I think your to reasons are likely correct. Google pretty much openly admitted that they were embarassed about the hacked mess that was hiding under Honeycomb's UI. They wrote Honeycomb to function. Not to be maintainable or clean.
On the other not, there are phones without Android Market, as well as tablets. If you look through here, you will see that the phones are available. The issue is that no US carrier would sell a phone that doesn't have Android market.
Really? "lying scum" for not releasing the source of one old version? I think you are setting your bar for defining someone as "scum" a little low to successfully function in society.
You know, that even GPL 3 doesn't require that you release the source until you distribute the software, right? There might be some legitimate complaints about how Honeycomb was handled, but hanging on to the source until the binaries are released is entirely within both the spirit and letter of open source.
No, I am not arguing your case. "say 70mph with two feet between each vehicle, the bottleneck/congestion would be at the on-ramp trying to enter the highway, but not the highway itself." is simply incorrect. The only way that the congestion would stay on the on-ramp would be if the cars from the on-ramp just parked there and never entered the roadway. The only way a 12 foot vehicle can get between two other vehicles that are 2 feet apart is for either the lead vehicle to speed up (which it cannot do without hitting the car in front of it) or for the trailing vehicle to slow down. That means that the trailing vehicle is no longer going 70 mph. Repeat this thousands of times on dozens of on-ramps, and you have congestion. This will happen whether the drivers are all doing dumb things or driving perfect.
Now, take a road with more capacity. Say 70mph with 300 feet between each vehicle and 3 lane to drive in. When a vehicle trys to merge from the on-ramp, no other car needs to slow down. The new car will already fit in the 300 foot space, with 144 feet of cushion. If they don't do it perfect, neither of the other cars need to slow down. If the entering car does something stupid like cut across the lane, or even slams on his breaks, the trailing car can shift a lane or two to the right and continue to travel at full speed.
,br>
Again, you are doing bad math. 12 feet is > 2 feet.
I homeschool too, and my kid also kicks ass. That being said, Ron Paul is not suggesting that the States get out of education. He is suggesting that the FEDS stop taking our money, and then redistributing it back to the States in exchange for giving up state rights. He is saying that education at the state level is a states issue, and the Feds should not be involved in that. It isn't their job.
Comments like that are exactly why we keep getting the same crap over and over. Have you never looked at your state budget? Heck, the single largest line item for the California STATE budget is public education. The Federal Highway funds are a classic example of the Federal Government taking money from the states, and holding it hostage, only to be given back if the states relinquish control in other areas.
I'm not going to deny that I like my internet, pictures from Mars, GPS, and a wealth of other benefits the Feds have supplied us, but to claim that the states will stop offering services that they currently offer if the feds stop taking money from them to run their own program, show a complete misunderstanding of where resources come from, and complete support for our current Federal corruption.
Since I find Android to be incredibly simple to use, as does my wife and and young child, I just want to know where we are supposed to contact Ballmer to be issued our Degrees in Science?
Well, you quote also indicates that they don't know what they are talking about. Of course, "Sesame Street" has a negative effect on language for children. No doubt the other programming that teaches poor language has a negative effect as well. Have you heard the way that they talk in these shows? Their claim is like saying feeding children is bad because they get sick when you feed them human excrement. This kind of poor "study" is common in child development circles. They are a self selecting group, and they have agendas.
This is a classic correlation/causation mistake. They claim that for every hour of TV that a child watches, they get 50 minutes less interaction with real humans. There is no reason to believe that taking them away from the TV is going to give them more human interaction. There is no reason that a child needs to understand what is on the screen. They don't understand what is in books, or being discussed by their parents either, but no one would suggest putting "picture book" limits or "parental discussion" limits on the kids. This is blatant case of "studies" finding what is PC.
First they define "educational" as crap that teaches kids to speak badly. Then they find that by 3, the kids that who were taught poor language skills are not better at language. They then conclude that TV is evil.
Put 21 cars on a track, and ask them to drive at 30km/h. Then have one car properly merge into the middle. You will have slow downs. Your example only shows produces the effect that you want if the track is already running at capacity, which it your hypothetical scenario is 22 cars. If there is enough road, not only is on car slowing down temporarily, not going to cause the car behind them to slow down, but the second car might not even be able to see the first because it is so far ahead.
If the drivers are instructed to drive 30km/h and they are close enough together that a small variance in speed translates to cars behind them, then the cars are driving too close together. Generally this happens when there isn't enough road for the number of cars. You example of a one lane road is also contrived. If the first car slows to 5km/h then it will cause all the rest to drop to that speed because they become road block. This isn't a sign of bad driving so much as a sign of not enough road. Take your same track and expand it to 22 lanes and you won't see any slowdown for the other cars.
Your contrived example basically says, if you don't have enough road for the number of cars, then one driver not being perfect can expose that road space shortage.
It is silly to even make that statement about kids younger than 9 months old. Infants don't understand what they see in real life, so the fact that they don't understand what is on the screen is simply not a valid reason to claim the screen is "bad". There have been no legitimate studies to see when kids can understand what is on the screen, but empirical evidence suggests that it is at EXACTLY the same time that they can understand it when it isn't on the screen.
It is a pretty extraordinary claim that a picture on a TV is going to be any more or less intelligible to a small child than a picture in a book, and that is exactly what the AAP is suggesting. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far, they don't even suggest a possible mechanism for this claimed difference.
It is people like this that cause thinking adults to dismiss 'experts'. When you have 'expert' organizations lying, and not even bothering to tell good lies, the status of being an 'expert' diminishes rapidly.
Your using bad math. Most of our highways are massively too small for the amount of traffic on them. Most of them could not support the number of cars we have now if people actually left the proper cushions. I point back to my examples above. On a wide empty road, you can be as stupid as you want, and you won't slow me down. When traffic is already bumper to bumper, a dozen cars trying to merge on from an on ramp will cause congestion, even if they do it perfectly.
No, congestion is caused by having too many cars for the the amount of road. If you are on an 8 lane highway, a there is some dumbass swerving back and forth across the lanes, and you and him are the only people on the road, there will be no congestion. Conversely, if you are driving on a two lane highway that is at full capacity. Adding hundreds of extra cars will cause congestion even if everyone driving perfectly.
Yes, people doing dumb things can be the final straw, but the idea that roads can take an infinate amount of traffic as long as people don't do dumb things is a myth.
I wouldn't mind a computer driving my commute for me. As long as I can disable it for drives I take for enjoyment, I don't really have a problem with it.
I think your feeling is common, so I'm not saying your out of the norm. It being a common attitude points out one of the big reasons that I can't take the "driving while talking on a cell phone should be is evil" crowd. I don't know how you feel about cell phones, so I cannot speak about you personally, but there is huge overlap between the people that claim anyone on a cell phone is an asshole because they are "endangering those around them", and the people that feel it is perfectly OK for them to do pleasure driving that could be avoided or done dramatically safer by a machine.
That comment doesn't make any sense. It sound sarcastic, but I really can't think of what you might be implying a child under one year old would be tasked with that would not leave them enough time to play.
infants and toddlers "just have no idea what's going on" no matter how well done a video is
This is just plain stupid. It isn't even a good lie. The "The American Academy of Pediatrics" us a self selecting group. It is one that has always seen TV as evil. My son was beating multiple levels of Pac-Man before he was 1 year old. Literally before he could walk. There is no way that this would have been possible if children couldn't understand what was happening on the screen before the age of 2.
Anyone that has bothered to talk to an 18 month old knows that they understand what is going on on the TV.
So, your claiming that all human's biology matches yours? That you are a model of all humans? And you have the audacity to tell ME to get over myself? Maybe you should take a look in the mirror.
Fact: I ate less, I exercised 5 times a week. I gained 15 pounds.
So, why don't you enlighten us on which Olympic athlete you are. Since you are trying to convince us that all humans get the same results from the same diet and exercise, obviously, you have achieved the apex of human physiology. After all according to you, human physiology isn't complicated. Different people don't have different dietary and exercise needs. ELEM. "It's that simple."
So, please give us a link to the sites showing your Olympic wins....
No. Controlled studies have not shown that. Uncontrolled studies have show that there is no different. You are a perfect example of how the "Sugar is healthy" myth perpetuates. When presented evidence that contradicts your fantasies, you declare:
1: have made some kind of mistake
2: suffer from an inability to make absorb fat/protein (e.g. colon damage)
You completely refuse to even consider the possibility that:
1: The evidence could be correct
2: YOU suffer from an inability to make absorb SUGAR
3: Different genetic lines have different dietary needs.
Your adherance to your religion is killing an maiming people, and like other religious zealots, you will continue to look for "signs" that your faith has is properly placed, and deny or ignore all physical evidence to the contrary.
I have no problem conceding that "Natural" foods are not unhealthy because they are "natural". They are frequently unhealthy because they are loaded with sugar to make palatable something that otherwise would be healthy and bad tasting. Or, it is just sugar being sold as "healthy".
It is sad that there are huge portions of the population that has had it drilled into them that they should eat an almost exclusively sugar diet, and that when it makes them fat they are told that they are bad people. Then they are told that they should starve themselves while continuing to eat a diet that is incompatible with their biology.
I don't have any fear of cholesterol or kidney problems. My cholesterol is a little better than it was 15 years ago when I started eating this way. Much like worrying about salt, the only people that need to worry about kidney problems due to high fat/protien are people with pre-existing conditions. Since I don't have pre-existing kidney problems, there is no reason for me to eat an unhealthy diet out of fear from it.
On the other hand, I do have concerns about being obese. Carrying around an extra 60 lbs of fat is not healthy. Of course, there are plenty of healthy people being told that they are obese when they are not, and that is a whole other problem. I have been hydrostatically weighed, so I know exactly how much of my body is fat, and how much is lean. To reach what the medical/government/insurance industry consider a normal weight, I have to be at 3% bodyfat. At 4% bodyfat, they declare me "overweight". They claim that I am at a healthy weight at -15% body fat. Yep. that is a negative sign. The only reason I could even reach the BMI's "normal" weight is because I don't work out. During the times that I have done moderate workouts, my lean body mass exceeded the BMI's maximum "normal" weight. That means that if I exercise, I would have to literally amputate body parts to reach a "normal" weight. When I am just below the BMI's "obese" rating, at the peak of the "overweight", my ab muscles are all clearly visible.
Our health/government/insurance industries have created a totally unrealistic ideal of what they think human biology is, and then went out and found the people who match it and declared them as evidence they were right. They have picked their data to match their conclusion, and go into full tilt denial when faced with evidence that contradicts it.
I am well aware that driving is the most dangerous activity that we do. As soon as I meet a single driver that uses "all their wits and attention" while driving, I will give your argument weight. At this point, I have not met a single one. I also highly doubt that YOU use all your wits and attention to drive safely. More likely, you like most drivers have passengers in your car, drive early in the morning, drive late at night, or the most hypocritical of actions, use your car stereo while driving.
You don't need to listen to the radio for anything while driving. Just fscking pull over!
You are presuming that other peoples bodies don't slow down when they reduce their caloric intake. Recognizing that metabolisms respond to the food consumed isn't "crazy". Thinking that people's metabolism isn't effected by quantity AND make up of food ingested IS crazy though. Thinking that because YOUR metabolism continues to function at the same level when you reduce calories that means everyone elses behaves the same way is crazy. Thinking that ELEM is the only smart way to maintain a healthy weight even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is crazy. If ELEM was all it took, most people would be skinny. If ELEM worked, you would look like Mr Universe.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your to reasons are likely correct. Google pretty much openly admitted that they were embarassed about the hacked mess that was hiding under Honeycomb's UI. They wrote Honeycomb to function. Not to be maintainable or clean.
On the other not, there are phones without Android Market, as well as tablets. If you look through here, you will see that the phones are available. The issue is that no US carrier would sell a phone that doesn't have Android market.
Really? "lying scum" for not releasing the source of one old version? I think you are setting your bar for defining someone as "scum" a little low to successfully function in society.
You know, that even GPL 3 doesn't require that you release the source until you distribute the software, right? There might be some legitimate complaints about how Honeycomb was handled, but hanging on to the source until the binaries are released is entirely within both the spirit and letter of open source.
No, I am not arguing your case. "say 70mph with two feet between each vehicle, the bottleneck/congestion would be at the on-ramp trying to enter the highway, but not the highway itself." is simply incorrect. The only way that the congestion would stay on the on-ramp would be if the cars from the on-ramp just parked there and never entered the roadway. The only way a 12 foot vehicle can get between two other vehicles that are 2 feet apart is for either the lead vehicle to speed up (which it cannot do without hitting the car in front of it) or for the trailing vehicle to slow down. That means that the trailing vehicle is no longer going 70 mph. Repeat this thousands of times on dozens of on-ramps, and you have congestion. This will happen whether the drivers are all doing dumb things or driving perfect.
Now, take a road with more capacity. Say 70mph with 300 feet between each vehicle and 3 lane to drive in. When a vehicle trys to merge from the on-ramp, no other car needs to slow down. The new car will already fit in the 300 foot space, with 144 feet of cushion. If they don't do it perfect, neither of the other cars need to slow down. If the entering car does something stupid like cut across the lane, or even slams on his breaks, the trailing car can shift a lane or two to the right and continue to travel at full speed.
,br> Again, you are doing bad math. 12 feet is > 2 feet.
That is not fair. Presumably, you have to do something to get a bowling award.
I homeschool too, and my kid also kicks ass. That being said, Ron Paul is not suggesting that the States get out of education. He is suggesting that the FEDS stop taking our money, and then redistributing it back to the States in exchange for giving up state rights. He is saying that education at the state level is a states issue, and the Feds should not be involved in that. It isn't their job.
Comments like that are exactly why we keep getting the same crap over and over. Have you never looked at your state budget? Heck, the single largest line item for the California STATE budget is public education. The Federal Highway funds are a classic example of the Federal Government taking money from the states, and holding it hostage, only to be given back if the states relinquish control in other areas.
I'm not going to deny that I like my internet, pictures from Mars, GPS, and a wealth of other benefits the Feds have supplied us, but to claim that the states will stop offering services that they currently offer if the feds stop taking money from them to run their own program, show a complete misunderstanding of where resources come from, and complete support for our current Federal corruption.
Citations for my state:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/
http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/
http://www.dot.ca.gov/
And we have a winner!
Since I find Android to be incredibly simple to use, as does my wife and and young child, I just want to know where we are supposed to contact Ballmer to be issued our Degrees in Science?
Well, you quote also indicates that they don't know what they are talking about. Of course, "Sesame Street" has a negative effect on language for children. No doubt the other programming that teaches poor language has a negative effect as well. Have you heard the way that they talk in these shows? Their claim is like saying feeding children is bad because they get sick when you feed them human excrement. This kind of poor "study" is common in child development circles. They are a self selecting group, and they have agendas.
This is a classic correlation/causation mistake. They claim that for every hour of TV that a child watches, they get 50 minutes less interaction with real humans. There is no reason to believe that taking them away from the TV is going to give them more human interaction. There is no reason that a child needs to understand what is on the screen. They don't understand what is in books, or being discussed by their parents either, but no one would suggest putting "picture book" limits or "parental discussion" limits on the kids. This is blatant case of "studies" finding what is PC.
First they define "educational" as crap that teaches kids to speak badly. Then they find that by 3, the kids that who were taught poor language skills are not better at language. They then conclude that TV is evil.
Put 21 cars on a track, and ask them to drive at 30km/h. Then have one car properly merge into the middle. You will have slow downs. Your example only shows produces the effect that you want if the track is already running at capacity, which it your hypothetical scenario is 22 cars. If there is enough road, not only is on car slowing down temporarily, not going to cause the car behind them to slow down, but the second car might not even be able to see the first because it is so far ahead.
If the drivers are instructed to drive 30km/h and they are close enough together that a small variance in speed translates to cars behind them, then the cars are driving too close together. Generally this happens when there isn't enough road for the number of cars. You example of a one lane road is also contrived. If the first car slows to 5km/h then it will cause all the rest to drop to that speed because they become road block. This isn't a sign of bad driving so much as a sign of not enough road. Take your same track and expand it to 22 lanes and you won't see any slowdown for the other cars.
Your contrived example basically says, if you don't have enough road for the number of cars, then one driver not being perfect can expose that road space shortage.
It is silly to even make that statement about kids younger than 9 months old. Infants don't understand what they see in real life, so the fact that they don't understand what is on the screen is simply not a valid reason to claim the screen is "bad". There have been no legitimate studies to see when kids can understand what is on the screen, but empirical evidence suggests that it is at EXACTLY the same time that they can understand it when it isn't on the screen.
It is a pretty extraordinary claim that a picture on a TV is going to be any more or less intelligible to a small child than a picture in a book, and that is exactly what the AAP is suggesting. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far, they don't even suggest a possible mechanism for this claimed difference.
It is people like this that cause thinking adults to dismiss 'experts'. When you have 'expert' organizations lying, and not even bothering to tell good lies, the status of being an 'expert' diminishes rapidly.
Your using bad math. Most of our highways are massively too small for the amount of traffic on them. Most of them could not support the number of cars we have now if people actually left the proper cushions. I point back to my examples above. On a wide empty road, you can be as stupid as you want, and you won't slow me down. When traffic is already bumper to bumper, a dozen cars trying to merge on from an on ramp will cause congestion, even if they do it perfectly.
No, congestion is caused by having too many cars for the the amount of road. If you are on an 8 lane highway, a there is some dumbass swerving back and forth across the lanes, and you and him are the only people on the road, there will be no congestion. Conversely, if you are driving on a two lane highway that is at full capacity. Adding hundreds of extra cars will cause congestion even if everyone driving perfectly.
Yes, people doing dumb things can be the final straw, but the idea that roads can take an infinate amount of traffic as long as people don't do dumb things is a myth.
I wouldn't mind a computer driving my commute for me. As long as I can disable it for drives I take for enjoyment, I don't really have a problem with it.
I think your feeling is common, so I'm not saying your out of the norm. It being a common attitude points out one of the big reasons that I can't take the "driving while talking on a cell phone should be is evil" crowd. I don't know how you feel about cell phones, so I cannot speak about you personally, but there is huge overlap between the people that claim anyone on a cell phone is an asshole because they are "endangering those around them", and the people that feel it is perfectly OK for them to do pleasure driving that could be avoided or done dramatically safer by a machine.
That comment doesn't make any sense. It sound sarcastic, but I really can't think of what you might be implying a child under one year old would be tasked with that would not leave them enough time to play.
infants and toddlers "just have no idea what's going on" no matter how well done a video is
This is just plain stupid. It isn't even a good lie. The "The American Academy of Pediatrics" us a self selecting group. It is one that has always seen TV as evil. My son was beating multiple levels of Pac-Man before he was 1 year old. Literally before he could walk. There is no way that this would have been possible if children couldn't understand what was happening on the screen before the age of 2.
Anyone that has bothered to talk to an 18 month old knows that they understand what is going on on the TV.
Wait....What?!?!?! You are declaring him "not qualified to make predictions"? That is just a stupid thing to say.
Peak Oil. The dumbest concept the environmental movement has come up with yet.
That is the ugly truth that those screaming about fossil fuels don't want to think about.
So, your claiming that all human's biology matches yours? That you are a model of all humans? And you have the audacity to tell ME to get over myself? Maybe you should take a look in the mirror.
Fact: I ate less, I exercised 5 times a week. I gained 15 pounds.
So, why don't you enlighten us on which Olympic athlete you are. Since you are trying to convince us that all humans get the same results from the same diet and exercise, obviously, you have achieved the apex of human physiology. After all according to you, human physiology isn't complicated. Different people don't have different dietary and exercise needs. ELEM. "It's that simple."
So, please give us a link to the sites showing your Olympic wins....
1: have made some kind of mistake 2: suffer from an inability to make absorb fat/protein (e.g. colon damage)
You completely refuse to even consider the possibility that:
1: The evidence could be correct
2: YOU suffer from an inability to make absorb SUGAR
3: Different genetic lines have different dietary needs.
Your adherance to your religion is killing an maiming people, and like other religious zealots, you will continue to look for "signs" that your faith has is properly placed, and deny or ignore all physical evidence to the contrary.
I have no problem conceding that "Natural" foods are not unhealthy because they are "natural". They are frequently unhealthy because they are loaded with sugar to make palatable something that otherwise would be healthy and bad tasting. Or, it is just sugar being sold as "healthy".
It is sad that there are huge portions of the population that has had it drilled into them that they should eat an almost exclusively sugar diet, and that when it makes them fat they are told that they are bad people. Then they are told that they should starve themselves while continuing to eat a diet that is incompatible with their biology.
I don't have any fear of cholesterol or kidney problems. My cholesterol is a little better than it was 15 years ago when I started eating this way. Much like worrying about salt, the only people that need to worry about kidney problems due to high fat/protien are people with pre-existing conditions. Since I don't have pre-existing kidney problems, there is no reason for me to eat an unhealthy diet out of fear from it.
On the other hand, I do have concerns about being obese. Carrying around an extra 60 lbs of fat is not healthy. Of course, there are plenty of healthy people being told that they are obese when they are not, and that is a whole other problem. I have been hydrostatically weighed, so I know exactly how much of my body is fat, and how much is lean. To reach what the medical/government/insurance industry consider a normal weight, I have to be at 3% bodyfat. At 4% bodyfat, they declare me "overweight". They claim that I am at a healthy weight at -15% body fat. Yep. that is a negative sign. The only reason I could even reach the BMI's "normal" weight is because I don't work out. During the times that I have done moderate workouts, my lean body mass exceeded the BMI's maximum "normal" weight. That means that if I exercise, I would have to literally amputate body parts to reach a "normal" weight. When I am just below the BMI's "obese" rating, at the peak of the "overweight", my ab muscles are all clearly visible.
Our health/government/insurance industries have created a totally unrealistic ideal of what they think human biology is, and then went out and found the people who match it and declared them as evidence they were right. They have picked their data to match their conclusion, and go into full tilt denial when faced with evidence that contradicts it.
Case in point. This is considered "Obese" by our medical/governemtn/insurance industries: http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/schwarzenegger.html
I am well aware that driving is the most dangerous activity that we do. As soon as I meet a single driver that uses "all their wits and attention" while driving, I will give your argument weight. At this point, I have not met a single one. I also highly doubt that YOU use all your wits and attention to drive safely. More likely, you like most drivers have passengers in your car, drive early in the morning, drive late at night, or the most hypocritical of actions, use your car stereo while driving.
You don't need to listen to the radio for anything while driving. Just fscking pull over!
You are presuming that other peoples bodies don't slow down when they reduce their caloric intake. Recognizing that metabolisms respond to the food consumed isn't "crazy". Thinking that people's metabolism isn't effected by quantity AND make up of food ingested IS crazy though. Thinking that because YOUR metabolism continues to function at the same level when you reduce calories that means everyone elses behaves the same way is crazy. Thinking that ELEM is the only smart way to maintain a healthy weight even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is crazy. If ELEM was all it took, most people would be skinny. If ELEM worked, you would look like Mr Universe.