Of course. Though it's just as likely that doing nothing might see some new disease vector through the mosquitoes and wipe out the birds - which would have been avoided if we just acted!
More likely some other insect will expand its numbers to fill the now empty niche (another variety of mosquito... something else entirely...) and no one else will notice. Essentially it's a bet that whatever it is won't be as bad for humans as the mosquitoes are and so humans win.
Using pesticides and so on are far more likely to cause ripple effects, since they tend to kill everything else that could occupy the niche and so yes the birds/etc starve...
Double blind is basically not feasible for peer review.
If you don't like someone enough to want to actively harm their career then you are going to be able to recongnise their papers without needing the name to be listed.
Just "reject everything that has more than two citations to things written by X" would likely do the job well enough.
And for the slashdot idea - you read the comments while not logged in or logged in as another user and then log in as the user with mod points and do the modding.
Even though the point I countered was that the High Court had never done such a thing and couldn't have ever done such a thing. And you state "it did", but somehow that means I'm wrong even though it is exactly what I claimed.
And to show that I'm wrong in saying that theoritically if the High Court decided to it could issue such a certificate but never will since it has said it won't you make exactly that same claim?
Do you have a different definition of "wrong" to me?
I'm working on "wrong" meaning "not correct". But you say I'm wrong and offer the explanation that I'm correct on both counts? So what definition are you using?
An IPO is not always a bad buy-in. You have the underwriters who have an incentive to underprice to keep their institutional clients on the good side. You have the venture capitalists (who given it is an IPO tend to be involved) who want to keep the underwriters happy. So often they win out against the insiders who want the highest price possible and you have a good buy.
of course if the company is a worthless piece of overvalued junk then so will be the IPO.
The Australia Acts (Federal and State) removed appeal to the Privy Council in the 80s for Australians.
Parliament did as much as they could do to remove the Privy Council. However, Parliament can't change the constitution and nobody bothered with a referendum to do so.
And while some parts of the consititution had conveniant "Until the Parliament otherwise provides" language, s74 does not and there hasn't been a successful referendum to change it so it still applies.
The High Court declared it won't ever do that in the future though, but that's not actually legally binding.
The High Court doesn't and can't grant an appeal to the Privy Council (and this predates even the Australia Acts).
The high court did so once in 1912, so you are factually incorrect again.
Well in theory there's the Privy Council, though it would somehow have to turn into a constitutional issue of state versus federal power and the High Court would have to go against its previous statement that it will never grant such leave in the future.
You ignore the entire "a natural mutation could produce a similar thing, and having a head start on fighting that would be very beneficial" factor.
You also ignore that the black hats will likely develop it themselves anyway (they know it can be done, the research equipment involved isn't restricted like the stuff you need for nuclear research, and they have the names and addresses of some guys who know how to do it) lowering the "badness" of 01 significantly.
Except we *know* it can't, not because we happen not to know how but because by definition a prime has no factors (ignoring itself and 1) and large primes are still prime.
Now maybe you meant large non-primes?
def pickTwoFactors(x):
for i in range(2, x-1):
if x % i == 0:
return (i, x/i)
return None
1. Exposure to a wild variant doesn't produce full immunity to other wild variant either, why wouldn't you want to give your immune system a head start? Do you think if you are exposed to a wild virus once you are immune forever, if not then what does boosters have to do with anything?
Of course it's luck. You do realise that before we vaccinated for tetanus not everyone in the world got it., right?
At that point prodution is so cheap that it doesn't matter. Once you have no scarcity economics goes out the window.
If machinary is doing all the work but things are still scarce (because we don't have enough iron or whatever) then there'll be plenty of jobs as grunts in the army throwing bodies protecting the iron or whatever you have and grabbing what others have.
They didn't look at desktop performance so your desired language would be ridiculous.
And It isn't the start of the article, and isn't the first mention of the desktop. Which you might know if you didn't stop reading as soon as you misinterpreted something due to your crappy understanding of English.
Heck it isn't even the first mention of desktop in the summary, even the snippet you did read. The sentence directly before the one you hate so much provided the server/desktop context.
You stop reading because a quote in a slashdot summary, which would often be taken from the middle of an article and be notoriously out of context, isn't an introduction. Well done.
And even though I said my writing is pretty bad and it'd be better to read the hopefully edited article text, I have to go back to writing class because you think the first paragraph of an article doesn't exist.
Whatever. Congrats you stopped reading in the middle of a sentence that comes from the middle of an article and came to the opposite interpretation that reading a a few words further would provide. And given you then had to post about it it wasn't a time constraint that prevented reading a few more letters. Of course that's everyone else's fault and nothing to do with your reading comprehension.
And oh no a large slashdot user id, I must be a baby moron. It couldn't be that I stopped posting with my old one due it being obviously my name and not wanting it to be so clear that I occassionaly post from work.
Sure, it requires someone who is skilled at making said cupcakes. But an oven is an oven (within reason, yes you can have a really crappy oven that can't hold a constant temperature) and a cupcake is a cupcake.
And note the context of "gourmet" in this case, it's synonymous with "a dry cupcake". In other words it's just a label change without a quality change. Whereas an espresso, even a badly made shitty one, is not the same as a cup of brewed coffee - they are two different beverages.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course. Though it's just as likely that doing nothing might see some new disease vector through the mosquitoes and wipe out the birds - which would have been avoided if we just acted!
More likely some other insect will expand its numbers to fill the now empty niche (another variety of mosquito... something else entirely...) and no one else will notice. Essentially it's a bet that whatever it is won't be as bad for humans as the mosquitoes are and so humans win.
Using pesticides and so on are far more likely to cause ripple effects, since they tend to kill everything else that could occupy the niche and so yes the birds/etc starve...
Double blind is basically not feasible for peer review.
If you don't like someone enough to want to actively harm their career then you are going to be able to recongnise their papers without needing the name to be listed.
Just "reject everything that has more than two citations to things written by X" would likely do the job well enough.
And for the slashdot idea - you read the comments while not logged in or logged in as another user and then log in as the user with mod points and do the modding.
So I'm wrong?
Even though the point I countered was that the High Court had never done such a thing and couldn't have ever done such a thing. And you state "it did", but somehow that means I'm wrong even though it is exactly what I claimed.
And to show that I'm wrong in saying that theoritically if the High Court decided to it could issue such a certificate but never will since it has said it won't you make exactly that same claim?
Do you have a different definition of "wrong" to me?
I'm working on "wrong" meaning "not correct". But you say I'm wrong and offer the explanation that I'm correct on both counts? So what definition are you using?
Bullshit.
An IPO is not always a bad buy-in. You have the underwriters who have an incentive to underprice to keep their institutional clients on the good side. You have the venture capitalists (who given it is an IPO tend to be involved) who want to keep the underwriters happy. So often they win out against the insiders who want the highest price possible and you have a good buy.
of course if the company is a worthless piece of overvalued junk then so will be the IPO.
Would you rather be a poor person in the United States, or a poor person in Ethiopia?
If you pick the US then clearly income inequality isn't the problem.
What diseases and cancers does the pollution addresses by the Kyoto protocol cause?
None? So how is that applicable to the point in the slightest?
You are simply wrong on both counts.
Parliament did as much as they could do to remove the Privy Council. However, Parliament can't change the constitution and nobody bothered with a referendum to do so.
And while some parts of the consititution had conveniant "Until the Parliament otherwise provides" language, s74 does not and there hasn't been a successful referendum to change it so it still applies.
The High Court declared it won't ever do that in the future though, but that's not actually legally binding.
The high court did so once in 1912, so you are factually incorrect again.
Well in theory there's the Privy Council, though it would somehow have to turn into a constitutional issue of state versus federal power and the High Court would have to go against its previous statement that it will never grant such leave in the future.
Yes, much better they just blocked their entire site in countries which have laws requiring them to make some sort of token effort at it.
Because that wouldn't be censorship.
That entire principle is about results and not presence.
Do you just use random links and hope they support your made up points?
You ignore the entire "a natural mutation could produce a similar thing, and having a head start on fighting that would be very beneficial" factor.
You also ignore that the black hats will likely develop it themselves anyway (they know it can be done, the research equipment involved isn't restricted like the stuff you need for nuclear research, and they have the names and addresses of some guys who know how to do it) lowering the "badness" of 01 significantly.
Except we *know* it can't, not because we happen not to know how but because by definition a prime has no factors (ignoring itself and 1) and large primes are still prime.
Now maybe you meant large non-primes?
def pickTwoFactors(x):
for i in range(2, x-1):
if x % i == 0:
return (i, x/i)
return None
That analogy is failing somewhere...
1. Exposure to a wild variant doesn't produce full immunity to other wild variant either, why wouldn't you want to give your immune system a head start? Do you think if you are exposed to a wild virus once you are immune forever, if not then what does boosters have to do with anything?
Of course it's luck. You do realise that before we vaccinated for tetanus not everyone in the world got it., right?
Could be 0%, could be 100%. Makes no difference.
Having a subsidiary in Ireland does not make the entire company Irish.
Which means they are unrelated.
At that point prodution is so cheap that it doesn't matter. Once you have no scarcity economics goes out the window.
If machinary is doing all the work but things are still scarce (because we don't have enough iron or whatever) then there'll be plenty of jobs as grunts in the army throwing bodies protecting the iron or whatever you have and grabbing what others have.
AFL is Aussie Rules. But you skipped Rugby League (assuming by Rugby meant Rugby Union which seems rather likely) so the number is still three :)
Well unless you count soccer, but who does?
The also don't get disability benefits if they aren't disabled. Oh the unfairness!
The don't get a pension if they are young or have to high an income or have too many assets. Oh the unfairness!
Sure, assuming mail volumes don't go down.
And given that they have gone down by 20% in five years that isn't a good assumption.
This is the most rational explanation for HPs behaviour I've heard. Well that and LSD in the water in the board room.
Yes, It was a reference to previous reports not what was actually being looked at in that article.
They didn't look at desktop performance so your desired language would be ridiculous.
And It isn't the start of the article, and isn't the first mention of the desktop. Which you might know if you didn't stop reading as soon as you misinterpreted something due to your crappy understanding of English.
Heck it isn't even the first mention of desktop in the summary, even the snippet you did read. The sentence directly before the one you hate so much provided the server/desktop context.
You stop reading because a quote in a slashdot summary, which would often be taken from the middle of an article and be notoriously out of context, isn't an introduction. Well done.
And even though I said my writing is pretty bad and it'd be better to read the hopefully edited article text, I have to go back to writing class because you think the first paragraph of an article doesn't exist.
Whatever. Congrats you stopped reading in the middle of a sentence that comes from the middle of an article and came to the opposite interpretation that reading a a few words further would provide. And given you then had to post about it it wasn't a time constraint that prevented reading a few more letters. Of course that's everyone else's fault and nothing to do with your reading comprehension.
And oh no a large slashdot user id, I must be a baby moron. It couldn't be that I stopped posting with my old one due it being obviously my name and not wanting it to be so clear that I occassionaly post from work.
Sure, it requires someone who is skilled at making said cupcakes. But an oven is an oven (within reason, yes you can have a really crappy oven that can't hold a constant temperature) and a cupcake is a cupcake.
And note the context of "gourmet" in this case, it's synonymous with "a dry cupcake". In other words it's just a label change without a quality change. Whereas an espresso, even a badly made shitty one, is not the same as a cup of brewed coffee - they are two different beverages.
Do you know what sanctions are?