FYI, the word is "ditto".
FYI, the word is "ditto".
3D shot/rendered correctly does add to the enjoyment of a film for many people.
Not me. I've seen a fair number of 3D movies in theaters, but I really prefer 2D. 3D doesn't add anything for me. I can appreciate the work and effort it takes to do it well, and to make it "natural", and on good equipment that outputs enough light it doesn't do any harm to the visuals... but it doesn't add to the story, and doesn't really improve the visuals. Beautiful cinematography is good either way, and nearly a century of practice has taught cinematographers (and photographers) how to depict great depth on a flat screen. Not that the human eye has any parallax-derived depth perception beyond a few dozen feet anyway.
So, what does 3D do? It requires me to wear glasses over my glasses, and it costs more. I suppose some people must like it or theaters wouldn't be able to charge a premium for it, but I pick the 2D showing unless there isn't one available at a convenient time.
I meant Android phones in general. Google is the OS maker and forces phone makers to install a lot of Google apps in Android phones. I'd like a Samsung or LG made phone with a "stripped down" Android
Okay, that's not what you wrote. Your question should be directed to Samsung or LG, then, not Google.
I'd also point out that the Nexus 5X is an LG-made phone. Personally, I'd prefer the Huawei-made 6P, or one of the HTC-made Pixels.
Thanks for the info. Sadly I don't like the phones Google releases
Then why did you ask how much one would cost?
Hey Google? How much would you charge for a phone without your services? They can be installed on purchase as long as I'm able to uninstall them.
All devices Google sells come with an unlockable bootloader, so you can unlock and flash a different system that doesn't have the Google stuff. Be sure you re-lock after flashing, otherwise your device can be reflashed with malicious software by anyone who gets hold of it.
So, the price is the cost of buying the device from the Play store, plus a few minutes to unlock and reflash.
Elliot Freeman, a cognitive neuroscientist at City University and the study's lead author, said: "A lot of us go around having senses that we do not even recognise."
It seems to me more like a short circuit between regions of the brain than a different sense. I wouldn't like to hear things that aren't there just because I'm seeing things. It's well known that there are substantial interactions between different regions of the brain, which is why for example we turn down the stereo while trying to find an address.
Interesting... is attaching it to the window in the wording?
Yes. (Too lazy to look up the cite just now, but not too lazy to reply, hope that counts for something)
Sounds like an awesome idea.
In the presence of a working public transportation system that actually met the needs of inhabitants, it might be. But we have that in maybe one or two cities in the USA, and actually, if you took the cars away the systems couldn't handle the load. Toll roads are harmful to business and individuals alike. We make use of the road network free to enable commerce and free travel.
I am an outspoken proponent of PRT and of ordinary rail for longer distances, but barring their existence, I'm extremely opposed to placing more restrictions on people's ability to travel. What year is it? Let's figure out how to let people travel efficiently.
For every (likely made up) story you have about how your father's uncle's brother's first cousin's roommate had a union job and it was full of lazy people
I had a student job with a community college while I went there only about a decade ago, while I uh, pivoted. And what I saw in the IT department was tragic. The primary system upon which the school depended was a HP-SUX quad Alpha, because that's what their software runs on. Then they replaced it with some ridiculously expensive many-way itanic box because that's what the vendor told them to do. On the old system, I got paid to implement ssh tunneling (with putty, naturally) to stop them from sending SSNs and other private student information across internet links in cleartext, because the sysadmin they were paying to do this stuff couldn't figure it out. Then I got paid to figure out how to implement ipsec on the new machine because the guy whose job that is couldn't manage that either. I was hoping to slide into that job but that guy bought a second Harley, and he had to stick around to pay for it. Or more to the point, so that the students and taxpayer could pay for it. He certainly didn't earn the money. My boss was quite competent, that was nice. My two coworkers were also competent, but lazy. I wound up doing job after job that they were supposed to do, because they didn't bother. One of them had severe short-timer's syndrome for the entire two-year span we were both there, with a countdown clock to retirement. He was a pro at stretching jobs out and making them take forever. He probably should have had a 75% pay cut.
Meanwhile, administrators have a different union from educators. This results in administrators and their favored assistants being paid dramatically more than the educators... you know, education? The point of the whole place?
I don't know if unions are as toxic in other industries as they are in education, but they're definitely a massive part of the problem with education today.
You should watch the Netflix series about the 80s. For every awesome thing reagan did, he did a dozen bad ones and they point every one of them out.
I am left of left around this sideshow but look, that doesn't invalidate his point any more than his citations invalidate yours. Can't we just agree that Obama was a shit president, and that Reagan was also a shit president, and move on?
But nationally or statewide, if your country has so many felons you have to take away their right to vote for fear of that sort of thing, your country has bigger problems.
Yes, and TPTB want to keep those problems in place, because they are profitable.
The fact is that there are some people here who sit some distance along the autism spectrum, probably more than a few people with Asperger's, who are neurologically wired to view the world in very narrow and rigid ways. They need to define gender in the simplest form possible, it's just the way their brains work.
They don't have to have any condition to feel that way except stupidity, which makes simple things seem complex, and which also leads to oversimplication of complex things.
By the way, being unable to breed due to physical characteristics have the same evolutionary consequence as being so obnoxious that you're unable to breed...
Alas, almost no one is too obnoxious to breed, especially since as obnoxiousness increases, personal responsibility decreases.
A genetically defective evolutionary dead end.
I would argue that nature has been "trying" to make us hermaphrodites, and we've been resisting that by refusing to mate with them, or sometimes killing them when we find them. That person may be more highly evolved than you are. Doesn't it seem like a defect and drawback to have people have just one sex? It takes approximately 10,000 individuals to provide enough genetic diversity to maintain the species, because sex is a factor. How inefficient!
There's no known relationship between transgenderism, and delusions or psychoses.
But there is a correlation between attitudes on gender roles, and gender dysphoria. In places where the line is blurred and people aren't throwing rocks at men for wearing a dress or at women for wearing pants, more people live the lifestyle "of" the other gender without sexual reassignment. This strongly suggests that for at least some percentage of individuals, the desire to change their gender is a sort of sickness created by society's behavior towards them. Compare a natural-born full hermaphrodite; they have everything, and all possibilities in theory, but we overwhelmingly assign whichever sex appears more dominant at birth for cultural reasons. Why can't they be permitted to be themselves?
To my mind, it is a delusion, if a relatively harmless one. What do I care if people want to change their gender? If I'm not fucking them, it's irrelevant. If I fuck one by mistake, then I should consider my dating habits in one way or another. Once you can wave a magic wand and reassign your gender properly and without complications or risk, then I'll be willing to believe otherwise. But which thing do I believe: that it's reasonable to be happy with who you are, or that it's reasonable to take a knife to parts you just don't like? I've been taught the first thing since birth, and so far I've never had any reason to doubt it. Elective and cosmetic surgery goes wrong all the time, and often produces less-than-desirable results.
On the third hand, nothing justifies treating other people like crap because you don't agree with their decisions. With that said, if you want to be called she even though your original equipment doesn't match the description, or even your current equipment, stop expecting me to use the prefix "cis". I'm not going to call myself cis-anything. By every dictionary definition I am a natural-born human male. I don't need to call myself anything-gendered because I am typical of the species, at least in that way. Of course, my equipment is unusually large, but it's the standard type.
A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.