Why is it that the box nearly always has the best camera angle? The photo looks as though there is one camera in the box, but the video seems to always have the box on the outside of the stack, with the correct side facing out. Was he just lucky or did he do it several times and splice the film?
The whole thing is just a stupid statement to come out with. Currently, at the moment, no. In 500 years, we better figure out how to burn rocks if we're not going to running the planet off renewables. The bigger questions are what are we defining as renewable energy, at what point of the social-infrastructure evolution timescale does it need to be covering our asses 100% and If we can't cover ourselves 100%, how much of the population needs to die off.
If you don't mind I'm going to suggest an adjustment to your statement. The school structure is more deliberately aligned with the girls style of learning at this moment. As a parent of a 6 year old boy, it is glaringly obvious that current US education at his level is targeted towards the non-disruptive pupils, mainly girls. My sons 1st grade teacher understands that boys are boys and puts it down to different learning styles and maturity. We had a hell of a time with his kindergarten teacher who wanted to claim him ADD and have him tested (we refused), but admitted that his intelligence resulted in good grades. The kindergarten teacher targeted away from kinetic learning and thus away from the majority of boys, who were all considered defocused... er hello, lowest common denominator? I understand that there has been a desire to teach to girls, to improve academic acceptance of girls, which I applaud, but I worry that the pendulum swings and boys are being assumed that they will now adapt to a system of learning that does not fit with their general personality.
That's interesting, a couple of years ago Washington State did the same thing, - please pass these taxes and the schools get cut. Here in Washington folks didn't vote for any tax increase and then the following year wondered why there was a major funding issue for schools.
Guess some people call the bluff, or there's an actual reason for statements like that.
Assuming your work has a good (read sensible) harassment policy, you will be fine. If not get one in place ASAP.
Your harassment policy should point out that the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious. Also, there is no harassment if your coworker over hears something which is not meant to be heard by her and is not about her. "Harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment" (quoted from our policy).
If you are really asking how do we condition ourselves not to make loud, off-hand comment constantly, you all need to call each other out in a SERIOUS manner. Do not joke, just speak up and say " I believe that's inappropriate" then offender apologizes and tries very hard not to be called out again.
You all may think this is really dumb, but look at it from two angles. (1) Does your company want to get sued, sorry that's what lawyers do especially in the US (2) Pick something you don't like about yourself, say you have some weight on you, and then have someone call you 'lardass' and comment how they'll need two chairs for you to sit on, or we shouldn't to fast, so you can keep up. Have them comment on how being fat doesn't allow you to do your job properly etc. and have them do it constantly. Then tell me if that's a fun place to work and I'll tell you that they're just teasing, and where's your sense of humor?
Yeah I read it. Your argument should be that Google email use increased due to the added value of the productivity package, not because the hotmail EMAIL CLIENT is so shitty it drove people to GMail. The hotmail productivity package is not as good as the Google one, so why use it when they're both free?
So you're dinging Hotmail because it doesn't have a decent Office suite, not because it's a shitty webmail service? Then you skip the actual POP3 etc. argument. Weak
So how hours minutes are you engaged on burning the 169 DVD's and multiply by what ever you value your time at (go minimum wage or make it $10 an hour to make the math easy or use your work salary or make it a premium as this is your weekend), call this X. What is the cost of the equipment plus install and initial troubleshooting (install = time x hour value), Y. Take X and divide it by 169, this is your expected OPEX cost per DVD. Divide Y by 580, this would be your assessed CAPEX per DVD (in your current collection). Add the two. Is it greater than $2?
Well, formal education sort of is. If you wanted to pursue a subject for only fun you could do that yourself, informally, at cost. However, the point of education, in this century, is too prepare people for the work place. The certificate is a uniform (pretty loose one though) metric for employers to see that you have the knowledge of a subject you claim to have, at a specific level (highschool, BS, MS, PhD). The education system basically saves every employer from having to test you when you apply for a job. The problem here is that kids turn up to university because they are told that the need to get a degree to get a job. They are not really counseled on what degrees will lead to what opportunities. Therefore, they get to pick what they like to do. Sorry, I'm not a believer of the adage "do what you love", unless what you love is a salable skill, or you've made enough money to not worry if you get paid pathetically for it. However, I'm also not a fan of kids being told that they all need to be medical doctors or entrepreneurs so they can be wealthy. Personally, I feel a good starting point to aim for is get the bills paid and have a little spending cash, higher education or not. Once they get to that point things can get financially better if they care to put further effort in.
My wife has a 2008 hybrid camy and regularly gets 44 MPG (it's advertised at 36 MPG). Now I will give you that she drives like a grandma, but the hybrid is not just about road conditions but the way the driver drives. I can't seem to get above 25 MPG in it.
So, repeat after me: correlation does not imply causation. If you don't know this, you have no business being a scientist.
Actually correlation does imply causation, it may not be a correct hypothesis and it needs to be tested.
In my research (done in a laboratory with a bunch of scientists) if I see two things that are being tested correlate with each other, given a defined test scenario, the IMPLICATION is that they are related. I then need to go test this implication and find out if I was wrong or that I was right.
If I was to ignore every correlation as being a potential relationship, due to your stated rule, I be a pretty unsuccessful scientist.
*Sigh* Lets not bother with fundamental science, even knowing that it is loaded with assumptions and targeting experiments as a starting point for further work, along with modling that can potentially make corrective measures, I mean it's not exactly the way that the Earth works, so it's a bad thing to do. FOR THE LOVE OF PETE! This is exploratory science. It is understood that it is not perfect by a long shot, hell! it may not even have any practical applications (although this does), it may be a complete failure!. The goal is to begin our understanding and triggers the iterative process of tuning the study methods. If we had adopted your attitude for every thing that we wanted to understand, but couldn't simply reconstruct we'd be still sitting in a cave wearing rabbit-skin underpants.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it that the box nearly always has the best camera angle? The photo looks as though there is one camera in the box, but the video seems to always have the box on the outside of the stack, with the correct side facing out. Was he just lucky or did he do it several times and splice the film?
Last Chance to See by Douglas Adams. Great book written with his humor, but a serious subject. It's a spinoff from the BBC radio show he did. A good way of inspiring associated conversation. http://www.amazon.com/Last-Chance-See-Douglas-Adams/dp/0345371984/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366747519&sr=1-1&keywords=last+chance+to+see+douglas+adams
Prometheans in the Lab: Chemistry and the Making of the Modern World. Slightly harder read but absolutely fascinating stories from teenage up http://www.amazon.com/Prometheans-Lab-Chemistry-Making-Modern/dp/0071350071
Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. Not difficult to read, but a great piece of work on how people like Ptolemy, Mendelev, Newton 'cheated' science. http://www.amazon.com/Betrayers-Truth-Fraud-Deceit-Science/dp/0712602437/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366747953&sr=1-1&keywords=betrayers+of+the+truth+fraud+and+deceit+in+the+halls+of+science
Actually, they would've felt bad for you and left you a MAC
The whole thing is just a stupid statement to come out with. Currently, at the moment, no. In 500 years, we better figure out how to burn rocks if we're not going to running the planet off renewables. The bigger questions are what are we defining as renewable energy, at what point of the social-infrastructure evolution timescale does it need to be covering our asses 100% and If we can't cover ourselves 100%, how much of the population needs to die off.
If you don't mind I'm going to suggest an adjustment to your statement. The school structure is more deliberately aligned with the girls style of learning at this moment. As a parent of a 6 year old boy, it is glaringly obvious that current US education at his level is targeted towards the non-disruptive pupils, mainly girls. My sons 1st grade teacher understands that boys are boys and puts it down to different learning styles and maturity. We had a hell of a time with his kindergarten teacher who wanted to claim him ADD and have him tested (we refused), but admitted that his intelligence resulted in good grades. The kindergarten teacher targeted away from kinetic learning and thus away from the majority of boys, who were all considered defocused ... er hello, lowest common denominator? I understand that there has been a desire to teach to girls, to improve academic acceptance of girls, which I applaud, but I worry that the pendulum swings and boys are being assumed that they will now adapt to a system of learning that does not fit with their general personality.
That's interesting, a couple of years ago Washington State did the same thing, - please pass these taxes and the schools get cut. Here in Washington folks didn't vote for any tax increase and then the following year wondered why there was a major funding issue for schools. Guess some people call the bluff, or there's an actual reason for statements like that.
Everyone should change the name to The Mammary Game. Bet you sales would increase.
He just secured the ultra-conservative swing vote
Why don't you just click the square that says "desktop" when it loads? That's what I do.
Your harassment policy should point out that the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious. Also, there is no harassment if your coworker over hears something which is not meant to be heard by her and is not about her. "Harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment" (quoted from our policy).
If you are really asking how do we condition ourselves not to make loud, off-hand comment constantly, you all need to call each other out in a SERIOUS manner. Do not joke, just speak up and say " I believe that's inappropriate" then offender apologizes and tries very hard not to be called out again.
You all may think this is really dumb, but look at it from two angles. (1) Does your company want to get sued, sorry that's what lawyers do especially in the US (2) Pick something you don't like about yourself, say you have some weight on you, and then have someone call you 'lardass' and comment how they'll need two chairs for you to sit on, or we shouldn't to fast, so you can keep up. Have them comment on how being fat doesn't allow you to do your job properly etc. and have them do it constantly. Then tell me if that's a fun place to work and I'll tell you that they're just teasing, and where's your sense of humor?
I predict at least two movies along the lines of Chain Reaction will be made.
Yeah I read it. Your argument should be that Google email use increased due to the added value of the productivity package, not because the hotmail EMAIL CLIENT is so shitty it drove people to GMail. The hotmail productivity package is not as good as the Google one, so why use it when they're both free?
So you're dinging Hotmail because it doesn't have a decent Office suite, not because it's a shitty webmail service? Then you skip the actual POP3 etc. argument. Weak
I know a fair bit about tech and this does add a plus for me to purchase this phone. It's a marketing ploy that I can support.
I'd have no problem with this if the females are actually scientists.
My guess is they got wind of Google announcing it's pad and decided to beat the press
So how hours minutes are you engaged on burning the 169 DVD's and multiply by what ever you value your time at (go minimum wage or make it $10 an hour to make the math easy or use your work salary or make it a premium as this is your weekend), call this X. What is the cost of the equipment plus install and initial troubleshooting (install = time x hour value), Y. Take X and divide it by 169, this is your expected OPEX cost per DVD. Divide Y by 580, this would be your assessed CAPEX per DVD (in your current collection). Add the two. Is it greater than $2?
Well, formal education sort of is. If you wanted to pursue a subject for only fun you could do that yourself, informally, at cost. However, the point of education, in this century, is too prepare people for the work place. The certificate is a uniform (pretty loose one though) metric for employers to see that you have the knowledge of a subject you claim to have, at a specific level (highschool, BS, MS, PhD). The education system basically saves every employer from having to test you when you apply for a job. The problem here is that kids turn up to university because they are told that the need to get a degree to get a job. They are not really counseled on what degrees will lead to what opportunities. Therefore, they get to pick what they like to do. Sorry, I'm not a believer of the adage "do what you love", unless what you love is a salable skill, or you've made enough money to not worry if you get paid pathetically for it. However, I'm also not a fan of kids being told that they all need to be medical doctors or entrepreneurs so they can be wealthy. Personally, I feel a good starting point to aim for is get the bills paid and have a little spending cash, higher education or not. Once they get to that point things can get financially better if they care to put further effort in.
I assume you felt the same way about the companies participating in the recent blackout.
It would be nice to try, but not so close to me.
Apparently it was also weighted so it wouldn't land screen down.
My wife has a 2008 hybrid camy and regularly gets 44 MPG (it's advertised at 36 MPG). Now I will give you that she drives like a grandma, but the hybrid is not just about road conditions but the way the driver drives. I can't seem to get above 25 MPG in it.
$3K in ~10 years. Sounds like a deal to me. Anything else go wrong other than normal wear on tires etc.?
So, repeat after me: correlation does not imply causation. If you don't know this, you have no business being a scientist.
Actually correlation does imply causation, it may not be a correct hypothesis and it needs to be tested.
In my research (done in a laboratory with a bunch of scientists) if I see two things that are being tested correlate with each other, given a defined test scenario, the IMPLICATION is that they are related. I then need to go test this implication and find out if I was wrong or that I was right.
If I was to ignore every correlation as being a potential relationship, due to your stated rule, I be a pretty unsuccessful scientist.
*Sigh* Lets not bother with fundamental science, even knowing that it is loaded with assumptions and targeting experiments as a starting point for further work, along with modling that can potentially make corrective measures, I mean it's not exactly the way that the Earth works, so it's a bad thing to do. FOR THE LOVE OF PETE! This is exploratory science. It is understood that it is not perfect by a long shot, hell! it may not even have any practical applications (although this does), it may be a complete failure!. The goal is to begin our understanding and triggers the iterative process of tuning the study methods. If we had adopted your attitude for every thing that we wanted to understand, but couldn't simply reconstruct we'd be still sitting in a cave wearing rabbit-skin underpants.