Many students choose to live off-campus instead of in dorms, because dorms have too many rules, like not using drugs, and not having loud parties all night, and you can't just get drunk and say anything to anybody like you can if you live on your own.
And partying uses up money fast. They run out of money for food, because at home they had Mom to do it, but they hate rules, so here they are. Every month. For the whole 4^H5 years.
There are other situations, but this is the most common. The general belief is that it is good for them, because they have to learn responsibility. Or alternatively, that all the blame rests with their parents for not raising them to be better people, so who cares?
What crack does the 17 cent pack of ramen fall through? Some of what you said was coherent opinions, most of it was whataboutism, but the part about ramen just makes no sense.
Even Adam Smith, in Wealth of Nations, included an section explaining in detail why higher education doesn't have competition of the sort that can create a free market, and that as a result it is non-Capitalist and benefits from being supported by the State to support industry broadly.
But you're a right winger, so you probably can't comprehend Capitalism.
No, you're just being silly there. I said you need to know how much is needed for the steady state, and what the loss rate is, in order to calculate how much you would need.
Stop there. Don't add in a bunch of whatabout.
You have to know how much you would need first, before you can worry about where you would get it. And unless it is your first time reading people talk about the subject, you already know it isn't going to be exported from factories on Earth, so you'll never even need to go there. But regardless, you don't go there as part of figuring out how much would be needed. You don't even need Earth to exist for that calculation.
Watching movies not only doesn't require high-end hardware, it doesn't even require hardware built within the past 10 years.
Reading comprehension: the gaming industry is bigger than the entire film industry--theater, DVD, everything.
Stopped reading right there. That's just daft.
First of all, it isn't even close to true.
Second of all, you don't seem to comprehend what I said. If you needed a high end computer to play video games, that industry wouldn't even be the size of one large local television market. When they talk about video games being big money, most of that money is from things similar to Angry Birds. Don't be such a tool.
It doesn't give an accurate sense of scale, it shows a lack of understanding of both scale, and context.
It shows a complete lack of comprehension about the nature of computers, and the nature of biology.
Everybody knows the old model of memory was wrong, that doesn't imply that your personal understanding is better. These are known unknowns. Things you do not understand; or anybody else. But, you're going to explain them by simplifying them down to fucking video games?!
So, in other words, it was a totally useless idea, for reasons you already knew. Thanks for clearing that up, I'm soooo glad I just asked instead of trying to figure it out.
This class of idiocy should warn you that you're at the Dunning-Kruger peak.
It is unknown because it is unknown, it isn't unknown because it is like video games and so everybody else doesn't know, but you're going to explain it to us.
You remind of the assholes who insist that it is improper to describe chimpanzees as looking at something, instead you can only accept the data if they're described as "orienting their faces towards" the thing.
It is just fake pedanticism that invokes complaints without substance.
But also, the part of your brain that can imagine what something is like? It isn't actually experiencing whatever you're imagining.
So you don't need them to be "real memories" to result in real perceptions about the past. They won't be literally true, they're just how your brain makes sense of and simulates the information that your ancestor experienced prolonged uncertainty and famine. But that's actually a lot to go on when the brain is assembling a simulation!
Interestingly, the "real memories" aren't really that real either, and are re-simulated each time they're remembered. People focus excessively on the possibility of data loss in that process, instead of using it to understand more about how memory works.
Most people who live in cities can't afford enough space to have a dog, much less two dogs. Get over yourself, you have no idea what actual housing concerns of people who are underpaid might be.
No, 5-7 days, same as regular packages from other sources.
They had been doing a thing where if you chose "free shipping" they would delay handing it over to the local post office for 5 days, but I think eventually they hired a logistics person to explain to the marketing droids that warehousing is expensive. Now they just hand it over when it arrives locally, and it gets delivered promptly.
If they wait to ship, they also have to wait to charge your CC, and they have to let you cancel the order during that time. If they know you're sitting on it intentionally, they'll be open to ordering it somewhere else and canceling. You absolutely have to ship as soon as you can to prevent excess refunds.
Last year it was so bad, parts were arriving faster when shipped ChinaPost from Shenzen than when sent from an Amazon warehouse in the US. But they seem to have stopped delaying shipments.
People who include the price in their review often don't realize that they were gamed into giving a free fake review, and that the price their review is displayed under is much, much higher.
Don't review the price, other customers can already sort the listings by price.
It isn't enough to know that 3 star reviews are popular.
3 star reviews are popular with people who value information about the product more highly. What you'll actually find is that tricking these customers into buying your product will spike your 1 star reviews.
You'll also find that the sales to average people, who prefer higher ratings, will drop.
Also if you look into it closely enough, you'll find out that it is often the 3-star reviews on competing products that will drive the sales of the other product. The 3 star review of a cheap option might be the most useful to me, as a 3-star fan, but that might mean it sometimes convinces me to buy the more expensive option, or the less expensive option. It helps us to avoid your tricks, because applying the tricks in that way would hurt your sales.
Stay focused on tricking the average consumer, don't get lost in the weeds trying to trick the careful person doing an in-depth evaluation of the options. It will blow up in your face.
I find that often the best product is the one with the largest number of 3 and 4 star reviews.
Personally, I care a lot more what the person who gave a 3 star review said than a person who gave it 1 or 5.
The totals don't have meaning or value. Reviews from people with relevant use cases, who compare the product to alternatives, are what are useful. Often what sells me on a product is the 3 star review from a person who actually wants to be at a different price point than the product, or needs some specific features that usually cost more. Those are the reviews that actually provide useful information.
A good review has a harder time even convincing me that it is providing information! Same as a horrible review.
Mars has enough gravity to hold on to some atmosphere. Without a magnetophere, much of it gets stripped away by the solar wind. It's absence also leads to really high radiation exposure.
How about, a giant umbrella to block the solar wind, and then some big mirrors hanging off the edge to direct visible light towards the middle?
Blocking solar wind with a giant elecromagnet is not exactly efficient. If you're stuck with round blobs of random crap, sure, that's the only game in town, but if you're engineering something it seems a silly place to start.
"continually" doesn't tell us the rate, or establish that there would be a problem. Every single space suit ever used in space, continually leaks.
You need to know how much atmosphere needs to be added to get to the desired state, and then calculate the rate of loss and how much needs to be added in order to prevent it being stripped away after [some amount of time you would calculate].
Until you have that, it is just hand-waving about the Universe not being perfect. Also, you could have started with the word "impossible," realized, "oh, only idiots believe in that," and stopped talking because anybody with even a small portion of clue would know that it isn't impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
Many students choose to live off-campus instead of in dorms, because dorms have too many rules, like not using drugs, and not having loud parties all night, and you can't just get drunk and say anything to anybody like you can if you live on your own.
And partying uses up money fast. They run out of money for food, because at home they had Mom to do it, but they hate rules, so here they are. Every month. For the whole 4^H5 years.
There are other situations, but this is the most common. The general belief is that it is good for them, because they have to learn responsibility. Or alternatively, that all the blame rests with their parents for not raising them to be better people, so who cares?
What crack does the 17 cent pack of ramen fall through? Some of what you said was coherent opinions, most of it was whataboutism, but the part about ramen just makes no sense.
Even Adam Smith, in Wealth of Nations, included an section explaining in detail why higher education doesn't have competition of the sort that can create a free market, and that as a result it is non-Capitalist and benefits from being supported by the State to support industry broadly.
But you're a right winger, so you probably can't comprehend Capitalism.
No, you're just being silly there. I said you need to know how much is needed for the steady state, and what the loss rate is, in order to calculate how much you would need.
Stop there. Don't add in a bunch of whatabout.
You have to know how much you would need first, before you can worry about where you would get it. And unless it is your first time reading people talk about the subject, you already know it isn't going to be exported from factories on Earth, so you'll never even need to go there. But regardless, you don't go there as part of figuring out how much would be needed. You don't even need Earth to exist for that calculation.
Uhhh care to explain how I got anything FREE or are you just fucking high?
If those are the choices, why would I think you have any words of interest to others? You already know what you said, so why say it?
You don't seem to comprehend opinions, so why would I expect to find value in knowing yours?
Watching movies not only doesn't require high-end hardware, it doesn't even require hardware built within the past 10 years.
Reading comprehension: the gaming industry is bigger than the entire film industry--theater, DVD, everything.
Stopped reading right there. That's just daft.
First of all, it isn't even close to true.
Second of all, you don't seem to comprehend what I said. If you needed a high end computer to play video games, that industry wouldn't even be the size of one large local television market. When they talk about video games being big money, most of that money is from things similar to Angry Birds. Don't be such a tool.
It doesn't give an accurate sense of scale, it shows a lack of understanding of both scale, and context.
It shows a complete lack of comprehension about the nature of computers, and the nature of biology.
Everybody knows the old model of memory was wrong, that doesn't imply that your personal understanding is better . These are known unknowns. Things you do not understand; or anybody else. But, you're going to explain them by simplifying them down to fucking video games?!
All we learned is that you like farts.
So, in other words, it was a totally useless idea, for reasons you already knew. Thanks for clearing that up. Again.
So, in other words, it was a totally useless idea, for reasons you already knew. Thanks for clearing that up, I'm soooo glad I just asked instead of trying to figure it out.
Think of it in terms of game model assets:
No. Never do this.
This class of idiocy should warn you that you're at the Dunning-Kruger peak.
It is unknown because it is unknown, it isn't unknown because it is like video games and so everybody else doesn't know, but you're going to explain it to us.
You remind of the assholes who insist that it is improper to describe chimpanzees as looking at something, instead you can only accept the data if they're described as "orienting their faces towards" the thing.
It is just fake pedanticism that invokes complaints without substance.
That's just the front page of a television network.
You might have intended instead to read the news section, click on "news" and that will change about half the words on the page.
What "job" is that? Because just from what you said, you'd be reducing the signal quality even more.
Normally, the job of a word is to mean the same thing that it meant yesterday.
But also, the part of your brain that can imagine what something is like? It isn't actually experiencing whatever you're imagining.
So you don't need them to be "real memories" to result in real perceptions about the past. They won't be literally true, they're just how your brain makes sense of and simulates the information that your ancestor experienced prolonged uncertainty and famine. But that's actually a lot to go on when the brain is assembling a simulation!
Interestingly, the "real memories" aren't really that real either, and are re-simulated each time they're remembered. People focus excessively on the possibility of data loss in that process, instead of using it to understand more about how memory works.
Most people who live in cities can't afford enough space to have a dog, much less two dogs. Get over yourself, you have no idea what actual housing concerns of people who are underpaid might be.
No, 5-7 days, same as regular packages from other sources.
They had been doing a thing where if you chose "free shipping" they would delay handing it over to the local post office for 5 days, but I think eventually they hired a logistics person to explain to the marketing droids that warehousing is expensive. Now they just hand it over when it arrives locally, and it gets delivered promptly.
If they wait to ship, they also have to wait to charge your CC, and they have to let you cancel the order during that time. If they know you're sitting on it intentionally, they'll be open to ordering it somewhere else and canceling. You absolutely have to ship as soon as you can to prevent excess refunds.
Last year it was so bad, parts were arriving faster when shipped ChinaPost from Shenzen than when sent from an Amazon warehouse in the US. But they seem to have stopped delaying shipments.
Instead, you just need to weigh up the comments intelligently.
On a large purchase, I might read 200 reviews, and make my decision based on 1 or 2 that provided the best information for my use case.
People who include the price in their review often don't realize that they were gamed into giving a free fake review, and that the price their review is displayed under is much, much higher.
Don't review the price, other customers can already sort the listings by price.
It isn't enough to know that 3 star reviews are popular.
3 star reviews are popular with people who value information about the product more highly. What you'll actually find is that tricking these customers into buying your product will spike your 1 star reviews.
You'll also find that the sales to average people, who prefer higher ratings, will drop.
Also if you look into it closely enough, you'll find out that it is often the 3-star reviews on competing products that will drive the sales of the other product. The 3 star review of a cheap option might be the most useful to me, as a 3-star fan, but that might mean it sometimes convinces me to buy the more expensive option, or the less expensive option. It helps us to avoid your tricks, because applying the tricks in that way would hurt your sales.
Stay focused on tricking the average consumer, don't get lost in the weeds trying to trick the careful person doing an in-depth evaluation of the options. It will blow up in your face.
I find that often the best product is the one with the largest number of 3 and 4 star reviews.
Personally, I care a lot more what the person who gave a 3 star review said than a person who gave it 1 or 5.
The totals don't have meaning or value. Reviews from people with relevant use cases, who compare the product to alternatives, are what are useful. Often what sells me on a product is the 3 star review from a person who actually wants to be at a different price point than the product, or needs some specific features that usually cost more. Those are the reviews that actually provide useful information.
A good review has a harder time even convincing me that it is providing information! Same as a horrible review.
Are you absolutely 100% sure that hydrochloric acid rain is dry?
Do we know that water is wet circularly because "wet" means "contains water," or do we mean instead that water is a fluid?
(aside from its annoying density in large quantities)
In what way does the density change in large quantities? Are you suggesting it would result in spontaneous nuclear fission, or fusion, or something?
None of your examples even involve science. Kinda puts the kibosh on your idea, doesn't it?
Mars has enough gravity to hold on to some atmosphere. Without a magnetophere, much of it gets stripped away by the solar wind. It's absence also leads to really high radiation exposure.
How about, a giant umbrella to block the solar wind, and then some big mirrors hanging off the edge to direct visible light towards the middle?
Blocking solar wind with a giant elecromagnet is not exactly efficient. If you're stuck with round blobs of random crap, sure, that's the only game in town, but if you're engineering something it seems a silly place to start.
"continually" doesn't tell us the rate, or establish that there would be a problem. Every single space suit ever used in space, continually leaks.
You need to know how much atmosphere needs to be added to get to the desired state, and then calculate the rate of loss and how much needs to be added in order to prevent it being stripped away after [some amount of time you would calculate].
Until you have that, it is just hand-waving about the Universe not being perfect. Also, you could have started with the word "impossible," realized, "oh, only idiots believe in that," and stopped talking because anybody with even a small portion of clue would know that it isn't impossible.