But you still need to deal with the bad script.

What's an ideal IQ?

I'd assume it is an IQ that people would consider to indicate they're as smart as they think they are.

What does an estimated IQ even mean? Is this estimated according to an average of contemporary intelligence levels, or the average intelligence at the time? Because we're a lot smarter than we were a century ago.

I suspect the estimated IQs are actually a load of rubbish. Academics tend not to have substantially higher IQs than engineers, legal experts, or medical professionals. There's a certain correlation between IQ and academic success but since there's a spread of 30 or so points between the second and fourth quartile I doubt you can really estimate with any sort of accuracy.

Plus people who have no idea of technology, and those who are particularly good t covering their tracks. I guess the last lot might be useful.

Why? Well, to see if it works. Sorry. I don't understand the question. If I make claims about the effect of a device then I want to be able to prove those claims, ideally scientifically.

Measure reported eye strain with this device.

Measure reported eye strain without this device.

Measure reported eye strain without a device that purports to do this, but just projects random colours behind the screen.

The third test is the placebo. I imagine eye strain is affected by psychological factors since pretty much every other ailment is so we need to control for that.

It's a nice idea and look cool. But have they actually compared eye strain with and without this? And with a placebo

You want to make an interocitor?

According at least one study it's not. Also it's harder to ban passengers than phones, and laws need to take practicality into account.

Good question.

Considering research suggests that mobile phones are more distracting than passengers, it's probably overstepping to ban talking to passengers. It's also a lot harder to do.

Did I misread this? Probable Cause

This tired old quote is always posted without any thought or analysis. It's dumb. We trade liberty for security all the time. The police are allowed to arrest people based on probable cause.

The US Bill Of Rights itself has provision for violation of liberty - the Third Amendment allows the governmnet to violate peoples homes in times of war, the Fourth Amendment has explicit exceptions to allow the government to search your home and sieze your property. The Fifth allows the law to deprive you of life, liberty, or property. These are reaonable restrictions on liberty but they are nonetheless restrictions.

It is really no different than instances of "you have 1 message(s) waiting". Back in the day, when bytes and cycles really counted, saving the execution of a statement, and the program code space associated with checking for 1 or more-than-1 was understandable, maybe even desirable, but now? The only reason is a lazy programmer.

I really think even then it was programmer laziness. It's still only a few bytes to do the check, and programmers didn't need to be that frugal. The only time when this would have made a difference was when memory was in such short supply that you'd consider rephrasing the message itself to take up fewer bytes.

They've had online renewal for years now. That worked really well the last few times I tried it.

True, although growing up in the 80's, Imperial measurements were still pretty common. We'd see them in text books but teachers and other grown-ups would usually use imperial for day to day stuff.

It's just his personal opinion. He doesn't hold it strongly enough to change the legislation and reverse 40 years of education policy.

And the kids wil be played by people 10 years older than their characters if it goes on long enough.