"Everyone who has eaten those berries has died frothing at the mouth a few hours afterwards, thus we should probably not eat those berries" is rational. It might not actually be true, but it's a good first step. When people keep dieing in the same way after everyone has stopped eating said berries then you can move to a different hypothesis - but when that's all the information you have it would be irrational to keep eating the berries.
In this case they already have other information - well I'm assuming the health care workers and government and so on are telling them something other than "oh yes, these are death camps where we torture and kill everyone who comes in the door".
Who cares what a news media article says? There's a link to an article by the FBI on the FBI web site. Surprise, surprise it doesn't use the wrong terms for the details that matter.
Clearly he applied for a real passport under a name other than his own (and got one) with a photo of himself - that's how you get a fraudulent passport that will actually work in the long term as opposed to hopefully getting you past one immigration agent one time.
Because it's not fake as in "printed at home to look like a passport" (or something slightly more likely to work). It's fake as in "not actually for the person it claims to be". "Fake" is the wrong word of course, which is probably why the article doesn't use that word but uses "fraud".
So not being a complete moron the guy didn't get a passport in his own name. But instead got one in someone else's name - using his own photo since it helps to look like the photo when actually using the passport.
Sure if you want to view it that way. It isn't why it is called a cue though.
In fact, it's the exact opposite. The name comes from the word "queue" - French for tail. Since it derived from people using the tail end of a mallet to hit the ball instead of the head (think croquet).
You've demonstrated you have no problems making stuff up about things you clearly know little about - possibly these forms are designed to weed out such people?
The job positions do get filled at some point I assume, so there are people who can manage to work out how to fill out a form and jump through the hoops, Losing the few good potential employees who don't bother from the pool is probably worth eliminating the huge numbers of terrible employees who can't work it out.
Well done. Pick the two most unionized professions on the planet as your examples of not needing unions!
Their AMA and the bars have got themselves so deeply in the system you effectively can't practice those professions at all without being a union member.
But of course you tweak and change over time rather than having the first try work just perfectly and so that subset for verification ends up influencing the algorithm anyway.
And newton's ideas had nothing to do with what is "right". He added a magical force at a distance between objects that made the math work. It doesn't matter if that's "right" - it worked and that is all that matters.
Relativity also just made the math work. Whether it actually matches the real universe is pretty much irrelevant. As long as the math gives the right answers (corrections for GPS as you said) then it is a useful theory.
If the model continues to match observation and its predictions continue to turn out to be the case it is a good scientific model. Whether it is "right" and actually how the universe really is is completely irrelevant. If the model is simpler than other models that make the same predictions then it is better, again regardless of whether it is "right".
And of course adding a couple dozen dimensions to the mix is going to be make being simpler tricky:)
People can send stuff to a non-gmail address just as easily to a gmail address, so how exactly would that make any different at all? (well aside from google not going through your email and reporting objectionable material to the cops of course...).
When a state law and a federal conflict one of them has to win. If the federal law is within the powers delegated to the federal government then it will (yeah, yeah, as if there are any in practice limits to federal law these days...).
In this case there's a federal law stating:
The Commission and each State commission with regulatory jurisdiction over telecommunications services shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms) by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.
If that and a state law preventing the deployment of "advanced telecommunications capacity" conflict then to the courts it will go to determine which one trumps the other and if that one even applies to the case in question. And in an ideal world if the federal government has the authority to create such a law.
So you should want the people with children being seated first.
There are basically three choices:
1. Seat people with children first. This means everyone else has to wait a little longer to be seated. 2. Seat the people with children last. This means everyone else gets to sit in their seats a little earlier, but the plane will take longer to board over all (and hence you'll have a higher chance of missing a connection). 3. Board everyone at the same time. This some the everyone else crown gets to sit earlier and some later, the plane will take longer to board than option 2.
People with children are slowed down more than average by not having room to maneuver and having to wander further to fit their luggage when the only available space is a dozen or two rows away. They also tend to retrieve things from their stowed luggage more often which won't slow boarding but will make for more hassle for everyone around them when they have to trek to the other end of the plane to get things - and then trek to the other other end when they can't find it in that bag and need to check the other one.
I guess there's also a 4th option: Don't let people travel with children. That does sound like a great idea, I'm not quite selfish enough to actually want that (I get close though....).
Yes, he's the President of the United States. His primary concern should be determining if any US citizens have been killed.
Civilian planes getting shot down by the military isn't exactly unheard of. The US has done it. Russia has done it. China has done it. Ukraine, Bulgaria, Israel... It's rare but has certainly happened multiple times already.
There are really only three options. Ukraine shot it down. Russia shot it down. The Russian backed rebels in Ukraine shot it down. Not much the for the US to do in any of those cases. You expect and want the US to stick it's nose into every corner of the world? Don't we have a UN? Can't Europe look after itself?
Though of course I'm sure someone somewhere is brewing a conspiracy theory that it was a US or Israel false flag operation of some sort...
Slashdot Mirror
"post hoc ergo propter hoc" is rational.
"Everyone who has eaten those berries has died frothing at the mouth a few hours afterwards, thus we should probably not eat those berries" is rational. It might not actually be true, but it's a good first step. When people keep dieing in the same way after everyone has stopped eating said berries then you can move to a different hypothesis - but when that's all the information you have it would be irrational to keep eating the berries.
In this case they already have other information - well I'm assuming the health care workers and government and so on are telling them something other than "oh yes, these are death camps where we torture and kill everyone who comes in the door".
Who cares what a news media article says? There's a link to an article by the FBI on the FBI web site. Surprise, surprise it doesn't use the wrong terms for the details that matter.
Clearly he applied for a real passport under a name other than his own (and got one) with a photo of himself - that's how you get a fraudulent passport that will actually work in the long term as opposed to hopefully getting you past one immigration agent one time.
Because it's not fake as in "printed at home to look like a passport" (or something slightly more likely to work). It's fake as in "not actually for the person it claims to be". "Fake" is the wrong word of course, which is probably why the article doesn't use that word but uses "fraud".
So not being a complete moron the guy didn't get a passport in his own name. But instead got one in someone else's name - using his own photo since it helps to look like the photo when actually using the passport.
Sure if you want to view it that way. It isn't why it is called a cue though.
In fact, it's the exact opposite. The name comes from the word "queue" - French for tail. Since it derived from people using the tail end of a mallet to hit the ball instead of the head (think croquet).
My pool cue resents being called a signal.
You've demonstrated you have no problems making stuff up about things you clearly know little about - possibly these forms are designed to weed out such people?
The job positions do get filled at some point I assume, so there are people who can manage to work out how to fill out a form and jump through the hoops, Losing the few good potential employees who don't bother from the pool is probably worth eliminating the huge numbers of terrible employees who can't work it out.
I gave an example where it might have happened. Which is all I know of. I don't have the crystal ball you must have to know it is exactly zero.
Well done. Pick the two most unionized professions on the planet as your examples of not needing unions!
Their AMA and the bars have got themselves so deeply in the system you effectively can't practice those professions at all without being a union member.
Borrowing it would be perfect. Now you've cost them 1001x the cost to counter the technology while spening 0x yourself and ending up with it.
Assuming you don't pay the loan back of course, and if the plan it to be using F-35s against them why would you be making loan payments?
I'm ignoring everything except the one claim I was replying to - it seems possible there that your claim of zero isn't true.
But of course you tweak and change over time rather than having the first try work just perfectly and so that subset for verification ends up influencing the algorithm anyway.
And hence the language is essentially irrelevant.
If it's actually CS more time will be spent on Turing machines and pushdown automaton than on C or Java anyway.
Not over a sea, but there's a reasonable chance James Kopp went to Canada to murder doctors for abortion reasons.
And newton's ideas had nothing to do with what is "right". He added a magical force at a distance between objects that made the math work. It doesn't matter if that's "right" - it worked and that is all that matters.
Relativity also just made the math work. Whether it actually matches the real universe is pretty much irrelevant. As long as the math gives the right answers (corrections for GPS as you said) then it is a useful theory.
There is no "right".
If the model continues to match observation and its predictions continue to turn out to be the case it is a good scientific model. Whether it is "right" and actually how the universe really is is completely irrelevant. If the model is simpler than other models that make the same predictions then it is better, again regardless of whether it is "right".
And of course adding a couple dozen dimensions to the mix is going to be make being simpler tricky :)
People can send stuff to a non-gmail address just as easily to a gmail address, so how exactly would that make any different at all? (well aside from google not going through your email and reporting objectionable material to the cops of course...).
What IP does Apple now not have do to this fraud?
When a state law and a federal conflict one of them has to win. If the federal law is within the powers delegated to the federal government then it will (yeah, yeah, as if there are any in practice limits to federal law these days...).
In this case there's a federal law stating:
If that and a state law preventing the deployment of "advanced telecommunications capacity" conflict then to the courts it will go to determine which one trumps the other and if that one even applies to the case in question. And in an ideal world if the federal government has the authority to create such a law.
He must have been shocked when he found out that there someone even more of an asshole than himself in existence.
Bullshit! There is no way someone who has a preferred Zombie weapon that is a sword picks a longsword over a katana.
So you should want the people with children being seated first.
There are basically three choices:
1. Seat people with children first. This means everyone else has to wait a little longer to be seated.
2. Seat the people with children last. This means everyone else gets to sit in their seats a little earlier, but the plane will take longer to board over all (and hence you'll have a higher chance of missing a connection).
3. Board everyone at the same time. This some the everyone else crown gets to sit earlier and some later, the plane will take longer to board than option 2.
People with children are slowed down more than average by not having room to maneuver and having to wander further to fit their luggage when the only available space is a dozen or two rows away. They also tend to retrieve things from their stowed luggage more often which won't slow boarding but will make for more hassle for everyone around them when they have to trek to the other end of the plane to get things - and then trek to the other other end when they can't find it in that bag and need to check the other one.
I guess there's also a 4th option: Don't let people travel with children. That does sound like a great idea, I'm not quite selfish enough to actually want that (I get close though....).
"More people per person", is that like "our dumbbells have more lbs per lbs than our competitors"?
Yeah yeah I know, "more people per person who can actually do the stuff that needs doing"...
http://media.wix.com/ugd/80ea2... for the second claim.
Because never in all of military history has a civilian entity been attacked because it was thought to be a military target. Not even once!
Yes, he's the President of the United States. His primary concern should be determining if any US citizens have been killed.
Civilian planes getting shot down by the military isn't exactly unheard of. The US has done it. Russia has done it. China has done it. Ukraine, Bulgaria, Israel... It's rare but has certainly happened multiple times already.
There are really only three options. Ukraine shot it down. Russia shot it down. The Russian backed rebels in Ukraine shot it down. Not much the for the US to do in any of those cases. You expect and want the US to stick it's nose into every corner of the world? Don't we have a UN? Can't Europe look after itself?
Though of course I'm sure someone somewhere is brewing a conspiracy theory that it was a US or Israel false flag operation of some sort...