Yeah right. You don't tick every deduction box you can, right? Or maybe you do, and when the government sends you your refund you tell the postman "no thanks" and tear it up?
There are two differences between normal people paying taxes and rich people (and corporations) paying taxes. (1) The rich can afford (good) professional advice on how to pay less and (2) it's worth their while to bribe legislators to give them more loopholes. One area they don't differ is in paying the least they think they can get away with.
I'm willing to bet that the majority of Slashdotters encrypt their wifi transmissions. The radio channels we're talking about are intended to be public. Spamming up public discussion boards with encrypted text isn't cool either.
Online advertising is just one of the ways marketing is done. It's a particularly irritating one that's out of control, but it's not the only one. Product placement, paid advertising disguised as regular content, all have been abused.
Not everyone has time to agonize over every purchasing decision. Many people make purchases based on questionable information. Advertising has always taken advantage of the mental shortcuts we have from our evolution and society. We trust familiar names and patterns. If you're honest with yourself, you can probably identify things you believe yourself just because you've heard them from other people, as opposed to verifying them yourself based on empirical evidence. Religion, morals, Vi vs. EMACS, government vs. private industry, open source vs. proprietary. It's easy to find examples.
Yes, people do. I'll even watch the occasional one that's interesting. I watched the one from the government claiming that the bridge out of the city isn't about to crash down into the river, because it's (darkly) hilarious that I live in a place where governments buy ads like that.
One thing you realize when you watch a few of those ads is that the content is right up front, in that first five seconds you can't skip. They're going for literal "impressions," eyeballs transferring their name and logo to brains. Apparently that's all you need to convince people to buy your crap.
That's fine. "Free" content is dishonest anyway. It's not free, the cost to you is just obscured. People now are wising up to the cost and deciding it's not worth it. Eventually everything will shake out, those sites that provide content worth paying for will figure out how to charge for it in a way people won't hate, and the rest will die.
I doubt you'd be welcome at an ad industry conference with that attitude either. You're suggesting companies concentrate on engineering and customer service instead of marketing? Madness!
That's a common mistake: no significant effect doesn't mean no effect, it literally means "my data isn't good enough to reach any conclusion with confidence." They did in fact observe a negative effect of marijuana use, it just wasn't big enough to be confident that it was real. All sorts of factors can cause that: actual absence of effect, noise in your measurement, a poorly fitting model, methodological problems, etc. Not measuring the amount of use, for example, means that instead of fitting a model that takes into account the dose effect, you have to just group people into users and non-users, based on some threshold. That leads to things like assigning anybody who took a single puff to the users category. It's not fatal to a large enough study, but it can easily produce a not significant result in a smaller one.
Alcohol has been pretty extensively studied. We know about, and most of us acknowledge it's side effects. Marijuana hasn't been as extensively studied. Unfortunately, due to political reasons, many people also insist that it's perfectly safe, without any side effects at all, which is a ridiculous claim to make about any drug.
Clinical trials are generally only done for drugs that are going to be used clinically (thus the name), not recreationally. Marijuana (and it's components) have been studied in clinical trials for potential medical applications, but studies of recreational use, including this one, are not clinical trials at all. They're observational (they involve giving people surveys) instead of radomized and controlled (where you assign people to take or not take the drug, preferably without telling them which group they're in).
We have this weird idea that you should be able to take a particular drug to control your seizures, accepting the side effects, without also taking other drugs that don't help control your seizures and have their own side effects. Crazy hey?
These are observational studies. Nobody tells the kids to (or not to) smoke pot; the subjects answer questions about what they've done, all on their own.
The hero with a gun thing is pure fantasy. The US FBI recently released a report on mass shootings. Only one has been stopped by a civilian with a gun.
A smart gun is intended to prevent accidents and incidents where stolen guns are used immediately. Like a trigger lock. A smart gun IS an inferior solution, but it allows people to engage in the fantasy that they need a ready to fire gun to hand for self defence.
That's the company that sends me e-mail notifications for someone's alarm system. The notifications contain the person's first name, street address, a timestamp and what the action was (alarm armed, disarmed, armed stay, alarm, etc.). There only return address is unmonitored and xfinity.com doesn't seem to have any contact information.
The generation that was really paranoid about those things is starting to die off. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the next twenty or thirty years, we get over that particular fear entirely. If you wanted to launch a sneak attack you could put nukes on regular airliners... there's no reason for them to go fast if they're disguised. Ballistic airliners would still be easily distinguished from ballistic missiles: they'd fly trajectories that didn't spill the rich peoples' drinks. Finally, there's not much point in worrying about a first strike because if it did happen there's not much you could do about it and your submarine launched missiles would be unaffected.
As far as I know, Apple's default settings are to require a password every time you make a purchase. All of my devices certainly do. There are several additional options, including enabling purchases without a password for a certain period of time, or not requiring a password at all, but you have to select those. Plus you can create an account with no credit card info at all for your children to play with.
1) The whole requiring infinite energy to even get up to c part makes it a little tricky to go faster.
2) Your link is BS. It seems to be talking about some theoretical results from general relativity but completely misinterprets them and also presents them as experimentally verified. Actual experiments have measured the speed of gravity to within 1% of the speed of light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You don't replicate a theory. You replicate experiments that are designed to test predictions of the theory. Many experiments have been done, and replicated, that support the general big bang with inflation theory, although we're still working out the fine details.
Sure. That's common in most sports. Hockey fans who want more fights, skiing fans who like ski cross, American football fans who don't want the game banned, etc.
The possibility of crashes and injuries make otherwise boring or pointless games more exciting.
Not really. A typical video shows images in real time: the time separating the showing of each frame is equal to the time separating their acquisition. Although an individual part of a frame might be shown slightly before or after it should be, the defining characteristic is that the interval is correct on *average*, over a perceptibly insignificant timescale.
If the interval, on average, is longer than real time, we call it slow motion. If it's shorter, time lapse.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah right. You don't tick every deduction box you can, right? Or maybe you do, and when the government sends you your refund you tell the postman "no thanks" and tear it up?
There are two differences between normal people paying taxes and rich people (and corporations) paying taxes. (1) The rich can afford (good) professional advice on how to pay less and (2) it's worth their while to bribe legislators to give them more loopholes. One area they don't differ is in paying the least they think they can get away with.
All resource extraction was less than 10% of the Canadian economy in 2014, smaller than manufacturing and real estate.
I'm willing to bet that the majority of Slashdotters encrypt their wifi transmissions. The radio channels we're talking about are intended to be public. Spamming up public discussion boards with encrypted text isn't cool either.
At $10 a minute I expect the censor who had to watch the paint drying probably laughed through most of it.
You know Google did the same thing four months ago, right?
Online advertising is just one of the ways marketing is done. It's a particularly irritating one that's out of control, but it's not the only one. Product placement, paid advertising disguised as regular content, all have been abused.
Not everyone has time to agonize over every purchasing decision. Many people make purchases based on questionable information. Advertising has always taken advantage of the mental shortcuts we have from our evolution and society. We trust familiar names and patterns. If you're honest with yourself, you can probably identify things you believe yourself just because you've heard them from other people, as opposed to verifying them yourself based on empirical evidence. Religion, morals, Vi vs. EMACS, government vs. private industry, open source vs. proprietary. It's easy to find examples.
Yes, people do. I'll even watch the occasional one that's interesting. I watched the one from the government claiming that the bridge out of the city isn't about to crash down into the river, because it's (darkly) hilarious that I live in a place where governments buy ads like that.
One thing you realize when you watch a few of those ads is that the content is right up front, in that first five seconds you can't skip. They're going for literal "impressions," eyeballs transferring their name and logo to brains. Apparently that's all you need to convince people to buy your crap.
That's fine. "Free" content is dishonest anyway. It's not free, the cost to you is just obscured. People now are wising up to the cost and deciding it's not worth it. Eventually everything will shake out, those sites that provide content worth paying for will figure out how to charge for it in a way people won't hate, and the rest will die.
I doubt you'd be welcome at an ad industry conference with that attitude either. You're suggesting companies concentrate on engineering and customer service instead of marketing? Madness!
My lab rat Barney is insulted you called him a mouse. And he'd never ride around in a pocket.
That's a common mistake: no significant effect doesn't mean no effect, it literally means "my data isn't good enough to reach any conclusion with confidence." They did in fact observe a negative effect of marijuana use, it just wasn't big enough to be confident that it was real. All sorts of factors can cause that: actual absence of effect, noise in your measurement, a poorly fitting model, methodological problems, etc. Not measuring the amount of use, for example, means that instead of fitting a model that takes into account the dose effect, you have to just group people into users and non-users, based on some threshold. That leads to things like assigning anybody who took a single puff to the users category. It's not fatal to a large enough study, but it can easily produce a not significant result in a smaller one.
Alcohol has been pretty extensively studied. We know about, and most of us acknowledge it's side effects. Marijuana hasn't been as extensively studied. Unfortunately, due to political reasons, many people also insist that it's perfectly safe, without any side effects at all, which is a ridiculous claim to make about any drug.
Clinical trials are generally only done for drugs that are going to be used clinically (thus the name), not recreationally. Marijuana (and it's components) have been studied in clinical trials for potential medical applications, but studies of recreational use, including this one, are not clinical trials at all. They're observational (they involve giving people surveys) instead of radomized and controlled (where you assign people to take or not take the drug, preferably without telling them which group they're in).
We have this weird idea that you should be able to take a particular drug to control your seizures, accepting the side effects, without also taking other drugs that don't help control your seizures and have their own side effects. Crazy hey?
These are observational studies. Nobody tells the kids to (or not to) smoke pot; the subjects answer questions about what they've done, all on their own.
The hero with a gun thing is pure fantasy. The US FBI recently released a report on mass shootings. Only one has been stopped by a civilian with a gun.
A smart gun is intended to prevent accidents and incidents where stolen guns are used immediately. Like a trigger lock. A smart gun IS an inferior solution, but it allows people to engage in the fantasy that they need a ready to fire gun to hand for self defence.
That's the company that sends me e-mail notifications for someone's alarm system. The notifications contain the person's first name, street address, a timestamp and what the action was (alarm armed, disarmed, armed stay, alarm, etc.). There only return address is unmonitored and xfinity.com doesn't seem to have any contact information.
Seems like a legit operation.
The generation that was really paranoid about those things is starting to die off. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the next twenty or thirty years, we get over that particular fear entirely. If you wanted to launch a sneak attack you could put nukes on regular airliners... there's no reason for them to go fast if they're disguised. Ballistic airliners would still be easily distinguished from ballistic missiles: they'd fly trajectories that didn't spill the rich peoples' drinks. Finally, there's not much point in worrying about a first strike because if it did happen there's not much you could do about it and your submarine launched missiles would be unaffected.
It has one. Just change the logged in store account to the kid's account. Problem solved.
As far as I know, Apple's default settings are to require a password every time you make a purchase. All of my devices certainly do. There are several additional options, including enabling purchases without a password for a certain period of time, or not requiring a password at all, but you have to select those. Plus you can create an account with no credit card info at all for your children to play with.
1) The whole requiring infinite energy to even get up to c part makes it a little tricky to go faster.
2) Your link is BS. It seems to be talking about some theoretical results from general relativity but completely misinterprets them and also presents them as experimentally verified. Actual experiments have measured the speed of gravity to within 1% of the speed of light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
3) ???
You don't replicate a theory. You replicate experiments that are designed to test predictions of the theory. Many experiments have been done, and replicated, that support the general big bang with inflation theory, although we're still working out the fine details.
Sure. That's common in most sports. Hockey fans who want more fights, skiing fans who like ski cross, American football fans who don't want the game banned, etc.
The possibility of crashes and injuries make otherwise boring or pointless games more exciting.
Not really. A typical video shows images in real time: the time separating the showing of each frame is equal to the time separating their acquisition. Although an individual part of a frame might be shown slightly before or after it should be, the defining characteristic is that the interval is correct on *average*, over a perceptibly insignificant timescale.
If the interval, on average, is longer than real time, we call it slow motion. If it's shorter, time lapse.