The "web" part means accessed via a web browser as opposed to an email client. And usually that any browser will do (let's ignore browser HTML issues) so it will work equally well from your home desktop machine and from a random internet cafe machine and from a web only terminal in an airport.
And yes it is insecure and fundamentally broken from a security point of view - that's the point being made.
It means "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation" which yes would usually mean you have stupid beliefs. Since "traditional" is another word for "old" with a connotation that that is better than something new just because it is older.
Whereas non-stupid beliefs would be those that are justified by evidence, and you wouldn't need to label them traditional to justify them since you have that evidence even when they are in fact old.
Because you can't determine taxes from merely one income source.
A government employee who also owns a rental property that they get an income from might pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than one who has no source of income outside their employment. So you can't "pay them proportionately".
A government employee who is the only source of income for a family of five is going to have a different proportion to one who is married to an investment banker and has no kids.
So you'll need to duplicate the IRS in every other government entity that handles paying people. Which doesn't sound like it will save money.
Of course it can if it wants to be a beacon when it does release them. And said heat sinks aren't going to last very long if we are taking most of current physics as a given a trying to power FTL drives...
Using heat sinks of course generates more heat (you don't get anything for free when it comes to moving heat up hill so to speak).
Of course just travelling FTL is stealth in itself, and yes once you have FTL physics is already so different than what we know that you might as well have magic stealth too.
"space-jumping fleet of invading space aliens" is forbidden by the laws of physics.
As we know them - which of course is certainly incorrect. But there's no point to the "not specifically prohibited by the laws of physics" rider if you are then going to declare that the laws as we know them are irrelevant since they are likely wrong.
Thermodynamics does not allow it. All the heat generated running the ship and all that absorbed radiation has to be radiated.
If there's only one observer than you could radiate it in one direction shielding their view of it - but that's a rather large assumption and one that makes you not "stealth" but just puts you in a joyous "my opponent is a moron" state.
Thermodynamics could of course be all wrong - we are in the realms of assuming FTL alien space ships after all:)
That's not what stealth means, and you must know that.
A B-2 is still a stealth aircraft even when you are standing next to it on a runway looking directly at it and seeing it fine. My house does not become a stealth house just because no one happens to be looking at the time.
FTL and stealth both share the "not possible with our current understanding of physics". Though stealth is "more impossible" if that term makes any sense - being in violation of an older more trusted theory.
Which of course doesn't mean they are actually impossible. And assuming one is possible and the other isn't seems a little silly.
We wouldn't notice them at all, unless we got lucky and they picked a part of the sky we happened to be scanning for asteroids to do something that a rock wouldn't.
So there must be some alien invaders who travel through interstellar space via prop aircraft? Because "if it doesn't exist, then there is something wrong with basic probability theory".
If you are driving while high and haven't just had a crash are you going to consent to a drug test?
Not a damn chance (though apparently that's not the case given their numbers)!
However, that should skew the data towards the "drug use increases accident rates" side. And maybe they had some bizarre way around it - still you are high on a drug famous for causing paranoia - are you seriously going to believe the guy trying to do a drug test on you that it's "for science" and "anonymous"?
The study you expect is. How is the likelihood of a crash altered by using MJ. This study actually studies those involved in crashes and looks at THC, alcohol and other drugs. How many people taking MJ simply avoid driving completely? If 1 out of 2 avoid driving in this condition, this study under reports the accident risk by a factor of 2.
The study would in fact handle that factor just fine, since you missed the control step in order to have your rant.
What they actually did was:
1. A car crash occurs, the driver is tested for various drugs. 2. A week later, at the same location, at the same time and day of week, 2 drivers who haven't crashed just then were tested for various drugs.
So they have the crash group and the control group. Which controls for exactly the thing you are claiming, since the control group will also have the lower numbers of MJ drivers.
Throw out actual data because you have an anecdote? You can be the retard who belongs in the middle ages, just don't expect the rest of us to go along with it.
And of course the study doesn't claim anything about "ability to drive" it claims about "having an auto crash". Which are usually related but are certainly not the same thing.
And lastly, how fucking retarded are you go be in a car with such a drive more than once? That's a step above throwing out the entirety of science because there's always an anecdote saying the opposite...
Then they should have some family around to help. Or fake a relgious conversion and get some local church to help out. Or find some other local charitable organization that helps with such things.
It's meaningless. Time is part of space-time (unsurprisingly given the name). Space-time came into existence via the Big Bang (let's just pretend our theories are right for the moment, as wrong as that obviously is). Before is a reference to time. There is no time without space-time and thus there is no "before the Big Bang".
It's like asking "what is above the Universe" - which is also meaningless since above (and let's again pretend and say we a have a frame of reference here) is a reference to space. There is no space outside the Universe and hence no "above".
Now you might want to argue that maybe there is a multiverse and other universes with which have space and time outside of our one. But you can't use "before" across such times, just like you can't use "above" across such spaces.
There's no claim of conspiracy there. It's a pretty set of claims.
1. Feminists claim that females are discriminated against because men are oppressors. 2. Most school teachers are females. 3. Teachers discriminate against females when it comes to "tech" (whatever that is). 4. We seem to have an issue with 1 and 3.
None of those are a vast conspiracy. Of course it's clearly garbage (in addition to being useless) on a number of possible fronts.
That women have been co-opted by the patriarchy is hardly a foreign argument and makes 4 not an issue at all would be one. That feminist claims are irrelevant since it's an issue of data and observation - "feminist agenda" isn't a factor at all (it's not a SJW rant).
This is a pretty damning claim:
Beginning in 2002, the researchers studied three groups of Israeli students from sixth grade through the end of high school. The students were given two exams, one graded by outsiders who did not know their identities and another by teachers who knew their names.
In math, the girls outscored the boys in the exam graded anonymously, but the boys outscored the girls when graded by teachers who knew their names. The effect was not the same for tests on other subjects, like English and Hebrew.
Of course I don't know the details and using "two exams" rather than having the same exam graded twice seems pretty stupid - though that might be the journalist getting it wrong. And Israel is not the US (this isn't physics in which the laws are the same in both places...).
Slashdot Mirror
No one cares if you are convinced, so all is well.
"Only" is being used to suggest that 40k is not all that much larger than 16k, It's pretty standard usage.
Please point to the part that claims it is.
Then it's email not webmail.
The "web" part means accessed via a web browser as opposed to an email client. And usually that any browser will do (let's ignore browser HTML issues) so it will work equally well from your home desktop machine and from a random internet cafe machine and from a web only terminal in an airport.
And yes it is insecure and fundamentally broken from a security point of view - that's the point being made.
It means "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation" which yes would usually mean you have stupid beliefs. Since "traditional" is another word for "old" with a connotation that that is better than something new just because it is older.
Whereas non-stupid beliefs would be those that are justified by evidence, and you wouldn't need to label them traditional to justify them since you have that evidence even when they are in fact old.
I guess it might be less so if you were actually british though.
So apparently you have a crappy device, I'm not sure why you think that would apply to other less crappy devices.
I own some crappy books in which the cheap binding glue sees pages fall out, does that mean the physical book experience is universally terrible?
Because you can't determine taxes from merely one income source.
A government employee who also owns a rental property that they get an income from might pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than one who has no source of income outside their employment. So you can't "pay them proportionately".
A government employee who is the only source of income for a family of five is going to have a different proportion to one who is married to an investment banker and has no kids.
So you'll need to duplicate the IRS in every other government entity that handles paying people. Which doesn't sound like it will save money.
Of course it can if it wants to be a beacon when it does release them. And said heat sinks aren't going to last very long if we are taking most of current physics as a given a trying to power FTL drives...
Using heat sinks of course generates more heat (you don't get anything for free when it comes to moving heat up hill so to speak).
Of course just travelling FTL is stealth in itself, and yes once you have FTL physics is already so different than what we know that you might as well have magic stealth too.
"space-jumping fleet of invading space aliens" is forbidden by the laws of physics.
As we know them - which of course is certainly incorrect. But there's no point to the "not specifically prohibited by the laws of physics" rider if you are then going to declare that the laws as we know them are irrelevant since they are likely wrong.
Thermodynamics does not allow it. All the heat generated running the ship and all that absorbed radiation has to be radiated.
If there's only one observer than you could radiate it in one direction shielding their view of it - but that's a rather large assumption and one that makes you not "stealth" but just puts you in a joyous "my opponent is a moron" state.
Thermodynamics could of course be all wrong - we are in the realms of assuming FTL alien space ships after all :)
That's not what stealth means, and you must know that.
A B-2 is still a stealth aircraft even when you are standing next to it on a runway looking directly at it and seeing it fine. My house does not become a stealth house just because no one happens to be looking at the time.
FTL and stealth both share the "not possible with our current understanding of physics". Though stealth is "more impossible" if that term makes any sense - being in violation of an older more trusted theory.
Which of course doesn't mean they are actually impossible. And assuming one is possible and the other isn't seems a little silly.
We wouldn't notice them at all, unless we got lucky and they picked a part of the sky we happened to be scanning for asteroids to do something that a rock wouldn't.
So there must be some alien invaders who travel through interstellar space via prop aircraft? Because "if it doesn't exist, then there is something wrong with basic probability theory".
I guess I should mention the obvious flaw.
If you are driving while high and haven't just had a crash are you going to consent to a drug test?
Not a damn chance (though apparently that's not the case given their numbers)!
However, that should skew the data towards the "drug use increases accident rates" side. And maybe they had some bizarre way around it - still you are high on a drug famous for causing paranoia - are you seriously going to believe the guy trying to do a drug test on you that it's "for science" and "anonymous"?
The study would in fact handle that factor just fine, since you missed the control step in order to have your rant.
What they actually did was:
1. A car crash occurs, the driver is tested for various drugs.
2. A week later, at the same location, at the same time and day of week, 2 drivers who haven't crashed just then were tested for various drugs.
So they have the crash group and the control group. Which controls for exactly the thing you are claiming, since the control group will also have the lower numbers of MJ drivers.
But yes it isn't the be-all-and-end-all study.
People shouldn't drive after having eaten cheese, because what if they see a unicorn standing in front of them while doing 75 mph on the freeway?
That's your argument?
Are you proposing we lie to people about risk factors so try and promote the behavours you think are better despite the evidence?
Megalomaniac much?
Throw out actual data because you have an anecdote? You can be the retard who belongs in the middle ages, just don't expect the rest of us to go along with it.
And of course the study doesn't claim anything about "ability to drive" it claims about "having an auto crash". Which are usually related but are certainly not the same thing.
And lastly, how fucking retarded are you go be in a car with such a drive more than once? That's a step above throwing out the entirety of science because there's always an anecdote saying the opposite...
Then they should have some family around to help. Or fake a relgious conversion and get some local church to help out. Or find some other local charitable organization that helps with such things.
How is that a straw man?
" 2 year olds don't require 24/7 care" - if you can't go to work for a few hours leaving them alone then clearly that isn't true.
They will lower that EV signifiantly in the US. And of course multiple winners.
It's meaningless. Time is part of space-time (unsurprisingly given the name). Space-time came into existence via the Big Bang (let's just pretend our theories are right for the moment, as wrong as that obviously is). Before is a reference to time. There is no time without space-time and thus there is no "before the Big Bang".
It's like asking "what is above the Universe" - which is also meaningless since above (and let's again pretend and say we a have a frame of reference here) is a reference to space. There is no space outside the Universe and hence no "above".
Now you might want to argue that maybe there is a multiverse and other universes with which have space and time outside of our one. But you can't use "before" across such times, just like you can't use "above" across such spaces.
There's no claim of conspiracy there. It's a pretty set of claims.
1. Feminists claim that females are discriminated against because men are oppressors.
2. Most school teachers are females.
3. Teachers discriminate against females when it comes to "tech" (whatever that is).
4. We seem to have an issue with 1 and 3.
None of those are a vast conspiracy. Of course it's clearly garbage (in addition to being useless) on a number of possible fronts.
That women have been co-opted by the patriarchy is hardly a foreign argument and makes 4 not an issue at all would be one. That feminist claims are irrelevant since it's an issue of data and observation - "feminist agenda" isn't a factor at all (it's not a SJW rant).
This is a pretty damning claim:
Of course I don't know the details and using "two exams" rather than having the same exam graded twice seems pretty stupid - though that might be the journalist getting it wrong. And Israel is not the US (this isn't physics in which the laws are the same in both places...).
So why did you ask for AN example?