...Mariah Carey?
This is belated, but thank you!
Where can I find that wallpaper? It's super nice.
@Whitson Gordon:
Geek is only half of your personality? Get with the program, dude!
Geek is only half of your personality? Get with the program, dude!
@medopal, medohack:
Ok, your observational conclusion matches the headline generated from a scientific publication. Congratulations.
There is much more to the science behind any discovery than the headline. Their work probably measured amount of uptake, consistency, and then the actual mechanism of drinking. I'm obviously going to be missing other things they did, but don't just take this video and conclude what you conclude.
Thus, this makes the scientist more thorough than you.
Ok, your observational conclusion matches the headline generated from a scientific publication. Congratulations.
There is much more to the science behind any discovery than the headline. Their work probably measured amount of uptake, consistency, and then the actual mechanism of drinking. I'm obviously going to be missing other things they did, but don't just take this video and conclude what you conclude.
Thus, this makes the scientist more thorough than you.
Pentel RSVPs, because some people need to spin their pens.
@Platypus Man: But even worst case scenario they chose to not mention it due to possible revenue loss, it doesn't matter, because it is the intelligent choice. I don't think this is not a matter of respect. Since ad revenue seems to be their primary source of income, any mention of ways to circumvent ads would just be bad for them.
I dunno, it's hard to explain, but there's no reason for Lifehacker to show their readers ways to decrease Lifehacker's revenue, and respect doesn't really play a role here. It was cool that they told us about AdBlock before and just asked us to put them on our whitelist, but if they didn't mention it now for the reason that not everyone whitelists (and therefore they lose money), they shouldn't lose anyone's respect.
I dunno, it's hard to explain, but there's no reason for Lifehacker to show their readers ways to decrease Lifehacker's revenue, and respect doesn't really play a role here. It was cool that they told us about AdBlock before and just asked us to put them on our whitelist, but if they didn't mention it now for the reason that not everyone whitelists (and therefore they lose money), they shouldn't lose anyone's respect.
@Platypus Man:
How many people will actually add them to the whitelist? If the number of people who don't is greater than or equal to 1, then they've lost money.
How many people will actually add them to the whitelist? If the number of people who don't is greater than or equal to 1, then they've lost money.
Redeye needs to be brought back. Now.
#redeye
#redeye
This is a strictly no-fap zone.
I think I visited Ilum in Mass Effect... or was that Ilium?
One "i" less and I'd be wielding lightsabers in Mass Effect. FML
One "i" less and I'd be wielding lightsabers in Mass Effect. FML
@Wolfbullet: Sorry he's all out of bubblegum. But he can kick your ass if you'd prefer.
@waclark57:
Your logical fallacy is to be unable to accept that we currently don't know everything there is to know regarding these things. You're filling "we don't know yet" with Intelligent Design and that's just not being honest with oneself. Science is content with not knowing something, as long as we are working to find out what it is.
So yes, physics does explain a lot of things right now, and the origin of the universe is not one of them right now, but that's not a reason to fill that void with design.
So in your example, if I cared enough about the BMW's origin (like we do the origin of the universe), I would not say it magically appeared. Due to the nature of cars (created/operated by man), I would conclude that a person put it there. But a person is not an unprovable invisible magical thing... so I don't know how the example works in this context.
Your logical fallacy is to be unable to accept that we currently don't know everything there is to know regarding these things. You're filling "we don't know yet" with Intelligent Design and that's just not being honest with oneself. Science is content with not knowing something, as long as we are working to find out what it is.
So yes, physics does explain a lot of things right now, and the origin of the universe is not one of them right now, but that's not a reason to fill that void with design.
So in your example, if I cared enough about the BMW's origin (like we do the origin of the universe), I would not say it magically appeared. Due to the nature of cars (created/operated by man), I would conclude that a person put it there. But a person is not an unprovable invisible magical thing... so I don't know how the example works in this context.
@waclark57: Intelligent design because of "too much order" for your eyes to believe is a very intellectually dishonest conclusion. I know you know there's more to this universe than what you can see. And physics does a pretty dandy job of explaining the seeming order we have in this universe.
@wjglenn: Haha fair enough, but what about meeting multiple people simultaneously? I would have trouble being able to find a socially plausible reason to put people in my phone that I may not meet again.
@wjglenn:
You'd do that with everyone you meet?
You'd do that with everyone you meet?
@CanuckEh:
You were thinking up relevant euphemisms for procreation?
You were thinking up relevant euphemisms for procreation?
@Bellamy:
Your future favorite- Legend of Zelda: Link Link Link Link Link Link of Link.
Your future favorite- Legend of Zelda: Link Link Link Link Link Link of Link.
@Sushi_Babies:
By the way this is a terrible idea. If dying was as easy as it is in real life, the game's winners would be solely based on who saw the highest number of enemies. Requiring more bullets allows the opponent time to realize they're being attacked, and to take maneuvers to fight back. This is still fair to you since the person has already taken some damage, so you're at an advantage for shooting first.
By the way this is a terrible idea. If dying was as easy as it is in real life, the game's winners would be solely based on who saw the highest number of enemies. Requiring more bullets allows the opponent time to realize they're being attacked, and to take maneuvers to fight back. This is still fair to you since the person has already taken some damage, so you're at an advantage for shooting first.
@excaliburps:
Not good enough! They are required to now fix damage proportions relative to angle of hit. Grazed bullets get shrugged off and bullets to the eye make half of your screen go dark... if it doesn't kill you. Full neurological accuracy too! Paralysis, etc.
Not good enough! They are required to now fix damage proportions relative to angle of hit. Grazed bullets get shrugged off and bullets to the eye make half of your screen go dark... if it doesn't kill you. Full neurological accuracy too! Paralysis, etc.
