In this case it also happens to match church attendance stats and any anecdotal evidence about the average person's knowledge of what they claim to believe.
I do, I live in the DC metro area, and take plenty of trips out to WVa or PA or southern Va or southern MD. Not exactly urban areas, but this generally isnt a huge problem. Google maps can still remember the directions, and the route line, even if it cant pull in specific tiles. Ive had it route me even as the background remained untiled-- it was still able to get GPS to figure out where it was on the precomputed map.
I dont suppose Id recommend it as your sole source of guidance on a survival trip to Alaska or the Rockies or something, but its generally more than sufficient for driving directions unless youre somewhere truly backwoods (in a way that Pa and WVa arent).
The fact that you even make such a statement proves you're listening to right wing demagogs.
Your proof is faulty. At least 50% of my news comes from NPR, the rest from Drudge report. That combination is hardly what you would call a bastion of right-wing demagogues.
Is it at all possible Im right wing and also not a huge fan of spending ridiculous amounts on defense? That possibly I have reservations about F22 fighters, when its very possible all we've done is do the research that a spy can carry back to their own country (considering there isnt much wartime use for such a plane right now)? That Im not a huge fan of bailouts at all?
Nah, lets just paint all conservatives the same. Surely there isnt a legitimate reason for thinking government shouldnt run nearly as much as it does-- especially not the fact that it violates our founding charter.
He says he supports gay marriage as a personal opinion but he quickly notes it should be left up to the states -- which is really no different than any of the republican candidates when it comes down to what will get done.
No, it is different, and the fact that your position is "as long as I get what I want I dont give two craps about what the Bill of Rights says about state sovereignty" is part of the reason the federal government is such a monster today.
Try to remember that there is a REASON we have separate states, rather than one gigantic collective.
Rick Santorum was as scary to the US as Hitler was to Germany
Regardless of your political or other beliefs, unless you really believe that he had an intention to kill off several million of the population and start a world war, you might want to dial that rhetoric back a little bit.
Well, from my philosophy courses in college (as financially useless as they may have been) there's actually been a lot of study and attempts to codify [un.org] what should be regarded as Universal rights.
.......
If they start to infringe upon others' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then we have issues that must be remedied.
The problem you will always run into is that there is ALWAYS someone who can object that your "universal rights" are arbitrary and essentially a reflection of your personal (or collective) values and beliefs. Religious folks (like myself) will appeal to a higher standard, and of course that can be and is objected to on the same grounds, but do not be deluded that you can somehow escape the issue by trying to rule religious beliefs out-- if anything you end up making the problem worse (it is more arbitrary).
See for example recent attempts to get internet access added to the list of universal human rights-- as if that somehow meets the criteria of being universal when its not even historical.
At the end of the day what your internal moral compass says IS important, and you just have to accept the fact that everyone's moral compass may differ by varying amounts.
Re:another example of having lost the plot
on
Fedora 17 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Sometimes one-way signs or road names are not easily visible (poor placement, obstructed). In that instance, you see a road with no signs telling you you CANT turn left, and the GPS says "turn left", I imagine most people would follow its advice. If it turned out to be one-way, then possibly for the purposes of a ticket they would be at fault, but it really would be their GPS' fault (and whoever placed the signs) as well.
There are cases of vandalism in OSM, but they don't last very long; the community usually picks them up rapidly and reverts them.
That does seem pretty unreliable, and TomTom's point on THAT aspect seems valid. If someone were to mess up I-495's directions or name or something, yea, I think that would be nailed pretty quick, but if someone sabatoged some road in central Oklahoma or a rural area of France or something, how quick do you think anyone would notice?
Seems like a better idea would be for there to be a list of "suggested changes" that anyone could browse and approve-- but ordering would be random so it would be very difficult to approve your own changes. Possibly even mark the roads as "tentative" until they were vetted.
And despite the things that you probably said in your TL;DR post more people die from basically any other form of energy generation than have or likely will die from either Fukushima Daiichi or Chernobyl.
Banqiao dam? Coal mine accidents? Toxic chemicals from solar panels? No, but the real problem is 2 japanese workers who were hospitalized for 1 day for mild radiation exposure and a population that might have cancer levels slightly above "margin of error" compared to control.
The problem is "IF" leads to "false" conclusions, WHEN the premises are not true.
No it doesnt. It only does that if you forget that the premises were hypothetical, and forget to evaluate whether they are.
In your example the premises (2+2, 5) are provable.
Thats not the premise. The premise is me asking you whether 2+2 is 5. I have not done so, so the premise is not true, and you therefore are not wrong about that particular thing.
This sort of logic is useful, because in the above example, you could determine the consequences of answering that question with "5" if it were ever asked, without having to resort to trial by error. In more serious issues, you can evaluate the consequences of a decision without having to actually make the decision.
but that is not the extent of hypothetical questions and their ability to draw people into false conclusions
People can argue badly, and go from an unproven premise to acting as if they have proven that premise, and that is a well-known logical fallacy-- its known as "begging the question". There is no doubt that people do so. But hypotheticals are a very valuable tool for discussion and rational thought, and you seem way too eager to dismiss them as false nonsense.
Please understand, I get Boolean mathematics. that is not my point.
Everyone here seems to think that you dont get it, or at least what it is good for and how people are using it. Certainly your professor seems to have thought so.
There can be good reasons for that. For example the ESV is copyrighted, but allows using its text with specific attribution (putting "(ESV)" after the quoted passage). One possible good reason for this is to prevent someone from using 3 seperate translations together in order to misrepresent what is in the text (for example, using some KJV usages next to ESV usages will result in a misrepresentation-- they use the word "evil" differently for example).
Additionally, earning a living is not a bad, amoral, or unchristian thing, despite what culture and popular sentiment may lead you to believe.
You seem to miss what is being asked in these hypotheticals. When the word "if" is used, you are expected to give an answer as if that premise were true. You CAN answer those questions "correctly". For example, heres a hypothetical for you:
If I were to ask you what 2+2 is, and you were to answer 5, would you be wrong?
If you answer no, you will be wrong. There is no situation in which the the answer would be "no", unless there were additional premises not specified (in which case you have changed the hypothetical).
This is important because people often base hypothetical questions as "fact", and thus trap people into thinking the logic of the question is "true" and thus the whole premise is "true" when in fact, it was just a hypothetical question, with a false premise, of which the answer... by default... should have been in the negative.
I offer an alternative: That you are NOT smarter than every other person who has ever considered hypotheticals, and have merely misunderstood what is being driven at. Its also possible that the reason you drove your professors up the wall is NOT because you were smarter than them.
The token generation algorithm uses essentially two parameters: the key fob serial number and a token activation key; each of them are usually provided by the vendor in *.XML files.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you be labeled as a pedo? Are the police somehow going to lend credibility to some random piece of scumware?
In this case it also happens to match church attendance stats and any anecdotal evidence about the average person's knowledge of what they claim to believe.
Way to miss the point of my post. Your own moral standards are as arbitrary as you accuse mine of being.
I do, I live in the DC metro area, and take plenty of trips out to WVa or PA or southern Va or southern MD. Not exactly urban areas, but this generally isnt a huge problem. Google maps can still remember the directions, and the route line, even if it cant pull in specific tiles. Ive had it route me even as the background remained untiled-- it was still able to get GPS to figure out where it was on the precomputed map.
I dont suppose Id recommend it as your sole source of guidance on a survival trip to Alaska or the Rockies or something, but its generally more than sufficient for driving directions unless youre somewhere truly backwoods (in a way that Pa and WVa arent).
The fact that you even make such a statement proves you're listening to right wing demagogs.
Your proof is faulty. At least 50% of my news comes from NPR, the rest from Drudge report. That combination is hardly what you would call a bastion of right-wing demagogues.
Is it at all possible Im right wing and also not a huge fan of spending ridiculous amounts on defense? That possibly I have reservations about F22 fighters, when its very possible all we've done is do the research that a spy can carry back to their own country (considering there isnt much wartime use for such a plane right now)? That Im not a huge fan of bailouts at all?
Nah, lets just paint all conservatives the same. Surely there isnt a legitimate reason for thinking government shouldnt run nearly as much as it does-- especially not the fact that it violates our founding charter.
I bet 10 minutes of filesystem digging with ProcMon and the creation of some hardlinks would be enough to "crack" silverlight.
He says he supports gay marriage as a personal opinion but he quickly notes it should be left up to the states -- which is really no different than any of the republican candidates when it comes down to what will get done.
No, it is different, and the fact that your position is "as long as I get what I want I dont give two craps about what the Bill of Rights says about state sovereignty" is part of the reason the federal government is such a monster today.
Try to remember that there is a REASON we have separate states, rather than one gigantic collective.
Well, gallup polls would disagree with you. Go argue with them.
Santorum would have women barefoot and pregnant
What, all of them, simultaneously? I must have missed that speech.
Rick Santorum was as scary to the US as Hitler was to Germany
Regardless of your political or other beliefs, unless you really believe that he had an intention to kill off several million of the population and start a world war, you might want to dial that rhetoric back a little bit.
Your conscience could say that 1 + 1 = 3, and it still wouldn't be correct.
You have some other absolute standard you use to calibrate your morality by? Please do share.
Well, from my philosophy courses in college (as financially useless as they may have been) there's actually been a lot of study and attempts to codify [un.org] what should be regarded as Universal rights.
.......
If they start to infringe upon others' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then we have issues that must be remedied.
The problem you will always run into is that there is ALWAYS someone who can object that your "universal rights" are arbitrary and essentially a reflection of your personal (or collective) values and beliefs. Religious folks (like myself) will appeal to a higher standard, and of course that can be and is objected to on the same grounds, but do not be deluded that you can somehow escape the issue by trying to rule religious beliefs out-- if anything you end up making the problem worse (it is more arbitrary).
See for example recent attempts to get internet access added to the list of universal human rights-- as if that somehow meets the criteria of being universal when its not even historical.
At the end of the day what your internal moral compass says IS important, and you just have to accept the fact that everyone's moral compass may differ by varying amounts.
No, because CentOS would be a far better choice.
Yes it does, which is great right up until you are in an area with really poor data.
Which is why you cache the data beforehand if you know you are entering such an area.
Sometimes one-way signs or road names are not easily visible (poor placement, obstructed). In that instance, you see a road with no signs telling you you CANT turn left, and the GPS says "turn left", I imagine most people would follow its advice. If it turned out to be one-way, then possibly for the purposes of a ticket they would be at fault, but it really would be their GPS' fault (and whoever placed the signs) as well.
There are cases of vandalism in OSM, but they don't last very long; the community usually picks them up rapidly and reverts them.
That does seem pretty unreliable, and TomTom's point on THAT aspect seems valid. If someone were to mess up I-495's directions or name or something, yea, I think that would be nailed pretty quick, but if someone sabatoged some road in central Oklahoma or a rural area of France or something, how quick do you think anyone would notice?
Seems like a better idea would be for there to be a list of "suggested changes" that anyone could browse and approve-- but ordering would be random so it would be very difficult to approve your own changes. Possibly even mark the roads as "tentative" until they were vetted.
And despite the things that you probably said in your TL;DR post more people die from basically any other form of energy generation than have or likely will die from either Fukushima Daiichi or Chernobyl.
Banqiao dam? Coal mine accidents? Toxic chemicals from solar panels? No, but the real problem is 2 japanese workers who were hospitalized for 1 day for mild radiation exposure and a population that might have cancer levels slightly above "margin of error" compared to control.
Hooray for perspective!
Leaving Iraq in shambles wouldnt have taken 10 years, if that were ever the goal. We might have just stopped after year 1 if that were the goal.
If I recall, it was actually shorter than that.
The problem is "IF" leads to "false" conclusions, WHEN the premises are not true.
No it doesnt. It only does that if you forget that the premises were hypothetical, and forget to evaluate whether they are.
In your example the premises (2+2, 5) are provable.
Thats not the premise. The premise is me asking you whether 2+2 is 5. I have not done so, so the premise is not true, and you therefore are not wrong about that particular thing.
This sort of logic is useful, because in the above example, you could determine the consequences of answering that question with "5" if it were ever asked, without having to resort to trial by error. In more serious issues, you can evaluate the consequences of a decision without having to actually make the decision.
but that is not the extent of hypothetical questions and their ability to draw people into false conclusions
People can argue badly, and go from an unproven premise to acting as if they have proven that premise, and that is a well-known logical fallacy-- its known as "begging the question". There is no doubt that people do so. But hypotheticals are a very valuable tool for discussion and rational thought, and you seem way too eager to dismiss them as false nonsense.
Please understand, I get Boolean mathematics. that is not my point.
Everyone here seems to think that you dont get it, or at least what it is good for and how people are using it. Certainly your professor seems to have thought so.
Then uncheck the checkbox that does autosuggest. Its not that hard to find.
You realize that Firefox and IE both do the very same "info leaking" that chrome does when you type into the search box with suggestions, right?
There can be good reasons for that. For example the ESV is copyrighted, but allows using its text with specific attribution (putting "(ESV)" after the quoted passage). One possible good reason for this is to prevent someone from using 3 seperate translations together in order to misrepresent what is in the text (for example, using some KJV usages next to ESV usages will result in a misrepresentation-- they use the word "evil" differently for example).
Additionally, earning a living is not a bad, amoral, or unchristian thing, despite what culture and popular sentiment may lead you to believe.
You seem to miss what is being asked in these hypotheticals. When the word "if" is used, you are expected to give an answer as if that premise were true. You CAN answer those questions "correctly". For example, heres a hypothetical for you:
If I were to ask you what 2+2 is, and you were to answer 5, would you be wrong?
If you answer no, you will be wrong. There is no situation in which the the answer would be "no", unless there were additional premises not specified (in which case you have changed the hypothetical).
This is important because people often base hypothetical questions as "fact", and thus trap people into thinking the logic of the question is "true" and thus the whole premise is "true" when in fact, it was just a hypothetical question, with a false premise, of which the answer ... by default ... should have been in the negative.
I offer an alternative: That you are NOT smarter than every other person who has ever considered hypotheticals, and have merely misunderstood what is being driven at. Its also possible that the reason you drove your professors up the wall is NOT because you were smarter than them.
I leave it to you to ponder that, however.
The token generation algorithm uses essentially two parameters: the key fob serial number and a token activation key; each of them are usually provided by the vendor in *.XML files.
From here.
Basically, they also need the seed, which is the problem being tackled here.
And duplicating a good causes its perceived value and thus market value to drop.
Its a good analogy, actually.