Only if they hire an American crew. I doubt there is even a one-thousandth of a percent chance that that would happen in this case. Americans treat rich customers the same way any professional treats their customers. Ship captains are very important professionals. This makes it a cultural impossibility for a high-visibility project like this. You need a ship captain that will kneel and bow and kiss everybody according to local custom. Americans would want a lot of extra pay for that, and it isn't offered. They would only hire an American crew for a routine delivery, not for a cultural project.
Mineral mean mine-able. Literally, things related to mining. When thinking about ice, consider permafrost! Ice isn't even an edge case.
If you're cutting up a crystal you found in nature and taking it home, you're probably mining. In this case it is an open mine. But processing iron ore from wet sludge has been mining for thousands of years, so not really a surprise.
No, I'm claiming knowledge exists, and he hasn't made an attempt to acquire it.
Until you claim to have knowledge, how can you claim to be disputing it?
I don't need to have any subject knowledge to know that a person actively refusing to acquire knowledge does not have that knowledge, and therefore can't dispute the details of it. Go, learn, then argue. Don't argue, and then refuse to go and learn something.
LOL, no, in your construction it sounds like they already know that their objectivity is under dispute! Why was a referee even being talked about? Maybe they should consider instead subjective arguments that support their desired course of action.
Unless the pain is so extreme that it would cause heart failure or something like that, then it is pretty obvious that you can decide to "care less" about the fact that your body is in pain, and that meditation techniques help people who are committed to this endeavor.
You're not going to "replace painkillers," which are a medicine, with philosophy that has to be understood, believed, and adopted, and then followed by disciplined action including refusing the painkillers. Totally different things. Most people taking the painkillers don't want to do the other thing instead, and people who want to do the other thing instead would probably be choosing it regardless of if you decide they have less pain.
Oh, absolutely. It is easy to test, and the subjective results should be pretty obvious.
Even if it "didn't work," it would work a lot better than nothing, because the placebo effect is real, and nothing doesn't provide it. But, it does appear to be a stronger effect than placebo.
However, that does not imply that people should be credulous of the claim that they've found an objective measurement for mindfulness.
According to the internet, the reason that the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory supporters keep repeating this odd and out-of-place claim that their technique is "a reliable clinical measurement of mindfulness" is that there is continued professional skepticism about the reliability and clinical utility of the system.
Compared to the waitlist group, the intervention group showed significantly higher levels of self-reported mindfulness after the intervention. While no other variables changed significantly in the overall population, effects in the individual schools indicate relative benefits with respect to stress and social-emotional competencies. Qualitative results confirm these benefits and reveal awareness processes, distancing, presence as well as acceptance, nonjudgement and self-compassion as central mechanisms of change.
*roflcopter*
But even just in the acknowledgments, there is the claim:
I was exceedingly fortunate to encounter mindfulness at the hands of our extraordinary teachers, [names]; no amount of research could have conveyed to me the wealth of nuances and implications of practice that they embody so effortlessly. For that, and for the true privilege of meeting and working with them, I am especially thankful.
(Emphasis added) Yeah. OK. At least we're on the same page about how your research sits relative to knowledge that can be conveyed through research.:)
You seem really, really confused about the technical details.
It isn't a cache. That's just a buzzword they put in to trick idiots. A cache returns the thing cached, so you don't have to look it up again. A proxy that alters the data for each user is not a cache at all. Even if they write the word "cache" in the name.
If you have non-technical people making those decisions, then you don't have a "webmaster," you have PHB and some code monkeys.
And yes, if you build a site using the best practices from 20 years ago your users will love it! So the question is, is your website something useful, or just some random pap intended as a vehicle to drive ad views? If you don't have real content, then obviously you're not trying to make your users happy, you're trying to exploit them. Sites that have a valid reason for existence often still do have both a technical person making decisions, and also a user-oriented design.
The fastest public and most stable DNS server is 8.8.8.8. Try it. You'll like it.
What a load of shit. You should know when you're typing it out, and you feel the desire to tell me how I feel about it, that you're full of shit. You can just stop there and accept that it sucks and you don't know why you're choosing it.
If your DNS is slow enough that you can measure a difference in speed between two DNS servers without blasting them with excess spam, then you have worse problems with your access than that! You should probably be running your own caching DNS server in that case, which should fully mitigate the problem.
Separately, Chrome does not offer or allow security updates on a separate track than feature updates, so observing the rate of updates and implying that it is more secure just shows you have no clue about security. Chrome sends you propaganda at a higher rate, so you believe it at a higher rate. That's the closest true thing standing around next to your lie!
You even bungled your attempt at sounding balanced, as the Google Cloud offerings are better for a lot of corporate use cases than what Amazon is offering. Amazon is clearly the market leader, but so what? Amazon's billing isn't "overly complicated," it is based on what services you actually use. It breaks down in ways that make a lot of sense to both sysadmins and accountants.
Firefox will be there when ya'all are ready to stand up.
LOLOL
Firefox was there last time, and it was open source, so at least there will be a fork or something. But the idea that the thing that was called "Firefox" back then still exists is pretty funny. The name was clearly transferred, there is no question about that part.
Yeah, I can't even figure out what the "push" is that is intended to be resisted; it seems to me they published some specs, offered some services, and nobody wants to use it. For obvious reasons.
If they want to apply force, I say, "Bring It!" Microsoft tried that, it doesn't end well for them. If they want to go that route, while already having a monopoly, they end up either split into pieces, or siloed into them.
No, the Russians gave you BREXIT, if you want to have those kinds of protections you're going to need to finally figure out what is supposed to be in your Constitution and write it down so that all your rights can't be changed with a random 50%+1 poll.
Look, Dilly Bar, if you're ignorant enough that you need a citation, that means you have no idea if it is a simple 101-level thing or not.
That means it is up to you to collect basic knowledge about the subject first.
And you didn't look it up, and don't have relevant working knowledge, so you have no ability to argue about the merits. When you attempt to look something basic up, and find "nothing," it just means you suck at research.
If you failed at acquiring data, you're not in a position to argue with people.
You're the one claiming ignorance, while at the same time arguing; that is the problem with intellectual honesty your subconscious is screaming about, but you're not listening.
You can't argue from ignorance that the people who do have knowledge are intellectually dishonest. That just doesn't make sense. The best you could do is to argue that we're insufferably snobby assholes who won't explain all the basics to you in detail while you argue about it.
OK but that definition doesn't work in your claim above. You're claiming you're supposed to do it objectively, and then your definition is 100% subjective.
I asked for an obviously impossible thing; but instead of understanding the point, you just charged ahead and jumping into a well-mapped hole.
Looking at that map, it seems instead that some poor states don't have it, and some states with very very low population don't have it. I certainly wouldn't think that Alabama and Arkansas are "very Republican," but that Texas, Idaho, and Mississippi are not.
As Socrates discovered long ago, no man is wise, and knowledge of that ignorance is the only Wisdom that is accessible.
Unfortunately, when Plato decided to prove that to the world by claiming to have a lot of Wisdom, he used Socrates' voice! So even that one lesson is obfuscated. As expected, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that's a big ship! But once you scrape it off the top, the iceberg will pop back up.
Only if they hire an American crew. I doubt there is even a one-thousandth of a percent chance that that would happen in this case. Americans treat rich customers the same way any professional treats their customers. Ship captains are very important professionals. This makes it a cultural impossibility for a high-visibility project like this. You need a ship captain that will kneel and bow and kiss everybody according to local custom. Americans would want a lot of extra pay for that, and it isn't offered. They would only hire an American crew for a routine delivery, not for a cultural project.
Property without a known owner is not somehow excepted from being considered salvageable, actually it just means you get to keep the loot!
So while I'm skeptical that governments would agree that that law applies here, if it did, lack of ownership would only make it easier. Not harder.
You gonna put that shovel down, or take a few more swings?
Mineral mean mine-able. Literally, things related to mining. When thinking about ice, consider permafrost! Ice isn't even an edge case.
If you're cutting up a crystal you found in nature and taking it home, you're probably mining. In this case it is an open mine. But processing iron ore from wet sludge has been mining for thousands of years, so not really a surprise.
No, I'm claiming knowledge exists, and he hasn't made an attempt to acquire it.
Until you claim to have knowledge, how can you claim to be disputing it?
I don't need to have any subject knowledge to know that a person actively refusing to acquire knowledge does not have that knowledge, and therefore can't dispute the details of it. Go, learn, then argue. Don't argue, and then refuse to go and learn something.
LOL, no, in your construction it sounds like they already know that their objectivity is under dispute! Why was a referee even being talked about? Maybe they should consider instead subjective arguments that support their desired course of action.
Unless the pain is so extreme that it would cause heart failure or something like that, then it is pretty obvious that you can decide to "care less" about the fact that your body is in pain, and that meditation techniques help people who are committed to this endeavor.
You're not going to "replace painkillers," which are a medicine, with philosophy that has to be understood, believed, and adopted, and then followed by disciplined action including refusing the painkillers. Totally different things. Most people taking the painkillers don't want to do the other thing instead, and people who want to do the other thing instead would probably be choosing it regardless of if you decide they have less pain.
Oh, absolutely. It is easy to test, and the subjective results should be pretty obvious.
Even if it "didn't work," it would work a lot better than nothing, because the placebo effect is real, and nothing doesn't provide it. But, it does appear to be a stronger effect than placebo.
However, that does not imply that people should be credulous of the claim that they've found an objective measurement for mindfulness.
The books are a lot better, and at under 2500 pages the original series is much shorter than contemporary sci-fi epics, so it's an easy read.
According to the internet, the reason that the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory supporters keep repeating this odd and out-of-place claim that their technique is "a reliable clinical measurement of mindfulness" is that there is continued professional skepticism about the reliability and clinical utility of the system.
The research available is hilariously funny to read. For example: https://freidok.uni-freiburg.d...
Compared to the waitlist group, the intervention group showed significantly higher levels of
self-reported mindfulness after the intervention. While no other variables changed
significantly in the overall population, effects in the individual schools indicate relative
benefits with respect to stress and social-emotional competencies. Qualitative results confirm
these benefits and reveal awareness processes, distancing, presence as well as acceptance,
nonjudgement and self-compassion as central mechanisms of change.
*roflcopter*
But even just in the acknowledgments, there is the claim:
I was exceedingly fortunate to encounter mindfulness at the hands of our extraordinary
teachers, [names]; no amount
of research could have conveyed to me the wealth of nuances and implications of practice that
they embody so effortlessly. For that, and for the true privilege of meeting and working with
them, I am especially thankful.
(Emphasis added) :)
Yeah. OK. At least we're on the same page about how your research sits relative to knowledge that can be conveyed through research.
If they're not in charge, why would you need to "resist?" Just say no, man. Just say no.
You seem really, really confused about the technical details.
It isn't a cache. That's just a buzzword they put in to trick idiots. A cache returns the thing cached, so you don't have to look it up again. A proxy that alters the data for each user is not a cache at all. Even if they write the word "cache" in the name.
If you have non-technical people making those decisions, then you don't have a "webmaster," you have PHB and some code monkeys.
And yes, if you build a site using the best practices from 20 years ago your users will love it! So the question is, is your website something useful, or just some random pap intended as a vehicle to drive ad views? If you don't have real content, then obviously you're not trying to make your users happy, you're trying to exploit them. Sites that have a valid reason for existence often still do have both a technical person making decisions, and also a user-oriented design.
So a Man In The Middle attack you opt into?
I can haz cheezeburger? In the middle? Man?
Their problem is, they haven't convinced anybody that amp is a cheeseburger, it just sounds like buzzword salad.
The fastest public and most stable DNS server is 8.8.8.8. Try it. You'll like it.
What a load of shit. You should know when you're typing it out, and you feel the desire to tell me how I feel about it, that you're full of shit. You can just stop there and accept that it sucks and you don't know why you're choosing it.
If your DNS is slow enough that you can measure a difference in speed between two DNS servers without blasting them with excess spam, then you have worse problems with your access than that! You should probably be running your own caching DNS server in that case, which should fully mitigate the problem.
Separately, Chrome does not offer or allow security updates on a separate track than feature updates, so observing the rate of updates and implying that it is more secure just shows you have no clue about security. Chrome sends you propaganda at a higher rate, so you believe it at a higher rate. That's the closest true thing standing around next to your lie!
You even bungled your attempt at sounding balanced, as the Google Cloud offerings are better for a lot of corporate use cases than what Amazon is offering. Amazon is clearly the market leader, but so what? Amazon's billing isn't "overly complicated," it is based on what services you actually use. It breaks down in ways that make a lot of sense to both sysadmins and accountants.
Firefox will be there when ya'all are ready to stand up.
LOLOL
Firefox was there last time, and it was open source, so at least there will be a fork or something. But the idea that the thing that was called "Firefox" back then still exists is pretty funny. The name was clearly transferred, there is no question about that part.
Yeah, I can't even figure out what the "push" is that is intended to be resisted; it seems to me they published some specs, offered some services, and nobody wants to use it. For obvious reasons.
If they want to apply force, I say, "Bring It!" Microsoft tried that, it doesn't end well for them. If they want to go that route, while already having a monopoly, they end up either split into pieces, or siloed into them.
GDPR
No, the Russians gave you BREXIT, if you want to have those kinds of protections you're going to need to finally figure out what is supposed to be in your Constitution and write it down so that all your rights can't be changed with a random 50%+1 poll.
Look, Dilly Bar, if you're ignorant enough that you need a citation, that means you have no idea if it is a simple 101-level thing or not.
That means it is up to you to collect basic knowledge about the subject first.
And you didn't look it up, and don't have relevant working knowledge, so you have no ability to argue about the merits. When you attempt to look something basic up, and find "nothing," it just means you suck at research.
If you failed at acquiring data, you're not in a position to argue with people.
You're the one claiming ignorance, while at the same time arguing; that is the problem with intellectual honesty your subconscious is screaming about, but you're not listening.
You can't argue from ignorance that the people who do have knowledge are intellectually dishonest. That just doesn't make sense. The best you could do is to argue that we're insufferably snobby assholes who won't explain all the basics to you in detail while you argue about it.
OK but that definition doesn't work in your claim above. You're claiming you're supposed to do it objectively, and then your definition is 100% subjective.
I asked for an obviously impossible thing; but instead of understanding the point, you just charged ahead and jumping into a well-mapped hole.
You definitely never had to debug student's code.
Is that even a thing?
Looking at that map, it seems instead that some poor states don't have it, and some states with very very low population don't have it. I certainly wouldn't think that Alabama and Arkansas are "very Republican," but that Texas, Idaho, and Mississippi are not.
They should implement their grandiose claims on the blockchain, that way their awesomeness is immutable!
Just so you know: People actually DID know what they were doing until the 80s
Tell that to anybody who lived in the 40s!
Or the 70s, for that matter. Or the 60s. Or 50s.
One thing I'm sure of, though: Queen Elizabeth knew a lot more about governing than Queen Mary!
As Socrates discovered long ago, no man is wise, and knowledge of that ignorance is the only Wisdom that is accessible.
Unfortunately, when Plato decided to prove that to the world by claiming to have a lot of Wisdom, he used Socrates' voice! So even that one lesson is obfuscated. As expected, of course.