My wife is also a third grade teacher, here in the Bay Area, and her experience is about the same. We went to college together and she's actually got a year of post-bachelor's work and yet I make more than double what she does. My wife's salary would barely cover the mortgage of the average house in our area.
I find the "only works 180 days" think really irritating because it completely ignores all the after-hours work teachers like my wife does. She's in her class preparing for weeks before classes start and often grading or doing prep work in the evenings, but somehow that doesn't count because that isn't in the official schedule.
If both the brakes and the accelerator are on maximum, you are going to burn out the brake pads *very* quickly and end up essentially rendering the brakes useless. The brakes on a car are designed to slow a car that isn't accelerating.
I have a Prius with a push button ignition. When I first heard about this I realized that I hadn't actually ever put the thing in neutral in the two years I owned the car and wasn't entirely sure how it worked. I went to the garage and it actually took me three attempts to do it the first time because of the way the lever is designed. (Over and up is drive, over and down is reverse, just over is neutral. It is very easy to accidentally go up as that's what your muscle memory is used to and you barely have to nudge it up.)
So what you are saying is that you would feel comfortable taking your eyes off the road and reaching down to see if something was jammed in the accelerator when your car was careening 120 mph through 70 mph traffic?
Except that is actually not at all the results they got. They studied weight, etc. *after* they had babies.
They did not find that slimmer women end up having more babies. To do that, they'd have to take all of these measures *before* women had children and compare that to their future success. Because of the way they measured, what they *actually* found was that women who have more children end up fatter.
The curve is actually much more complicated than that. The absolute dirt poor (lowest 5%) have very few kids. The lowest quartile (poorest 25%) have the most. The *highest* quartile (richest 25%) have the second most. The curve is very much U shaped.
Yes, but not all differences that people display are caused by genes. If "ugly dwarven females" are caused by entirely environmental factors, there would be no selective pressure regardless of how successfully they breed.
It is entirely correct that whoever spawns the most progeny will spread their genes, *however*, if those with the most progeny have the same genome as those who have the fewest, this will have no evolutionary effect.
This sounds like an obvious example of getting the causation wrong. To me, the very obvious implication is that pregnancy makes women fatter. Weight is by no means entirely genetically driven. Neither is blood pressure or cholesterol. There are genetic factors, sure, but the study as the Telegraph is reporting it at least imply that all of these things are entirely genetic. This is not true at all. Environment is significant in weight, blood pressure, cholesterol and even height. Good nutrition has effects on all of these and it is pretty well known that good nutrition improves fertility.
The other bit is even funnier:
Women who gave birth early or had a late menopause were likely to have more children as well.
It should be obvious that on an entirely probabilistic basis women who give birth early will, in the end, have more children. Without any proof that there is any genetic basis to giving birth early, this means nothing. The bit at the other end may make more sense as there's more likely to be a genetic basis for later menopause, but even there you'd have to show that the genetic basis was actually there.
In truth *any* study that claims that we are "still evolving" without referencing actual genes is suspect as separating out the genetic and environmental factors is extremely difficult.
I agree it is important. It keeps drivers from clogging up my train ride every morning. But it isn't a "landmark" in the sense that tourists don't go to look at it. (Except for the dumb ones suckered by locals saying "it's being repainted...the gray is the primer.")
The Oakland Bay Bridge isn't much of a landmark, really. In any case, it is *extremely* important to note that the western span of the Bay Bridge, which is a suspension bridge, is perfectly sound, as is the landmark (but less used) Golden Gate Bridge. All of these problems are with the eastern span, which is a cantilever bridge.
You can't tell me you've never run into the situation where installing a single open source package ends up taking you down a three hour maze of dependencies. Sure, sometimes you get lucky and everything just works, but many other types, you discover that application A needs libraries B and C installed, and B needs libraries D, F and G, and then the version of F you downloaded isn't compatible with package Y, so you try to upgrade Y only to discover that it doesn't work with package Z, until you say "fuck it" and just go try to find a binary.
"Premium" channels like HBO and Showtime had no ads, but cable channels like MTV, CNN and TBS had as many ads at launch as they do now. I have vivid memories of the plethora of ads on MTV in 1982.
Certainly my family never experienced "no commercials" when we acquired cable because we were too cheap for HBO. Cable, when we got it in ~1978 was a way to get local stations without snow plus a few LA stations, etc.
I can't help but notice that three of the five games they mention by name on the last page describing where things are now are also on consoles. (Oblivion, Left 4 Dead and GTA IV)
Huh? I installed Snow Leopard on the old 2003 G4 iBook we gave to our six year old, and it installed without an issue. It's too slow for modern flash games, but the OS runs perfectly...
Slashdot Mirror
My wife is also a third grade teacher, here in the Bay Area, and her experience is about the same. We went to college together and she's actually got a year of post-bachelor's work and yet I make more than double what she does. My wife's salary would barely cover the mortgage of the average house in our area.
I find the "only works 180 days" think really irritating because it completely ignores all the after-hours work teachers like my wife does. She's in her class preparing for weeks before classes start and often grading or doing prep work in the evenings, but somehow that doesn't count because that isn't in the official schedule.
If both the brakes and the accelerator are on maximum, you are going to burn out the brake pads *very* quickly and end up essentially rendering the brakes useless. The brakes on a car are designed to slow a car that isn't accelerating.
I have a Prius with a push button ignition. When I first heard about this I realized that I hadn't actually ever put the thing in neutral in the two years I owned the car and wasn't entirely sure how it worked. I went to the garage and it actually took me three attempts to do it the first time because of the way the lever is designed. (Over and up is drive, over and down is reverse, just over is neutral. It is very easy to accidentally go up as that's what your muscle memory is used to and you barely have to nudge it up.)
The car in question had no key. It used push-button ignition. The button has to be pushed down for three seconds to work if you are moving.
So what you are saying is that you would feel comfortable taking your eyes off the road and reaching down to see if something was jammed in the accelerator when your car was careening 120 mph through 70 mph traffic?
Except that is actually not at all the results they got. They studied weight, etc. *after* they had babies.
They did not find that slimmer women end up having more babies. To do that, they'd have to take all of these measures *before* women had children and compare that to their future success. Because of the way they measured, what they *actually* found was that women who have more children end up fatter.
That doesn't sell the papers, though.
The curve is actually much more complicated than that. The absolute dirt poor (lowest 5%) have very few kids. The lowest quartile (poorest 25%) have the most. The *highest* quartile (richest 25%) have the second most. The curve is very much U shaped.
Yes, but not all differences that people display are caused by genes. If "ugly dwarven females" are caused by entirely environmental factors, there would be no selective pressure regardless of how successfully they breed.
It is entirely correct that whoever spawns the most progeny will spread their genes, *however*, if those with the most progeny have the same genome as those who have the fewest, this will have no evolutionary effect.
You know that people actually do get shorter as they age, right?
This sounds like an obvious example of getting the causation wrong. To me, the very obvious implication is that pregnancy makes women fatter. Weight is by no means entirely genetically driven. Neither is blood pressure or cholesterol. There are genetic factors, sure, but the study as the Telegraph is reporting it at least imply that all of these things are entirely genetic. This is not true at all. Environment is significant in weight, blood pressure, cholesterol and even height. Good nutrition has effects on all of these and it is pretty well known that good nutrition improves fertility.
The other bit is even funnier:
It should be obvious that on an entirely probabilistic basis women who give birth early will, in the end, have more children. Without any proof that there is any genetic basis to giving birth early, this means nothing. The bit at the other end may make more sense as there's more likely to be a genetic basis for later menopause, but even there you'd have to show that the genetic basis was actually there.
In truth *any* study that claims that we are "still evolving" without referencing actual genes is suspect as separating out the genetic and environmental factors is extremely difficult.
Because of the geography, San Francisco has no smog, so you don't find drivers complaining about pollution.
There is a huge difference between a bridge mostly used for long distance travel and a bridge 250,000 people use to get to their jobs every morning.
I agree it is important. It keeps drivers from clogging up my train ride every morning. But it isn't a "landmark" in the sense that tourists don't go to look at it. (Except for the dumb ones suckered by locals saying "it's being repainted...the gray is the primer.")
The Oakland Bay Bridge isn't much of a landmark, really. In any case, it is *extremely* important to note that the western span of the Bay Bridge, which is a suspension bridge, is perfectly sound, as is the landmark (but less used) Golden Gate Bridge. All of these problems are with the eastern span, which is a cantilever bridge.
Actually, they are currently building another bridge right next to it. These fixes are all to a structure that they hope to retire in a few years.
You can't tell me you've never run into the situation where installing a single open source package ends up taking you down a three hour maze of dependencies. Sure, sometimes you get lucky and everything just works, but many other types, you discover that application A needs libraries B and C installed, and B needs libraries D, F and G, and then the version of F you downloaded isn't compatible with package Y, so you try to upgrade Y only to discover that it doesn't work with package Z, until you say "fuck it" and just go try to find a binary.
Strange, I have never had a setup application say:
"error: foobaz10.41.1.a not found"
Hard drives never beat magnetic tape in dollars per megabyte. I guess that's why we still all use tape drives.
"Premium" channels like HBO and Showtime had no ads, but cable channels like MTV, CNN and TBS had as many ads at launch as they do now. I have vivid memories of the plethora of ads on MTV in 1982.
Certainly my family never experienced "no commercials" when we acquired cable because we were too cheap for HBO. Cable, when we got it in ~1978 was a way to get local stations without snow plus a few LA stations, etc.
I can't help but notice that three of the five games they mention by name on the last page describing where things are now are also on consoles. (Oblivion, Left 4 Dead and GTA IV)
Another reason to get a flu shot: So you don't transmit it to someone else who then dies.
Rate computing cycles required to crack a key increases with key size == Exponential
Rate computing power would increase by increasing the number of processors == Linear
Therefore, you can always increase the key size to the point where it is impossible for available computers to crack.
Reading Shatner pretty much discredits any opinion of written SF you might have.
Given that Stross has won one Hugo and been nominated for five others, I think you might be underrating his opinion on SF.
It's people like you who make TV Science Fiction unintellectual pap.
Huh? I installed Snow Leopard on the old 2003 G4 iBook we gave to our six year old, and it installed without an issue. It's too slow for modern flash games, but the OS runs perfectly...