Fun bit of history: the big bang theory was originally derided as creationist nonsense. It was originally proposed by scientists with religious leanings. Then came the discovery of microwave background radiation. Credible scientific evidence of what many considered creationism. And some still do.
A hammer and spike. Seriously. When hard drives fail, you can easily destroy them and ensure that no one is going to dumpster dive and get your data.
I'm assuming that a.45 is out of the question, due to the GBP reference. But it would be pretty sweet to be able to expense one as "data security device." Even if you don't want a gun, being able to expense one would for a server room would be worth it alone. If equipment is made by Foxcon, can you justify a hunting rifle in GB?
His point was that people cared about the wars and pushed for them to end when there was a republican president. People don't seem to care as much now with a democrat as president.
You may or may not agree, but it is an interesting way of looking at things.
Oh, I knew no one would bother me for just having a laptop in sleep mode. How would they tell? I have my own reasons for shutting a laptop off, so I never gave any thought to if the sleep mode technically meets the "off" requirement. Heck, I never even use one during a flight, despite 76,000 miles flown this year.
The reasons you give for shutting down and stowing devices makes a lot more sense. Thanks. Having to shut off my Kindle, with negligible RF emissions, seemed down right stupid, but now makes a modicum of sense. I might still disagree, but at least I understand the reasons better.
Ok, this is going to be even more off topic, but here goes: Is sleep mode acceptable on an airplane during take offs and landings? Searching the internet, I can't find any answers. I really don't care one way or another, but travel quite a bit and am curious.
I can't find any reference for Energia lifting a bigger payload. Just references that show Saturn VB lifting more. Can you point to your source? I'm curious.
I'll give you an example where it's helped me. I did a stint as a consultant. For one client, I had to use an encrypted laptop (file level. Even.txt files unreadable on non-encrypted systems). It sucked carrying two laptops everywhere.
So I installed XP in a virtual machine. 95% of the time I use the host OS. But when they email me something encrypted, I fire up the VM and read the Excel or Word file.
It's cumbersome, but less than carrying two laptops.
Yes, doctors just memorize the numbers. That's pretty much what medical school is.
Science and medicine work differently. Science is interested in learning why things work. Medicine doesn't care why, just if it works or not. It is a set of heuristics and tools. Science improves medicine, but an understanding of science is not needed to practice medicine.
Classic example: nobody knew how aspirin works until fairly recently. But doctors didn't need to know that. Take two and call me in the morning worked just fine. They memorized the numbers.
What most people consider a good doctor is someone who is fantastic with the heuristics and tools. A good memory.
And don't forget, people who say evolution isn't true are talking about evolving new species long ago. They almost never mean ongoing adaptation.
I'm not saying the guy isn't an asshat. It's just good to know what species of asshat we are dealing with and how it evolved.
From your description, Bob may have a vested interest in the old system. Security, self worth, whatever. Bob may feel that his value is tied with the old system. So going after the old system is going to feel like going after Bob, to him.
So don't fight that battle. Turn it around and make it so that Bob has an interest in the new system. Ok, that's obviously easier said than done. But there are several ways it can be done. Here are two approaches:
1) Let Bob be the hero. Talk to him privately about how he's managed miracles with what he's been given. Then ask him what he would do different if he could start over. Ask him what it would take. Offer to back him in his proposals. In short, put him in charge in a way that makes him indispensable and proud to do a good job.
2) Let him be the mentor. Similar to letting him be the hero, but with the twist of having someone else do the grunt work under Bob's wise and benevolent guidance.
3) Black box it. Ask Bob to come up with a new system, but don't get into the details. That requires a lot of trust, which may be what Bob is after anyways.
You get the idea. Play to what Bob wants and make it work for you.
FYI, Judaism focuses on the here and now. With regards to the afterlife, beliefs range from none, to resurrection, to heaven, to reincarnation. But there is very little emphasis on the afterlife.
A common misconception. State and federal laws are each restricted to spheres of control. This is most notably documented in the Bil of Rights.
Speed limits are a good example of the interplay. The feds couldn't pass a 55 limit, but they could make federal highway funds contingent on a state having a 55 limit, which they could pass.
You seem to be sincere, but your grasp of natural selection and genetics seems to be pretty rudimentary. But at least you're trying.
You seem to be against ceremony (as you define it) because it serves no purpose. My continuing point is that just because you don't see the purpose doesn't mean that it doesn't have one. Sort of like an appendix. Sure, we can do without. But what are the underlying reasons for its existence? You purpose to be a skeptic. So be skeptical of your absolutist view.
In the case of standing around a dead person with candles, it serves a very useful purpose... to the people standing around. Logically, it makes no sense. But it appears to serve a biological purpose with regards to mental health. Heck, birds have been shown to hold funerals (and I'm not away of them having religion). Do I understand why? No. But an intelligent person would seek to understand why rather than write it off as a useless gesture that needs to be eradicated.
As far as calling you a dumbass, it serves a useful purpose. To inform you that you aren't as smart as you believe you are. And easier to type than "You seem to have a sad and simplistic understanding of the universe".
Diverse classes are hard to implement. Both from supply and demand. Take a school that has teachers teaching 6 class periods.
Most teachers are only certified in one subject, occasionally 2. It costs them money to get training and certification in other subjects. So generally they only get certification in areas they can be sure to find employment. And focus on taking classes on the key areas in that subject that will get them hired. Unique training might be cool, but doesn't help most teachers. So they stick to the plain vanilla that they can be sure will be used in their careers.
Now take a school that has teachers teaching 6 class periods. How many periods of these diverse classes can a teacher teach? If it's not 6, they need to have at least 2 certifications. And if they do, that style of teaching sucks. My wife is a teacher and teaches 2 sets of curriculum. It's double the planning. Maybe an extra 10-20 hours a week for no additional pay. So few teachers are willing to teach two subjects and few schools are willing to dedicate a teacher to a minor subject.
If a school is very large AND the subject is popular enough to fill an entire class, preferably 6 classes AND you have a teacher with the right training, then diverse classes can be offered.
A minor clarification. North Korea is a signatory to the NPT, but has decided to withdraw from it. http://www.asil.org/insigh96.cfm
Being a signatory, then withdrawing, explains some of the pressure on NK to return to compliance with the NPT. The Bat-Shit-Craziness of NK explains the rest.
I'll assume we both believe in evolution. So riddle me this: why did we evolve magical thinking if it is detrimental to the human species? Why has the trait persisted if it is detrimental? If it's a side effect of a useful adaptation, are you willing to reject the useful adaptation in order to eliminate magical thinking? Or is it an atavistic trait that serves no purpose today?
I would counter that while particular forms of magical thinking are harmful, the ability itself is incredibly useful. Let's use your example of ceremony. For instance: words represent ceremonial sounds representing internal thoughts. Don't know about you, but that's a ceremony I'm going to keep. Money is an entirely fictitious ceremonial object, but is incredibly useful. If it offends you, please feel free to stop using it.
Good points. Though I'd like to say that I labeled him a dumbass for blaming superstition as the reason people memorialize the dead. Superstitions are a result of our pervasive urge to grieve, not the cause (e.g. trying to make sense of something confusing).
Attacking imagined beliefs of another person was stupid and had little or nothing to do with the advice being sought.
It's called grieving, dumbass. Even animals do it. Psychologists point out that funerals are not for the dead, they are for the living. It's how humans (and some animals) deal with a loss. We do it for ourselves. It's normal and healthy. If this seems silly to you, then that's an indication there is something wrong with you, not others.
Slashdot Mirror
Thems good eats!
"Eau du" wino translates at "wino water". "Odeur de wino" will translate as "smell of wino."
Fun bit of history: the big bang theory was originally derided as creationist nonsense. It was originally proposed by scientists with religious leanings. Then came the discovery of microwave background radiation. Credible scientific evidence of what many considered creationism. And some still do.
A hammer and spike. Seriously. When hard drives fail, you can easily destroy them and ensure that no one is going to dumpster dive and get your data.
I'm assuming that a .45 is out of the question, due to the GBP reference. But it would be pretty sweet to be able to expense one as "data security device." Even if you don't want a gun, being able to expense one would for a server room would be worth it alone. If equipment is made by Foxcon, can you justify a hunting rifle in GB?
http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/research/glacial-geology/images/ic_large.gif
Then the ice melted.
His point was that people cared about the wars and pushed for them to end when there was a republican president. People don't seem to care as much now with a democrat as president.
You may or may not agree, but it is an interesting way of looking at things.
As opposed to the long bow or catapult, where you don't necessarily see the other guy ever. Only in the last decade has warfare become impersonal.
Oh, I knew no one would bother me for just having a laptop in sleep mode. How would they tell? I have my own reasons for shutting a laptop off, so I never gave any thought to if the sleep mode technically meets the "off" requirement. Heck, I never even use one during a flight, despite 76,000 miles flown this year.
The reasons you give for shutting down and stowing devices makes a lot more sense. Thanks. Having to shut off my Kindle, with negligible RF emissions, seemed down right stupid, but now makes a modicum of sense. I might still disagree, but at least I understand the reasons better.
Ok, this is going to be even more off topic, but here goes: Is sleep mode acceptable on an airplane during take offs and landings? Searching the internet, I can't find any answers. I really don't care one way or another, but travel quite a bit and am curious.
I can't find any reference for Energia lifting a bigger payload. Just references that show Saturn VB lifting more. Can you point to your source? I'm curious.
I'll give you an example where it's helped me. I did a stint as a consultant. For one client, I had to use an encrypted laptop (file level. Even .txt files unreadable on non-encrypted systems). It sucked carrying two laptops everywhere.
So I installed XP in a virtual machine. 95% of the time I use the host OS. But when they email me something encrypted, I fire up the VM and read the Excel or Word file.
It's cumbersome, but less than carrying two laptops.
Yes, doctors just memorize the numbers. That's pretty much what medical school is.
Science and medicine work differently. Science is interested in learning why things work. Medicine doesn't care why, just if it works or not. It is a set of heuristics and tools. Science improves medicine, but an understanding of science is not needed to practice medicine.
Classic example: nobody knew how aspirin works until fairly recently. But doctors didn't need to know that. Take two and call me in the morning worked just fine. They memorized the numbers.
What most people consider a good doctor is someone who is fantastic with the heuristics and tools. A good memory.
And don't forget, people who say evolution isn't true are talking about evolving new species long ago. They almost never mean ongoing adaptation.
I'm not saying the guy isn't an asshat. It's just good to know what species of asshat we are dealing with and how it evolved.
If you Canadians have lost your interest in sex, you could consult your doctor. Pfizer probably a drug for that too.
I'm not fond of it either. But it might work for some people in some situations if they are desperate and willing to take a risk.
From your description, Bob may have a vested interest in the old system. Security, self worth, whatever. Bob may feel that his value is tied with the old system. So going after the old system is going to feel like going after Bob, to him.
So don't fight that battle. Turn it around and make it so that Bob has an interest in the new system. Ok, that's obviously easier said than done. But there are several ways it can be done. Here are two approaches:
1) Let Bob be the hero. Talk to him privately about how he's managed miracles with what he's been given. Then ask him what he would do different if he could start over. Ask him what it would take. Offer to back him in his proposals. In short, put him in charge in a way that makes him indispensable and proud to do a good job.
2) Let him be the mentor. Similar to letting him be the hero, but with the twist of having someone else do the grunt work under Bob's wise and benevolent guidance.
3) Black box it. Ask Bob to come up with a new system, but don't get into the details. That requires a lot of trust, which may be what Bob is after anyways.
You get the idea. Play to what Bob wants and make it work for you.
FYI, Judaism focuses on the here and now. With regards to the afterlife, beliefs range from none, to resurrection, to heaven, to reincarnation. But there is very little emphasis on the afterlife.
Don't worry. Any intruder will be scanned and sent to the gaming grid.
Without it, we wouldn't have bismuth subsalicylate
"supercedes State law."
A common misconception. State and federal laws are each restricted to spheres of control. This is most notably documented in the Bil of Rights.
Speed limits are a good example of the interplay. The feds couldn't pass a 55 limit, but they could make federal highway funds contingent on a state having a 55 limit, which they could pass.
I'd forgotten all about you.
You seem to be sincere, but your grasp of natural selection and genetics seems to be pretty rudimentary. But at least you're trying.
You seem to be against ceremony (as you define it) because it serves no purpose. My continuing point is that just because you don't see the purpose doesn't mean that it doesn't have one. Sort of like an appendix. Sure, we can do without. But what are the underlying reasons for its existence? You purpose to be a skeptic. So be skeptical of your absolutist view.
In the case of standing around a dead person with candles, it serves a very useful purpose ... to the people standing around. Logically, it makes no sense. But it appears to serve a biological purpose with regards to mental health. Heck, birds have been shown to hold funerals (and I'm not away of them having religion). Do I understand why? No. But an intelligent person would seek to understand why rather than write it off as a useless gesture that needs to be eradicated.
As far as calling you a dumbass, it serves a useful purpose. To inform you that you aren't as smart as you believe you are. And easier to type than "You seem to have a sad and simplistic understanding of the universe".
Diverse classes are hard to implement. Both from supply and demand. Take a school that has teachers teaching 6 class periods.
Most teachers are only certified in one subject, occasionally 2. It costs them money to get training and certification in other subjects. So generally they only get certification in areas they can be sure to find employment. And focus on taking classes on the key areas in that subject that will get them hired. Unique training might be cool, but doesn't help most teachers. So they stick to the plain vanilla that they can be sure will be used in their careers.
Now take a school that has teachers teaching 6 class periods. How many periods of these diverse classes can a teacher teach? If it's not 6, they need to have at least 2 certifications. And if they do, that style of teaching sucks. My wife is a teacher and teaches 2 sets of curriculum. It's double the planning. Maybe an extra 10-20 hours a week for no additional pay. So few teachers are willing to teach two subjects and few schools are willing to dedicate a teacher to a minor subject.
If a school is very large AND the subject is popular enough to fill an entire class, preferably 6 classes AND you have a teacher with the right training, then diverse classes can be offered.
In general, that doesn't happen.
A minor clarification. North Korea is a signatory to the NPT, but has decided to withdraw from it. http://www.asil.org/insigh96.cfm
Being a signatory, then withdrawing, explains some of the pressure on NK to return to compliance with the NPT. The Bat-Shit-Craziness of NK explains the rest.
I'll assume we both believe in evolution. So riddle me this: why did we evolve magical thinking if it is detrimental to the human species? Why has the trait persisted if it is detrimental? If it's a side effect of a useful adaptation, are you willing to reject the useful adaptation in order to eliminate magical thinking? Or is it an atavistic trait that serves no purpose today?
I would counter that while particular forms of magical thinking are harmful, the ability itself is incredibly useful. Let's use your example of ceremony. For instance: words represent ceremonial sounds representing internal thoughts. Don't know about you, but that's a ceremony I'm going to keep. Money is an entirely fictitious ceremonial object, but is incredibly useful. If it offends you, please feel free to stop using it.
And so on.
Yeah, I still think you're a dumbass.
Good points. Though I'd like to say that I labeled him a dumbass for blaming superstition as the reason people memorialize the dead. Superstitions are a result of our pervasive urge to grieve, not the cause (e.g. trying to make sense of something confusing).
Attacking imagined beliefs of another person was stupid and had little or nothing to do with the advice being sought.
What does he win? Peace of mind.
It's called grieving, dumbass. Even animals do it. Psychologists point out that funerals are not for the dead, they are for the living. It's how humans (and some animals) deal with a loss. We do it for ourselves. It's normal and healthy. If this seems silly to you, then that's an indication there is something wrong with you, not others.