Or an American mailing address? Netflix is available in the US, Canada, Latin America, United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland. However, it's streaming-only everywhere except the US. Granted, I imagine their US subscription base dwarfs all the other countries combined at the moment, but putting discs in the mail is an American offering, and is not the general growth area of their business.
I was pretty shocked at how high the (uncited) statistics were in the summary, of 16.3% having used alcohol or drugs, with "half them [sic] high on marijuana". I decided to do a very small amount of poking around myself, and came across http://www.ots.ca.gov/OTS_and_Traffic_Safety/Report_Card.asp. It makes these two comments:
The first-ever “National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers”, conducted by NHTSA, found that 16.3 percent of nighttime drivers were drug-positive, with marijuana (THC) at (8.6 percent) being the most commonly detected drug.
and
In fall 2010, six cities in California (Anaheim, Bakersfield, Eureka, Fresno, San Rafael, and Torrance) conducted nighttime weekend “voluntary” roadside surveys primarily to gather data on marijuana use among nighttime drivers. The results were that 8.4 percent of the drivers providing oral fluid were positive for marijuana and 7.6 percent of the breath tested drivers tested positive for some amount of alcohol.
These are two different surveys, but the second one shows a slightly different picture than "half them high on marijuana". 8.4% in this study showed some presence of marijuana in their saliva. From the summary, I gather that all that really means is that 8.4% had smoked pot some time in the last couple weeks. 7.6% had had some amount of alcohol still detectable in their breath, although that includes people with a trace amount, well under the legal limit. So, I'm not going to adjust my general expectations of other drivers to think that one in every 6 drivers at night is drunk and/or high.
Good points, but you'll notice in the summary that this guy says he was doing Java and C# during the 16 years at his last job. So from what we know, he has been keeping more or less with the bulk of the job market.
Are we getting a start on next weeks complaints from the Tea Party vote suppression brigade? 'Oh, theres a bus of voters that aren't the same color as us.' 'Oh theres a bus of votes who don't speak english.' I bet when the bus of voters from the church comes, and their minister tells them vote for the anti-christ or go to hell, the tea party people aren't going to be complaining. I understand that this statement was put in to make people believe that no one except scalpers are buying the iPad, but that is simply not true no matter how much one wants it to be true. Facts are not based on personal beliefs. I am sure if you went into any major shop many of the people purchasing would be visitors. That is what NYC run.
Did you read the article? No of course not, how naive of me. That was the point of the comment in the article. They even interviewed some of them to show that, for example, two of the purchaers were a father and son from Brazil.
Of those surveyed, one in five iPhone users said that their main bank account is almost always overdrawn. In comparison, almost half of Android and Blackberry users said they were never overdrawn.
So from this comment, I can deduce the following:
- ~80% of iPhone users' bank accounts are usually in the black, and
- ~50% of Android/Blackberry users' bank accounts are always in the black.
In other news, sometimes men prefer oranges to grapefruit, whereas often women are known to not prefer grapefruit to oranges.
I pay $15/month for 250MB on my iPad. I bought the 3G original iPad not so much because it's "3G", but because it's "GPS", which I use often. I'm out and about quite a lot with it, and I also use the data plan regularly. It's not enough data for streaming Netflix for my kids, but I check email, weather, download a book, or whatever with it.
If I want to tether the iPad to my iPhone, I can, but I have to set it up each time. When I just want to use the iPad for a minute, $15/month is something I've been so far willing to pay. If I'm using the iPad for data-intensive tasks and I'm out and about, I'll then tether it to my phone.
That's "progress" for you. Nothing's more important than real estate developers, and the free market rules all. I moved to CA for 9 years, and even in that time I was sad to see what was happening. I still think the Bay area is better off than San Diego and Orange Counties at least. I miss a lot about California, but overall I'm glad to be gone.
Yes, it is 'only' a category one hurricane. That is going to cover ALL of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Massachusettes, and parts of Virginia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine with at least tropical storm force winds.
Phew. Lucky for us in Canada it sounds as though it knows to stop at the border!
MIT, the University of Porto in Portugal, Harvard University, Caltech, and Technical University of Munich.
That's straight from the article. Wouldn't it have been easier to just copy that than for some inexplicable reason dumb it down to "other universities in Europe", like it's only the American universities that matter?
Maybe it was strategic genius, as the main thing that got me clicking through to the article was wondering which European universities were involved in this research.
This isn't really a solution, but I want to be able to tell my mobile phone (or provider) that I only want certain calls to ring through, or that I'm automatically rejecting certain calls. This is sort of like how I mark some emails as spam. I want to be able to tell my iPhone that I don't want Rogers to allow 888-555-1212 through. You know, that number that calls you every day, and there's just a click on the other end of the phone when you answer.
There would be bonus points given to this process if the numbers were then passed to a centralized database, where they were ranked by number of callers blocking, number of calls blocked, etc. Then the FTC/CRTC/whomever would investigate the worst (potential) offenders, and move down the list.
Yeah, been there done that with SageTV. Then we moved to HD and all the channels were encrypted. I figured out that I was paying about $15 per hour of TV actually watched, and dumped my satellite subscription.
It's still an awful lot of time and hassle just to watch TV. For me, I think it was as much about the hobby of setting up a DVR than it was about actually watching TV.
Don't forget the cost of spending your life staring at a screen while people yell at you to buy things you don't need. You're paying for that privilege, too. iTunes (and torrents, for that matter) come without ads. With cable, you're paying a company to waste your life away staring at ads. That's the biggest cost, in my opinion.
The internet is under US control because the US invented it. Geez. If other countries don't like the fact that the US controls DNS, they should invent their own internet. This is sort of like how the Europeans are creating Galileo as they don't like the US control of GPS. Good for them.
I'm speaking as a non-American, but it seems to me that it's the Americans' right to keep control of DNS, as it's theirs.
Me personally I'm OK with global warming, of course I'm heavily invested in harbor and beach front property on the northern coast of Canada, or at least it will be beach front when sea level rises 9-10 meters.
I always like to "look on the bright side of life".
I keep telling my wife we need to buy up James Bay waterfront property... not that it's available.
Sorry, my bad for assuming that everyone else on/. is 'merkin. Note that as a Canadian, I feel the need to apologize for my previous post. We're like that.
I think your point about compartmentalizing is salient. As humans, we are forced to deal with inconsistencies in most areas of our lives. We know exercise is good for us but we watch TV after supper anyway. Whatever. I'm sure all of us could find inconsistencies in our beliefs, or between our beliefs and actions, if we're honest with ourselves.
Go read Genesis 3. It explains how humans were originally created to live forever, without disease. After they sinned, God cursed them. This is where women's painful labour, misogyny, hard and painful toil for food, and death come from. The Christian viewpoint (unrelated to creationism) is that the human condition is a result of the Fall of Man (sin), not the way God originally created man.
Most creationists don't argue the concept of microevolution. My "humans evolving from ooze" comment was reflecting the fact that while (I'm generalizing) creationists may not have a problem with the concept of genetic mutation, they're going to have a problem with those processes turning one basic organism (ooze) into another (human).
For an anecdote, I'm a Christian, educated through primary and high school in private Christian schools. I was taught young-earth creationism all through school. I went on to get an engineering degree, and IIRC a much higher percentage than usual of my classmates went on to university. Now that I'm older and have had more of a chance to think for myself, I'm no longer a creationist, but I'm still a Christian.
FWIW, I've done a decent amount of personal research and reading into genetic algorithms in computer science, and that particular field of study has done absolutely nothing to make me consider the validity of the theory of evolution in the natural world. Reading research into biology, geology, and other sciences wrestling with the actual questions of evolution has had a profound influence on my thinking. Genetic algoritthms in computer science are "merely" applying a theoretical way of thinking to applying problems in mathematics and computer science. It would be perfectly possible to use these methods whether or not in reality "people evolved from ooze".
If you think a creationist is going to be scared of genetic algorithms, then you're fighting the boogeyman. You've made some serious leaps of logic that defy reality. A person can easily have a hard time believing that "humans evolved from ooze", yet still be able to easily comprehend and work with genetic algorthms. Thinking otherwise is so far removed from any reality that I've ever experienced, that it's just preposterous.
Even the most hardcore creationist would be likely to accept microevolution. That being said, it doesn't seem likely that a creationist would choose this particular field.
Slashdot Mirror
Or an American mailing address? Netflix is available in the US, Canada, Latin America, United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland. However, it's streaming-only everywhere except the US. Granted, I imagine their US subscription base dwarfs all the other countries combined at the moment, but putting discs in the mail is an American offering, and is not the general growth area of their business.
The first-ever “National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers”, conducted by NHTSA, found that 16.3 percent of nighttime drivers were drug-positive, with marijuana (THC) at (8.6 percent) being the most commonly detected drug.
and
In fall 2010, six cities in California (Anaheim, Bakersfield, Eureka, Fresno, San Rafael, and Torrance) conducted nighttime weekend “voluntary” roadside surveys primarily to gather data on marijuana use among nighttime drivers. The results were that 8.4 percent of the drivers providing oral fluid were positive for marijuana and 7.6 percent of the breath tested drivers tested positive for some amount of alcohol.
These are two different surveys, but the second one shows a slightly different picture than "half them high on marijuana". 8.4% in this study showed some presence of marijuana in their saliva. From the summary, I gather that all that really means is that 8.4% had smoked pot some time in the last couple weeks. 7.6% had had some amount of alcohol still detectable in their breath, although that includes people with a trace amount, well under the legal limit. So, I'm not going to adjust my general expectations of other drivers to think that one in every 6 drivers at night is drunk and/or high.
Good points, but you'll notice in the summary that this guy says he was doing Java and C# during the 16 years at his last job. So from what we know, he has been keeping more or less with the bulk of the job market.
Are we getting a start on next weeks complaints from the Tea Party vote suppression brigade? 'Oh, theres a bus of voters that aren't the same color as us.' 'Oh theres a bus of votes who don't speak english.' I bet when the bus of voters from the church comes, and their minister tells them vote for the anti-christ or go to hell, the tea party people aren't going to be complaining. I understand that this statement was put in to make people believe that no one except scalpers are buying the iPad, but that is simply not true no matter how much one wants it to be true. Facts are not based on personal beliefs. I am sure if you went into any major shop many of the people purchasing would be visitors. That is what NYC run.
Did you read the article? No of course not, how naive of me. That was the point of the comment in the article. They even interviewed some of them to show that, for example, two of the purchaers were a father and son from Brazil.
Of those surveyed, one in five iPhone users said that their main bank account is almost always overdrawn. In comparison, almost half of Android and Blackberry users said they were never overdrawn.
So from this comment, I can deduce the following:
In other news, sometimes men prefer oranges to grapefruit, whereas often women are known to not prefer grapefruit to oranges.
I pay $15/month for 250MB on my iPad. I bought the 3G original iPad not so much because it's "3G", but because it's "GPS", which I use often. I'm out and about quite a lot with it, and I also use the data plan regularly. It's not enough data for streaming Netflix for my kids, but I check email, weather, download a book, or whatever with it.
If I want to tether the iPad to my iPhone, I can, but I have to set it up each time. When I just want to use the iPad for a minute, $15/month is something I've been so far willing to pay. If I'm using the iPad for data-intensive tasks and I'm out and about, I'll then tether it to my phone.
MY PEN!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy0UpRIncYM
That's "progress" for you. Nothing's more important than real estate developers, and the free market rules all. I moved to CA for 9 years, and even in that time I was sad to see what was happening. I still think the Bay area is better off than San Diego and Orange Counties at least. I miss a lot about California, but overall I'm glad to be gone.
Yes, it is 'only' a category one hurricane. That is going to cover ALL of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Massachusettes, and parts of Virginia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine with at least tropical storm force winds.
Phew. Lucky for us in Canada it sounds as though it knows to stop at the border!
How about this:
MIT, the University of Porto in Portugal, Harvard University, Caltech, and Technical University of Munich.
That's straight from the article. Wouldn't it have been easier to just copy that than for some inexplicable reason dumb it down to "other universities in Europe", like it's only the American universities that matter?
Maybe it was strategic genius, as the main thing that got me clicking through to the article was wondering which European universities were involved in this research.
I guess I could move to a more open mobile phone O/S, but then the communists would have won, and we can't have that.
This isn't really a solution, but I want to be able to tell my mobile phone (or provider) that I only want certain calls to ring through, or that I'm automatically rejecting certain calls. This is sort of like how I mark some emails as spam. I want to be able to tell my iPhone that I don't want Rogers to allow 888-555-1212 through. You know, that number that calls you every day, and there's just a click on the other end of the phone when you answer.
There would be bonus points given to this process if the numbers were then passed to a centralized database, where they were ranked by number of callers blocking, number of calls blocked, etc. Then the FTC/CRTC/whomever would investigate the worst (potential) offenders, and move down the list.
Yeah, been there done that with SageTV. Then we moved to HD and all the channels were encrypted. I figured out that I was paying about $15 per hour of TV actually watched, and dumped my satellite subscription.
It's still an awful lot of time and hassle just to watch TV. For me, I think it was as much about the hobby of setting up a DVR than it was about actually watching TV.
Don't forget the cost of spending your life staring at a screen while people yell at you to buy things you don't need. You're paying for that privilege, too. iTunes (and torrents, for that matter) come without ads. With cable, you're paying a company to waste your life away staring at ads. That's the biggest cost, in my opinion.
The internet is under US control because the US invented it. Geez. If other countries don't like the fact that the US controls DNS, they should invent their own internet. This is sort of like how the Europeans are creating Galileo as they don't like the US control of GPS. Good for them.
I'm speaking as a non-American, but it seems to me that it's the Americans' right to keep control of DNS, as it's theirs.
Me personally I'm OK with global warming, of course I'm heavily invested in harbor and beach front property on the northern coast of Canada, or at least it will be beach front when sea level rises 9-10 meters.
I always like to "look on the bright side of life".
I keep telling my wife we need to buy up James Bay waterfront property ... not that it's available.
Sorry, my bad for assuming that everyone else on /. is 'merkin. Note that as a Canadian, I feel the need to apologize for my previous post. We're like that.
I think your point about compartmentalizing is salient. As humans, we are forced to deal with inconsistencies in most areas of our lives. We know exercise is good for us but we watch TV after supper anyway. Whatever. I'm sure all of us could find inconsistencies in our beliefs, or between our beliefs and actions, if we're honest with ourselves.
You should take them to Europe so they can see churches full of human bones. They might like that even more.
Go read Genesis 3. It explains how humans were originally created to live forever, without disease. After they sinned, God cursed them. This is where women's painful labour, misogyny, hard and painful toil for food, and death come from. The Christian viewpoint (unrelated to creationism) is that the human condition is a result of the Fall of Man (sin), not the way God originally created man.
Most creationists don't argue the concept of microevolution. My "humans evolving from ooze" comment was reflecting the fact that while (I'm generalizing) creationists may not have a problem with the concept of genetic mutation, they're going to have a problem with those processes turning one basic organism (ooze) into another (human).
For an anecdote, I'm a Christian, educated through primary and high school in private Christian schools. I was taught young-earth creationism all through school. I went on to get an engineering degree, and IIRC a much higher percentage than usual of my classmates went on to university. Now that I'm older and have had more of a chance to think for myself, I'm no longer a creationist, but I'm still a Christian.
FWIW, I've done a decent amount of personal research and reading into genetic algorithms in computer science, and that particular field of study has done absolutely nothing to make me consider the validity of the theory of evolution in the natural world. Reading research into biology, geology, and other sciences wrestling with the actual questions of evolution has had a profound influence on my thinking. Genetic algoritthms in computer science are "merely" applying a theoretical way of thinking to applying problems in mathematics and computer science. It would be perfectly possible to use these methods whether or not in reality "people evolved from ooze".
Haha, nice one. That made my hour.
If you think a creationist is going to be scared of genetic algorithms, then you're fighting the boogeyman. You've made some serious leaps of logic that defy reality. A person can easily have a hard time believing that "humans evolved from ooze", yet still be able to easily comprehend and work with genetic algorthms. Thinking otherwise is so far removed from any reality that I've ever experienced, that it's just preposterous.
Even the most hardcore creationist would be likely to accept microevolution. That being said, it doesn't seem likely that a creationist would choose this particular field.
It sounds like you want a PlayBook in your dash.