I don't expect most of those people learning how to code to actually become professional programmers. But as they will be using and working with software a lot, it would be useful for them to have an idea of how code is compiled and executed by the processor.
Like it's good to understand why a combustion engine needs fuel and why the different types of fuel matter. We don't all have to be mechanics, that stuff changes anyway, but the basics are useful.
They've proven that they don't care about the US constitution or any other law, why would they care about a treaty? The other human rights treaties are also largely ignore whenever countries feel like it.
The difference is that people trust natural selection to weed out the mistakes. They don't trust human intelligence to find all the possible problems. So they think of a human messing around as a bigger risk than natural processes messing around. Because some people think everything in nature can be trusted and is 100% safe...
Although I would not say 'true'. Science just provides understanding, we can't 'know' anything for sure. I don't think saying 'true' or talking about 'facts' achieves the desired effect of giving scientific understanding the status it deserves. Instead people confuse it for absolute knowledge (like religions claims) and think of a case where a scientist said they were sure and had 'facts', but were later proven wrong. Then they think you're trying to fool them.
It's about the amount of sun power that's not blocked. If SPF 50 blocks 98% and SPF 100 blocks 99%. Then the remaining sun power that hits you with SPF 50 is 2% and with SPF 100 it's 1%. So you accurately get double the protection with double the SPF.
Maybe the cream only lasts for a few hours, which is why they have dispensers everywhere, so you can restore your protection regularly.
What is this idea that we can only work on the biggest problem? Yes there are bigger problems, should we all move to Syria to solve that problem?
Ocean debris is a huge problem, it kills lots of animals suffering a painful and unnecessary death.
Even more so, this project can pay for itself, the plastic can be sold for recycling.
If you're worried about people wasting their time, go to a weapons manufacturer or a church, don't bs people who are actually trying to make the world a better place.
And they have made many improvements to cancer treatments. Maybe your interpretation of science making a small incremental step is flawed. Although this sounds like a pretty big step to me. The next step would be to do it in a live test subject.
Maybe scientists make their titles too long when they don't yet really understand what they are talking about. Which is why you are doing research on it, when they do fully understand the're able to decide on a better title. This also helps others to read the article more easily.
One of the less obvious ways governments deal with pesky media is to get them fired. A law like this prevents those fired journalists to start their own news organisation so they can report the actual news, instead of just the party line.
Legislation much worse already has, it's done by giving it a nice sounding name. Like the patriot act is totally against the constitution. And the armed public is usually very much against things like free speech. Nazi Germany had plenty of militia's like the US has now, they where the first to start harassing Jews.
Whom did Snowden help? Actually almost everything he revealed was about how western countries spy on their own, innocent, population. How the US pretty much stole money from it's allies by spying on their negotiators so they would get a better trade deal. How terrorists are totally paranoid about their security, so they use their own software, leaving these mass surveillance strategies almost useless against them. And thus how the benefits of the revealed programs have almost only been to steal money from allies or keep normal citizens silenced if they try to speak out.
He was not hailed as a hero because idiots like you are happy to accept any lies proven war criminals tell you as truth.
Apparently if the government is criminal it tries to protect criminals instead of trying to prosecute them. Pretty much like in the US where Snowden revealed how much of the government are criminals, but instead of prosecuting those people they are allowed to attack Snowden, hoping people will ignore the actual crimes.
Even though I think DMCA should not exist at all, maybe we can curb the damage a bit.
Make it so DMCA's only apply to video's created after the claim was submitted (taking the release of the IP would require actual work).
So they are spending almost three times as much on bankers to keep their money safe than on the education of students!
Also 6% seems a very high price to manage money. Where they getting a return on investment of 12%?
Or is this the old boys club where they are shoving student's money around to justify higher wages for themselves?
"Because you interrupted a thread discussing"
nope I responded to this:
"Ah no.. the problem is the ignorant masses propagating the fallacious idea that science and religious faith are incompatible"
"Your approach is counterproductive"
I think we can only make progress proportional to how non-religious those parents are. Maybe I piss them off, but trying to trick them into accepting science is not going to work. Even if I make lots of progress there, the next scientific discovery that threatens their religion leads to a much greater backlash (proportional to the strength of their beliefs).
If they choose the failure of religion http://www.skeptic.com/reading... over the success of science then that's their mistake. But since I think they are in conflict with each other I'm not going to pretend otherwise so I can temporarily get a few people to tolerate science.
I know I'm ambitious, but every bit of progress is valuable, it's not a big bang idea where someone has to lose faith completely.
What self-important atheists do that? Do you consider me one? Because I don't just accept flat religious assertions and actually try to take power away from religion so it'll do less damage? That's something some religious have been extremely frustrated about, calling it the 'new atheist'.
It seems to me religious are becoming more anti-science because they realize it makes their religion look more and more useless.
Actually the masses are buying the religious claims that they are compatible, including scientific institutions.
I agree they are compatible so long as you're willing to pretend your religion is bullshit when your science is concerned. But if you understand how the world really works, you might see the religious explanations for the iron age bullshit they are.
Remember it's easy to be wrong. Scientists have to jump through all kinds of hoops, like double blind studies, because they know they can't be trusted to not fool themselves. The point of the scientific method is to prevent fooling yourself and every technique that reliably leads to a correct understanding of the world has been accepted into science.
So what have you done to prevent fooling yourself?
Plenty of US states are easily big enough to organize this. Bigger than most european countries. A factor is you've got christians holding everyone back because they are afraid the kids might learn something that will make them question their faith (science).
The welfare state is not a goal of itself, or should not be. This looks like the time to start breaking down the welfare state, if this is what is needed to keep it working.
If you're wearing a condom are you not protected from these diseases. I think a disease detector would be more efficient if it's like the HIV detector that works like a pregnancy detector (only with blood). The colored condoms might cause people to want a certain disease (even though they can already get colored condoms).
They asked how the people felt about watching the video's? They're funny and cute, of course the people felt good, you can't just assume that makes them healthier.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't expect most of those people learning how to code to actually become professional programmers. But as they will be using and working with software a lot, it would be useful for them to have an idea of how code is compiled and executed by the processor. Like it's good to understand why a combustion engine needs fuel and why the different types of fuel matter. We don't all have to be mechanics, that stuff changes anyway, but the basics are useful.
Maybe it will happen if the US ever get their democracy back.
They've proven that they don't care about the US constitution or any other law, why would they care about a treaty? The other human rights treaties are also largely ignore whenever countries feel like it.
The difference is that people trust natural selection to weed out the mistakes. They don't trust human intelligence to find all the possible problems. So they think of a human messing around as a bigger risk than natural processes messing around. Because some people think everything in nature can be trusted and is 100% safe...
Although I would not say 'true'. Science just provides understanding, we can't 'know' anything for sure. I don't think saying 'true' or talking about 'facts' achieves the desired effect of giving scientific understanding the status it deserves. Instead people confuse it for absolute knowledge (like religions claims) and think of a case where a scientist said they were sure and had 'facts', but were later proven wrong. Then they think you're trying to fool them.
It's about the amount of sun power that's not blocked. If SPF 50 blocks 98% and SPF 100 blocks 99%. Then the remaining sun power that hits you with SPF 50 is 2% and with SPF 100 it's 1%. So you accurately get double the protection with double the SPF. Maybe the cream only lasts for a few hours, which is why they have dispensers everywhere, so you can restore your protection regularly.
What is this idea that we can only work on the biggest problem? Yes there are bigger problems, should we all move to Syria to solve that problem?
Ocean debris is a huge problem, it kills lots of animals suffering a painful and unnecessary death.
Even more so, this project can pay for itself, the plastic can be sold for recycling.
If you're worried about people wasting their time, go to a weapons manufacturer or a church, don't bs people who are actually trying to make the world a better place.
Sometimes it can do good...
And they have made many improvements to cancer treatments. Maybe your interpretation of science making a small incremental step is flawed. Although this sounds like a pretty big step to me. The next step would be to do it in a live test subject.
Good one, I had another idea for the causation of these numbers, but yours seems better.
Maybe scientists make their titles too long when they don't yet really understand what they are talking about. Which is why you are doing research on it, when they do fully understand the're able to decide on a better title. This also helps others to read the article more easily.
One of the less obvious ways governments deal with pesky media is to get them fired. A law like this prevents those fired journalists to start their own news organisation so they can report the actual news, instead of just the party line.
Legislation much worse already has, it's done by giving it a nice sounding name. Like the patriot act is totally against the constitution. And the armed public is usually very much against things like free speech. Nazi Germany had plenty of militia's like the US has now, they where the first to start harassing Jews.
Whom did Snowden help? Actually almost everything he revealed was about how western countries spy on their own, innocent, population. How the US pretty much stole money from it's allies by spying on their negotiators so they would get a better trade deal. How terrorists are totally paranoid about their security, so they use their own software, leaving these mass surveillance strategies almost useless against them. And thus how the benefits of the revealed programs have almost only been to steal money from allies or keep normal citizens silenced if they try to speak out.
He was not hailed as a hero because idiots like you are happy to accept any lies proven war criminals tell you as truth.
Apparently if the government is criminal it tries to protect criminals instead of trying to prosecute them. Pretty much like in the US where Snowden revealed how much of the government are criminals, but instead of prosecuting those people they are allowed to attack Snowden, hoping people will ignore the actual crimes.
Even though I think DMCA should not exist at all, maybe we can curb the damage a bit.
Make it so DMCA's only apply to video's created after the claim was submitted (taking the release of the IP would require actual work).
So they are spending almost three times as much on bankers to keep their money safe than on the education of students!
Also 6% seems a very high price to manage money. Where they getting a return on investment of 12%?
Or is this the old boys club where they are shoving student's money around to justify higher wages for themselves?
"Because you interrupted a thread discussing"
nope I responded to this:
"Ah no.. the problem is the ignorant masses propagating the fallacious idea that science and religious faith are incompatible"
"Your approach is counterproductive"
I think we can only make progress proportional to how non-religious those parents are. Maybe I piss them off, but trying to trick them into accepting science is not going to work. Even if I make lots of progress there, the next scientific discovery that threatens their religion leads to a much greater backlash (proportional to the strength of their beliefs).
If they choose the failure of religion http://www.skeptic.com/reading... over the success of science then that's their mistake. But since I think they are in conflict with each other I'm not going to pretend otherwise so I can temporarily get a few people to tolerate science.
I know I'm ambitious, but every bit of progress is valuable, it's not a big bang idea where someone has to lose faith completely.
What self-important atheists do that? Do you consider me one? Because I don't just accept flat religious assertions and actually try to take power away from religion so it'll do less damage? That's something some religious have been extremely frustrated about, calling it the 'new atheist'.
It seems to me religious are becoming more anti-science because they realize it makes their religion look more and more useless.
I'm hoping it'll
- Make good use of DX12
- Have a stable and performing Windows 10
- Have the new Intel processor
- Be super quiet
Actually the masses are buying the religious claims that they are compatible, including scientific institutions.
I agree they are compatible so long as you're willing to pretend your religion is bullshit when your science is concerned. But if you understand how the world really works, you might see the religious explanations for the iron age bullshit they are.
Remember it's easy to be wrong. Scientists have to jump through all kinds of hoops, like double blind studies, because they know they can't be trusted to not fool themselves. The point of the scientific method is to prevent fooling yourself and every technique that reliably leads to a correct understanding of the world has been accepted into science.
So what have you done to prevent fooling yourself?
Plenty of US states are easily big enough to organize this. Bigger than most european countries. A factor is you've got christians holding everyone back because they are afraid the kids might learn something that will make them question their faith (science).
The welfare state is not a goal of itself, or should not be. This looks like the time to start breaking down the welfare state, if this is what is needed to keep it working.
Of how broken this system is. Wish I had mod point to upp some of the responses here.
If you're wearing a condom are you not protected from these diseases. I think a disease detector would be more efficient if it's like the HIV detector that works like a pregnancy detector (only with blood). The colored condoms might cause people to want a certain disease (even though they can already get colored condoms).
They asked how the people felt about watching the video's? They're funny and cute, of course the people felt good, you can't just assume that makes them healthier.