The AC is a jerk, but I think he might have a minor point. Science teachers should understand that evolution isn't a fact. They understand the scientific method, and they'll understand that it's generally understood that evolution is the most likely explanation for the evidence (facts) we see today. The problem is that people don't understand the difference between theory, hypothesis and fact, I hope our science teachers do.
My big hang up with people who just hate god/religion/whatever is that you have no proof these things do not exist and there is certainly proof, according to the conjecture put forth by the religious, that god does exist. And science doesn't work by "proving" things it works in the opposite way, you disprove things. So until god has been falsified, please stow the "god doesn't exist" talk because you sound very arrogant. People much smarter than you (not me) believe in god. You certainly don't know that with 100% certainty, so don't tell everyone else as if it was a proven fact.
This is the major point at which you stumble. Let's leave words like hate aside for a moment. People are frustrated with god/religion/whatever because people who claim to be acting on behalf of god/religion/whatever (g/r/w) have done some awfully horrible and stupid things. I'm not saying others haven't. But we've generally been able to speak directly on those issues. Whereas when we try to confront the g/r/w crowd, they claim a special status as unassailable because their belief is taken on faith. Let's create laws that are bigoted toward gays. We don't have to legitimize our claims by reason, it's simply faith. We should all hate gays because g/r/w tells us so. We should all teach creation in science class because our belief in g/r/w tells us this is how the Earth was made. We have no obligation to use reason to explain our claims, as such.
And you are a bit mistaken. Science doesn't work by either proving or disproving things. It creates hypotheses and then attempts to test those hypotheses using evidence, often gleamed through experimentation. The "god theory" isn't a theory at all. We don't start positing theories until we start to accrue some evidence. This is where you really fall down. There is no evidence that necessitates god. No one is required to disprove god. Science says the burden is on the hypothesizer to come up with a preponderance of evidence.
You also cannot, to take a common example, disprove my belief in a giant, flying spaghetti monster, and therefore, it too should be taught in school. Similarly, I have a particularly strong belief in the transfer of spiritual energy in which the great being Zaltamore approaches Earth every 7 years on the third full moon, and those are lucky enough to pass gas and also to have been given the grace of Zaltamore at 02:38 GMT will suddenly have a heart attack and have his soul taken to eternal paradise. I suspect you have a great deal of work to do to disprove my theory. Otherwise, I think we have some more addendums to make to science and medical texts in Texas.
I've found that it isn't acceptable, but that they tend not to have competent management and HR people in place to recognize the issues. Contrary to half of this thread, most managers aren't MBA types. They generally have very little training in management, and their bosses aren't developing them either. They don't know how to articulate their needs, and they don't know how to work through their HR system to define salary and staffing requirements. Couple this with HR who doesn't know diddly about most of the positions in a company, and a manager who can't properly define what the position is and what the position should pay, and you end up with the worst of all worlds.
If there were initial buyers, and there were many, then it was appropriately priced. They got every penny from the IPO. No shares (as far as I can tell) were left on the table. The company isn't worth that much, but it doesn't mean they should have priced themselves what they were worth. They got the money based on fools spending wildly on the expectation that a big tech IPO would shoot up. Those people were wrong. But Facebook made their sale, and anyone afterward doesn't really matter to their bottom line.
It also means the Facebook staff who were partially paid in stock are now watching their personal valuations go down, which lowers morale and can induce a flight to new ventures.
No, it turns out to be very true. They sold all their shares. Unfortunately, the people downstream couldn't continue to find buyers at higher prices. Facebook got exactly what they wanted out of this deal. They sold all the shares at the price they wanted.
If they personally purchased the stock, then they lost everything in fees. If they bought on behalf of investors, then the investors lost money and the bank made the fees from FB plus the fees from the investors.
The conspiracy theorist in me would say because they pay for less screen area with the same marketing number. A 15 inch widescreen having less area than a 4:3 style display. More likely is that widescreen LCDs are so much cheaper because they make them for TVs and other media uses.
Which is why I thought of it. I've had it happen to me, and insisted on a refund. The bar is making money on songs being played on the jukebox. I paid to have whatever freaking song I chose played, and if you decide it's not what you want to listen to, give me my money back. The song was Kodachrome, seriously, who doesn't like Kodachrome?
One thing that needs to be considered is reimbursement. Ostensibly, someone paid to have that song played. If it gets shut down because Joe Premium is a country fan, then you really ought to reimburse the guy who paid to play Black Sabbath.
Maybe not, but $2 Trillion in war spending, plus $2 Trillion in unfunded Bush tax cuts (Funny the republicans didn't think it necessary to pay for the extension of their tax cuts) does make a sizable dent in our national deficit. Here's an interesting article on exactly this topic. Go look at historic trends of deficit spending and it's surprising that republicans are responsible for some of the largest rises in debt.
What about the kids who are under the age of majority. At the very least, we need this information to see if contact football is truly safe for children to play.
The difference is the frequency, and exactly what constitutes a traumatic brain incident that might cause gradual damage. See another posters comments here for evidence of "heading" the ball in soccer causing long-term brain damage. And common sense hasn't been telling us all that much until fairly recently when this research got some big breaks.
Well, it brings up a lot of interesting questions, like, if these consistent head blows causes serious, lasting brain damage, how do we deal with minors playing the sport? Is it tantamount to neglect if you let your kids play football? (I won't let mine, for this very reason) The south might rise up a second time if we told them no more high school football. That's where studies help. Evidence gives us cause to make decisions.
And if that's something that's important to people, then they'll buy Android for that advantage. You, as a discriminating customer, are free to do that. But, Apple is free to make whatever rules it wants in it's ecosystem.
Woosh, you missed the point. Lincoln didn't fight necessarily for slavery. But the South initiated the war and seceded explicitly so that it could continue to own slaves.
Slashdot Mirror
And even if it doesn't match their paypall login, it may match their email login, from which, you can reset many passwords.
Unfortunately, how long does it take to do a DoD-3, vs taking the hard drive out and taking it to someone who will put it in a chipper?
The AC is a jerk, but I think he might have a minor point. Science teachers should understand that evolution isn't a fact. They understand the scientific method, and they'll understand that it's generally understood that evolution is the most likely explanation for the evidence (facts) we see today. The problem is that people don't understand the difference between theory, hypothesis and fact, I hope our science teachers do.
My big hang up with people who just hate god/religion/whatever is that you have no proof these things do not exist and there is certainly proof, according to the conjecture put forth by the religious, that god does exist. And science doesn't work by "proving" things it works in the opposite way, you disprove things. So until god has been falsified, please stow the "god doesn't exist" talk because you sound very arrogant. People much smarter than you (not me) believe in god. You certainly don't know that with 100% certainty, so don't tell everyone else as if it was a proven fact.
This is the major point at which you stumble. Let's leave words like hate aside for a moment. People are frustrated with god/religion/whatever because people who claim to be acting on behalf of god/religion/whatever (g/r/w) have done some awfully horrible and stupid things. I'm not saying others haven't. But we've generally been able to speak directly on those issues. Whereas when we try to confront the g/r/w crowd, they claim a special status as unassailable because their belief is taken on faith. Let's create laws that are bigoted toward gays. We don't have to legitimize our claims by reason, it's simply faith. We should all hate gays because g/r/w tells us so. We should all teach creation in science class because our belief in g/r/w tells us this is how the Earth was made. We have no obligation to use reason to explain our claims, as such.
And you are a bit mistaken. Science doesn't work by either proving or disproving things. It creates hypotheses and then attempts to test those hypotheses using evidence, often gleamed through experimentation. The "god theory" isn't a theory at all. We don't start positing theories until we start to accrue some evidence. This is where you really fall down. There is no evidence that necessitates god. No one is required to disprove god. Science says the burden is on the hypothesizer to come up with a preponderance of evidence.
You also cannot, to take a common example, disprove my belief in a giant, flying spaghetti monster, and therefore, it too should be taught in school. Similarly, I have a particularly strong belief in the transfer of spiritual energy in which the great being Zaltamore approaches Earth every 7 years on the third full moon, and those are lucky enough to pass gas and also to have been given the grace of Zaltamore at 02:38 GMT will suddenly have a heart attack and have his soul taken to eternal paradise. I suspect you have a great deal of work to do to disprove my theory. Otherwise, I think we have some more addendums to make to science and medical texts in Texas.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2627#comic
I've found that it isn't acceptable, but that they tend not to have competent management and HR people in place to recognize the issues. Contrary to half of this thread, most managers aren't MBA types. They generally have very little training in management, and their bosses aren't developing them either. They don't know how to articulate their needs, and they don't know how to work through their HR system to define salary and staffing requirements. Couple this with HR who doesn't know diddly about most of the positions in a company, and a manager who can't properly define what the position is and what the position should pay, and you end up with the worst of all worlds.
I was incorrect. It looks like you're right. And yes, grab the pitchforks.
It does, however, look like maybe only one of the banks was propping it up.
If there were initial buyers, and there were many, then it was appropriately priced. They got every penny from the IPO. No shares (as far as I can tell) were left on the table. The company isn't worth that much, but it doesn't mean they should have priced themselves what they were worth. They got the money based on fools spending wildly on the expectation that a big tech IPO would shoot up. Those people were wrong. But Facebook made their sale, and anyone afterward doesn't really matter to their bottom line.
It also means the Facebook staff who were partially paid in stock are now watching their personal valuations go down, which lowers morale and can induce a flight to new ventures.
No, it turns out to be very true. They sold all their shares. Unfortunately, the people downstream couldn't continue to find buyers at higher prices. Facebook got exactly what they wanted out of this deal. They sold all the shares at the price they wanted.
If they personally purchased the stock, then they lost everything in fees. If they bought on behalf of investors, then the investors lost money and the bank made the fees from FB plus the fees from the investors.
Dell sells higher resolution screens on their E series laptops. It's an option though.
The conspiracy theorist in me would say because they pay for less screen area with the same marketing number. A 15 inch widescreen having less area than a 4:3 style display. More likely is that widescreen LCDs are so much cheaper because they make them for TVs and other media uses.
Which is why I thought of it. I've had it happen to me, and insisted on a refund. The bar is making money on songs being played on the jukebox. I paid to have whatever freaking song I chose played, and if you decide it's not what you want to listen to, give me my money back. The song was Kodachrome, seriously, who doesn't like Kodachrome?
One thing that needs to be considered is reimbursement. Ostensibly, someone paid to have that song played. If it gets shut down because Joe Premium is a country fan, then you really ought to reimburse the guy who paid to play Black Sabbath.
She's a child. She almost certainly has type 1 diabetes which is not caused by her diet. FDA, corn syrup, et al have nothing to do with it.
Maybe not, but $2 Trillion in war spending, plus $2 Trillion in unfunded Bush tax cuts (Funny the republicans didn't think it necessary to pay for the extension of their tax cuts) does make a sizable dent in our national deficit. Here's an interesting article on exactly this topic. Go look at historic trends of deficit spending and it's surprising that republicans are responsible for some of the largest rises in debt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html
What about the kids who are under the age of majority. At the very least, we need this information to see if contact football is truly safe for children to play.
Another poster showed above a study indicating that heading the ball may cause similar brain injuries over time.
The difference is the frequency, and exactly what constitutes a traumatic brain incident that might cause gradual damage. See another posters comments here for evidence of "heading" the ball in soccer causing long-term brain damage. And common sense hasn't been telling us all that much until fairly recently when this research got some big breaks.
Well, it brings up a lot of interesting questions, like, if these consistent head blows causes serious, lasting brain damage, how do we deal with minors playing the sport? Is it tantamount to neglect if you let your kids play football? (I won't let mine, for this very reason) The south might rise up a second time if we told them no more high school football. That's where studies help. Evidence gives us cause to make decisions.
And if that's something that's important to people, then they'll buy Android for that advantage. You, as a discriminating customer, are free to do that. But, Apple is free to make whatever rules it wants in it's ecosystem.
Be careful, small business growth isn't all it's cracked up to be: http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/story/2012-02-25/small-business-as-job-creator/53227084/1
If she had a kindle, you could lend it to her. Amazon likes this, because it means your friend has a kindle :)
Woosh, you missed the point. Lincoln didn't fight necessarily for slavery. But the South initiated the war and seceded explicitly so that it could continue to own slaves.