lol, look, a neckbeard who is frightened and confused by a woman with an athletic figure!
There are a bunch of kids in the next tour group, if you'll do that thing you said with the boogers I'll make sure they double your soda at snack time.
If that is the only reason for the show, then that would be true.
I thought the show was to convince purchasing people that their stuff is going to be the Next Big Thing in the rapidly-approaching holiday shopping season. If that was really the reason, then whatever the media said wouldn't even count for anything.
Congratulations! You have an opportunity right now, today, due to this mistake that you made, to learn that words can, and usually do, have more than one meaning!
Please scroll down to the 2nd definition of partisan. And if you're really up for some shockers, try to get all the way to the end of the definitions. Wow, look at all those different uses for a single word! Holy smokes!
"Counting" brings in excess implications, though. They can keep track of a state variable, and react at certain thresholds, for sure. But it is unlikely they're actually quantizing the value into countable units; even if sometimes it seems that way because the inputs are quantized.
Also, does keeping track of a state variable, and reacting at a threshold, count as cognition? Maybe the implication is that less things require cognition than we assumed. This idea is often resisted because people it hurts peoples feelies to think they might be doing most things automatically because they're wired to, instead of because they decided to.
Exactly! The naysayers make so many assumptions, when they hear about any sort of research they think it is impwaaaaahsible because it would violate their assumptions. They don't even stop to consider; maybe the implication is that the assumptions are unfounded?
They think you need a brain to understand when your body is threatened, or to seek out food, or whatever. They should pay some attention to the fucking worms on the sidewalk; they don't even have a brain, only a spinal cord, and yet they respond to threats, navigate out of their den to find food, and even follow their trail home again afterwards. Unless they get stuck in a puddle, I mean, they're not very bright. But they do all sorts of things that humans do; when humans do those things, they presume that they're "thinking" about it, but perhaps not.
You misunderstood the details, but that is solid, well-established research.
When you cut on one plant, it communicates with other plants through its roots, and other plants increase production of poisons intended to reduce browsing.
You morons are so busy hating on hippies, you can't even science anymore.
Hippies have been saying this for 40+ years and have been ridiculed for it the whole time.
It seems like you can't out-ridiculous it because people who were first discovering it would be bullied so bad, you've probably already practiced laughing at these facts.
It is sometimes the exact opposite of that; real bicycles can ride in the street or on the sidewalk, but "kick bikes" are considered skateboards and are only allowed on the sidewalk.
Most states have already passed laws that make a Personal Mobility Device or powered bicycle considered a "bicycle" if it is either incapable of exceeding 15mph, or electronically speed-limited to 15mph. Often there is an allowance for small gas engines, too, below some displacement size.
For example in Oregon you can ride a bike on the sidewalk, but you're supposed to ride at walking speed and you absolutely have to yield to pedestrians; on a residential street, that is no problem. But downtown, even in a small city, there is basically no way to ride legally on the sidewalk, because you'd have to dismount and walk the bike to successfully yield to all the pedestrians.
LOL that's the stupidest shit I've read since your last comment.
Using shit you heard on AM radio about what libraaals think doesn't make you look educated.
Republicans hate government, they certainly hate enforcement of laws in the general case. It is only when they see hippies or brown people that they desire police action; not to enforce the actual laws, but just to go and bully the baddies.
Because they haven't been, they've just been saying that they have been. Really, they just spew whatever words they think they remember, or whatever colloquialism their social group considers a Virtuous response to the situation.
Just find out what they have strong feeling about, where they claim to have some "ideas," and take the exact same situation but with the labels removed, and where the subject and object are reversed compared to their bias, and most people will consistently spew the same pattern of speech that they used when the subject matched the reference scenario that their social group uses.
It is rather uncommon to encounter an adult that actually thinks about anything; more often they merely reminisce and virtual signal. Children are more likely to actually think about something, because they get less value from reminiscing, and they're less likely to know what the Virtuous answer is.
Children only learn faster. Your mistake is in making a false dichotomy between "can... easy" and "can't."
People of any age can learn a new language; if learning a new language was easy when you were a teenager, it will still be easy when you're middle aged. It will just take you longer. OTOH, your life experience will enrich your enjoyment of your new language skills, so it shouldn't actually seem that much harder to you.
Adults who have a really hard time learning a new language probably suck at language generally; they probably have poor grammatical skills in their native language, and struggled in language-related classes in school.
But definitely, if you're educating children in a different language than they'll need to have financial success as an adult, they will have reduced financial success as an adult.
The purpose of the citation is to see what you choose, so we can laugh at you when it says something else.
A person who independently checks will just find out you're full of shit; children do learn languages faster. Much faster.
I don't doubt you read about a study, and that the study says what the study says. The part that is obvious bullshit is your broad phrasing.
The closest you'll get to something that supports your claim is stuff based on brain scans, rather than actual learning, that suggests that the reasons children are better at learning language are not based on the traditional ideas about brain structure. It could still be caused by other differences in the brain, by hormonal differences that don't change the brain scan but do affect learning, or environmental factors.
But your claim is so completely opposite to the results of studies that it stands out as a potential source of humor if we can get you to attempt to cite the study that you thought said what you said.
Given a choice between a negative finding and a positive one, I'm going to lean towards the positive one.
It is more reasonable to find what did find than it is to find what you didn't find, after all.
A lot of people really want the old theory to hold water, but it doesn't. If they wanted to find a new theory, this field would be moving forwards faster.
This study shows it is their own fault they don't learn anything new, it can't just be blamed on age. We only have to wait for the old generation to die for new ideas to take hold because the old people choose to be narrow-minded, not just because they're old.
Slashdot Mirror
lol, look, a neckbeard who is frightened and confused by a woman with an athletic figure!
There are a bunch of kids in the next tour group, if you'll do that thing you said with the boogers I'll make sure they double your soda at snack time.
I'm an American, like Churchill said, I have to try all the wrong answers before I'm going to know what the right thing to do is.
You have to make the mistakes before you know what to be careful about, after all!
Ugga? Ugga wugga ugga?
If it was a 15ft woman eating mice, slashdot would totally freak though.
Unless she was green and covered in grits.
never let them escape the container, not even with a hacksaw.
Wait, what?! People actually want to run OS containers... in a browser? Isn't this taking "clientless" a bit far? Play-With indeed.
Play with your own Docker, people, and you won't get infected.
If that is the only reason for the show, then that would be true.
I thought the show was to convince purchasing people that their stuff is going to be the Next Big Thing in the rapidly-approaching holiday shopping season. If that was really the reason, then whatever the media said wouldn't even count for anything.
If you're going to represent yourself in a criminal case, you might as well go commando; if having big balls isn't enough to save you, you're screwed.
Or he could be that guy Canadian guy who was in the news
Congratulations! You have an opportunity right now, today, due to this mistake that you made, to learn that words can, and usually do, have more than one meaning!
Please scroll down to the 2nd definition of partisan. And if you're really up for some shockers, try to get all the way to the end of the definitions. Wow, look at all those different uses for a single word! Holy smokes!
"Counting" brings in excess implications, though. They can keep track of a state variable, and react at certain thresholds, for sure. But it is unlikely they're actually quantizing the value into countable units; even if sometimes it seems that way because the inputs are quantized.
Also, does keeping track of a state variable, and reacting at a threshold, count as cognition? Maybe the implication is that less things require cognition than we assumed. This idea is often resisted because people it hurts peoples feelies to think they might be doing most things automatically because they're wired to, instead of because they decided to.
Exactly! The naysayers make so many assumptions, when they hear about any sort of research they think it is impwaaaaahsible because it would violate their assumptions. They don't even stop to consider; maybe the implication is that the assumptions are unfounded?
They think you need a brain to understand when your body is threatened, or to seek out food, or whatever. They should pay some attention to the fucking worms on the sidewalk; they don't even have a brain, only a spinal cord, and yet they respond to threats, navigate out of their den to find food, and even follow their trail home again afterwards. Unless they get stuck in a puddle, I mean, they're not very bright. But they do all sorts of things that humans do; when humans do those things, they presume that they're "thinking" about it, but perhaps not.
You misunderstood the details, but that is solid, well-established research.
When you cut on one plant, it communicates with other plants through its roots, and other plants increase production of poisons intended to reduce browsing.
You morons are so busy hating on hippies, you can't even science anymore.
Hippies have been saying this for 40+ years and have been ridiculed for it the whole time.
It seems like you can't out-ridiculous it because people who were first discovering it would be bullied so bad, you've probably already practiced laughing at these facts.
They don't have "winter" there, you have to go dozens of miles north of SF to find that that sort of phenomenon.
It is sometimes the exact opposite of that; real bicycles can ride in the street or on the sidewalk, but "kick bikes" are considered skateboards and are only allowed on the sidewalk.
Most states have already passed laws that make a Personal Mobility Device or powered bicycle considered a "bicycle" if it is either incapable of exceeding 15mph, or electronically speed-limited to 15mph. Often there is an allowance for small gas engines, too, below some displacement size.
Read the laws; those are bicycles!
For example in Oregon you can ride a bike on the sidewalk, but you're supposed to ride at walking speed and you absolutely have to yield to pedestrians; on a residential street, that is no problem. But downtown, even in a small city, there is basically no way to ride legally on the sidewalk, because you'd have to dismount and walk the bike to successfully yield to all the pedestrians.
Californians don't obey traffic signals in general, though.
Also, you were in sprawlville, not in the City, so it wouldn't tell you anything at all about the problems it creates in an urban core.
LOL that's the stupidest shit I've read since your last comment.
Using shit you heard on AM radio about what libraaals think doesn't make you look educated.
Republicans hate government, they certainly hate enforcement of laws in the general case. It is only when they see hippies or brown people that they desire police action; not to enforce the actual laws, but just to go and bully the baddies.
Why are they parking on Californias sidewalks when they're covered in poop?
Because if they're covered in poop, it is probably time to park and go take a shower.
Even Californians know that, and the place is a total shit-show.
Because they haven't been, they've just been saying that they have been. Really, they just spew whatever words they think they remember, or whatever colloquialism their social group considers a Virtuous response to the situation.
Just find out what they have strong feeling about, where they claim to have some "ideas," and take the exact same situation but with the labels removed, and where the subject and object are reversed compared to their bias, and most people will consistently spew the same pattern of speech that they used when the subject matched the reference scenario that their social group uses.
It is rather uncommon to encounter an adult that actually thinks about anything; more often they merely reminisce and virtual signal. Children are more likely to actually think about something, because they get less value from reminiscing, and they're less likely to know what the Virtuous answer is.
Children only learn faster. Your mistake is in making a false dichotomy between "can ... easy" and "can't."
People of any age can learn a new language; if learning a new language was easy when you were a teenager, it will still be easy when you're middle aged. It will just take you longer. OTOH, your life experience will enrich your enjoyment of your new language skills, so it shouldn't actually seem that much harder to you.
Adults who have a really hard time learning a new language probably suck at language generally; they probably have poor grammatical skills in their native language, and struggled in language-related classes in school.
But definitely, if you're educating children in a different language than they'll need to have financial success as an adult, they will have reduced financial success as an adult.
The age difference is in speed, not ability.
The purpose of the citation is to see what you choose, so we can laugh at you when it says something else.
A person who independently checks will just find out you're full of shit; children do learn languages faster. Much faster.
I don't doubt you read about a study, and that the study says what the study says. The part that is obvious bullshit is your broad phrasing.
The closest you'll get to something that supports your claim is stuff based on brain scans, rather than actual learning, that suggests that the reasons children are better at learning language are not based on the traditional ideas about brain structure. It could still be caused by other differences in the brain, by hormonal differences that don't change the brain scan but do affect learning, or environmental factors.
But your claim is so completely opposite to the results of studies that it stands out as a potential source of humor if we can get you to attempt to cite the study that you thought said what you said.
OK, gramps, but that's because you forgot where you put your glasses and can't see how young he still is.
Given a choice between a negative finding and a positive one, I'm going to lean towards the positive one.
It is more reasonable to find what did find than it is to find what you didn't find, after all.
A lot of people really want the old theory to hold water, but it doesn't. If they wanted to find a new theory, this field would be moving forwards faster.
This study shows it is their own fault they don't learn anything new, it can't just be blamed on age. We only have to wait for the old generation to die for new ideas to take hold because the old people choose to be narrow-minded, not just because they're old.