It's possible, even with yes/no questions, to manipulate the question, the phrasing and the body language to indicate a desired result when the person is actually capable of physically responding, I can't even begin to imagine the confirmation bias that could be imparted when the questionee isn't capable of responding in a recognized way.
Wait to see if the study can be confirmed by someone else without the same motives of this researcher. This result of "I want to live" reeks of someone that's trying to prevent euthanasia and shut down the debate and caution should be taken with any claimed results without repetition and review by experienced researchers.
You can only claim better than Random in a situation like this if the questions and responses aren't conditioned or influenced by the questioner. Count me a skeptic. Time will tell if the methodologies are sound, without consensus and duplication the individual results should be interesting but not confirmed.
I hated the ribbon as much as you do. But after using it for a while I see why it's better and also easier for new users to learn. MS was right about this UI change, in fact I'd argue it was their most researched and tested UI changes that they've ever implemented. The one problem was it made learning it for existing users harder but the trade off in usability was worth it IMO.
You're as big of a fool as Trump if you think China won't defend those islands to the limit of thier defensive abilities. The Chinese people would see the loss or an attack on those islands as equivalence to what the British did to them with Hong Kong and the public would demand a retaliation and there would be vast portions of the population and leadership demanding war.
You do not have an understanding of Chinese culture, history or their political positions about the South China Sea. Unfortunately like Trump you think the Chinese can be bullied with economics over something that's not at all related and you're absolutely wrong. The "One China Policy" is the bread and butter of the entire Chinese political philosophy and they will defend it to their dying breath and have made it abundantly clear for 40 years that they will. America ignores that resolve out our peril.
You may not be smart enough to realize this but China is a nuclear power with ICBM's just like Russia and threatening to attack China's artificial islands in the south china sea is not a way to prevent hostilities that could quickly escalate to a nuclear exchange.
You missed my point. By decreasing the congestion you encourage urban sprawl and people drive more miles. These increased numbers of miles driven make congestion worse. It's simply impossible to add highways and arterials to relieve the congestion because you'll frequently get right back to the same point within a much shorter time period than you predicted because you sprawled the city out and people started driving more miles.
As I mentioned California tried to do this. They were very much like the example you try to use with single corridors and points of congestion that jammed up the whole system.. They attempted to grow capacity to alleviate their traffic congestion (there are freeways with 11 lanes in each direction in California) they built whole freeways just to connect across arterial zones. They did this for near on 40 years, they never got rid of the congestion, they'd relieve it temporary, often a quarter of the time predicted and would immediately be back to the same spot they were before the expanded capacity and the city expanded outward and people started driving 20% more miles. The counter example to this is New York, a city that hasn't really expanded capacity in 40 years and much longer in some areas. Instead they built mass transit and leveraged that. They didn't sprawl the city outward the city infilled by building up with the subway and other public transit systems adding carrying capacity. The result is a stable car carrying system and expanding public transit access.
The cost here is the near complete loss of the suburban environment. I'm not advocating for either position, merely pointing out that you can't grow capacity to solve congestion issues as an indefinite solution. The more and more capacity you add the less efficient the added capacity is. It's a losing proposition and requires better up front planning for growth to avoid the situation Southern California has ended up with. Musk wants to solve the problem by adding more capacity but all it's going to do is make it worse in the long term. He'd be better served trying to improve the efficiency of the capacity they already have, something that requires innovation and probably removing the human driver. There is no simple solution to the traffic problems in Southern California. They need to solve the much bigger zoning and land use issues they've created before they attempt to fix the traffic issues.
More roads don't fix congestion, they make it worse. California is a good example of this. All more road capacity does is encourage urban sprawl and more traffic, more miles driven and some huge societal costs. There is no easy or good solution to the problem from this point of view.
You can extract more capacity out of your roadways by increasing the density and speed of vehicles, but to do that you need computers in charge of cars that can drive at 90mph while 6 inches or less from the bumpers in front and behind that communicate with each other and essentially act as a mass transit system. This is a future we will likely see.
There is no permit depth. Depending on the state laws involved if you tunnel off your property you need permission from the property owner (in the west you might not even have permission to tunnel on your own property because someone else owns the mineral rights). If this is in a public ROW (Right-of-way) you need permission from the government in charge who is going to require that this be a public service (no private tunnels) and that you provide access for public utilities and other things as part of your free permission to use this ROW. If you tunnel under private property you are probably going to have to pay the property owner for a permanent easement.
This is going to depend a lot on the state's laws about property, the ground underneath it, mineral rights and many other issues. It's a legal minefield that will blow your company to bits with the first mistake. Musk's a smart guy but he's a get it done guy that's likely never truly encountered the complication property rights add to an infrastructure project.
If you wore said glock while over a state that forbids open carry you probably violated the law. Though pretty much impossible to be enforced it still constituted one of your 3 felonies a day.
0.1mm clearance to the surrounding metal plate with edges that dug into the battery if it expanded more than 0.1mm was enough? Did you even look at the outside analysis. 0.1mm isn't enough for normal non-battery thermal expansion. Lithium batteries swell when charging and discharging, as much as 5% and 0.1mm wasn't even close to enough.
Normal charge/discharge at thermally controlled rates would have exceeded 0.1mm. After a few cycles the metal plate's ridges would have poked holes in the battery and started bridging anode/cathode causing a runaway discharge along with a runaway thermal event. We call those runaway thermal events fires. Every competent designer familiar with Lith-ion expansion characteristics said the 0.1mm was way too small for a device that's going to be charging and discharging so frequently and so often.
There is a reason America has opposed anything but a two-state solution. If Israel truly embarks on this path and is supported by America they will create a true apartheid state. People without citizenship in the nation they live in, separate and unequal systems of government and police action.
If Trump allows Israel to annex the west bank without making every Palestinian Israeli citizens he'll be responsible for the creation of a new apartheid state. The world would react very badly to this turn of events and it would likely spiral into war.
I seem to remember shortly after Obama was inaugurated that Republican members of congress made it their goal to make him a failed president, opposed him in every action, voted against anything he supported and basically did everything in their power to oppose anything and everything he tried to do. It's interesting that those same republicans and their supporters now get their panties in a wad when the shoe is on the other foot.
It's all fine and dandy to want cooperation and working together but that requires that both sides do it. The republican's made it clear that this divided government thing is the way things will run in the future. It's up to them to fix that by going across the aisle and working with democrats not steam rolling them.
It's interesting to me that he used Lincoln's bible. Up until the Obama administration no one had used that Bible for inauguration, Obama was the first after Lincoln to use it. I guess this is yet another example of Trump and his family idolizing Obama in private while playing to crowd in public.
Good includes the fact that he's not dependent on campaign contributors like almost all major politicians are.
Yea he said that, you believed him apparently but he still raised funds, he still holds the $500 a plate "dinners" and cavorts with all the same people. Your belief in his outsiderness is misplaced.
Yea right. And Timothy McVeigh wasn't a right wing Militia member that blew up a building and killed an entire daycare's worth of kids.
There's plenty of nutjobs on both sides, what you are doing is attempting to make yourself feel better about your political choices by demonizing the other side. This dehumanizes them and allows you to make ridiculous statements like the above post. The people in charge like it when you do this because it divides people and allows the people in charge to pit the people against each other to their own benefit.
I don't understand why they can't admit it was a design flaw that didn't account for the expansion of the battery pack by using far too tight tolerances. If they don't recognize the problem it will happen again.
Now that is funny. Trump has no idea what the common man wants or needs. He does know how to tell people he knows what they need, but if you think an administration loaded with bankers (4 Goldman execs!) and other rich people is going to do anything for the lttle guy you're delusional.
That would depend on what's generating more money. What the studio's want is to have their cake and eat it too, in other words they want disc sales and streaming sales. Practically what that means is they will simply delay streaming availability until a certain number of months after the DVD/BluRay is available so as to capture both revenue streams. Several of the studio's already do this.
When Zenimax's lawyers talk about all this stolen "IP" they aren't pointing to specific code that was stolen. The entire case revolves around this idea that the Rift couldn't have been developed without Carmack and they own everything in Carmack's head. This is a hallmark of a claim that has no evidence and it's backed up by their claim of destruction of evidence which means they didn't find any stolen information during discovery (so of course it must have been destroyed). Such claims usually precede the case being dismissed for lack of evidence. Facebook's lawyers will likely move for dismissal for lack of evidence within days.
The first rule when looking at any legal case isn't to look at what the lawyers are arguing exclusively but to also look at what they are not arguing. They lawyers haven't listed a single line of code stolen and backed up by discovery, their claims lack any specificity and revolve solely around John having worked for them in the past (and claims that Palmer couldn't have developed this himself, claims with no evidence) and at this point in the case the lack of specificity is a death note for the case. All the Facebook lawyers need to do is stand in front of the Jury and ask where is the evidence of all these fantastic claims because there isn't any or Zenimax wouldn't be making the destruction of evidence claim.
In case you aren't aware a successful destruction of evidence claim allows the Judge to instruct the Jury that they should assume a lack of evidence should be inferred to be in the plaintiff's favor with the Jury taking the plaintiff's claims at face value. But you can't win a destruction of evidence claim without evidence of the destruction. Something they haven't demonstrated. These claims are almost always a hail mary to try to win a case where there isn't any evidence and the plaintiff is sure to lose without such a finding.
The way you should look at any court case is what the lawyers aren't talking about. First they aren't talking about copyright, they keep taking about IP, a nebulous term with no legal meaning. They aren't talking about a contract between Zenimax and Carmac that gives them ownership of anything he developed because no such contract exists. And most important of all they are talking about destruction of evidence because they didn't find any evidence in discovery to talk about instead. Usually a destruction of evidence claim proceeds the case being thrown out for lack of evidence.
If zenimax had a contract that let them win this case they wouldn't be talking about everything but the contract. This is nothing but a legal attempt at extortion becuase Carmac quit after they bought ID.
PTSD isn't just from war numb nuts. It can happen from anything that you can't get out of your mind and begins to interfere with everything. From your comments you clearly don't have any idea what PTSD is. Which given how well the military treats it isn't surprising at all. But I suppose it's a step up from the 40's where we simply shot the sufferers as cowards.
That's what you are, a slight step up from someone that shoots people for cowardice for severe psychological trauma, and you should remember that, every single time you comment about PTSD.
Slashdot Mirror
It's possible, even with yes/no questions, to manipulate the question, the phrasing and the body language to indicate a desired result when the person is actually capable of physically responding, I can't even begin to imagine the confirmation bias that could be imparted when the questionee isn't capable of responding in a recognized way.
Wait to see if the study can be confirmed by someone else without the same motives of this researcher. This result of "I want to live" reeks of someone that's trying to prevent euthanasia and shut down the debate and caution should be taken with any claimed results without repetition and review by experienced researchers.
You can only claim better than Random in a situation like this if the questions and responses aren't conditioned or influenced by the questioner. Count me a skeptic. Time will tell if the methodologies are sound, without consensus and duplication the individual results should be interesting but not confirmed.
I hated the ribbon as much as you do. But after using it for a while I see why it's better and also easier for new users to learn. MS was right about this UI change, in fact I'd argue it was their most researched and tested UI changes that they've ever implemented. The one problem was it made learning it for existing users harder but the trade off in usability was worth it IMO.
Regardless, we should be careful in challenging that because said country might be willing to go far farther to protect that claim than we are.
You're as big of a fool as Trump if you think China won't defend those islands to the limit of thier defensive abilities. The Chinese people would see the loss or an attack on those islands as equivalence to what the British did to them with Hong Kong and the public would demand a retaliation and there would be vast portions of the population and leadership demanding war.
You do not have an understanding of Chinese culture, history or their political positions about the South China Sea. Unfortunately like Trump you think the Chinese can be bullied with economics over something that's not at all related and you're absolutely wrong. The "One China Policy" is the bread and butter of the entire Chinese political philosophy and they will defend it to their dying breath and have made it abundantly clear for 40 years that they will. America ignores that resolve out our peril.
You may not be smart enough to realize this but China is a nuclear power with ICBM's just like Russia and threatening to attack China's artificial islands in the south china sea is not a way to prevent hostilities that could quickly escalate to a nuclear exchange.
You missed my point. By decreasing the congestion you encourage urban sprawl and people drive more miles. These increased numbers of miles driven make congestion worse. It's simply impossible to add highways and arterials to relieve the congestion because you'll frequently get right back to the same point within a much shorter time period than you predicted because you sprawled the city out and people started driving more miles.
As I mentioned California tried to do this. They were very much like the example you try to use with single corridors and points of congestion that jammed up the whole system.. They attempted to grow capacity to alleviate their traffic congestion (there are freeways with 11 lanes in each direction in California) they built whole freeways just to connect across arterial zones. They did this for near on 40 years, they never got rid of the congestion, they'd relieve it temporary, often a quarter of the time predicted and would immediately be back to the same spot they were before the expanded capacity and the city expanded outward and people started driving 20% more miles. The counter example to this is New York, a city that hasn't really expanded capacity in 40 years and much longer in some areas. Instead they built mass transit and leveraged that. They didn't sprawl the city outward the city infilled by building up with the subway and other public transit systems adding carrying capacity. The result is a stable car carrying system and expanding public transit access.
The cost here is the near complete loss of the suburban environment. I'm not advocating for either position, merely pointing out that you can't grow capacity to solve congestion issues as an indefinite solution. The more and more capacity you add the less efficient the added capacity is. It's a losing proposition and requires better up front planning for growth to avoid the situation Southern California has ended up with. Musk wants to solve the problem by adding more capacity but all it's going to do is make it worse in the long term. He'd be better served trying to improve the efficiency of the capacity they already have, something that requires innovation and probably removing the human driver. There is no simple solution to the traffic problems in Southern California. They need to solve the much bigger zoning and land use issues they've created before they attempt to fix the traffic issues.
More roads don't fix congestion, they make it worse. California is a good example of this. All more road capacity does is encourage urban sprawl and more traffic, more miles driven and some huge societal costs. There is no easy or good solution to the problem from this point of view.
You can extract more capacity out of your roadways by increasing the density and speed of vehicles, but to do that you need computers in charge of cars that can drive at 90mph while 6 inches or less from the bumpers in front and behind that communicate with each other and essentially act as a mass transit system. This is a future we will likely see.
There is no permit depth. Depending on the state laws involved if you tunnel off your property you need permission from the property owner (in the west you might not even have permission to tunnel on your own property because someone else owns the mineral rights). If this is in a public ROW (Right-of-way) you need permission from the government in charge who is going to require that this be a public service (no private tunnels) and that you provide access for public utilities and other things as part of your free permission to use this ROW. If you tunnel under private property you are probably going to have to pay the property owner for a permanent easement.
This is going to depend a lot on the state's laws about property, the ground underneath it, mineral rights and many other issues. It's a legal minefield that will blow your company to bits with the first mistake. Musk's a smart guy but he's a get it done guy that's likely never truly encountered the complication property rights add to an infrastructure project.
If you wore said glock while over a state that forbids open carry you probably violated the law. Though pretty much impossible to be enforced it still constituted one of your 3 felonies a day.
And small hands.
0.1mm clearance to the surrounding metal plate with edges that dug into the battery if it expanded more than 0.1mm was enough? Did you even look at the outside analysis. 0.1mm isn't enough for normal non-battery thermal expansion. Lithium batteries swell when charging and discharging, as much as 5% and 0.1mm wasn't even close to enough.
Normal charge/discharge at thermally controlled rates would have exceeded 0.1mm. After a few cycles the metal plate's ridges would have poked holes in the battery and started bridging anode/cathode causing a runaway discharge along with a runaway thermal event. We call those runaway thermal events fires. Every competent designer familiar with Lith-ion expansion characteristics said the 0.1mm was way too small for a device that's going to be charging and discharging so frequently and so often.
There is a reason America has opposed anything but a two-state solution. If Israel truly embarks on this path and is supported by America they will create a true apartheid state. People without citizenship in the nation they live in, separate and unequal systems of government and police action.
If Trump allows Israel to annex the west bank without making every Palestinian Israeli citizens he'll be responsible for the creation of a new apartheid state. The world would react very badly to this turn of events and it would likely spiral into war.
I seem to remember shortly after Obama was inaugurated that Republican members of congress made it their goal to make him a failed president, opposed him in every action, voted against anything he supported and basically did everything in their power to oppose anything and everything he tried to do. It's interesting that those same republicans and their supporters now get their panties in a wad when the shoe is on the other foot.
It's all fine and dandy to want cooperation and working together but that requires that both sides do it. The republican's made it clear that this divided government thing is the way things will run in the future. It's up to them to fix that by going across the aisle and working with democrats not steam rolling them.
It's interesting to me that he used Lincoln's bible. Up until the Obama administration no one had used that Bible for inauguration, Obama was the first after Lincoln to use it. I guess this is yet another example of Trump and his family idolizing Obama in private while playing to crowd in public.
Good includes the fact that he's not dependent on campaign contributors like almost all major politicians are.
Yea he said that, you believed him apparently but he still raised funds, he still holds the $500 a plate "dinners" and cavorts with all the same people. Your belief in his outsiderness is misplaced.
Yea right. And Timothy McVeigh wasn't a right wing Militia member that blew up a building and killed an entire daycare's worth of kids.
There's plenty of nutjobs on both sides, what you are doing is attempting to make yourself feel better about your political choices by demonizing the other side. This dehumanizes them and allows you to make ridiculous statements like the above post. The people in charge like it when you do this because it divides people and allows the people in charge to pit the people against each other to their own benefit.
I don't understand why they can't admit it was a design flaw that didn't account for the expansion of the battery pack by using far too tight tolerances. If they don't recognize the problem it will happen again.
Now that is funny. Trump has no idea what the common man wants or needs. He does know how to tell people he knows what they need, but if you think an administration loaded with bankers (4 Goldman execs!) and other rich people is going to do anything for the lttle guy you're delusional.
That would depend on what's generating more money. What the studio's want is to have their cake and eat it too, in other words they want disc sales and streaming sales. Practically what that means is they will simply delay streaming availability until a certain number of months after the DVD/BluRay is available so as to capture both revenue streams. Several of the studio's already do this.
When Zenimax's lawyers talk about all this stolen "IP" they aren't pointing to specific code that was stolen. The entire case revolves around this idea that the Rift couldn't have been developed without Carmack and they own everything in Carmack's head. This is a hallmark of a claim that has no evidence and it's backed up by their claim of destruction of evidence which means they didn't find any stolen information during discovery (so of course it must have been destroyed). Such claims usually precede the case being dismissed for lack of evidence. Facebook's lawyers will likely move for dismissal for lack of evidence within days.
The first rule when looking at any legal case isn't to look at what the lawyers are arguing exclusively but to also look at what they are not arguing. They lawyers haven't listed a single line of code stolen and backed up by discovery, their claims lack any specificity and revolve solely around John having worked for them in the past (and claims that Palmer couldn't have developed this himself, claims with no evidence) and at this point in the case the lack of specificity is a death note for the case. All the Facebook lawyers need to do is stand in front of the Jury and ask where is the evidence of all these fantastic claims because there isn't any or Zenimax wouldn't be making the destruction of evidence claim.
In case you aren't aware a successful destruction of evidence claim allows the Judge to instruct the Jury that they should assume a lack of evidence should be inferred to be in the plaintiff's favor with the Jury taking the plaintiff's claims at face value. But you can't win a destruction of evidence claim without evidence of the destruction. Something they haven't demonstrated. These claims are almost always a hail mary to try to win a case where there isn't any evidence and the plaintiff is sure to lose without such a finding.
The way you should look at any court case is what the lawyers aren't talking about. First they aren't talking about copyright, they keep taking about IP, a nebulous term with no legal meaning. They aren't talking about a contract between Zenimax and Carmac that gives them ownership of anything he developed because no such contract exists. And most important of all they are talking about destruction of evidence because they didn't find any evidence in discovery to talk about instead. Usually a destruction of evidence claim proceeds the case being thrown out for lack of evidence.
ATT is gone, the company bearing the name today is southern bell company, SBC. ATT split itself up and sold all the pieces, SBC bought the name.
If zenimax had a contract that let them win this case they wouldn't be talking about everything but the contract. This is nothing but a legal attempt at extortion becuase Carmac quit after they bought ID.
PTSD isn't just from war numb nuts. It can happen from anything that you can't get out of your mind and begins to interfere with everything. From your comments you clearly don't have any idea what PTSD is. Which given how well the military treats it isn't surprising at all. But I suppose it's a step up from the 40's where we simply shot the sufferers as cowards.
That's what you are, a slight step up from someone that shoots people for cowardice for severe psychological trauma, and you should remember that, every single time you comment about PTSD.