Are we going to give similar breaks to single employees without children and how great that is?
Are we going to count those who take 5 coffee breaks a day?!
How about those gym nuts that disappear for an hour a day (not including lunch) to go for a run and promise they'll make the time up later?!
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I can buy a 20 watt solar panel at walmart for a hundred bucks. Standard solar output is way less than the max though, because of clouds, night, sunlight that isn't at the right angle, etc. Usually you figure 20% of max production. So that's 4 watts 24 hours per day. Say it lasts 20 years, which is conservative IMO. 4 watts * 365 * 20 = 29.2 megawatt-hours over the course of its lifetime.
If your ideas are correct, that's a subsidy of $230 per megawatt hour, or $6,716 total subsidy for that solar panel.
Let's think about that for a second. Do you really think the government is shelling out $6,716 every time someone buys $100 worth of solar panel from Walmart? And that there's a giant conspiracy to hide that fact from consumers? Does that seem like a sane explanation to you? Or maybe that website should not be trusted without double checking elsewhere on the web.
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
Here I am! I find man-made global warming to be very obviously real, and feel that some fourth generation nuclear plants would an excellent addition to our energy supply. You may now take the problem more seriously!
Do black holes produce thermal radiation, as expected on theoretical grounds? Does this radiation contain information about their inner structure, as suggested by gauge–gravity duality, or not, as implied by Hawking's original calculation? If not, and black holes can evaporate away, what happens to the information stored in them (since quantum mechanics does not provide for the destruction of information)? Or does the radiation stop at some point leaving black hole remnants?
It sounds like they're not 100% certain about Hawking radiation.
Citing 'human decency' is just another form of the 'for the children' fallacy.
So, we can't do anything to improve human decency because it's a fallacy? Because 'for the children' is also an invalid argument. Yet, most of the laws "for the children" actually benefit them. Just because a reason is invalid for some arguments doesn't mean that all reasons are invalid for all arguments!
Unless... did you vote Trump? It's okay, you can tell me.
As I recall, Intel came out with a rebuttal that went something like: "It's perfectly secure and a standard computer management feature, you bunch of dunces." I hope they like that crow they're eating.
Well, the energy density of lithium-ion batteries has gone up by a factor of six or so since 1990, in terms of Wh/kg. And it's gone up by a factor of 10 compared to the crummy Ni/Cd batteries I had when I was a kid... I admit though, I probably only needed to hear the news of battery improvements 5 or 6 times tops over the last 30 years.
When it comes to programming, why do policymakers and technologists pretend otherwise?
I'm not pretending. This is fun. I am having fun. Whee!...what fun. See?
It doesn't help that Hollywood has cast the "coder" as a socially challenged, type-first-think-later hacker, inevitably white and male, with the power to thwart the Nazis or penetrate the CIA.
Me, me, me... also me. Bring on the enigma machine! And if you want to read leaked CIA documents, go nuts, they're on the web.
Proof of artificial intelligence: A reasoning task that, once a computer is able to do it, is no longer considered to require artificial intelligence. See: chess, driving a car, natural language processing.
No true test of artificial intelligence can be solved by a computer.
And I've barely scratched the surface of how absurd modern University "education" is. I could lecture on this for hours.
Hee.
Anyways, I'm not saying that lectures shouldn't be entertaining, I'm saying they shouldn't be about entertainment alone. The article says that students should read the material on their own, saving lectures for movies and demonstrations. That doesn't sound... information heavy.
Research shows students don't learn by hearing or seeing, they learn by doing, a model often called active learning.
We called it homework.
If your lecture merely covers the material in the textbook, why make students buy the textbook?
That's why I never did.
You're merely repeating what students can read on their own. Let them do that on their own time, and use the classroom for experiments and demonstrations and so forth.
They're called "labs". Learning from reading a textbook alone is hard. It requires discipline, focus, and hard work. If it were easy, we'd have no need for University courses. That's why we have professors who go over it in class, so you can ask questions and have the obscure parts explained to you, and the students who lack the drive to study the book on their own time (most of them) can still learn the material.
In my experience, students mostly prefer the reverse: learn the material in class, apply the material in homework after class.
Learning a new subject is hard work. Classes are there to make the work less hard. Seeing movies and experiments isn't making it less hard, it's just entertainment.
Usually it's phrased "How do you feel?" and "What do you think?". (Perhaps you could ask someone reaching into a dark hole "What do you feel?") Also, you don't normally say "What do you think about it?" because the "about it" part is implied.
They can't win. If they keep it the same foolish people will say it's neglected and stagnant. If they change it rational people will say it's aggravating and unnecessary. Just look at this Post-WIMP
wikipedia page.
WIMP interfaces are not optimal for working with complex tasks such as computer-aided design, working on large amounts of data simultaneously, or interactive games. WIMPs are usually pixel-hungry, so given limited screen real estate they can distract attention from the task at hand. Thus, custom interfaces can better encapsulate workspaces, actions, and objects for specific complex tasks. Applications for which WIMP is not well suited include those requiring continuous input signals, showing 3D models, or simply portraying an interaction for which there is no defined standard widget.
Man do I feel the Windows 8 people read from that page. And it's such a load of nonsense. Or are you currently being distracted by the Windows, Icons and Pointer you're using? Should we make the start menu smaller because you want to look at the rest of the screen while simultaneously searching for an app to launch, even if a smaller start menu makes that app harder to find? Notice: "working on large amounts of data simultaneously". This invariably means some contrived example where a user has to pick from 5,000 items in a menu, and can't easily do it. I speak as a former HCI researcher here. And check this out:
Meanwhile, average desktop computers are still based on WIMP interfaces, and have started undergoing major operational improvements to surpass the hurdles inherent to the classic WIMP interface.
This is what GUI designers are being told. That these new modes of interaction are necessarily improvements over Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointers. Regardless of whether or not they actually make any sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Are we going to give similar breaks to single employees without children and how great that is?
Are we going to count those who take 5 coffee breaks a day?!
How about those gym nuts that disappear for an hour a day (not including lunch) to go for a run and promise they'll make the time up later?!
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Embrace,. Check.
Extend. Check.
Will give you three guesses for what comes next.
1) Fork a desktop and screw around with the start menu and GUI, causing adoption to tank.
2) Change the kernel version to 10 and try to give it away for free.
3) Say "screw it" and load it up with ads and spyware.
... I need more guesses!
Yes, I follow. But why does it need to be able to think like a HUMAN brain? Lots of animals have some intelligence without being self aware.
Yeah, I realized after I lay down and closed my eyes, content with the mis-information I had corrected.
Then I woke up my wife with the sound of "Aww SHIT.".
I can buy a 20 watt solar panel at walmart for a hundred bucks. Standard solar output is way less than the max though, because of clouds, night, sunlight that isn't at the right angle, etc. Usually you figure 20% of max production. So that's 4 watts 24 hours per day. Say it lasts 20 years, which is conservative IMO. 4 watts * 365 * 20 = 29.2 megawatt-hours over the course of its lifetime.
If your ideas are correct, that's a subsidy of $230 per megawatt hour, or $6,716 total subsidy for that solar panel.
Let's think about that for a second. Do you really think the government is shelling out $6,716 every time someone buys $100 worth of solar panel from Walmart? And that there's a giant conspiracy to hide that fact from consumers? Does that seem like a sane explanation to you? Or maybe that website should not be trusted without double checking elsewhere on the web.
Here's my link.
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
Here I am! I find man-made global warming to be very obviously real, and feel that some fourth generation nuclear plants would an excellent addition to our energy supply. You may now take the problem more seriously!
You're probably thinking of flambe?
Quantum Gravity
Do black holes produce thermal radiation, as expected on theoretical grounds? Does this radiation contain information about their inner structure, as suggested by gauge–gravity duality, or not, as implied by Hawking's original calculation? If not, and black holes can evaporate away, what happens to the information stored in them (since quantum mechanics does not provide for the destruction of information)? Or does the radiation stop at some point leaving black hole remnants?
It sounds like they're not 100% certain about Hawking radiation.
Citing 'human decency' is just another form of the 'for the children' fallacy.
So, we can't do anything to improve human decency because it's a fallacy? Because 'for the children' is also an invalid argument. Yet, most of the laws "for the children" actually benefit them. Just because a reason is invalid for some arguments doesn't mean that all reasons are invalid for all arguments!
Unless... did you vote Trump? It's okay, you can tell me.
Also, Stallman was right all along.
He usually is: Intel's chips contain a security hazard
As I recall, Intel came out with a rebuttal that went something like: "It's perfectly secure and a standard computer management feature, you bunch of dunces." I hope they like that crow they're eating.
Well, the energy density of lithium-ion batteries has gone up by a factor of six or so since 1990, in terms of Wh/kg. And it's gone up by a factor of 10 compared to the crummy Ni/Cd batteries I had when I was a kid... I admit though, I probably only needed to hear the news of battery improvements 5 or 6 times tops over the last 30 years.
Actually, assuming 45 years of work and buying a latte EVERY day, you'll have $98,617. And 50 cents. Happy retirement!
He doesn't use it to browse the web. He uses it for inspiration.
Exactly.
When it comes to programming, why do policymakers and technologists pretend otherwise?
I'm not pretending. This is fun. I am having fun. Whee! ...what fun. See?
It doesn't help that Hollywood has cast the "coder" as a socially challenged, type-first-think-later hacker, inevitably white and male, with the power to thwart the Nazis or penetrate the CIA.
Me, me, me... also me. Bring on the enigma machine! And if you want to read leaked CIA documents, go nuts, they're on the web.
Proof of artificial intelligence: A reasoning task that, once a computer is able to do it, is no longer considered to require artificial intelligence. See: chess, driving a car, natural language processing.
No true test of artificial intelligence can be solved by a computer.
And I've barely scratched the surface of how absurd modern University "education" is. I could lecture on this for hours.
Hee.
Anyways, I'm not saying that lectures shouldn't be entertaining, I'm saying they shouldn't be about entertainment alone. The article says that students should read the material on their own, saving lectures for movies and demonstrations. That doesn't sound... information heavy.
Research shows students don't learn by hearing or seeing, they learn by doing, a model often called active learning.
We called it homework.
If your lecture merely covers the material in the textbook, why make students buy the textbook?
That's why I never did.
You're merely repeating what students can read on their own. Let them do that on their own time, and use the classroom for experiments and demonstrations and so forth.
They're called "labs". Learning from reading a textbook alone is hard. It requires discipline, focus, and hard work. If it were easy, we'd have no need for University courses. That's why we have professors who go over it in class, so you can ask questions and have the obscure parts explained to you, and the students who lack the drive to study the book on their own time (most of them) can still learn the material.
In my experience, students mostly prefer the reverse: learn the material in class, apply the material in homework after class.
Learning a new subject is hard work. Classes are there to make the work less hard. Seeing movies and experiments isn't making it less hard, it's just entertainment.
I wonder... I doubt horses would be any better than a Bombardier. Seems like more of a PR stunt to me.
Also: "officers will be able to place restrictions on handsets that they believe are being used by drug dealers,"
It's unsettling how guilt-until-proven-innocent keeps creeping up on us.
Compiling!
Usually it's phrased "How do you feel?" and "What do you think?". (Perhaps you could ask someone reaching into a dark hole "What do you feel?") Also, you don't normally say "What do you think about it?" because the "about it" part is implied.
They can't win. If they keep it the same foolish people will say it's neglected and stagnant. If they change it rational people will say it's aggravating and unnecessary. Just look at this Post-WIMP
wikipedia page.
WIMP interfaces are not optimal for working with complex tasks such as computer-aided design, working on large amounts of data simultaneously, or interactive games. WIMPs are usually pixel-hungry, so given limited screen real estate they can distract attention from the task at hand. Thus, custom interfaces can better encapsulate workspaces, actions, and objects for specific complex tasks. Applications for which WIMP is not well suited include those requiring continuous input signals, showing 3D models, or simply portraying an interaction for which there is no defined standard widget.
Man do I feel the Windows 8 people read from that page. And it's such a load of nonsense. Or are you currently being distracted by the Windows, Icons and Pointer you're using? Should we make the start menu smaller because you want to look at the rest of the screen while simultaneously searching for an app to launch, even if a smaller start menu makes that app harder to find? Notice: "working on large amounts of data simultaneously". This invariably means some contrived example where a user has to pick from 5,000 items in a menu, and can't easily do it. I speak as a former HCI researcher here. And check this out:
Meanwhile, average desktop computers are still based on WIMP interfaces, and have started undergoing major operational improvements to surpass the hurdles inherent to the classic WIMP interface.
This is what GUI designers are being told. That these new modes of interaction are necessarily improvements over Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointers. Regardless of whether or not they actually make any sense.
"The Market" seemed to be adopting Cinnamon and MATE.
DistroWatch backs you up. Take a look at where the various Ubuntus rank in their most popular list:
Mint #1, Ubuntu #3, Ubuntu MATE #15, Lubuntu #20, Xubuntu #31, Kubuntu #41, Ubuntu GNOME #54.
Mint, which has the default Cinnamon desktop, is #1. If you want Gnome 3 you're down to #54. Given that list, why on earth would they pick Gnome?
Gotcha.
I googled it and all that turned up was your post... You're the sixth from the top: "criminal offense not to have $1200 in georgia"