Let's say Apple registers.apple or.ipod. Do they automatically get ALL of the possible domains within that TLD? If not, who controls the TLD? If.apple is a TLD, can I go to GoDaddy and register porcupine.apple? If they do control it, do they have to pay to register domains within their own TLD? Or does this deal come with free unlimited domains?
Mr Wizard is not "serious science." Have you gone back and WATCHED any Mr Wizard recently? It's very much in the vein of "science = cool tricks you can do." Not that I don't love Mr Wizard and think he got a lot of kids interested in science, but scientists don't sit around doing cool tricks, and he often didn't even explain the mechanisms behind the tricks more than in passing. Bill Nye (again, I love the show, BUT) is "science = a collection of facts about the natural world."
There's a new show on PBS now called Dragonfly TV that I think reflects the current trends in science education research, which in turn are trying to capture what it is scientists really DO. This show is all about real kids who are using science and doing experiments in order to solve actual problems in the real world. It's "science = a process used to solve problems." In one episode, for instance, the kids on a reservation want to make a cheap, lightweight, watertight, flameproof material to make housing out of. They test bricks made of a variety of different materials, and finally settle on bales of hay covered in cement - and then actual houses are built out of them!
I think things like Mr Wizard and Bill Nye are great for sparking interest, but don't let your rose-colored glasses fool you into thinking that Mr Wizard is "real science" and everything else is pop fluff. He was the pop fluff of the time - like you said, in a post-sputnik world, everyone was focused on the cool tricks science can pull, the neato technologies "of the future" that science will bring us.
some people won't listen to even the most obvious things until you can say, "a study proved it."
There have been lots of studies, for nearly a century. People listen for a few minutes, then forget the studies ever existed. For example, many people still believe that grade-skipping has negative social and emotional effects - when, in fact, about 75 years worth of research has shown that it only has negative effects for a small percentage of students, who were mostly having emotional problems before the skipping as well. In the majority of cases, the kids are MORE comfortable in their new class.
Gifted education is an entire academic field with several journals all to itself. There's a ton of research out there, but most people will never read it or hear about it.
Blockbuster is rather bad at sending the movie at the top of the queue, even if it is "Available."
See, this is a big difference between Blockbuster and Netflix. I've been with Netflix for about a year on the 2-at-a-time plan, and have NEVER gotten anything but the movie at the top of the queue. True, I don't often put major recent movies on my queue, so those might get bumped occasionally. But a friend of mine was complaining that he had the full series of The Prisoner in his queue, and one of the discs had been at the top for months, claiming to be available but never getting shipped. This kind of thing just doesn't happen with Netflix.
Personally, I didn't even know the Profiles feature existed. I control Netflix, and my husband is only here on weekends b/c of work, so I have to make sure we've got ST:TNG or BSG on the weekends to watch together and then I can watch House and Scrubs myself during the week. It hasn't been that hard to maintain the queue. If I never knew whether I'd be getting the video in the #1 or #2 spot, it'd be a lot harder.
The best part is that the "signal direction" arrow GOES BOTH WAYS. Even if a packet were confused and lost and trying to find its way home, the arrow would just confuse it even more!
I think that optimism/pessimism and skepticism are somewhat orthogonal. Optimism just means you generally expect good things to happen, pessimism you expect bad things to happen. Are UFOs a good thing or a bad thing? Is a news article a good thing or a bad thing? They can be either. You can be skeptical of both good news AND bad news - for instance, if the media screams doom and gloom for the economy based on a small dip in the stock market, you can be skeptical of that but also be optimistic because you think the economy's not really doing as badly as they say.
What you expect to be true (and expect to be shown by the evidence once it is available) and what you believe to be true (and what your standards are for believing something to be true) are two different things, I guess is my point.
But then, I'm both optimistic and wildly gullible, so maybe you shouldn't listen to me.:) I have had to learn to consciously re-evaluate things that I hear/read, because my first gut reaction is always something along the lines of "REALLY??? WOW!" So I'm not sure I buy that instinctual skepticism is necessary - it's just that if you don't have it you have to learn to be aware of that fact.
Huh. They let you set accounts back to Unverified once they've been verified?
I wonder how often they let you re-verify an account. Seeing as how they deposit several cents into your account totally free as part of the verification process... I smell an untapped profit opportunity!:)
They also don't offer any "bank" services, other than giving the money to another PayPal account. If you could withdraw money again, I'm guessing it would also be a different situation.
They also offer a Mastercard debit card that you can use to draw upon your PayPal balance when buying at brick-and-mortar stores and that you can even use at ATMs. Sounds like a "bank service" to me, and a way to withdraw your money without transferring it to a real bank.
I really have no earthly idea why they aren't classified as a bank. And not being FDIC insured doesn't make them not a bank - it's one of the requirements once you are classified as a bank and it's one reason they (IMO) shouldn't get away with not being classified as a bank.
Considering that #1 isn't possible, you would actually prefer they do #2 or #3? Neither of those benefit consumers. #2 means you still have to carry cash, but now for ANY size transaction. #3, well, nobody likes higher prices. And either one would put the store at a serious disadvantage that would almost certainly put them out of business. This isn't Wal-Mart we're talking about - the big corporations can afford to lose out on the pack of gum you put on your charge card. These are the few mom & pop stores left, or the locally-owned franchises that make up many gas stations and convenience stores.
You may find it silly for them to expect you to have cash, but I'm sure they find it silly for you to expect them to go out of business over something that's a minor inconvenience to you. If you don't like it, go shop at one of the bigger chains that can afford to lose money on your purchase. Don't help force the little guys out of business just because the current rules are basically set up to be lose-lose-lose for them no matter what they do.
You mean like that PRO-IP Act a few stories down, the one that turns a civil matter into a felony and gives the feds the right to confiscate your computer if they think you might have maybe downloaded something illegal? The one that was introduced by a Democrat and voted against by only 4 Democrats (and only 7 Republicans, don't worry, I fully acknowledge that they BOTH suck)?
Welcome to American politics. I've been a voter for ten years and very rarely have I ever truly voted FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST the other guy. That goes from presidential elections down to my local alderman.
Well, that's why there's an electoral college and Senate instead of just a popular vote and population-based House - so that the interests of important but sparsely-populated states don't get trampled by the majority that doesn't live there.
Right now, as a social liberal but moderate in most other things, there are two things that make me not want to vote for Obama: Total immediate withdrawal from Iraq and universal health care.
The first one, I'm not too worried about. It's SO impractical and likely to be SO dangerous that I don't think he'd actually follow through on it. Though he could wind up withdrawing JUST enough to make things get drawn out even longer than they need to be, yay. I'm not terribly happy with the war, but I think that now that we've gone in and messed with things it's our responsibility to stick around until the mess is cleaned up.
The second I think is slapping a huge band-aid on a complex and multifaceted problem instead of actually dealing with it. I'd much rather see creative solutions that are targeted at specific pieces of the problem, like malpractice suit reform, helping with catastrophic claims, and encouraging preventative care - and I'd rather see it at the state level, where different states can experiment with different solutions on a smaller scale and then we can see what works and what doesn't and expand the ones that work. Instead we get a nice-sounding buzzword that will just trade our current set of problems for a whole different set of problems.
Just because it's obvious to you, that doesn't mean that everyone knows it.
Sadly, I don't have a link right now, but a study was done showing that when shown the results of psychological studies, people generally thought the results were obvious. However, when asked to predict the results of those same studies, people were at chance. Hindsight is 20/20.
Yeah, I've actually been surprised - every single person I've known with an iPhone, I've seen using its non-phone features. Getting directions via Google maps, using Twitter, using the calendar, whatever. Usually you do see people paying way too much and then only using the most basic features, but people seem to actually be using iPhone as more than a standard phone.
You might want to look into Campfire USA, they're a coed scouting organization. They specifically state in their Core Values: "We are inclusive, welcoming children, youth and adults regardless of race, religion, socioeconomic status, disability, sexual orientation or other aspect of diversity."
Girl Scouts is also good with diversity, except, y'know, the all-girls part.
However, the article states that the ability to eat that thing is one of the ways that they have traditionally identified it as E. coli and not some other species. So is it a new species? I have no clue - I don't know how one defines a species when it comes to asexual reproduction, since you can't use the "can they breed together" definition.
But generally in modern usage, "Creationist" is used to label someone who rejects the possibility of evolution of species and believes that all current species were created in their current forms. People who believe that God used the big bang and evolution to create the universe to its current state don't typically have that label applied to them. So by saying that this flies in the face of creationism, one isn't saying anything about how it fits with the beliefs of most theists/Christians, only those who believe this narrow definition of creation.
I believe definition #2 will clear up your confusion:
totem (t'tm) pronunciation
n.
1.
a. An animal, plant, or natural object serving among certain tribal or traditional peoples as the emblem of a clan or family and sometimes revered as its founder, ancestor, or guardian.
b. A representation of such an object.
c. A social group having a common affiliation to such an object.
2. A venerated emblem or symbol: "grew up with the totems and taboos typical of an Irish Catholic kid in Boston" (Connie Paige).
Slashdot Mirror
Let's say Apple registers .apple or .ipod. Do they automatically get ALL of the possible domains within that TLD? If not, who controls the TLD? If .apple is a TLD, can I go to GoDaddy and register porcupine.apple? If they do control it, do they have to pay to register domains within their own TLD? Or does this deal come with free unlimited domains?
There's a new show on PBS now called Dragonfly TV that I think reflects the current trends in science education research, which in turn are trying to capture what it is scientists really DO. This show is all about real kids who are using science and doing experiments in order to solve actual problems in the real world. It's "science = a process used to solve problems." In one episode, for instance, the kids on a reservation want to make a cheap, lightweight, watertight, flameproof material to make housing out of. They test bricks made of a variety of different materials, and finally settle on bales of hay covered in cement - and then actual houses are built out of them!
I think things like Mr Wizard and Bill Nye are great for sparking interest, but don't let your rose-colored glasses fool you into thinking that Mr Wizard is "real science" and everything else is pop fluff. He was the pop fluff of the time - like you said, in a post-sputnik world, everyone was focused on the cool tricks science can pull, the neato technologies "of the future" that science will bring us.
There have been lots of studies, for nearly a century. People listen for a few minutes, then forget the studies ever existed. For example, many people still believe that grade-skipping has negative social and emotional effects - when, in fact, about 75 years worth of research has shown that it only has negative effects for a small percentage of students, who were mostly having emotional problems before the skipping as well. In the majority of cases, the kids are MORE comfortable in their new class.
http://www.nationdeceived.org/
Gifted education is an entire academic field with several journals all to itself. There's a ton of research out there, but most people will never read it or hear about it.
See, this is a big difference between Blockbuster and Netflix. I've been with Netflix for about a year on the 2-at-a-time plan, and have NEVER gotten anything but the movie at the top of the queue. True, I don't often put major recent movies on my queue, so those might get bumped occasionally. But a friend of mine was complaining that he had the full series of The Prisoner in his queue, and one of the discs had been at the top for months, claiming to be available but never getting shipped. This kind of thing just doesn't happen with Netflix.
Personally, I didn't even know the Profiles feature existed. I control Netflix, and my husband is only here on weekends b/c of work, so I have to make sure we've got ST:TNG or BSG on the weekends to watch together and then I can watch House and Scrubs myself during the week. It hasn't been that hard to maintain the queue. If I never knew whether I'd be getting the video in the #1 or #2 spot, it'd be a lot harder.
Either that or a very very busy person, far too busy to read an entire comment before replying...
The best part is that the "signal direction" arrow GOES BOTH WAYS. Even if a packet were confused and lost and trying to find its way home, the arrow would just confuse it even more!
What you expect to be true (and expect to be shown by the evidence once it is available) and what you believe to be true (and what your standards are for believing something to be true) are two different things, I guess is my point.
But then, I'm both optimistic and wildly gullible, so maybe you shouldn't listen to me. :) I have had to learn to consciously re-evaluate things that I hear/read, because my first gut reaction is always something along the lines of "REALLY??? WOW!" So I'm not sure I buy that instinctual skepticism is necessary - it's just that if you don't have it you have to learn to be aware of that fact.
Really? They've never taken them back from me. That might be new - maybe people really were exploiting it.
I wonder how often they let you re-verify an account. Seeing as how they deposit several cents into your account totally free as part of the verification process... I smell an untapped profit opportunity! :)
They also offer a Mastercard debit card that you can use to draw upon your PayPal balance when buying at brick-and-mortar stores and that you can even use at ATMs. Sounds like a "bank service" to me, and a way to withdraw your money without transferring it to a real bank.
I really have no earthly idea why they aren't classified as a bank. And not being FDIC insured doesn't make them not a bank - it's one of the requirements once you are classified as a bank and it's one reason they (IMO) shouldn't get away with not being classified as a bank.
You may find it silly for them to expect you to have cash, but I'm sure they find it silly for you to expect them to go out of business over something that's a minor inconvenience to you. If you don't like it, go shop at one of the bigger chains that can afford to lose money on your purchase. Don't help force the little guys out of business just because the current rules are basically set up to be lose-lose-lose for them no matter what they do.
Interesting. What do they think of the many gas stations that now have separate "credit" and "cash" prices for a gallon of gas?
It's our own problem if we don't take advantage of the opportunity.
You mean like that PRO-IP Act a few stories down, the one that turns a civil matter into a felony and gives the feds the right to confiscate your computer if they think you might have maybe downloaded something illegal? The one that was introduced by a Democrat and voted against by only 4 Democrats (and only 7 Republicans, don't worry, I fully acknowledge that they BOTH suck)?
Welcome to American politics. I've been a voter for ten years and very rarely have I ever truly voted FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST the other guy. That goes from presidential elections down to my local alderman.
Well, that's why there's an electoral college and Senate instead of just a popular vote and population-based House - so that the interests of important but sparsely-populated states don't get trampled by the majority that doesn't live there.
The first one, I'm not too worried about. It's SO impractical and likely to be SO dangerous that I don't think he'd actually follow through on it. Though he could wind up withdrawing JUST enough to make things get drawn out even longer than they need to be, yay. I'm not terribly happy with the war, but I think that now that we've gone in and messed with things it's our responsibility to stick around until the mess is cleaned up.
The second I think is slapping a huge band-aid on a complex and multifaceted problem instead of actually dealing with it. I'd much rather see creative solutions that are targeted at specific pieces of the problem, like malpractice suit reform, helping with catastrophic claims, and encouraging preventative care - and I'd rather see it at the state level, where different states can experiment with different solutions on a smaller scale and then we can see what works and what doesn't and expand the ones that work. Instead we get a nice-sounding buzzword that will just trade our current set of problems for a whole different set of problems.
Sadly, I don't have a link right now, but a study was done showing that when shown the results of psychological studies, people generally thought the results were obvious. However, when asked to predict the results of those same studies, people were at chance. Hindsight is 20/20.
Yeah, I've actually been surprised - every single person I've known with an iPhone, I've seen using its non-phone features. Getting directions via Google maps, using Twitter, using the calendar, whatever. Usually you do see people paying way too much and then only using the most basic features, but people seem to actually be using iPhone as more than a standard phone.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/2/votes/300/
You might want to look into Campfire USA, they're a coed scouting organization. They specifically state in their Core Values: "We are inclusive, welcoming children, youth and adults regardless of race, religion, socioeconomic status, disability, sexual orientation or other aspect of diversity."
Girl Scouts is also good with diversity, except, y'know, the all-girls part.
They always have been - Intelligent Design is just a term creationists made up to try and get creationism into science textbooks and public schools.
However, the article states that the ability to eat that thing is one of the ways that they have traditionally identified it as E. coli and not some other species. So is it a new species? I have no clue - I don't know how one defines a species when it comes to asexual reproduction, since you can't use the "can they breed together" definition.
But generally in modern usage, "Creationist" is used to label someone who rejects the possibility of evolution of species and believes that all current species were created in their current forms. People who believe that God used the big bang and evolution to create the universe to its current state don't typically have that label applied to them. So by saying that this flies in the face of creationism, one isn't saying anything about how it fits with the beliefs of most theists/Christians, only those who believe this narrow definition of creation.
totem (t'tm) pronunciation
n.
1.
a. An animal, plant, or natural object serving among certain tribal or traditional peoples as the emblem of a clan or family and sometimes revered as its founder, ancestor, or guardian.
b. A representation of such an object.
c. A social group having a common affiliation to such an object.
2. A venerated emblem or symbol: "grew up with the totems and taboos typical of an Irish Catholic kid in Boston" (Connie Paige).