Well it would not be abuse... Prostitution was legal, and if you are a slave you cannot object to the type of labour your owner asks of you (within legal bounds at least).
Theoretically you could come up with a slavery contract that restricted what the owner could ask you to do and when and how much, but at what point would that still be called slavery? If you are a slave, but only plant and harvest cotton, and only from 9 to 5, 5 days a week. then you are just a contracted worker who is paid upfront.
Well modernly. But modernly it can just be a synonym for Atheism as well.
Originally, it was a term used by Christians who did not pretend to know the mind of god, and who believed that such was impossible. AND/OR that the existent of the god is unknowable.
No it is not, because the chances of one of those ten bags containing only branded items is as unlikely as random chance causing some other occurrence that only effects the branded boxes.
Yes and that is why you need to send more that 1, 2, or 3 packages. If you send 100 packages then the possibility of more from one group than the other ending up randomly in one specific situation is basically zero. The possibility that any hub that received an equal number of branded and non-branded boxes would sort them in such a way such that all or a significant portion of the branded packages ended up on one truck without a similar number of unbranded is very very small.
If you have 100 packages and half are branded. And they go through some sorting method and the output looks significantly non-random than that is a result and evidence. Statistics tells us that that has something like a 1 in a million chance of that happening, unless their is a branding bias.
In this situation we have some method that when 50 branded (A) boxed and 50 unbranded (B) boxes passed through it we saw (among other things) 1 B box get lost and 10 A boxes get lost. that is significantly unlikely to be by chance.
But it was shipped to many different locations, far apart. And each with a control package (the unmarked one).
Any instances of whole trucks being lost/delayed would happen to both.
But we do not see that . We see all packages coming from the same location, and all going to very unique locations, and one specific group being significantly different.
I do not really know how a common saying has anything to do with this.
But that is a very simply way to describe this type of statistical evidence. They could not of sent a single package and claimed any type significant evidence. That is why they sent 86, which would give them something like a 99.9% confidence rating (assuming the results where reasonable).
But no, three times is not enough to produce significant results. You need about 21, if I remember stats 201 correctly.
Their is no solid evidence for what you want to be true, so we must all just take it on faith? I am absolutely sure that more Atheist branded packages would be lost in the US. But at this point all we have is worse than hearsay.
What if I was the Catholic church and said that it sent ten men to spy on Atheist shoes and found that they spend all their profits on Vietnamese child sex slaves. Would your solution be to roll over and accept child sex slavery? Or would you demand we all march on heir headquarters and beat the CEO to death?
You do not need a reason to distrust someone, particularly with a known bias (in this case Atheism and profit).
Unless you have a reason to believe that someone would tell you the truth, and would go against his own biases to do so, why would you have faith in something that would be easier and cheaper to make up and that benefits them to have believed?
Personally, I find it hard to believe that they would spend thousands of dollars running an experiment, when they already have a moderate amount of evidence (and more than enough to strongly recommend that their customers get unmarked packages).
But this very article shows that they are not just observing. They have an agenda, and can be coursed or bought into saying that a grouping of letters is a word or that it is not a word.
And most people go by dictionaries and official sources like this. If I used ungoogleable in a high school essay I would absolutely get marks taken off unless I could produce some official documents calling it a word. This means that that word is used less, which makes a cumulative effect for it not making it into dictionaries and spell checkers.
I have never heard Slackware called: "The simple easy to use Linux distro".
Not that I really have not much experience, but I would only disagree with you on one point. Mint (et all), is a better starting point than Ubuntu right now. Why add on an esoteric, universally hated GUI on top of a normal intro level Linux OS. Mint is Ubuntu with a more normal interface that is simply a better experience regardless of if you come from a Linux, Windows, or Mac background.
Evidence is going a little far, but since any and all morals are completely subjective, and the only way to gauge the current subjective morals is by culture . And Christianity interpretation of the bible has always corresponded quite well to the current societies morality.
Then it is based on evidence, or the closest thing to it for morality, which is what the bible mostly deals with.
They do, at least currently, seem about 10-20 years behind on most issues (contraception, homosexuality). But anything in a 100 year range is pretty close in a historic perspective.
Its interpenetration of history and science also seems to follow this. It was a accurate specific historic account when that was what scholars thought. now it is mostly considered an analogy.
Slashdot Mirror
Well it would not be abuse... Prostitution was legal, and if you are a slave you cannot object to the type of labour your owner asks of you (within legal bounds at least).
Theoretically you could come up with a slavery contract that restricted what the owner could ask you to do and when and how much, but at what point would that still be called slavery?
If you are a slave, but only plant and harvest cotton, and only from 9 to 5, 5 days a week. then you are just a contracted worker who is paid upfront.
You simply do not understand statistics at all.
Well modernly. But modernly it can just be a synonym for Atheism as well.
Originally, it was a term used by Christians who did not pretend to know the mind of god, and who believed that such was impossible. AND/OR that the existent of the god is unknowable.
Fire your publisher and get a better one. There are numerous options available.
No it is not, because the chances of one of those ten bags containing only branded items is as unlikely as random chance causing some other occurrence that only effects the branded boxes.
Yes and that is why you need to send more that 1, 2, or 3 packages. If you send 100 packages then the possibility of more from one group than the other ending up randomly in one specific situation is basically zero. The possibility that any hub that received an equal number of branded and non-branded boxes would sort them in such a way such that all or a significant portion of the branded packages ended up on one truck without a similar number of unbranded is very very small.
If you have 100 packages and half are branded. And they go through some sorting method and the output looks significantly non-random than that is a result and evidence. Statistics tells us that that has something like a 1 in a million chance of that happening, unless their is a branding bias.
In this situation we have some method that when 50 branded (A) boxed and 50 unbranded (B) boxes passed through it we saw (among other things) 1 B box get lost and 10 A boxes get lost. that is significantly unlikely to be by chance.
But it was shipped to many different locations, far apart. And each with a control package (the unmarked one).
Any instances of whole trucks being lost/delayed would happen to both.
But we do not see that . We see all packages coming from the same location, and all going to very unique locations, and one specific group being significantly different.
I do not really know how a common saying has anything to do with this.
But that is a very simply way to describe this type of statistical evidence.
They could not of sent a single package and claimed any type significant evidence. That is why they sent 86, which would give them something like a 99.9% confidence rating (assuming the results where reasonable).
But no, three times is not enough to produce significant results. You need about 21, if I remember stats 201 correctly.
Their is no solid evidence for what you want to be true, so we must all just take it on faith?
I am absolutely sure that more Atheist branded packages would be lost in the US. But at this point all we have is worse than hearsay.
What if I was the Catholic church and said that it sent ten men to spy on Atheist shoes and found that they spend all their profits on Vietnamese child sex slaves. Would your solution be to roll over and accept child sex slavery? Or would you demand we all march on heir headquarters and beat the CEO to death?
Form what I understand no one can mine bitcoins cost effectively anymore, except for custom built systems.
It is a guarantee that they would put orders of magnitude more money into the project then they would get out.
And in no scenario would this ever of been green.
You do not need a reason to distrust someone, particularly with a known bias (in this case Atheism and profit).
Unless you have a reason to believe that someone would tell you the truth, and would go against his own biases to do so, why would you have faith in something that would be easier and cheaper to make up and that benefits them to have believed?
Personally, I find it hard to believe that they would spend thousands of dollars running an experiment, when they already have a moderate amount of evidence (and more than enough to strongly recommend that their customers get unmarked packages).
You do not need to repeat an experiment to get evidence.
Most studies are only done once.
And no matter how many times yo repeat it, it is not proof, just further evidence.
There are a few different definitions.
Technically agnostic is the belief that you do not and cannot understand god, but do believe that he/it exists.
In reality the labels agnostic and atheist are the same and the non-religion just pick whichever one they want.
But this very article shows that they are not just observing. They have an agenda, and can be coursed or bought into saying that a grouping of letters is a word or that it is not a word.
And most people go by dictionaries and official sources like this. If I used ungoogleable in a high school essay I would absolutely get marks taken off unless I could produce some official documents calling it a word. This means that that word is used less, which makes a cumulative effect for it not making it into dictionaries and spell checkers.
There is nothing to spoil, Bitcoins are already as stupid as they could possibly ever be.
I have never heard Slackware called: "The simple easy to use Linux distro".
Not that I really have not much experience, but I would only disagree with you on one point.
Mint (et all), is a better starting point than Ubuntu right now. Why add on an esoteric, universally hated GUI on top of a normal intro level Linux OS. Mint is Ubuntu with a more normal interface that is simply a better experience regardless of if you come from a Linux, Windows, or Mac background.
The porno version had that problem as well.
You're doing it wrong.
The graph clearly shows that there is no correlation to 4 years. it shows a wide, fairly even, range. Where a few months is as likely as 10 years.
4 years is the average, nothing more.
Either are remarkably scary.
Evidence is going a little far, but since any and all morals are completely subjective, and the only way to gauge the current subjective morals is by culture . And Christianity interpretation of the bible has always corresponded quite well to the current societies morality.
Then it is based on evidence, or the closest thing to it for morality, which is what the bible mostly deals with.
They do, at least currently, seem about 10-20 years behind on most issues (contraception, homosexuality). But anything in a 100 year range is pretty close in a historic perspective.
Its interpenetration of history and science also seems to follow this. It was a accurate specific historic account when that was what scholars thought. now it is mostly considered an analogy.
Thank you.
I was being sarcastic.
Yep, the bible is interpreted exactly the same as it was 2000 years ago.
Every nation on Earth already has the right to kill whoever they want.
But in this particular case, the question is not do they have the right but do they want to go to war with the country that citizen is part of or not.