I didn't say from when Apple went public. I said "the same time period". You know take Apple's stock price in 2003 and compare it to the stock price today.
Those assumptions are all stated plainly (well except 3 which is completely irrelevant) there's no need to make up what they "seem to be". If you think they are invalid then obviously you don't believe the number. That doesn't change the math from being a simple extrapolation.
Thinking the assumptions and hence logic is crap is one thing. Thinking the math is wrong is completely independant.
Calling those assumptions "new math" is just being retarded. The math is the multiplications of the factors, it has nothing to do with whether those factors are actually valid.
That "new math" you don't understand is the simple arithmetic and multiplication the rest of us learned before they let us *into* high school.
Summary for you, the idiot:
1. The data the EFF isn't everything and doesn't claim to be everything, however 33% of the potential violations in that data are NSL violations. 2. Back in 2008, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine told the House Judiciary subcommittee that a 10% review of FBI field office NSLs found 640 potential NSL violations from 2003 to 2006. 3. Oh look primary school math: (640 * 10) / 4 * 8 * 3 = 38,400. Or in words, if 10% were 640 then there were 6400 potential NSL violations over 4 years, so 1600 per year. So over the 8 years the EFF data is for 12800. Those type are 33% in the EFF data so multiply by 3 for 38400.
And yes that's extrapolating an extrapolation. But that make that very clear in their report.
Maybe Participation Criteria is considered important to the people proposing this?
And you really like Schulze but don't think that approval voting is better than first-past-the-post? If not why would you want people to stop advocating for a improvement even if it isn't the "ultimate" improvement.
They already gave a pretty simple reason for why they did so. And given that explanation matches the data they gathered - *everything* -- what light are you expecting?
It's an experiment confirming QM predictions of reaction rates varying with mass, not a way to produce a hydrogen alternative for general use (because a fast decaying hydrogen that you need a particle accelerator to make is so useful...)
It says "government research bans". Which surely means "bans on research done by government" or "bans on research with government resources". Otherwise it would just be "research bans". Parsing "government research bans" is "research bans placed by the government" seems silly since who else can ban it in the first place?
The stars in an elliptical galaxy are still orbiting the center of mess, they just aren't aligned with each other.
A cluster would similarly see the component galaxies orbiting the center of mass, since otherwise it's not going to be a cluster but a dense blob as they all fall into the center of mass...
Facebook is the victim. They lost some users which results in fewer eyeballs for them to sell to advertisers. Plus the cost of dealing with the complaints and the PR damage (yeah yeah it's Facebook like they have any PR left to damage).
Other people are free to pursue their own lawsuits against that individual (of course there's any money that might have been available to collect isn't anymore...) if they believe they have been damaged by that individuals actions.
So snipers never shoot at anyone who isn't a direct threat to them right now? Why don't they just stay hidden then, so that even enemy snipers aren't a threat to them?
An air superiority fighter exists in order to shoot down other fighters. A sniper on the other hand exists to shoot individual enemy non-sniper soldiers and happens to also be good at counter-sniping. Or do you really think that is there were no enemy snipers that we wouldn't deploy any?
Slashdot Mirror
Whereas other people find the first two questions interesting.
Oh noes! There are people who have different opinions to you! Get some torches and pitchforks!
I didn't say from when Apple went public. I said "the same time period". You know take Apple's stock price in 2003 and compare it to the stock price today.
Obviously 38,400 is the 40,000 number.
Those assumptions are all stated plainly (well except 3 which is completely irrelevant) there's no need to make up what they "seem to be". If you think they are invalid then obviously you don't believe the number. That doesn't change the math from being a simple extrapolation.
Thinking the assumptions and hence logic is crap is one thing. Thinking the math is wrong is completely independant.
Calling those assumptions "new math" is just being retarded. The math is the multiplications of the factors, it has nothing to do with whether those factors are actually valid.
Netgear's stock has increased in price by 100% since it went public. Apple's stock, over the same time period, has increased in price by over 3100%.
Now stock price isn't everything, but it is to these people...
It obviously doesn't. Just like eye tracking doesn't work for people who are blind.
And it doesn't matter since something doesn't have to work with everyone to be useful.
English is not mathematics. And no, the rest of us aren't changing our language to match your obsessive needs for it to be so.
That "new math" you don't understand is the simple arithmetic and multiplication the rest of us learned before they let us *into* high school.
Summary for you, the idiot:
1. The data the EFF isn't everything and doesn't claim to be everything, however 33% of the potential violations in that data are NSL violations.
2. Back in 2008, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine told the House Judiciary subcommittee that a 10% review of FBI field office NSLs found 640 potential NSL violations from 2003 to 2006.
3. Oh look primary school math: (640 * 10) / 4 * 8 * 3 = 38,400. Or in words, if 10% were 640 then there were 6400 potential NSL violations over 4 years, so 1600 per year. So over the 8 years the EFF data is for 12800. Those type are 33% in the EFF data so multiply by 3 for 38400.
And yes that's extrapolating an extrapolation. But that make that very clear in their report.
I think it'd be a spiral.
No one is forcing you to drink a couple of beers either.
No MADD would rather no one drink, ever.
What if you can't find the keys. Oh no the car won't allow you to drive, too bad your friend dies. Better get rid of the keys too I guess.
One dead drunk in the woods seems a fair trade off for a few less dead children on their way home from soccer anyway.
It adds a pretty blatant intent factor when they do that though.
Maybe Participation Criteria is considered important to the people proposing this?
And you really like Schulze but don't think that approval voting is better than first-past-the-post? If not why would you want people to stop advocating for a improvement even if it isn't the "ultimate" improvement.
They already gave a pretty simple reason for why they did so. And given that explanation matches the data they gathered - *everything* -- what light are you expecting?
Are you serious????
It's an experiment confirming QM predictions of reaction rates varying with mass, not a way to produce a hydrogen alternative for general use (because a fast decaying hydrogen that you need a particle accelerator to make is so useful...)
How are they commiting perjury? And how is a fraudulent request.
They tick all the boxes in the things you quote.
you're an idiot.
It says "government research bans". Which surely means "bans on research done by government" or "bans on research with government resources". Otherwise it would just be "research bans". Parsing "government research bans" is "research bans placed by the government" seems silly since who else can ban it in the first place?
OK, orbit instead of spin if you want.
The stars in an elliptical galaxy are still orbiting the center of mess, they just aren't aligned with each other.
A cluster would similarly see the component galaxies orbiting the center of mass, since otherwise it's not going to be a cluster but a dense blob as they all fall into the center of mass...
Though of course IANAA.
Everything that is gravitationally either spins or collapses. "sit there and hang out" isn't an option.
PR damage isn't lost money, so i already said that.
Facebook is the victim. They lost some users which results in fewer eyeballs for them to sell to advertisers. Plus the cost of dealing with the complaints and the PR damage (yeah yeah it's Facebook like they have any PR left to damage).
Other people are free to pursue their own lawsuits against that individual (of course there's any money that might have been available to collect isn't anymore...) if they believe they have been damaged by that individuals actions.
Why is your stream quality more important than my time to start watching?
Yeah people who do their jobs suck.
So snipers never shoot at anyone who isn't a direct threat to them right now? Why don't they just stay hidden then, so that even enemy snipers aren't a threat to them?
An air superiority fighter exists in order to shoot down other fighters. A sniper on the other hand exists to shoot individual enemy non-sniper soldiers and happens to also be good at counter-sniping. Or do you really think that is there were no enemy snipers that we wouldn't deploy any?