Have someone be able to throw a challenge flag, the one who's wrong forfeits participation in the following two debates. Professional sports make this sort of thing work, right?
Because it is *partly* moral failing. Aside from some rare medical conditions, an obese person is not a *completely* innocent victim. These critics are people who a) are giving encouragement but not in a constructive way and/or b) are self-centredly showing off their own moral strength for having avoided the temptation.
But no-one has infinite strength of character. Ironically Jesus once said something about hypocrisy when criticizing others.
I don't understand why that's too complicated for so many people.
I think very few people genuinely believe that it's "all moral failing", just that some people push back against the people unwilling to accept that, with a few exceptions, it is partly moral failling.
If it's designed to be deciphered easily, it won't be too hard. Include a child's picture book, progressively more difficult textbooks, dictionaries, a recent version of Wikipedia, etc.
Even if it's turns out it's not as easy as it sounds, as long as the medium has longevity, future archaeologists can spend decades or centuries on it if they have to.
We have data "files" from thousands of years ago in unknown languages, and while only specialists are in a position to even attempt to decipher it, there are experts passionately trying their best, and the world will be excited if (when) they succeed.
Take a moment to think about how much effort goes into mate selection. In terms of evolutionary biology, *everything* is about producing optimal offspring.
The problem is that the brain understands sarcasm because language is normally interpreted with a huge amount of explicit context and previously acquired knowledge. All of that context and real-world knowledge is (or at least seems to be) accessible when the language processing algorithm is inferring what a particular statement means.
Once we give the computer a life-time of human memories, it will process language much better.
The problem (or at least one of them) is that there is a good idea buried under a bad idea.
Trying to make every child into a professional programmer, on the assumption that programming will in the future be the equivalent of unskilled labour today, is just asking for trouble. In 10 or 20 years people will be very angry at having had so many resources - not to mention the children's opportunity costs - sunk into something that will simply lead to bitter disappointment for the majority who cannot realistically become programmers and low wages for the few who can.
However, every child should learn *something* about computer technology because some minimal familiarity will be necessary to function in society, the same as people ought to know what lawyers, bankers, accountants etc. do, not necessarily so they can work in those professions, but to understand why and when their specialities are needed.
Also children should have something intellectually challenging that teaches them problem-solving skills. In a sense, it doesn't matter what that is, just that it requires intellectual effort and development of skill. For a long time people did fine (well, adequately) teaching children Latin or the geometry of Euclid's Elements, without any real expectation that these would be practical skills; the goal was to force them to think. Programming can teach logic and also be highly motivating to children because it's a part of all the technologies that are glamorous and exciting.
Slashdot Mirror
Have someone be able to throw a challenge flag, the one who's wrong forfeits participation in the following two debates. Professional sports make this sort of thing work, right?
No, if you go there and check, it turns out India is not in the Caribbean.
Clearly this kind of technological advance end up taking frickin' laser jobs away from sharks.
Because it is *partly* moral failing. Aside from some rare medical conditions, an obese person is not a *completely* innocent victim. These critics are people who a) are giving encouragement but not in a constructive way and/or b) are self-centredly showing off their own moral strength for having avoided the temptation.
But no-one has infinite strength of character. Ironically Jesus once said something about hypocrisy when criticizing others.
I don't understand why that's too complicated for so many people.
I think very few people genuinely believe that it's "all moral failing", just that some people push back against the people unwilling to accept that, with a few exceptions, it is partly moral failling.
Not counting ordinary casualties of war, the Soviet Union under Stalin murdered many times over the number who were murdered by Nazi Germany.
Apparently the insects did not get the memo that the warmer temperatures should also make them spring forth earlier in the season.
Or... birds and insects do not have identical metabolisms.
Who would still know how to... read this?
If it's designed to be deciphered easily, it won't be too hard. Include a child's picture book, progressively more difficult textbooks, dictionaries, a recent version of Wikipedia, etc.
Even if it's turns out it's not as easy as it sounds, as long as the medium has longevity, future archaeologists can spend decades or centuries on it if they have to.
We have data "files" from thousands of years ago in unknown languages, and while only specialists are in a position to even attempt to decipher it, there are experts passionately trying their best, and the world will be excited if (when) they succeed.
Take a moment to think about how much effort goes into mate selection. In terms of evolutionary biology, *everything* is about producing optimal offspring.
Every political party panders to the Zombie vote.
Racists.
The problem is that the brain understands sarcasm because language is normally interpreted with a huge amount of explicit context and previously acquired knowledge. All of that context and real-world knowledge is (or at least seems to be) accessible when the language processing algorithm is inferring what a particular statement means.
Once we give the computer a life-time of human memories, it will process language much better.
By Western standards, Iran is a deeply flawed democracy.
Yet there is much more antagonism directed against Iran than a great many countries which are not democracies at all.
And if anything the censorship is proof that the elections are already on their way to bringing change.
I've decided write in Edward Snowden
Now that you mention it... why isn't he running?
the political spectrum is very multi-dimensional.
Ideological labels don't count for much when the politicians don't believe in anything besides themselves getting elected.
What kind of monster is 'cooking' a diner full of staff and customers in the first place?
Rollback means playback, right?
No, quite the opposite.
The problem (or at least one of them) is that there is a good idea buried under a bad idea.
Trying to make every child into a professional programmer, on the assumption that programming will in the future be the equivalent of unskilled labour today, is just asking for trouble. In 10 or 20 years people will be very angry at having had so many resources - not to mention the children's opportunity costs - sunk into something that will simply lead to bitter disappointment for the majority who cannot realistically become programmers and low wages for the few who can.
However, every child should learn *something* about computer technology because some minimal familiarity will be necessary to function in society, the same as people ought to know what lawyers, bankers, accountants etc. do, not necessarily so they can work in those professions, but to understand why and when their specialities are needed.
Also children should have something intellectually challenging that teaches them problem-solving skills. In a sense, it doesn't matter what that is, just that it requires intellectual effort and development of skill. For a long time people did fine (well, adequately) teaching children Latin or the geometry of Euclid's Elements, without any real expectation that these would be practical skills; the goal was to force them to think. Programming can teach logic and also be highly motivating to children because it's a part of all the technologies that are glamorous and exciting.
For a second I thought sub-atomic particles were turning the tables on physicists.
(Seriously, we need more original names for these things.)
The Borg always was just about intellectual property. It probably started with something like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
People will see the error of other people's choices. Not much chance any of them will see their own.
They care more about control than they do about money.
you're working to put yourself out of a "job."
So... Uber is just like every other employer.
It does the Kessel run in under 12 nanometres!
Which is probably less than 12 parsecs.
Obviously the web site you visit knows you were there, but if a browser implies it erases its end of the session then it should do so.