Or if you are a software engineer you don't do it the simple, inelegant way that will cause problems a few months down the line. Moving on in to the project manager category, it is expected that some amount of technical skill is sacrificed in the name of developing the business skills needed for the position.
There are two main tracks of progression within the software development field, technical and management. Technical moves up the level of skill and ability to solve complex problems (though sometimes frustrating coders with "unnecessary restrictions" which really translates to things the coders don't like but that have valid reasons when looking at the application as a whole, but which the coder may not realize. Then there is the management track, which very intentionally allows for less technical skill provided that there is also business skill to offset the loss.
You occasionally get rare individuals who understand both deep business and deep technical, but they are a rare breed and not an option for every management position. When you encounter such people, they also tend to do very well for themselves.
That isn't what I'm talking about. I agree that creationism is not science. I agree you can't simply inject unsubstantiated postulation in to a scientific theory. I understand how you got that impression from the overall context of this article, however I am referring more specifically to how one forms the basis for their interpretation of the facts and formulates a theory that they support. It is not inherently bad science to look at how the facts fit a viewpoint that you believe is accurate, so long as you are willing to abandon that viewpoint when the facts speak contrary to it. If we found out tomorrow that some aspect of quantum mechanics didn't work the way we thought, we wouldn't simply throw out quantum mechanics, we'd look for what needs to change to fit our new observations.
A good religious perspective on science can do the same thing, looking for where science supports our understanding of things laid out in scripture and seeking to refine our understanding when there is an apparent conflict. The science is not in improving this interpretation though, the science is always the facts and what the facts support. Until there is substance to support it, it isn't a scientific theory and the existence of God will never and can never be a scientific theory as near as I can tell. Evidence that suggests that things could have happened in a way consistent with the Bible however is a valid scientific theory, in so far as it is talking strictly about the factual observations that support that direction. The cause or reasoning or creator are not part of the theory, only the understanding of the mechanisms.
I'm also not saying that it isn't an exceedingly fine line between willing the facts to say what you want and going where the facts take you, but that's always a fine line in science. I'm also not saying that large portions of "Christian Science" don't often cross over that line, to its own detriment. I personally agree with the thought process that Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory, however it does have a place in a philosophy class. I also think it is worth highlighting in the presentation of evolution (and scientific study in general) that science specifically doesn't make claims about what it can't measure and possibly just in passing using the fact there are some who view evolution as likely being a random process and there are others that view it as being guided, but explaining that since that isn't testable, science can't really speak to either direction. It is mostly valuable as a lesson on what science can and can't do and helps really clarify what science is.
I'm not talking about scientifically proving the existence of God. I'm talking about producing theories which explain the facts we can observe in a way that is consistent with and helps refine interpretation of the Bible. I will further agree that it is not science to simply say that you think something happened without facts to back it up. What I am saying is that using a religious background as your basis for how you look at the facts and what you think is the most logical explanation of those facts (as long as the facts speak to it and you aren't forcing them to fit) then it is not bad science.
I agree on the final part, though I would challenge that that isn't what good religious "science" does. Everyone has preconcieved notions that impact what they see as a likely theory. For an atheist, they are not likely going to consider God as an element of their theory unless the evidence really demands it. How is that any different from a religious individual who doesn't take God out of their theories unless the evidence really demands it. The key is that you still have to go where the evidence leads, even if it isn't convenient to your theory. It doesn't stop being science because you look for theories that include actions by God, it stops being science because you choose to ignore evidence that runs counter to your theory.
Everyone comes from some world view that impacts what they think is most probable. Having a world view that states you think God did it doesn't make it bad science as long as you still focus on going where the evidence leads. If the evidence suggests that an interpretation is wrong, it's time to figure out what other interpretation can make sense of the observations. I don't personally buy the "God made it appear that way" as an excuse since it seems contrary to what the Bible says about the nature of God and revealing himself through creation and I think that is a cop out, but I also haven't seen any observations yet that run inconsistent with carefully selected interpretations of the Biblical account of creation. (That said, I also believe that evolution was almost certainly the mechanism by which life was developed by God, probably including humans. And I say that while still taking a fairly literal view of Genesis.)
I'm not talking depth perception or focus, I'm talking visual acuity. Focal problems for people occur at different depths, which is why the eye chart has to be at different lengths (to detect near and far sighted issues). Properly functioning eyes will have nearly the same, if not exactly the same, visual acuity in angular resolution at any distance. We can certainly tell how large the thing we are looking at is, but we will see the same amount of information. It may not "feel as big" but there isn't any difference in what details you see.
Ah yes, on that we agree. There is a slight perceptual difference though which is a better experience (at least big screen tv vs imax) Is subjective. My point was just that visually you aren't missing anything.
I don't think there is a significant impact of angular visual acuity based on how far away something is. If someone has nearsighted or farsighted problems, they may have reduced acuity due to lack of ability to focus at a particular distance, but for someone with normal vision, it shouldn't make a difference from anything I've heard before or could find just now when I was looking.
I'm not talking math, I'm talking the science of how vision works and if you do some basic research you will find that I am speaking the truth. It isn't a theory, it is scientifically provable fact. People prefer many things that aren't actually better. That's the job of marketing. Read up on optical acuity and then get back to me.
No laptop screen is imax resolution, but yes, if you had sufficiently high resolution it wouldn't matter. All that matters in vision is the angle of view. If you had an actual 3d display distance would matter a little, but not on a flat display. You will perceive a difference in scale but you won't see anything you would have missed on the small display.
Going to a 3D movie in my area, at a decent theater with a decent sound syatem, costs around $15 to $18 a person, even before you count any food or beverages.
I am an Audio/Video professional, so I mixed select professional components that I could properly adjust with some really good value consumer components that would give a lot of bang for their buck. I realize not everyone could do it as cheaply as I, but when you figure a family of 4 with popcorn and soda would cost around $100 to $110 per movie and a typical bluray movie only costs $30 to $35. If you do a rental from Redbox, it's only $1.50 and saves you about $100 a pop. That adds up in a big hurry.
Note, I'm not saying that there aren't reasons that people want to go to theaters and I fully expect them to be around for a while yet to come, but they don't offer nearly what they once did and the outrageous prices don't help any. If I could go to a theater for $5 a person and get popcorn and a soda for $3 I would go again. I still love an occasional stop at the drive thru as well. The value proposition for theaters just isn't what it once was and the prices has gone up while giving less value rather than the other way around.
I do have 240hz active shutter. The flickering really isn't noticeable and there is less ghosting and less distortion than at the theater. For the theaters that have gotten around to rolling out 4k, you are correct that there is more detail at the theater, but a lot of theaters are still running 2k projectors last I bothered to go to one.
Or you can build a home theater that will give you a better experience and a be cheaper in the long run and avoid the mess. I can buy 3d movies to watch at home for less than going to the theater and it looks and sounds better than the theater.
As a former gun owner and supporter of gun rights, I hope the retired officer gets the death penalty for this. Yes, things can set people off, but it's the responsibility of anyone with the ability to kill someone to control that. If you can't do that, you should not develop the ability to kill, whether through physical training such as martial arts or through items like knives or guns.
The penalty needs to correspond to the responsibility that the individual accepted. As a gun owner, his responsibility to keep his cool should be higher, even more so as a retired cop.
Let me alter my original statement a bit. You can't force a kid while only having control of them 6 hours a day and not being allowed to do anything to actually make them do anything without the parent getting mad and/or trying to sue you. What do you do if they simply refuse to study no matter how much you encourage them or try to make it interesting. Many kids come from a culture where school is authority and authority is bad and they simply have no interest in learning. You could take away anything else for them to do, offer a reward for doing their work and still they would rather sit there and do nothing than actually study. When you only have control of the kids for 6 hours a day (and really each teacher only has control of the kids for an hour or so or less) then there is nothing you can do to make them study or learn within the way the system currently allows.
I know teachers in low income areas and know the realities they deal with. The fact is that many, many students and their parents don't give a crap about education or learning as they don't see it as relevant to their lives. They live in a culture where what you are offering is shunned and what is glorified doesn't require an education. It's a no-win scenario unless you can remove them from that culture entirely. You'll get lucky with the occasional kid that you manage to reach and help out, but a lot have no interest in being reached.
I wish this was true, but sadly, the kids that need help the most are also the kids that would take the most effort to help and honestly can't be helped if they don't want to be. You can't force a kid to learn and if they are allowed to do whatever they want at home, they will just deal with however miserable you can make their life in school for 6 hours a day and then do what they want. It is a sad, but true reality of raising children. The parents have to be involved in making it something the child wants to do or no amount of resources or effort on a teacher's part, no matter how good, is going to make a bit of difference.
Hmm, lets see, and what was the payload weight of the Mars mission? Oh wait, that would be 33 pounds, not 3000. The Cygnus launch could have carried the entire fueled rocket for the Indian mars mission in to orbit. Sure, it takes more energy to escape Earth's gravity entirely, but you are still comparing apples to oranges when you look at the fact that the entire weight, let alone the fuel needs of the Indian mission were lower than the payload weight of the Cygnus mission. Taken in perspective, Orbital did a MUCH more cost effective job than India.
7) Helmet can interfere with turning to look for vehicles thus making it easier to miss something. More modern helmet designs have helped, but if people are going with the cheapest helmet available, it probably isn't the most usable thing around.
Slashdot Mirror
What plot?
Or if you are a software engineer you don't do it the simple, inelegant way that will cause problems a few months down the line. Moving on in to the project manager category, it is expected that some amount of technical skill is sacrificed in the name of developing the business skills needed for the position.
There are two main tracks of progression within the software development field, technical and management. Technical moves up the level of skill and ability to solve complex problems (though sometimes frustrating coders with "unnecessary restrictions" which really translates to things the coders don't like but that have valid reasons when looking at the application as a whole, but which the coder may not realize. Then there is the management track, which very intentionally allows for less technical skill provided that there is also business skill to offset the loss.
You occasionally get rare individuals who understand both deep business and deep technical, but they are a rare breed and not an option for every management position. When you encounter such people, they also tend to do very well for themselves.
You must not be particularly familiar with what it actually has to do if you think that 1 month is sufficient for a prototype.
That isn't what I'm talking about. I agree that creationism is not science. I agree you can't simply inject unsubstantiated postulation in to a scientific theory. I understand how you got that impression from the overall context of this article, however I am referring more specifically to how one forms the basis for their interpretation of the facts and formulates a theory that they support. It is not inherently bad science to look at how the facts fit a viewpoint that you believe is accurate, so long as you are willing to abandon that viewpoint when the facts speak contrary to it. If we found out tomorrow that some aspect of quantum mechanics didn't work the way we thought, we wouldn't simply throw out quantum mechanics, we'd look for what needs to change to fit our new observations.
A good religious perspective on science can do the same thing, looking for where science supports our understanding of things laid out in scripture and seeking to refine our understanding when there is an apparent conflict. The science is not in improving this interpretation though, the science is always the facts and what the facts support. Until there is substance to support it, it isn't a scientific theory and the existence of God will never and can never be a scientific theory as near as I can tell. Evidence that suggests that things could have happened in a way consistent with the Bible however is a valid scientific theory, in so far as it is talking strictly about the factual observations that support that direction. The cause or reasoning or creator are not part of the theory, only the understanding of the mechanisms.
I'm also not saying that it isn't an exceedingly fine line between willing the facts to say what you want and going where the facts take you, but that's always a fine line in science. I'm also not saying that large portions of "Christian Science" don't often cross over that line, to its own detriment. I personally agree with the thought process that Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory, however it does have a place in a philosophy class. I also think it is worth highlighting in the presentation of evolution (and scientific study in general) that science specifically doesn't make claims about what it can't measure and possibly just in passing using the fact there are some who view evolution as likely being a random process and there are others that view it as being guided, but explaining that since that isn't testable, science can't really speak to either direction. It is mostly valuable as a lesson on what science can and can't do and helps really clarify what science is.
I'm not talking about scientifically proving the existence of God. I'm talking about producing theories which explain the facts we can observe in a way that is consistent with and helps refine interpretation of the Bible. I will further agree that it is not science to simply say that you think something happened without facts to back it up. What I am saying is that using a religious background as your basis for how you look at the facts and what you think is the most logical explanation of those facts (as long as the facts speak to it and you aren't forcing them to fit) then it is not bad science.
I agree on the final part, though I would challenge that that isn't what good religious "science" does. Everyone has preconcieved notions that impact what they see as a likely theory. For an atheist, they are not likely going to consider God as an element of their theory unless the evidence really demands it. How is that any different from a religious individual who doesn't take God out of their theories unless the evidence really demands it. The key is that you still have to go where the evidence leads, even if it isn't convenient to your theory. It doesn't stop being science because you look for theories that include actions by God, it stops being science because you choose to ignore evidence that runs counter to your theory.
Everyone comes from some world view that impacts what they think is most probable. Having a world view that states you think God did it doesn't make it bad science as long as you still focus on going where the evidence leads. If the evidence suggests that an interpretation is wrong, it's time to figure out what other interpretation can make sense of the observations. I don't personally buy the "God made it appear that way" as an excuse since it seems contrary to what the Bible says about the nature of God and revealing himself through creation and I think that is a cop out, but I also haven't seen any observations yet that run inconsistent with carefully selected interpretations of the Biblical account of creation. (That said, I also believe that evolution was almost certainly the mechanism by which life was developed by God, probably including humans. And I say that while still taking a fairly literal view of Genesis.)
I'm not talking depth perception or focus, I'm talking visual acuity. Focal problems for people occur at different depths, which is why the eye chart has to be at different lengths (to detect near and far sighted issues). Properly functioning eyes will have nearly the same, if not exactly the same, visual acuity in angular resolution at any distance. We can certainly tell how large the thing we are looking at is, but we will see the same amount of information. It may not "feel as big" but there isn't any difference in what details you see.
Ah yes, on that we agree. There is a slight perceptual difference though which is a better experience (at least big screen tv vs imax) Is subjective. My point was just that visually you aren't missing anything.
I don't think there is a significant impact of angular visual acuity based on how far away something is. If someone has nearsighted or farsighted problems, they may have reduced acuity due to lack of ability to focus at a particular distance, but for someone with normal vision, it shouldn't make a difference from anything I've heard before or could find just now when I was looking.
I'm not talking math, I'm talking the science of how vision works and if you do some basic research you will find that I am speaking the truth. It isn't a theory, it is scientifically provable fact. People prefer many things that aren't actually better. That's the job of marketing. Read up on optical acuity and then get back to me.
No laptop screen is imax resolution, but yes, if you had sufficiently high resolution it wouldn't matter. All that matters in vision is the angle of view. If you had an actual 3d display distance would matter a little, but not on a flat display. You will perceive a difference in scale but you won't see anything you would have missed on the small display.
Most of the time the drives are encrypted, however if the drive is lost, it still has to be reported under the assumption that it was compromised.
Going to a 3D movie in my area, at a decent theater with a decent sound syatem, costs around $15 to $18 a person, even before you count any food or beverages.
I am an Audio/Video professional, so I mixed select professional components that I could properly adjust with some really good value consumer components that would give a lot of bang for their buck. I realize not everyone could do it as cheaply as I, but when you figure a family of 4 with popcorn and soda would cost around $100 to $110 per movie and a typical bluray movie only costs $30 to $35. If you do a rental from Redbox, it's only $1.50 and saves you about $100 a pop. That adds up in a big hurry.
Note, I'm not saying that there aren't reasons that people want to go to theaters and I fully expect them to be around for a while yet to come, but they don't offer nearly what they once did and the outrageous prices don't help any. If I could go to a theater for $5 a person and get popcorn and a soda for $3 I would go again. I still love an occasional stop at the drive thru as well. The value proposition for theaters just isn't what it once was and the prices has gone up while giving less value rather than the other way around.
I do have 240hz active shutter. The flickering really isn't noticeable and there is less ghosting and less distortion than at the theater. For the theaters that have gotten around to rolling out 4k, you are correct that there is more detail at the theater, but a lot of theaters are still running 2k projectors last I bothered to go to one.
Hmm, on the flip side, if I bring a date over to watch a movie, the wife is much more likely to notice in the living room.
If you are closer to the screen, it doesn't have to be 50ft across. Angle of view and overall resolution/contrast ratio are what matter.
Or you can build a home theater that will give you a better experience and a be cheaper in the long run and avoid the mess. I can buy 3d movies to watch at home for less than going to the theater and it looks and sounds better than the theater.
I think you mean toe the line.
Nah, most likely Garmin has a patent on searching for what is nearby and threatened to sue.
As a former gun owner and supporter of gun rights, I hope the retired officer gets the death penalty for this. Yes, things can set people off, but it's the responsibility of anyone with the ability to kill someone to control that. If you can't do that, you should not develop the ability to kill, whether through physical training such as martial arts or through items like knives or guns.
The penalty needs to correspond to the responsibility that the individual accepted. As a gun owner, his responsibility to keep his cool should be higher, even more so as a retired cop.
Let me alter my original statement a bit. You can't force a kid while only having control of them 6 hours a day and not being allowed to do anything to actually make them do anything without the parent getting mad and/or trying to sue you. What do you do if they simply refuse to study no matter how much you encourage them or try to make it interesting. Many kids come from a culture where school is authority and authority is bad and they simply have no interest in learning. You could take away anything else for them to do, offer a reward for doing their work and still they would rather sit there and do nothing than actually study. When you only have control of the kids for 6 hours a day (and really each teacher only has control of the kids for an hour or so or less) then there is nothing you can do to make them study or learn within the way the system currently allows.
I know teachers in low income areas and know the realities they deal with. The fact is that many, many students and their parents don't give a crap about education or learning as they don't see it as relevant to their lives. They live in a culture where what you are offering is shunned and what is glorified doesn't require an education. It's a no-win scenario unless you can remove them from that culture entirely. You'll get lucky with the occasional kid that you manage to reach and help out, but a lot have no interest in being reached.
I wish this was true, but sadly, the kids that need help the most are also the kids that would take the most effort to help and honestly can't be helped if they don't want to be. You can't force a kid to learn and if they are allowed to do whatever they want at home, they will just deal with however miserable you can make their life in school for 6 hours a day and then do what they want. It is a sad, but true reality of raising children. The parents have to be involved in making it something the child wants to do or no amount of resources or effort on a teacher's part, no matter how good, is going to make a bit of difference.
Err, strike that, I think I misread the stat sheet. Never mind.
Hmm, lets see, and what was the payload weight of the Mars mission? Oh wait, that would be 33 pounds, not 3000. The Cygnus launch could have carried the entire fueled rocket for the Indian mars mission in to orbit. Sure, it takes more energy to escape Earth's gravity entirely, but you are still comparing apples to oranges when you look at the fact that the entire weight, let alone the fuel needs of the Indian mission were lower than the payload weight of the Cygnus mission. Taken in perspective, Orbital did a MUCH more cost effective job than India.
7) Helmet can interfere with turning to look for vehicles thus making it easier to miss something. More modern helmet designs have helped, but if people are going with the cheapest helmet available, it probably isn't the most usable thing around.