Are you paying for "reliability" or "Government-regulated mandatory safety upgrades"?
I'm not sure whether you're implying that "Government-regulated mandatory safety upgrades" are retroactive (in other words, that manufacturers must add new features to cars that have already been sold), or that OTA updates are Government mandated, but the answer is the same in either case: They're not.
It suggests that at least as many people have heard of Creationism, since it's one of the tenets of Christianity. And that's not even including other religions with creation myths.
The numbers you posted suggested that (likely) being aware of both Creationism and evolution, the majority agrees with the science, but that wasn't the original premise.
You're moving the goalpost. The original statement wasn't that Creationism was more popular in the US, but that "Here in Europe most people never heard about the Creationism stupidity," which is nonsense, of course, and quite possibly fits the definition of trolling, as the AC suggested.
It's also the 100th anniversary of MDMA, Life Savers candy, the traffic light, and the electric blanket. Guess which of those had a greater impact on modern-day life? (Hint: It's all of them.)
I actually use my (also Apple) phone for reading more than my iPad, because the pixel density is higher (or was -- not sure about the 3rd generation iPad), it's lighter, its backlight is less bright and has less shine-through, and obviously it fits the hand better. And with the complete waste of space that are the 1" margins on the iPad Kindle app, I can fit just as many or nearly as many words on the iPhone screen. It also has the advantage that I carry it with me by default. I entirely expected the iPad to fill the reader role for me, but it has, as I feared, been relegated to keeping my nightstand dust-free in its footprint.
At any rate, the biggest reason I see the phone or tablet winning out over the dedicated reader is the same as the smart phone over the dedicated music player, or dedicated phone, or dedicated PDA: convergence. People want and expect their portable device to fill multiple roles, and dedicated readers, by definition, just don't do that. Amazon saw the writing on the wall and released the Fire, and I expect we'll continue to see more of a focus on multipurpose and less on dedicated e-readers.
There was a severe concern among ministers who were afraid the printed page would be such a distraction if you put it in the hands of people in worship.
the vast majority of a given population back then couldn't read, so on what rational basis would that concern be placed?
What part of allegorical story don't you understand? These are just stories to illustrate a point, or "parables," if you will.
The things you mention exist everywhere. EVERYWHERE.
Oh sure, go ahead and post as an AC while trying to bring facts into our gut-based self loathing. If you don't have anything derisive to say about the US, just don't say anything at all, okay?
It seems like UUVs (Unmanned Underwater Vehicles) would be the logical alternative. Terminal velocity of falling/sinking objects is lower in water than in air, which means lower impact forces and potential for rupturing a reactor, not to mention the significantly lower human population density on the ocean floor than on land. Also, they'd be harder to find and to sink than their aerial counterparts.
So mute people don't have the right to express their ideas protected in the First Amendment? That seems far sillier than the idea that speech = expression.
"Speech" means expression, and "the press" means publication. Put another way, Congress shall not prohibit the expression of ideas, or the publication thereof. And expression can be for entertainment just as it can for serious communication.
I vote we give homosexuals equal rights by abolishing marriage. Why are we still pushing marriage as a good thing? Over 50% of them are so bad that people are willing to go through *divorce* just to get away from the other person. And of those that don't end in divorce, how many of them are happy? The promotion of marriage as a virtue is the real problem.
Whether or not it's meaningless in a given game is up to the developer, or the DM if you will. BioWare were the ones who made it have some bearing in-game, so the question is simply *when* the decisions are made, not whether they're being made. It makes just as much sense to make it a character trait as to make it an in-game choice, and arguably more sense since that's what defining your character is all about anyway: deciding who you want to be.
Don't be obtuse. Not all traits have effects in-game, and in the real world, people use both conscious and unconscious signals, gestures, and styles to indicate their orientation.
I don't think there should be a default, but I think sexual orientation should be a character attribute definable at creation. (At birth, if you will.) It's ridiculous that you can choose the shape of your nose and your skin color and your gender, but not your sexual orientation. And sure, undefined could be an option, but it shouldn't be the only choice.
Not that this will satisfy the detractors by any means, but I believe it would be an improvement nonetheless.
GM quality is mostly crap all around (though that's generally true for all US manufacturers), and they've got a long, long way to go beyond "innovative" ideas to demonstrate otherwise. There's not even a US car in the Top 10 most reliable cars, and not a single GM vehicle on the list. The price point is really just adding insult to injury.
And I say this as a die hard fan of the Corvette and GM muscle cars of the past.
I don't watch movies often so it works great for me because I get the quality I want with out leaving my couch.
Here's the thing though: It's not only easier for *you* to watch movies, it's easier for *studios* to publish and distribute them. And yet you're paying more.
If you don't see something wrong with that, you're part of the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds a lot like the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument.
I am using it in the sense that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God. How that process is rationalized is really beside the point.
Are you paying for "reliability" or "Government-regulated mandatory safety upgrades"?
I'm not sure whether you're implying that "Government-regulated mandatory safety upgrades" are retroactive (in other words, that manufacturers must add new features to cars that have already been sold), or that OTA updates are Government mandated, but the answer is the same in either case: They're not.
if people begin to get troubled with too much recommended maintenance, they will start to believe their cars are unreliable
If they're buying a Mercedes, they're probably right.
It suggests that at least as many people have heard of Creationism, since it's one of the tenets of Christianity. And that's not even including other religions with creation myths.
The numbers you posted suggested that (likely) being aware of both Creationism and evolution, the majority agrees with the science, but that wasn't the original premise.
the movie had to be renamed for the Middle Eastern market, as "Titanic" sounds like a slang term for "let's have sex"
Sorry, I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one.
You're moving the goalpost. The original statement wasn't that Creationism was more popular in the US, but that "Here in Europe most people never heard about the Creationism stupidity," which is nonsense, of course, and quite possibly fits the definition of trolling, as the AC suggested.
It's also the 100th anniversary of MDMA, Life Savers candy, the traffic light, and the electric blanket. Guess which of those had a greater impact on modern-day life? (Hint: It's all of them.)
I have the Kindle app on my iPad too, but I can't stare at a backlit screen with a white background for that long.
Perhaps you are not aware that you can configure the Kindle app to use white text on a black background?
I actually use my (also Apple) phone for reading more than my iPad, because the pixel density is higher (or was -- not sure about the 3rd generation iPad), it's lighter, its backlight is less bright and has less shine-through, and obviously it fits the hand better. And with the complete waste of space that are the 1" margins on the iPad Kindle app, I can fit just as many or nearly as many words on the iPhone screen. It also has the advantage that I carry it with me by default. I entirely expected the iPad to fill the reader role for me, but it has, as I feared, been relegated to keeping my nightstand dust-free in its footprint.
At any rate, the biggest reason I see the phone or tablet winning out over the dedicated reader is the same as the smart phone over the dedicated music player, or dedicated phone, or dedicated PDA: convergence. People want and expect their portable device to fill multiple roles, and dedicated readers, by definition, just don't do that. Amazon saw the writing on the wall and released the Fire, and I expect we'll continue to see more of a focus on multipurpose and less on dedicated e-readers.
M. Eiffel built it as a demonstration of what could be done with the new technology of steel framing.
Strange, then, that it's built out of wrought iron.
Well eventually the copyright will expire and it won't be up to them.
I kid, I kid.
Surely there's an XP penalty at least?
What part of allegorical story don't you understand? These are just stories to illustrate a point, or "parables," if you will.
The things you mention exist everywhere. EVERYWHERE.
Oh sure, go ahead and post as an AC while trying to bring facts into our gut-based self loathing. If you don't have anything derisive to say about the US, just don't say anything at all, okay?
It seems like UUVs (Unmanned Underwater Vehicles) would be the logical alternative. Terminal velocity of falling/sinking objects is lower in water than in air, which means lower impact forces and potential for rupturing a reactor, not to mention the significantly lower human population density on the ocean floor than on land. Also, they'd be harder to find and to sink than their aerial counterparts.
So mute people don't have the right to express their ideas protected in the First Amendment? That seems far sillier than the idea that speech = expression.
"Speech" means expression, and "the press" means publication. Put another way, Congress shall not prohibit the expression of ideas, or the publication thereof. And expression can be for entertainment just as it can for serious communication.
I vote we give homosexuals equal rights by abolishing marriage. Why are we still pushing marriage as a good thing? Over 50% of them are so bad that people are willing to go through *divorce* just to get away from the other person. And of those that don't end in divorce, how many of them are happy? The promotion of marriage as a virtue is the real problem.
Whether or not it's meaningless in a given game is up to the developer, or the DM if you will. BioWare were the ones who made it have some bearing in-game, so the question is simply *when* the decisions are made, not whether they're being made. It makes just as much sense to make it a character trait as to make it an in-game choice, and arguably more sense since that's what defining your character is all about anyway: deciding who you want to be.
Don't be obtuse. Not all traits have effects in-game, and in the real world, people use both conscious and unconscious signals, gestures, and styles to indicate their orientation.
The same reason you'd choose any other trait.
I don't think there should be a default, but I think sexual orientation should be a character attribute definable at creation. (At birth, if you will.) It's ridiculous that you can choose the shape of your nose and your skin color and your gender, but not your sexual orientation. And sure, undefined could be an option, but it shouldn't be the only choice.
Not that this will satisfy the detractors by any means, but I believe it would be an improvement nonetheless.
GM quality is mostly crap all around (though that's generally true for all US manufacturers), and they've got a long, long way to go beyond "innovative" ideas to demonstrate otherwise. There's not even a US car in the Top 10 most reliable cars, and not a single GM vehicle on the list. The price point is really just adding insult to injury.
And I say this as a die hard fan of the Corvette and GM muscle cars of the past.
I don't watch movies often so it works great for me because I get the quality I want with out leaving my couch.
Here's the thing though: It's not only easier for *you* to watch movies, it's easier for *studios* to publish and distribute them. And yet you're paying more.
If you don't see something wrong with that, you're part of the problem.