Yes, but it’s impossible to get an appropriate sample size because a halfway-decent representative sample would be prohibitively large and expensive to take.
The key problem in this situation is that the bowl will always have to point straight up.
That, and the fact that mercury is an extremely toxic and hazardous element that has to be carefully handled and disposed of. Accidentally disperse some into the air (splatter) and you could face a very costly cleanup. In short, mercury is a little bit beyond something your average hobbyist should be playing with – not that it would likely deter them, unfortunately.
When I graduated from, oh, kindergarten or so, I acquired this amazing capability... to differentiate between what’s real and what’s make-believe. Maybe you haven’t?
Nonetheless, if you randomly assign 100 clouds to one group and the other 100 to another group, then add up the precipitation totals of the two groups, the totals should be approximately equal.
I think his whole point is that there is so much variability from one cloud to any other cloud that your statement is basically worthless because 100 clouds is nowhere near a large enough number to make an assumption on how much rain they’ll produce. It might take tens of thousands, millions even, in order to safely assume that the variability had been eliminated... and you might have to take them from widely different climates and altitudes or you’d never get an accurate prediction.
For instance, here is a chart showing the annual precipitation measured in various locations throughout Arizona. Now I have no idea how that even relates to the number of clouds actually passing over the rain gauge, per year; that number might also vary wildly from one year to the next. Take the annual rainfall, divided by the number of clouds that generated it... that will also vary wildly year-to-year. In other words, you could probably sample clouds for a whole year and still not have counted enough clouds for your rainfall prediction to be as accurate as you’d need it to be.
Indeed. Poking holes in clouds has long been a favourite method whereby to attempt weather control. Usually with cannon or other projectile launching devices, but I see no reason that an airplane would be different. Plus you are, as others have noted, also burning thousands of gallons of fuel...
Besides, a healthy view of the world, clever sense of humour and the ability to actually discuss all things maturely is a lot more attractive than a penis of any size or quality.
And an excellent way to get yourself quickly friend-zoned, yeah.
If an innocent person is executed for spying, he's still been executed for spying.
That is where we disagree. He has been executed, but we don’t know why: if he was innocent, it wasn’t for spying.
What was he executed for? Was he or wasn’t he a spy?
If he was a spy, then yes, he was executed for spying. Cue the discussion about whether or not it is appropriate to carry out capital punishment on 7-year-olds for actual crimes they’ve committed, which is an entirely valid topic for discussion but not suitable for the encyclopedia.
If he was not a spy, he wasn’t executed for spying. What, exactly, he was executed for is anyone’s guess. Was it political? Were they trying to get at his parents? Was it an honest case of mistaken identity and/or an inadequate justice system? all of which speculation is also unsuitable for an encyclopedia.
As we do not know whether or not he was a spy, saying that he was executed for spying is inaccurate.
is an example of the begging the question fallacy (I won’t link to it on Wikipedia; Anonymous Coward already did). In order for that sentence to be true, the fact that he was spying would have to be accepted. If he was not spying, I contest that the previous statement was false, and the opposite claim “The Taliban put a 7-year-old to death on a false accusation of spying” would be true. However, either one of those statements is a judgment, not a fact.
So yes, it was “begging (avoiding) the question”, and the question that it was avoiding was, as I stated:
Was he spying? Because if not, the statement is not factually true.
Nobody said convicted of. Being “convicted of” something means a court decided you were guilty, and as courts have been known to make mistakes it is possible (though usually not likely) that being convicted of something does not mean that you were guilty of it.
We are talking about someone being put to death for something. Why was he put to death? Because he was a spy.... well, allegedly a spy. However the literal reading of the sentence, “The Taliban put a 7 year old to death for spying”, explicitly states that a 7-year-old was spying, and the Taliban executed him for it. If you put that sentence forth as a fact, the fact that he was only allegedly a spy disappears: you’ve stated it as a fact.
Saying he was convicted of spying is one thing. Saying he was executed for spying is another thing. If I say he was executed for spying, I am implicitly endorsing the conviction (the opposite would be if I said that he was falsely accused of spying and then executed). That is an opinion, not a fact. The fact is, he was executed for allegedly spying.
However, I found it ironically illustrative of the fact that when someone claims something is “as neutral and baldly factual as it gets”, even if they’re honestly trying to make it neutral there’s still a very good chance that it isn’t. PitaBred still fell into a logical fallacy with making what he thought was a purely factual statement.
Joke’s on you... I used it correctly, but deliberately made it appear as though I was using it incorrectly, knowing that grammar Nazis would doubtless crawl out of the woodwork to correct me.
Second you have effectively just "begged the question" yourself by automatically assuming that your position is correct by the bare assertion that it is correct.
Ah ha! So what you are saying is...
Anyone who says "eh, language evolves" when "begs the question" is misused should consider how they'd react when someone points to their monitor and says "computer" or points to their tower and says "CPU"... which begs the question: If enough people use "computer" to mean "monitor", is that what it really means?
I can foresee a possible new Slashdot trolling technique... presenting a statement which begs the question, explicitly then stating that it does beg the question, then stating the question which the statement had begged. Then, sit back and wait for the over-zealous grammar Nazis to strike!
That was “intended to win the bidding for oil concessions”... the exclusive right to explore and develop oil, not to receive unlawful and beneficial-to-them reductions to their royalty payments. In fact hand-in-hand with the receiving of the concessions goes the fact that all applicable royalties will be paid to the host country.
Amusing. First two results: a 2012-themed discussion board, and a story about Japanese bribes to resume whaling.
Some of the other results are more relevant to the point that you were trying to make, but even if I concede that you’ve shown that bribery and corruption are, to an extent, taking place (and I never claimed they weren’t), you still don’t prove your initial claim: the intended and actual outcome of these bribes is that their royalty payments get reduced.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but it’s impossible to get an appropriate sample size because a halfway-decent representative sample would be prohibitively large and expensive to take.
Usually frozen stuff floats, in comparison to its liquid state. (Apples, churches, very small rocks.)
False. Water is one of the rare exceptions. Usually frozen stuff sinks in comparison to its liquid state.
The key problem in this situation is that the bowl will always have to point straight up.
That, and the fact that mercury is an extremely toxic and hazardous element that has to be carefully handled and disposed of. Accidentally disperse some into the air (splatter) and you could face a very costly cleanup. In short, mercury is a little bit beyond something your average hobbyist should be playing with – not that it would likely deter them, unfortunately.
When I graduated from, oh, kindergarten or so, I acquired this amazing capability... to differentiate between what’s real and what’s make-believe. Maybe you haven’t?
It simulates violence, and those aren’t really women, they’re bits and bytes.
Amusingly enough, Arabic numerals (0123456789) aren’t used in Arabic-language writing. These are.
Slightly offtopic, I realise, but what on Idle isn’t?
Nonetheless, if you randomly assign 100 clouds to one group and the other 100 to another group, then add up the precipitation totals of the two groups, the totals should be approximately equal.
I think his whole point is that there is so much variability from one cloud to any other cloud that your statement is basically worthless because 100 clouds is nowhere near a large enough number to make an assumption on how much rain they’ll produce. It might take tens of thousands, millions even, in order to safely assume that the variability had been eliminated... and you might have to take them from widely different climates and altitudes or you’d never get an accurate prediction.
For instance, here is a chart showing the annual precipitation measured in various locations throughout Arizona. Now I have no idea how that even relates to the number of clouds actually passing over the rain gauge, per year; that number might also vary wildly from one year to the next. Take the annual rainfall, divided by the number of clouds that generated it... that will also vary wildly year-to-year. In other words, you could probably sample clouds for a whole year and still not have counted enough clouds for your rainfall prediction to be as accurate as you’d need it to be.
Indeed. Poking holes in clouds has long been a favourite method whereby to attempt weather control. Usually with cannon or other projectile launching devices, but I see no reason that an airplane would be different. Plus you are, as others have noted, also burning thousands of gallons of fuel...
Besides, a healthy view of the world, clever sense of humour and the ability to actually discuss all things maturely is a lot more attractive than a penis of any size or quality.
And an excellent way to get yourself quickly friend-zoned, yeah.
Fair enough. I think that’s a pretty good description of the situation, actually.
If an innocent person is executed for spying, he's still been executed for spying.
That is where we disagree. He has been executed, but we don’t know why: if he was innocent, it wasn’t for spying.
What was he executed for? Was he or wasn’t he a spy?
If he was a spy, then yes, he was executed for spying. Cue the discussion about whether or not it is appropriate to carry out capital punishment on 7-year-olds for actual crimes they’ve committed, which is an entirely valid topic for discussion but not suitable for the encyclopedia.
If he was not a spy, he wasn’t executed for spying. What, exactly, he was executed for is anyone’s guess. Was it political? Were they trying to get at his parents? Was it an honest case of mistaken identity and/or an inadequate justice system? all of which speculation is also unsuitable for an encyclopedia.
As we do not know whether or not he was a spy, saying that he was executed for spying is inaccurate.
An encyclopedia isn't going to be able to tell you whether or not he was really spying.
It can certainly attempt to provide enough relevant facts that you could make the decision for yourself.
It can only state the objective fact that the Taliban killed him and their explanation was that he was spying.
True enough, but just stating that he was executed for spying makes it sound like you endorse their determination that he was spying.
The facts are simple:
He was accused of being a spy.
He was executed.
What was he executed for? Who knows? It cannot be determined from the facts that we have.
Why was I modded troll?
The statement,
The Taleban put a 7 year old to death for spying.
is an example of the begging the question fallacy (I won’t link to it on Wikipedia; Anonymous Coward already did). In order for that sentence to be true, the fact that he was spying would have to be accepted. If he was not spying, I contest that the previous statement was false, and the opposite claim “The Taliban put a 7-year-old to death on a false accusation of spying” would be true. However, either one of those statements is a judgment, not a fact.
So yes, it was “begging (avoiding) the question”, and the question that it was avoiding was, as I stated:
Was he spying? Because if not, the statement is not factually true.
Nobody said convicted of. Being “convicted of” something means a court decided you were guilty, and as courts have been known to make mistakes it is possible (though usually not likely) that being convicted of something does not mean that you were guilty of it.
We are talking about someone being put to death for something. Why was he put to death? Because he was a spy. ... well, allegedly a spy. However the literal reading of the sentence, “The Taliban put a 7 year old to death for spying”, explicitly states that a 7-year-old was spying, and the Taliban executed him for it. If you put that sentence forth as a fact, the fact that he was only allegedly a spy disappears: you’ve stated it as a fact.
Saying he was convicted of spying is one thing. Saying he was executed for spying is another thing. If I say he was executed for spying, I am implicitly endorsing the conviction (the opposite would be if I said that he was falsely accused of spying and then executed). That is an opinion, not a fact. The fact is, he was executed for allegedly spying.
Necessity...
I think you meant porn.
Yes, that would be more appropriate.
However, I found it ironically illustrative of the fact that when someone claims something is “as neutral and baldly factual as it gets”, even if they’re honestly trying to make it neutral there’s still a very good chance that it isn’t. PitaBred still fell into a logical fallacy with making what he thought was a purely factual statement.
Joke’s on you... I used it correctly, but deliberately made it appear as though I was using it incorrectly, knowing that grammar Nazis would doubtless crawl out of the woodwork to correct me.
The Taleban put a 7 year old to death for spying.
Begging the question: Was he spying?
The whiners who are complaining.
Yeah, that would work great on a free website.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=video%20chat%20avatar
Was that really so hard?
Second you have effectively just "begged the question" yourself by automatically assuming that your position is correct by the bare assertion that it is correct.
Ah ha! So what you are saying is...
Anyone who says "eh, language evolves" when "begs the question" is misused should consider how they'd react when someone points to their monitor and says "computer" or points to their tower and says "CPU" ... which begs the question: If enough people use "computer" to mean "monitor", is that what it really means?
I can foresee a possible new Slashdot trolling technique... presenting a statement which begs the question, explicitly then stating that it does beg the question, then stating the question which the statement had begged. Then, sit back and wait for the over-zealous grammar Nazis to strike!
That was “intended to win the bidding for oil concessions”... the exclusive right to explore and develop oil, not to receive unlawful and beneficial-to-them reductions to their royalty payments. In fact hand-in-hand with the receiving of the concessions goes the fact that all applicable royalties will be paid to the host country.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_an_oil_concession
When bared bear arms are laid bare by scorching the hair off the beary hairy arms, have said arms been borne, bared, or laid bare?
http://www.google.com/search?q=bp+bribes
Amusing. First two results: a 2012-themed discussion board, and a story about Japanese bribes to resume whaling.
Some of the other results are more relevant to the point that you were trying to make, but even if I concede that you’ve shown that bribery and corruption are, to an extent, taking place (and I never claimed they weren’t), you still don’t prove your initial claim: the intended and actual outcome of these bribes is that their royalty payments get reduced.