Okay, you still haven't responded to my request. "Please tell me how inability to budget and maintain a vehicle falls into that category." I fail to see how having bad spending habits equates to being mentally or emotionally unstable
Someone who is well adjusted is "mentally and emotionally stable." Please tell me how inability to budget and maintain a vehicle falls into that category.
Raj, can't talk to women (well at least not until last season).
Leonard, parent issues on a scale that are just weird. His mom is a robot essentially.
Do I need to even start on Sheldon?
Howard is maybe the most normal of them, maybe a pervert and crass at times; but that's not exactly abnormal behavior.
The women on the show are maybe the most well adjusted on the show. Exception is maybe Amy, but she knows what to do socially, she's just awkward. Which still fits into that oddball nerd stereotype. Bernadette is maybe the most well adjust and "normal" character on that show, with exception of maybe Penny.
To be fair, the classical example is a donkey choosing between water and hay (starvation and dying of thirst); but even that has some real world holes in it. It seems to me that Buridan's Principle only applies when there are three options. Do A, Do B, or Do nothing. When starving you can't do nothing, the option of death prevents that from being a truly viable option. Which is incredibly unlike the train situation where the driver can easily just wait. The author of that paper imposes an artificial condition on the situation that he must do it in some span of time. But the condition is out of context and unable to be acted upon through any sort of reasoning.
But a middle aged woman can produce more offspring. Yes the productivity may be reduced for a few years, but will double the productivity.
It's a very dangerous slippery slope when you start trying to value human lives. I think the correct calculation is, which subject has the lowest chance of survival if the robot executes no action against that subject.
You know Isaac Asimov made those laws and wrote books to show how and why they wouldn't work. That was the whole point of I, Robot was the first law. The robots through inaction were allowing humans to kill themselves. So, they put everyone under house arrest because, if they could control the humans' actions, then the humans wouldn't get killed.
You don't get to choose the definition being used though. You can't argue against someone's point by substituting another definition of the word. You prove this point yourself when you bring up the definition for investment meaning to clothe or wrap. Obviously the usage cited in my comment was the intended definition. You don't offer "investment in the industry" for a non-monetary reward. You do so for profit.
This is pretty much why I've never supported a KS campaign. I give you money to make you rich, and I get is the product that made you rich. I get no stake in your company or product. For games it's, "oh look, I got a shiny space ship that will never get destroyed completely." Yay... It's great and all, if the product never really takes off, but I get no proportional reward for when it's a wild success. A success which I contributed to.
The exception to this are the KS campaigns that are purely for say a non-profit reason. Like a documentary on cocaine use in city mayors. There's a general notion of doing the public a service, no matter if the creator becomes wildly famous.
Horrible example. If the person has no experience in game development or even software development then he doesn't deserve to get funded. He would have no clue as to what is a reasonable expectation of the cost and time that would be needed to go into the game's development. I would be entirely wary of his ability to also properly vet the developers he hopes to hire to create such a game.
Oxford Dictionaries doesn't know what American English is. The Uk/World version says: "The action or process of investing money for profit:"
Merriam-Webster says: "the outlay of money usually for income or profit : capital outlay"
Wiktionary get's to the heart of the matter in it's second definition. "(finance) A placement of capital in expectation of deriving income or profit from its use."
And Dictionary.com probably gives the best explanation: "the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value."
If you are giving money to a KS campaign for some non-monetary reward, you are not gaining any profit.
Can't believe I have to defend this...but... 2. Is a true statement. Abortion comes from the word abortio and aborior which both have the meaning of miscarriage. And "abortion" as people refer to in pro-choice arguments, etc is an induced abortion, i.e. an induced miscarriage.
Slashdot Mirror
The American Midwest is far away and hostile?
Okay, you still haven't responded to my request. "Please tell me how inability to budget and maintain a vehicle falls into that category." I fail to see how having bad spending habits equates to being mentally or emotionally unstable
Only the people that /.'ers don't seem to trust anymore would be able to even get close to accurately measuring such things.
Someone who is well adjusted is "mentally and emotionally stable." Please tell me how inability to budget and maintain a vehicle falls into that category.
Raj, can't talk to women (well at least not until last season).
Leonard, parent issues on a scale that are just weird. His mom is a robot essentially.
Do I need to even start on Sheldon?
Howard is maybe the most normal of them, maybe a pervert and crass at times; but that's not exactly abnormal behavior.
The women on the show are maybe the most well adjusted on the show. Exception is maybe Amy, but she knows what to do socially, she's just awkward. Which still fits into that oddball nerd stereotype. Bernadette is maybe the most well adjust and "normal" character on that show, with exception of maybe Penny.
Convert energy into hydrogen what?
6 apostrophe s
If you have Verizon or like to switch, they're supposedly giving away 6's with a two year contract if you trade in your old iPhone.
To be fair, the classical example is a donkey choosing between water and hay (starvation and dying of thirst); but even that has some real world holes in it. It seems to me that Buridan's Principle only applies when there are three options. Do A, Do B, or Do nothing. When starving you can't do nothing, the option of death prevents that from being a truly viable option. Which is incredibly unlike the train situation where the driver can easily just wait. The author of that paper imposes an artificial condition on the situation that he must do it in some span of time. But the condition is out of context and unable to be acted upon through any sort of reasoning.
So solution isn't to give STEM degrees better courses for writing?
Well duh. But you have to take multiple course to get a BS in Computer Science
Is WoW still an MMO if only ten people play it?
Hitler? Is that you?
Do you really think a donkey will starve to death because you place two bales of hay equidistant from the donkey?
But a middle aged woman can produce more offspring. Yes the productivity may be reduced for a few years, but will double the productivity.
It's a very dangerous slippery slope when you start trying to value human lives. I think the correct calculation is, which subject has the lowest chance of survival if the robot executes no action against that subject.
You know Isaac Asimov made those laws and wrote books to show how and why they wouldn't work. That was the whole point of I, Robot was the first law. The robots through inaction were allowing humans to kill themselves. So, they put everyone under house arrest because, if they could control the humans' actions, then the humans wouldn't get killed.
BTW- that first definition from wiktionary is HORRIBLE. A noun can't be an act of something. Nouns aren't actions.
You don't get to choose the definition being used though. You can't argue against someone's point by substituting another definition of the word. You prove this point yourself when you bring up the definition for investment meaning to clothe or wrap. Obviously the usage cited in my comment was the intended definition. You don't offer "investment in the industry" for a non-monetary reward. You do so for profit.
This is pretty much why I've never supported a KS campaign. I give you money to make you rich, and I get is the product that made you rich. I get no stake in your company or product. For games it's, "oh look, I got a shiny space ship that will never get destroyed completely." Yay... It's great and all, if the product never really takes off, but I get no proportional reward for when it's a wild success. A success which I contributed to.
The exception to this are the KS campaigns that are purely for say a non-profit reason. Like a documentary on cocaine use in city mayors. There's a general notion of doing the public a service, no matter if the creator becomes wildly famous.
Horrible example. If the person has no experience in game development or even software development then he doesn't deserve to get funded. He would have no clue as to what is a reasonable expectation of the cost and time that would be needed to go into the game's development. I would be entirely wary of his ability to also properly vet the developers he hopes to hire to create such a game.
Too much a coward to post with a s/n.
you need to use tags like br / and p & /p
Oxford Dictionaries doesn't know what American English is.
The Uk/World version says: "The action or process of investing money for profit:"
Merriam-Webster says:
"the outlay of money usually for income or profit : capital outlay"
Wiktionary get's to the heart of the matter in it's second definition.
"(finance) A placement of capital in expectation of deriving income or profit from its use."
And Dictionary.com probably gives the best explanation:
"the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value."
If you are giving money to a KS campaign for some non-monetary reward, you are not gaining any profit.
Can't believe I have to defend this...but...
2. Is a true statement. Abortion comes from the word abortio and aborior which both have the meaning of miscarriage. And "abortion" as people refer to in pro-choice arguments, etc is an induced abortion, i.e. an induced miscarriage.
It's like wading through a hipster party. "Windoooowss baaaaddd! HAR HAR!!!"