I don't really think that is true, but it is true you need different lighting to pick up the nuances in a black face. Movies and TV shows for years have lit black actors in ways that wash out their faces by using rules of thumb that work for white faces. It's only in the last few years that we're seeing black actors properly lit.
What's up is that child psychology, adult psychology and geriatric psychology are all distinct areas of research focus. You wouldn't expect a researcher who normally publishes papers on children to includes adults in his or her study.
The impact of Internet use on adult mental health hasn't been ignored. You just have to look at different studies. In fact there are journals devoted to it.
I think everybody needs positive social regard. It doesn't make you weak somehow. But we all need it in different ways. Extroverts thrive on attention and big groups, they literally can't get enough. But that doesn't mean introverts don't need people, we just prefer them in small groups and have a limited capacity for even that. For us attention is like vitamin A: we need it, but too much is toxic.
When I sold my company I went from leading a small team to working for two years by myself as the new owners got up to speed. Now I'm fairly extreme on the introvert scale, and the thing I craved when I led a team was more alone time just to stretch out and work on technical problems, and that's exactly what I got. It was unbelievably hard to work that way all the time. For two years I worked at my kitchen table, with no face time at all with customers or other developers, and it's probably the hardest thing I've ever had to do.
Unfortunately that pushes off the engineering problem to someone else. So far as I can see nobody has figured out how to make a usb to analog audio dongle that lasts more than a few weeks, so that means your only real choice is bluetooth, which doesn't meet everyone's needs.
And basically, why? So you can make your phone thinner, when virtually everyone goes out and buys fat old case. This is a case of engineering for showroom appeal rather than use.
An ambiguous (formal) grammar. We use commas to set off appositives and to separate items of a list; there's no context-free way in which you can determine which of those two functions is being performed, the only solution is to rewrite the sentence.
There is literally no solution that works in every case if you have only commas to work with. Eliminate ambiguity on one set of sentences and introduce it in another. However this problem could easily be solved if we had distinct tokens for setting off apositives (noun phrases that repeat or clarify a preceding noun, as in "George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the US") and delimiting list members.
The exact same plant our military is attempting to eradicate in Afghanistan. It's just technically illegal to harvest and store "opium poppy straw", but if you harvest and milk seed pods for opium tea nobody is going to stop you; the DEA literally doesn't want to know because then it's got to crack down on gardeners. Or if you don't have a garden you can buy the dried seed pods at the florist for flower arrangements, and when you're done with them make your opium tea from them.
I'm not saying there's nothing to be done on the supply end, but even if you stopped all the heroin coming into the country and outlawed the "garden" poppy, addicts would just turn to synthetic opioids, some of which can be synthesized from innocuous precursors. The primary fight has to be prevention and treatment of addiction.
You know, Asian activists are sensitive about the automatic association of Asians with food, but when my family gets together we eat ourselves silly and talk about food.
It gets worse too: I grew up in something that probably doesn't exist in the US anymore: an Italian immigrant neighborhood. I'm talking grannies who made paper-thin tortellini, families with an auxiliary basement kitchen (for cooking fish), late summer nights in back yards under a grape arbor hung with plastic Japanese lanterns, huge pots of garlicky marine snails on the gas burner and opera blaring on a cheap stereo.
Picky WASP eaters have no idea what they're missing.
Does it routinely issue corrections and retractions? If so it may be biased, but arguably that's unavoidable. It might even be a lousy news source. But at least it's trying to be real news, to get things factually right.
We live in an age when many people have in effect given up on objective reality. That is dangerous. Hannah Arendt, in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, notes that totalitarian regimes strive to make their subjects gullible and cynical at the same time. Purely cynical people don't go along when you need them to. Gullible people are hard to manage when they realize the truth. But someone who is gullible and cynical at the same time is perfectly tractable and docile.
First of all, what makes you an extremist -- left or right -- is being unable to see any validity in points of view that differ even modestly from yours. This means extremists have trouble perceiving any middle ground... or even middle-shading ground. Either you agree with them completely, or you are not a true liberal or conservative in their eyes.
Extremists subscribe to sets of ideas rather than think for themselves. If you want to know whether you truly think for yourself, ask yourself, "do I really fit in with the people who usually agree with me?" If the answer is "yes", you probably don't.
Secondly, a college education is only an opportunity to learn critical thinking, one that relatively few people take advantage. I see no evidence that college educated people as a body think more critically about news sources than blue collar people. Someone who is inclined to genuine skepticism will that hone mindset with more education, but someone inclined to be credulous will go through whatever motions he needs to graduate, and come out as intellectually defenseless as he went in.
People are not demographic robots. There are sharp-witted janitors and fools with PhDs (morosophs). Had their opportunities in life been switched the world might be a better place.
Actually the Chinese eat crayfish for food. Procambarus clarkii, the Louisiana crawfish, is an invasive species in Chinese rice paddies, but many Chinese farmers welcome them as a secondary crop. They call it xiao long xia -- the little dragon shrimp. While it threatens native Chinese fisheries, it has considerable economic value.
It so happens I'm half Chinese, half Cajun. There probably isn't an animal that creeps through the forest of swims in the water that's safe for me.
Well, there are philosophical theories of fairness which I won't go into here. For the purposes of this particular metric they in effect use what is known as a "paradigm" -- a way for two people to reason about ethical issues when they don't necessarily agree on fundamental principles.
So while we may have very different views of where morality comes from, we can both agree that in a fair system the same standards of evidence should be use used in trying a particular offense for all defendants. We can agree that politicians should not be able to influence the outcomes of trials where their friends or enemies are defendants. We can agree that defendants should be able to know the charges being made against them, have an opportunity to examine and dispute evidence being used against them, introduce exonerating evidence and so on.
Using this method we can achieve a roughly mutually agreeable ranking, although the precision is limited. Neither of us might agree that South Korean criminal justice is fairer than US criminal justice, but where scores vary greatly the ordering should be pretty reliable (e.g. the US is fairer than Cambodiaa).
The US Court system is the fairest one one the world.
Actually, the World Justice Project collects data on the rule of law world wide, and provides a web interface in which you can easily rank countries by whatever metric you are interested in.
For example, by the fairness of the criminal court system, the top five countries in order are Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Singapore. The US is in eighteenth place. The factors taken into account include: impartiality, due process protections, timely trials, and recidivism rates.
For civil cases, the Netherlands takes top place, with US placing 25th. Factors include affordability of access to civil justice, timeliness, impartiality, effective enforcement of judgments, and absence of political interference.
In general the US is nowhere near the top in these rule-of-law factors, but it's far from a dystopia; in general it's above average, keeping company with countries like France, Spain, and South Korea. It's the Nordic countries that score the best in most categories, with Singapore scoring high in measures of efficiency, security, regulatory enforcement and non-corruption but posting mediocre scores in government transparency, constraints on government, and individual rights.
Depends on the specific numbers: the loan interest, the difference between the solar rate and the market rate, and how much electricity you use. If you have no savings, chances are you're not a good loan risk so your rate may be higher.
JAXA has vehicles capable of putting over sixteen metric tons in orbit.
But if they wanted to nuke North Korea, the easiest way would be to adapt a missile fired from one of their attack submarines or guided missile destroyers.
Really, JAXA has done something cool here, and the only context people can think of it in is nukes?
Probably because it wouldn't make that much difference. Getting to space is the easy part; the lion's share of the energy needed for low earth orbit is accelerating your payload to 7km/s or 15,000 mph.
Using a mothership makes a lot of sense if you're going for a suborbital jaunt, as with SpaceShipOne, which at 3600 kg is comparable in size to this rocket. But the energy savings you'd get is such a tiny fraction of what's needed for orbit it's not worth the engineering and logistical complications.
Actually they're pretty good at making gigantic things too, like the Komatsu D575A-3 super dozer, capable of moving 125 cubic yards of material in a single pass, or the 960E truck which can haul 360 tons of material.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really think that is true, but it is true you need different lighting to pick up the nuances in a black face. Movies and TV shows for years have lit black actors in ways that wash out their faces by using rules of thumb that work for white faces. It's only in the last few years that we're seeing black actors properly lit.
What's up is that child psychology, adult psychology and geriatric psychology are all distinct areas of research focus. You wouldn't expect a researcher who normally publishes papers on children to includes adults in his or her study.
The impact of Internet use on adult mental health hasn't been ignored. You just have to look at different studies. In fact there are journals devoted to it.
I think everybody needs positive social regard. It doesn't make you weak somehow. But we all need it in different ways. Extroverts thrive on attention and big groups, they literally can't get enough. But that doesn't mean introverts don't need people, we just prefer them in small groups and have a limited capacity for even that. For us attention is like vitamin A: we need it, but too much is toxic.
When I sold my company I went from leading a small team to working for two years by myself as the new owners got up to speed. Now I'm fairly extreme on the introvert scale, and the thing I craved when I led a team was more alone time just to stretch out and work on technical problems, and that's exactly what I got. It was unbelievably hard to work that way all the time. For two years I worked at my kitchen table, with no face time at all with customers or other developers, and it's probably the hardest thing I've ever had to do.
Could you image all these youtube/emo/facebook kids doing that shit today?
Some of them, yes, absolutely. In fact you do know that we have an all volunteer military, right?
Remember, generations are populations. Boiling them down to a stereotype throws out most of the actual information about them.
Unfortunately that pushes off the engineering problem to someone else. So far as I can see nobody has figured out how to make a usb to analog audio dongle that lasts more than a few weeks, so that means your only real choice is bluetooth, which doesn't meet everyone's needs.
And basically, why? So you can make your phone thinner, when virtually everyone goes out and buys fat old case. This is a case of engineering for showroom appeal rather than use.
An ambiguous (formal) grammar. We use commas to set off appositives and to separate items of a list; there's no context-free way in which you can determine which of those two functions is being performed, the only solution is to rewrite the sentence.
There is literally no solution that works in every case if you have only commas to work with. Eliminate ambiguity on one set of sentences and introduce it in another. However this problem could easily be solved if we had distinct tokens for setting off apositives (noun phrases that repeat or clarify a preceding noun, as in "George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the US") and delimiting list members.
The exact same plant our military is attempting to eradicate in Afghanistan. It's just technically illegal to harvest and store "opium poppy straw", but if you harvest and milk seed pods for opium tea nobody is going to stop you; the DEA literally doesn't want to know because then it's got to crack down on gardeners. Or if you don't have a garden you can buy the dried seed pods at the florist for flower arrangements, and when you're done with them make your opium tea from them.
I'm not saying there's nothing to be done on the supply end, but even if you stopped all the heroin coming into the country and outlawed the "garden" poppy, addicts would just turn to synthetic opioids, some of which can be synthesized from innocuous precursors. The primary fight has to be prevention and treatment of addiction.
You know, Asian activists are sensitive about the automatic association of Asians with food, but when my family gets together we eat ourselves silly and talk about food.
It gets worse too: I grew up in something that probably doesn't exist in the US anymore: an Italian immigrant neighborhood. I'm talking grannies who made paper-thin tortellini, families with an auxiliary basement kitchen (for cooking fish), late summer nights in back yards under a grape arbor hung with plastic Japanese lanterns, huge pots of garlicky marine snails on the gas burner and opera blaring on a cheap stereo.
Picky WASP eaters have no idea what they're missing.
Does it routinely issue corrections and retractions? If so it may be biased, but arguably that's unavoidable. It might even be a lousy news source. But at least it's trying to be real news, to get things factually right.
We live in an age when many people have in effect given up on objective reality. That is dangerous. Hannah Arendt, in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, notes that totalitarian regimes strive to make their subjects gullible and cynical at the same time. Purely cynical people don't go along when you need them to. Gullible people are hard to manage when they realize the truth. But someone who is gullible and cynical at the same time is perfectly tractable and docile.
Well, I don't know about that, but I'm a liberal who finds the WaPo unsatisfying, because it's too predictable.
First of all, what makes you an extremist -- left or right -- is being unable to see any validity in points of view that differ even modestly from yours. This means extremists have trouble perceiving any middle ground... or even middle-shading ground. Either you agree with them completely, or you are not a true liberal or conservative in their eyes.
Extremists subscribe to sets of ideas rather than think for themselves. If you want to know whether you truly think for yourself, ask yourself, "do I really fit in with the people who usually agree with me?" If the answer is "yes", you probably don't.
Secondly, a college education is only an opportunity to learn critical thinking, one that relatively few people take advantage. I see no evidence that college educated people as a body think more critically about news sources than blue collar people. Someone who is inclined to genuine skepticism will that hone mindset with more education, but someone inclined to be credulous will go through whatever motions he needs to graduate, and come out as intellectually defenseless as he went in.
People are not demographic robots. There are sharp-witted janitors and fools with PhDs (morosophs). Had their opportunities in life been switched the world might be a better place.
Actually the Chinese eat crayfish for food. Procambarus clarkii, the Louisiana crawfish, is an invasive species in Chinese rice paddies, but many Chinese farmers welcome them as a secondary crop. They call it xiao long xia -- the little dragon shrimp. While it threatens native Chinese fisheries, it has considerable economic value.
It so happens I'm half Chinese, half Cajun. There probably isn't an animal that creeps through the forest of swims in the water that's safe for me.
Norway.
Well, there are philosophical theories of fairness which I won't go into here. For the purposes of this particular metric they in effect use what is known as a "paradigm" -- a way for two people to reason about ethical issues when they don't necessarily agree on fundamental principles.
So while we may have very different views of where morality comes from, we can both agree that in a fair system the same standards of evidence should be use used in trying a particular offense for all defendants. We can agree that politicians should not be able to influence the outcomes of trials where their friends or enemies are defendants. We can agree that defendants should be able to know the charges being made against them, have an opportunity to examine and dispute evidence being used against them, introduce exonerating evidence and so on.
Using this method we can achieve a roughly mutually agreeable ranking, although the precision is limited. Neither of us might agree that South Korean criminal justice is fairer than US criminal justice, but where scores vary greatly the ordering should be pretty reliable (e.g. the US is fairer than Cambodiaa).
It's not the inherent value that you have to worry about in a rocket failure, it's the marginal cost.
The US Court system is the fairest one one the world.
Actually, the World Justice Project collects data on the rule of law world wide, and provides a web interface in which you can easily rank countries by whatever metric you are interested in.
For example, by the fairness of the criminal court system, the top five countries in order are Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Singapore. The US is in eighteenth place. The factors taken into account include: impartiality, due process protections, timely trials, and recidivism rates.
For civil cases, the Netherlands takes top place, with US placing 25th. Factors include affordability of access to civil justice, timeliness, impartiality, effective enforcement of judgments, and absence of political interference.
In general the US is nowhere near the top in these rule-of-law factors, but it's far from a dystopia; in general it's above average, keeping company with countries like France, Spain, and South Korea. It's the Nordic countries that score the best in most categories, with Singapore scoring high in measures of efficiency, security, regulatory enforcement and non-corruption but posting mediocre scores in government transparency, constraints on government, and individual rights.
Depends on the specific numbers: the loan interest, the difference between the solar rate and the market rate, and how much electricity you use. If you have no savings, chances are you're not a good loan risk so your rate may be higher.
I can only point you to the information; I can't do your thinking for you.
According to the reporter's sources within the agency, it is on ice. According to the agency's official spokesman, "no comment."
That's what TFA says at least, and even the summary here gets it right.
The walkman was a game changer.
JAXA has vehicles capable of putting over sixteen metric tons in orbit.
But if they wanted to nuke North Korea, the easiest way would be to adapt a missile fired from one of their attack submarines or guided missile destroyers.
Really, JAXA has done something cool here, and the only context people can think of it in is nukes?
Probably because it wouldn't make that much difference. Getting to space is the easy part; the lion's share of the energy needed for low earth orbit is accelerating your payload to 7km/s or 15,000 mph.
Using a mothership makes a lot of sense if you're going for a suborbital jaunt, as with SpaceShipOne, which at 3600 kg is comparable in size to this rocket. But the energy savings you'd get is such a tiny fraction of what's needed for orbit it's not worth the engineering and logistical complications.
Kind of moot given that the Hwasong 15 can deliver 1000 kg to most of the continental US.
Actually they're pretty good at making gigantic things too, like the Komatsu D575A-3 super dozer, capable of moving 125 cubic yards of material in a single pass, or the 960E truck which can haul 360 tons of material.
If NK has 4 kg nuclear warhead, we've got bigger problems than their getting their hands on a Japanese sounding rocket.