Well this assumption is clearly nonsensical. In times gone by (when, according to this "research" women weren't so beautiful), they had lots of children - sometimes a dozen or more.
That isn't the claim and hence is irrelevant.
If there has been an increase in womens' beauty in the past two or three generations, then it is far too quick for it to have been genetic or evolutionary - where the effect would become noticeable over thousands of years.
Over the generations? How, can they tell - we've only had photography for (maybe) 4 or 5 generations, which is certainly not enough time for evolution to have a noticeable effect on people. then again, which women?
They describe a pretty clear selection pressure on attractive women.
* Attractive women have more kids * Attractive women have a higher proportion of female kids. * Attractive women's kids tend to be more attractive than unattractive women's kids.
Yes you can argue that their study is flawed and that those three things aren't actually the case. If they are the case though, then you don't need to go back dozens of generations to see there will be an increase in the attractiveness of women in the population.
Whether they controlled for other factors properly I have no idea.
They weren't saying we have evidence that women have gotten more attractive over time. They were saying we have evidence that women should get more attractive over time.
women graduates have fewer children, on average, than those with less education - does that mean being clever makes you ugly - ridiculous idea!
If you generate your own ridiculous conclusions they'll be ridiculous ideas. Amazing.
That both clever people and ugly people have fewer children doesn't mean clever->ugly or ugly->clever. It just means you have two unrelated (with just that evidence) factors at work.
lol, wtf?? Asteroids don't absolutely have to hit something you know, if they don't hit something they most likely won't hit anything.
Or more seriously, I mentioned what would be evidence of that, I don't think the crater differences on the sides are of the moon do - they seem to be more simply explained by the earth blocking the near side from some impacts.
The fact that the far side has more craters than the near side seems to be pretty good evidence that the planet that happens to always be on the near side might just be stopping some of the ones that would have otherwise hit the near side.
Or do you have some other explanation? Magical faeries that teleport things out of the way maybe?
Some objects that would have hit earth will hit Jupiter instead, obviously not all since the Earth and the Moon have been hit a lot. Hence Jupiter protected the Earth from those particular objects. Hence Jupiter is protecting us.
It tells you nothing about how "attracted" asteroids are to the earth, it tells you that a lots of asteroids on target for the near side of the moon, hit th earth instead.
To provide evidence that the Earth attracts asteroids (which it obviously does, you know gravity and all) you would need to see more craters on the far side of the moon then you see on a once side of a similarly sized body in a similar obit that does not have a larger body nearby to do the attracting.
0.5% a day, 200 days a year is not roughly 100% ROI - well unless your "roughly" includes error bars that make the measurement meaningless.
As for how much time to catch up, that likely depends more on what the other guy earns at his job during the time you are trading above the 5 minutes a month he probably spends making trades. And of course whether we the time frame we measure in includes a black swan with respect to your strategy or for his.
I think your the only one claiming to be a trader, so no else is saying they are a one let alone a good one.
and that means that every night, win or lose, my position is cash. I would be terrified at the thought of buying something of negligible value (ie a piece of paper) and holding it
There already are criminal charges that apply to people filing erroneous patents.
A patent application has the normal "under penalty of perjury" language in it and requires to to affirm that you have disclosed all pertinent information. So intentionally leave something out that you do know about already triggers that.
And if they do find prior art that you did not there is an existing penalty - they likely lose out on a bunch of equivalence doctrine protections.
All I proposed was defining a set of guidelines that must be followed to do a prior art search and require the applicant to state they followed them. It'd even be good for the economy, since a industry will pop up that does prior art searches at the minimum possible level that qualifies.
Nice join of two sentences from pretty unrelated paragraphs there.
There wouldn't be a jury in that second case for the subjective ruling. Since that was a procedure change .
If someone/some corporation submits a patent for which there prior art then turns up why is it so awful to examine their future application more carefully, seems like a rational allocation of resources to me.
Who made more money would depend on how much money each of you started with, and how much time each of you spend on trading and what you earn doing other things.
And everyone does not "want in". And some people, other than just you, are paying attention to oil. You aren't the only person in the world who has noticed those things. You almost certainly weren't the first.
Of course if you really were unable to find the prior art and did the required level of due diligence in looking for it then they won't be able to prove you knew about it, so you won't get convicted and hence won't get fined.
There should be consequences for prior art turning up that you didn't find, not fines, but stricter processing of all future patents (maybe for the next 5 years instead of all). Since you are clearly not good at looking yourself.
Whereas I would because I don't really give a crap that other people can buy extra stuff. I'll enjoy the cheaper game without that stuff. Of course I'm probably exactly the player they don't want, which is lucky since I last all of 1 week on MMOs before they bore me silly and I never touch that one again.
The entire idea behind a public school system and a public health system is that you provide a system that is ok but not great.
That way wealthy people won't use it, they'll send the kids to private schools and take out private health insurance (or just pay directly themselves) and go to private hospitals.
But they still pay for the public system they don't use, which means the public system can hopefuly reach "ok" standards since it is being subsidized.
If you use a voucher system, then the less good public system is no longer getting the funding it needs to be "ok", since the wealthy people are no longer contributing to it (they use their voucher to pay some portion of the private cost).
The whole idea is to make the school/hospital good enough to not be embarrassing and to provide the education/health care required to stop a large portion of society being unproductive. But not good enough that people who can afford not to use it - but you need those non-users to keep paying for it anyway.
It depends, is the time and effort it takes you fix it worth less than what the specialist charges? If so doing it yourself is the economically rational choice.
I'm perfectly competent enough to clean the house myself, but I'd rather pay someone to do it so I can play ball with the four year old instead.
If the treatment isn't expensive and doesn't have bad side effects and doesn't do harm if you don't have what they are treating then that's a reasonable approach maybe the best approach. Even if it is expensive and has some bad effects, if those are less than the tests to confirm it still might be a reasonable approach.
Of course it also leads to the overuse of antibiotics, since an infection is almost always a likely suspect and there's a cheap easy remedy, and hence antibiotic resistant organisms which is bad for everyone.
Note that resinstalling windows has some pretty big side effects so in the domain of PC repair that's likely not the thing to try first.
Because it's harder to sell people on a terrorist scanner which will identify 10,000 non-terrorists for the full body cavity search room for every terrorist, plus will let some terrorists through anyway.
Much easier to sell if you say it is 99% accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't the claim and hence is irrelevant.
That isn't the claim, so that is irrelevant too.
They describe a pretty clear selection pressure on attractive women.
* Attractive women have more kids
* Attractive women have a higher proportion of female kids.
* Attractive women's kids tend to be more attractive than unattractive women's kids.
Yes you can argue that their study is flawed and that those three things aren't actually the case. If they are the case though, then you don't need to go back dozens of generations to see there will be an increase in the attractiveness of women in the population.
Whether they controlled for other factors properly I have no idea.
They weren't saying we have evidence that women have gotten more attractive over time. They were saying we have evidence that women should get more attractive over time.
If you generate your own ridiculous conclusions they'll be ridiculous ideas. Amazing.
That both clever people and ugly people have fewer children doesn't mean clever->ugly or ugly->clever. It just means you have two unrelated (with just that evidence) factors at work.
Except that has more to do with diet and nutrition.
Either that or evolution happens *much* faster than I thought given that a single generation sees a 4" change reasonably often.
Can the thing survive if the mother dies? If not then, it's just another parasite to be killed at the mother's whim.
Ants fight back when you try to kill them too, doesn't stop me not caring when I squish one.
Windows itself was found to be a monopoly in the OS market having over 90% of the market, iPhones make up 10% of the "smart" phone market.
lol, wtf?? Asteroids don't absolutely have to hit something you know, if they don't hit something they most likely won't hit anything.
Or more seriously, I mentioned what would be evidence of that, I don't think the crater differences on the sides are of the moon do - they seem to be more simply explained by the earth blocking the near side from some impacts.
Because one was found to be a monopoly by a court of law and the other was not.
The fact that the far side has more craters than the near side seems to be pretty good evidence that the planet that happens to always be on the near side might just be stopping some of the ones that would have otherwise hit the near side.
Or do you have some other explanation? Magical faeries that teleport things out of the way maybe?
Some objects that would have hit earth will hit Jupiter instead, obviously not all since the Earth and the Moon have been hit a lot. Hence Jupiter protected the Earth from those particular objects. Hence Jupiter is protecting us.
It tells you nothing about how "attracted" asteroids are to the earth, it tells you that a lots of asteroids on target for the near side of the moon, hit th earth instead.
To provide evidence that the Earth attracts asteroids (which it obviously does, you know gravity and all) you would need to see more craters on the far side of the moon then you see on a once side of a similarly sized body in a similar obit that does not have a larger body nearby to do the attracting.
Because currencies have never collapsed overnight.
Oh wait, yes they have.
0.5% a day, 200 days a year is not roughly 100% ROI - well unless your "roughly" includes error bars that make the measurement meaningless.
As for how much time to catch up, that likely depends more on what the other guy earns at his job during the time you are trading above the 5 minutes a month he probably spends making trades. And of course whether we the time frame we measure in includes a black swan with respect to your strategy or for his.
I think your the only one claiming to be a trader, so no else is saying they are a one let alone a good one.
What do you think cash is?
There already are criminal charges that apply to people filing erroneous patents.
A patent application has the normal "under penalty of perjury" language in it and requires to to affirm that you have disclosed all pertinent information. So intentionally leave something out that you do know about already triggers that.
And if they do find prior art that you did not there is an existing penalty - they likely lose out on a bunch of equivalence doctrine protections.
All I proposed was defining a set of guidelines that must be followed to do a prior art search and require the applicant to state they followed them. It'd even be good for the economy, since a industry will pop up that does prior art searches at the minimum possible level that qualifies.
So we should remove all the laws against murder because sometimes innocent people get convicted.
And we should never make/have made anything illegal because someone might be falsely accused and convicted at some point?
Nice join of two sentences from pretty unrelated paragraphs there.
There wouldn't be a jury in that second case for the subjective ruling. Since that was a procedure change .
If someone/some corporation submits a patent for which there prior art then turns up why is it so awful to examine their future application more carefully, seems like a rational allocation of resources to me.
Who made more money would depend on how much money each of you started with, and how much time each of you spend on trading and what you earn doing other things.
And everyone does not "want in". And some people, other than just you, are paying attention to oil. You aren't the only person in the world who has noticed those things. You almost certainly weren't the first.
Yes.
Of course if you really were unable to find the prior art and did the required level of due diligence in looking for it then they won't be able to prove you knew about it, so you won't get convicted and hence won't get fined.
There should be consequences for prior art turning up that you didn't find, not fines, but stricter processing of all future patents (maybe for the next 5 years instead of all). Since you are clearly not good at looking yourself.
If that is the case, then the jobs will come flooding back in the long run anyway. So alls well that ends well.
Whereas I would because I don't really give a crap that other people can buy extra stuff. I'll enjoy the cheaper game without that stuff. Of course I'm probably exactly the player they don't want, which is lucky since I last all of 1 week on MMOs before they bore me silly and I never touch that one again.
Good for you, it's completely different to what was being promised here though.
It's not hypocritical at all.
The entire idea behind a public school system and a public health system is that you provide a system that is ok but not great.
That way wealthy people won't use it, they'll send the kids to private schools and take out private health insurance (or just pay directly themselves) and go to private hospitals.
But they still pay for the public system they don't use, which means the public system can hopefuly reach "ok" standards since it is being subsidized.
If you use a voucher system, then the less good public system is no longer getting the funding it needs to be "ok", since the wealthy people are no longer contributing to it (they use their voucher to pay some portion of the private cost).
The whole idea is to make the school/hospital good enough to not be embarrassing and to provide the education/health care required to stop a large portion of society being unproductive. But not good enough that people who can afford not to use it - but you need those non-users to keep paying for it anyway.
It depends, is the time and effort it takes you fix it worth less than what the specialist charges? If so doing it yourself is the economically rational choice.
I'm perfectly competent enough to clean the house myself, but I'd rather pay someone to do it so I can play ball with the four year old instead.
If the treatment isn't expensive and doesn't have bad side effects and doesn't do harm if you don't have what they are treating then that's a reasonable approach maybe the best approach. Even if it is expensive and has some bad effects, if those are less than the tests to confirm it still might be a reasonable approach.
Of course it also leads to the overuse of antibiotics, since an infection is almost always a likely suspect and there's a cheap easy remedy, and hence antibiotic resistant organisms which is bad for everyone.
Note that resinstalling windows has some pretty big side effects so in the domain of PC repair that's likely not the thing to try first.
Because it's harder to sell people on a terrorist scanner which will identify 10,000 non-terrorists for the full body cavity search room for every terrorist, plus will let some terrorists through anyway.
Much easier to sell if you say it is 99% accurate.