The problem is that, regardless of whether or not he's innocent, there are powerful people who would like to have Assange out of the way. So while it's perfectly true that he may be guilty as charged, it's not a straightforward situation. Since there's reason to believe to that a government plot is, at the very least, possible then calling for due process of law is problematic- it's even easier to dispose of someone by burying them in judicial bureaucracy than it is to do a full frame-up. Mind you, I'm not saying, "Run Julian, run!"... I think it's a horrible, messy situation and I honestly have no idea what the best way for anyone to deal with it is.
You're still misreading it. The part you're quoting is under the case of "oldest child isn't a boy and oldest child isn't born on Tuesday". By its definition, "oldest child whose a boy and born on Tuesday" can't be in that set.
The first case, where I quote from, is "oldest child is a boy and oldest child is born on Tuesday". The 14 possibilities for the youngest child are then ennumerated, which include a second boy born on Tuesday.
Then, he consider the set: NOT(oldest child=boy AND oldest child=born on Tuesday). The youngest child then has to be, since at least one of the children is a boy born on Tuesday. Then, because we're specifically considering the subcase that excludes an oldest child who's a boy born on a Tuesday, there are 13 possibilities for the oldest: a girl born on any day, or a boy born on any day besides Tuesday.
There is no only implied or forgotten in the original question.
At what point did I call you stupid, or even suggest it? And what exactly did you find insulting? The middle paragraph was a sarcastic response to you suggesting that few Australians understand their political system and that they shouldn't be expected to. You need to learn to separate a debate from a personal attack- me being highly critical of your attitude isn't something you should take as being ad hominem. I'm genuinely sorry if you interpreted anything I said as calling you stupid, because you seem like an intelligent person. Just one that, as you said, spoke before becoming informed. And certainly I sometimes speak without properly thinking things through, everyone does. In what way does that validate your position? When I do that, I hope someone gives me hell for it, same as I'm giving you.
That's not a requirement of the problem. The solution allows the possibility that that both children are boys born on Tuesday. Read it more carefully:
If the older child is a boy born on Tuesday, there are 14 equally likely possibilities for the sex and birth day of his younger sibling: a girl born on any of the seven days of the week or a boy born on any of the seven days of the week.
One of those 14 possibilities is another boy born on Tuesday. The exclusion mentioned in the next paragraph is to avoid counting that case twice.
At the end of the day, the responsibility to be educated and informed is the voter's. The government can take steps to help, like school curriculum and what not, but at the end of the day if you choose to go out and cast your vote then it's your job to make sure you can do so competently. I agree that the government should take steps to resolve confusion about the Westminster system. In the same way, if you and I are doing some electrical work and you're about to cut some wires, I should make sure the power's switched off for you. But it's your own ass on the line, so you'd damn well better make sure yourself. When something like this happens and you don't like it, ignorance is not a defence.
More importantly, I don't think you're giving your fellow Australians enough credit. Essentially, you're saying that, on the whole, none of you can be fucked to skim a Wikipedia article before heading to the polls. I'm sorry you feel that your country can only handle what the nice, caring overlords decide to spoon-feed them. Seriously, give me a break.
Maybe instead of bitching about the government failing to inform you that this was a perfectly legal possibility, you could take this opportunity to try, in your own way, to help educate other people. Phone your local schools and ask about the civics curriculum. Tell them you think this is a problem and make suggestions to fix it. Take ownership instead of saying, "No one did my job for me, how unfair."
As has been said many many times in this thread already, if you voted for your MP, and by extension his/her party, on the basis of who the party leader was then you don't understand how your own political system works. You gave your MP a mandate to represent you. Because enough people did likewise for members of the same party, you collectively gave the party a mandate to govern you. You didn't have this leader "forced" on you any more than you did the last one.
In short, if you thought that at the last election you were voting for the prime minister then you are, as per the meme, doin it rong.
"We also are encouraging Canada to provide its customs authorities with the authority to seize pirated and counterfeit products," McCoy said
So it's not enough that you expect Canada to bend over on command re: copyright law. More than that, you'd like our government to ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (article 8) for your convenience? Dear Mr USTR: you can kiss my infringing, frost-bitten ass.
Would they be just the thing for people to use to infringe with impunity and anonymously bypass the chances of running foul of the Digital Economy Act?
Not necessarily... there are ways of having public WiFi without letting everyone use it anonymously. Singapore has pretty much full coverage, but to use the public hotspots you need to create an account, and your account has to be tied to a cell phone number (with a confirmation text that you have to respond to). Now I'm sure a clever person could find ways around the system, but it's still just another barrier. I wouldn't be suprised if London did something similar- from TFA:
Not only will this allow people walking the streets to access the wi-fi connections, but it will also allow local homes access too. This will most likely require some sort of payment, however, but may be significantly cheaper than current packages offered through internet service providers.
If it's going to be payment system, then there has to be some sort of personal account that people can create (and the ability to individually monitor people can then be spun as an added bonus).
Yeah, I was a little sloppy with my wording. I mentioned this in a reply to another post above, what I meant was the mathematical models, provided they agree with available data, can only be incomplete. The underlying mechanism proposed can definitely be wrong, but ultimately it's the mathematical model that produces predictions. Newtonian physics may be wrong as a physical model, but as a mathematical model we still use it to build our bridges. Thanks for the reference though, I've had Khun on my reading list for a while so I'll definitely start there.
I know you probably meant that as a joke, but the fact is that the epicycle model fit observable data quite nicely. A physical model may be incorrect, but a mathematical model, which is what actually makes testable hypotheses, that fits the data can only ever be incomplete.
It asks whether state-of-the-art theoretical physics is really able to say that the LHC is safe given that a scientific theory that seems unassailable in one era may seem naive in the next.
And yet again, a basic understanding of the fundamental scientific process causes people to say foolish things. "Previous scientific theories were proven wrong, so we shouldn't trust current theories" blah blah blah. Previous scientific theories weren't proven wrong, just incomplete, as has been said thousands upon thousands of time. Under restricted conditions, they are still "right"- in the scientific sense of the word, which is "matches observation to our more precise measurements". OK, so people want to make the, "LHC is an extreme condition and so outside the tested realm of theory." Yeah. No. Not at all. The exact same theory which predicts that black holes could be created predicts that they are also being constantly created in the earth's atmosphere. And the exact same theory predicts that they evaporate via Hawking radiation, etc. You don't get to have it both ways. And this is where people's arguments get really silly: "But, you could be completely wrong!" Yes. I suppose we could. But in that case, we could be wrong in an infinite number of ways. And an earth destroying black hole would require us to be wrong in a very specific way on par with, "Our knowledge of electricity could be wrong and some magical circuit with just the right components will end all of reality as we know it."
Arguing that theoretical physicists would be likely to be biased is, if possible, even dumber than the LHC panic arguments. You don't need a PhD to understand that the whole hysteria is retarded. In fact, suggesting that you do is creating a false dichotomy: either you need to be a particle physicist, or you're just taking their word for it. Seriously, this "analysis" will probably do more harm than good.
Er, preventative medicine is entirely different from treatment medicine. Vaccinations and antibiotics are entirely different compounds. The article is about letting certain illnesses run their course naturally, not saying, "Well, screw it let's just not bother with the whole medicine thing." Unless of course you'd like to see a resurgence in polio.
It appears that years of media scaremongering and anti-vaccine lobbies have gotten through the youth crowd quite effectively.
Simple solution: If you do not want- do not buy.
Developers aren't idiots. Religious video games will be industry standard when hell freezes over. That's sort of the main point of the article. At the same time, there's certainly a niche market for them. I don't enjoy racing games, that doesn't mean I'm opposed to their existence. Why should this be any different? Seriously, in cases like this the whole, "leave religion out of it," line is just retarded.
On that note, Happy Newton's Birthday everyone.
It's been said by other people already, but it merits repetition so that people will stop using this stupid argument and thinking they're clever for it. This is why studies are accompanied by confidence intervals, etc. If "these other factors counteract it" and there is no net effect then there is no effect. Correlation doesn't imply causation. Yes, we know. We get it. However, causation implies correlation. And by the contrapositive, no correlation implies no causation. Learn statistics before trotting out tired old cliches.
As far as the reflection losses go, it's not converted to anything, it's transmitted. That's what the GP meant by "if you can see it the rainbow isn't completely contained". There's no such thing as a perfect reflector, some of the light is always transmitted through. And since we can't attain perfect vacuum, there will also be internal collisions with gaseous molecules, which can either transmit the absorbed energy via heat in colliding with other molecules, or re-transmit it as light, though possibly in a series of longer wavelengths.
As for the solar cells thing... no. That's a completely different situation. The trapped rainbow is a nearly closed system, with no continuous energy input, and the problem is that we can't make it completely closed (and if we could, it's internal entropy would then increase over time so it still couldn't be perfectly stable). Technically, I suppose all the energy can't be sapped since it's exponential decay, but the system energy asymptotically approaches 0 (and once a small enough amount remains, the fact the energy is discrete becomes important). It's about inefficient energy conversion. Far form implying that we could create 100% efficient solar cells, this is why we can't create 100% efficient solar cells.
Yes. That's why they're called facts. If you want a normal life, it's your job to spend the rest of it convincing everyone that you aren't the person you were. Redemption, not revision.
The ROM (in Toronto) is quite good for natural history/anthropology. Some nice dinosaurs, etc., good exhibits on various world cultures, and right now they have the Dead Sea Scrolls on loan. Plus, the Ontario Science Centre isn't far and is also fun.
So they're raising money for a disorder most associated with social impairment by sequestering themselves from outside human contact for a week and playing video games. How...appropriate?
I don't know about the scientists in question, but I am a science major with classes in psych and neuroscience. Yes, I was simplifying. One of the other repliers to my original post explains it in a bit more detail. I make no claim to be smarter or more learned than anyone. In fact, without seeing the actual paper it's hard to tell if the contralateral explanation is even given by the actual authors- it's in the article intro after the vague "Scientists say..." leader, so it could just be BS on the part of the journalist.
Ironic that in a post railing against jumping to conclusions, you know nothing about me and yet in two seconds flat come to the conclusion that I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems I may have jumped the gun on this one. My bad for being such an easy mark of sensationalist pop science headlines.
The problem is that, regardless of whether or not he's innocent, there are powerful people who would like to have Assange out of the way. So while it's perfectly true that he may be guilty as charged, it's not a straightforward situation. Since there's reason to believe to that a government plot is, at the very least, possible then calling for due process of law is problematic- it's even easier to dispose of someone by burying them in judicial bureaucracy than it is to do a full frame-up. Mind you, I'm not saying, "Run Julian, run!"... I think it's a horrible, messy situation and I honestly have no idea what the best way for anyone to deal with it is.
Not quite...when time is infinite, the probability of anything that's possible happening eventually is 1.
You're still misreading it. The part you're quoting is under the case of "oldest child isn't a boy and oldest child isn't born on Tuesday". By its definition, "oldest child whose a boy and born on Tuesday" can't be in that set.
The first case, where I quote from, is "oldest child is a boy and oldest child is born on Tuesday". The 14 possibilities for the youngest child are then ennumerated, which include a second boy born on Tuesday.
Then, he consider the set: NOT(oldest child=boy AND oldest child=born on Tuesday). The youngest child then has to be, since at least one of the children is a boy born on Tuesday. Then, because we're specifically considering the subcase that excludes an oldest child who's a boy born on a Tuesday, there are 13 possibilities for the oldest: a girl born on any day, or a boy born on any day besides Tuesday.
There is no only implied or forgotten in the original question.
At what point did I call you stupid, or even suggest it? And what exactly did you find insulting? The middle paragraph was a sarcastic response to you suggesting that few Australians understand their political system and that they shouldn't be expected to. You need to learn to separate a debate from a personal attack- me being highly critical of your attitude isn't something you should take as being ad hominem. I'm genuinely sorry if you interpreted anything I said as calling you stupid, because you seem like an intelligent person. Just one that, as you said, spoke before becoming informed. And certainly I sometimes speak without properly thinking things through, everyone does. In what way does that validate your position? When I do that, I hope someone gives me hell for it, same as I'm giving you.
If the older child is a boy born on Tuesday, there are 14 equally likely possibilities for the sex and birth day of his younger sibling: a girl born on any of the seven days of the week or a boy born on any of the seven days of the week.
One of those 14 possibilities is another boy born on Tuesday. The exclusion mentioned in the next paragraph is to avoid counting that case twice.
I had a friend in high school who genuinely did believe that the probability of anything occurring was 50% because "either it happens or it doesn't"
At the end of the day, the responsibility to be educated and informed is the voter's. The government can take steps to help, like school curriculum and what not, but at the end of the day if you choose to go out and cast your vote then it's your job to make sure you can do so competently. I agree that the government should take steps to resolve confusion about the Westminster system. In the same way, if you and I are doing some electrical work and you're about to cut some wires, I should make sure the power's switched off for you. But it's your own ass on the line, so you'd damn well better make sure yourself. When something like this happens and you don't like it, ignorance is not a defence.
More importantly, I don't think you're giving your fellow Australians enough credit. Essentially, you're saying that, on the whole, none of you can be fucked to skim a Wikipedia article before heading to the polls. I'm sorry you feel that your country can only handle what the nice, caring overlords decide to spoon-feed them. Seriously, give me a break.
Maybe instead of bitching about the government failing to inform you that this was a perfectly legal possibility, you could take this opportunity to try, in your own way, to help educate other people. Phone your local schools and ask about the civics curriculum. Tell them you think this is a problem and make suggestions to fix it. Take ownership instead of saying, "No one did my job for me, how unfair."
As has been said many many times in this thread already, if you voted for your MP, and by extension his/her party, on the basis of who the party leader was then you don't understand how your own political system works. You gave your MP a mandate to represent you. Because enough people did likewise for members of the same party, you collectively gave the party a mandate to govern you. You didn't have this leader "forced" on you any more than you did the last one.
In short, if you thought that at the last election you were voting for the prime minister then you are, as per the meme, doin it rong.
"We also are encouraging Canada to provide its customs authorities with the authority to seize pirated and counterfeit products," McCoy said
So it's not enough that you expect Canada to bend over on command re: copyright law. More than that, you'd like our government to ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (article 8) for your convenience? Dear Mr USTR: you can kiss my infringing, frost-bitten ass.
Would they be just the thing for people to use to infringe with impunity and anonymously bypass the chances of running foul of the Digital Economy Act?
Not necessarily... there are ways of having public WiFi without letting everyone use it anonymously. Singapore has pretty much full coverage, but to use the public hotspots you need to create an account, and your account has to be tied to a cell phone number (with a confirmation text that you have to respond to). Now I'm sure a clever person could find ways around the system, but it's still just another barrier. I wouldn't be suprised if London did something similar- from TFA:
Not only will this allow people walking the streets to access the wi-fi connections, but it will also allow local homes access too. This will most likely require some sort of payment, however, but may be significantly cheaper than current packages offered through internet service providers.
If it's going to be payment system, then there has to be some sort of personal account that people can create (and the ability to individually monitor people can then be spun as an added bonus).
Yeah, I was a little sloppy with my wording. I mentioned this in a reply to another post above, what I meant was the mathematical models, provided they agree with available data, can only be incomplete. The underlying mechanism proposed can definitely be wrong, but ultimately it's the mathematical model that produces predictions. Newtonian physics may be wrong as a physical model, but as a mathematical model we still use it to build our bridges. Thanks for the reference though, I've had Khun on my reading list for a while so I'll definitely start there.
I know you probably meant that as a joke, but the fact is that the epicycle model fit observable data quite nicely. A physical model may be incorrect, but a mathematical model, which is what actually makes testable hypotheses, that fits the data can only ever be incomplete.
It asks whether state-of-the-art theoretical physics is really able to say that the LHC is safe given that a scientific theory that seems unassailable in one era may seem naive in the next.
And yet again, a basic understanding of the fundamental scientific process causes people to say foolish things. "Previous scientific theories were proven wrong, so we shouldn't trust current theories" blah blah blah. Previous scientific theories weren't proven wrong, just incomplete, as has been said thousands upon thousands of time. Under restricted conditions, they are still "right"- in the scientific sense of the word, which is "matches observation to our more precise measurements". OK, so people want to make the, "LHC is an extreme condition and so outside the tested realm of theory." Yeah. No. Not at all. The exact same theory which predicts that black holes could be created predicts that they are also being constantly created in the earth's atmosphere. And the exact same theory predicts that they evaporate via Hawking radiation, etc. You don't get to have it both ways. And this is where people's arguments get really silly: "But, you could be completely wrong!" Yes. I suppose we could. But in that case, we could be wrong in an infinite number of ways. And an earth destroying black hole would require us to be wrong in a very specific way on par with, "Our knowledge of electricity could be wrong and some magical circuit with just the right components will end all of reality as we know it."
Arguing that theoretical physicists would be likely to be biased is, if possible, even dumber than the LHC panic arguments. You don't need a PhD to understand that the whole hysteria is retarded. In fact, suggesting that you do is creating a false dichotomy: either you need to be a particle physicist, or you're just taking their word for it. Seriously, this "analysis" will probably do more harm than good.
Now can we as a society please move on?
Er, preventative medicine is entirely different from treatment medicine. Vaccinations and antibiotics are entirely different compounds. The article is about letting certain illnesses run their course naturally, not saying, "Well, screw it let's just not bother with the whole medicine thing." Unless of course you'd like to see a resurgence in polio.
It appears that years of media scaremongering and anti-vaccine lobbies have gotten through the youth crowd quite effectively.
Simple solution: If you do not want- do not buy. Developers aren't idiots. Religious video games will be industry standard when hell freezes over. That's sort of the main point of the article. At the same time, there's certainly a niche market for them. I don't enjoy racing games, that doesn't mean I'm opposed to their existence. Why should this be any different? Seriously, in cases like this the whole, "leave religion out of it," line is just retarded. On that note, Happy Newton's Birthday everyone.
It's been said by other people already, but it merits repetition so that people will stop using this stupid argument and thinking they're clever for it. This is why studies are accompanied by confidence intervals, etc. If "these other factors counteract it" and there is no net effect then there is no effect. Correlation doesn't imply causation. Yes, we know. We get it. However, causation implies correlation. And by the contrapositive, no correlation implies no causation. Learn statistics before trotting out tired old cliches.
As far as the reflection losses go, it's not converted to anything, it's transmitted. That's what the GP meant by "if you can see it the rainbow isn't completely contained". There's no such thing as a perfect reflector, some of the light is always transmitted through. And since we can't attain perfect vacuum, there will also be internal collisions with gaseous molecules, which can either transmit the absorbed energy via heat in colliding with other molecules, or re-transmit it as light, though possibly in a series of longer wavelengths.
As for the solar cells thing... no. That's a completely different situation. The trapped rainbow is a nearly closed system, with no continuous energy input, and the problem is that we can't make it completely closed (and if we could, it's internal entropy would then increase over time so it still couldn't be perfectly stable). Technically, I suppose all the energy can't be sapped since it's exponential decay, but the system energy asymptotically approaches 0 (and once a small enough amount remains, the fact the energy is discrete becomes important). It's about inefficient energy conversion. Far form implying that we could create 100% efficient solar cells, this is why we can't create 100% efficient solar cells.
Yes. That's why they're called facts. If you want a normal life, it's your job to spend the rest of it convincing everyone that you aren't the person you were. Redemption, not revision.
When I watched that, its mention of, "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?" reminded me of when I used to play that as a kid. So I downloaded it.
Gold is a category of a winners, not the outright winner. He was the overall winner this year.
The ROM (in Toronto) is quite good for natural history/anthropology. Some nice dinosaurs, etc., good exhibits on various world cultures, and right now they have the Dead Sea Scrolls on loan. Plus, the Ontario Science Centre isn't far and is also fun.
So they're raising money for a disorder most associated with social impairment by sequestering themselves from outside human contact for a week and playing video games. How...appropriate?
It's a bad summary. The senator cancelled the search.
Ironic that in a post railing against jumping to conclusions, you know nothing about me and yet in two seconds flat come to the conclusion that I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about.