The headline says "Robocallers Win Even if You Don't Answer". Summary says "it helps offset the costs of making the calls". So if you don't answer (and therefore the scammer doesn't get any money from you) the scammer makes a loss on the call, they don't "Win".
But does a 200 line function have more bugs than 17 12-line functions calling each other. Sometimes multiple function can make code harder to understand. You should break up functions if they are complex, not just because they are long.
This is nothing new. It's exactly what the supermarkets did to specialist stores like butchers, bakers, etc. Provide one place for the customer to get almost everything they need and specialist retailers get squeezed.
Do these intelligences have a positive correlation with IQ? I would imagine that they do. What is interesting about this "visual intelligence" is that is is not correlated with IQ. I can't think of any other ability generally associated with intelligence that doesn't have a positive correlation with IQ. But I'm happy to be corrected on that.
Because sometimes a face-to-face meeting in front of a whiteboard is the best way to do things. Virtual whiteboards, like so many virtual things, are clunky and harder to use. Video conferencing is not so bad but still more inconvenient than when you can all be in the same room.
Right now however, the lack of general election means she has no mandate to push through her entirely secretive manifesto where random policies pop up that no one has given her a mandate for such as grammar schools, foreign worker lists, increased public spending and a slow down in debt reduction and so on and so forth.
It is too restrictive to require the government to only implement policies in their manifesto as this would restrict the government from reacting to changing circumstances. Almost all the policy changes you mention are a reaction to the (hopefully short-term) uncertainty caused by Brexit. The policy on grammar schools was not mentioned in the last Conservative manifesto but was not ruled out by it either. It would not be practical to restrict government to only enact policies that were in their manifesto. Calling May a dictator is absurd.
I think your argument that the 52% who voted for Brexit don't agree on what form of Brexit they want ignores the fact that the Remain side were if anything more divided on their vision of what Remain would mean. Labour supporters would see the EU as a way of expanding workers rights whereas Conservative supporters would see it as a vote for expanding free trade. The opinion polls consistently ranked sovereignty and immigration as the top two reasons people voted for Brexit.
She's a dictator because she wasn't elected, and she's a dictator because she's pursuing a set of policies for which there is no democratic mandate whatsoever.
May was elected by the Conservative MPs who in turn were elected by the people. That's how our parliamentary democracy works. You might as well call the President of the US a dictator because they are elected by the Electoral College rather than by the people directly.
It's not true that May is forcing through policies without a mandate, parliament will have to vote on any new legislation. It is true that Brexit was not in the Conservative manifesto, but holding a vote on Brexit and enacting the will of the people was. There is a clear mandate here, and not for "Brexit in name only" that the Remainers want (i.e. no end to free movement, remain subject to rulings of the ECJ, etc).
Also according to the latest opinion poll the Conservatives have a 17 point lead over Labour at the moment and would most likely at least triple their majority in the HoC if there was an early election.
In summary: you lost the referendum, May is here to stay whether you have an election or not, get over it.
I'm not an expert but a google search for "incidence of corporate tax" seems to indicate that your simplistic view of corporate tax incidence is not widely held among economists.
These are the points I would have made if I had more time. I believe in man made climate change but these sort of studies make it easy for those who don't to point and laugh. The idea that there will be no progress in energy production in 200 years is such a silly assumption it means that this study can only be used for scaring the incredulous.
If I were to point to the fact that vinyl record sales are the fastest growing segment of music purchases and concluded that they would eventually overtake downloads the slashdot crowd would shout down my faulty reasoning pretty quickly. But because this study is about climate change the faulty assumptions get a free pass.
It is generally accepted that all long term economic growth comes from technological innovation. If you want to extrapolate from current trends you have to factor in economic growth and therefore some technological progress. To assume we will be using the same energy generation methods in 200 years is ludicrous. I don't need to know what the technological progress will be to know that there will be progress.
But "if nothing changed" is an absurd assumption, it's saying, "if there was no technological progress in the next 200 years". Its the same ridiculous assumption that all Malthusian predictions of disaster make, and why they never come true.
Canada does have some tariffs on trade with the EU, Turkey doesn't. I believe all European countries except Belarus have tariff free trade with the EU even if they are not in the EU itself.
... but immigrating to London for high skilled non-EU nationals has become very difficult in the last 7 years (due to rules changes)...
If the UK left the EU it could end unrestricted immigration from the EU and increase high skilled immigration from outside the EU by reversing those rule changes. One of the problems of EU membership is that we have unrestricted immigration of low skilled workers (when we have unskilled UK citizens that could do those jobs) which increases demand for housing, driving up house prices.
... Frankfurt takes over as the biggest European financial services hub.
I remember this scare story from when we didn't join the Euro. Wrong then, wrong now.
... and of course the UK will be forced to accept freedom of movement as that's a non-negotiable part of the EU free trade system.
Wrong, the EU has a free trade deal with Turkey without free movement. You are confusing the "single market" with free trade.
... and won't be able to veto countries like Turkey entering the EU, so EU immigration will increase.
But outside the EU we won't have free movement with the EU so we can set the level and type of immigration as we see fit. Cyprus will veto Turkish membership of the EU anyway.
The European Court of Justice (whose rulings the UK must abide by to remain part of the EU) has decided that the UK cannot deny prisoners the vote and any EU citizen has the right to censor search engine results concerning them throughout the whole EU. Can you tell me why this kind of interference in domestic matters is required for a trade deal? What other trade deal requires citizens to be subject to the rulings of a foreign court?
Ah, say brexit supporters, but if we didn't contribute to the EU then there would be more government money. Hah!, retorts any intelligent person who has paid attention to what this government is doing, the additional money will go into the pockets of a select few and not be spent on anything as frivolous as scientific research in establishments where a kid from a council estate could attend.
So, you don't like what the democratically elected government of the UK are doing (or what you think they will do) so you give the power to spend UK taxpayers money to the undemocratic EU because they will spend it how you want.
Finally, the researchers warn of “unknown unknowns” and call for “extensive research” into “unknown risks and their probabilities”.
Scientists researching field A call for more research into field A. Also, as there will always be "unknown unknowns" that funding should continue indefinitely.
The feminist argument is that this skew in gender balance is the result of prior socialization. But this claim of nurture over nature is not only unproven, it is utterly untestable.
Slashdot Mirror
The headline says "Robocallers Win Even if You Don't Answer". Summary says "it helps offset the costs of making the calls". So if you don't answer (and therefore the scammer doesn't get any money from you) the scammer makes a loss on the call, they don't "Win".
How many continental scale wars have wiped out a significant percentage of the population of Europe since the formation of the Rolling Stones?
Therefore we must ensure the Rolling Stones never break up.
Also, I have a tiger repelling rock I am prepared to sell if you are interested.
But does a 200 line function have more bugs than 17 12-line functions calling each other. Sometimes multiple function can make code harder to understand. You should break up functions if they are complex, not just because they are long.
This is nothing new. It's exactly what the supermarkets did to specialist stores like butchers, bakers, etc. Provide one place for the customer to get almost everything they need and specialist retailers get squeezed.
I.T. just works.
Do these intelligences have a positive correlation with IQ? I would imagine that they do. What is interesting about this "visual intelligence" is that is is not correlated with IQ. I can't think of any other ability generally associated with intelligence that doesn't have a positive correlation with IQ. But I'm happy to be corrected on that.
Because sometimes a face-to-face meeting in front of a whiteboard is the best way to do things. Virtual whiteboards, like so many virtual things, are clunky and harder to use. Video conferencing is not so bad but still more inconvenient than when you can all be in the same room.
Did they only study AF or AF and 19 other health conditions?
Right now however, the lack of general election means she has no mandate to push through her entirely secretive manifesto where random policies pop up that no one has given her a mandate for such as grammar schools, foreign worker lists, increased public spending and a slow down in debt reduction and so on and so forth.
It is too restrictive to require the government to only implement policies in their manifesto as this would restrict the government from reacting to changing circumstances. Almost all the policy changes you mention are a reaction to the (hopefully short-term) uncertainty caused by Brexit. The policy on grammar schools was not mentioned in the last Conservative manifesto but was not ruled out by it either. It would not be practical to restrict government to only enact policies that were in their manifesto. Calling May a dictator is absurd.
I think your argument that the 52% who voted for Brexit don't agree on what form of Brexit they want ignores the fact that the Remain side were if anything more divided on their vision of what Remain would mean. Labour supporters would see the EU as a way of expanding workers rights whereas Conservative supporters would see it as a vote for expanding free trade. The opinion polls consistently ranked sovereignty and immigration as the top two reasons people voted for Brexit.
She's a dictator because she wasn't elected, and she's a dictator because she's pursuing a set of policies for which there is no democratic mandate whatsoever.
May was elected by the Conservative MPs who in turn were elected by the people. That's how our parliamentary democracy works. You might as well call the President of the US a dictator because they are elected by the Electoral College rather than by the people directly.
It's not true that May is forcing through policies without a mandate, parliament will have to vote on any new legislation. It is true that Brexit was not in the Conservative manifesto, but holding a vote on Brexit and enacting the will of the people was. There is a clear mandate here, and not for "Brexit in name only" that the Remainers want (i.e. no end to free movement, remain subject to rulings of the ECJ, etc).
Also according to the latest opinion poll the Conservatives have a 17 point lead over Labour at the moment and would most likely at least triple their majority in the HoC if there was an early election.
In summary: you lost the referendum, May is here to stay whether you have an election or not, get over it.
I'm not an expert but a google search for "incidence of corporate tax" seems to indicate that your simplistic view of corporate tax incidence is not widely held among economists.
These are the points I would have made if I had more time. I believe in man made climate change but these sort of studies make it easy for those who don't to point and laugh. The idea that there will be no progress in energy production in 200 years is such a silly assumption it means that this study can only be used for scaring the incredulous.
If I were to point to the fact that vinyl record sales are the fastest growing segment of music purchases and concluded that they would eventually overtake downloads the slashdot crowd would shout down my faulty reasoning pretty quickly. But because this study is about climate change the faulty assumptions get a free pass.
Perhaps you would like to argue the points I made rather than guess at my understanding of the laws of physics.
It is generally accepted that all long term economic growth comes from technological innovation. If you want to extrapolate from current trends you have to factor in economic growth and therefore some technological progress. To assume we will be using the same energy generation methods in 200 years is ludicrous. I don't need to know what the technological progress will be to know that there will be progress.
IPCC Emissions Scenarios
Maybe do it the way the IPCC does it by creating multiple scenarios based on sets of realistic assumptions.
But "if nothing changed" is an absurd assumption, it's saying, "if there was no technological progress in the next 200 years". Its the same ridiculous assumption that all Malthusian predictions of disaster make, and why they never come true.
Anyone who makes predictions based on nothing changing for almost 200 years is an idiot.
Canada does have some tariffs on trade with the EU, Turkey doesn't. I believe all European countries except Belarus have tariff free trade with the EU even if they are not in the EU itself.
If the UK left the EU it could end unrestricted immigration from the EU and increase high skilled immigration from outside the EU by reversing those rule changes. One of the problems of EU membership is that we have unrestricted immigration of low skilled workers (when we have unskilled UK citizens that could do those jobs) which increases demand for housing, driving up house prices.
I remember this scare story from when we didn't join the Euro. Wrong then, wrong now.
Wrong, the EU has a free trade deal with Turkey without free movement. You are confusing the "single market" with free trade.
But outside the EU we won't have free movement with the EU so we can set the level and type of immigration as we see fit. Cyprus will veto Turkish membership of the EU anyway.
The European Court of Justice (whose rulings the UK must abide by to remain part of the EU) has decided that the UK cannot deny prisoners the vote and any EU citizen has the right to censor search engine results concerning them throughout the whole EU. Can you tell me why this kind of interference in domestic matters is required for a trade deal? What other trade deal requires citizens to be subject to the rulings of a foreign court?
So, you don't like what the democratically elected government of the UK are doing (or what you think they will do) so you give the power to spend UK taxpayers money to the undemocratic EU because they will spend it how you want.
Scientists researching field A call for more research into field A. Also, as there will always be "unknown unknowns" that funding should continue indefinitely.
I don't think this is completely untestable. The claim that gender differences are purely due to socialisation would seem to be contradicted by studies like this: Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children