To do this, it makes an extra request to the server before requesting the appropriate image size.
This seems completely wrong, how did it get rated 5-Informative? One of the primary purposes is to use less bandwidth. Responsive images just tells the browser to load a different image based on screen size or pixel density, there's no extra request to the server.
Supporting a traditional definition of marriage is not the same as treating people with disrespect
Cognitive dissonance at its finest. Oppressing people is fine as long as they're the ones you think should be oppressed or because oppressing them is traditional?
All you have to do is put yourself in their shoes. If 90% of the country was gay and forbade you from marrying a person of the opposite gender because marriage had always been for same-sex couples, would you feel oppressed? If a gay person's spouse could visit them in the hospital, could claim tax write-offs and could inherit easily from their spouse and make medical decisions for them, but you were denied those things because your marriage was considered nontraditional, would you feel oppressed?
A new 27"@2560*1440 costs about US$500 and up.
I got my 27" 2560x1440 monitor on ebay for under $280 (shipped) a few months ago, prices seem to be a little higher now but not that bad. The ~109dpi gives a slightly smoother image also (24" 1080p is ~92 and 30" 2560x1600 is ~100). I hadn't noticed pixelation on my other monitors before but side-by-side it's easy. 4k@28" is overkill dpi-wise unless you're putting your face 6" from the monitor to get that surround feel
Yes it's the closest approach, but it's still going to be 3.2 million km away. If the Earth were the size of a basketball, the asteroid would be 560 feet away and only 1/5 the size of a pixel in an iPhone retina display. The 0.017 arcsecond angular resolution requires a 6.6 meter telescope to see more than just a point of light.. And as for "hurtling past Earth" as some reports say, if it were heading straight for earth at 27,000 miles per hour it would take 73.5 hours or more than 3 days to get here. In our scaled example it would be travelling at a whopping 0.00255 km/h, under 1/10th the speed of a garden snail. The asteroid should have close to the same visibility for many hours around the time of closest approach. Right now (5 hours before) it could at most be 2% smaller through a telescope..
I think it's cool, I just wish the articles wouldn't hype so much and would include more context.
Of course the real loss there is Nickelodeon.
Of all these channels, the only one I really care about is Comedy Central, but I might watch something on Spike every once in a while. Do you think Viacom would be doing this if we could buy individual channels? They make money from ads which they bombard us with more and more every year. I think Viacom would be happy that their ads are getting to more households. I find it ridiculous that I have to pay for BET Gospel and CMT Pure Country when all I want to watch is South Park.
At first I was thinking "Great, now denialists will be even more embarrassed about using graphs that only go from 2000 (an unusually warm year) to 2008 (an unusually cool year) to show that the Earth is cooling." Then I realized that in a few years there will be another unusually cool year and they will just start their graphs at 2011 and end on that year.
Of course, I can ask the question a different way, and just make you mental. If the globe is warming, and the average temperature goes up, would it be possible for the increased water vapor as it traveled across the poles to actually generate an expanding ice sheet? If you agreed that it was possible, you'd be right
It would be possible to get more snow, just like it is possible to get big snowstorms when it is cold enough to snow. The higher temperatures keep that snow from accumulating year to year however, so you shouldn't get thicker ice sheets that last from year to year. That's why sea ice minimums and the thinning of the arctic ice even in winter agree with global warming.
You could look at studies which show a 50% decrease in cases of vaccinated children. For example for every 10000 vaccinated children, there are 200 cases. For every 10000 unvaccinated children ere are 400 cases. The real news in the article is that for children between 8 and 12 there are only 25% fewer cases among those vaccinated. The point in the summary that most of the cases were among vaccinated children was a red herring because most of the children were vaccinated. With my fictitious numbers that means that 300 out of every 10000 vaccinated children would get the disease. If you have 30000 children, 20000 of whom were vaccinated, you would expect 400 unvaccinated and 400 vaccinated to get it. The news is that 600 of the vaccinated children got it when they expected only 400. That's still a lower rate among the vaccinated children.
There may be a myth about unvaccinated children being the ones carrying the disease, but it holds a kernel of truth. Infection is a feedback mechanism. In my example above consisted of real numbers (only the percentages are real), vaccinating everyone would lower the total number of infections from 1000 to 800. Having 200 fewer children contracting and spreading the disease would likely make that number even lower.
The article does say that between 8 and 12 the vaccine only protected 24% of the time, compared to about 50% for all kids. So at 245 cases per 10,000 with full vaccinations, you would expect around 325 cases without. Of course in a school with 10,000 kids, those extra 80 cases may cause even more cases.
I think the