Has it occurred to you that rich and middle-class people are well off precisely because they don't have kids?
If that were true, wouldn't people with large inherited wealth have even more kids than poor people, because they can bloody well afford it without affecting their lifestyles?
Red states. I'm serious. Comapre Utah to California. (I'd give you the stats if I were less lazy.)
You're right, but Utah may be an outlier. Firstly, there is some truth to the myth that Mormons (or LDS if you prefer, I'm LDS myself) have a lot of kids. Yes, there are Mormon families with one child, etc etc but the average family size really is bigger. This may be for different reasons than the South. It's been suggested (and sounds plausible to me) that the high birth rate in the South is due more to levels of education and standard of living than religion. I don't belive Utah has those conditions, but rather the high birth rate is due to religion - or culture, depending on how you want to look at it.
If those words don't imply "Flimsy" to you, then you really are the one who lacks basic English comprehension. I do suppose you can be forgiven since you were willing to forgive.
Forgive me for jumping in (hah!) but regardless of what implies what, wouldn't it be better to use words from the article in the summary? How about "PS3 Controller Cheap and Uncomfortable, Wii Controller Fun"? Nobody could argue with that summary. Well, I take that back, I'm sure somebody could find a way to argue with it.
I guess it depends which apples we're comparing. Motion capture was used in PE, but not the new variety that the article is about. At any rate I see your point now and I agree with Salzbrot (I'm taking your word that that's who wrote it!) that it's clear there's still value in non-motion-capture animation. What threw me off is the implication that mo-cap is cheap and fast comparatively. I understand PE cost something like $100 million to make. I guess the whole point of this new technology is make it faster and cheaper, but the real breakthrough would be avoiding the creepy chasm or whatever it's called. The ad with the I Love Lucy characters was totally convincing, I thought. Can they do the same with an entirely "made up" face? Dunno.
Only a human who innately understands the subtleties of human emotions can truly finesse facial animation so it looks pleasing to the human eye.
You're saying this technology could never become good enough to copy a human face well enough to be indistinguishable to a human observer? Or are you saying something else?
Not sure where you're going with this. First, neither Polar Express nor Pixar uses the technology from the article, so the comparison isn't relevant. Second, I didn't enjoy Polar Express as much as any Pixar movie. I'm assuming your point is that the animation in PE is much more life-like than Pixar's work. So if that doesn't (necessarily) make for a better movie, we're back to the original question: what need for spending huge time and money on better animation?
Do you want to know why we have difficulties getting things done in the USA?
1. I don't think name-calling is really a major obstacle in energy policy. Maybe I'm wrong though. 2. This is true, but ignores the deeper question of WHY we're not funding nukyulur power. Is it because of environmentalists protesting nuke power? The political risk of uttering the N word? Something else? 3. Don't forget the BANANA principle - Build Almost Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. This is an evolution from NAMBY, Not In My Back Yard. It's hard to put anything near where anybody lives, because everyone says "fine, build a nuclear power plant. HERE?? NO!!!! Put it somewhere else!" And of course the people who live "somewhere else" say the same thing. So it doesn't get built. I'm not saying that's the whole problem, just one factor. BANANA affects our petroleum refining capacity as well, incidentally.
A scientist is not "biased" if their child gets run over by a drunk driver & that scientist then does a study on the phenomenon of drunk driving.
If his research consisted of asking questions on a MADD discussion board it might be considered biased. If the OP started with existing numbers and correlated them with careers, that would certainly be unbiased. The way he phrased his question makes it sound like he wants support for the conclusion he's already reached before gathering evidence. Considering his personal situation, I think it would be foolish not to question his objectivity.
*Yeah I know it's silly to compare Beowulf to the hot grits guy but you get the point.
You're right, it is silly. I agree with the delete voters that Slashdot trolling is not unique enough to merit a separate page from internet forum trolling. If someone wanted a whole page about how Beowulf was probably not very tall, I would agree that should be deleted too. It's a minor detail that cannot be verified in a way consistent with WP policies and isn't significant enough to deserve its own page anyway - just like/. trolling. What I'm not saying is that there should not be any information anywhere about/. trolling. I'm saying WP shouldn't have a whole page on it, but if someone wants to make a web site dedicated to the phenomenon, I would certainly check it out.
The notion that the prevailing view of Slashdot moderators is "anti-American" (ie liberal, translating from dittohead speak) is absurd.
What I took from that comment is that's it's popular to criticize the government here, and I don't think you could disagree with that. Whether that's what he meant I'm not sure, but gubmint criticism seems to come from the left and the right. Which is interesting actually...
If he killed his wife and disposed of her body with forethough it was not a crime of passion.
Yes, if he did that. He may have planned it out, or he may have killed her on the spur of the moment as it were. Or maybe someone else killed her, or maybe she's not dead. Police don't even have a body yet.
Oh come now, answer my real question!:-) What would not be lame? Does it have to be new to be not lame? Does it have to have particular features, or an absence of certain flaws?
Unless the iPod is keeping some history of user inputs or time, or some outside-the-iPod change, then the mathematical formula that decides the order of the songs will return the same sequence again and again.
Yes, but if it repeats that sequence every 6000 years, it really doesn't matter. Modern pseudorandom alorithms are very good. This completely ignores the issue at hand, which is that randomness is not what people want anyway.
Put your head in the sand if you like, but it is coming.
"Software as a service is coming" and "desktop apps are leaving" are not the same thing. We can (and already do) have both in the market at the same time, and I expect that will continue.
I thought the whole point of this "revolution" is not that you now have to pay every month to use the software you've always been using up to now, but that you have to pay every month to use it, but you don't have it anymore. Instead, you point your web browser to excel.microsoft.com, log in, and access your spreadsheets. It would be a download size somewhere between the whole app and an access key.
I view the Washington Post as a partisan Democrat paper, and when I worked in DC I'd be more likely to read the Washington Times, which was right-wing and less competent, but did a better job of telling what the then-Democrat Congress was doing, and you could work around its biases about what Reagan, Bush, and Ollie were doing.)
The adjectival form of "Democrat" is "Democratic", not "Democrat".
If he's going to criticize how some host handles his show, I think it's fair to allow the same from those he's questioning in the name of a fair debate.
I'm sure if Tucker Carlson had a reasoned argument as to how The Daily Show is making America a worse place, Stewart would hear him out. IMO the criticism comes down to "you're easier on the liberals than the conservatives." I'd say that's mostly true in the interviews, because Stewart tends to agree more with the liberals. So the show is biased, which everybody knows already. But in a segment where the goals are 1) be funny and 2) let the guest speak what is the problem with that? The rest of the show already mocks the Democrats. If they should happen to gain some power, I'm sure they'll continue to be on the sharp end. Their goal is to make fun of whatever is happening in politics. If that's Republicans doing stupid things, they make fun of that. If it's Democrats demonstrating a complete inability to do anything, they make fun of that. And so on - they really are out for a laugh rather than to cover the most important news stories. Criticizing them for missing the meat of a story is missing the point, just like Stewart says.
XP was a dramatic enough change we had to schedule training for most of the sales and marketing staff.
Well geez, you didn't tell me you were talking about sales and marketing! Just kidding. I did go through the upgrade in a corporate environment, though it was a small corporation. There was no training as we went from NT4 to Windows 2000 to XP. Maybe we just had smarter-than-normal people at that company. As I said, others' experience could differ from mine.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess it depends which apples we're comparing. Motion capture was used in PE, but not the new variety that the article is about. At any rate I see your point now and I agree with Salzbrot (I'm taking your word that that's who wrote it!) that it's clear there's still value in non-motion-capture animation. What threw me off is the implication that mo-cap is cheap and fast comparatively. I understand PE cost something like $100 million to make. I guess the whole point of this new technology is make it faster and cheaper, but the real breakthrough would be avoiding the creepy chasm or whatever it's called. The ad with the I Love Lucy characters was totally convincing, I thought. Can they do the same with an entirely "made up" face? Dunno.
Not sure where you're going with this. First, neither Polar Express nor Pixar uses the technology from the article, so the comparison isn't relevant. Second, I didn't enjoy Polar Express as much as any Pixar movie. I'm assuming your point is that the animation in PE is much more life-like than Pixar's work. So if that doesn't (necessarily) make for a better movie, we're back to the original question: what need for spending huge time and money on better animation?
I think this is the first time I've seen "lose" or a derivative misspelled in a sig...
You don't need to tell me, I've lived in Boulder. :-)
Oh come now, answer my real question! :-) What would not be lame? Does it have to be new to be not lame? Does it have to have particular features, or an absence of certain flaws?
Of course, Pine doesn't prevent signatures or attachments.
I thought the whole point of this "revolution" is not that you now have to pay every month to use the software you've always been using up to now, but that you have to pay every month to use it, but you don't have it anymore. Instead, you point your web browser to excel.microsoft.com, log in, and access your spreadsheets. It would be a download size somewhere between the whole app and an access key.