As smileys are officially punctuation (sentence terminators), it does raise the question: Do you have to invert your smiley at the beginning of the sentence when writing in Spanish?
The question then is would I buy one? Why not, it at least runs windows - familiar OS and handles almost all of my existing software investment.
The answer here is: Because you're running a desktop OS on a tablet device. I did that 14 years ago -- there were some nifty dual-screen Windows-based tablets back in 1998. The problem is that the OS lends itself to mouse and keyboard, not multiple fingers directly touching the screen, motion sensors, etc. The new MS interface kind of changes this, but current offerings don't.
Whenever I see "comparable specs to," I expect the next bit to be a defense of the product's lacklustre construction, user interface, battery life, or some other key feature -- because most competitors attempting to match/beat Apple on spec sheets just don't get overall design.
I don't really care how fast the processor is in my tablet device, as long as it's fast enough to run the software installed, and doesn't burn through the battery too quickly, and is reasonably priced. If someone says "comparable features to " I tend to take notice, as someone's at least been thinking about the user experience instead of just the marketing material. Think of the Nintendo Gameboy/Gameboy Color/Advance -- the specs were sub-par by any stretch of the imagination -- but people BOUGHT them because the gameplay was better than the competition and they were CHEAP.
Acer has just found itself competing against Microsoft, using the wrong OS for the job, supplied by its competitor.
I like your modified version. I'd like to add the following lines:
The frog, being a frog, had no problem swimming under the water and soon swam back to the side of the river to claim his next passenger. Why did the scorpion die agonisingly? Because he had the misfortune to catch a ride on the back of a blue poison dart frog....
...which by default makes you part of the extreme element of the organization.
Being vocally opposed often just draws more attention to the minority (Streisand effect). Most politicians, CEOs, etc. just pretend the issue doesn't exist until enough people start to believe them.
I take it noone explained to you that that's their primary purpose? Secondary is a life support system. Sure, a space suit won't protect against gamma ray bursts, but there are many wavelengths of cosmic radiation that our atmosphere filters out and our skin won't. Current space suits (the kind used in spacewalks) tend to block most of this.
I'm going to point out that this entire article is about luring people to view Youtube videos in an attempt to load a RAT onto their PC... Just saying.
OK, headline says "Canadian Government Backs Down On Airport Recording" Summary says "Canadian Government Halts Airport's installation of recording equipment due to failure of due process" Article says "Canadian Government is a stickler for red tape, but doesn't care about the results"
Well, the Western concept of Hell is mostly based on Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost -- likewise the concept of alien beings being white with halos and dove's wings, and others being red with forked tails, goat's horns and pitchforks is something that comes from popular culture and not theological treatises.
Added to this, if you look in the Christian Bible or any of the Jewish religious works, you'll see that earlier works only refer to Abaddon or Hades, and even later works rarely refer to Hell (8 references, mostly in Matthew, also in Mark, Luke, James and 2 Peter, with the Matthew and Mark ones paraphrasing the same sermons). Original references to Hell in the Bible are attributed to Jesus, Paul, James and Peter. Of these, Peter describes it as gloomy (similar to Hades), James as fiery, Jesus and Paul purely as a place Angels and Humans can be exiled to, possibly with a gate and wall.
What am I getting at here? Mostly that this study is likely mostly useless, as the entire concept of what Hell is and who goes there and for what varies wildly throughout history and geography/culture. Nowadays, most people apply the Yin/Yan dichotomy to Heaven and Hell; others have labelled Hell as being "not Heaven", and then of course there's the "Heaven's Prison" and "Place of Eternal Torment" depictions mentioned in the Bible.
I'd be more interested in seeing this study done looking at belief in a benevolent creator and belief in a malignant rebel; the results may be the same, but that's in no way guaranteed.
Both parties seem to support the violation of the basic civil rights of American citizens, but the few individuals who occasionally stand up against this surveillance regime seem to have something in common.
You mean that they're members of the opposition party? Opposing tends to be a good differentiator when your party is a minority; when you're a majority, opposing the party line almost never pays in the long run.
Sweden isn't the US: in Sweden, you must be questioned prior to charges being laid. You can't do this over the phone, which is why they want him extradited. That said, considering the charge, I can't see how they could go directly from "no evidence, case dropped" to "extradition request for pre-charge questioning" without some evidence coming out or some discussions with Assange himself via one of the methods you mentioned. This appears to be what worries Assange. After all, what changed? Did they find the unused condoms? Did they find hidden video footage? Another person came forward with the same claim?
Remember that he's wanted for questioning regarding sex with two women without using a condom, the argument being that he used his position of power to intimidate them into accepting unprotected sex even though they actually wanted him to use a condom at the time. I believe he's already told them his side of the story.
Kids live in a world even more arbitrary and capricious than that of adults. This is especially true in primary and secondary school. Why, then, would they develop reasoning skills? Those that do end up challenging authority and getting arbitrarily slapped down, so there's negative incentives as well as a lack of positive ones.
I think I see the problem here... there's a difference between questioning authority and challenging authority. If you challenge authority, you'll be slapped down for the purpose of maintaining authority. If you QUESTION authority, you'll still get ignored/slapped down from time to time, but the authority figure is the one who ends up looking silly, and the student still learns something (even if it's "they don't want to answer that question for some reason".)
This is actually a distinction I'm currently attempting to teach to some kids; follow authority, but question when you don't know why or think they've got it wrong. It's better than both ignoring authority and blindly following authority.
Your inductive logic missed out the part where the Trabant is considered not only better than a Bentley, but is also considered a car.
What the GP was pointing out is that some people can't differentiate between subjective and inductive, and so start off inducing, switch to subjective reasoning, and then jump back to an induced conclusion -- therefore not only arriving at the *misleading* statement that a Trabant is better than a Bentley, but also the factually incorrect statement that a Trabant is a better _car_ than a Bentley.
I as happy to see the "This is a crow. That is a crow. They are black. Therefore all crows are black" argument trotted out earlier in this thread:)
(Almost) everyone can have a patio garden. Free-form toys are cheap. Anything that can be taken apart and put back together is a learning tool.
I think my kids learned more about creative thinking just by picking up sticks and doing things with them (how do I avoid getting in trouble after doing what I just did with those sticks) than from being told the "answer" or even to "explore" by a person in authority.
Kids need to learn enough information to have a set of knowledge tools to use, and then they need a safe place to be let loose to use them in a mostly unstructured way. Montessori had it partly right, but kids need powerful external motivators sometimes too.
Slashdot Mirror
One more point: parentheses go INSIDE sentence terminators, so the appropriate use would be like this (of course) :)
(: both :)
As smileys are officially punctuation (sentence terminators), it does raise the question: Do you have to invert your smiley at the beginning of the sentence when writing in Spanish?
Hmm... did Turing really die, or was that a Dalek coverup?
That means one of the requirements should be a 3D printer... I seem to recall that someone made one out of LEGO.
The question then is would I buy one? Why not, it at least runs windows - familiar OS and handles almost all of my existing software investment.
The answer here is: Because you're running a desktop OS on a tablet device. I did that 14 years ago -- there were some nifty dual-screen Windows-based tablets back in 1998. The problem is that the OS lends itself to mouse and keyboard, not multiple fingers directly touching the screen, motion sensors, etc. The new MS interface kind of changes this, but current offerings don't.
Whenever I see "comparable specs to ," I expect the next bit to be a defense of the product's lacklustre construction, user interface, battery life, or some other key feature -- because most competitors attempting to match/beat Apple on spec sheets just don't get overall design.
I don't really care how fast the processor is in my tablet device, as long as it's fast enough to run the software installed, and doesn't burn through the battery too quickly, and is reasonably priced. If someone says "comparable features to " I tend to take notice, as someone's at least been thinking about the user experience instead of just the marketing material. Think of the Nintendo Gameboy/Gameboy Color/Advance -- the specs were sub-par by any stretch of the imagination -- but people BOUGHT them because the gameplay was better than the competition and they were CHEAP.
Acer has just found itself competing against Microsoft, using the wrong OS for the job, supplied by its competitor.
I like your modified version. I'd like to add the following lines:
The frog, being a frog, had no problem swimming under the water and soon swam back to the side of the river to claim his next passenger.
Why did the scorpion die agonisingly?
Because he had the misfortune to catch a ride on the back of a blue poison dart frog....
...which by default makes you part of the extreme element of the organization.
Being vocally opposed often just draws more attention to the minority (Streisand effect). Most politicians, CEOs, etc. just pretend the issue doesn't exist until enough people start to believe them.
I take it noone explained to you that that's their primary purpose? Secondary is a life support system.
Sure, a space suit won't protect against gamma ray bursts, but there are many wavelengths of cosmic radiation that our atmosphere filters out and our skin won't. Current space suits (the kind used in spacewalks) tend to block most of this.
Yeah; the issue isn't the vacuum; the issue is protection against radiation and orifice protection (mostly eyes, nose and mouth).
Do there have to be good guys? Can't all sides be bad?
Where were you during the debate about switching from standard transmission to automatic took place?
I'm going to point out that this entire article is about luring people to view Youtube videos in an attempt to load a RAT onto their PC... Just saying.
True, but he likely does run noscript and an ad blocker.
OK, headline says "Canadian Government Backs Down On Airport Recording"
Summary says "Canadian Government Halts Airport's installation of recording equipment due to failure of due process"
Article says "Canadian Government is a stickler for red tape, but doesn't care about the results"
Presumably it's a metaphysical gate and wall. Then again, since God gets to make the rules, who knows?
Well, the Western concept of Hell is mostly based on Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost -- likewise the concept of alien beings being white with halos and dove's wings, and others being red with forked tails, goat's horns and pitchforks is something that comes from popular culture and not theological treatises.
Added to this, if you look in the Christian Bible or any of the Jewish religious works, you'll see that earlier works only refer to Abaddon or Hades, and even later works rarely refer to Hell (8 references, mostly in Matthew, also in Mark, Luke, James and 2 Peter, with the Matthew and Mark ones paraphrasing the same sermons). Original references to Hell in the Bible are attributed to Jesus, Paul, James and Peter. Of these, Peter describes it as gloomy (similar to Hades), James as fiery, Jesus and Paul purely as a place Angels and Humans can be exiled to, possibly with a gate and wall.
What am I getting at here? Mostly that this study is likely mostly useless, as the entire concept of what Hell is and who goes there and for what varies wildly throughout history and geography/culture. Nowadays, most people apply the Yin/Yan dichotomy to Heaven and Hell; others have labelled Hell as being "not Heaven", and then of course there's the "Heaven's Prison" and "Place of Eternal Torment" depictions mentioned in the Bible.
I'd be more interested in seeing this study done looking at belief in a benevolent creator and belief in a malignant rebel; the results may be the same, but that's in no way guaranteed.
Didn't Comcast just do something similar to the Justice Department?
Of course, they didn't say the P word.
...thus destroying the privacy of the majority of citizens* in the US
*people who actually have a say in how the country is run.
Sweden isn't the US: in Sweden, you must be questioned prior to charges being laid. You can't do this over the phone, which is why they want him extradited. That said, considering the charge, I can't see how they could go directly from "no evidence, case dropped" to "extradition request for pre-charge questioning" without some evidence coming out or some discussions with Assange himself via one of the methods you mentioned. This appears to be what worries Assange. After all, what changed? Did they find the unused condoms? Did they find hidden video footage? Another person came forward with the same claim?
Remember that he's wanted for questioning regarding sex with two women without using a condom, the argument being that he used his position of power to intimidate them into accepting unprotected sex even though they actually wanted him to use a condom at the time. I believe he's already told them his side of the story.
Any example citing Rowan Atkinson is a good one in my book :D
Kids live in a world even more arbitrary and capricious than that of adults. This is especially true in primary and secondary school. Why, then, would they develop reasoning skills? Those that do end up challenging authority and getting arbitrarily slapped down, so there's negative incentives as well as a lack of positive ones.
I think I see the problem here... there's a difference between questioning authority and challenging authority. If you challenge authority, you'll be slapped down for the purpose of maintaining authority. If you QUESTION authority, you'll still get ignored/slapped down from time to time, but the authority figure is the one who ends up looking silly, and the student still learns something (even if it's "they don't want to answer that question for some reason".)
This is actually a distinction I'm currently attempting to teach to some kids; follow authority, but question when you don't know why or think they've got it wrong. It's better than both ignoring authority and blindly following authority.
Your inductive logic missed out the part where the Trabant is considered not only better than a Bentley, but is also considered a car.
What the GP was pointing out is that some people can't differentiate between subjective and inductive, and so start off inducing, switch to subjective reasoning, and then jump back to an induced conclusion -- therefore not only arriving at the *misleading* statement that a Trabant is better than a Bentley, but also the factually incorrect statement that a Trabant is a better _car_ than a Bentley.
I as happy to see the "This is a crow. That is a crow. They are black. Therefore all crows are black" argument trotted out earlier in this thread :)
e) Sally hires a Professional Horticulturalist to analyze and maintain her plants.
People expect specialization, and assume that the skills needed for it are obtained during that training.
(Almost) everyone can have a patio garden.
Free-form toys are cheap.
Anything that can be taken apart and put back together is a learning tool.
I think my kids learned more about creative thinking just by picking up sticks and doing things with them (how do I avoid getting in trouble after doing what I just did with those sticks) than from being told the "answer" or even to "explore" by a person in authority.
Kids need to learn enough information to have a set of knowledge tools to use, and then they need a safe place to be let loose to use them in a mostly unstructured way. Montessori had it partly right, but kids need powerful external motivators sometimes too.