You're doing it wrong. You use an automatic sheet-fed double side scanner and cut the binding off the book first. Then you go and drink some coffee while the machine does the rest. Well more like you watch over it and wait for something to go wrong, fix it and then continue watching over it. Still much faster.
Right on. I say we burn all the hospitals, kill all the biologists and crucify all the doctors. It's just one step from what they;re doign to cloning and you yourself know what that may lead to. Where would it stop? We need to act NOW to prevent it.
They' NOT passionate about the job. They're passionate about what they do. There is a difference and in some cases they're are exact opposites. Someone passionate may want to use "new language X" because it's cool even if it would cost the company 20 times more in the long run.
Travel time is controlled by the employee and it's enjoyability is also controlled by the employee. You can choose to live close to work and you can choose to take a bus (then read a book on it).
I personally have no desire to be forced to live X minutes from work by my company or other such crap.
Can't you use hibernate so you start with all programs running? I only fully reboot my work system every couple weeks (when windows takes a shit on itself).
Why would they bother complaining, it's not like they had any alternatives which is the difference from windows. If you wanted a new mac then you got OS X. If you didn't like it then tough luck, learn to like it or stop buying apples computers. Microsoft on the other hand doesn't control the hardware and people are free to use any version they want on new hardware. I can run XP on a computer that came out a year after Vista without any trouble but I can't run OS 9 on a mac that came out after OS X.
Which is mostly irrelevant to the problem at hand. The requirement could have been about some absurd feature only 1 user in the world uses and it wouldn't have changed things. The discussion of this being a good or a bad idea would have mattered had it been made when vista was still not out. Now it's a moot point comapred to the problem of MS going back on requirements and promises that likely will results in many companies losing a lot of money.
I think you would be hard pressed to prove out that being 'gay' actually is healthier then choosing to overcome those inclinations.
Yet you can't prove it's not healthier either. I've asked multiple times to do just that and all you do is change the topic. I can't do anything except conclude that you have no evidence it's not a healthy lifestyle and are simply unable to see outside the restraints of your own archaic social views.
Entrapment is when the authorities cause you to commit a crime (that you wouldn't otherwise) which is not the case here since the crime was already committed.
Not all alcoholics beat their children and drive drunk.
I don't disagree, everything comes in various degrees.
So if someone feels that their homosexuality is making it impossible for them to have the lifestyle they want, it would be unreasonable to say "well it's normal" and send them away.
It's also be unreasonable to tell them that their only choice is to stop being homosexual even thought it's unlikely to work and will cause many problems on it's own. You could try helping them cope with their situation and to change their desire to ones that don't conflict with their sexuality. Since homosexuals aren't social pariahs anymore and since they are well accepted in many places there isn't anything to prevent one from leading a happy life.
If your alcoholism, on the other hand, is causing severe problems then staying an alcoholic doesn't leave you many options to function in society. You can't really change your desires to equally fulfilling ones or adapt them to your disorder.
Since it mentions eight twin studies and a meta-analysis that found there being a link the "test results were not repeatable" line is quite hilarious.
If you have links to any studies which disprove there being a link, something that should be trivial to do given your post then please provide them. After all if all studies showing one are so broken then it can't be difficult to repeat them many times with proper methodologies and find no evidence of such things.
I should have said "some gay people" or some such. Granted the same can be said of genetics and alcoholism.
If you meant there is no genetic/inborn relation then science disagree. Your own blind inability to accept scientific studies and their results does not mean those results do not exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
No, there are many Alcoholics that go to work and do there job just fine. There is nothing about alcoholism that makes you a cast out. Your behavior dictates that, nothing more.
Many people would disagree with you and the large number of alcoholics trying to quit supports that. Many people would probably also question if "going to work and not getting outright fired" constitutes, on it's own, a proper ability to function in society. Including me personally since while I function quite well at my job I still find certain mental issues of mine to cause many minor to moderate non-current-job related issues. Alcoholism doesn't do anything on it's own, of course, however the behavior it causes (ie: forces effectively due to addiction) does quite often cause social problems.
You're apparently incapable of distinguishing similar yet different things. Experimental psychology is a perfectly valid branch of science and uses the scientific method like any other such branch. Another branch builds upon this and ties to make theories on how the mind works without being able to justify it with additional evidence (ie: nothing may contradict this but...). It's perfectly valid as long as you don't assume any of it to be even close to fact (better than theoretical physics with its 50 mutually exclusive theories waiting for evidence). Psychiatry (or whatever it's called) is the more practical branch and generally doesn't follow science as much (since science is too far behind).
I would if they were testifying in court that murders couldn't help there actions because of the the alignment of the stars or that homosexuals aren't doing anything wrong because they were born with the balance of humors that is responsible for thier inclination and actions and then attempted to see that assumption codified into civil law.
The law is made exactly that way, thousands of years of unjustified assumptions that enough people think are right to get legislators to vote on. Logic much less science is rarely involved. Also the legal definition of insanity is whole separate entity from whatever psychological ones there are. Granted the interesting part is that the only justification for why homosexuality is bad is usually "well because it's bad" or "well this 3000 year old book I don't really follow says so." Amusing how something can be bad even thought you can't say why it's bad but you need 100% proof for it to be not bad.
Everyday many 'experts' from the field of psychology ignore the complexity of the problem, overstate their data and assert that various moral or social constructs should change without having sufficient data to prove there case. That is pseudo-science.
Right on, woman and blacks are inferior and shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property. Like those examples show psychology has little to do with changing the moral or social constructs. It's probably been used a lot more often to justify them than to do the opposite. Interestingly enough in quite a few places the social view is that homosexuality isn't wrong so psychologists in those areas would be trying to change it by saying the opposite. The only thing is happening is that people are trying to have certain social and moral views justified by its upholders and those upholders are failing to do so. It's happened before, see the first sentence of this paragraph, and it will probably happen again.
There is utterly no evidence that being gay is genetic or even inborn, there is some self-reported anctictodal evidence that suggest the possiblity.
Twin studies have been done. Your own lack of knowledge of their existence doesn't discount their existence.
Corilation does not prove causality.
Of course it doesn't, on the other hand one can in various ways control for other factors (inherent randomization, twin studies, including other variables in models, etc.) and correlation does imply something to look into (baring other evidence to account for what is happening).
That is why I said there is greater evidence that alchoholism is genetic then homosexuality. All of the studies I'm aware of, and all of the studies that my aunt who is a pshychologist and homosexual rights advoctates can point out, demostrate a various cirmstances and genetics that cover 10% or so of the actual homosexual popuplation,suggusting contributary causes but not showing an actual likely cause. No study has found any single gene or characteristic shared by all homosexuals. Homosexuality does not appear to run in familes.
Like I mentioned in my post, there is rather conclusive evidence that certain homosexuals are the result of certain chemicals in their mother's womb. You're apparently incapable of understanding that homosexuality being inborn doesn't require a single genetic cause (ie: 10 genes could each account for 10% of homosexuals) or even any genetic cause in the homosexual themselves.
I would suggest you take the time to actually look into the data instead of simply listening to the popular opinion of those who engage is pseudoscience.
My opinion is based on having actually looked at the studies in psychological literature and psychology textbooks. It's you who apparently has built an opinion based on third hand summaries of evidence (you "aunt," if she actually exists) and whatever popular crap you've heard. Zimbardo's introductory psychology textbook had a nice list of studies so you can look at that if you want to see the actual evidence (although I'm guessing it may be out of date by now).
I believe in science which means I follow what the evidence says no matter what my current opinion may be. Evidence means properly done studies with randomized samples if possible and good justification otherwise. I generally don't even agree with studies unless I see their methodology since too many are outright lies built upon bad assumptions and bad statistics. Your whole post provides absolutely zero evidence of any sort and actually implies you don't even know where such evidence may be (much less having seen such evidence in the past). You're the one who follows pseudoscience with the delusion that you're actually not doing so.
-- being 'gay' prevents you from properly understanding normal human social interactions and the basic nature of the human person. Homosexual sex tends to be physically unhealthy.
Your evidence for this being? I mean, you're claiming I lack evidence for my opinions yet you provide none yourself. How interesting.
BTW. The same techniques used to treat alcholism , have shown about the same level of success in correcting homosexual behaviour and allowing homosexuals who want to , to live normal heterosexual lives. So that stands as significant counter evidence , that it is a fixed state.
Your evidence for this being? There are after all some lovely anecdotal examples of such attempts failing and of people "happily" married for decades getting divorces (now that being homosexual doesn't make them pariahs anymore). I also refer you to my previous quote about treating alcoholism (ie: you never stop being alcoholic) which makes your comparison rather counter productive to your argument (ie: it implies such treatments do little to make them actually heterosexual other than forcing them t
Unless you consider procreation to be a part of society.
It generally isn't considered as such so no. There are plenty of heterosexual individuals who do not and have no desire to have kids. The ones who do want to have kids have various options including adoption, surrogate mothers/fathers, etc. Last I checked no one has any problem with such choices, so your point is?
And, of course, if you realize that some men have a problem with other men hitting on them, which makes it harder to fit in.
Some men have problems with certain woman hitting on them as well. Since no one is forcing you to hit on every single man in existence if you are gay, and since dating websites and gay bars exist I don't see why this is an inherent problem for gay men?
There's also the fact that gay men have a much higher rate of STD infection, especially the bad ones like hep-c and aids.
This is again a personal choice and western society, last I checked, believed in some amount of personal freedom. You can practice safe sex and be gay so there is nothing that prevents a gay person from inherently becoming filled with STDs. If I remember correctly the rates are dropping so it's a moot point really.
But no, lets all pretend that it has no negative effects. . .
Apparently is has no negative effects for woman or not any you're able to list, so I take it you have no problems with lesbians but just with gays?
You do realize that by your logic we should bleach all black people since they have much higher rates for committing most crimes?
That's not getting into the issue that I was talking about someone's personal ability to function in society which you apparently couldn't come up with any points against.
Because just like those traffic light things everyone else will be able to use them as well so tons of people will abuse them. I'd give it a couple months before most motorists rip the damn things out of their cars in frustration of having it go off every day.
Do you know anything about psychology or do you just like to run your mouth off? The scientific part is saying "there is a likely genetic link between X and Y." The science (experimental psychology) generally stops there and you get the more practical parts (psychiatry, etc.).
You don't have a genetic trait for alcoholism, you have a genetic trait for a higher chance of becoming an alcoholic if you drink too much. A gay person has the genetic trait for being gay or possibly they are just born gay (not genetic but rather an effect of his mother's womb). In your analogy it's as if they were born addicted to alcohol instead of just with a predisposition to getting addicted. Getting over alcoholism itself is a difficult process and, as I understand it, you never actually stop being an alcoholic (you just stop drinking).
The social and personal difference comes from the effects. Being gay doesn't really prevent you from being part of society if society doesn't actively hunt you down. Being an alcoholic does prevent you from being in society even if society actually actively tries to help you (a much much stronger action than just ignoring your quirks).
Refresh rates don't matter unless you're running at more fps than the refresh rate. Response time for lcds is 4ms which is low enough that very few people would notice it.
How did they know the dust accumulated within 90 sol days (or less) wouldn't be enough to completely cover the panels? There was no prior evidence to this - so wouldn't it have been fail-safe to have some kind of a dusting mechanism anyway?
The rovers aren't the first landers sent to Mars so yes they did have prior evidence.
It's hard for anyone (even NASA) to think of everthing, and it's usually the small things that fall through the cracks. So here I propose a revolutionary way of cleaning dust off the panels (no wipers needed):
Or most likely they did think of everything and simply know more about the subject than some untrained, unread arm chair engineer on Slashdot who couldn't do even a fraction of their job if his life depended on it. Likely said arm chair engineer has serious ego issues and is trying to make himself feel better by "out thinking" those NASA scientists without realizing he's just making himself look like an even larger idiot to everyone else. That's not even getting into the whole "coward" issue of posting such things on Slashdot instead of places where people actually knowledgeable about the issue post (since that'd cause said arm chair idiot to get ripped to shreds).
A transparent film covers the panels, without hampering their photo-voltaic function.
Any film would likely hamper their function to some degree. The ability of any film that does not it unlikely to survive the temperature swings, space travel and abrasion it'd experience. Then there are the likely static issues introduced by such a film itself or during attempts to peel of such a film.
Once ground control decides there's enough dust to be cleaned (could be 90 days or 5 years), they start up the film roll motor that starts pulling in the dusty film in and rolling fresh film out over the panels.
They now need to add in motors, rollers and so on that can survive temperature swings, space travel and general wear. Most likely the film will tear, get statically clung to the panels, cover a large portion of the rover's panels and prevent dust from being removed at all (by creating valleys for it to gather in). Congratulations you just made the rovers last 30 days instead of 5 years.
Then there is the issues of having to redesign the panels to allow such a system, redesigning the system for collapsing the panels in flight, etc, etc.
The scrapers at the bottom clean the dusty film to their maximum extent, providing the option of recycling the film for repeated uses (reuse=>smaller rolls=>lesser payload).
What part of "electrostatically clingy" do you not understand in why they can't use wipers?
Since (now that we know) the motor doesn't have to be used frequently, this system is not a power drain.
The temperature swings require heating of most components thus any component induces a power drain no matter how often it's used.
Top schools cost little unless your parents are rather well off since they give very nice financial aid packages (I think it's now a free ride up to $100k or some such). It's the lesser private schools that are raping students now.
Most likely you're either delusional about why you got where you are (ie: connections, luck, etc.) or you are lucky enough to have the proper skills to get by without a degree (likely the result of having parents who taught you such things). If it's the later then you're just delusional about how lucky that makes you and just what most people aren't capable of. Like I said in my post, I'm not talking not the exceptions but to the average person. The experience of exceptions is generally useless to those who don't have the same inborn skills and can't do the same.
That said it's most likely the case that someone with a degree could get to the same place as you with a tenth of the effort you've put into it. It's actually amazing (and disturbing imho) how differently people react to you when you say that you went to a top school.
First off -- Harvard, MIT, etc.. great schools, but unless you're going on a full ride they simply are NOT worth it (at least as an undergraduate). The simple fact is that you're going to waste a lot of time in your undergrad partying, having fun, and not taking it seriously, regardless of whether it's MIT or Harvard or a state school. I wound up going to a private school and graduated $60k in debt, AFTER a half scholarship.
Most top schools now provide very nice financial aid packages to the point where for some people it's less expensive than going to a public university. Most other private schools, on the other hand, cost just as much and don't have those financial aid packages. In other words the smart choices nowadays are public schools or top private schools with everything else usually not being worth it. On that note, those financial aid application matter so triple check them when you fill them out or you'll be royally screwed.
Also if you plan to go for graduate studies at a top school or to get outside fellowships then a top undergrad school may be worth it for the name alone (apparently lot's of things including government fellowships have certain unofficial admission criteria).
I'm trying to convince people like my sister, who is majoring in philosophy and by the time she graduates, will be 40k in debt -- NOT to keep on her current track lest she want to screw up her entire life. Like I said I'm fortunate, and I realize I am -- but most people are stupid in addition to naive with regards to student loans and eventual salaried positions. My sister is going to philosophize why she's broke, and she still has plans to go to grad school and become a professor eventually.
True. Part of the problem I think is that everyone (schools, high school college advisers, etc.) tells students they'll make tons of money with any degree. People also overestimate their own abilities so when you tell them "the median salary is $20k" they'll actually be thinking "well I'm way above average so that doesn't apply to me".
Experience requires getting a job. Getting a job requires meeting the requirements for one. The requirements for almost all IT jobs includes a degree or experience. You can get lucky or you can get a degree. You guess which one is more consistent in not leaving you in a soup kitchen line.
Some people have what it takes to play the system enough (or more likely have enough family friends to nepotism their way in) to not need a degree but most don't. Granted the same holds true for many degree where the 5% with family connections, genius and/or luck get a good job while everyone else is screwed. Guess which group colleges use to advertise their degrees?
With Fallout, which I currently play for the first time, it was a little different, since that game has a ton of bugs and issues, but still it was a pretty good experience so far and I had plenty of fun with it, more fun then with many of todays AAA titles.
Did you install all the official and unofficial patches?
Slashdot Mirror
You're doing it wrong. You use an automatic sheet-fed double side scanner and cut the binding off the book first. Then you go and drink some coffee while the machine does the rest. Well more like you watch over it and wait for something to go wrong, fix it and then continue watching over it. Still much faster.
Right on. I say we burn all the hospitals, kill all the biologists and crucify all the doctors. It's just one step from what they;re doign to cloning and you yourself know what that may lead to. Where would it stop? We need to act NOW to prevent it.
The difference is that my TV doesn't track what I watch, who I watch it with, who I talk to, what mail I send and when I go to the bathroom.
They' NOT passionate about the job. They're passionate about what they do. There is a difference and in some cases they're are exact opposites. Someone passionate may want to use "new language X" because it's cool even if it would cost the company 20 times more in the long run.
Travel time is controlled by the employee and it's enjoyability is also controlled by the employee. You can choose to live close to work and you can choose to take a bus (then read a book on it).
I personally have no desire to be forced to live X minutes from work by my company or other such crap.
Can't you use hibernate so you start with all programs running? I only fully reboot my work system every couple weeks (when windows takes a shit on itself).
Why would they bother complaining, it's not like they had any alternatives which is the difference from windows. If you wanted a new mac then you got OS X. If you didn't like it then tough luck, learn to like it or stop buying apples computers. Microsoft on the other hand doesn't control the hardware and people are free to use any version they want on new hardware. I can run XP on a computer that came out a year after Vista without any trouble but I can't run OS 9 on a mac that came out after OS X.
Which is mostly irrelevant to the problem at hand. The requirement could have been about some absurd feature only 1 user in the world uses and it wouldn't have changed things. The discussion of this being a good or a bad idea would have mattered had it been made when vista was still not out. Now it's a moot point comapred to the problem of MS going back on requirements and promises that likely will results in many companies losing a lot of money.
I think you would be hard pressed to prove out that being 'gay' actually is healthier then choosing to overcome those inclinations.
Yet you can't prove it's not healthier either. I've asked multiple times to do just that and all you do is change the topic. I can't do anything except conclude that you have no evidence it's not a healthy lifestyle and are simply unable to see outside the restraints of your own archaic social views.
Entrapment is when the authorities cause you to commit a crime (that you wouldn't otherwise) which is not the case here since the crime was already committed.
Not all alcoholics beat their children and drive drunk.
I don't disagree, everything comes in various degrees.
So if someone feels that their homosexuality is making it impossible for them to have the lifestyle they want, it would be unreasonable to say "well it's normal" and send them away.
It's also be unreasonable to tell them that their only choice is to stop being homosexual even thought it's unlikely to work and will cause many problems on it's own. You could try helping them cope with their situation and to change their desire to ones that don't conflict with their sexuality. Since homosexuals aren't social pariahs anymore and since they are well accepted in many places there isn't anything to prevent one from leading a happy life.
If your alcoholism, on the other hand, is causing severe problems then staying an alcoholic doesn't leave you many options to function in society. You can't really change your desires to equally fulfilling ones or adapt them to your disorder.
Since I'm busy, wikipedia seems to have a list of various ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
Since it mentions eight twin studies and a meta-analysis that found there being a link the "test results were not repeatable" line is quite hilarious.
If you have links to any studies which disprove there being a link, something that should be trivial to do given your post then please provide them. After all if all studies showing one are so broken then it can't be difficult to repeat them many times with proper methodologies and find no evidence of such things.
There is no such evidence.
No such evidence.
I should have said "some gay people" or some such. Granted the same can be said of genetics and alcoholism.
If you meant there is no genetic/inborn relation then science disagree. Your own blind inability to accept scientific studies and their results does not mean those results do not exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
No, there are many Alcoholics that go to work and do there job just fine.
There is nothing about alcoholism that makes you a cast out.
Your behavior dictates that, nothing more.
Many people would disagree with you and the large number of alcoholics trying to quit supports that. Many people would probably also question if "going to work and not getting outright fired" constitutes, on it's own, a proper ability to function in society. Including me personally since while I function quite well at my job I still find certain mental issues of mine to cause many minor to moderate non-current-job related issues. Alcoholism doesn't do anything on it's own, of course, however the behavior it causes (ie: forces effectively due to addiction) does quite often cause social problems.
You're apparently incapable of distinguishing similar yet different things. Experimental psychology is a perfectly valid branch of science and uses the scientific method like any other such branch. Another branch builds upon this and ties to make theories on how the mind works without being able to justify it with additional evidence (ie: nothing may contradict this but...). It's perfectly valid as long as you don't assume any of it to be even close to fact (better than theoretical physics with its 50 mutually exclusive theories waiting for evidence). Psychiatry (or whatever it's called) is the more practical branch and generally doesn't follow science as much (since science is too far behind).
I would if they were testifying in court that murders couldn't help there actions because of the the alignment of the stars or that homosexuals aren't doing anything wrong because they were born with the balance of humors that is responsible for thier inclination and actions and then attempted to see that assumption codified into civil law.
The law is made exactly that way, thousands of years of unjustified assumptions that enough people think are right to get legislators to vote on. Logic much less science is rarely involved. Also the legal definition of insanity is whole separate entity from whatever psychological ones there are. Granted the interesting part is that the only justification for why homosexuality is bad is usually "well because it's bad" or "well this 3000 year old book I don't really follow says so." Amusing how something can be bad even thought you can't say why it's bad but you need 100% proof for it to be not bad.
Everyday many 'experts' from the field of psychology ignore the complexity of the problem, overstate their data and assert that various moral or social constructs should change without having sufficient data to prove there case. That is pseudo-science.
Right on, woman and blacks are inferior and shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property. Like those examples show psychology has little to do with changing the moral or social constructs. It's probably been used a lot more often to justify them than to do the opposite. Interestingly enough in quite a few places the social view is that homosexuality isn't wrong so psychologists in those areas would be trying to change it by saying the opposite. The only thing is happening is that people are trying to have certain social and moral views justified by its upholders and those upholders are failing to do so. It's happened before, see the first sentence of this paragraph, and it will probably happen again.
There is utterly no evidence that being gay is genetic or even inborn, there is some self-reported anctictodal evidence that suggest the possiblity.
Twin studies have been done. Your own lack of knowledge of their existence doesn't discount their existence.
Corilation does not prove causality.
Of course it doesn't, on the other hand one can in various ways control for other factors (inherent randomization, twin studies, including other variables in models, etc.) and correlation does imply something to look into (baring other evidence to account for what is happening).
That is why I said there is greater evidence that alchoholism is genetic then homosexuality. All of the studies I'm aware of, and all of the studies that my aunt who is a pshychologist and homosexual rights advoctates can point out, demostrate a various cirmstances and genetics that cover 10% or so of the actual homosexual popuplation,suggusting contributary causes but not showing an actual likely cause. No study has found any single gene or characteristic shared by all homosexuals. Homosexuality does not appear to run in familes.
Like I mentioned in my post, there is rather conclusive evidence that certain homosexuals are the result of certain chemicals in their mother's womb. You're apparently incapable of understanding that homosexuality being inborn doesn't require a single genetic cause (ie: 10 genes could each account for 10% of homosexuals) or even any genetic cause in the homosexual themselves.
I would suggest you take the time to actually look into the data instead of simply listening to the popular opinion of those who engage is pseudoscience.
My opinion is based on having actually looked at the studies in psychological literature and psychology textbooks. It's you who apparently has built an opinion based on third hand summaries of evidence (you "aunt," if she actually exists) and whatever popular crap you've heard. Zimbardo's introductory psychology textbook had a nice list of studies so you can look at that if you want to see the actual evidence (although I'm guessing it may be out of date by now).
I believe in science which means I follow what the evidence says no matter what my current opinion may be. Evidence means properly done studies with randomized samples if possible and good justification otherwise. I generally don't even agree with studies unless I see their methodology since too many are outright lies built upon bad assumptions and bad statistics. Your whole post provides absolutely zero evidence of any sort and actually implies you don't even know where such evidence may be (much less having seen such evidence in the past). You're the one who follows pseudoscience with the delusion that you're actually not doing so.
-- being 'gay' prevents you from properly understanding normal human social interactions and the basic nature of the human person. Homosexual sex tends to be physically unhealthy.
Your evidence for this being? I mean, you're claiming I lack evidence for my opinions yet you provide none yourself. How interesting.
BTW. The same techniques used to treat alcholism , have shown about the same level of success in correcting homosexual behaviour and allowing homosexuals who want to , to live normal heterosexual lives. So that stands as significant counter evidence , that it is a fixed state.
Your evidence for this being? There are after all some lovely anecdotal examples of such attempts failing and of people "happily" married for decades getting divorces (now that being homosexual doesn't make them pariahs anymore). I also refer you to my previous quote about treating alcoholism (ie: you never stop being alcoholic) which makes your comparison rather counter productive to your argument (ie: it implies such treatments do little to make them actually heterosexual other than forcing them t
Unless you consider procreation to be a part of society.
It generally isn't considered as such so no. There are plenty of heterosexual individuals who do not and have no desire to have kids. The ones who do want to have kids have various options including adoption, surrogate mothers/fathers, etc. Last I checked no one has any problem with such choices, so your point is?
And, of course, if you realize that some men have a problem with other men hitting on them, which makes it harder to fit in.
Some men have problems with certain woman hitting on them as well. Since no one is forcing you to hit on every single man in existence if you are gay, and since dating websites and gay bars exist I don't see why this is an inherent problem for gay men?
There's also the fact that gay men have a much higher rate of STD infection, especially the bad ones like hep-c and aids.
This is again a personal choice and western society, last I checked, believed in some amount of personal freedom. You can practice safe sex and be gay so there is nothing that prevents a gay person from inherently becoming filled with STDs. If I remember correctly the rates are dropping so it's a moot point really.
But no, lets all pretend that it has no negative effects. . .
Apparently is has no negative effects for woman or not any you're able to list, so I take it you have no problems with lesbians but just with gays?
You do realize that by your logic we should bleach all black people since they have much higher rates for committing most crimes?
That's not getting into the issue that I was talking about someone's personal ability to function in society which you apparently couldn't come up with any points against.
Because just like those traffic light things everyone else will be able to use them as well so tons of people will abuse them. I'd give it a couple months before most motorists rip the damn things out of their cars in frustration of having it go off every day.
Do you know anything about psychology or do you just like to run your mouth off? The scientific part is saying "there is a likely genetic link between X and Y." The science (experimental psychology) generally stops there and you get the more practical parts (psychiatry, etc.).
You don't have a genetic trait for alcoholism, you have a genetic trait for a higher chance of becoming an alcoholic if you drink too much. A gay person has the genetic trait for being gay or possibly they are just born gay (not genetic but rather an effect of his mother's womb). In your analogy it's as if they were born addicted to alcohol instead of just with a predisposition to getting addicted. Getting over alcoholism itself is a difficult process and, as I understand it, you never actually stop being an alcoholic (you just stop drinking).
The social and personal difference comes from the effects. Being gay doesn't really prevent you from being part of society if society doesn't actively hunt you down. Being an alcoholic does prevent you from being in society even if society actually actively tries to help you (a much much stronger action than just ignoring your quirks).
Refresh rates don't matter unless you're running at more fps than the refresh rate. Response time for lcds is 4ms which is low enough that very few people would notice it.
How did they know the dust accumulated within 90 sol days (or less) wouldn't be enough to completely cover the panels? There was no prior evidence to this - so wouldn't it have been fail-safe to have some kind of a dusting mechanism anyway?
The rovers aren't the first landers sent to Mars so yes they did have prior evidence.
It's hard for anyone (even NASA) to think of everthing, and it's usually the small things that fall through the cracks. So here I propose a revolutionary way of cleaning dust off the panels (no wipers needed):
Or most likely they did think of everything and simply know more about the subject than some untrained, unread arm chair engineer on Slashdot who couldn't do even a fraction of their job if his life depended on it. Likely said arm chair engineer has serious ego issues and is trying to make himself feel better by "out thinking" those NASA scientists without realizing he's just making himself look like an even larger idiot to everyone else. That's not even getting into the whole "coward" issue of posting such things on Slashdot instead of places where people actually knowledgeable about the issue post (since that'd cause said arm chair idiot to get ripped to shreds).
A transparent film covers the panels, without hampering their photo-voltaic function.
Any film would likely hamper their function to some degree. The ability of any film that does not it unlikely to survive the temperature swings, space travel and abrasion it'd experience. Then there are the likely static issues introduced by such a film itself or during attempts to peel of such a film.
Once ground control decides there's enough dust to be cleaned (could be 90 days or 5 years), they start up the film roll motor that starts pulling in the dusty film in and rolling fresh film out over the panels.
They now need to add in motors, rollers and so on that can survive temperature swings, space travel and general wear. Most likely the film will tear, get statically clung to the panels, cover a large portion of the rover's panels and prevent dust from being removed at all (by creating valleys for it to gather in). Congratulations you just made the rovers last 30 days instead of 5 years.
Then there is the issues of having to redesign the panels to allow such a system, redesigning the system for collapsing the panels in flight, etc, etc.
The scrapers at the bottom clean the dusty film to their maximum extent, providing the option of recycling the film for repeated uses (reuse=>smaller rolls=>lesser payload).
What part of "electrostatically clingy" do you not understand in why they can't use wipers?
Since (now that we know) the motor doesn't have to be used frequently, this system is not a power drain.
The temperature swings require heating of most components thus any component induces a power drain no matter how often it's used.
Top schools cost little unless your parents are rather well off since they give very nice financial aid packages (I think it's now a free ride up to $100k or some such). It's the lesser private schools that are raping students now.
Most likely you're either delusional about why you got where you are (ie: connections, luck, etc.) or you are lucky enough to have the proper skills to get by without a degree (likely the result of having parents who taught you such things). If it's the later then you're just delusional about how lucky that makes you and just what most people aren't capable of. Like I said in my post, I'm not talking not the exceptions but to the average person. The experience of exceptions is generally useless to those who don't have the same inborn skills and can't do the same.
That said it's most likely the case that someone with a degree could get to the same place as you with a tenth of the effort you've put into it. It's actually amazing (and disturbing imho) how differently people react to you when you say that you went to a top school.
First off -- Harvard, MIT, etc.. great schools, but unless you're going on a full ride they simply are NOT worth it (at least as an undergraduate). The simple fact is that you're going to waste a lot of time in your undergrad partying, having fun, and not taking it seriously, regardless of whether it's MIT or Harvard or a state school. I wound up going to a private school and graduated $60k in debt, AFTER a half scholarship.
Most top schools now provide very nice financial aid packages to the point where for some people it's less expensive than going to a public university. Most other private schools, on the other hand, cost just as much and don't have those financial aid packages. In other words the smart choices nowadays are public schools or top private schools with everything else usually not being worth it. On that note, those financial aid application matter so triple check them when you fill them out or you'll be royally screwed.
Also if you plan to go for graduate studies at a top school or to get outside fellowships then a top undergrad school may be worth it for the name alone (apparently lot's of things including government fellowships have certain unofficial admission criteria).
I'm trying to convince people like my sister, who is majoring in philosophy and by the time she graduates, will be 40k in debt -- NOT to keep on her current track lest she want to screw up her entire life. Like I said I'm fortunate, and I realize I am -- but most people are stupid in addition to naive with regards to student loans and eventual salaried positions. My sister is going to philosophize why she's broke, and she still has plans to go to grad school and become a professor eventually.
True. Part of the problem I think is that everyone (schools, high school college advisers, etc.) tells students they'll make tons of money with any degree. People also overestimate their own abilities so when you tell them "the median salary is $20k" they'll actually be thinking "well I'm way above average so that doesn't apply to me".
Experience requires getting a job. Getting a job requires meeting the requirements for one. The requirements for almost all IT jobs includes a degree or experience. You can get lucky or you can get a degree. You guess which one is more consistent in not leaving you in a soup kitchen line.
Some people have what it takes to play the system enough (or more likely have enough family friends to nepotism their way in) to not need a degree but most don't. Granted the same holds true for many degree where the 5% with family connections, genius and/or luck get a good job while everyone else is screwed. Guess which group colleges use to advertise their degrees?
With Fallout, which I currently play for the first time, it was a little different, since that game has a ton of bugs and issues, but still it was a pretty good experience so far and I had plenty of fun with it, more fun then with many of todays AAA titles.
Did you install all the official and unofficial patches?