It's that he did that with no hands!
It's that he did that with no hands!
I used savetube to download the video, and it offered the regular options: various formats and resolutions. Only it had this:
Download MP4(3072p (Original))
Noone will take a disaster prophecy seriously if you can't even be bothered to pair it with some planetary alignment or ancient calendar.
Not really. There's a difference from "right of way" meaning pedestrians can legally cross the street wherever they choose, versus "right of way" meaning if a car hits a pedestrian the car is always in the wrong. I've had this rule in my country, and it didn't mean the pedestrian can cross anywhere, it just meant you had to be careful when you drive.
That's the thing, this is about Germany. Of course there will be those that take advantage, but generally speaking the employed population is much more serious and correct about their jobs than in other countries.
Also: the job of the boss is to know what each of his subordonates had to to that day/week and check if it's done. If an employee can trick the boss with stuff like "i was on the phone", than there's a bigger problem with the boss than the subordonate.
It's not about the average number per day. Read the question: it asks about "typically", so if you get one every 3-5 days, then you "typically" get zero per day. Those other days are the exceptions.
Just to make it easy on those that refuse to RTFA, here's a key quote from it, that should answer your question and clear up things a bit:
with electrodes attached to their scalps, they looked at a computer display monitor that presented names of stimuli. The names of Boston, Houston, New York, Chicago and Phoenix, for example, were shuffled and presented at random. The city that study participants chose for the major terrorist attack evoked the largest P300 brainwave responses.
Yes, it's still not a perfect tool, but better than a polygraph test, and that's what they're going for. One little step at a time
I imagine the marketing for it will be along the lines of "many people can interact with it at once". Imagine a larger screen, on the floor, as the twister mat.
I say let's just leave it at whoosh...
It's fine by me if they add bits, as long as they correctly support the existing standards, allowing the designers to create content that works on all borwsers. In a fast evolving browsers world like we have today, added bits have to be pretty convincing to make designers adopt them so fast that the other browsers cannot addapt.
If you roll a cigarette and smoke it, at one point it gets very short and thus too hot to hold.
I leave the rest of the explanation as an exercise for the reader.
Why is abstinence the ideal circumstance? I really don't understand this point of view. It's usually due to a religion of some sorts (the 3 monotheistic that came from the middle east share this thought), but even so I don't get it. Why did religion have to forbid sex for pleasure? I agree that self-control is easier to teach through banning basic pleasures, but sex? Banning a natural thing is NOT a good idea, and will generate a hell of a cognitive dissonance.
The US is where Internet was born and, consequently, where it is the most developed. Yet prices for ADSL connections are way higher than in my country (Romania). I admit, minimum wage is way higher in the US, but still. Besides, prices for almost anything else, from food to clothing to electronics, are way lower in the US.
Long story short, a 20mbps adsl connection here is EUR12.5, meaning around $17.99. Taxes included. So.... umm.... what gives?
The media industry knows this, but their business model is based on percentage of sales. Quote from the paper in question: "While album sales have generally fallen since 2000, the number of albums being created has exploded.". The media industry is strictly interested in album sales, not in revenues to the artists. The fact that they invoke the artists in order to cause public outrage against copyright infringement is only normal: they use whatever means necessary to stay in business.
The unwillingness to change their business is another matter altogether, and can be discussed about all major industries. The bigger they are, the more difficult the change, and the more blindly stubborn their struggle to keep things the way they are. They will fall at one point though, when all possible sources of profit will be gone. Until then, they will make life difficult, or at least try.
"This is lemma 1.1. We start a new chapter so the numbers all go back to one." -- Prof. Seager, C&O 351