database was hidden behind ActiveRecord, so it was easy to forget we were using a database at all. Writing a for loop to search for a record that matched some criteria felt natural, because our interface was with objects, not the underlying tables. However, behind the scenes, each iteration was a separate query. The result was thousands and thousands of queries, instead of just a single query with a simple WHERE clause. We were essentially doing in Ruby what we could have done much more efficiently in SQL. Once we realized the problem, we rewrote that kind of code so it used more or less raw SQL. The result was much faster, but we lost the readability of the abstraction. Everyone on the team was new to Ruby and Rails (grad students who shuffled in and out each semester), so it's possible that we were just doing things completely wrong. Still, it feels like it shouldn't have been that easy to shoot ourselves in the foot. Have things improved since then? How do you balance nice abstractions like ActiveRecord with performance? How do you make it clear to novices what's going on internally, so they can avoid the mistakes that we made?
I agree with what you said that the frame work makes things much easier to deal with database. As a result, one wouldn't know how to optimize it. If I remember correctly, they put in some optimization ways to deal with SQL (such as include, select, etc) starting in either version 1.2 or a little later (can't remember). What it does is to improve SQL in order to make 1 call instead of 100 calls for 100 records. However, it is extremely difficult to be as perfect as SQL language, so you would have to decide whether it is suitable to your project. I can say that it is still slow when dealing with huge database even though the time running SQL from the DB is short because the manipulation/process/display take the major part of the run time...
"Ruby on Rails" ? Is there a good reason for the name, or were you watching too many old western train movies?
Here has a discussion of the name in RoR's early time (2007). Also, it seems that many people do not even know what Ruby on Rails is. My company is still using it and I am the only person develop and maintain the application... Not a bad web frame work at all.
So no one actually reads TFA and check out the links??? I am surprise how TFA made a conclusion out of a totally different topic research which is the link cited in TFA.
TFA portion
Published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour by researchers from three US universities, the study involved the analysis of data collected through the nationwide General Social Survey that has asked US adults about their sexual behaviour almost every year since 1989.
Cited link in TFA
Changes in American Adults’ Reported Same-Sex Sexual Experiences and Attitudes, 1973–2014
We examined change over time in the reported prevalence of men having sex with men and women having sex with women and acceptance of those behaviors in the nationally representative General Social Survey of U.S. adults (n’s = 28,161–33,728, ages 18–96 years), 1972–2014...
It's the opposite actually. If your teeth are spaced apart you need flossing less. This is why young children don't really need to floss their baby teeth.
Actually the size of the gap does not matter as long as no food can get stuck inside the gap. If food gets stuck in there for a while, it will cause problems to both your teeth and gum (and you will feel it). You could try to get the food out using any method and the method does not need to be flossing. Thus, size of gap between teeth is not the reason to need or not need to floss.
Also, your second sentence is a fallacy and does not support your reasoning because that is not the main or only reason they do not really need to floss their baby teeth.
eh, not really. I am just interested to know if this is legal in the UK. It wouldn't be legal in the US.
When is mobile phone signal jamming considered the same as mobile phone signal blocking? Because one can't use a cell phone there, does not mean jamming and blocking are the same. Jamming in the U.S. is illegal, period. Blocking may be determined case-by-case. However, you simply oversimplify the issue and claim legality of both situations as the same...
Right now Pharmaceutical Company’s only seem to be interested in manufacturing medicine that will make the big bucks, like the Blue Pill, which really serves no purpose.
I would more incline to say Pharmaceutical companies nowadays are coming out with drugs that keep patients alive longer rather than to cure the disease. However, it may not sound so bad for those who are near the end of life and want to live a bit longer...
Shouldn't that be a "Russian Man"? A Russian stole technology for his mother country. The context is a bit different.
Actually, the title is correct. If you take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... you would see that he was nationalized to become a U.S. citizen in 2003; thus, he, at the time, was a citizen or Texas man.
Wrong! With less corporate tax, more money get spent on productive uses, and in a more efficient way than if government were to spend it, i.e. without the huge dead-weight loss of government, which has been estimated up to 30-40 cents per dollar, depending on the activity. So more jobs, higher standards of living, less deprivation, etc.
I disagree with what you said because it is too strong statement -- money from less corporate taxes would be spent in more productive/efficient way than government. It can go either way and is depended on how far you want to look at in the future. I agree that government spending is likely to be in a wrong direction, but that does not mean private/corporate spending is likely to go to the right direction. What have we been seeing how corporates spend their money so far? What is their business model? And what is "more efficient way" in your definition? Are you benefiting from the way they do their business (e.g. you are a CEO)?
You may not as long as you know the limit of how to play the game.
Until the pokemon comes out of hiding you can't tell where they are so trespassing to find them makes no sense.
Why would it make no sense? According to http://www.imore.com/pokemon-g... , you are notified by your phone that it is out. Some kids (or not bright people) may keep their eyes glued to the phone instead. As a result, trespassing could easily occur (get excited about the game and pay no attention on where they are going).
Then once they're out of hiding you tap to bring up the capture screen. There's no need to get closer to capture em.
You are correct. Again, some kids get excited, look at the phone, and play it right away instead of "moving away to a safe zone" to initiate the capturing.
I hope you would try to understand how others think too...
What's really needed is data where autopilot saved lives.
You are too optimistic. Besides, what you said has nothing to do with the topic (investigating for fault/bug). What you said is that Tesla should stop improving autopilot because it already saved some lives due to (whatever you think) collected data. I would say your post is a troll...
Slashdot Mirror
64 gig? I find that surprising. Samsung has had 64g for years.
So did iPhone 4s. Apple came out with iPhone 4s at the starting of the 4th quarter in 2011. Samsung came out with 64GB model -- Galaxy S III -- in May 2012. All before that, more storage spaces (up to 32GB at the time) on Sumsung phone are from external/removable, not built-in. Back in 2011, you should be surprised by 64GB storage space on a cellphone (and it was very expensive to get that kind of storage size on a phone).
If you really want to make that silly comment, please get the fact straight first (and then there wouldn't be such this kind of comment).
Actually, what number 4 reminded me of? Mobile or Exxon gas station logo...
Eh, I buy Eddie Bauer t-shirts at Sam's for about $8 each. They aren't too bad. Not sure what they would cost at an actual Eddie Bauer store though.
Cheapest T-shirt costs $20~$23 on their web site. I am sure they are made-in-China which would cost them a couple dollars including shipping. $8 is still more expensive than other T-shirts (no name brand) I could find in Walmart. :p
You have some misconceptions about quantum key distribution. Cheifly, though, is the misconception that Alice and Bob are trying to transmit a pre-existing key. No, with QKD, they are trying to generate new key. Alice doesn't stop when she thinks Bob has "the full key" - there is no full key - but rather when she thinks Bob has received enough photons in order to generate (after sifting, error-correction, and privacy amplification) a key long enough for their intended purpose. Fundamental is that each bit Alice transmits is chosen randomly, with no repetition, no retransmission. That also implies that photon loss isn't the issue you think it is.
I'm not sure that GP explanation is a misconception as you pointed out. First, pre-existing or randomly select on the fly has nothing to do with the GP explanation. The explanation omitted or disregard how each bit is from. To be honest, is the big picture (abstract) changed in the explanation to point out that each bit is randomly generated on the fly? It is only the detail bit and specification of QKD.
The meaning of "full key" and "stop when think it is enough" look similar to me from an abstract concept. Once the encryption key length is long enough, it is a full key. Again, the GP explanation doesn't specifically said that but rather said "entire key." This may look as a misconception; however, it gives an easier understanding as an abstract. If someone really wants to get into detail of how to transmit keys, then the person could be seeing as difference.
However, I am not sure whether the transmission occurs in the back channel (or why they would implement it that way). From the wiki, it explicitly said that the transmission is via "public classical channel" which should not be a "back channel" as the GP said. Not sure why...
... However, any two pairs of conjugate states can be used for the protocol, and many optical fibre based implementations described as BB84 use phase encoded states. The sender (traditionally referred to as Alice) and the receiver (Bob) are connected by a quantum communication channel which allows quantum states to be transmitted. In the case of photons this channel is generally either an optical fibre or simply free space. In addition they communicate via a public classical channel, for example using broadcast radio or the internet. ...
I think a good manager can probably manage most kinds of organizations, without any specialization. By the same token, it isn't always the case that someone that works up through a specific industry will be able to manage a company within that industry.
Your statement would be true if and only if there are similar or the same features/aspects of work in those organization because similar rules can be applied (similar management style). If each organization has its own unique aspects to deal with, regardless how good a manager is, he or she will need to learn about the organization first. However, a good manager should be able to learn and adapt to the job faster than average.
We get it, Musk will blame the driver for not avoiding the collision, ...
I would completely agree without if the complaint is not from a rich Chinese in China. Why? Well, most (if not all) rich Chinese in China are crooked or spoiled brad in order to become rich. These people aren't stupid either because they know how to get/extract money out of others. If you don't know, car prices selling in China are around 3x times more expensive than in the U.S. (wages in general are much lower than the U.S. and the owner is 33). So I am not certain for whatever reason the guy claimed about the faulty is from the car.
Look, if you give me something for free, I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to ask for something in return (provided you disclose that you're collecting that data). But if I'm paying for it, then please just stop. I'm the customer, not the product.
If the product can be connected to a toy-controlling smart-phone app, which should be owned from the company, then there might be some sort ToS that requires you to click "I Agree" before you can use the app. Most people don't read that kind of thing anyway, so they may agree to let the company collect data. This is typical way of getting consent from consumers without them really know what they are doing.
For that matter, I feel like suing because the Joker was in the movie.
GP said "This wasn't a movie about the Joker." Also, if the trailer shows Joker but there is no Joker in the real show, then the claim could be valid because that is a real bait-and-switch.
Not enough. The H-1B program is suppose to be to fill positions for which an American cannot be found to do and these tech companies all claim that in a country of 300+ million people they can't find someone qualified.
Even though I do not disagree with H-1B abuse from many big companies or corporations, you exaggerated the number by way too far to make the situation looks worse in order to favor your argument. Out of 300+ millions, how many actually are qualified to work? Way less than 100 millions. Then if you talk about demographic that people are living within the work place, then it would be even less.
So given that I say that H-1B holders should be the highest compensated people at the company. This would have to include such things as base pay, bonuses, medical, dental, 401k, stock options, housing allowance, relocation allowance, vehicle/transportation allowance, etc.
I'm not sure you know that the prevailing wage is the "base" salary that cannot and must not included any other benefits. 401k, insurance, stock options, etc. are not eligible as parts of prevailing wage. If a company wants to offer those, then they have to be extra. Because of these as optional, it may be one of reasons why big companies/corporations want H-1B over Americans (so that they need to pay only salary because foreign workers don't expect extra benefits)...
Even though the idea (theory) is very interesting and looks promising because it is focused to only one aspect, I still think it is not practical and will be extremely difficult (and costly) to operate. Why? It is much easier to check up/force the cause (selling vehicles) than to patch the end (vehicle consumers). There is much smaller number to deal with. If the responsibility is pushed down to the consumers, what else do you think would happen? Who is keeping the records? How to deal with them especially when there is an issue? How many people would be involved in doing so? How much it cost to implement, install, train, etc., the system? Many things will happen in both advantages and disadvantages.
Could individuals cheat by flashing their EFI control modules etc before they have their test and then putting it back after, well yes but they can do that kinda stuff in places that do checks now anyway. The smallish number of individuals that cheat won't amount to much.
Again, in theory, you are thinking of the whole situation in a controlled environment. However, reality is more dynamic. You forgot that currently there is not much incentive to cheat, so small amount of cheaters won't have any impact. If the responsibility is pushed down to consumers, there will be all kind of cheats popping up and would spread out wider than it is now.
Anyway, the ultimate reason for doing this at manufacturer level may come down to how easy the situation could be controlled (by you know who).
That isn't the problem here. The problem is that after years and years of selling products (Avaya), along comes patent troll who discovers it. The problem is that it is too late. You can't come in long after the fact, when you should have been protecting your patents from the beginning. If you don't know they are infringing, then it isn't really impacting your business, and you haven't been harmed.
Actually, it is not too late at all. In this situation, it makes perfect sense for BB to wait until Avaya make money and sue. It is both to test whether their patents work and also to gain free money from doing nothing themselves (sue for damage that Avaya get from selling patent products). That is actually the way patent trolls are using and it is the loophole in patent laws.
No one should be overreacting on this subject. On TFA, the researcher already stated that weight may not really be the cause (just a possibility and may need further research); thus, it is still inconclusive.
But, Ronan warns, it is not yet clear whether an increased BMI is driving the effect. “It could be that the genes that are responsible for obesity could also be responsible for smaller brains, or it could be that if you have a brain change that could lead to overeating,” she said.
Another researcher also confirmed that the result could be inconclusive.
Claudia Metzler-Baddeley, from Cardiff University’s Brain Research Imaging Centre, said the research backs up previous suggestions that obesity and brain structure are linked. But, she added, “It is cross-sectional study - so it is not following people up over time. That is always a limiting factor. It doesn’t allow you to make any inferences about cause and effect.” What’s more, she says, self-reports of health and lifestyle factors are prone to inaccuracies, while the use of BMI also has drawbacks. “You can have a very high BMI just simply because of high muscle mass,” she said.
But as you point out, you're the only one still developing and maintaining a single application using it. Both Ruby and RoR were fads. Nice to see them continuing their steady decline to irrelevance.
First, I don't know why you are attacking me. I've been working with it because our company is using it. I'm not the "person" who made the decision to use it. Second, my company has several applications using it (internal use). RoR is best for small companies with small to medium database size. Last, the framework becomes fad (in opinion of many people like you) because many others didn't use it properly. They jumped on the band wagon right away, and as a results, they found out later that the framework does not fit to what they needed. However, the framework fits perfectly to my company's purpose. Fad or not is irrelevant to me.
Stop being a bitter person who lashes on others already.
I worked on a project around 2007 that used Ruby on Rails. That was my first experience with Ruby and my first experience with a real web product. I liked Ruby and Rails, but it was easy to get bitten by some of the abstractions. I remember the site bogged down really bad whenever we searched for a record in a large database table. The problem was that the database was hidden behind ActiveRecord, so it was easy to forget we were using a database at all. Writing a for loop to search for a record that matched some criteria felt natural, because our interface was with objects, not the underlying tables. However, behind the scenes, each iteration was a separate query. The result was thousands and thousands of queries, instead of just a single query with a simple WHERE clause. We were essentially doing in Ruby what we could have done much more efficiently in SQL. Once we realized the problem, we rewrote that kind of code so it used more or less raw SQL. The result was much faster, but we lost the readability of the abstraction. Everyone on the team was new to Ruby and Rails (grad students who shuffled in and out each semester), so it's possible that we were just doing things completely wrong. Still, it feels like it shouldn't have been that easy to shoot ourselves in the foot. Have things improved since then? How do you balance nice abstractions like ActiveRecord with performance? How do you make it clear to novices what's going on internally, so they can avoid the mistakes that we made?
I agree with what you said that the frame work makes things much easier to deal with database. As a result, one wouldn't know how to optimize it. If I remember correctly, they put in some optimization ways to deal with SQL (such as include, select, etc) starting in either version 1.2 or a little later (can't remember). What it does is to improve SQL in order to make 1 call instead of 100 calls for 100 records. However, it is extremely difficult to be as perfect as SQL language, so you would have to decide whether it is suitable to your project. I can say that it is still slow when dealing with huge database even though the time running SQL from the DB is short because the manipulation/process/display take the major part of the run time...
"Ruby on Rails" ? Is there a good reason for the name, or were you watching too many old western train movies?
Here has a discussion of the name in RoR's early time (2007). Also, it seems that many people do not even know what Ruby on Rails is. My company is still using it and I am the only person develop and maintain the application... Not a bad web frame work at all.
So no one actually reads TFA and check out the links??? I am surprise how TFA made a conclusion out of a totally different topic research which is the link cited in TFA.
TFA portion
Published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour by researchers from three US universities, the study involved the analysis of data collected through the nationwide General Social Survey that has asked US adults about their sexual behaviour almost every year since 1989.
Cited link in TFA
Changes in American Adults’ Reported Same-Sex Sexual Experiences and Attitudes, 1973–2014 ...
We examined change over time in the reported prevalence of men having sex with men and women having sex with women and acceptance of those behaviors in the nationally representative General Social Survey of U.S. adults (n’s = 28,161–33,728, ages 18–96 years), 1972–2014
It's the opposite actually. If your teeth are spaced apart you need flossing less. This is why young children don't really need to floss their baby teeth.
Actually the size of the gap does not matter as long as no food can get stuck inside the gap. If food gets stuck in there for a while, it will cause problems to both your teeth and gum (and you will feel it). You could try to get the food out using any method and the method does not need to be flossing. Thus, size of gap between teeth is not the reason to need or not need to floss.
Also, your second sentence is a fallacy and does not support your reasoning because that is not the main or only reason they do not really need to floss their baby teeth.
eh, not really. I am just interested to know if this is legal in the UK. It wouldn't be legal in the US.
When is mobile phone signal jamming considered the same as mobile phone signal blocking? Because one can't use a cell phone there, does not mean jamming and blocking are the same. Jamming in the U.S. is illegal, period. Blocking may be determined case-by-case. However, you simply oversimplify the issue and claim legality of both situations as the same...
Right now Pharmaceutical Company’s only seem to be interested in manufacturing medicine that will make the big bucks, like the Blue Pill, which really serves no purpose.
I would more incline to say Pharmaceutical companies nowadays are coming out with drugs that keep patients alive longer rather than to cure the disease. However, it may not sound so bad for those who are near the end of life and want to live a bit longer...
Kirby is HAL Labs. Pokemon is Gamefreak.
Not exactly. Kirby is owned by BOTH Nintendo & HAL Labs -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... -- and Pokemon is owned by Nintendo & Gamefreak & 2 others -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Of course its about the hardware or we'd all still be playing games on an Atari 2600.
Hmm... So those who like to play Galaga would have to keep Atari game system nowadays in order to play the game???
Shouldn't that be a "Russian Man"? A Russian stole technology for his mother country. The context is a bit different.
Actually, the title is correct. If you take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... you would see that he was nationalized to become a U.S. citizen in 2003; thus, he, at the time, was a citizen or Texas man.
Wrong! With less corporate tax, more money get spent on productive uses, and in a more efficient way than if government were to spend it, i.e. without the huge dead-weight loss of government, which has been estimated up to 30-40 cents per dollar, depending on the activity. So more jobs, higher standards of living, less deprivation, etc.
I disagree with what you said because it is too strong statement -- money from less corporate taxes would be spent in more productive/efficient way than government. It can go either way and is depended on how far you want to look at in the future. I agree that government spending is likely to be in a wrong direction, but that does not mean private/corporate spending is likely to go to the right direction. What have we been seeing how corporates spend their money so far? What is their business model? And what is "more efficient way" in your definition? Are you benefiting from the way they do their business (e.g. you are a CEO)?
Yeah I'm not getting these warnings.
You may not as long as you know the limit of how to play the game.
Until the pokemon comes out of hiding you can't tell where they are so trespassing to find them makes no sense.
Why would it make no sense? According to http://www.imore.com/pokemon-g... , you are notified by your phone that it is out. Some kids (or not bright people) may keep their eyes glued to the phone instead. As a result, trespassing could easily occur (get excited about the game and pay no attention on where they are going).
Then once they're out of hiding you tap to bring up the capture screen. There's no need to get closer to capture em.
You are correct. Again, some kids get excited, look at the phone, and play it right away instead of "moving away to a safe zone" to initiate the capturing.
I hope you would try to understand how others think too...
What's really needed is data where autopilot saved lives.
You are too optimistic. Besides, what you said has nothing to do with the topic (investigating for fault/bug). What you said is that Tesla should stop improving autopilot because it already saved some lives due to (whatever you think) collected data. I would say your post is a troll...