The judge ruled that Cuccinelli's subpoena didn't include sufficient reason to suspect fraud. Cuccinelli is allowed to rewrite his subpoena if he wants to. Quit seeing liberal conspiracy where there is only conservative stupidity.
You main problem is that you aren't taking into account the role the different branches of government play. It isn't congress's job to decide if something it passes is constitutional. Congress's job is to represent the people. If the people want something unconstitutional it is congress's duty to see that it gets passed. Of course unconstitutional laws should be repealed. That job belongs to the judicial branch. Checks and balance. If it were the legislative branches job to both represent the people -and- decide if the laws were constitutional their goals would often be at odds, so constitutionality simply isn't part of their job at all. Constitutional checks are delegated to people appointed for life so that they don't have as much motive to corrupt the system for personal position and gain. It is a pretty good system, works out alright in the long term.
You can't send stuff at a "normal" priority. If UPS accepted a letter (as opposed to a package) saying it'll be there in a few days they would get sued. Private companies can only deliver letters when they are doing it at a time-frame USPS can't match.
International outreach is important and useful. I see no reason to snub other in order to make the program "U.S. centric". They do have goals with the international program: unity, cooperation and all that other warm-fuzzy cross-borders stuff. I think the goals are good.
... Especially given that a number of women still do the "no means yes" game for testing mates.
Such a thing doesn't exist. Pretending it does is just perpetuating the rape culture embedded in our society. If someone says no, you leave. If that isn't what they wanted, that is their fault for not being clear. But my guess is that the vast majority of the time it is what they wanted. Pretending that there are in fact many women out their just that'll "tell you no but mean yes" is sexist bullshit that should have died out in the 20's. If someone is "saying no while meaning yes" (and I doubt they are), their behavior is inappropriate.
What actually happens in reality is that they say no fully meaning no. Then some asshole with fucked up idea they got from reading comments like yours keeps going. After the fact, the woman has cognitive dissonance and doesn't want to label herself as a victim. It seems inconceivable that she has just been raped by someone she knew so well. The pressure -- both social and cognitive -- to just pretend like it wasn't rape is so monumental that most women don't even realize they're pretending. After all is done they come to the conclusion that it was alright, but the fact is they are suffering from denial and/or minimization. Because they were in fact raped. That is what happens, and that is the sick reality of the bullshit you're spouting.
You are propagating a sexist, nonsensical worldview that is very dangerous. If your story is true, than the females should have been more forward. End of discussion. You acted correctly in "ignoring" their "offer" of sex. Both sides should make it completely clear what they want. If there is -any- room for misunderstanding, you haven't been clear enough. The idea that women are or should be "subtle" with their offers is sexist bullshit that is one of the leading causes of our rape culture. You acted correctly, and if they were "disappointed" they should have been clearer. They have just as much initiative as you. If we can all just accept that we will have taken a major step forward.
I had similar problems, being self-taught myself. A book about design patterns and/or algorithms will bring you up to speed very quickly. There is a book called "Design Patterns" by several authors (four I believe). I defiantly recommend it for object-oriented design. I'm not sure if you have this problem as well, but I also recommend the book "Clean Code" by Robert C. Martin, it really opened my eyes to how code should be organized, and is a must read for any programmer, but especially self-taught ones.
I haven't found a particularly good algorithms book, does anyone have suggestions?
If they don't have the ability to decide then why not pick organ donor over not an organ donor? When they are old enough to make the choice, they can. Personally I think 6 is more than old enough, but I suppose it depends on the kid. My point is that signing them up as "not donors" is a decision as well.
1) What can we actively do to mitigate risk that isn't "drastic"? Just give me an example, any example. If a few taxes, are "drastic" then every day we take "drastic" actions to keep the roads maintained, fund public schools and do a variety of mundane jobs that don't require drastic action. By Webster: Drastic: acting rapidly or violently; extreme in effect or action. Taxes are extreme? Jailing people who use gasoline is extreme, a tax isn't.
2) What is realistically necessary to provide you with "convincing evidence"? Obviously, changing the CO2 levels on an earth clone isn't possible, so what -could- realistically be sufficient evidence for you? If there exist no intersection between realistically possible evidence and evidence you will except as sufficient, that leads to a problem... don't you think? Everyone should have such a intersection for any non-faith belief they have. And global warming defiantly counts as non-faith.
Don't you see difficulty of conversing in a meaningful fashion with you? It seems impossible to provide you with evidence. Without that evidence you call any action at all "drastic". So why don't you tell me, what do you need as evidence, and what action can we then take that meets your approval? Surly you concede that there is the _possibly_ of some situation which would provide you with enough evidence to feel confidant to act, and even without that evidence, surely there must be _something_ we can do to mitigate risk that isn't "drastic". Let me know what those are.
You said "anything that is being advocated may be meaningless and have no effect at all". Yes, that's true. But that is also true with many precautions we take every day. We buy insurance even though we "may" never use it. We still take the precaution because it makes sense. If we're speculating in possibilities you can also say "anything that is being advocated may be the only thing that saves mankind from extinction". What makes us rational creatures is that we don't think that anything that "may" happen is equally likely. We examine evidence, we consider the possibilities and we come to potential conclusions. We do this even when the evidence isn't 100%. I don't have 100% proof that gravity isn't going to give out any moment, but I make a ration decision based I the evidence I do have, which is strong. Therefor, I decide not to walk around in velcro. I don't have 100% proof that locking my doors deters burglars, in fact it "may" deter present-givers, or encourage burglars. Alas, I lock my doors. So tell me, what evidence do you need to take reasonable action given the potential risk? Let me know where your thresholds of belief are so that we can begin to have a meaningful conversation. What is you criterion of sufficiency, and is it realistically possible? As it currently stands, your statements make you out to be an irrational person, because you will take no action whatsoever without a untenable criterion of sufficiency. A rational discourse simply can't be had with someone like that. I'm sure you are in fact rational, so please, explain what evidence and actions you'll be OK with.
Personally, my threshold of belief is as follows: when a preponderance of scientists around the globe warn that human action has a fair-to-midsized chance of causing a cataclysmic event, I'm alright with playing a little bit more for gas and electricity, even if it has only small-to-fair chance of helping. Let me know where you disagree with my threshold, and what your threshold is.
You are incorrect. This isn't semantics, or improper reasoning. If you actually look at real two children families with at least one boy, only one third (or something very close) of them are two boy households. That is simply fact, not one possible mathematical interpretation. I shall explain below, further below I will show you one situation where your reasoning does work. Hopefully you will be able to see the difference.
Of all two children households, their oldest is either a boy or a girl, with 50% chance (simplifying slightly). Their youngest is a boy of a girl, with 50% chance. Therefor of all 2 children households:
50% have one boy and one girl
25% have two girls
25% have two boys
But, we are removing the families with two girls, because we are only looking at households with at least one boy. Therefor:
2/3 have one boy and one girl
1/3 have two boys
So you see, given our set the odds of "the other child being a boy" or, put better, the odds that the household is a two boy household, is 1/3. This isn't semantics, this is how actual household data would be distributed in reality.
Now to clarify why we get this unintuitive result I will give another situation, one we would encounter day-to-day. I meet my neighbor Scott. Scott has his son with him. I say, "Hey I knew you had two kids but I didn't know one of them was a boy!". Scott says, "Yes, indeed, now to test if you have a real understanding of statistics I have a question for you: what are the odds my other kid is a boy?"
I know Scott's household is a two family household, and I know that the two girls option is off the list. So once again we are at this statistical point:
2/3 chance of one boy and one girl
1/3 chance of have two boys
But this time I can't stop there. Because I have one further piece of information, he has one of his kids with him and that is how I know he is a boy. One kid has been selected. Now, I'm going to assume his selection was more or less random in regards to gender. That is to say, I am assuming Scott doesn't prefer to hang out with boy children more than girl children, and that he selected which kid was with him with 50/50 randomness. So our new breakdown is thus:
1/3 chance of one boy and one girl, with the boy being introduced
1/3 chance of one boy and one girl, with the girl being introduced
1/3 chance of have two boys, with one of the boys being introduced
Now, we know the theoretical girl was not introduced, so we can scratch the second option of the list, it isn't part of our set. After doing that, you can see that the more intuitive answer of 50% has been reached. But don't confuse this example with the one above. In the original, there would be factual evidence that of two kid households with at least one boy, only 1/3 will have two boys.
Bends the mind around a little, doesn't it? A seemingly statistically insignificant fact like circumstance actually affects the hard numerical realities.
Yes I see it now. Someone with a black mask and flashlight breaks into a house, looks and the jewels, takes some photos and then goes home empty handed, leaving the jewels. He used a technologically advanced 3D printer to recreate his own copy of the jewels. Theft! How dare he! What is he doing? He is the vilest of thieves, duplicating other peoples property./sarcasm
For the record, downloading movies or music is copyright infringement, not theft. Illegal? Yes. Theft? No. I'd like to see a prosecutor try to make the case that duplicating and distributing copyrighted material is theft. It would be laughable. Their case would be summarily thrown out.
You know, when it said "Genital Recognition Algorithm" I though they meant something like facial recognition, where it would be able to identify someone for security purposes using their genitals. I guess that would get rid of the "anyone can get a picture of your face" problem.
I think instead of going to a 3D camera, why not just take a video of them turning their face. Or if your worried about someone putting a prerecorded video in front of the camera, maybe you could have the software ask you to say something, then you get both voice recognition and video recognition that can't simply be prerecorded. Seems like the way to go to me.
Due to time dilation, it takes a seemingly infinite amount of time to reach an event horizon because your speed will approach the speed of light. So it is impossible for an observer to reach an event horizon without an infinite amount of time.
Well, when we have long-term evidence (not short-term anecdotal evidence) that climates aren't changing (15 years is nothing) and a model that explains why all the stuff we're pumping into the atmosphere isn't having an effect, we'll reconsider our theory. in the meantime we are at a crossroads of speculation. You say, "who knows what'll happen, we don't know how complex systems like this work", I say, "doesn't that worry you? shouldn't we then minimize our impact until we better understand". The very fact that there are conflicting opinions screams to me that we don't know what we're doing, and should tread lightly.
A counter question, what evidence do you need to start believing in global warming? Evidence has come and gone, there are valid points on both ends, but I'm sure you've been a staunch global warming denier the whole time. If you position any more reasoned? Lets say for a moment that neither of us really know what is going to happen, since we don't. Isn't it better to be careful. If global warming supporters are wrong, do big deal, we wasted money adopting green technology we need to support ourselves sooner or later anyway. If global warming critics are wrong are chances are that the consequences are very dire. Are you so sure from you 15 years of data that the climate won't ever budge that you are willing to risk civilization as we know it? Even if the chance or global warming is only 10%, or even 1% it seems like a good idea to be on the safe side.
Besides, the article is common sense. If it is snowing hard, how did all that water get into the atmosphere? It was so cold that the water appeared in the sky? No, that means that oceans must be abnormally warm, therefor hastening the water cycle. Or it means that it was a random local fluke that no meaningful data can be extrapolated from. Anyone who uses local temperatures and conditions to either support or deny global warming is an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
The judge ruled that Cuccinelli's subpoena didn't include sufficient reason to suspect fraud. Cuccinelli is allowed to rewrite his subpoena if he wants to. Quit seeing liberal conspiracy where there is only conservative stupidity.
You main problem is that you aren't taking into account the role the different branches of government play. It isn't congress's job to decide if something it passes is constitutional. Congress's job is to represent the people. If the people want something unconstitutional it is congress's duty to see that it gets passed. Of course unconstitutional laws should be repealed. That job belongs to the judicial branch. Checks and balance. If it were the legislative branches job to both represent the people -and- decide if the laws were constitutional their goals would often be at odds, so constitutionality simply isn't part of their job at all. Constitutional checks are delegated to people appointed for life so that they don't have as much motive to corrupt the system for personal position and gain. It is a pretty good system, works out alright in the long term.
Do you have sources on those numbers?
You can't send stuff at a "normal" priority. If UPS accepted a letter (as opposed to a package) saying it'll be there in a few days they would get sued. Private companies can only deliver letters when they are doing it at a time-frame USPS can't match.
Best way to make cars safer is to put more dangerous people on the road.
No, they can't deliver standard first-class main. They can deliver stuff with "special" priority like "overnight".
International outreach is important and useful. I see no reason to snub other in order to make the program "U.S. centric". They do have goals with the international program: unity, cooperation and all that other warm-fuzzy cross-borders stuff. I think the goals are good.
... Especially given that a number of women still do the "no means yes" game for testing mates.
Such a thing doesn't exist. Pretending it does is just perpetuating the rape culture embedded in our society. If someone says no, you leave. If that isn't what they wanted, that is their fault for not being clear. But my guess is that the vast majority of the time it is what they wanted. Pretending that there are in fact many women out their just that'll "tell you no but mean yes" is sexist bullshit that should have died out in the 20's. If someone is "saying no while meaning yes" (and I doubt they are), their behavior is inappropriate.
What actually happens in reality is that they say no fully meaning no. Then some asshole with fucked up idea they got from reading comments like yours keeps going. After the fact, the woman has cognitive dissonance and doesn't want to label herself as a victim. It seems inconceivable that she has just been raped by someone she knew so well. The pressure -- both social and cognitive -- to just pretend like it wasn't rape is so monumental that most women don't even realize they're pretending. After all is done they come to the conclusion that it was alright, but the fact is they are suffering from denial and/or minimization. Because they were in fact raped. That is what happens, and that is the sick reality of the bullshit you're spouting.
You are propagating a sexist, nonsensical worldview that is very dangerous. If your story is true, than the females should have been more forward. End of discussion. You acted correctly in "ignoring" their "offer" of sex. Both sides should make it completely clear what they want. If there is -any- room for misunderstanding, you haven't been clear enough. The idea that women are or should be "subtle" with their offers is sexist bullshit that is one of the leading causes of our rape culture. You acted correctly, and if they were "disappointed" they should have been clearer. They have just as much initiative as you. If we can all just accept that we will have taken a major step forward.
My spell-checker, that's who...
I had similar problems, being self-taught myself. A book about design patterns and/or algorithms will bring you up to speed very quickly. There is a book called "Design Patterns" by several authors (four I believe). I defiantly recommend it for object-oriented design. I'm not sure if you have this problem as well, but I also recommend the book "Clean Code" by Robert C. Martin, it really opened my eyes to how code should be organized, and is a must read for any programmer, but especially self-taught ones.
I haven't found a particularly good algorithms book, does anyone have suggestions?
What if you had coursework, tests and requirements online? As far as interaction with other students, what about forums?
Hey me and my wife can't wait to play a marathon game together, you should invite her... ditch the kids though, especially if their too young.
If they don't have the ability to decide then why not pick organ donor over not an organ donor? When they are old enough to make the choice, they can. Personally I think 6 is more than old enough, but I suppose it depends on the kid. My point is that signing them up as "not donors" is a decision as well.
Two questions then:
1) What can we actively do to mitigate risk that isn't "drastic"? Just give me an example, any example. If a few taxes, are "drastic" then every day we take "drastic" actions to keep the roads maintained, fund public schools and do a variety of mundane jobs that don't require drastic action. By Webster: Drastic: acting rapidly or violently; extreme in effect or action. Taxes are extreme? Jailing people who use gasoline is extreme, a tax isn't.
2) What is realistically necessary to provide you with "convincing evidence"? Obviously, changing the CO2 levels on an earth clone isn't possible, so what -could- realistically be sufficient evidence for you? If there exist no intersection between realistically possible evidence and evidence you will except as sufficient, that leads to a problem... don't you think? Everyone should have such a intersection for any non-faith belief they have. And global warming defiantly counts as non-faith.
Don't you see difficulty of conversing in a meaningful fashion with you? It seems impossible to provide you with evidence. Without that evidence you call any action at all "drastic". So why don't you tell me, what do you need as evidence, and what action can we then take that meets your approval? Surly you concede that there is the _possibly_ of some situation which would provide you with enough evidence to feel confidant to act, and even without that evidence, surely there must be _something_ we can do to mitigate risk that isn't "drastic". Let me know what those are.
You said "anything that is being advocated may be meaningless and have no effect at all". Yes, that's true. But that is also true with many precautions we take every day. We buy insurance even though we "may" never use it. We still take the precaution because it makes sense. If we're speculating in possibilities you can also say "anything that is being advocated may be the only thing that saves mankind from extinction". What makes us rational creatures is that we don't think that anything that "may" happen is equally likely. We examine evidence, we consider the possibilities and we come to potential conclusions. We do this even when the evidence isn't 100%. I don't have 100% proof that gravity isn't going to give out any moment, but I make a ration decision based I the evidence I do have, which is strong. Therefor, I decide not to walk around in velcro. I don't have 100% proof that locking my doors deters burglars, in fact it "may" deter present-givers, or encourage burglars. Alas, I lock my doors. So tell me, what evidence do you need to take reasonable action given the potential risk? Let me know where your thresholds of belief are so that we can begin to have a meaningful conversation. What is you criterion of sufficiency, and is it realistically possible? As it currently stands, your statements make you out to be an irrational person, because you will take no action whatsoever without a untenable criterion of sufficiency. A rational discourse simply can't be had with someone like that. I'm sure you are in fact rational, so please, explain what evidence and actions you'll be OK with.
Personally, my threshold of belief is as follows: when a preponderance of scientists around the globe warn that human action has a fair-to-midsized chance of causing a cataclysmic event, I'm alright with playing a little bit more for gas and electricity, even if it has only small-to-fair chance of helping. Let me know where you disagree with my threshold, and what your threshold is.
You are incorrect. This isn't semantics, or improper reasoning. If you actually look at real two children families with at least one boy, only one third (or something very close) of them are two boy households. That is simply fact, not one possible mathematical interpretation. I shall explain below, further below I will show you one situation where your reasoning does work. Hopefully you will be able to see the difference.
Of all two children households, their oldest is either a boy or a girl, with 50% chance (simplifying slightly). Their youngest is a boy of a girl, with 50% chance. Therefor of all 2 children households:
50% have one boy and one girl
25% have two girls
25% have two boys
But, we are removing the families with two girls, because we are only looking at households with at least one boy. Therefor:
2/3 have one boy and one girl
1/3 have two boys
So you see, given our set the odds of "the other child being a boy" or, put better, the odds that the household is a two boy household, is 1/3. This isn't semantics, this is how actual household data would be distributed in reality.
Now to clarify why we get this unintuitive result I will give another situation, one we would encounter day-to-day. I meet my neighbor Scott. Scott has his son with him. I say, "Hey I knew you had two kids but I didn't know one of them was a boy!". Scott says, "Yes, indeed, now to test if you have a real understanding of statistics I have a question for you: what are the odds my other kid is a boy?"
I know Scott's household is a two family household, and I know that the two girls option is off the list. So once again we are at this statistical point:
2/3 chance of one boy and one girl
1/3 chance of have two boys
But this time I can't stop there. Because I have one further piece of information, he has one of his kids with him and that is how I know he is a boy. One kid has been selected. Now, I'm going to assume his selection was more or less random in regards to gender. That is to say, I am assuming Scott doesn't prefer to hang out with boy children more than girl children, and that he selected which kid was with him with 50/50 randomness. So our new breakdown is thus:
1/3 chance of one boy and one girl, with the boy being introduced
1/3 chance of one boy and one girl, with the girl being introduced
1/3 chance of have two boys, with one of the boys being introduced
Now, we know the theoretical girl was not introduced, so we can scratch the second option of the list, it isn't part of our set. After doing that, you can see that the more intuitive answer of 50% has been reached. But don't confuse this example with the one above. In the original, there would be factual evidence that of two kid households with at least one boy, only 1/3 will have two boys.
Bends the mind around a little, doesn't it? A seemingly statistically insignificant fact like circumstance actually affects the hard numerical realities.
I take it you are single? In what world do any PEOPLE hit a better than 60% logical statement rate?
Fixed that for you.
If only I hadn't spent all my mod points making my friends dig and climb.
Yes I see it now. Someone with a black mask and flashlight breaks into a house, looks and the jewels, takes some photos and then goes home empty handed, leaving the jewels. He used a technologically advanced 3D printer to recreate his own copy of the jewels. Theft! How dare he! What is he doing? He is the vilest of thieves, duplicating other peoples property. /sarcasm
For the record, downloading movies or music is copyright infringement, not theft. Illegal? Yes. Theft? No. I'd like to see a prosecutor try to make the case that duplicating and distributing copyrighted material is theft. It would be laughable. Their case would be summarily thrown out.
190 min? That's a long movie! I think you mean 90 min. Which is only $129,600
You know, when it said "Genital Recognition Algorithm" I though they meant something like facial recognition, where it would be able to identify someone for security purposes using their genitals. I guess that would get rid of the "anyone can get a picture of your face" problem.
I think instead of going to a 3D camera, why not just take a video of them turning their face. Or if your worried about someone putting a prerecorded video in front of the camera, maybe you could have the software ask you to say something, then you get both voice recognition and video recognition that can't simply be prerecorded. Seems like the way to go to me.
Due to time dilation, it takes a seemingly infinite amount of time to reach an event horizon because your speed will approach the speed of light. So it is impossible for an observer to reach an event horizon without an infinite amount of time.
Very nice, mod parent up.
Well, when we have long-term evidence (not short-term anecdotal evidence) that climates aren't changing (15 years is nothing) and a model that explains why all the stuff we're pumping into the atmosphere isn't having an effect, we'll reconsider our theory. in the meantime we are at a crossroads of speculation. You say, "who knows what'll happen, we don't know how complex systems like this work", I say, "doesn't that worry you? shouldn't we then minimize our impact until we better understand". The very fact that there are conflicting opinions screams to me that we don't know what we're doing, and should tread lightly.
A counter question, what evidence do you need to start believing in global warming? Evidence has come and gone, there are valid points on both ends, but I'm sure you've been a staunch global warming denier the whole time. If you position any more reasoned? Lets say for a moment that neither of us really know what is going to happen, since we don't. Isn't it better to be careful. If global warming supporters are wrong, do big deal, we wasted money adopting green technology we need to support ourselves sooner or later anyway. If global warming critics are wrong are chances are that the consequences are very dire. Are you so sure from you 15 years of data that the climate won't ever budge that you are willing to risk civilization as we know it? Even if the chance or global warming is only 10%, or even 1% it seems like a good idea to be on the safe side.
Besides, the article is common sense. If it is snowing hard, how did all that water get into the atmosphere? It was so cold that the water appeared in the sky? No, that means that oceans must be abnormally warm, therefor hastening the water cycle. Or it means that it was a random local fluke that no meaningful data can be extrapolated from. Anyone who uses local temperatures and conditions to either support or deny global warming is an idiot.