If you have a prerequisite that one of them is heads, then you can't include in the population options that include no heads. In this case, you have either heads-tails or heads-heads. As I pointed out, its 50%, not 33%.
Note that order is irrelevant, but if you include order, its heads-heads, heads-heads, tails-heads, or heads-tails, which is also 50%. There are 2 sets of heads-heads because the prerequisite is that one of them is heads, and you have to include for order; ie if the first one is heads, the second is either heads or tails, and if instead the second one is heads, then the first flip is either heads or tails. Anyone who modded you up is an idiot.
You have got it so wrong it hurts to read. The number of days since the project started on day 4 will always be 4. If it turns out that it is 5, then this finding is statistically significant. If it turns out to be 4, then it is not.
If something is statistically significant, it simply means that it was unlikely to have occurred by chance. In your example, there would be no deviation from expectations, as r^2 = 1, so there is no statistically significant deviation, nor would the findings be significant. It is almost certain that your example would have such an r^2 value because it occurred by chance, as there was no possibility of deviation. This does not mean that in a separate example (such as one where the population contains deviations from the mean), finding an r^2 value of 1 and no deviation would not be a significant finding; in fact, for most studies, finding no deviation from expectation would indicate that you did your study incorrectly.
Next time, try understanding the words you use before posting.
You assume that flip A and flip B are related, which they arent. Thanks to statistics, we can prove that the outcome of the first flip does not effect the outcome of the second. If one of them is 1, there is still a 50% chance of the other being 1. Same chance of the other being 1 as when the other is 0.
Your logic is based on probabilities after the coins are already flipped. Of course, after the coins are already flipped, the probability of them being other than what they already landed is 0.
I dont think you understand SOX, nevermind HIPAA. SOX requires increased corporate accounting controls and increases the penalties for white collar crimes related to them, including corporate fraud accountability. Software auditors would have nothing to do with it. The amount of a software violation would never approach fraud, because in order for a violation to be material, the company would be have to be small enough that they would never get audited (the BSA is not going to waste time auditing a 2 man operation that is missing 3 seats and only makes 20k a year, nevermind that this company wouldnt be public and therefore SOX wouldnt apply).
Actually, since you lose the arbitration issue, you get fined (heavily), and then a court order requires you to go through with the audit anyway. You refuse enough, and you get more fines than you owe for the infringement, plus jail time (I assume you are the one responsible since you are the one refusing to allow the audit that you contractually agreed to). The short answer is that allowing the audit and paying your millions of dollars of infringement is much cheaper than refusing to do so.
On the other hand, if you are committing millions of dollars of infringement, then more likely than not, your business is already out of business because your business partners, supply chain, and customers have all left you for dead since you dont uphold your end of contracts. Microsoft suing you is probably the least of your worries.
You do realize that when I ask one person a question, and another one answers, that it is confusing as all hell. Especially when they answer a different, unrelated question. My question was about ticket prices, not how much people are willing to spend on coke and nachos. I guess I will respond in an equally confusing way.
At the theatre I frequent, tickets are $12 for a normal evening ticket, but you get a table, a waiter, and the ability to order pitchers or pints of beer during the movie without disturbing other patrons. I don't mind spending $30 on refreshments. Then again, I only go to the movies 3 or 4 times a year, because its still better to watch at home and for what I spend, I could have bought the movie on blu-ray the day it gets released to stores.
Well, to be fair, the NY times is a shitty newspaper that generally gets anything to do with technology wrong. Of course, you can replace technology with practically any word and the previous sentence is still true.
YMMV. The last time I went to Rome, I had a 9 hour delay for my flight (leaving Rome to Barcelona). It actually would have been faster to fly from the US.
Much less likely. Any aircraft entering US airspace without explicit permission to do so is likely to be treated as a terrorist craft, so it would be much harder to pull off a WTC type attack in a canadian hijacked plane than a US one.
Im guessing they will make lots of announcements beforehand and encourage people to go before the time limit, and then enforce the rule by arresting anyone who leaves their seat to go shit on a plane. After all, if its not worth getting arrested, you probably didnt have to go that badly...
If you sign the contract to get your mom the latest, newest, 2 year lock in phone, you are an idiot. She isnt going to be surfing the internet while drives around everywhere. She isnt going be texting you (she will call you, thats why you got her a phone). She isnt going to be using apps to play games or check the stock market or the weather. You should have just bought her a prepaid minutes phone, and had her phone text you when she runs low. You could have gotten her unlimited monthly home phone service for maybe $30, even if she lives in Mexico. Hell, you could get her a monthly no contract phone for $50 purchase and then $25 a month.
The president doesnt make any laws, or health care reform would have been pushed through, despite no one wanting it. Chances are, no one on earth ever has to cancel a contract two months early, because they signed a contract. They understood what two years means, so if they want to break it, they also understand what early termination means. If they don't, you get 30 days after signing the contract to figure it out. You also can ask any questions you want, and spend as much time reading the contract as you want on Verizon's website, at any time, including before signing the contract. This isnt a moral issue, its a legal one, and nearly 100% of the time, the consumer is wrong. The only time the consumer is right is when they read the contract.
On another point, corporations are made of people. We shouldnt be forcing them to shut down by government decree (for one thing, it doesnt stop spammers). People shouldnt be able to disolve their identity and reappear without legal or moral obligations, unless of course you want murderers, drug dealers, rapists, and home owners to walk away from their obligations to banks and/or society. I don't know anyone who does. Corporations, on the other hand, don't have moral obligations, just legal ones. If your company makes widgets, and the price of widgets unexpectedly drops in half, and your company cant afford to pay for its inventory, you might go out of business. There can't be responsibility for that debt following the end of business, or individuals will have such debts for having worked for the company. Ill bet even you can come up with 30 or 40 reasons that arent moral issues for why this wouldnt work.
Hurray, you are mentally retarded. Your mother may love you, but the rest of us realize that you are illiterate and proud of it. Fuck off. At this point, I just feel sorry for your.
I'm quite certain that I am correct. I'm also certain that your parents raised you improperly, you retard (by which I mean that you are foolish and socially inept...there is no reason to be careful with such meaning, which should be obvious from the context, unless you are a retard) since you assume that someone is a racist with no basis for it other than that you wish it were true. You don't like what I have to say so you look for a character flaw that gives you the ability to overlook common sense.
OP stated it was fat person's fault that people called fat person fat. Since being fat is a choice (as was acknowledged by fat person), there is nothing wrong with people who are not fat that point out that fat person has chosen to be fat.
I don't see where you find racism, but my first sentence should have pointed out that race is not a factor of anything. To quote myself, "On the other hand, no one is going to claim that personal responsibility is required for being black. That is preposterous." There is nothing racist here, and if you see anything racist, I suggest you see a psychiatrist for your mental health issues with looking racism in situations where it just does not exist. You seem to be kind of person that would go masturbate and then claim that you raped yourself because you weren't really in the mood.
Quit looking for things that aren't there.
I do object to people getting angry about the concept of discrimination. Just because your mother is fat doesn't mean you have to be. You don't have to have fat friends if you worry that having fat friends will make you fat. Its called discrimination, and believe it or not, discrimination is not a bad word. After all, you discriminate by not hanging out with drug addicts, or axe murderers, people who don't take showers, you get the idea.
If you don't want society to call your fat friend fat, then change society. Move to a location in which being fat isn't a social stigma. Don't call people racist over it, because you will just be wrong.
and i have never yet seen any other country nearby, leave aside any european countries in which overweight people were ridiculed, belittled, bullied or discriminated against in any respect.
i very much have the idea that you people are so obsessed with your own socioeconomical circumstances, and so many bullshit propaganda being fed into you that you fail to see a world outside yours with different ideas and inclinations exist.
To be fair, you are the one who is logically incorrect. Im tired of retards trying to pull the race card like it affects anyone, anywhere, for any reason by giving ridiculous examples that are not, never have been, and never will be true.
People do make a choice to be christian or computer programmers. Like being fat, this is known as a lifestyle choice.
On the other hand, no one is going to claim that personal responsibility is required for being black. That is preposterous.
I don't see how you can confuse something that can be made fun of because the person doing so is responsible (putting mayo on fries) with something that you can't control (having your parked car hit in a parking lot).
Parent is not a victim because parent recognizes that fat is a chosen lifestyle. Like a crack addict that sucks dick in a bad part of town to get their next fix, they may realize that what they are doing is viewed badly by society, and that it makes them a whore, and that they can change, even though they havent yet. Calm down and realize that while cake may be cheaper, less addictive, and (slightly) less than harmful than crack, no one has ever stopped doing crack because people are calling them whores, blacks, or computer programmers. If people can be shamed into eating less cake, I say shaming them is valid societal pressure.
Ask any mother why she, at some point, has told her daughter that she is gaining too much weight, and let me know if the answer is ever because her daughter is black. Im guessing that even outside of the US, this wont be true.
Getting on the actual article, this was about fat avatars. If someone chooses to have a fat avatar, they can also choose to lie about it and get a skinny avatar. I'm guessing that most people will get a pokemon avatar, or a game character specific avatar, or an actual photo of themselves avatar,or a default xbox avatar long, long, long before they bother to put their weight information into a video game console. Who the hell is going to release their medical history to microsoft?
If republicans want less government (which they do), then they don't want a police state, defense spending, or war.
Politicians, on the other hand, want votes, and one of the easier ways to garner votes is through fear. A police state, defense spending, and war stir up enough fear to gain votes, but these concepts have nothing to do with being a republican.
While I don't understand what you mean by "most" and "some" (and you apparently don't either), pointing out things that you have no basis for is the definition of a waste of time.
It's all teenagers, regardless of gender. It's one of those evolutionary things where you hit puberty and then you become interested in explicit content.
Less teenage girls may be seeking out 2G1C, but the content in girl magazines is often much more damaging to them long term. Need proof? Listen to any middle/high school girl gossip without them knowing (note - don't actually do this, just watch MTV. If you do it, you could get arrested).
Slashdot Mirror
No, I am correct.
If you have a prerequisite that one of them is heads, then you can't include in the population options that include no heads. In this case, you have either heads-tails or heads-heads. As I pointed out, its 50%, not 33%.
Note that order is irrelevant, but if you include order, its heads-heads, heads-heads, tails-heads, or heads-tails, which is also 50%. There are 2 sets of heads-heads because the prerequisite is that one of them is heads, and you have to include for order; ie if the first one is heads, the second is either heads or tails, and if instead the second one is heads, then the first flip is either heads or tails. Anyone who modded you up is an idiot.
You have got it so wrong it hurts to read. The number of days since the project started on day 4 will always be 4. If it turns out that it is 5, then this finding is statistically significant. If it turns out to be 4, then it is not.
If something is statistically significant, it simply means that it was unlikely to have occurred by chance. In your example, there would be no deviation from expectations, as r^2 = 1, so there is no statistically significant deviation, nor would the findings be significant. It is almost certain that your example would have such an r^2 value because it occurred by chance, as there was no possibility of deviation. This does not mean that in a separate example (such as one where the population contains deviations from the mean), finding an r^2 value of 1 and no deviation would not be a significant finding; in fact, for most studies, finding no deviation from expectation would indicate that you did your study incorrectly.
Next time, try understanding the words you use before posting.
Your logic is wrong.
You assume that flip A and flip B are related, which they arent. Thanks to statistics, we can prove that the outcome of the first flip does not effect the outcome of the second. If one of them is 1, there is still a 50% chance of the other being 1. Same chance of the other being 1 as when the other is 0.
Your logic is based on probabilities after the coins are already flipped. Of course, after the coins are already flipped, the probability of them being other than what they already landed is 0.
I dont think you understand SOX, nevermind HIPAA. SOX requires increased corporate accounting controls and increases the penalties for white collar crimes related to them, including corporate fraud accountability. Software auditors would have nothing to do with it. The amount of a software violation would never approach fraud, because in order for a violation to be material, the company would be have to be small enough that they would never get audited (the BSA is not going to waste time auditing a 2 man operation that is missing 3 seats and only makes 20k a year, nevermind that this company wouldnt be public and therefore SOX wouldnt apply).
Actually, since you lose the arbitration issue, you get fined (heavily), and then a court order requires you to go through with the audit anyway. You refuse enough, and you get more fines than you owe for the infringement, plus jail time (I assume you are the one responsible since you are the one refusing to allow the audit that you contractually agreed to). The short answer is that allowing the audit and paying your millions of dollars of infringement is much cheaper than refusing to do so.
On the other hand, if you are committing millions of dollars of infringement, then more likely than not, your business is already out of business because your business partners, supply chain, and customers have all left you for dead since you dont uphold your end of contracts. Microsoft suing you is probably the least of your worries.
Why is Microsoft Ireland research using pounds instead of euros?
You do realize that when I ask one person a question, and another one answers, that it is confusing as all hell. Especially when they answer a different, unrelated question. My question was about ticket prices, not how much people are willing to spend on coke and nachos. I guess I will respond in an equally confusing way.
At the theatre I frequent, tickets are $12 for a normal evening ticket, but you get a table, a waiter, and the ability to order pitchers or pints of beer during the movie without disturbing other patrons. I don't mind spending $30 on refreshments. Then again, I only go to the movies 3 or 4 times a year, because its still better to watch at home and for what I spend, I could have bought the movie on blu-ray the day it gets released to stores.
I dont get the logic.
We will make you wait longer for movies, therefore you will have access to more movies...
Damn, why did netflix take so long to come up with this?
Where the hell are you going to a theatre for $5? Here in atlanta, the student ticket matinee is $8.
Well, to be fair, the NY times is a shitty newspaper that generally gets anything to do with technology wrong. Of course, you can replace technology with practically any word and the previous sentence is still true.
YMMV. The last time I went to Rome, I had a 9 hour delay for my flight (leaving Rome to Barcelona). It actually would have been faster to fly from the US.
Much less likely. Any aircraft entering US airspace without explicit permission to do so is likely to be treated as a terrorist craft, so it would be much harder to pull off a WTC type attack in a canadian hijacked plane than a US one.
Im guessing they will make lots of announcements beforehand and encourage people to go before the time limit, and then enforce the rule by arresting anyone who leaves their seat to go shit on a plane. After all, if its not worth getting arrested, you probably didnt have to go that badly...
Agh. Mod me down, I can't read.
No, idiot mods, (score: 4, Informative) is modding up. Use the overrated button on parent.
If you sign the contract to get your mom the latest, newest, 2 year lock in phone, you are an idiot. She isnt going to be surfing the internet while drives around everywhere. She isnt going be texting you (she will call you, thats why you got her a phone). She isnt going to be using apps to play games or check the stock market or the weather. You should have just bought her a prepaid minutes phone, and had her phone text you when she runs low. You could have gotten her unlimited monthly home phone service for maybe $30, even if she lives in Mexico. Hell, you could get her a monthly no contract phone for $50 purchase and then $25 a month.
The president doesnt make any laws, or health care reform would have been pushed through, despite no one wanting it. Chances are, no one on earth ever has to cancel a contract two months early, because they signed a contract. They understood what two years means, so if they want to break it, they also understand what early termination means. If they don't, you get 30 days after signing the contract to figure it out. You also can ask any questions you want, and spend as much time reading the contract as you want on Verizon's website, at any time, including before signing the contract. This isnt a moral issue, its a legal one, and nearly 100% of the time, the consumer is wrong. The only time the consumer is right is when they read the contract.
On another point, corporations are made of people. We shouldnt be forcing them to shut down by government decree (for one thing, it doesnt stop spammers). People shouldnt be able to disolve their identity and reappear without legal or moral obligations, unless of course you want murderers, drug dealers, rapists, and home owners to walk away from their obligations to banks and/or society. I don't know anyone who does. Corporations, on the other hand, don't have moral obligations, just legal ones. If your company makes widgets, and the price of widgets unexpectedly drops in half, and your company cant afford to pay for its inventory, you might go out of business. There can't be responsibility for that debt following the end of business, or individuals will have such debts for having worked for the company. Ill bet even you can come up with 30 or 40 reasons that arent moral issues for why this wouldnt work.
Hurray, you are mentally retarded. Your mother may love you, but the rest of us realize that you are illiterate and proud of it. Fuck off. At this point, I just feel sorry for your.
I'm quite certain that I am correct. I'm also certain that your parents raised you improperly, you retard (by which I mean that you are foolish and socially inept...there is no reason to be careful with such meaning, which should be obvious from the context, unless you are a retard) since you assume that someone is a racist with no basis for it other than that you wish it were true. You don't like what I have to say so you look for a character flaw that gives you the ability to overlook common sense.
OP stated it was fat person's fault that people called fat person fat. Since being fat is a choice (as was acknowledged by fat person), there is nothing wrong with people who are not fat that point out that fat person has chosen to be fat.
I don't see where you find racism, but my first sentence should have pointed out that race is not a factor of anything. To quote myself, "On the other hand, no one is going to claim that personal responsibility is required for being black. That is preposterous." There is nothing racist here, and if you see anything racist, I suggest you see a psychiatrist for your mental health issues with looking racism in situations where it just does not exist. You seem to be kind of person that would go masturbate and then claim that you raped yourself because you weren't really in the mood.
Quit looking for things that aren't there.
I do object to people getting angry about the concept of discrimination. Just because your mother is fat doesn't mean you have to be. You don't have to have fat friends if you worry that having fat friends will make you fat. Its called discrimination, and believe it or not, discrimination is not a bad word. After all, you discriminate by not hanging out with drug addicts, or axe murderers, people who don't take showers, you get the idea.
If you don't want society to call your fat friend fat, then change society. Move to a location in which being fat isn't a social stigma. Don't call people racist over it, because you will just be wrong.
Because what I want in a fantasy game is realism...
and i have never yet seen any other country nearby, leave aside any european countries in which overweight people were ridiculed, belittled, bullied or discriminated against in any respect.
i very much have the idea that you people are so obsessed with your own socioeconomical circumstances, and so many bullshit propaganda being fed into you that you fail to see a world outside yours with different ideas and inclinations exist.
So you have been outside of turkey then?
To be fair, you are the one who is logically incorrect. Im tired of retards trying to pull the race card like it affects anyone, anywhere, for any reason by giving ridiculous examples that are not, never have been, and never will be true.
People do make a choice to be christian or computer programmers. Like being fat, this is known as a lifestyle choice.
On the other hand, no one is going to claim that personal responsibility is required for being black. That is preposterous.
I don't see how you can confuse something that can be made fun of because the person doing so is responsible (putting mayo on fries) with something that you can't control (having your parked car hit in a parking lot).
Parent is not a victim because parent recognizes that fat is a chosen lifestyle. Like a crack addict that sucks dick in a bad part of town to get their next fix, they may realize that what they are doing is viewed badly by society, and that it makes them a whore, and that they can change, even though they havent yet. Calm down and realize that while cake may be cheaper, less addictive, and (slightly) less than harmful than crack, no one has ever stopped doing crack because people are calling them whores, blacks, or computer programmers. If people can be shamed into eating less cake, I say shaming them is valid societal pressure.
Ask any mother why she, at some point, has told her daughter that she is gaining too much weight, and let me know if the answer is ever because her daughter is black. Im guessing that even outside of the US, this wont be true.
Getting on the actual article, this was about fat avatars. If someone chooses to have a fat avatar, they can also choose to lie about it and get a skinny avatar. I'm guessing that most people will get a pokemon avatar, or a game character specific avatar, or an actual photo of themselves avatar,or a default xbox avatar long, long, long before they bother to put their weight information into a video game console. Who the hell is going to release their medical history to microsoft?
To be fair, blockbusters now matches netflix and charges a monthly rate, so there are no due dates or late fees.
They can't possibly.
If republicans want less government (which they do), then they don't want a police state, defense spending, or war.
Politicians, on the other hand, want votes, and one of the easier ways to garner votes is through fear. A police state, defense spending, and war stir up enough fear to gain votes, but these concepts have nothing to do with being a republican.
Like most members of the mass media, you are continuously confusing conservative and christian. These are very different things. Parent is correct.
While I don't understand what you mean by "most" and "some" (and you apparently don't either), pointing out things that you have no basis for is the definition of a waste of time.
It's all teenagers, regardless of gender. It's one of those evolutionary things where you hit puberty and then you become interested in explicit content.
Less teenage girls may be seeking out 2G1C, but the content in girl magazines is often much more damaging to them long term. Need proof? Listen to any middle/high school girl gossip without them knowing (note - don't actually do this, just watch MTV. If you do it, you could get arrested).
I hate to have to point this out, but teenage girls are also looking for explicit content.