To be fair, I think it may be something in the water, as this clip of Steve McLaren shows.
(For those who don't know, Steve McLaren is English, born in York. This interview was from a Dutch TV station after he had been managing a Dutch football side for a while. And yes, it is hilarious).
Brazil is more diverse, with just under 50% white (mainly consisting of those of Dutch, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish and Ukrainian descent). It has more people of Lebanese descent than Lebanon, and the largest population of those of Japanese descent outside of Japan, as an example of two surprising stats.
The purpose of lights is to improve safety on high speed roads. Hence lighted highways. Otherwise, night time driving would have to be slowed significantly to be safe, unless you're driving with high beams.
Most of the UK's motorway network is not lit, and just about all of the dual carriageway network isn't either. In some places they're turned off after a certain time (usually about midnight). In quite a few places, they've got lights, but have stopped using them. You get used to it, and no one drives with full beams on. Technically you're allowed to use large A roads (not motorways) for all sorts of things because they're public rights of way, so you are allowed to walk down them, ride (either bike or horse) down them, even drive geese down them. The speed limit is 70mph, but generally people drive up to 80.
I'm assuming you've never played minesweeper, because if you had you wouldn't believe this. I'd guess that under 5% of advanced boards can't be solved without guessing. There are absolutely loads of situations in which guessing is necessary, for example any straight line of ones. Another common one is mentioned higher up in the thread
And yes I do know most (if not all) of the advanced techniques, they're not exactly that complex.
They even tried to hijack Xmas and turn it into a purely secular holiday.
It was already pretty secular, and the bits that weren't weren't Christian. I mean, we put up decorations, give gifts to friends and family, put a tree in our house, and Santa comes down the chimney. Which parts of the way most people celebrate Christmas are religious, (except for the tree which most definitely is not Christian)?
The same's true about Easter... we paint eggs, and give chocolate bunnies and eggs, because obviously they symbolise the resurrection of Jesus.
The only thing windows does that linux doesn't is directX and better gaming support, which will soon change if valve is sucessful, people will switch because they don't want to pay $200 a year just to browse the internet
Which is why this story is about gaming systems the NHS has in use, obviously.
I wonder when microsoft will get around to getting their vendors to stop accepting kickbacks for shitty adware on new systems.
This practice is one of the reasons why I still build my own desktop systems. Getting rid of the junk is a massive hassle, and restoration of the system from partition brings it all back.
As for lack of proof of them doing birth control and infanticide I would say the Tanit necropolis is good enough evidence.
Infanticide is not birth control. It happens after birth. So, no, Carthage did not practice birth control. The question about whether Carthage practiced infanticide is still up for debate. What is not up for debate is whether the Romans and the Greeks practiced infanticide - they did.
Your claim was that birth control (which Carthage did not do) had a contributing factor in their demise. That's just wrong on every level.
What we cannot have is everyone or even a large segment of the population choosing to do that. Once that becomes a trend the end result is extinction.
FFS... there are 7 billion people in the world. Prior to basic technology, less than ten thousand years ago, that number was less than 5 million.
You want an example of an ancient society which embraced birth control as an ethos? Carthage. As a result they became over dependent on military assistance from Libyan and Numidian mercenaries. When the Romans invaded guess who won?
The Romans invaded basically all of Europe. They did not succeed because all of Europe was practicing birth control. To say that the military success of ancient Rome was due to their opponents practicing birth control is... interesting. Also, Carthage did not practice birth control, but don't let that spoil your argument.
So you're saying that the people who deliberately exposed the native americans to smallpox did the same to themself? Doesn't that imply that they were not trying to kill them with it, but inoculate them?
From your wikipedia link : "Infection via inhaled viral particles in droplets spread the infection more widely than the deliberate infection through a small skin wound. The smaller, localised infection is adequate to stimulate the immune system to produce specific immunity to the virus, while requiring more generations of the virus to reach levels of infection likely to kill the patient. The rising immunity terminates the infection. So the twofold effect is to ensure the less fatal form of the disease is the one caught, and to give the immune system the best start possible in combating it."
No one knew for certain anything about germs and the transmission of diseases then, and like I said, the miasma theory was still mainstream.
Government handouts are massively productive if they help someone who has just been made redundant get back into work. That's kind of the point of government, in my opinion, to help and protect those at shitty parts of their life.
Stuff like child benefit is a different matter, and annoys me (in the UK, you've got to be rich to not qualify for child benefits, I think they should go to the poor only). Also, taxing and giving benefits to one person at the same time is counterproductive... getting rid of taxes for the poor will go a long way to ending benefit culture.
One thing to remember is that back then most people believed in the miasma theory. It was only by the second half of the 19th century that germ theory became accepted.
Everyone seems to be assuming that this paper is about global warming. It's not.
The pollutants that they are talking about generally lead to cooling of the climate, as evidenced by the climate change observed after major volcanic eruptions. Just because it talks about pollution, does not necessarily mean it's equatable to global warming. In most of the western world, these airborne pollutants are now at a much lower level than they were a hundred years ago.
It is bollocks. Without pearl harbour, and Germany invading Russia, the war would have been a lot closer, because the US and the USSR would not have been on the right side.
Now, you could argue that the US and Germany are not friends, but the politicians would argue they were. You could argue the US and Russia were friends, but then you'd be wrong.
The problem with the entire US mentality of "it's fine to spy on other nations" is that GCHQ is British, and has the same idea, and shares their information _on you_ with your intelligence services, and anyone else who wants to know.
No, it's two sets of focused drivers. One set is driving, the other set is driving and on the phone.
Using a phone does decrease your ability to drive well. Just because other things also decrease your ability to drive well too, does not mean that we should not try to deal with people using phones when driving.
People have been studying this in excruciating detail for years. While there is a strong correlation between cell-phone use and accidents, any evidence of causation is glaringly absent.
There have been plenty of studies in which drivers perform certain tasks, either while using a phone or not. Some have drivers doing both, one after the other, some have half and half split randomly. In all these studies, those using phones (including hands free) did significantly worse.
I'd be interested to know what you think causes those using phones to do worse in these studies.
there are no reasons other than 'god'. if you have any, spill the beans now or just shut the fuck up.
You could argue the same about homosexual incestuous marriage. There is no logical reason for two brothers or two sisters not to get married to each other. If you think there's any good reason for that to be illegal, please share.
I'm not equating homosexuality with incest here. I'm just pointing out that making it legal isn't going to happen any time soon, despite the commonly made arguments that people's sexual preference is their own business.
If you are a careful driver and plan ahead to avoid quick braking, and also accelerate at a very modest rate your benefits would be small with this kind of system. It helps compensate for aggressive driving but it seems like it won't benefit drivers that already are trying to get good gas mileage.
Citation needed. Accelerating at a very slow rate would be worse for fuel economy in most cases. Two cars drive a 10 mile stretch. The first accelerates to 50mph in 100 yards and stays there... the second uses the entire 10 miles to get up to 50mph. Which do you think will be more fuel efficient?
I'd appreciate any evidence that hard acceleration is necessarily worse for fuel economy. There must be a sweet spot, rev too high and you lose fuel efficiency of the engine, accelerate too slow and you take too long to get to optimal speed. I'd personally guess accelerating hard in higher gears (ie. low rpm) until you get to 50mph or so would be the most efficient, but I am only guessing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm assuming it was a translation, unless GP was reading English as well as German in grade 2.
To be fair, I think it may be something in the water, as this clip of Steve McLaren shows.
(For those who don't know, Steve McLaren is English, born in York. This interview was from a Dutch TV station after he had been managing a Dutch football side for a while. And yes, it is hilarious).
Brazil is more diverse, with just under 50% white (mainly consisting of those of Dutch, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish and Ukrainian descent). It has more people of Lebanese descent than Lebanon, and the largest population of those of Japanese descent outside of Japan, as an example of two surprising stats.
The purpose of lights is to improve safety on high speed roads. Hence lighted highways. Otherwise, night time driving would have to be slowed significantly to be safe, unless you're driving with high beams.
Most of the UK's motorway network is not lit, and just about all of the dual carriageway network isn't either. In some places they're turned off after a certain time (usually about midnight). In quite a few places, they've got lights, but have stopped using them. You get used to it, and no one drives with full beams on. Technically you're allowed to use large A roads (not motorways) for all sorts of things because they're public rights of way, so you are allowed to walk down them, ride (either bike or horse) down them, even drive geese down them. The speed limit is 70mph, but generally people drive up to 80.
I'd guess that under 5% of advanced boards can be solved without guessing.
Oops
I'm assuming you've never played minesweeper, because if you had you wouldn't believe this. I'd guess that under 5% of advanced boards can't be solved without guessing. There are absolutely loads of situations in which guessing is necessary, for example any straight line of ones. Another common one is mentioned higher up in the thread
And yes I do know most (if not all) of the advanced techniques, they're not exactly that complex.
They even tried to hijack Xmas and turn it into a purely secular holiday.
It was already pretty secular, and the bits that weren't weren't Christian. I mean, we put up decorations, give gifts to friends and family, put a tree in our house, and Santa comes down the chimney. Which parts of the way most people celebrate Christmas are religious, (except for the tree which most definitely is not Christian)?
The same's true about Easter... we paint eggs, and give chocolate bunnies and eggs, because obviously they symbolise the resurrection of Jesus.
The only thing windows does that linux doesn't is directX and better gaming support, which will soon change if valve is sucessful, people will switch because they don't want to pay $200 a year just to browse the internet
Which is why this story is about gaming systems the NHS has in use, obviously.
I wonder when microsoft will get around to getting their vendors to stop accepting kickbacks for shitty adware on new systems.
This practice is one of the reasons why I still build my own desktop systems. Getting rid of the junk is a massive hassle, and restoration of the system from partition brings it all back.
As for lack of proof of them doing birth control and infanticide I would say the Tanit necropolis is good enough evidence.
Infanticide is not birth control. It happens after birth. So, no, Carthage did not practice birth control. The question about whether Carthage practiced infanticide is still up for debate. What is not up for debate is whether the Romans and the Greeks practiced infanticide - they did.
Your claim was that birth control (which Carthage did not do) had a contributing factor in their demise. That's just wrong on every level.
What we cannot have is everyone or even a large segment of the population choosing to do that. Once that becomes a trend the end result is extinction.
FFS... there are 7 billion people in the world. Prior to basic technology, less than ten thousand years ago, that number was less than 5 million.
You want an example of an ancient society which embraced birth control as an ethos? Carthage. As a result they became over dependent on military assistance from Libyan and Numidian mercenaries. When the Romans invaded guess who won?
The Romans invaded basically all of Europe. They did not succeed because all of Europe was practicing birth control. To say that the military success of ancient Rome was due to their opponents practicing birth control is... interesting. Also, Carthage did not practice birth control, but don't let that spoil your argument.
You mean "could be", not "are", because it isn't happening. At least in the U.S.
No, I meant "are". There's an "if" in the middle of the sentence.
So you're saying that the people who deliberately exposed the native americans to smallpox did the same to themself? Doesn't that imply that they were not trying to kill them with it, but inoculate them?
From your wikipedia link : "Infection via inhaled viral particles in droplets spread the infection more widely than the deliberate infection through a small skin wound. The smaller, localised infection is adequate to stimulate the immune system to produce specific immunity to the virus, while requiring more generations of the virus to reach levels of infection likely to kill the patient. The rising immunity terminates the infection. So the twofold effect is to ensure the less fatal form of the disease is the one caught, and to give the immune system the best start possible in combating it."
No one knew for certain anything about germs and the transmission of diseases then, and like I said, the miasma theory was still mainstream.
Government handouts are massively productive if they help someone who has just been made redundant get back into work. That's kind of the point of government, in my opinion, to help and protect those at shitty parts of their life.
Stuff like child benefit is a different matter, and annoys me (in the UK, you've got to be rich to not qualify for child benefits, I think they should go to the poor only). Also, taxing and giving benefits to one person at the same time is counterproductive... getting rid of taxes for the poor will go a long way to ending benefit culture.
One thing to remember is that back then most people believed in the miasma theory. It was only by the second half of the 19th century that germ theory became accepted.
I think we should listen to parent about this story, he obviously has some knowledge of the subject... I mean, look at his username!
Remember where we're from... we're designed for very long, sunlight filled days most of the year.
Everywhere on Earth has an average of 12 hours sun a day averaged over a year.
Everyone seems to be assuming that this paper is about global warming. It's not.
The pollutants that they are talking about generally lead to cooling of the climate, as evidenced by the climate change observed after major volcanic eruptions. Just because it talks about pollution, does not necessarily mean it's equatable to global warming. In most of the western world, these airborne pollutants are now at a much lower level than they were a hundred years ago.
It is bollocks. Without pearl harbour, and Germany invading Russia, the war would have been a lot closer, because the US and the USSR would not have been on the right side.
Do you think, then, that just about every other country which is spying on Germany is doing it much better than the US? Is that your argument?
Spying on friends is generally seen as poor form.
Now, you could argue that the US and Germany are not friends, but the politicians would argue they were. You could argue the US and Russia were friends, but then you'd be wrong.
The problem with the entire US mentality of "it's fine to spy on other nations" is that GCHQ is British, and has the same idea, and shares their information _on you_ with your intelligence services, and anyone else who wants to know.
It's not fine.
No, it's two sets of focused drivers. One set is driving, the other set is driving and on the phone.
Using a phone does decrease your ability to drive well. Just because other things also decrease your ability to drive well too, does not mean that we should not try to deal with people using phones when driving.
People have been studying this in excruciating detail for years. While there is a strong correlation between cell-phone use and accidents, any evidence of causation is glaringly absent.
There have been plenty of studies in which drivers perform certain tasks, either while using a phone or not. Some have drivers doing both, one after the other, some have half and half split randomly. In all these studies, those using phones (including hands free) did significantly worse.
I'd be interested to know what you think causes those using phones to do worse in these studies.
there are no reasons other than 'god'. if you have any, spill the beans now or just shut the fuck up.
You could argue the same about homosexual incestuous marriage. There is no logical reason for two brothers or two sisters not to get married to each other. If you think there's any good reason for that to be illegal, please share.
I'm not equating homosexuality with incest here. I'm just pointing out that making it legal isn't going to happen any time soon, despite the commonly made arguments that people's sexual preference is their own business.
ps. I am pro gay marriage.
If you are a careful driver and plan ahead to avoid quick braking, and also accelerate at a very modest rate your benefits would be small with this kind of system. It helps compensate for aggressive driving but it seems like it won't benefit drivers that already are trying to get good gas mileage.
Citation needed. Accelerating at a very slow rate would be worse for fuel economy in most cases. Two cars drive a 10 mile stretch. The first accelerates to 50mph in 100 yards and stays there... the second uses the entire 10 miles to get up to 50mph. Which do you think will be more fuel efficient?
I'd appreciate any evidence that hard acceleration is necessarily worse for fuel economy. There must be a sweet spot, rev too high and you lose fuel efficiency of the engine, accelerate too slow and you take too long to get to optimal speed. I'd personally guess accelerating hard in higher gears (ie. low rpm) until you get to 50mph or so would be the most efficient, but I am only guessing.