Lunch was not taken away from the girl; she was given extra food because they were worried she might not have enough.
She's four-years old! A turkey and cheese sandwich and banana alone should be more than filling. Add the potato-chip snack and you've got a pretty big lunch for a four-year-old girl.
Apple Juice might not be the best choice of drink, sure, but this lunch seemed reasonably healthy and more than adequate for a 4-year-old.
"Apple will have moved on to the next level of fashionable semi-functionality"
I don't follow. Apple products are historically fashionable and (purposefully?) semi-functional.
Look at the first iPhone -- both fashionable and barely functional (it lacked many features common to low-end dumb-phones at the time.)
How about the iPod? It did less that competing offerings, but was very fashionable (remember the silhouette+white-earbuds ads?) They turned the MP3 player into a fashion accessory.
Compare the fashionable iPad to other competing tablets. You'll find that, again, it's lacking (very useful) features that competing tablets have offered for a while now. Even features it has (like "multi-tasking") are half-baked and barely functional.
In fact, I remember the Apple faithful here praising the both the iPhone and iPad specifically for missing certain features! That the products were "semi-functional" was considered a selling point!
So, yes. fashionable and semi-functional seems perfectly accurate to me. That is, unless you wanted to argue that Apple's products aren't fashionable.
No doubt it would just be a carbon copy of all tablets, which use apple's interface
Wow, way to be completely uninformed! Love it or hate it, Microsoft's Metro UI is significantly different from iOS. (iOS's UI itself is, compared to other tablet UI's, more than a bit shallow and clunky. WebOS and RIM's PlayBook OS are infinitely more usable.)
Today, it would be suicide to copy Apples UI -- it's fallen so far behind the competition that I don't see how they'll ever catch-up. Multi-tasking on iOS, for example, is absolutely abysmal. (A four-finger swipe? Seriously Apple?)
Now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know of a single tablet that copies Apples interface.
No one can seriously use a capacitive screen stylus -- it's like trying to take notes with an over-sized crayon.
Contrast this with taking notes using a fine-point stylus on a resistive touch-screen (try it on an old PDA if you have one lying around) and you'll see how inadequate the fake-finger stylus truly is for pen-computing.
This is where a resistive touch screen would be better for note-taking. You get more precision than a capacitive screen, and your hand resting on the display will cause fewer problems.
RIM has a patent on a hybrid resistive/capacitive touchscreen which, with the right software, would be great for taking notes. Let's hope that they do something with that patent.
It seems to me that to "First, do no harm" fits with keeping the anti-vaccine disease bags away from other patients in the waiting room who may be still be vulnerable to the diseases that the morons refused to get vaccinated against.
Doctor: "Your kid needs to be vaccinated"
Patient: "I'm a complete moron, so I'm going to refuse."
Doctor: "Fine. GTFO and don't come back. I can't have you putting my other patients at risk."
Would you rater the doctor say "Okay, that's cool. I'm sure that you won't ever carry and consequently transmit dangerous yet preventable diseases to my vulnerable patients."
Not tossing the idiots out seems like "doing harm" to me.
identify thieves could just do their thing driving by, without even having to get out of their cars to dig through the trash! What a timesaver that would be. Might even go a ways toward making the profession a little more respectable -- more along the lines of, say, [...] wall-street bankers.
I don't understand. It sounds like a massive step down to me.
Your paper does not claim what you claim it claims (from the freaking abstract):
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the eld support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
the relative climate expertise and scientic prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
I'm still on the first page! You should see how they determine "expertise" and "prominence", it's a laugh. Honestly, I've never seen rhetoric abused so much in a supposedly scientific paper.
I can read on, but this doesn't look like it's going to be a terribly credible paper.
Here's a real gem:
Between December 2008 and July 2009, we collected the number of climate-relevant publications for all 1,372 researchers from Google Scholar (search terms: “author:-lastname climate”), as well as the number of times cited for each researcher’s four top-cited articles in any eld (search term “climate” removed). [
To examine only researchers with demonstrated climate expertise, we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher, bringing the list to 908 researchers (NCE = 817; NUE = 93). Our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community and therefore does not infer absolute numbers or proportions of all CE versus all UE researchers.
What really stands out, however, are the numerous confounders that are NOT considered by the authors at all!
Sorry, this paper is total garbage.
You called him names. That automatically makes everything he says true and invalidates everything you've ever posted until his feelings don't hurt any more.
Those are the rules of the internet.
Well, the numbers I have can be found here
84% support the earth is warming
74% support man influenced warming
67% warming due to man made CO2
14% that the earth is in fact cooling.
These are in complete agreement with this expert as well.
Promptness is its own reward, if one lives by the clock instead of the sword.