Gloves do exactly that. You get hit far more often and far harder by someone wearing gloves since their hand doesn't shatter quite so fast.
Of course giving the fighter 10 seconds to recuperate instead of letting the other guy hit him a few more times and call it over likely causes more...
From a helmet perspective it's possible a helmet could increase the amount of brain damage compared with no helmet. For the case of a nearby explosion in which no shrapnel actually hits the head/helmet. I'm not saying that is the case here (I haven't read the details), but it's feasible. Air bags increase the injury severity in some crashes over no airbags too.
Of course you'd be an idiot to not wear a helmet (or to turn off the airbag) since the benefit of not dieing in a lot of cases far outweighs some injury increase in some specific case. But if you can tweak the design to lower the risk while maintaining the "stop the impact from killing me" feature that would be nice.
If that was the case then assuming their detector is perfect at detecting "was or is a smoker" they'd have a 63% false negative rate and a 30% false positive rate.
If they perfectly detected "is currently a smoker" they'd have a 100% false negative rate and a 30% false positive rate.
Which is damn annoying since my browser window is already set to use half the screen horizontally (the other half is two xterms one above the other) so it's already not very wide...
The cables cost $3 retail, but they don't include one. Which means people get the thing home and find they don't have the cable and probably end up paying $70 at best buy to make it work.
Since that's $70 that wasn't spent on a game, sony might even lose out on the deal.
And we just happened to look at it during that 0.1% of its lifespan...
Which is possible of course, and more likely than that percentage since our observation methods find close to the star planets more easily selecting for that case.
I didn't reply to his post. In fact I didn't even read his post, and still haven't. (In fact only now do I look at thread headings and see it from Mr Crazy Crawford - count yourself lucky you went down this side track:)
I replied to yours with an obvious joke, which if you took it seriously the counter is "just because some political speech has element X, does not mean all speech with element X is political", which is so obvious I'm amazed I had to type it. Not some "oh let me add anonymity to the conditions crap.
sitting in a police station waiting for legal aid is way better than spending 10 years in jail because you couldn't be bothered (even more so if you are in fact innocent).
It's madness. They are *never* on your side. And for that amazing one time in history they are having a lawyer won't hurt.
Was just a copy-n-paste from the comments on the source article, so "on your half" doesn't really apply to the anon coward...
And it's actually the Swedish stock exchange and other authorities who brought up the "mmm this look like an internal pump and dump, and that would be insider trading" when they suspended trading in that stock: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10315020-93.html?tag=mncol;txt
1. Since the accounts had higher than average resource usage they have possibly reduced their expenses.
2. Such players can make the game less fun for others, farmers can cause inflation and other players buying their way to in game riches can cause resentment. Hence removing those players may result in less loss of other players.
3. Payment fraud is likely higher amongst farmers than the rest of the player base. They aren't playing for fun and hence more likely to increase their profits by using stolen credit cards, etc than other players (who don't want to lose their characters and fraud is harder if you want to kep the account for a long time).
Of course what really matters is how do they stop them from creating new accounts and repeating. There detection mechanism needs to be precise enough to not ban real players, but fast enough to not allow a profitable window of gold farming/selling before the ban. Which seems non-trivial.
2000 has the highest number of shark attacks in the data set you gave. Hence every year since 2000 had had a lower number of shark attacks that 2000.
That obviously does not mean the trend is down, it just means there's an outlier data point.
It does mean if we compare 2000 to any year afterwards for ice cream sales and find that ice cream sales are higher than we have a case in which ice cream sales have increased but shark attacks have not.
That ice cream sales fell in 2009, during a major recession, does not mean they were lower than the 2000 numbers. And does not mean they were lower than 2000 in all 9 years following it. Ice cream sales have increased in China and India in that timeframe, which could drown out a decrease in the US anyway.
And you didn't claim a correlation, that allows for noise and so on. You claimed "whenever ice cream sales increase shark attacks also increase". "Whenever" means in *every* case, not in most cases.
So what do you mean? World wide ice cream sales correlate to world wide shark attacks? Country level? State level? Not city level obviously.
And what time frame?
It's obviously not true for arbitrary geographic areas. And it's obviously not true for long term time frames - sharks attacks have gone down since 2000, I doubt world wide ice cream sales have.
Yes they are very likely correlated, but that is completely different than claiming that "whenever" ice cream sales increase so do shark attacks. 2000 compared with 2006 is one world wide counter example. Nashville winter versus summer is one local seasonal counter example.
So what is you actual claim for the definition of "whenever" - what area size and what time frame?
"Whenever shark attacks increase so do ice cream sales" would be a much safer statement that I wouldn't argue with.
But the one you parroted is ridiculous.
So give me the definition to which is applies which ice cream sales and which shark attacks?
Florida seems an easy example do are ice cream sales really higher in April than they are in June? (I assume you have ice cream sales stats handy to backup your claim)
The only thing I was posting about was that assigning someone as a "does linux dev for company X" because they use a company X email address isn't valid.
I picked volkswagon since that was mthe one mentioned in the post. It's completely irrelevant since it was to the actual point that just because I use a company email address doesn't mean my I'm not doing my linux dev from my basement on my own time.
You likely have to pay more since I would suspect there's a greater chance of you being a careless pyromaniac than the average person.
Just like with health insurance a pre-existing condition doesn't stop you getting insurance it just won't cover that condition (since unlike a house fire once you have cancer or aids or a dodgy heart you are stuck with it). Your rates will likely be higher since sick people tend to be more susceptible to getting other things than the average person.
And of course some conditions are serious enough that you couldn't afford the insurance they could offer anyway so they'll just reject you. That sucks, but that's why you take out insurance when you are healthy.
The fatal flaw with this in the US is the idiocies of tieing health insurance to employment and allowing insurance companies to back out when it is time to pay out because they didn't bother doing the due diligence at the beginning (and why is not refunding your premiums is not fraud).
Those people did essentially come up with the term "open source", using their definition seems reasonable. Of course they couldn't trade mark it since it's a descriptive term.
"Free software" clearly means "software without cost" but using that definition in a discussion about "open source" and "free software" licenses is retarded.
Slashdot Mirror
Gloves do exactly that. You get hit far more often and far harder by someone wearing gloves since their hand doesn't shatter quite so fast.
Of course giving the fighter 10 seconds to recuperate instead of letting the other guy hit him a few more times and call it over likely causes more...
From a helmet perspective it's possible a helmet could increase the amount of brain damage compared with no helmet. For the case of a nearby explosion in which no shrapnel actually hits the head/helmet. I'm not saying that is the case here (I haven't read the details), but it's feasible. Air bags increase the injury severity in some crashes over no airbags too.
Of course you'd be an idiot to not wear a helmet (or to turn off the airbag) since the benefit of not dieing in a lot of cases far outweighs some injury increase in some specific case. But if you can tweak the design to lower the risk while maintaining the "stop the impact from killing me" feature that would be nice.
ion and firefox 3.0.11. I trimmed the top at the tabs though, too much info in them to put in here :)
Did anyone bother to check if the cat was a walking petri dish carrying that particular bacteria to anyone foolish enough to let it near them?
If that was the case then assuming their detector is perfect at detecting "was or is a smoker" they'd have a 63% false negative rate and a 30% false positive rate.
If they perfectly detected "is currently a smoker" they'd have a 100% false negative rate and a 30% false positive rate.
So your guess is completely off the mark.
Numbers from: http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nnano.2009.235-s1.pdf
Mine looks like: http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/8872/slashdot.png
Which is damn annoying since my browser window is already set to use half the screen horizontally (the other half is two xterms one above the other) so it's already not very wide...
That's the point isn't it?
The cables cost $3 retail, but they don't include one. Which means people get the thing home and find they don't have the cable and probably end up paying $70 at best buy to make it work.
Since that's $70 that wasn't spent on a game, sony might even lose out on the deal.
And we just happened to look at it during that 0.1% of its lifespan...
Which is possible of course, and more likely than that percentage since our observation methods find close to the star planets more easily selecting for that case.
Wow, you really haven't traveled much.
But chronic pain is not so wonderful.
Having an immune system is also beneficial to survival. Multiple sclerosis, not so great.
I didn't reply to his post. In fact I didn't even read his post, and still haven't. (In fact only now do I look at thread headings and see it from Mr Crazy Crawford - count yourself lucky you went down this side track :)
I replied to yours with an obvious joke, which if you took it seriously the counter is "just because some political speech has element X, does not mean all speech with element X is political", which is so obvious I'm amazed I had to type it. Not some "oh let me add anonymity to the conditions crap.
sitting in a police station waiting for legal aid is way better than spending 10 years in jail because you couldn't be bothered (even more so if you are in fact innocent).
It's madness. They are *never* on your side. And for that amazing one time in history they are having a lawyer won't hurt.
But they are personal insults and lies, which is all you asked for an explanation of in your anonymous free question.
idiot thinks they can apply "well technically" tricks in the legal system and gets smacked down by judges.
Who would have thunk it?
Have you never seen a political TV ad?
Was just a copy-n-paste from the comments on the source article, so "on your half" doesn't really apply to the anon coward...
And it's actually the Swedish stock exchange and other authorities who brought up the "mmm this look like an internal pump and dump, and that would be insider trading" when they suspended trading in that stock: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10315020-93.html?tag=mncol;txt
But yes, different than Enron.
1. Since the accounts had higher than average resource usage they have possibly reduced their expenses.
2. Such players can make the game less fun for others, farmers can cause inflation and other players buying their way to in game riches can cause resentment. Hence removing those players may result in less loss of other players.
3. Payment fraud is likely higher amongst farmers than the rest of the player base. They aren't playing for fun and hence more likely to increase their profits by using stolen credit cards, etc than other players (who don't want to lose their characters and fraud is harder if you want to kep the account for a long time).
Of course what really matters is how do they stop them from creating new accounts and repeating. There detection mechanism needs to be precise enough to not ban real players, but fast enough to not allow a profitable window of gold farming/selling before the ban. Which seems non-trivial.
2000 has the highest number of shark attacks in the data set you gave. Hence every year since 2000 had had a lower number of shark attacks that 2000.
That obviously does not mean the trend is down, it just means there's an outlier data point.
It does mean if we compare 2000 to any year afterwards for ice cream sales and find that ice cream sales are higher than we have a case in which ice cream sales have increased but shark attacks have not.
That ice cream sales fell in 2009, during a major recession, does not mean they were lower than the 2000 numbers. And does not mean they were lower than 2000 in all 9 years following it. Ice cream sales have increased in China and India in that timeframe, which could drown out a decrease in the US anyway.
And you didn't claim a correlation, that allows for noise and so on. You claimed "whenever ice cream sales increase shark attacks also increase". "Whenever" means in *every* case, not in most cases.
So what do you mean? World wide ice cream sales correlate to world wide shark attacks? Country level? State level? Not city level obviously.
And what time frame?
It's obviously not true for arbitrary geographic areas. And it's obviously not true for long term time frames - sharks attacks have gone down since 2000, I doubt world wide ice cream sales have.
Yes they are very likely correlated, but that is completely different than claiming that "whenever" ice cream sales increase so do shark attacks. 2000 compared with 2006 is one world wide counter example. Nashville winter versus summer is one local seasonal counter example.
So what is you actual claim for the definition of "whenever" - what area size and what time frame?
"Whenever shark attacks increase so do ice cream sales" would be a much safer statement that I wouldn't argue with.
But the one you parroted is ridiculous.
So give me the definition to which is applies which ice cream sales and which shark attacks?
Florida seems an easy example do are ice cream sales really higher in April than they are in June? (I assume you have ice cream sales stats handy to backup your claim)
The only thing I was posting about was that assigning someone as a "does linux dev for company X" because they use a company X email address isn't valid.
I picked volkswagon since that was mthe one mentioned in the post. It's completely irrelevant since it was to the actual point that just because I use a company email address doesn't mean my I'm not doing my linux dev from my basement on my own time.
That's bullshit.
There is no increase in shark attacks in Nashville, TN when ice cream sales increase.
Even at a coastal location shark attacks are so rare, that there is no way "whenever" applies.
And you can.
You likely have to pay more since I would suspect there's a greater chance of you being a careless pyromaniac than the average person.
Just like with health insurance a pre-existing condition doesn't stop you getting insurance it just won't cover that condition (since unlike a house fire once you have cancer or aids or a dodgy heart you are stuck with it). Your rates will likely be higher since sick people tend to be more susceptible to getting other things than the average person.
And of course some conditions are serious enough that you couldn't afford the insurance they could offer anyway so they'll just reject you. That sucks, but that's why you take out insurance when you are healthy.
The fatal flaw with this in the US is the idiocies of tieing health insurance to employment and allowing insurance companies to back out when it is time to pay out because they didn't bother doing the due diligence at the beginning (and why is not refunding your premiums is not fraud).
I didn't take that stand, why not read what I was replying to and see if you can work it out.
Heck just read my post again and see if you can work out what I was calling retarded. Hint, it wasn't the GNU's definition.
Of course this is much more an indication of my poor writing skills than your intelligence, but that makes for a less fun reply.
Are you intentionally stupid?
But thanks for repeating my point.
Apple Public Source License version 1 is "open source" but is not "free software".
Non-advertise clause BSD meets those terms perfectly - http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php. You can allow *more* things, you just can't allow *less*.
Those people did essentially come up with the term "open source", using their definition seems reasonable. Of course they couldn't trade mark it since it's a descriptive term.
"Free software" clearly means "software without cost" but using that definition in a discussion about "open source" and "free software" licenses is retarded.