They can't even be opened with "the key" as there is no cabin accessible keyhole. They use dead-bolts and cross bars that are only accessible from within the cockpit.
The sad thing is how often I've seen the one fucking security enhancement that actually made sense and would actually prevent "another 9/11" not being used. Not very much these days, but that's what so sad -- in the year after 9/11 when I was flying a lot, I saw plenty of cockpit doors left wide open the entire flight. So we're all shitting ourselves over terrorists such that the damn bread knife at the airport Schlotsky's has to be chained down and we're searching every foreigner/hippie who walks through security, but we won't do the one thing that would keep a terrorist from holding that knife to the pilot's throat and leave the poor bastard stuck in a cabin full of irate passengers? WTF?
Since there's no possible way the driver education course could be less rigorous than the driving test, even if it was just half an hour of tooling around in the parking lot, that makes sense to me.
Or doesn't the driving licence in your country require passing a driving test, as it does in mine?
LOL. Oh yeah, I had to take a driving test to get my TX license. It was a complete joke, literally in the sense that I would tell the story of it at parties for laughs. Which, as far as I can tell, was the purpose of it because it sure wasn't to make sure I was safe on the road. Part of a campaign to lighten the image of DPS, I would imagine.
First came the exam, which was sad in its own way. Given by a computer, multiple choice questions. Question number one of twenty -- remember, multiple choice -- was "What is your name?" One answer is your actual name, and the other three are names nothing at all like it. Maybe the idea was to prevent fraud by having someone else take the test for you, but to even get to the test-taking point you would have had to give your name and several forms of ID to the clerk. So the only way it would catch someone is if they were so drunk they forgot the name of the person they were imitating in the ten feet between the counter and the test-taking station. Which was sort of a theme for the whole experience, really. Question two was "what is your date of birth?" The remaining questions weren't much harder. If you're getting your TX license and are worried about the test, here's a cheat-sheet for about half of it: "Safe and reasonable speed."
After that grueling and rigorous exam, then came the actual driving test. Following the examiner's directions, I drove out of the parking lot, took a right turn onto a major but at this time of day lightly trafficked street, went twenty feet to a traffic light, took a right turn into a residential neighborhood with wide but unmarked streets, went around the block where I encountered a single stop sign, went back to the same light, turned left on the green without even having to deal with oncoming traffic because it was a 'T', then turned back into the DPS parking lot. Whew! That was tough! It took all of my not-chugging-tequila powers to make it through. Seriously, I can't imagine how I could have failed the test unless I was so drunk I couldn't operate a car, or was so new to the States that I didn't know what side of the road to drive on. Keep in mind, this location was all of two blocks from a major highway. But checking to see if I knew how to merge, or even if I could go over 25mph without killing anyone, wasn't necessary. Which frankly explains a lot.
So yeah. Maybe if you had a TX license, getting a license from another state would make it less likely you're a bad driver. But adding a TX license to your driving resume isn't going to add a lot!
If you think a class with Maple is "rigorous", I'd like to see your course notes if at all possible.
Pics or it didn't happen? Okay... sure. I'll just go get my spiral notebook from 1996...
And just because the integrals are uglier, doesn't mean putting them into Maple makes you smarter.
Yeah, duh. The integrals being uglier just means it takes more time to crank the lever and spit out the answer. This wasn't my first calculus class, nor was it my last. The difference was that because the lever-cranking part was taken care of (and doing it by hand already covered), the problem could be more complex because they didn't have to factor in the time it takes just for the integration step.
It still covered essentially the same material, which is why after talking with classmates and comparing with friends in the non-Maple class I had almost wished I'd done the other one. There was some extra material covered because there was more time, which I might have appreciated if I went into a field that used calc heavily. As it was, 'easier' was a feature.
I mean, I don't want to say too much until (if) I see your course notes, but uh... that sounds more like a course in teaching you how to talk to Maple, not how to do problems.
Talking to Maple is simple, that's literally half the first day's assignment. I'm starting to think that your calculus education didn't go farther than "integrate f(x)" and that's why you can't imagine how you could learn anything with Maple doing that part for you. Sorry, but I'm going to have to ask to see your notes to make sure you have a valid basis for comparison to "rigorous".
I couldn't disagree more. I do this every day. Of course, I don't do 25 problems in one hour, but I do 25 problems/hour, i.e. solving a simple problem in a couple minutes many times per day.
Yes. Occasionally throughout your day you encounter a simple problem that can be solved in a few minutes. Of course you don't do them all back to back, of course they aren't all isolated and artificial, and of course if you go slightly slower on one such that it took you a cumulative hour and one minute to finish the 25 problems, nobody shouts "time!" and forces you to stop such that the problem remains unsolved. Not on a one-hour timescale, anyway.
In other words, what you do is nothing like taking an exam.
If you need to take ten minutes, possibly digging through reference materials, to solve a simple problem
Having artificially simple problems (such that 25 can be completed in an hour long exam) is exactly one of the things I was saying was unrealistic about exams. In real life, problems are complex, sometimes but not always decomposable into simple problems suitable for an exam, but in any case more like a class project than an exam.
And if you never encounter a simple problem that requires a reference, as in you can contain all the knowledge ever required for your field in your head at one time (example of simple reference-requiring problem: What's the opcode for a MOVDQA), then the job itself is pretty simple.
And yet another person interprets "in real life you can always use references" to mean "in real life you don't have to know anything without a reference."
It is difficult to determine who is cheating in course work and who is supplying the most input with team work. At least with an exam there is a test of knowledge and understanding.
Yes, I already said that, which is why I said that I had no better alternative, and was simply pointing out that a typical exam isn't just testing your knowledge and understanding of the subject, it's also testing your exam-taking ability.
Come on Chris tell the truth. It's your friend who's good at exams and you who understand everything but can't, no matter how much you try, pass the damn things.
Truthfully, I'm great at taking exams. I could even pass ones when I didn't really understand the material that well. That's not bragging, because that ability is basically useless in the real world.
It is no wonder the middle of the road conscientious but not too bright are always in support of course work and ever ready to damn exams.
Be honest -- you're good at taking exams, but are too arrogant to admit that this doesn't necessarily mean you're the greatest at the subject matter, and too self-centered to consider how this affects anyone but yourself.
Besides, if you actually pay attention and read what I say I'm not damning exams. If this was a test in reading comprehension... So, go get a point then come back.
So you shouldn't have to know how to solve a given problem yourself, in a vacuum, because in the "real world" we have reference books and other people to collaborate with.
By yourself, in a vacuum, with no reference books or people to collaborate with, and an arbitrary one-hour time limit, and arbitrarily simplified problems that don't actually represent what you have to solve "in the real world"? Yeah, you shouldn't (hypothetically, like I said I have no better alternative to exams) have to do that because most people -- certainly myself -- don't have to do that in "the real world"! Ever! I've been out of college twice as long as I was in it, and I've never had any challenge at work that was anything like test format.
Now, apply that logic to the whole population of potential collaborators / reference book writers.
Who is it that you think is writing reference books solely from their own memory, without referencing any other books or sources? That's not how it works. And even more outrageously, who is tasked by their publisher to write 10 paragraph-long essays on 10 unrelated subjects with a 1 hour deadline for a technical reference?
Since anyone you might collaborate with also believes the above, they won't know how to solve the problem either.
See, the problem with "apply that logic" type arguments is when you completely fail to properly represent the logic, in this case by excluding most of it. I never said "won't know how to solve the problem", in fact I said the opposite. It is a simple fact that you can know to solve problems, yet not do well on exams.
And since real life isn't your ludicrous strawman of "nobody knows how to solve anything, so who can you collaborate with", collaboration has a wonderful knowledge-multiplying effect. Because if there's something I don't know in order to solve something, but a coworker does, then I can use their knowledge to enhance my own and solve the problem instead of failing.
At some point the buck stops at the individual. You need to know how to solve the given problems, by yourself.
I clearly said "they understood the material as well or better than I did". Like, by themselves. Just they did worse on the test format. I was very specific about what I was talking about. "Knowing how to solve problems by yourself" is not equivalent to "doing well on exams".
It's the Protestant Work Ethic that if it is easy (or easier to do) then it is somehow bad. Like all learning tools, this may be used for cheating, just like a butcher knife can be used to murder somebody.
In college I took "Calc II with Maple". Maple, fyi, is a program for doing symbolic mathematics (as opposed to say matlab which is analytic), and it knows more calculus than I ever would or could. We not only got to use Maple on our homeworks, we took our exams in a computer lab.
Easy, right? Ha! That class was pure evil. Since they knew that we were freed from the tedium of the raw mechanics of integrating/deriving, that meant they were free to make the problems as complex as they wanted. Yeah Maple could tell you the answer, but only after you'd figured out how to frame the question, and if you knew how to use the result to reach the next step of the problem. You had to know how to apply the calculus. Very educational, very rigorous, very hard. Compared notes with students in the non-Maple version... yeah, ours was way harder. But also we covered how to use the calculus in ways they'd never heard of, simply because they had to spend so much course time covering the mechanics.
My point here would be that I think the existence of WolframAlpha could open up opportunities for an even better, and yes for you Professor Protestants harder, curriculum.
On the other hand, this was Calc II. At some point, you would have to take Calc I and should learn the boring stuff like the integral of 1/x, and for that class Maple (or WA)would be detrimental.
Those are the best types of classes, because it truly tests your ability to solve problems.
Ability to solve problems in the limited-time test format.
And I say this as someone who excels at 50 min or 80 min exams, yet would at times feel that one of my peers clearly understood the material as well or better than I did, but did not excel at the exam format and thus received worse course grades.
Since graduating, never in my career have I encountered a situation where I had to solve 25 simple yet unrelated problems in under an hour without the use of references or collaboration. I'm sure it's possible someone has, or could construct a scenario in which they would, but in general I just don't think the ability to do this is necessary to demonstrate competence in your field.
I do agree that exams are important for making sure a student really knows the material themselves, and there's only so much you can do with the format. I don't have a better way of doing things to suggest. I'm just pointing out that exams throw another arbitrary dimension on top of the course material that some people may or may not excel at regardless of how well they know the material and how well they can solve the problems.
Looking back, it seems that the parent to my post made a pretty good quality troll, and I fell for it -- badly.
Eh. Even if true I don't see how it detracts from your accomplishment of a well-formed beat-down post.
I kinda laugh at the troll's game. For one, I don't see how rebutting "You're a blithering idiot and here's why in well-defined steps" with "Yeah, well I was being insincere!" (as distinct in this context from being sarcastic) means they won. To me it just means they admit they were being a blithering idiot on purpose. Since when has deliberate idiocy not been a kind of idiocy? And what is the ultimate victory of a troll? To get you to waste time responding to their own waste of time? "Ha, you wasted as much time as I did, so I win!" Um okay.
If you enjoy beating down idiots (and I do), then I see the troll's game as win-win. If I'm playing baseball, and someone throws a slow pitch, and I knock it out of the park, they can gleefully gloat about how they wanted me to hit that home run all they want. Doesn't change much on my end as I see it.
Bah, optical disks are just a fad, load times are something no gamer will tolerate and they'll demand a return to cartridges! And sure, Final Fantasy VII may not fit on a cartridge, but Nintendo gamers are lucky and should be glad they don't get to play that game! Yeah, they're GLAD!
- from the "famous/facepalms in Nintendo Fan history" files.
I agree the question is stupid, but for a different reason. We're talking about SAP. Whether you are in the FOSS or Closed Source camp doesn't matter. If you are on the side of sanity, then SAP is your foe. It's that simple.
A robot of that quality would obviously be quite pricey, but so is joining a real sports club. If the robot also doubled up as a sex slave, then it would be a complete bargain!
Let's say I'm not into robots... are there any dojos/sports clubs that offer the same combination? I would happily pay whatever monthly fee they wanted.
Yeah? So what does it look like? Is it like red, but darker? More "infra"? Oh what, you've never seen it, even though your eyes are right now being bombarded by infra-red radiation?
What's the color of X-rays?
Infra-red is a frequency of light just like the visible spectrum is. Maybe that's the nitpick you meant to make but couldn't because they didn't make that mistake, so you had to make one of your own instead.
Gah! Willful, unthinking ignorance like this really yanks my chain. When you get things like this wrong it makes me want to ignore you completely, because you're probably an idiot.
Indeed. "blah blah casual market but what about hard core gamers?" Whatever. There are "hard core" games for the Wii, there may be for Natal but it's less likely in this generation simply because it's an add-on. Either way this is as much about the casual market as it is about realizing that the technology is there to make motion controls work and it has a lot of potential for all gamers.
Both MotionPlus and Sonys solution feature more or less classic controllers, but with motion sensing added. Both of them also have heavy focus on wrist movement, while ignoring the rest of the body.
No need to make exercise fun. Exercise is like sex, when you're doing it your body is spewing dopamine, endorphins, and bodily fluids in all directions. If you're doing it right, it feels great.
Pheh. For some people. Generally, endorphins, the thing that actually gives you the high, doesn't get going until you're a long way into the exercise regimine and even then it usually doesn't counteract the pain and tedium of plain-ol weight lifting, running, or whatever other boring thing.
I've done em all, regularly for years even, and well I just never saw this "no need to make exercise fun" thing. My friend who was heavily into running and marathons and such, once said when I asked him about runner's high. "That's a bunch of crap," he said, and you only feel it when you've been running for miles anyway. Which is not something Parkinson's sufferers are going to do.
So yeah. "Exercise" by itself is boring as hell and praying for an endorphine high as payoff isn't going to work for a lot of people. Fun things that also happen to be exercise are fun. I like rock climbing. That gets me going. For others, Wii Sports or Wii Fit might be what they need.
Look you can't hide your sexuality just by avoiding Linux. It's way too obvious for that. It's like thinking nobody will realize you're gay if you just don't go into gay bars, while continuing to wear silk shirts with ruffles and frills with the front open, and having sex with other men in public.
I don't know why you want to stay in the closest, but believe me it's not working your closet is made of glass. Why not just be proud of who you are, and then you can use any OS you want and visit that nice leather bar you pretend not to look longingly at every time you pass.
But doesn't the supernova's material often fall back inward, creating some kind of a smaller star, such as a neutron star or a black hole? I remember reading that the diff between a nova and a supernova is that a super results in a black-hole, while a nova only results in a small star or a neutron star.
Naw. A nova just involves an explosion due to rapid fusion of hydrogen on the surface of the star which still leaves the star intact. A supernova is the complete collapse of the core of a star when the star is running out of fuel and the energy created by fusion in the core is no longer enough to hold the rest of the star up (and subsequently much of the falling mass of the star rebounds off the super-compressed core and explodes outward). What remains after a supernova depends on the type and mass of the star, but both neutron stars and black holes are possibilities. Either way the star is essentially dead, most of its mass lost and what remains not being able to sustain fusion. With a nova, the star is still alive and well and likely to nova again and again.
That's why there's the million-to-one ratio of intensity. Ones just a minor burst of surface material, the other is the star itself exploding.
Slashdot Mirror
They can't even be opened with "the key" as there is no cabin accessible keyhole. They use dead-bolts and cross bars that are only accessible from within the cockpit.
The sad thing is how often I've seen the one fucking security enhancement that actually made sense and would actually prevent "another 9/11" not being used. Not very much these days, but that's what so sad -- in the year after 9/11 when I was flying a lot, I saw plenty of cockpit doors left wide open the entire flight. So we're all shitting ourselves over terrorists such that the damn bread knife at the airport Schlotsky's has to be chained down and we're searching every foreigner/hippie who walks through security, but we won't do the one thing that would keep a terrorist from holding that knife to the pilot's throat and leave the poor bastard stuck in a cabin full of irate passengers? WTF?
Since there's no possible way the driver education course could be less rigorous than the driving test, even if it was just half an hour of tooling around in the parking lot, that makes sense to me.
Tune in over the next few years to find out.
Gah! I fucking hate these season finale cliffhangers. Maybe I'll just wait for it to come out on DVD.
Or doesn't the driving licence in your country require passing a driving test, as it does in mine?
LOL. Oh yeah, I had to take a driving test to get my TX license. It was a complete joke, literally in the sense that I would tell the story of it at parties for laughs. Which, as far as I can tell, was the purpose of it because it sure wasn't to make sure I was safe on the road. Part of a campaign to lighten the image of DPS, I would imagine.
First came the exam, which was sad in its own way. Given by a computer, multiple choice questions. Question number one of twenty -- remember, multiple choice -- was "What is your name?" One answer is your actual name, and the other three are names nothing at all like it. Maybe the idea was to prevent fraud by having someone else take the test for you, but to even get to the test-taking point you would have had to give your name and several forms of ID to the clerk. So the only way it would catch someone is if they were so drunk they forgot the name of the person they were imitating in the ten feet between the counter and the test-taking station. Which was sort of a theme for the whole experience, really. Question two was "what is your date of birth?" The remaining questions weren't much harder. If you're getting your TX license and are worried about the test, here's a cheat-sheet for about half of it: "Safe and reasonable speed."
After that grueling and rigorous exam, then came the actual driving test. Following the examiner's directions, I drove out of the parking lot, took a right turn onto a major but at this time of day lightly trafficked street, went twenty feet to a traffic light, took a right turn into a residential neighborhood with wide but unmarked streets, went around the block where I encountered a single stop sign, went back to the same light, turned left on the green without even having to deal with oncoming traffic because it was a 'T', then turned back into the DPS parking lot. Whew! That was tough! It took all of my not-chugging-tequila powers to make it through. Seriously, I can't imagine how I could have failed the test unless I was so drunk I couldn't operate a car, or was so new to the States that I didn't know what side of the road to drive on. Keep in mind, this location was all of two blocks from a major highway. But checking to see if I knew how to merge, or even if I could go over 25mph without killing anyone, wasn't necessary. Which frankly explains a lot.
So yeah. Maybe if you had a TX license, getting a license from another state would make it less likely you're a bad driver. But adding a TX license to your driving resume isn't going to add a lot!
If you think a class with Maple is "rigorous", I'd like to see your course notes if at all possible.
Pics or it didn't happen? Okay... sure. I'll just go get my spiral notebook from 1996...
And just because the integrals are uglier, doesn't mean putting them into Maple makes you smarter.
Yeah, duh. The integrals being uglier just means it takes more time to crank the lever and spit out the answer. This wasn't my first calculus class, nor was it my last. The difference was that because the lever-cranking part was taken care of (and doing it by hand already covered), the problem could be more complex because they didn't have to factor in the time it takes just for the integration step.
It still covered essentially the same material, which is why after talking with classmates and comparing with friends in the non-Maple class I had almost wished I'd done the other one. There was some extra material covered because there was more time, which I might have appreciated if I went into a field that used calc heavily. As it was, 'easier' was a feature.
I mean, I don't want to say too much until (if) I see your course notes, but uh... that sounds more like a course in teaching you how to talk to Maple, not how to do problems.
Talking to Maple is simple, that's literally half the first day's assignment. I'm starting to think that your calculus education didn't go farther than "integrate f(x)" and that's why you can't imagine how you could learn anything with Maple doing that part for you. Sorry, but I'm going to have to ask to see your notes to make sure you have a valid basis for comparison to "rigorous".
LOL. So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that Slashdot is at the bottom of the Grand Canyon...
I couldn't disagree more. I do this every day. Of course, I don't do 25 problems in one hour, but I do 25 problems/hour, i.e. solving a simple problem in a couple minutes many times per day.
Yes. Occasionally throughout your day you encounter a simple problem that can be solved in a few minutes. Of course you don't do them all back to back, of course they aren't all isolated and artificial, and of course if you go slightly slower on one such that it took you a cumulative hour and one minute to finish the 25 problems, nobody shouts "time!" and forces you to stop such that the problem remains unsolved. Not on a one-hour timescale, anyway.
In other words, what you do is nothing like taking an exam.
If you need to take ten minutes, possibly digging through reference materials, to solve a simple problem
Having artificially simple problems (such that 25 can be completed in an hour long exam) is exactly one of the things I was saying was unrealistic about exams. In real life, problems are complex, sometimes but not always decomposable into simple problems suitable for an exam, but in any case more like a class project than an exam.
And if you never encounter a simple problem that requires a reference, as in you can contain all the knowledge ever required for your field in your head at one time (example of simple reference-requiring problem: What's the opcode for a MOVDQA), then the job itself is pretty simple.
And yet another person interprets "in real life you can always use references" to mean "in real life you don't have to know anything without a reference."
It is difficult to determine who is cheating in course work and who is supplying the most input with team work. At least with an exam there is a test of knowledge and understanding.
Yes, I already said that, which is why I said that I had no better alternative, and was simply pointing out that a typical exam isn't just testing your knowledge and understanding of the subject, it's also testing your exam-taking ability.
Come on Chris tell the truth. It's your friend who's good at exams and you who understand everything but can't, no matter how much you try, pass the damn things.
Truthfully, I'm great at taking exams. I could even pass ones when I didn't really understand the material that well. That's not bragging, because that ability is basically useless in the real world.
It is no wonder the middle of the road conscientious but not too bright are always in support of course work and ever ready to damn exams.
Be honest -- you're good at taking exams, but are too arrogant to admit that this doesn't necessarily mean you're the greatest at the subject matter, and too self-centered to consider how this affects anyone but yourself.
Besides, if you actually pay attention and read what I say I'm not damning exams. If this was a test in reading comprehension... So, go get a point then come back.
So you shouldn't have to know how to solve a given problem yourself, in a vacuum, because in the "real world" we have reference books and other people to collaborate with.
By yourself, in a vacuum, with no reference books or people to collaborate with, and an arbitrary one-hour time limit, and arbitrarily simplified problems that don't actually represent what you have to solve "in the real world"? Yeah, you shouldn't (hypothetically, like I said I have no better alternative to exams) have to do that because most people -- certainly myself -- don't have to do that in "the real world"! Ever! I've been out of college twice as long as I was in it, and I've never had any challenge at work that was anything like test format.
Now, apply that logic to the whole population of potential collaborators / reference book writers.
Who is it that you think is writing reference books solely from their own memory, without referencing any other books or sources? That's not how it works. And even more outrageously, who is tasked by their publisher to write 10 paragraph-long essays on 10 unrelated subjects with a 1 hour deadline for a technical reference?
Since anyone you might collaborate with also believes the above, they won't know how to solve the problem either.
See, the problem with "apply that logic" type arguments is when you completely fail to properly represent the logic, in this case by excluding most of it. I never said "won't know how to solve the problem", in fact I said the opposite. It is a simple fact that you can know to solve problems, yet not do well on exams.
And since real life isn't your ludicrous strawman of "nobody knows how to solve anything, so who can you collaborate with", collaboration has a wonderful knowledge-multiplying effect. Because if there's something I don't know in order to solve something, but a coworker does, then I can use their knowledge to enhance my own and solve the problem instead of failing.
At some point the buck stops at the individual. You need to know how to solve the given problems, by yourself.
I clearly said "they understood the material as well or better than I did". Like, by themselves. Just they did worse on the test format. I was very specific about what I was talking about. "Knowing how to solve problems by yourself" is not equivalent to "doing well on exams".
It's the Protestant Work Ethic that if it is easy (or easier to do) then it is somehow bad. Like all learning tools, this may be used for cheating, just like a butcher knife can be used to murder somebody.
In college I took "Calc II with Maple". Maple, fyi, is a program for doing symbolic mathematics (as opposed to say matlab which is analytic), and it knows more calculus than I ever would or could. We not only got to use Maple on our homeworks, we took our exams in a computer lab.
Easy, right? Ha! That class was pure evil. Since they knew that we were freed from the tedium of the raw mechanics of integrating/deriving, that meant they were free to make the problems as complex as they wanted. Yeah Maple could tell you the answer, but only after you'd figured out how to frame the question, and if you knew how to use the result to reach the next step of the problem. You had to know how to apply the calculus. Very educational, very rigorous, very hard. Compared notes with students in the non-Maple version... yeah, ours was way harder. But also we covered how to use the calculus in ways they'd never heard of, simply because they had to spend so much course time covering the mechanics.
My point here would be that I think the existence of WolframAlpha could open up opportunities for an even better, and yes for you Professor Protestants harder, curriculum.
On the other hand, this was Calc II. At some point, you would have to take Calc I and should learn the boring stuff like the integral of 1/x, and for that class Maple (or WA)would be detrimental.
You CS whinies had it easy. For us EEs, the exams came pre-tanked.
Well in my CE department, we came to the exam pre-tanked!
Those are the best types of classes, because it truly tests your ability to solve problems.
Ability to solve problems in the limited-time test format.
And I say this as someone who excels at 50 min or 80 min exams, yet would at times feel that one of my peers clearly understood the material as well or better than I did, but did not excel at the exam format and thus received worse course grades.
Since graduating, never in my career have I encountered a situation where I had to solve 25 simple yet unrelated problems in under an hour without the use of references or collaboration. I'm sure it's possible someone has, or could construct a scenario in which they would, but in general I just don't think the ability to do this is necessary to demonstrate competence in your field.
I do agree that exams are important for making sure a student really knows the material themselves, and there's only so much you can do with the format. I don't have a better way of doing things to suggest. I'm just pointing out that exams throw another arbitrary dimension on top of the course material that some people may or may not excel at regardless of how well they know the material and how well they can solve the problems.
Seeing a hot chick, taking in her attractiveness
and then "she" walks into the mens room
Looking back, it seems that the parent to my post made a pretty good quality troll, and I fell for it -- badly.
Eh. Even if true I don't see how it detracts from your accomplishment of a well-formed beat-down post.
I kinda laugh at the troll's game. For one, I don't see how rebutting "You're a blithering idiot and here's why in well-defined steps" with "Yeah, well I was being insincere!" (as distinct in this context from being sarcastic) means they won. To me it just means they admit they were being a blithering idiot on purpose. Since when has deliberate idiocy not been a kind of idiocy? And what is the ultimate victory of a troll? To get you to waste time responding to their own waste of time? "Ha, you wasted as much time as I did, so I win!" Um okay.
If you enjoy beating down idiots (and I do), then I see the troll's game as win-win. If I'm playing baseball, and someone throws a slow pitch, and I knock it out of the park, they can gleefully gloat about how they wanted me to hit that home run all they want. Doesn't change much on my end as I see it.
Bah, optical disks are just a fad, load times are something no gamer will tolerate and they'll demand a return to cartridges! And sure, Final Fantasy VII may not fit on a cartridge, but Nintendo gamers are lucky and should be glad they don't get to play that game! Yeah, they're GLAD!
- from the "famous /facepalms in Nintendo Fan history" files.
I agree the question is stupid, but for a different reason. We're talking about SAP. Whether you are in the FOSS or Closed Source camp doesn't matter. If you are on the side of sanity, then SAP is your foe. It's that simple.
A robot of that quality would obviously be quite pricey, but so is joining a real sports club. If the robot also doubled up as a sex slave, then it would be a complete bargain!
Let's say I'm not into robots... are there any dojos/sports clubs that offer the same combination? I would happily pay whatever monthly fee they wanted.
"Infra-red is a color, you nitwit"
Yeah? So what does it look like? Is it like red, but darker? More "infra"? Oh what, you've never seen it, even though your eyes are right now being bombarded by infra-red radiation?
What's the color of X-rays?
Infra-red is a frequency of light just like the visible spectrum is. Maybe that's the nitpick you meant to make but couldn't because they didn't make that mistake, so you had to make one of your own instead.
Gah! Willful, unthinking ignorance like this really yanks my chain. When you get things like this wrong it makes me want to ignore you completely, because you're probably an idiot.
Indeed. "blah blah casual market but what about hard core gamers?" Whatever. There are "hard core" games for the Wii, there may be for Natal but it's less likely in this generation simply because it's an add-on. Either way this is as much about the casual market as it is about realizing that the technology is there to make motion controls work and it has a lot of potential for all gamers.
Both MotionPlus and Sonys solution feature more or less classic controllers, but with motion sensing added. Both of them also have heavy focus on wrist movement, while ignoring the rest of the body.
Well, only if you choose to play that way.
I guess you're one of those folks who doesn't hold the wiimote on their head and move their whole torso when WarioWare tells you to.
Best "Der, I'm shmarter than teh scientists" Tard Smackdown I've seen in a while.
Nothing can prevent death or taxes.
However, with Wii Die and Wii Audit, you can cause them! Coming soon to a retailer near you.
No need to make exercise fun. Exercise is like sex, when you're doing it your body is spewing dopamine, endorphins, and bodily fluids in all directions. If you're doing it right, it feels great.
Pheh. For some people. Generally, endorphins, the thing that actually gives you the high, doesn't get going until you're a long way into the exercise regimine and even then it usually doesn't counteract the pain and tedium of plain-ol weight lifting, running, or whatever other boring thing.
I've done em all, regularly for years even, and well I just never saw this "no need to make exercise fun" thing. My friend who was heavily into running and marathons and such, once said when I asked him about runner's high. "That's a bunch of crap," he said, and you only feel it when you've been running for miles anyway. Which is not something Parkinson's sufferers are going to do.
So yeah. "Exercise" by itself is boring as hell and praying for an endorphine high as payoff isn't going to work for a lot of people. Fun things that also happen to be exercise are fun. I like rock climbing. That gets me going. For others, Wii Sports or Wii Fit might be what they need.
Look you can't hide your sexuality just by avoiding Linux. It's way too obvious for that. It's like thinking nobody will realize you're gay if you just don't go into gay bars, while continuing to wear silk shirts with ruffles and frills with the front open, and having sex with other men in public.
I don't know why you want to stay in the closest, but believe me it's not working your closet is made of glass. Why not just be proud of who you are, and then you can use any OS you want and visit that nice leather bar you pretend not to look longingly at every time you pass.
But doesn't the supernova's material often fall back inward, creating some kind of a smaller star, such as a neutron star or a black hole? I remember reading that the diff between a nova and a supernova is that a super results in a black-hole, while a nova only results in a small star or a neutron star.
Naw. A nova just involves an explosion due to rapid fusion of hydrogen on the surface of the star which still leaves the star intact. A supernova is the complete collapse of the core of a star when the star is running out of fuel and the energy created by fusion in the core is no longer enough to hold the rest of the star up (and subsequently much of the falling mass of the star rebounds off the super-compressed core and explodes outward). What remains after a supernova depends on the type and mass of the star, but both neutron stars and black holes are possibilities. Either way the star is essentially dead, most of its mass lost and what remains not being able to sustain fusion. With a nova, the star is still alive and well and likely to nova again and again.
That's why there's the million-to-one ratio of intensity. Ones just a minor burst of surface material, the other is the star itself exploding.