Because the DVD's director and editor are a better director and editor than you are. Even if they are pretty bad. This feature sounded neat when it was first talked about. It's not a very good idea in practice though.
By socializing with adults, your child can learn how to socialize with adults. That will help your child prepare for the adult world.
You should also probably try to balance this with other activities where your child can learn to interact with children. Children can be really nasty to each other. But in voluntary activities (basically anything except school), your child can do what adults do when someone is nasty to them: escape and stop interacting with nasty people. Your child won't have the opportunity schoolchildren have, to be bullied every day with no escape and no recourse.
If you are good at something, your achievements will be labeled as a "privilege" and redistributed to others. I hope you like the society that most of you voted for.
Question: Does creating a new, powerful disincentive for (the wrong kind of) people to achieve help or hurt our chances to have a prosperous society in the future?
Let's get the government to rescue us from the bad deal the government made. We can trust the government to help us to when dealing with Verizon, can't we?
What do you think the "big picture" is? I think the "big picture" is modest warming that falls short of a crisis. In the "big picture", there aren't many effective levers to pull to solve the warming problem, and the cost of pulling them is higher than the benefit.
There's no "save the planet" or not. Because a slightly warmer planet is still a healthy planet. And we'd be better off focusing our resources on solving problems like disease and deprivation than on problems like a small amount of warming over a few hundred years as we advance technologically -- eventually to non-fossil fuel energy sources.
The different methods of doing this serve as a check on each other and even though they produce slightly different results they are in agreement within the margin of error.
The temperature difference that made 2014 the "hottest year ever" is also less than the margin of error.
Historical temperatures are adjusted for comparison. This is well known. There are relatively few sites where the exact same thermometer, in the exact same structure, surrounded by the exact same surrounding structures, developments, and foliage has been in use for a hundred years or more. There are more in the US than in other countries. Many, many adjustments have to be made to the historical temperature readings to normalize them all with current readings and combine them into a global average representation. There are different methods for doing this that produce different results.
You should read up on the subject if you're interested in understanding it. If you just want to shoot down conspiracy straw men, then proceed. No knowledge or understanding of the subject is required.
If I can bound the period of time in my favor, the chances will be pretty high -- maybe not 50%. If I'm the one in charge of adjusting historical temperatures for comparison, I can probably do better than 50%.
You can forecast "hotter" and have about a 50-50 chance of being correct for any random period of time. How many models forecast these temperatures? It seem like the answer is most didn't come very close.
Unless the President's plan is enacted. If we do what the President suggests, sea levels will rise 1 or 2 mm less. Everyone shorter than 2 mm will thank us for our sacrifice.
It's opportunity to advance petty political nastiness under the banner of science. It's interesting that science is so frequently used this way, instead of being used as a method to advance knowledge.
Do scientists think using science this way is helping anyone?
Nothing is going to be done about climate change. But this is especially true if the climate change alarmism side wants to engage in petty political nastiness instead of legislative compromise.
I also find it hard to accept a wide array of wacky statements. Whenever I see a statistic or comparison that would be interesting if true, I assume it's not true. Usually such statements are, at best, highly exaggerated.
The IRS targeting of political opponents killed any chance this will ever happen. There's no basis for anyone to trust any government agency in the US. A few people will still trust blindly, or temporarily while their team is in charge, but it won't be many. Not for a long, long time.
The protection should be from reasonable doubt. If the prosecution hasn't explained their case so the jury understands it, the case isn't proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. It is very reasonable to doubt someone when you don't understand what they're saying.
I don't want to hold my elected officials accountable for my broadband. They can barely keep the roads paved.
I'm wondering why everyone seems to think so highly of their local officials. What cities have such great local officials that we want to give them all these new responsibilities?
Honest question: Is your local city government efficient, responsible, technically savvy, and trustworthy enough to expect them to do a great job as your ISP? If so, where do you live?
Why is municipal broadband appealing? Is it only better versus Comcast, or is it actually good in some way? Are you expecting to get it for "free" -- a.k.a. paid for by your neighbors?
Where in the US do they have municipal broadband with a long track record of working well, with competitive pricing not subsidized by tax revenue?
However, some of you (and it may not include you) seem to think that the government having less power is always better and is often the answer to problems.
Sometimes you can't solve problems. Less government power is the answer to not creating new problems.
When you have a non-government problem, you can often escape it or fix it for yourself or at least mitigate it somewhat. When it's the government causing problems, it's a lot harder to deal with.
This is one reason why some of us want to stop giving the government more power. Because they can never be held accountable when they misuse that power and hurt people. No one in power is ever guilty of anything. Care and recklessness are rewarded equally.
It's easy to say you're for "openness" (and whatever other buzzwords) when you never have to actually live up to any sort of standards. Why should anyone listen or believe or trust? Apparently, we shouldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the DVD's director and editor are a better director and editor than you are. Even if they are pretty bad. This feature sounded neat when it was first talked about. It's not a very good idea in practice though.
By socializing with adults, your child can learn how to socialize with adults. That will help your child prepare for the adult world.
You should also probably try to balance this with other activities where your child can learn to interact with children. Children can be really nasty to each other. But in voluntary activities (basically anything except school), your child can do what adults do when someone is nasty to them: escape and stop interacting with nasty people. Your child won't have the opportunity schoolchildren have, to be bullied every day with no escape and no recourse.
What happened to merit? It was re-labeled "privilege". You don't think you actually earned your accompilshments, do you?
If you are good at something, your achievements will be labeled as a "privilege" and redistributed to others. I hope you like the society that most of you voted for.
Question: Does creating a new, powerful disincentive for (the wrong kind of) people to achieve help or hurt our chances to have a prosperous society in the future?
How about just a fan?
They've created a buzzword so generic that it has already conquered 1/5th of software development. Bravo, pundits! Bravo!
Let's get the government to rescue us from the bad deal the government made. We can trust the government to help us to when dealing with Verizon, can't we?
What do you think the "big picture" is? I think the "big picture" is modest warming that falls short of a crisis. In the "big picture", there aren't many effective levers to pull to solve the warming problem, and the cost of pulling them is higher than the benefit.
There's no "save the planet" or not. Because a slightly warmer planet is still a healthy planet. And we'd be better off focusing our resources on solving problems like disease and deprivation than on problems like a small amount of warming over a few hundred years as we advance technologically -- eventually to non-fossil fuel energy sources.
The different methods of doing this serve as a check on each other and even though they produce slightly different results they are in agreement within the margin of error.
The temperature difference that made 2014 the "hottest year ever" is also less than the margin of error.
Historical temperatures are adjusted for comparison. This is well known. There are relatively few sites where the exact same thermometer, in the exact same structure, surrounded by the exact same surrounding structures, developments, and foliage has been in use for a hundred years or more. There are more in the US than in other countries. Many, many adjustments have to be made to the historical temperature readings to normalize them all with current readings and combine them into a global average representation. There are different methods for doing this that produce different results.
You should read up on the subject if you're interested in understanding it. If you just want to shoot down conspiracy straw men, then proceed. No knowledge or understanding of the subject is required.
Does your food contain DNA? Why aren't there mandatory warning labels for foods containing DNA?
If I can bound the period of time in my favor, the chances will be pretty high -- maybe not 50%. If I'm the one in charge of adjusting historical temperatures for comparison, I can probably do better than 50%.
You can forecast "hotter" and have about a 50-50 chance of being correct for any random period of time. How many models forecast these temperatures? It seem like the answer is most didn't come very close.
Unless the President's plan is enacted. If we do what the President suggests, sea levels will rise 1 or 2 mm less. Everyone shorter than 2 mm will thank us for our sacrifice.
It's opportunity to advance petty political nastiness under the banner of science. It's interesting that science is so frequently used this way, instead of being used as a method to advance knowledge.
Do scientists think using science this way is helping anyone?
Nothing is going to be done about climate change. But this is especially true if the climate change alarmism side wants to engage in petty political nastiness instead of legislative compromise.
I also find it hard to accept a wide array of wacky statements. Whenever I see a statistic or comparison that would be interesting if true, I assume it's not true. Usually such statements are, at best, highly exaggerated.
Everyone with your attitude sold their stock a year ago when the Fire Phone came out.
The IRS targeting of political opponents killed any chance this will ever happen. There's no basis for anyone to trust any government agency in the US. A few people will still trust blindly, or temporarily while their team is in charge, but it won't be many. Not for a long, long time.
I live in the 8th largest US city by population. Lots of cities have huge problems -- maybe even most of them.
Is municipal broadband only meant for people in a few well-managed cities? What about everyone else then?
The protection should be from reasonable doubt. If the prosecution hasn't explained their case so the jury understands it, the case isn't proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. It is very reasonable to doubt someone when you don't understand what they're saying.
I don't want to hold my elected officials accountable for my broadband. They can barely keep the roads paved.
I'm wondering why everyone seems to think so highly of their local officials. What cities have such great local officials that we want to give them all these new responsibilities?
Honest question: Is your local city government efficient, responsible, technically savvy, and trustworthy enough to expect them to do a great job as your ISP? If so, where do you live?
Why is municipal broadband appealing? Is it only better versus Comcast, or is it actually good in some way? Are you expecting to get it for "free" -- a.k.a. paid for by your neighbors?
Where in the US do they have municipal broadband with a long track record of working well, with competitive pricing not subsidized by tax revenue?
However, some of you (and it may not include you) seem to think that the government having less power is always better and is often the answer to problems.
Sometimes you can't solve problems. Less government power is the answer to not creating new problems.
When you have a non-government problem, you can often escape it or fix it for yourself or at least mitigate it somewhat. When it's the government causing problems, it's a lot harder to deal with.
This is one reason why some of us want to stop giving the government more power. Because they can never be held accountable when they misuse that power and hurt people. No one in power is ever guilty of anything. Care and recklessness are rewarded equally.
It's easy to say you're for "openness" (and whatever other buzzwords) when you never have to actually live up to any sort of standards. Why should anyone listen or believe or trust? Apparently, we shouldn't.
DuinoKit until you try it