1) Evolution doesn't care whose "fault" it was. 2) The child was likely the offspring either of the person who did it, or of somebody stupid enough to let their child stand near that person 3) The adult already reproduced. Even if they died, the event didn't remove them from the line, since the child already exists.
It goes along using "survival of everything meeting a low minimum standard" for most of the time, and then at very specific times there are "selection events" where everything below some higher standard died.
Having a scar doesn't prevent breeding. Being slightly uglier than before doesn't prevent breeding. Have you ever even been in a trailer park? Have you ever seen a family with 12 kids? If you knew somebody had 12 kids, would you assume they must be really beautiful?
That which doesn't kill anybody, wasn't part of evolution. It was merely part of the drift that happens most of the time, when you're not in a selection event.
I tell my mechanic I want to replace stuff, and he says, "Why don't we just test it first?" Come on man, I feel better when I have some new parts.
In any case, there is no conflict in these people's opinions; they're mostly Republican neckbeards. As is well documented, most of the people who support deregulation have a false belief about what the current rules are. When I talk to people who want to deregulate about what sort of safety rules they would support, they always describe safety rules that are broader and move invasive than the rules we already have. They simply consume media that concludes there is "too much," and they decide they believe it without learning the details.
So there is no surprise at all that these "information wants to be free like Freedom Fries and Uber" crowd gets scared by this; they think that there are already lots of rules preventing people from modifying their drive trains, they have no clue at all about what is already on the road with them. They perceive this as a new threat.
But you won't notice, you're also grousing about "intrusive regulation" so you're probably also just as ignorant about what is actually regulated.
1) A brand of carrier board for AVR microcontrollers and 2) A programming GUI that comes with a C library that makes it easier for newbs to write C for microcontrollers.
There is nothing there that would make any connection with spaghetti code.
You're just smooshing two pejoratives you don't understand together, and tossing them at somebody. For shame.
I have my car way over-insured too. Even full coverage with everything, they don't ask me that question.
As long as I start from a car in their database, I can modify it as much as I like and they don't care. If it was a pure custom car, then it would be more complicated.
I don't doubt that they asked you that, but I've never been asked that, so how "standard" is it?
Walmart demands lower prices every year from suppliers, and it doesn't start when they're your only customer.
You understand half the problem, it is a good first step.
But even 10+ years ago, it was widely known that the same product code from the same manufacturer might actually be a different product at Walmart than other stores, because Walmart demanded lower prices, and smart manufacturers would cut extra corners for them.
Sorry Ivan, but I'm skeptical that you really want us to do better data analysis. If you were so concerned about it, you'd realize that we already have lots of datapoints. A data glut, in fact.
The subject matter is so banal that the idea of "universal condemnation" is absurd.
The only reason something that banal could even be the victim of organized groups is that the organized groups had already turned in to crazy mobs that didn't know why they were hating on things in the first place, so didn't notice that the victim was something so boring and unimportant.
What youtube doesn't get is that the threshold to hate things is really low online, and dislike buttons don't have much positive value.
Google would consistently return more results than altavista, which I believe was the top search engine before them. So filtering doesn't explain it.
At the time, the reason you could get better results from google isn't because google themselves were pre-filtering the index, but because they offered better search operators so that more advanced users could request a narrower set of results. It wasn't until around `06 or so that they started turning those features off, and replacing them with their own filtering. They had already been in the top position for years at that point. That's when the "clever" algorithms came in. Before that it wasn't clever at all, it was very literal and straightforwards.
It was so literal and straighforwards that the top result for a site would often be a smaller "affiliate" site that merely linked to the main site, but knew how to game the algorithm. Ultimately, that is what caused them to invest the time in the clever algorithms, and that's not a problem they even had before they were at the top.
Hotbot advertised that they were indexing everything more often, which was probably true, but that wasn't the limitation. The problem was resource discovery; they were crawling from site to site based on what links to what, without anybody having good data on what was actually available. Backbone network providers were totally separate from service providers, it was viewed in a more serious way. These days, that's not the case; now the big service providers own most of the backbone. So they have access to knowing what is available, not merely what is linked to by known sites. Google was clearly better at service discovery even when they were new. I don't think the reasons for that are even publicly known. But it is probably connected to their later success with filtering; if you're better at service discovery, you'll need filtering sooner.
1) The other search engines were all trying to steer users to category-based searches so that they could promote listings, and it was hard for users to actually search for what they wanted 2) Google had a simple, clean website without a bunch of noise or cruft. 3) Google only had text ads 4) Advertisers didn't trust the old online ad companies, for real reasons, and google offered transparency and analytics. 5) Google invested more in indexing the internet, when others mostly just waved their hands and said it was too hard to index everything. But really they were being passive aggressive and didn't want to index everything, see 1) for the reason.
Reminds me of the time I was wandering around Boston at night, and I guess I was in a black neighborhood, because I went into a store and the guy behind the counter was so surprised to see a white guy at night, he asked if I was OK and if I needed him to call me a cab! lol I asked him why and told him it didn't look like a bad neighborhood, and he agreed it was safe and apologized for being so surprised.
But like, there was 0 chance anybody was going to call the cops on me for standing out.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say parents don't care. Schools don't get any money
This just means you live in a "red state."
If you're from West Derpistan, where the voters refuse to fund their own damn schools because "taxes hurt my freedum bone," then it might be true.
Where I live, politicians and voters worry about the school budget, and schools worry about education.
1) Evolution doesn't care whose "fault" it was.
2) The child was likely the offspring either of the person who did it, or of somebody stupid enough to let their child stand near that person
3) The adult already reproduced. Even if they died, the event didn't remove them from the line, since the child already exists.
That's not how evolution works.
It goes along using "survival of everything meeting a low minimum standard" for most of the time, and then at very specific times there are "selection events" where everything below some higher standard died.
Having a scar doesn't prevent breeding. Being slightly uglier than before doesn't prevent breeding. Have you ever even been in a trailer park? Have you ever seen a family with 12 kids? If you knew somebody had 12 kids, would you assume they must be really beautiful?
That which doesn't kill anybody, wasn't part of evolution. It was merely part of the drift that happens most of the time, when you're not in a selection event.
You were doing great until you misused the word crystal. Come on, this isn't something hard like rocket surgery, or brain science.
I tell my mechanic I want to replace stuff, and he says, "Why don't we just test it first?" Come on man, I feel better when I have some new parts.
In any case, there is no conflict in these people's opinions; they're mostly Republican neckbeards. As is well documented, most of the people who support deregulation have a false belief about what the current rules are. When I talk to people who want to deregulate about what sort of safety rules they would support, they always describe safety rules that are broader and move invasive than the rules we already have. They simply consume media that concludes there is "too much," and they decide they believe it without learning the details.
So there is no surprise at all that these "information wants to be free like Freedom Fries and Uber" crowd gets scared by this; they think that there are already lots of rules preventing people from modifying their drive trains, they have no clue at all about what is already on the road with them. They perceive this as a new threat.
But you won't notice, you're also grousing about "intrusive regulation" so you're probably also just as ignorant about what is actually regulated.
Hey Ivan, Americans don't have a "fatherland."
Countries that use that metaphor are usually countries we're about to have to go to war with.
Just shout that question up the stairs and find out, jeeze.
Arduino is:
1) A brand of carrier board for AVR microcontrollers
and
2) A programming GUI that comes with a C library that makes it easier for newbs to write C for microcontrollers.
There is nothing there that would make any connection with spaghetti code.
You're just smooshing two pejoratives you don't understand together, and tossing them at somebody. For shame.
It was probably just stupid and anti-intellectual, and this is a site for nerds.
Nope, never been asked that.
I have my car way over-insured too. Even full coverage with everything, they don't ask me that question.
As long as I start from a car in their database, I can modify it as much as I like and they don't care. If it was a pure custom car, then it would be more complicated.
I don't doubt that they asked you that, but I've never been asked that, so how "standard" is it?
News flash: "regular chumps" don't "deal with... depreciation liabilities."
They simply buy a car, and years later they sell it for much less.
Most of mine comes goes China Post -> USPS (even stuff from Singapore), but some of it goes China Post -> DHL.
ePacket might only be a service level, it is like saying "first class" instead of USPS.
Walmart demands lower prices every year from suppliers, and it doesn't start when they're your only customer.
You understand half the problem, it is a good first step.
But even 10+ years ago, it was widely known that the same product code from the same manufacturer might actually be a different product at Walmart than other stores, because Walmart demanded lower prices, and smart manufacturers would cut extra corners for them.
The child survived.
There was no selection event.
No evolution happened.
My goodness, educational standards have sure fallen.
lol did your penis shrink when you saw a beautiful woman gain some power in the world? LMFAO
Try losing some weight, maybe you'll feel better once you can look down and see it again.
Sorry Ivan, but I'm skeptical that you really want us to do better data analysis. If you were so concerned about it, you'd realize that we already have lots of datapoints. A data glut, in fact.
When was that, like 15 years ago?
I don't know if you just made it back to the surface, or you used a time machine, but either way: Welcome!
The subject matter is so banal that the idea of "universal condemnation" is absurd.
The only reason something that banal could even be the victim of organized groups is that the organized groups had already turned in to crazy mobs that didn't know why they were hating on things in the first place, so didn't notice that the victim was something so boring and unimportant.
What youtube doesn't get is that the threshold to hate things is really low online, and dislike buttons don't have much positive value.
Google would consistently return more results than altavista, which I believe was the top search engine before them. So filtering doesn't explain it.
At the time, the reason you could get better results from google isn't because google themselves were pre-filtering the index, but because they offered better search operators so that more advanced users could request a narrower set of results. It wasn't until around `06 or so that they started turning those features off, and replacing them with their own filtering. They had already been in the top position for years at that point. That's when the "clever" algorithms came in. Before that it wasn't clever at all, it was very literal and straightforwards.
It was so literal and straighforwards that the top result for a site would often be a smaller "affiliate" site that merely linked to the main site, but knew how to game the algorithm. Ultimately, that is what caused them to invest the time in the clever algorithms, and that's not a problem they even had before they were at the top.
Hotbot advertised that they were indexing everything more often, which was probably true, but that wasn't the limitation. The problem was resource discovery; they were crawling from site to site based on what links to what, without anybody having good data on what was actually available. Backbone network providers were totally separate from service providers, it was viewed in a more serious way. These days, that's not the case; now the big service providers own most of the backbone. So they have access to knowing what is available, not merely what is linked to by known sites. Google was clearly better at service discovery even when they were new. I don't think the reasons for that are even publicly known. But it is probably connected to their later success with filtering; if you're better at service discovery, you'll need filtering sooner.
No, people used google because
1) The other search engines were all trying to steer users to category-based searches so that they could promote listings, and it was hard for users to actually search for what they wanted
2) Google had a simple, clean website without a bunch of noise or cruft.
3) Google only had text ads
4) Advertisers didn't trust the old online ad companies, for real reasons, and google offered transparency and analytics.
5) Google invested more in indexing the internet, when others mostly just waved their hands and said it was too hard to index everything. But really they were being passive aggressive and didn't want to index everything, see 1) for the reason.
Yeah, but being a toxic asshole isn't masculine. In fact, it implies you have a small penis. Which is not manly.
I guess if you don't comprehend what the word "weapon" means, then that would make some sense.
But it would still be fucking stupid.
Bullshit, it is because a racist who disliked me being there wouldn't expect the police to be willing to harass me.
That is 100% of the reason.
Reminds me of the time I was wandering around Boston at night, and I guess I was in a black neighborhood, because I went into a store and the guy behind the counter was so surprised to see a white guy at night, he asked if I was OK and if I needed him to call me a cab! lol I asked him why and told him it didn't look like a bad neighborhood, and he agreed it was safe and apologized for being so surprised.
But like, there was 0 chance anybody was going to call the cops on me for standing out.