Comic book
Dancing
Movies/Cinema
TV, cartoon/anime etc...
So yeah. Pretty much anything which might interrest a kid and is not school related is seen as a distraction. Call me back when tehy have a peer reviweed article showing it is worst than any other distraction source. Until then : BFD.
Honoring a DNT would mean a high risk that sooner or later the majority of the page served would ask to not track. And that would have meant to return to the old day of "dumb" TV like advertising where they do only lknow statistically who is watching the ad, but not idnvidually. This would mean billions of $ of market evaporating.
From the get go advertised never intended to honor DNT, they simply slowed down any discussion and finally simply pulled excuse out of thin air to not honor it.
And the result is : thanks ghostery, noflash, adblock, and referer check.
When i was in high school back in the early 90ies in France, it was the same : people were trying to remember stuff by rote learning, not only in math but also in physic. With the predictable result that by the next year , for many very little was left of it. I have come to think that the few of us which aced the math/physic, we did it because we understood the problem and how to solve it, rather than learn the solution. And once you understand something, it is incredibly easy to remember how to do it. I don't think this is a special problem from south Alabama or where ever, I think it is a general problem in many country that many student are firstly taught rote learning in small school, and later in middle/high school are never taught to understand a problem properly.
Not many people liked the cannon of star trek. In fact many young people I talk to find the best episode of all series of star trek, then one without fight and the one with philosophical implication, the most boring. So the two newest star trek were filmed for the new audience , not the old one, as an explosion loaded action flick. Which is why JJ Abrams was chosen for the star trek reboot. It sounds to me that SW7 will be like that : action loaded. Now for SW it is not too bad. The question is : will the protagonist have character development, or will the plot and characters be secondary, and that is the 2$ question.
I first saw star wars I was 20+ (due to a combination of not owning a TV for a long time after I left my parents home, and before that I watched few TV). And they are good film with an arc, comply to standard story telling and film. The prequel do not comply. Check the red letter media review, plinkett bring a lot of good points : * You can easily tell who is the protagonist and main hero in SW4,5,6. You cannot with SW1 and arguably SW2. * character ? Character in SW4,5,6 can be described with trait independently of their role. It is much harder with SW 1,2,3
* Plot ? The plot in SW4,5,6 is simple and follow the standard heroic epic there are plot holes but not many Villain actions make sense as a wehole. In SW 1,2,3 the plot makes no sense whatsoever as the villain is givign contradictory order to its goal.
and I pass many other. Look I did not watch SW when I was young , but already an adult. I could recognize it as a nice fantasy (not SF) story with knight in space. The throne room scene still leaves frisson in me. The lava scene is forgettable. Lucas mistook the fight in the throne room for what it was. He then added fighting everywhere to break the boring dialogues.
As a whole the prequel are poor tredning to bad. It is not only rose colored glasses , but simply a fair assessement.
"Driverless cars drive in the most boring, conservative, milquetoast fashion imaginable. They're going to be far less prone to accidents from the outset simply because they don't take the kind of chances that many of us wouldn't even begin call "risky". "
As a user of the road I want people to stop taking risk they think aren't risky, until they generate an accident and by then it is too late. Stop speeding. Respect all speed limit even if it is to your feeling too low, drive lower speed at night because you cannot see as far away, etc... SDo for me jsut for THIS quoted paragraph, I cannot wait to have boring law respecting car on the road.
People fearing MSG because it is everywhere. I tried to explain calmly, that glutamate as amino acid is something around 7% (IIRC) prevalence in protein, so unless you are eating no protein whatsoever , you will eat a lot of glutamate. Also the body internally itself produce 90% (IIRC) of the glutamate for protein creation. But no matter the argument , I could not convince the person that MSG is harmless especially considered the very low quantity.
With a 2-3% inflation you get a doubling of price every 23 to 35 years. So 1 billion today is equivalent to 350 million $ in 1980 and 550 million dollar in 1990. So not so "big" anymore.... I used this by the way : http://www.bls.gov/data/inflat... very useful to compare money amounts.
Soooo parasitic species do not exists in your world, symbiotic species do not exists in your world, domestic species do not exists in your world etc...etc... I am happy to live in this world where natural selection led a lot of species come with far more inventive solution than kill or be killed.
As other pointed out there are guna ccident which would be lowered or avoided with that tech (suicide from a person in the family not the gun opwner, young kid finding the gun and playing with it (if I recall correctly there is about 300? gun death from kids below 12 per year) or being disarmed by an oppponent (which can't then use the gun)). A not-so-gun-enthiusiast person aka one which only see it as a tool but take no pride or fun into it, may be interrested into avoiding those mode of failure.
Idiot adult forget to close safe to gun (or it is in a shoe box) young kid use it and play with it and it follows fatal shooting (happens sadly far more than it should) or young teenager suicidal thought get gun out of hiding and use it. Both mod of failure which could be stopped or even lowered by smart gun. I am sure we could come up with more.
As a bicycle user (which stops at stops, red light, and pay attention to right coming traffic or pedestrian) I also fail to see how it makes road safer, but it seems to work... So...
And even the "pro" make noob error from time to time out of various reason. I could list them, but let us say that even expert are not perfect programming turing complete automaton. They are human. PLus more often than not they suffer from the NIH syndrom, and from the "it must obey my standard rule" syndrom making them rewrite code or change indent variable name etc...
The main reason stuff stays in fortran is the general best practice of not messing with working shipped code. If the code needs regular work, for goodness sake use a maintainable language. But lots of fortran code has been stable for decades, and only a madman would go changing it.
No. The main reason we program in fortran is because the lirbary are known, have known error bars, known comportment , and are "provable". We *DO* reprogram every time we come up to a new problem which need to be translated. Chance is there is no standard code for what you want to simulate for your own specific problem. There are some rare case, like QM program (Gaussian, Molpro etc...) or some engineering program, but those are the exception not the rule.
There is a wealth of well optimized library out there, for which the mathematical result and the "error bars" are known. Porting such library and checking everything again would cost a lot of money, for what exactely ? FORTRAN is doing the job.
That assumes that we know as much physics as they do. They might be using some medium to communicate that we haven't even discovered yet.
and you can assume pretty much anything whatsoever even instant wormhole stargate to ancient egyptian dude enslaving people. But within the scientific community this guy pretend to have consulted, we have a standard, and it is called what we have evidence for. As such, medium to communicate is light, and very slow compared to the interstellar distances, and distance to travel mind bogglingly vaste and nigh impossible to bridge with known physic. Etc....
"'The scientific community now accepts to some degree that this contact may occur in the next 50 to 100 years" said Gabriel De la Torre, a clinical neuropsychologist.
He should really ask a physicist really , instead of consulting a movie program/ tv shows program.
As said in another post he was a math sophomore. The "furniture salesman" is a red herring, what is important is that he had studied math. Not to put him "down" but he does not appear as interesting once you realize that it is something he studied in university.
Skepticism was all high from those which took the extra step of *checking* what georesonnance pretended to be doing. We aren't speaking of P3C flying over the bengal bay and detecting something, we are speaking of a company pretending that magnetic field (as small as needing a P3C boom M.A.D. to be detected in normal usage) left enough trace on a photo to detect something (or heck a negative) that was BS from the start.
I have to wonder , I always see such uneducated comment in global warming thread. In the mean time I have come to the conclusion that people truly never try to educate themselves, they grasp at the slightest of the information they might have overheard in their live, without checking if that experience is actually supported, then stick to it forever.
To the op, it is not about absolute quantity but about relative effect. A very small change in CO2 is enough to retain much more warmth (trap IR longer). Same with other molecules by the way , like CH4, SF6... Only the half life of those limit their effect. But why bother, you (or any of the ignorant posting the same drivel) will simply skip it and post their ignorance again at the next GW thread.
Why not just use per second (I won't even harp on using 900 km.s-1 at that point it seems neigh useless) and compare to speed of light (that's about 0.3% of speed of light by the way) or other astronomical measurement.
Slashdot Mirror
Comic book
Dancing
Movies/Cinema
TV, cartoon/anime etc...
So yeah. Pretty much anything which might interrest a kid and is not school related is seen as a distraction. Call me back when tehy have a peer reviweed article showing it is worst than any other distraction source. Until then : BFD.
Honoring a DNT would mean a high risk that sooner or later the majority of the page served would ask to not track. And that would have meant to return to the old day of "dumb" TV like advertising where they do only lknow statistically who is watching the ad, but not idnvidually. This would mean billions of $ of market evaporating.
From the get go advertised never intended to honor DNT, they simply slowed down any discussion and finally simply pulled excuse out of thin air to not honor it.
And the result is : thanks ghostery, noflash, adblock, and referer check.
When i was in high school back in the early 90ies in France, it was the same : people were trying to remember stuff by rote learning, not only in math but also in physic. With the predictable result that by the next year , for many very little was left of it. I have come to think that the few of us which aced the math/physic, we did it because we understood the problem and how to solve it, rather than learn the solution. And once you understand something, it is incredibly easy to remember how to do it. I don't think this is a special problem from south Alabama or where ever, I think it is a general problem in many country that many student are firstly taught rote learning in small school, and later in middle/high school are never taught to understand a problem properly.
There is always way to glue a carton over the advert screen and cut loudspeaker out.
Not many people liked the cannon of star trek. In fact many young people I talk to find the best episode of all series of star trek, then one without fight and the one with philosophical implication, the most boring. So the two newest star trek were filmed for the new audience , not the old one, as an explosion loaded action flick. Which is why JJ Abrams was chosen for the star trek reboot. It sounds to me that SW7 will be like that : action loaded. Now for SW it is not too bad. The question is : will the protagonist have character development, or will the plot and characters be secondary, and that is the 2$ question.
I first saw star wars I was 20+ (due to a combination of not owning a TV for a long time after I left my parents home, and before that I watched few TV). And they are good film with an arc, comply to standard story telling and film. The prequel do not comply. Check the red letter media review, plinkett bring a lot of good points :
* You can easily tell who is the protagonist and main hero in SW4,5,6. You cannot with SW1 and arguably SW2.
* character ? Character in SW4,5,6 can be described with trait independently of their role. It is much harder with SW 1,2,3
* Plot ? The plot in SW4,5,6 is simple and follow the standard heroic epic there are plot holes but not many Villain actions make sense as a wehole. In SW 1,2,3 the plot makes no sense whatsoever as the villain is givign contradictory order to its goal.
and I pass many other. Look I did not watch SW when I was young , but already an adult. I could recognize it as a nice fantasy (not SF) story with knight in space. The throne room scene still leaves frisson in me. The lava scene is forgettable. Lucas mistook the fight in the throne room for what it was. He then added fighting everywhere to break the boring dialogues.
As a whole the prequel are poor tredning to bad. It is not only rose colored glasses , but simply a fair assessement.
As a user of the road I want people to stop taking risk they think aren't risky, until they generate an accident and by then it is too late. Stop speeding. Respect all speed limit even if it is to your feeling too low, drive lower speed at night because you cannot see as far away, etc... SDo for me jsut for THIS quoted paragraph, I cannot wait to have boring law respecting car on the road.
People fearing MSG because it is everywhere. I tried to explain calmly, that glutamate as amino acid is something around 7% (IIRC) prevalence in protein, so unless you are eating no protein whatsoever , you will eat a lot of glutamate. Also the body internally itself produce 90% (IIRC) of the glutamate for protein creation. But no matter the argument , I could not convince the person that MSG is harmless especially considered the very low quantity.
That's your history right there. You can see melting period / snow period in the ice core.
With a 2-3% inflation you get a doubling of price every 23 to 35 years. So 1 billion today is equivalent to 350 million $ in 1980 and 550 million dollar in 1990. So not so "big" anymore.... I used this by the way : http://www.bls.gov/data/inflat... very useful to compare money amounts.
Soooo parasitic species do not exists in your world, symbiotic species do not exists in your world, domestic species do not exists in your world etc...etc... I am happy to live in this world where natural selection led a lot of species come with far more inventive solution than kill or be killed.
Ah yes because the NSA says me so. You know what i think ? I think NSA told us to distrust other vendor because they have no back door in them.
As other pointed out there are guna ccident which would be lowered or avoided with that tech (suicide from a person in the family not the gun opwner, young kid finding the gun and playing with it (if I recall correctly there is about 300? gun death from kids below 12 per year) or being disarmed by an oppponent (which can't then use the gun)). A not-so-gun-enthiusiast person aka one which only see it as a tool but take no pride or fun into it, may be interrested into avoiding those mode of failure.
Idiot adult forget to close safe to gun (or it is in a shoe box) young kid use it and play with it and it follows fatal shooting (happens sadly far more than it should) or young teenager suicidal thought get gun out of hiding and use it. Both mod of failure which could be stopped or even lowered by smart gun. I am sure we could come up with more.
As a bicycle user (which stops at stops, red light, and pay attention to right coming traffic or pedestrian) I also fail to see how it makes road safer, but it seems to work... So...
No. The main reason we program in fortran is because the lirbary are known, have known error bars, known comportment , and are "provable". We *DO* reprogram every time we come up to a new problem which need to be translated. Chance is there is no standard code for what you want to simulate for your own specific problem. There are some rare case, like QM program (Gaussian, Molpro etc...) or some engineering program, but those are the exception not the rule.
There is a wealth of well optimized library out there, for which the mathematical result and the "error bars" are known. Porting such library and checking everything again would cost a lot of money, for what exactely ? FORTRAN is doing the job.
and you can assume pretty much anything whatsoever even instant wormhole stargate to ancient egyptian dude enslaving people. But within the scientific community this guy pretend to have consulted, we have a standard, and it is called what we have evidence for. As such, medium to communicate is light, and very slow compared to the interstellar distances, and distance to travel mind bogglingly vaste and nigh impossible to bridge with known physic. Etc....
"'The scientific community now accepts to some degree that this contact may occur in the next 50 to 100 years" said Gabriel De la Torre, a clinical neuropsychologist.
He should really ask a physicist really , instead of consulting a movie program/ tv shows program.
Then we physicist put our own spin on it :).
As a developer ? 5 years ago when you could easily breach out. As a gamer ? Today with the wide choice of quality indy game.
As said in another post he was a math sophomore. The "furniture salesman" is a red herring, what is important is that he had studied math. Not to put him "down" but he does not appear as interesting once you realize that it is something he studied in university.
Skepticism was all high from those which took the extra step of *checking* what georesonnance pretended to be doing. We aren't speaking of P3C flying over the bengal bay and detecting something, we are speaking of a company pretending that magnetic field (as small as needing a P3C boom M.A.D. to be detected in normal usage) left enough trace on a photo to detect something (or heck a negative) that was BS from the start.
I have to wonder , I always see such uneducated comment in global warming thread. In the mean time I have come to the conclusion that people truly never try to educate themselves, they grasp at the slightest of the information they might have overheard in their live, without checking if that experience is actually supported, then stick to it forever.
To the op, it is not about absolute quantity but about relative effect. A very small change in CO2 is enough to retain much more warmth (trap IR longer). Same with other molecules by the way , like CH4, SF6... Only the half life of those limit their effect. But why bother, you (or any of the ignorant posting the same drivel) will simply skip it and post their ignorance again at the next GW thread.
Why not just use per second (I won't even harp on using 900 km.s-1 at that point it seems neigh useless) and compare to speed of light (that's about 0.3% of speed of light by the way) or other astronomical measurement.