I have little binocular vision, so 3D is a bit ho-hum for me. Makes my girlfriend sick within minutes.
As already commented, there are various extremely good reasons why it does this with some people, just like there are good reasons why motion sickness effects some people. They boil down to the fact '3D' is a fake effect (it is NOT 3D) and some people's brains are more sensitive to the fakery.
So, 3D will wither on the tree and die, again. Unless the tech gets better and doesn't alienate (or rather, nauseate) 20% of the audience.
3D is a nice way to charge more money for tickets, and makes screen-cap bootlegs useless. This doesn't stop piracy, but I bet you the delay in availability of 'flat' screen-cap bootlegs and the 3D hoo-ha pushes more people to the cinema, which means more bums on seats and more dollars per seat than an equivalent 2D movie.
Personally I would say asking for scientific evidence and when such evidence is lacking taking the stance it probably doesn't exist is the same as saying one sees no evidence and taking the same stance. One is active, the other is passive.
In the absence of evidence that there are areas outside those we define with logic and science, claiming such areas exist is a logical fallicy called special pleading.
So far nothing that is not definable by logic and science has been proven to exist. It is likely that whilst logic and science may extend the barriers of what we know, faeries, ghosts and god will turn out simply to not exist.
"What makes you say that? Seriously, we are talking about entities that supposedly operate outside the realm of physics and nature as we understand it. Why are you so certain that absolutely nothing could do this?"
If they can be perceived by humans (which some humans claim), they, by definition, operate to some extent within 'the realm of physics and nature as we' perceive it.
"I'm sorry, but I think you failed to pay attention to a few key words. I didn't say it was impossible to find bear shit in the woods, I said it was "near impossible" to find it "when you don't know what to look"."
If you'd read all my response you'd see I paid specific attention to key words.
"If I sent you into the woods to find some specled feathered woodpecker shit and you didn't have any information about it's habitat, what it ate, what it's feces looks like, you probably could never find it. Sure, you could just grab all the shit you could find and test it until you found DNA evidence of it comming from what you were looking for, but how would you know the DNA evidence pointed to the right thing when you don't have any to go off of? Besides, wouldn't it get prohibitively expensive doing it that way?"
Two things; if you know of x species in a certain area and find x+1 types of shit you can tell roughly what it is through DNA analysis. No trace of shit with hominid DNA (other than H. sapiens) in North American woods, or any other xenomorph come to that. In you woody woodpecker example you would find unidentified shit of something with DNA similar to other woodpeckers, but not the same, and infer the existence of a unidentified woodpecker.
Second: the complaint about cost is an excuse, you are making it someone else's problem. Want to prove it; go on then, do proper science and get the funding. Like scientists do.
"lol.. So you failed at reading what was in front of you, then jumped to calling the belief in a god a fantasy. In case you do not know what that noise is, it's all the whooshing going buy you. Eventually, you will have to start ducking from all the air traffic from points flying over your head. don't worry about who believe in God or not. It doesn't pertain to this at all"
You had a point? Other than at the top of your head? And yes, if someone has a propensity to believe in something which has no decent supporting evidence (like god), the fact they rave on to support other things that have no decent supporting evidence is not surprising.
"Lol.. Really. So when you got stopped at a red light on the way home from work today, I should not believe one word you say about it because there is not scientific evidence of that light being red or you stopping at it. I can default to calling you a delusional fantasist because there is no compelling scientific evidence about it at all- just your word or personal experience. And when you try to convince me you're telling the truth, I can say your standards for evidence sucks."
But me being stopped by a red light COULD be proved, and even without a CCTV camera in the area, the claim is not extraordinary. There ARE traffic lights. They DO go red. You could observe me on that route and determine the likelihood I would be stopped by THAT red light on any given day.
Ghosts, god and sasquach are EXTRAORDINARY claims. There is no proof there ARE such things (if I claimed I was stopped by one of them on the way home, the claim is of a different order than a red light). And you could NEVER see such an event, no matter how often you observed me on that route.
But you don't get it and I don't know if you will.
Scientific theories are tentative; they can be revised if something that fits reality better comes along or new evidence that contradicts a theory comes along.
But the lack of ABSOLUTE proof and closure that is a necessary part of the scientific method does not mean that the theories we use to launch a satellite are not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
But I think we are mostly in agreement, outside of semantic nicety.
But we are not talking about scientific predictions about ghosts in the way you compare it. I am not asking for a prediction about what book this random person in a random town is going to mention, or indeed what the Ghost prize in literature is.
I am asking proof that this person exists, or that those ghosts on the judging panel exist. And one could Prove that person exists.
Not so those or any other ghosts.
And I think it should be obvious what sort of ghosts we are talking about; those that people claim they see that reasonably can be assumed to be entities observable using a proven human sense and thus quite provable.
Moving the definition of ghost to something where one has first to confirm the possibility of observation and the desire to be observed is special pleading.
People say they see ghosts. They can't prove it. Simple, not my problem, if they want to make me accept that ghosts exist then get on with it and provide evidence; as with god, all of human existence has passed without much progress in that area
Are we talking the same language? Transistors (first ones made by TI I think) did not exist until they existed. Their function may have been foreshadowed by the application of Galena crystals in primitive radios, but they still did not exist even if their eventual existence could be foreseen at some point due to previous technology.
I can forsee that the Lesser Black-backed gull and the Herring gull might continue to diverge until they are distinct species (call the the X gull and Y gull) that cannot interbreed (as they do now being parts of a ring species). But X gulls do not exist, nor do Y gulls.
Thus the initial dumb example of comparing ghosties to transistors remains a big fat dumb example.
Hmm... I would say the majority of commonly accepted scientific THEORIES can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hypotheses are a different thing.
By this I don't mean things like string theory, as in fact there are a number of string hypotheses and others which compete against them. None of them rack up the evidence behind theories like plate tectonics, gravity or indeed evolution.
Those kind of theories can be both asked for proof and give it, PRECISELY because of how science works.
So either we are getting bogged down by your use of 'theory' being well outside the use of the word when applied to the above examples, or you don't know how science works.
I presume on the semantics rather than your ignorance but would not be willing to live on the difference.
AH, first of all I am a 'pop' skeptic (poison the well, ad hom), then I say Newton was a bad scientist (straw man).
If you actually have a response to my post rather than a parade of logical fallacies, please let me know.
If Newton were here now, with his mind and a 20th/21st century level of education, he would mostly likely be skeptical of claims of perpetual motion or zero gravity devices.
This skepticism would make him a good scientist, as he was for his time.
And you missed mine. Ghosts exist, or do not exist. They do not have the potential to exist once previous inventions and further innovation allows someone to make one (as was the case with transistors).
They are there, or not, all evidence points to not as there IS no evidence.
" The problem is that the likely hood of finding bear shit in the woods when you don't know what to look for is near impossible and they are way more common then sasquash are supposed to be."
Sorry, you are wrong. If bears are in a wood, they shit in the wood, and you can find it provided you conduct a thorough search. You can even go around a forest and collect all the shit you find, and infer from this the wildlife resident in those woods.
No sasquash shit means (at least in a North American context with plenty of people with education and opportunity having access to said woods) it is very unlikely there are sasquash. And the proof lies in the hands of those who say it does exist. It is not the responsibility of a zoologist to try and prove things that probably don't exist exist, as they normally have more worthwhile projects on hand.
But you are enough of a fantasist to assign the likelihood of finding bear shit in woods "near impossible", so there's not much point in talking to you. Facts don't form your opinions so they sure as hell won't change them.
Everything that has been proven to exist 'obeys the laws of physics'. Sometime we see things obeying the law of physics due to something we can't see and can infer that somethings existence. Ghosts so not fall into either category. I suppose you think believing in god is silly? Or is that another fantasy you subscribe to?
" I would certainly think that stories this old who have crazies popping up every so often validating them by supposed personal experiences"
You might suppose that personal experience validates something. Scientifically it doesn't. Your standards of evidence suck.
Look, you are labouring under the assumption there has been no opportunity for "serious open minded research" about ghosts, ESP, god, and other forms of Woo!
There has, and whilst that may not mean that the case is closed (as absence of evidence is and never can be evidence of absence) is does mean all those whining about their pet beliefs (not you specifically) being unaccepted in general are making THEIR lack of evidence SOMEONE ELSE'S PROBLEM.
To such people I say:
Want to prove Creationism? Go on.
Want to prove ghosts? Go on.
Anyone who proved either of the above would be world famous and be remembered for millenia, so there is certainly incentive enough.
The fact that people DON'T, and not through lack of trying, is a HINT about the likely truth of matters.
A decent scientist is a good skeptic, and a good skeptic has the makings of a decent scientist. A decent engineer is a good mathematician, and a good mathematician has the makings of a decent engineer.
Your example of physicists is nonsense; they are skeptical of claims of perpetual motion or zero gravity devices, just as a biologist will say "I don't know" or "Not enough data" when asked about life on Mars.
All a skeptic is is someone who has the temerity not to believe in something until adequate poof is provided. Those who like them least are those who don't like being asked for adequate proof of their beliefs.
Er, transistors and digital signals didn't exist until they were invented, so you obviously could not have a 'scientifically valid positive result' until that point.
You are confusing 'innovation resulting in unforeseen inventions' with 'things that there is no proof of existing when such proof could reasonably be obtained'.
For example sasquach shit with DNA traces in it or multiple scientifically verified video footage of the kind of physical phenomena people attribute to ghosties.
Of course, it is POSSIBLE there is a large North American xenomorph that is VERY good at hiding, it's just quite unlikely given the lack of evidence thus far. But ghosts? Come on, they are up there with god for "not one piece of proof other than someone saying 'honest, believe me'" in all of history.
Things that exist have EVIDENCE. Retrospectively we can see that they always had. There should be evidence of ghosts/sasquach/santa/god/flying teapots in orbit, even with current technology. There isn't.
Isn't it funny how, nowadays when everyone (almost) has a camera in their phone and vast numbers have digital video cameras, there has not been a massive increase in decent evidence for ghosts or sasquatch, compared to the 50's when people rarely had cameras with them and few had the equipment to take moving picture footage?
They don't show them having a crap either, but they do.
Expecting them to show them plugging the PADD into their PADD docks is like expecting to see Legolas collecting arrows fro the bodies of the dead. Of course he did it, otherwise he'd run out, but it is more interesting to see him stabbing orcs than collecting arrows.
The only time 'bookkeeping' activities like ammo/battery charge come into a film/series is when it is relevant to the plot... as when pinned down under fire against unwinnable odds before the Butch and Sundance bit which they obviously survive (see above comment about it not being real)... "how many arrows you got left my keen eyed elven friend?", "how much charge in your blaster" etc. ad plot device.
... it is interesting that some (Walden) get fairly good reviews with some constructive criticism whilst others (Phoenix) get slated.
This really tells you all you need to know. A mode of learning (online/campus) can be good or bad. It is the quality of the programme and institution that is important.
Anyone saying online is useless has either been burned by a bad experience or doesn't know what they are talking about.
Obviously no University is perfect. Both campus-based and online Universities will have Instructors who don't give students what they deserve, but the test of an institution is in how they react when a problem is raised, as the example above shows.
So, for satisfaction in online learning look for;
> Accredited/recognised degree equivalent to campus-based degree > Small classes taken by Instructors with suitable academic and professional experience > Support to students (advisors, tutors, online library) > Well-developed programme (an Institution that is just starting out with online is NOT a good bet, a programme that is going through its first couple of intakes will have kinks that need working out but that's true of on-campus too) > Lots of interaction with other students (can be asynchronous in DBs) > Continuous assessment and weekly feedback of grades > Safeguards against plagiarism > Dissertation (course work and weekly essays are one thing for a smart person to bang together (on campus or online), a 15,000 word dissertation requires seven months of real work and really tests you).
The big benefit of online is you can carry on with work and family commitments. You study with people who want a degree that allows them to carry on with work and family commitments. So (for example) on a campus-based MBA you can have twenty-year olds in your class. On a good online MBA programme, you will typically have far older, more experienced students, which is great - peer learning is part of the Masters experience. You also tend to have more Instructors who are professionally active as well as just being Academcs, which is a good thing.
Maybe my 'mileage' varied, but I rolled back my gf's HP netbook to XP from Win 7.
I get your point re. 'Apple could give disable options in iOS4', but why would they?
But spending money backward compatability-ing new OS's so people will wait _longer_ to give you more money is a fool's game.
You want new features? Pay new money!
Please understand I don't own an Apple (but will probably replace my current Nokia with an iPhone (old model at cheap price or new if all the hoo-haa is hoo-haa or gets fixed with SW updates. due to seeing the difference in 'using pleasure' between if and gf's iPhone.think Apple are 'great', but their business model rocks as far as pushing the value of the company goes. Which is what they are there for, just like ll the companies. D-d-d-don't belive the hype.
I really don't think Apple lose many people for not doing something (two year software updates on a handheld device) that other manufacturers generally don't do. If you oould update your two year-old Sony/Nokia/Motorola/Samsung/LG handheld with brandnew software then not doing it would be a negative exception.
As it is it loses them no more sales than not doing other things no one else does.
I agree Win 7 runs on older (and like it or not 2 years plus in mobile hardware is 'older') laptops ok. I didn't say it didn't. But Win 7 on an original Asus eeePCWhatevernumberitwas? Desktops 'age' slower as far as OS speed goes as even at 4+ years ago speed and memory was often adequate for Win 7 today.
But in all these examples the older versions were typically sold with half the RAM they are today, just like the iPhone then/now comparison.
My point about anti-Apple double standards 'people' (not you per se) have stands.
Wow, so a two year-old computing device should run the latest software as fast as a new computing device?
Oh PLEASE, stop Moore's Law, I want to get off.
Apple use a type of Marketing spin which drives some people crazy. So crazy they forget that 12-24 month product cycles, planned obsolescence and product releases designed to encourage users to upgrade are what EVERYONE does in this sector. The only difference is Apple have a lock-in due to their hardware/software exclusivity, which means they can be even MORE effective at it as they are in many ways competing against themselves for people who have opted in to 'Apple World'.
The fact that their products and marketing are good enough to encourage people to do this and often not look back would be seen as proof of competence in many companies, but with Apple it's reason enough to tar and feather them. Do yourself a favour; go and buy yourself a opinion that makes sense
I suggest, in interests of fairness, you now bitch how badly WIn 7 runs on a 2008 netbook...
"* Spy satellite recapture. * Spy satellite de-orbit (killing). * Rapid satellite deployment. * As a communications platform of Network Centric Ops. * Look-e-looing."... this is one of its likely roles. It can bring back US assets for service and relaunch; repair or service US assets via spacewalk; launch assets (but not the big spy sats); observe, jam or destroy enemy assets - and all this without any overfly of 'enemy' territory if in polar orbits. It can also do surveilance and launch weapons, but there are far better/cheaper ways of doing this (Tomahawk, U2 etc..).
Slashdot Mirror
The research shows that c. 20% of people suffer ill-effects from 3D meida:
http://w3.tue.nl/en/news/news_article/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=9099&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=58898&cHash=9c1f2ae250
I have little binocular vision, so 3D is a bit ho-hum for me. Makes my girlfriend sick within minutes.
As already commented, there are various extremely good reasons why it does this with some people, just like there are good reasons why motion sickness effects some people. They boil down to the fact '3D' is a fake effect (it is NOT 3D) and some people's brains are more sensitive to the fakery.
So, 3D will wither on the tree and die, again. Unless the tech gets better and doesn't alienate (or rather, nauseate) 20% of the audience.
3D is a nice way to charge more money for tickets, and makes screen-cap bootlegs useless. This doesn't stop piracy, but I bet you the delay in availability of 'flat' screen-cap bootlegs and the 3D hoo-ha pushes more people to the cinema, which means more bums on seats and more dollars per seat than an equivalent 2D movie.
It's just a marketing ploy.
Personally I would say asking for scientific evidence and when such evidence is lacking taking the stance it probably doesn't exist is the same as saying one sees no evidence and taking the same stance. One is active, the other is passive.
In the absence of evidence that there are areas outside those we define with logic and science, claiming such areas exist is a logical fallicy called special pleading.
So far nothing that is not definable by logic and science has been proven to exist. It is likely that whilst logic and science may extend the barriers of what we know, faeries, ghosts and god will turn out simply to not exist.
"What makes you say that? Seriously, we are talking about entities that supposedly operate outside the realm of physics and nature as we understand it. Why are you so certain that absolutely nothing could do this?"
If they can be perceived by humans (which some humans claim), they, by definition, operate to some extent within 'the realm of physics and nature as we' perceive it.
"I'm sorry, but I think you failed to pay attention to a few key words. I didn't say it was impossible to find bear shit in the woods, I said it was "near impossible" to find it "when you don't know what to look"."
If you'd read all my response you'd see I paid specific attention to key words.
"If I sent you into the woods to find some specled feathered woodpecker shit and you didn't have any information about it's habitat, what it ate, what it's feces looks like, you probably could never find it. Sure, you could just grab all the shit you could find and test it until you found DNA evidence of it comming from what you were looking for, but how would you know the DNA evidence pointed to the right thing when you don't have any to go off of? Besides, wouldn't it get prohibitively expensive doing it that way?"
Two things; if you know of x species in a certain area and find x+1 types of shit you can tell roughly what it is through DNA analysis. No trace of shit with hominid DNA (other than H. sapiens) in North American woods, or any other xenomorph come to that. In you woody woodpecker example you would find unidentified shit of something with DNA similar to other woodpeckers, but not the same, and infer the existence of a unidentified woodpecker.
Second: the complaint about cost is an excuse, you are making it someone else's problem. Want to prove it; go on then, do proper science and get the funding. Like scientists do.
"lol.. So you failed at reading what was in front of you, then jumped to calling the belief in a god a fantasy. In case you do not know what that noise is, it's all the whooshing going buy you. Eventually, you will have to start ducking from all the air traffic from points flying over your head. don't worry about who believe in God or not. It doesn't pertain to this at all"
You had a point? Other than at the top of your head? And yes, if someone has a propensity to believe in something which has no decent supporting evidence (like god), the fact they rave on to support other things that have no decent supporting evidence is not surprising.
"Lol.. Really. So when you got stopped at a red light on the way home from work today, I should not believe one word you say about it because there is not scientific evidence of that light being red or you stopping at it. I can default to calling you a delusional fantasist because there is no compelling scientific evidence about it at all- just your word or personal experience. And when you try to convince me you're telling the truth, I can say your standards for evidence sucks."
But me being stopped by a red light COULD be proved, and even without a CCTV camera in the area, the claim is not extraordinary. There ARE traffic lights. They DO go red. You could observe me on that route and determine the likelihood I would be stopped by THAT red light on any given day.
Ghosts, god and sasquach are EXTRAORDINARY claims. There is no proof there ARE such things (if I claimed I was stopped by one of them on the way home, the claim is of a different order than a red light). And you could NEVER see such an event, no matter how often you observed me on that route.
But you don't get it and I don't know if you will.
Scientific theories are tentative; they can be revised if something that fits reality better comes along or new evidence that contradicts a theory comes along.
But the lack of ABSOLUTE proof and closure that is a necessary part of the scientific method does not mean that the theories we use to launch a satellite are not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
But I think we are mostly in agreement, outside of semantic nicety.
But we are not talking about scientific predictions about ghosts in the way you compare it. I am not asking for a prediction about what book this random person in a random town is going to mention, or indeed what the Ghost prize in literature is.
I am asking proof that this person exists, or that those ghosts on the judging panel exist. And one could Prove that person exists.
Not so those or any other ghosts.
And I think it should be obvious what sort of ghosts we are talking about; those that people claim they see that reasonably can be assumed to be entities observable using a proven human sense and thus quite provable.
Moving the definition of ghost to something where one has first to confirm the possibility of observation and the desire to be observed is special pleading.
People say they see ghosts. They can't prove it. Simple, not my problem, if they want to make me accept that ghosts exist then get on with it and provide evidence; as with god, all of human existence has passed without much progress in that area
Are we talking the same language? Transistors (first ones made by TI I think) did not exist until they existed. Their function may have been foreshadowed by the application of Galena crystals in primitive radios, but they still did not exist even if their eventual existence could be foreseen at some point due to previous technology.
I can forsee that the Lesser Black-backed gull and the Herring gull might continue to diverge until they are distinct species (call the the X gull and Y gull) that cannot interbreed (as they do now being parts of a ring species). But X gulls do not exist, nor do Y gulls.
Thus the initial dumb example of comparing ghosties to transistors remains a big fat dumb example.
Hmm... I would say the majority of commonly accepted scientific THEORIES can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hypotheses are a different thing.
By this I don't mean things like string theory, as in fact there are a number of string hypotheses and others which compete against them. None of them rack up the evidence behind theories like plate tectonics, gravity or indeed evolution.
Those kind of theories can be both asked for proof and give it, PRECISELY because of how science works.
So either we are getting bogged down by your use of 'theory' being well outside the use of the word when applied to the above examples, or you don't know how science works.
I presume on the semantics rather than your ignorance but would not be willing to live on the difference.
AH, first of all I am a 'pop' skeptic (poison the well, ad hom), then I say Newton was a bad scientist (straw man).
If you actually have a response to my post rather than a parade of logical fallacies, please let me know.
If Newton were here now, with his mind and a 20th/21st century level of education, he would mostly likely be skeptical of claims of perpetual motion or zero gravity devices.
This skepticism would make him a good scientist, as he was for his time.
"Great, you understood my point"
And you missed mine. Ghosts exist, or do not exist. They do not have the potential to exist once previous inventions and further innovation allows someone to make one (as was the case with transistors).
They are there, or not, all evidence points to not as there IS no evidence.
" The problem is that the likely hood of finding bear shit in the woods when you don't know what to look for is near impossible and they are way more common then sasquash are supposed to be."
Sorry, you are wrong. If bears are in a wood, they shit in the wood, and you can find it provided you conduct a thorough search. You can even go around a forest and collect all the shit you find, and infer from this the wildlife resident in those woods.
No sasquash shit means (at least in a North American context with plenty of people with education and opportunity having access to said woods) it is very unlikely there are sasquash. And the proof lies in the hands of those who say it does exist. It is not the responsibility of a zoologist to try and prove things that probably don't exist exist, as they normally have more worthwhile projects on hand.
But you are enough of a fantasist to assign the likelihood of finding bear shit in woods "near impossible", so there's not much point in talking to you. Facts don't form your opinions so they sure as hell won't change them.
Everything that has been proven to exist 'obeys the laws of physics'. Sometime we see things obeying the law of physics due to something we can't see and can infer that somethings existence. Ghosts so not fall into either category. I suppose you think believing in god is silly? Or is that another fantasy you subscribe to?
" I would certainly think that stories this old who have crazies popping up every so often validating them by supposed personal experiences"
You might suppose that personal experience validates something. Scientifically it doesn't. Your standards of evidence suck.
Look, you are labouring under the assumption there has been no opportunity for "serious open minded research" about ghosts, ESP, god, and other forms of Woo!
There has, and whilst that may not mean that the case is closed (as absence of evidence is and never can be evidence of absence) is does mean all those whining about their pet beliefs (not you specifically) being unaccepted in general are making THEIR lack of evidence SOMEONE ELSE'S PROBLEM.
To such people I say:
Want to prove Creationism? Go on.
Want to prove ghosts? Go on.
Anyone who proved either of the above would be world famous and be remembered for millenia, so there is certainly incentive enough.
The fact that people DON'T, and not through lack of trying, is a HINT about the likely truth of matters.
That all depends on how you define demon and what your standards of evidence are.
A decent scientist is a good skeptic, and a good skeptic has the makings of a decent scientist. A decent engineer is a good mathematician, and a good mathematician has the makings of a decent engineer.
Your example of physicists is nonsense; they are skeptical of claims of perpetual motion or zero gravity devices, just as a biologist will say "I don't know" or "Not enough data" when asked about life on Mars.
All a skeptic is is someone who has the temerity not to believe in something until adequate poof is provided. Those who like them least are those who don't like being asked for adequate proof of their beliefs.
Er, transistors and digital signals didn't exist until they were invented, so you obviously could not have a 'scientifically valid positive result' until that point.
You are confusing 'innovation resulting in unforeseen inventions' with 'things that there is no proof of existing when such proof could reasonably be obtained'.
For example sasquach shit with DNA traces in it or multiple scientifically verified video footage of the kind of physical phenomena people attribute to ghosties.
Of course, it is POSSIBLE there is a large North American xenomorph that is VERY good at hiding, it's just quite unlikely given the lack of evidence thus far. But ghosts? Come on, they are up there with god for "not one piece of proof other than someone saying 'honest, believe me'" in all of history.
Haven't you heard of 'special pleading'?
Because that is what you just did.
I cannot provide evidence of because .
Things that exist have EVIDENCE. Retrospectively we can see that they always had. There should be evidence of ghosts/sasquach/santa/god/flying teapots in orbit, even with current technology. There isn't.
Isn't it funny how, nowadays when everyone (almost) has a camera in their phone and vast numbers have digital video cameras, there has not been a massive increase in decent evidence for ghosts or sasquatch, compared to the 50's when people rarely had cameras with them and few had the equipment to take moving picture footage?
Doesn't that give you a freaking HINT?
Ah, come on...
It's a movie/series.
They don't show them having a crap either, but they do.
Expecting them to show them plugging the PADD into their PADD docks is like expecting to see Legolas collecting arrows fro the bodies of the dead. Of course he did it, otherwise he'd run out, but it is more interesting to see him stabbing orcs than collecting arrows.
The only time 'bookkeeping' activities like ammo/battery charge come into a film/series is when it is relevant to the plot... as when pinned down under fire against unwinnable odds before the Butch and Sundance bit which they obviously survive (see above comment about it not being real)... "how many arrows you got left my keen eyed elven friend?", "how much charge in your blaster" etc. ad plot device.
... it is interesting that some (Walden) get fairly good reviews with some constructive criticism whilst others (Phoenix) get slated.
This really tells you all you need to know. A mode of learning (online/campus) can be good or bad. It is the quality of the programme and institution that is important.
Anyone saying online is useless has either been burned by a bad experience or doesn't know what they are talking about.
Obviously no University is perfect. Both campus-based and online Universities will have Instructors who don't give students what they deserve, but the test of an institution is in how they react when a problem is raised, as the example above shows.
So, for satisfaction in online learning look for;
> Accredited/recognised degree equivalent to campus-based degree
> Small classes taken by Instructors with suitable academic and professional experience
> Support to students (advisors, tutors, online library)
> Well-developed programme (an Institution that is just starting out with online is NOT a good bet, a programme that is going through its first couple of intakes will have kinks that need working out but that's true of on-campus too)
> Lots of interaction with other students (can be asynchronous in DBs)
> Continuous assessment and weekly feedback of grades
> Safeguards against plagiarism
> Dissertation (course work and weekly essays are one thing for a smart person to bang together (on campus or online), a 15,000 word dissertation requires seven months of real work and really tests you).
The big benefit of online is you can carry on with work and family commitments. You study with people who want a degree that allows them to carry on with work and family commitments. So (for example) on a campus-based MBA you can have twenty-year olds in your class. On a good online MBA programme, you will typically have far older, more experienced students, which is great - peer learning is part of the Masters experience. You also tend to have more Instructors who are professionally active as well as just being Academcs, which is a good thing.
No one can sue for liable.
Silly jokes are not worth explaining. Next time I will employ sub(marine)titles for the hard of understanding.
One could argue that the bottom of the ocean is not _on_ earth
Maybe my 'mileage' varied, but I rolled back my gf's HP netbook to XP from Win 7.
I get your point re. 'Apple could give disable options in iOS4', but why would they?
But spending money backward compatability-ing new OS's so people will wait _longer_ to give you more money is a fool's game.
You want new features? Pay new money!
Please understand I don't own an Apple (but will probably replace my current Nokia with an iPhone (old model at cheap price or new if all the hoo-haa is hoo-haa or gets fixed with SW updates. due to seeing the difference in 'using pleasure' between if and gf's iPhone.think Apple are 'great', but their business model rocks as far as pushing the value of the company goes. Which is what they are there for, just like ll the companies. D-d-d-don't belive the hype.
I really don't think Apple lose many people for not doing something (two year software updates on a handheld device) that other manufacturers generally don't do. If you oould update your two year-old Sony/Nokia/Motorola/Samsung/LG handheld with brandnew software then not doing it would be a negative exception.
As it is it loses them no more sales than not doing other things no one else does.
T60p a netbook? No.
I think in most cases you mean 'fancy ALUMINIUM casing'. :-P
I agree Win 7 runs on older (and like it or not 2 years plus in mobile hardware is 'older') laptops ok. I didn't say it didn't. But Win 7 on an original Asus eeePCWhatevernumberitwas? Desktops 'age' slower as far as OS speed goes as even at 4+ years ago speed and memory was often adequate for Win 7 today.
But in all these examples the older versions were typically sold with half the RAM they are today, just like the iPhone then/now comparison.
My point about anti-Apple double standards 'people' (not you per se) have stands.
THIS is insightful?
Wow, so a two year-old computing device should run the latest software as fast as a new computing device?
Oh PLEASE, stop Moore's Law, I want to get off.
Apple use a type of Marketing spin which drives some people crazy. So crazy they forget that 12-24 month product cycles, planned obsolescence and product releases designed to encourage users to upgrade are what EVERYONE does in this sector. The only difference is Apple have a lock-in due to their hardware/software exclusivity, which means they can be even MORE effective at it as they are in many ways competing against themselves for people who have opted in to 'Apple World'.
The fact that their products and marketing are good enough to encourage people to do this and often not look back would be seen as proof of competence in many companies, but with Apple it's reason enough to tar and feather them. Do yourself a favour; go and buy yourself a opinion that makes sense
I suggest, in interests of fairness, you now bitch how badly WIn 7 runs on a 2008 netbook...
As per above AC post;
"* Spy satellite recapture. ... this is one of its likely roles. It can bring back US assets for service and relaunch; repair or service US assets via spacewalk; launch assets (but not the big spy sats); observe, jam or destroy enemy assets - and all this without any overfly of 'enemy' territory if in polar orbits. It can also do surveilance and launch weapons, but there are far better/cheaper ways of doing this (Tomahawk, U2 etc..).
* Spy satellite de-orbit (killing).
* Rapid satellite deployment.
* As a communications platform of Network Centric Ops.
* Look-e-looing."