Simple: is it more likely that 2 people are lying about one thing one time, or is it more likely that 5 seperate organizations of people are lying about everything they do all the time?
Neither. Far more likely is that all five organisations are misrepresenting their capabilities and glossing over inevitable inaccuracies in their work.
You'd be proper daft to be taking a rental Corolla on it.
That's exactly what I did. Shitty car but even a Corolla can handle a smooth unsealed surface.
It's gravel or sand but it's not bumpy, it just isn't sealed. I get bigger potholes in the village I live in.
60mph is perfectly safe, anybody doing 30kph isn't safe to drive anywhere.
Also, a lot of rental car agreements in Australia prohibit taking cars far outside metropolitan areas. Certainly most of the cheap ones (stop laughing, I mean cheap for Australia)
Mine was 'insured only in NSW' but I got them to add South Australia too, so that I could get nearer to Adelaide. They knew I was heading inland, they had no problem with it, and it was as cheap as I could find in Sydney.
It didn't take 14 hours. It didn't take anywhere near 14 hours, even though I stopped and got out of the car a few times, stopped to take photographs a few times, encountered a sandstorm;
Google's time calculations in Australia are fucked up.
You enforce it by randomised checking of the shops selling sunscreen in Key West and fining the living fuck out of any breaking the law.
That someone can buy sunscreen in Australia, carry it through nine countries and use it in Key West (as I will tomorrow) doesn't break the law or stop it being effective in reducing harm to the coral.
I also expect them to need 3+ years working professionally plus other requirements before any professional accreditation body worth joining would grant them full membership and a professional engineer title.
someone that is formally trained and tested over a period of 3-12 years at a university
..has no demonstrable experience in applying their education.
Engineering is not an academic discipline. Engineering is always and only ever about actually doing things.
Whether the PE certification has value or not (and its equivalent in the UK - Chartered Engineer - has only limited value and applicability) it's very safe to assume that your academic study does not qualify you for a professional engineering job.
To be fair the new UT development seemed primarily a vehicle for giving the engine developers a testbed and mechanism to better understand the engine capabilities and features.
Epic had pivoted to become an engine company rather than a games one.
Fortnite offers those capabilities and generates substantial revenue in its own right, so UT becomes a distraction that Epic can disregard.
It's a shame, and the original UT remains the greatest online twitch based FPS, but I can understand the commercial factors involved.
You appear to have missed the multitude of accusations aimed at Donald Trump that included the term 'cock holster', let alone the constant barrage of abuse regarding how he's running the country.
Seems to me to be pretty much the same thing.
I do get the difference: When he complains about it people bitch about him complaining instead of giving him support.
Or possibly this is an excellent forum in which to discuss the flaws inherent to the study and the idiocy of the conclusions some may draw from it, so that their subsequent politically motivated actions can be appropriately derided and requests for actual supporting evidence provided.
Evidence such as https://www.independent.co.uk/... which indicates that gender is not a factor in abuse received. Oh sorry, did I just break the narrative?
Even ignoring the number of Android users in jurisdictions in which it's perfectly legal, half the phone calls I have these days include an automated system telling me, "This phone call may be recorded."
"Is that Jim?" "Hi, this is Jim's personal assistant. How can I help?" "I would like to talk to Jim." "What would you like to talk to Jim about?" "He'll never find out now. But do him a favour, clear his calendar after Wednesday." *click*
If you don't think non-fiction writing is creative then you may have been overtaught the five paragraph structure.
I can and do write business documents in a range of styles, adapting and adopting styles appropriate to the audience and how I want them to perceive it. A 'how to' for a technician is different to the same material for someone answering a telephone helpdesk and is in turn different to what an end user will best work with. Options papers, business cases, bids, technical reviews, designs and emails telling department managers that they're incompetent can all be flexed and varied, and a lot of creativity goes into assuring they achieve the desired outcomes.
The key to an executive summary is to write it for that one key person that you need to make a decision or change. Understand what's going to be of interest and relevance to them, and include that, and only that.
What you or others think is important is irrelevant. The detail is irrelevant. In an executive summary the core message you need that one person to hear, conveyed in a form they'll understand and want to act on, is the sole thing that matters.
The rest of the document is there for them to copy when they present your recommendations to the board.
Well, as described there's an immediate and obvious issue with it: "Open, three supporting facts, close" fails miserably to acknowledge or address context, countering facts, perception or the possibility that despite three supporting facts, the position being argued is clearly just fucking wrong.
This explains so much about how badly so many Americans can argue.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple: is it more likely that 2 people are lying about one thing one time, or is it more likely that 5 seperate organizations of people are lying about everything they do all the time?
Neither. Far more likely is that all five organisations are misrepresenting their capabilities and glossing over inevitable inaccuracies in their work.
You'd be proper daft to be taking a rental Corolla on it.
That's exactly what I did. Shitty car but even a Corolla can handle a smooth unsealed surface.
It's gravel or sand but it's not bumpy, it just isn't sealed. I get bigger potholes in the village I live in.
60mph is perfectly safe, anybody doing 30kph isn't safe to drive anywhere.
Also, a lot of rental car agreements in Australia prohibit taking cars far outside metropolitan areas. Certainly most of the cheap ones (stop laughing, I mean cheap for Australia)
Mine was 'insured only in NSW' but I got them to add South Australia too, so that I could get nearer to Adelaide. They knew I was heading inland, they had no problem with it, and it was as cheap as I could find in Sydney.
I did this drive last month: https://www.google.com/maps?ll...
It didn't take 14 hours. It didn't take anywhere near 14 hours, even though I stopped and got out of the car a few times, stopped to take photographs a few times, encountered a sandstorm;
Google's time calculations in Australia are fucked up.
You enforce it by randomised checking of the shops selling sunscreen in Key West and fining the living fuck out of any breaking the law.
That someone can buy sunscreen in Australia, carry it through nine countries and use it in Key West (as I will tomorrow) doesn't break the law or stop it being effective in reducing harm to the coral.
Genocide doesn't assure any survivors gain independence.
Shit, genocide doesn't assure any survivors.
Good, I'd very much expect that.
I also expect them to need 3+ years working professionally plus other requirements before any professional accreditation body worth joining would grant them full membership and a professional engineer title.
Nah, it's a doddle. Just don't ask about stopping it in time or not tipping over in the corners.
Probably called them the proper name: Train driver.
someone that is formally trained and tested over a period of 3-12 years at a university
..has no demonstrable experience in applying their education.
Engineering is not an academic discipline. Engineering is always and only ever about actually doing things.
Whether the PE certification has value or not (and its equivalent in the UK - Chartered Engineer - has only limited value and applicability) it's very safe to assume that your academic study does not qualify you for a professional engineering job.
Growing up in the 70s and 80s has permanently put me off watching videos of "plumbers".
Do the ones on Youtube also have unfeasibly bad moustaches?
On what grounds are they seeking to discourage me?
I know I'm not the prettiest person to walk into a shop but most businesses welcome my custom.
Then why is the Turkish government so fucked off about someone creating a map delineating the geographic boundaries of the areas in which Kurds live?
Sounds to me like the Turks want to commit another genocide. Hopefully the Kurds can avoid the same outcome the Armenians suffered.
Hmm. Are you claiming Spacechem, Opus Magnum adn Hacknet are difficult?
(I haven't played Age of Decadence.)
They're fun, they're interesting and they offer the opportunity to optimise the hell out of their solutions, but they're not exactly difficult.
You'll be telling me completing Hexcells with no mistakes is tricky next.
Difficult games do exist, I just disagree that the ones you've listed qualify.
Hmm. Fortnite was not a successful product. It was struggling to attract and to retain users in its original guise.
It was only when they copied the Battle Royale mechanics that Plunkbat made so popular that Fortnite really took off and became successful.
I would ask who the fucking loser is here, but I think the terrible grammar of your second sentence helps answer that one.
To be fair the new UT development seemed primarily a vehicle for giving the engine developers a testbed and mechanism to better understand the engine capabilities and features.
Epic had pivoted to become an engine company rather than a games one.
Fortnite offers those capabilities and generates substantial revenue in its own right, so UT becomes a distraction that Epic can disregard.
It's a shame, and the original UT remains the greatest online twitch based FPS, but I can understand the commercial factors involved.
You appear to have missed the multitude of accusations aimed at Donald Trump that included the term 'cock holster', let alone the constant barrage of abuse regarding how he's running the country.
Seems to me to be pretty much the same thing.
I do get the difference: When he complains about it people bitch about him complaining instead of giving him support.
Or possibly this is an excellent forum in which to discuss the flaws inherent to the study and the idiocy of the conclusions some may draw from it, so that their subsequent politically motivated actions can be appropriately derided and requests for actual supporting evidence provided.
Evidence such as https://www.independent.co.uk/... which indicates that gender is not a factor in abuse received. Oh sorry, did I just break the narrative?
Even ignoring the number of Android users in jurisdictions in which it's perfectly legal, half the phone calls I have these days include an automated system telling me, "This phone call may be recorded."
So I have their consent anyway.
Yeah.
"Is that Jim?"
"Hi, this is Jim's personal assistant. How can I help?"
"I would like to talk to Jim."
"What would you like to talk to Jim about?"
"He'll never find out now. But do him a favour, clear his calendar after Wednesday."
*click*
would you prefer that farmers moved to the city and brought their animals with them?
That would be excellent!
The author must be a fuckwit that doesn't understand how intolerable shitty themed songs are when heard constantly for several weeks.
Nothing like throwing christmas songs into a film to get me to stop watching.
Not only can, but now in Germany must do so if someone complains.
This can't possibly go wrong.
If you don't think non-fiction writing is creative then you may have been overtaught the five paragraph structure.
I can and do write business documents in a range of styles, adapting and adopting styles appropriate to the audience and how I want them to perceive it. A 'how to' for a technician is different to the same material for someone answering a telephone helpdesk and is in turn different to what an end user will best work with. Options papers, business cases, bids, technical reviews, designs and emails telling department managers that they're incompetent can all be flexed and varied, and a lot of creativity goes into assuring they achieve the desired outcomes.
The key to an executive summary is to write it for that one key person that you need to make a decision or change. Understand what's going to be of interest and relevance to them, and include that, and only that.
What you or others think is important is irrelevant. The detail is irrelevant. In an executive summary the core message you need that one person to hear, conveyed in a form they'll understand and want to act on, is the sole thing that matters.
The rest of the document is there for them to copy when they present your recommendations to the board.
There is nothing really wrong for it.
Well, as described there's an immediate and obvious issue with it: "Open, three supporting facts, close" fails miserably to acknowledge or address context, countering facts, perception or the possibility that despite three supporting facts, the position being argued is clearly just fucking wrong.
This explains so much about how badly so many Americans can argue.