Because kids view in 3d all the time. The entire world is in 3d.
If the study had some claim about BAD 3d, that would be a different thing. but my brain and eyes are constantly "assimilating a three-dimensional effect requires the eyes to look at images in two different places at the same time before the brain translates it as one image."
Most likely this article was written by a moron. That's not an insult against developmentally challenged people by using the clinical term as insult. I believe the "journalist" was an actual moron with an IQ between the range of 51 and 70.
Ever here the term "the exception that proves the rule?" Your use of Facebook is a prime example. How you use Facebook - and the fact that most people do not do this - proves Facebook is a scam.
Facebooks demands a huge invasion of privacy for a rather minimal set of features. Basically, you can get everything it offers elsewhere, for free, just giving up the 'single sign in', that lets them track you across everything. In other words, Facebook is itself a scam.
So it is not surprising that people that willing accept one scam, can not distinguish other scams from the official, approved scam they intentionally use.
I was totally thinking these guys were guilty. Until I read your post.
If I were the judge, I would agree that - assuming the fish was still alive - they did not 'destroy' it when they released it back into the wild.
But if the fish was dead when they released it, then releasing it counts as destruction, as it was intentionally exposing a consumable item to the many creatures that eat dead fish in the sea.
For a small company, it is very different. They know they can train you, they know the real problems they have to deal with and are looking for someone that can learn to do the job, rather than someone that already can do the job.
Resume and cover letters are a great way to demonstrate your writing ability - or rather you ability to find a friend/pay someone else to demonstrate their writing ability.
Sometimes the reason you need to hire someone to do X is because your company does not have anyone that can do X. Which makes them bad at noticing X.
But most importantly, many of the qualities that companies really need - those that are rare - are things that are hard to explain. Fitting in with the company culture for example. Intelligence and creativity were just examples.
Take the last job my company hired. They really need someone that is a perfectionist, but not arrogant.. Someone that can be extremely precise without being obnoxious. But that wasn't on the resume. Instead they looked for someone with experience in our company's industry and exposure to a specific product - which I could have trained them how to do in less than 8 hours.
Frankly, if I had control over the hiring process, I simply would have them do a scavenger hunt on our company website. If they answered the questions 100% correct, that would have given them the job interview.
But your numbers are just plain false.
1) The top 1% of EARNERS pay a bit less than 1/3 of the taxes, not 50%. However, that same top 1% income own more than 50% of the assets. In other words, the people that own half the wealth in this country pay less than one third of the taxes.
2) The bottom % that don't pay a dime in income tax? Some of them are wealthy - they just don't have a job. They sit at home, collecting tax free bond income, and carefully manage their capital gains so they owe no money. The rest are flat broke including Senior Citizens and college students that don't pay income tax because they don't own a job.
Your own tax ideas make the situation worse, because they end up overcharging the poor - Senior Citizens and college students, while letting the wealthy get off practically scott free.
The major mistake you are making is framing the question.
You insist on looking at SALARY, rather than wealth. When you judge people on Salary, you ignore the many people that don't get their income from a job. In effect, you give huge tax breaks to wealthy people (because they can arrange their income from non-salary sources), and totally screw over people that for various non-gold plated reasons do not work - the old, the disabled, students, children, stay at home moms/dads, among many other people.
If you truly want to be fair, base your taxes on WEALTH, not income. That is, if you have no money, you pay less taxes, if you have more money, then you pay more taxes. The best part of this is you don't need quite as many of those silly deductions. Things like children, disabled, sick, taking care of a sick parent, etc. are all things that reduce your wealth, so they automatically reduce your tax rate. Throw in an exception letting people buy a personal home, and another for IRA's, and you basically have dealt with most of the reasonable deductions.
Recruiters job is not to help you. Nor is it to help the employers.
Their job is not to screw up. That means they have to take the SAFE choices.
Companies dislike training. They would rather hire someone who already has all the named skills to do the job. So they go looking for that.
The problem is that those named skills? The reason they are named is that they have classes to teach you them.
What corporations usually really want and need are those qualities and un-named nebulous skill that can not be taught. They are not named because their are no classes, because they can't be taught in anything less than years. Or they are innate qualities - like intelligence and creativity - that people are born with.
As a direct result, recruiters go looking for the one thing they should NOT look for - the people that have the sills that can be taught. All the time ignoring the qualities and skills that can not be taught.
As for messing up an interview - that is just plain bad luck. You get sick, you have a bad day, etc.
Recruiters are a necessary part of a very flawed system. But they did not create the system, they merely try to make money satisfying the system.
And the answer to that is simple - the police are employees and drive as part of their job. As such, their employers have the right to monitor them.
Trucking companies also have that right - and guess what, they already monitor their drivers using a system exactly like this.
So no one but your boss can require you to use this and then only if you drive as part of your job.
The fact that we currently require truck drivers to do this, but no one is also even asking the general population do it is fairly solid proof that your slippery slope argument is ridiculous. Basically, people are no where near as naive as you think they are. We can tell the difference between something that is good at small levels, but bad at large levels.
I am pretty sure that the single worst and neccessary government over-reach in Orwell's 1984 was the mandatory placement of cameras that you could not turn off.
Government rules that require cameras be placed in your house is pretty much my definition of a tyrannical dictatorship.
1) This is not dark matter. We can detect these, as proven by the fact that we just did. They convert visible light into infrared light and we can measure the total heat coming from galaxies and compare with light.
2) These should be called slacker stars. They had so much potential, but just blew it all and eventually their parent's kicked them out.
That may be true, but it isn't a requirement of smart watches. As they get better at making them, Rolex, etc. will make watches that look good and are discreet.
1) You are trying to be discrete - at a dinner party, dancing, on a date, etc. etc.
2) You want something that can track your blood glucose, heart rate, uric acid, etc.
3) You are a hot woman, your dress doesn't have pockets, and the perfect little purse matches the dress but barely holds your make up.
4) You are missing the fingers on one hand - you can't hold your phone in one hand and touch the surface with the other, but you can strap it to your bad wrist and touch it with your good fingers.
5) You have class and style. You want to look GOOD, and it makes for a nice accoutrement.
# 4 is rare. #3 affects half the population of the world. # 1, 2, and 5 apply to pretty much everyone.
Some people will actually give up internet. Not a lot, but some.
But more importantly, their product mix will shift from 80% expensive/20% cheap to 40% expensive/60% cheap.
2) Bull. Not teleportation. Anymore than magnetism is antigravity.
3) Not instant, but otherwise true.
4) A little bit true.
5) Not likely
6) already building houses out of it. But won't - too expensive
7) Totally true. Space applications are great.
8) printing food is a silly idea.
9) Replicators are hundreds, if not thousands years in the future. This is not the beginning, anymore than the printing press was the begining of the internet.
If they had a warrant, then it is perfectly good police tactics.
If they did not have a warrant, then it is an illegal invasion of privacy.
They electronically entered his computer and that is no different than entering his home. The fact that he had to click on it is meaningless. The creation of the malware would be illegal, without the warrant.
Now, the police may not be smart enough (or ethical enough) to have asked for the warrant, but that is what is clearly needed.
The word unlimited means NO LIMITS. None. Zero. Nada. Without any restraints.
You can't advertise something as 'no peanuts' and then put peanuts in it. Similarly, you can't advertise something, or worse, put sell a contract for unlimited and then put limits on it.
The basic problem is false advertising here. The providers wanted the right to lie.
That is against the law. They deserve to be punished, and punished severely.
I am not talking justify, I am discussing what crime was committed. Intent is a major part of crime, particularly when done by a government agency.
If it's done for personal gain, it's always a crime, but that is not always the case for other kinds of intents. A prime example: f a cop kills a man because he hated him it's a lot different than when a cop kills a man because he was kidnapping a little boy.
Even when a random person kill someone by accident, is a different and lesser crime than killing someone on purpose.
Honestly, I think that Nixon's stuff is worse. Spying on a journalist is bad - but not personal.
In addition, Nixon's crimes were both for his personal gain and hit democracy at it's heart - elections. Those make it incredibly evil crime.
The CBS reporter's incident, assuming it is entirely true, does not have these issues. There is no evidence that it was for any one's personal game, nor was it an attempt to circumnavigate political system.
Slashdot Mirror
That is probably where they make their money.
But the divorce settlement technique is actually pretty useful. Amazing how often people are just total SOB's and DOB's over silly things.
The real problem there, however, is the desire to screw over, get revenge/compensation for other issues.
If the study had some claim about BAD 3d, that would be a different thing. but my brain and eyes are constantly "assimilating a three-dimensional effect requires the eyes to look at images in two different places at the same time before the brain translates it as one image."
Most likely this article was written by a moron. That's not an insult against developmentally challenged people by using the clinical term as insult. I believe the "journalist" was an actual moron with an IQ between the range of 51 and 70.
Ever here the term "the exception that proves the rule?" Your use of Facebook is a prime example. How you use Facebook - and the fact that most people do not do this - proves Facebook is a scam.
So it is not surprising that people that willing accept one scam, can not distinguish other scams from the official, approved scam they intentionally use.
If I were the judge, I would agree that - assuming the fish was still alive - they did not 'destroy' it when they released it back into the wild.
But if the fish was dead when they released it, then releasing it counts as destruction, as it was intentionally exposing a consumable item to the many creatures that eat dead fish in the sea.
Resume and cover letters are a great way to demonstrate your writing ability - or rather you ability to find a friend/pay someone else to demonstrate their writing ability.
Sometimes the reason you need to hire someone to do X is because your company does not have anyone that can do X. Which makes them bad at noticing X.
But most importantly, many of the qualities that companies really need - those that are rare - are things that are hard to explain. Fitting in with the company culture for example. Intelligence and creativity were just examples.
Take the last job my company hired. They really need someone that is a perfectionist, but not arrogant.. Someone that can be extremely precise without being obnoxious. But that wasn't on the resume. Instead they looked for someone with experience in our company's industry and exposure to a specific product - which I could have trained them how to do in less than 8 hours.
Frankly, if I had control over the hiring process, I simply would have them do a scavenger hunt on our company website. If they answered the questions 100% correct, that would have given them the job interview.
But your numbers are just plain false. 1) The top 1% of EARNERS pay a bit less than 1/3 of the taxes, not 50%. However, that same top 1% income own more than 50% of the assets. In other words, the people that own half the wealth in this country pay less than one third of the taxes.
2) The bottom % that don't pay a dime in income tax? Some of them are wealthy - they just don't have a job. They sit at home, collecting tax free bond income, and carefully manage their capital gains so they owe no money. The rest are flat broke including Senior Citizens and college students that don't pay income tax because they don't own a job.
Your own tax ideas make the situation worse, because they end up overcharging the poor - Senior Citizens and college students, while letting the wealthy get off practically scott free.
The major mistake you are making is framing the question.
You insist on looking at SALARY, rather than wealth. When you judge people on Salary, you ignore the many people that don't get their income from a job. In effect, you give huge tax breaks to wealthy people (because they can arrange their income from non-salary sources), and totally screw over people that for various non-gold plated reasons do not work - the old, the disabled, students, children, stay at home moms/dads, among many other people.
If you truly want to be fair, base your taxes on WEALTH, not income. That is, if you have no money, you pay less taxes, if you have more money, then you pay more taxes. The best part of this is you don't need quite as many of those silly deductions. Things like children, disabled, sick, taking care of a sick parent, etc. are all things that reduce your wealth, so they automatically reduce your tax rate. Throw in an exception letting people buy a personal home, and another for IRA's, and you basically have dealt with most of the reasonable deductions.
Their job is not to screw up. That means they have to take the SAFE choices.
Companies dislike training. They would rather hire someone who already has all the named skills to do the job. So they go looking for that.
The problem is that those named skills? The reason they are named is that they have classes to teach you them.
What corporations usually really want and need are those qualities and un-named nebulous skill that can not be taught. They are not named because their are no classes, because they can't be taught in anything less than years. Or they are innate qualities - like intelligence and creativity - that people are born with.
As a direct result, recruiters go looking for the one thing they should NOT look for - the people that have the sills that can be taught. All the time ignoring the qualities and skills that can not be taught.
As for messing up an interview - that is just plain bad luck. You get sick, you have a bad day, etc.
Recruiters are a necessary part of a very flawed system. But they did not create the system, they merely try to make money satisfying the system.
Trucking companies also have that right - and guess what, they already monitor their drivers using a system exactly like this.
So no one but your boss can require you to use this and then only if you drive as part of your job.
The fact that we currently require truck drivers to do this, but no one is also even asking the general population do it is fairly solid proof that your slippery slope argument is ridiculous. Basically, people are no where near as naive as you think they are. We can tell the difference between something that is good at small levels, but bad at large levels.
If you have driven safely, they give you a discount.
But that only makes sense if mining them becomes a lot more expensive.
Yes, it isn't as secure, but this is a hotel where all the maids and the front desk have keys anyway.
The real trick to security is not to maximize it, but instead to give the appropriate level of security for the situation.
Government rules that require cameras be placed in your house is pretty much my definition of a tyrannical dictatorship.
2) These should be called slacker stars. They had so much potential, but just blew it all and eventually their parent's kicked them out.
That may be true, but it isn't a requirement of smart watches. As they get better at making them, Rolex, etc. will make watches that look good and are discreet.
1) You are trying to be discrete - at a dinner party, dancing, on a date, etc. etc.
2) You want something that can track your blood glucose, heart rate, uric acid, etc.
3) You are a hot woman, your dress doesn't have pockets, and the perfect little purse matches the dress but barely holds your make up.
4) You are missing the fingers on one hand - you can't hold your phone in one hand and touch the surface with the other, but you can strap it to your bad wrist and touch it with your good fingers.
5) You have class and style. You want to look GOOD, and it makes for a nice accoutrement.
# 4 is rare. #3 affects half the population of the world. # 1, 2, and 5 apply to pretty much everyone.
That brings down their profit as well.
2) Bull. Not teleportation. Anymore than magnetism is antigravity.
3) Not instant, but otherwise true.
4) A little bit true.
5) Not likely
6) already building houses out of it. But won't - too expensive
7) Totally true. Space applications are great.
8) printing food is a silly idea.
9) Replicators are hundreds, if not thousands years in the future. This is not the beginning, anymore than the printing press was the begining of the internet.
What happens is this:
1) To pay for this, they raise their price by x%.
2) A small percent of people choose to get lesser service (i.e. slower broadband) as a result in the
3) They end up splitting the cost to pay for the broadband among their customers and their own profits.
Yes, we will end up paying slightly more, but their profits will also go down.
If they did not have a warrant, then it is an illegal invasion of privacy.
They electronically entered his computer and that is no different than entering his home. The fact that he had to click on it is meaningless. The creation of the malware would be illegal, without the warrant.
Now, the police may not be smart enough (or ethical enough) to have asked for the warrant, but that is what is clearly needed.
Very funny. You just proved the Dunning Kruger effect is true. (The effect simply states that the less you know, the more sure you are.)
The word unlimited means NO LIMITS. None. Zero. Nada. Without any restraints.
You can't advertise something as 'no peanuts' and then put peanuts in it. Similarly, you can't advertise something, or worse, put sell a contract for unlimited and then put limits on it.
The basic problem is false advertising here. The providers wanted the right to lie.
That is against the law. They deserve to be punished, and punished severely.
Of course, we really should throw in an "adjusted for inflation"
If it's done for personal gain, it's always a crime, but that is not always the case for other kinds of intents. A prime example: f a cop kills a man because he hated him it's a lot different than when a cop kills a man because he was kidnapping a little boy.
Even when a random person kill someone by accident, is a different and lesser crime than killing someone on purpose.
In addition, Nixon's crimes were both for his personal gain and hit democracy at it's heart - elections. Those make it incredibly evil crime.
The CBS reporter's incident, assuming it is entirely true, does not have these issues. There is no evidence that it was for any one's personal game, nor was it an attempt to circumnavigate political system.
As such, Nixon's crimes are far worse.