I'm well aware of what healthcare costs and for an individual policy, you're looking at closer to $300 a month, you can get cheaper policies, but they tend to have a high deductible and be relatively pointless unless you have a very serious condition pop up out of nowhere.
Spoken like somebody who never went to college and is bitter because of it.
The theory is why people go to college rather than to a vocational school. And those "BS required classes Jobs dropped out of" are breadth requirements so that you don't wind up incapable of learning a new field later on. What's more, they help give students some perspective on what they're doing. If anything there aren't enough of them required.
The real problem is that we have people being encouraged to go to college that don't need or want that kind of education. If you go to a good school, the standards are still there, it's just that we have more crap schools now than we used to have, and believe me, there's a reason why not all degrees give equal weight.
If GOT is the only thing on HBO that you want to watch, then $3.99 an episode is probably a bargain, but the more items you want to watch the less of a deal that becomes. It looks like the minimal HBO package is $18 a month right now, so you'd save a bit.
Of course that's on top of a cable or satellite subscription, and if you're just wanting GOT, then you save a ton of money by just buying the downloads.
It's been a decade and there's no sign of progress on the issue. And the people pushing the technology thought we'd be there by now. Those things you list are far, far more difficult and there isn't already a technology that does any of those things.
Foveon was never superior, if they had been able to make it work properly it would have taken over, but it's always had issues with noise and resolution that the CMOS and CCD sensors don't. It's a shame because I wanted it to win, but realistically it's been like a decade and they still haven't managed to get it right, they probably won't at this rate.
The only difference here is that rather than using lenses to focus the light onto individual photosites, they're splitting the light to hit those same photosites. So, at least in theory, you're getting more of the photons as the ones that were being blocked by the filters aren't being wasted.
The problem with that is space, you'd have to either substitute the greens for the extra colors or you'd have to have an additional photosite in the mix. I suppose you could stack it, but that has it's own issues with regards to resolution.
Gamut on Cameras is perfectly fine, at least until we get better methods of display and these are photos for people, not birds.
Sure you can make individual predictions, if you can't make the predictions, then you can't claim that it's the case. This attitude is why medical science is such garbage, you cannot use retrospective studies in this fashion.
I could claim that eating beats makes one super fast because of a few top athletes eating beats, but without carrying out a forward looking study, there's no way that I would know that it was the beats that was doing it, or something else.
Same goes here, people who drink, aren't just drinking, they're doing all sorts of other things, until they have research to back the fact that it's the drinking that's the causation of this, then they shouldn't be saying that it's the drinking. It could easily be any number of other lifestyle choices that go along with the drinking that causes it. What's more, even if it is drinking, you don't know that it's the alcohol itself that's doing creating the effect, alcoholic beverages tend to have other things in them, most folks are not using pure distilled spirits as their source of alcohol. They're typically talking about beer and wine for most consumption.
As for evidence of harm, alcohol is poison. You can pussy foot around it all you like, but the fact of the matter is that once it's in your system your body does what it needs to do to get it out of your system as quickly as possible, because it is poison. The real question is at what point does that become important.
And BTW, considering how many alcohol related fatalities and general misery that goes on in the world, I think a bit of caution is called for, rather than handwaving away the concerns about it's safety. And certainly doctors shouldn't be encouraging drinking by releasing half baked retrospective studies of minimal reliability.
The problem is that most investment these days is done on a short term basis, people rarely hold their shares long enough for more than the next quarter to matter. I personally hold for much longer, and I refuse to buy into a company where the people running it need to be replaced. If I lose faith in them, then I sell my shares.
I suspect that's a lot of what's going on, if you don't have faith in the board of directors, chances are you sell your shares. And as such, it would be expected that in the overwhelming majority of cases the board would get to keep it's job.
For people who aren't in it for the long term, I'm sure they're even less likely to care much less vote the bums out.
The research for this kind of stuff is pretty weak and inconclusive. What's more, the results regularly go back and forth and are generally done in a post hoc fashion after the data is collected. Now, when they take that data and start making reproducible predictions about who will and won't get sick, then I'll take it seriously. Until then it's just pseudoscience at best.
Alcohol is a poison, there is no quantity which isn't poisonous, however in sufficiently low concentrations it's not likely to do much harm to the body. Nobody should be recommending that people take up drinking for health benefits as the evidence is shaky at best.
This isn't the same as when people suggest that it's a bad idea to kill all the bacteria around them, there's a reason to be nice to the bacteria, they often times do helpful things for us, and it's mostly just certain strains that cause problems and cases where the immune system is weak that harsher measures are needed.
The BPD was the only one to flip out over it, and when it turned out to be nothing, the prosecuted over it.
There was no explosive charge, nor was there anything about the displays that would have permitted there to be any explosive charge of note there.
I remember years back when a local installation artist parked a huge truck with "da bomb" painted on it, amongst other things, the local police department did shut things down pretty good, but you're talking about a car, which could easily contain hundreds of pounds of explosives, versus a display that couldn't even contain a half pound of explosive in it.
Other cities didn't have any trouble recognizing the lack of threat there.
Depends where you live, the cops around here went from dressing like bobbies to dressing in a more contemporary style, the type you'd see all over the place in the '80s, and they haven't really felt the need to update the uniform much since then.
I think being a receptionist tends to be one of those hurry up and wait jobs, where they need somebody there in case something happens. In which case, it's far better to just let them screw around on something like that, which isn't likely to result in a lawsuit than staring into thin air. I've worked at places like that which don't permit anything but work, and it drives you nuts, slowly but surely, until you're contemplating if anybody would miss you if you just left the room for a few hours.
You get 2 weeks? The only time I've ever had that much time off, nominally, has been when I've been teaching, and even then it's not real time off because I have to prepare lessons and keep up on the literature. Tons of jobs out there give you less than a week, assuming you get any at all.
That's an improvement over the current system for services where they regularly change the ToS and EULAs and don't leave you with a viable opt out that doesn't include having to deal with the massive PITA that is moving your data, assuming you're even permitted to download it.
I'm sure that MS thought the same thing about the Kin when they tried that. Didn't work out so well, I'd be surprised if a FB themed item did very well.
For mail and bookmarks that makes little sense. It would take me more time to make those decisions than it's really worth. Emails and bookmarks take up such a small amount of space that it's not really worthwhile to worry about.
Now, general filesystem files, that's a different matter, I used to have a system where I only backed up things I cared about, and let filesystem crashes wipe out the rest of the data. Seemed to work out just fine.
The main problem that I personally have is where I get emails from people that reference images and such from other servers. Most of the time it's commercial messages that I delete, but sometimes there's a newsletter that I want to save, and the images themselves turn out to be relatively important. Kind of annoys me to have to print them to PDF so that the formating gets preserved.
That's the thing, the actual paper itself is the cheapest part of the whole process. It's sort of like restaurants where the food itself is the cheapest part of the experience, but it's why people go to restaurants.
I personally find the process of charging for access to papers to be counter the spirit of research, now if one is using ones own funds or is otherwise privately funded, it is ones right to do so, but it's damaging to the community as a whole to have such papers held behind pay walls. It can be rather expensive to get them for the purposes of writing a paper, and one doesn't always know if they're going to be of any value until one has read the whole thing.
But, then again, I find the idea of owning ideas to be rather distasteful, researches can, and should, claim credit for the actual research, but people owning ideas is a rather silly idea, seeing as there are very, very few ideas that are original to the person that gets credited with them and often times nobody really knows the origin of those ideas anyways.
No, I'm not. You seem to be under the impression that these ideas had proof prior to the experiments being done. Minds like Randi's are problematic because they sprout from the diea that there's nothing to it, rather than from the possibility that there's something to it. You can't do good science starting with the belief that there's nothing to it. You have to start from the point of view of, well, if this is real, what would it be like, and how can I test to see if that's the case. If you're view is that the only acceptable answer is that it's bunk, you're experiments will be just as flawed as people who take the opposite tack.
BTW, I do have a degree in the Natural Sciences, and there's no way in hell that I would ever assume that things like this were proven before the experiments were done.
What's more, have you been following the bullshit in String Theory lately? They have yet to come up with even one testable hypothesis in over 2 decades of work.
That's my feeling, I admire his aims, but I don't respect the hypocrisy with which he aims to meet them. Ultimately, skepticism without an open mind is lacking in value. One must have an open mind when being skeptical because there's a ton of weird things over the years that have proven to be true, even though they seemed to be completely insane at the time.
The whole idea that cells are made up of even smaller particles would have seemed to be astonishing when it was first postulated, and scientists are still finding smaller particles many decades later.
Or, perhaps those blind spots where the optic nerves prevent vision, I'm sure that seemed very strange when discovered. Or the ability of humans to see polarization in light, even now that seems relatively strange, even though it's true.
Don't get me wrong, charlatans aren't any better, but at least they're not usually hypocritical.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm well aware of what healthcare costs and for an individual policy, you're looking at closer to $300 a month, you can get cheaper policies, but they tend to have a high deductible and be relatively pointless unless you have a very serious condition pop up out of nowhere.
Spoken like somebody who never went to college and is bitter because of it.
The theory is why people go to college rather than to a vocational school. And those "BS required classes Jobs dropped out of" are breadth requirements so that you don't wind up incapable of learning a new field later on. What's more, they help give students some perspective on what they're doing. If anything there aren't enough of them required.
The real problem is that we have people being encouraged to go to college that don't need or want that kind of education. If you go to a good school, the standards are still there, it's just that we have more crap schools now than we used to have, and believe me, there's a reason why not all degrees give equal weight.
If GOT is the only thing on HBO that you want to watch, then $3.99 an episode is probably a bargain, but the more items you want to watch the less of a deal that becomes. It looks like the minimal HBO package is $18 a month right now, so you'd save a bit.
Of course that's on top of a cable or satellite subscription, and if you're just wanting GOT, then you save a ton of money by just buying the downloads.
Point being?
It's been a decade and there's no sign of progress on the issue. And the people pushing the technology thought we'd be there by now. Those things you list are far, far more difficult and there isn't already a technology that does any of those things.
Foveon was never superior, if they had been able to make it work properly it would have taken over, but it's always had issues with noise and resolution that the CMOS and CCD sensors don't. It's a shame because I wanted it to win, but realistically it's been like a decade and they still haven't managed to get it right, they probably won't at this rate.
The only difference here is that rather than using lenses to focus the light onto individual photosites, they're splitting the light to hit those same photosites. So, at least in theory, you're getting more of the photons as the ones that were being blocked by the filters aren't being wasted.
The problem with that is space, you'd have to either substitute the greens for the extra colors or you'd have to have an additional photosite in the mix. I suppose you could stack it, but that has it's own issues with regards to resolution.
Gamut on Cameras is perfectly fine, at least until we get better methods of display and these are photos for people, not birds.
Sure you can make individual predictions, if you can't make the predictions, then you can't claim that it's the case. This attitude is why medical science is such garbage, you cannot use retrospective studies in this fashion.
I could claim that eating beats makes one super fast because of a few top athletes eating beats, but without carrying out a forward looking study, there's no way that I would know that it was the beats that was doing it, or something else.
Same goes here, people who drink, aren't just drinking, they're doing all sorts of other things, until they have research to back the fact that it's the drinking that's the causation of this, then they shouldn't be saying that it's the drinking. It could easily be any number of other lifestyle choices that go along with the drinking that causes it. What's more, even if it is drinking, you don't know that it's the alcohol itself that's doing creating the effect, alcoholic beverages tend to have other things in them, most folks are not using pure distilled spirits as their source of alcohol. They're typically talking about beer and wine for most consumption.
As for evidence of harm, alcohol is poison. You can pussy foot around it all you like, but the fact of the matter is that once it's in your system your body does what it needs to do to get it out of your system as quickly as possible, because it is poison. The real question is at what point does that become important.
And BTW, considering how many alcohol related fatalities and general misery that goes on in the world, I think a bit of caution is called for, rather than handwaving away the concerns about it's safety. And certainly doctors shouldn't be encouraging drinking by releasing half baked retrospective studies of minimal reliability.
As opposed to the uneducated people who were clearly up in arms over the whole thing...
The problem is that most investment these days is done on a short term basis, people rarely hold their shares long enough for more than the next quarter to matter. I personally hold for much longer, and I refuse to buy into a company where the people running it need to be replaced. If I lose faith in them, then I sell my shares.
I suspect that's a lot of what's going on, if you don't have faith in the board of directors, chances are you sell your shares. And as such, it would be expected that in the overwhelming majority of cases the board would get to keep it's job.
For people who aren't in it for the long term, I'm sure they're even less likely to care much less vote the bums out.
The research for this kind of stuff is pretty weak and inconclusive. What's more, the results regularly go back and forth and are generally done in a post hoc fashion after the data is collected. Now, when they take that data and start making reproducible predictions about who will and won't get sick, then I'll take it seriously. Until then it's just pseudoscience at best.
Alcohol is a poison, there is no quantity which isn't poisonous, however in sufficiently low concentrations it's not likely to do much harm to the body. Nobody should be recommending that people take up drinking for health benefits as the evidence is shaky at best.
This isn't the same as when people suggest that it's a bad idea to kill all the bacteria around them, there's a reason to be nice to the bacteria, they often times do helpful things for us, and it's mostly just certain strains that cause problems and cases where the immune system is weak that harsher measures are needed.
Clearly you don't if you're not using the correct word.
No, but it will make your audience deafer, so they won't realize how bad you are.
The BPD was the only one to flip out over it, and when it turned out to be nothing, the prosecuted over it.
There was no explosive charge, nor was there anything about the displays that would have permitted there to be any explosive charge of note there.
I remember years back when a local installation artist parked a huge truck with "da bomb" painted on it, amongst other things, the local police department did shut things down pretty good, but you're talking about a car, which could easily contain hundreds of pounds of explosives, versus a display that couldn't even contain a half pound of explosive in it.
Other cities didn't have any trouble recognizing the lack of threat there.
Depends where you live, the cops around here went from dressing like bobbies to dressing in a more contemporary style, the type you'd see all over the place in the '80s, and they haven't really felt the need to update the uniform much since then.
"Concert"? You're one of those narcs, aren't you?
I think being a receptionist tends to be one of those hurry up and wait jobs, where they need somebody there in case something happens. In which case, it's far better to just let them screw around on something like that, which isn't likely to result in a lawsuit than staring into thin air. I've worked at places like that which don't permit anything but work, and it drives you nuts, slowly but surely, until you're contemplating if anybody would miss you if you just left the room for a few hours.
You get 2 weeks? The only time I've ever had that much time off, nominally, has been when I've been teaching, and even then it's not real time off because I have to prepare lessons and keep up on the literature. Tons of jobs out there give you less than a week, assuming you get any at all.
That's an improvement over the current system for services where they regularly change the ToS and EULAs and don't leave you with a viable opt out that doesn't include having to deal with the massive PITA that is moving your data, assuming you're even permitted to download it.
I'm sure that MS thought the same thing about the Kin when they tried that. Didn't work out so well, I'd be surprised if a FB themed item did very well.
For mail and bookmarks that makes little sense. It would take me more time to make those decisions than it's really worth. Emails and bookmarks take up such a small amount of space that it's not really worthwhile to worry about.
Now, general filesystem files, that's a different matter, I used to have a system where I only backed up things I cared about, and let filesystem crashes wipe out the rest of the data. Seemed to work out just fine.
The main problem that I personally have is where I get emails from people that reference images and such from other servers. Most of the time it's commercial messages that I delete, but sometimes there's a newsletter that I want to save, and the images themselves turn out to be relatively important. Kind of annoys me to have to print them to PDF so that the formating gets preserved.
That's the thing, the actual paper itself is the cheapest part of the whole process. It's sort of like restaurants where the food itself is the cheapest part of the experience, but it's why people go to restaurants.
I personally find the process of charging for access to papers to be counter the spirit of research, now if one is using ones own funds or is otherwise privately funded, it is ones right to do so, but it's damaging to the community as a whole to have such papers held behind pay walls. It can be rather expensive to get them for the purposes of writing a paper, and one doesn't always know if they're going to be of any value until one has read the whole thing.
But, then again, I find the idea of owning ideas to be rather distasteful, researches can, and should, claim credit for the actual research, but people owning ideas is a rather silly idea, seeing as there are very, very few ideas that are original to the person that gets credited with them and often times nobody really knows the origin of those ideas anyways.
No, I'm not. You seem to be under the impression that these ideas had proof prior to the experiments being done. Minds like Randi's are problematic because they sprout from the diea that there's nothing to it, rather than from the possibility that there's something to it. You can't do good science starting with the belief that there's nothing to it. You have to start from the point of view of, well, if this is real, what would it be like, and how can I test to see if that's the case. If you're view is that the only acceptable answer is that it's bunk, you're experiments will be just as flawed as people who take the opposite tack.
BTW, I do have a degree in the Natural Sciences, and there's no way in hell that I would ever assume that things like this were proven before the experiments were done.
What's more, have you been following the bullshit in String Theory lately? They have yet to come up with even one testable hypothesis in over 2 decades of work.
That's my feeling, I admire his aims, but I don't respect the hypocrisy with which he aims to meet them. Ultimately, skepticism without an open mind is lacking in value. One must have an open mind when being skeptical because there's a ton of weird things over the years that have proven to be true, even though they seemed to be completely insane at the time.
The whole idea that cells are made up of even smaller particles would have seemed to be astonishing when it was first postulated, and scientists are still finding smaller particles many decades later.
Or, perhaps those blind spots where the optic nerves prevent vision, I'm sure that seemed very strange when discovered. Or the ability of humans to see polarization in light, even now that seems relatively strange, even though it's true.
Don't get me wrong, charlatans aren't any better, but at least they're not usually hypocritical.