3) Police officer gets to do whatever the hell he wants.
historically, authority figures getting to do whatever the hell they want has worked out pretty well.
Jesus tapdancing Christ, this has been refuted three times now. The tip did not warrant the search, the tip only warranted pulling the driver over. The marijuana smell warranted the search, something that was not introduced by this ruling. As for #2, did you even read the digest? The ruling only accounts for when anonymity does not hold.
Get the tinfoil hat out of your eyes and read TFA please.
Are you sure it was only 90%? Last I heard it was 123%. Which is fully understandable. Putin, much like Kim Jong-iI, is so filled with awesomeness that people can express more than 100% of their love towards him. Furthermore, IEEE has declared that this percentage can only go down when Putin does manly things with his shirt on, which is very rare.
Honestly I don't get the stance of some ppl from the US against Russia. Russia is the best friend and has been the most loyal, the strongest and the most valuable ally for the USA. Really. At times of apocalyptic events Russians and Americans stood together. It was before and it may be again when we have to save the Earth itself. Nobody can help the US but Russia when things get hot. Alienating Russians is what make things worse.
Those things are called movies. The space aliens didn't really invade Earth.
It doesn't matter if she used to be a Playboy model, or if she used to build skyscrapers, or if she used to be a circus performer: the only thing that's relevant is that she's not and never has been a medical professional. She's just as wrong as any other anti-vaxxer
And that all "anti-vaxxers" are wrong is your professional medical experience talking, or are you holding her to standards you don't hold yourself too?
If you can tell me how one anti-vaxxer can be wrong while another is not when they hold the same opinion, I would like to be your apprentice.
Appeal to authority does not proove things in science. One fact or data point can make all the experts wrong.
Actually, science is very authoritarian. That is why you seldom see the janitor overturn the professor with un-proven claims. The fact alone that he's a professor indicates that he has a long history of substantiating his claims and proving his research. This is what we in the adult world call credibility.
When a random person with no qualifications whatsoever other than the capabibility of using a keyboard attempts to discredit such a professor while providing no sources or proofs... well, I'm sure you can work it out.
And to sum up the counter argument... Looking at the probabilities: If Iceland declares war on the US, chances are that the US will win. It's not 100% guaranteed, but I wouldn't put my money on Iceland.
Also: I get the feeling that European English speaking people swear a lot more than in the USA, and I wonder if this will be reflected in the moderation.
I too %*&!#$! wonder if this will be *(@&#$&%@ reflected in the @$&!%(#!%$&! moderation.
Actually, some people are completely straight, some people are completely gay, and then there are people in the middle, shades of gray, for whom it is a choice of lifestyle.
So you sound as ignorant as your parent.
Alas, you are confusing choice of action with choice of existence.
For someone that is, to use your term, a "shade of gay", there is only the choice of acting upon this desire. There is no choice in having these partial homosexual tendencies.
To dumb it down, you may choose to never sexually interact with a man for your entire life. This is your choice. You cannot however, choose to not be attracted to other men if you are fully or partially homosexual.
I find it nerdy and interesting the body has in place it's own sentinel to address DNA irregularities.
FTA: More than half the women with a mutated copy of the BRCA1 gene will develop breast cancer...
I suspect this is the marker used to inspire Mrs. Pitt to preemptively undergo the double-mastectomy... cue the small brain/breast jokes.
Actually, there are multiple sentinels for this. Unfortunately, they are built in a more hierarchical way than desirable, meaning that once the top tumor suppression mechanism is silenced (through mutations, genetics, epigenetics or what have you), the next level is defenseless (, and DNA repair genes are a part of the tumor defense league). This is also the reason why cancer is so common in the elderly.
As for the connection to brain size evolution in humans, I would take that with a grain of salt. There are far too many functional networks and biological pathways in between brain size and breast homeostasis to make any causal claims.
1) Form a hypothesis, preferably an unfalsifiable one 2) Cherry pick data and cook numbers to "prove" hypothesis 3) Reject all data that contradicts your hypothesis 4) Promote hypothesis as conclusive science, rake in grant money. 5) Viciously attack anyone who challenges said hypothesis an anti-science "denier."
And if anyone challenges this as the legitimate scientific method, just tell them "clearly you don't understand how science works."
Good thing that you aren't following in that vein then, citing credible sources and supplying a solid, logical argument that can be clearly traced from premise to conclusion. And even better, you're doing it not for your own aggrandizement, but for the betterment of mankind. You go Mr. Anonymous hero!
That which helped me the most with this issue was enforcing Firefox with Adblock and Noscript, and setting the AV to update daily without confirmation and run scans every other day. This has reduced the warnings / malware numbers from roughly 120 to 0 when I run the scans manually.
The only problem is that you need to make sure they don't simply click "allow scripts globally" every time something doesn't work.
Such an admonishment is fine for the computational fields, where a few more permutations can net you a p-value of 0.0005 (assuming that you aren't crunching on a 4-month cluster problem). However, biological laborations are often very expensive and take a lot of time. Furthermore, additional tests are not always possible, since it can be damn hard to reproduce specific mutations or knockout sequences without altering the surrounding interactive factors.
So, should we go for a better p-value for the experiment and scrap any complicated endeavour, or should we allow for difficult experiments and take it with a grain of salt?
However, in Norway the population is, by and large, loyal to the government, believe it or not. In fact, that is how it is in most of Europe, AFAIK. Even if we don't agree with the government's policies, we still trust and respect them.
That's because your government actually represents you reasonably well. And that, in turn, is because you keep it in check.
Americans believe that any government is bad government, but that's because all they ever saw is bad government. They don't realize that a strong government can do a great many things for its citizens so long as the citizens keep it in check and make it focus its power towards their needs.
I don't think we have the same idea here. We don't keep our government "in check". Instead, we populate the government with people representative to some degree of the population at large. When the richest 1% are not the ruling class, you get wonderful benefits like a taxation of not only the poor, but also the rich. And that there provides a fantastic boost to the national economy.
In short, keeping your government "in check" is less important when the government already attempts to work for the nation at large rather than only for those that might fund the next election. Also, it builds one hell of a trusting relation which helps when you need to do unpleasant things like slash the retirement funds or raise the retirement age.
Slashdot Mirror
Parent deserves at least a +1 for the visual of Baron Harkonnen cosplay.
Perhaps Wood's hole can fund another?
Yes, because human beings can totally stay 100% focused and productive during the entire day. Unless you're an unethical and lazy communist ofcourse.
I wonder how many CEOs actually believe in this drivel...
1) Police officer sees car he wants to search
2) Police officer calls 911 placing an anon tip
3) Police officer gets to do whatever the hell he wants.
historically, authority figures getting to do whatever the hell they want has worked out pretty well.
Jesus tapdancing Christ, this has been refuted three times now. The tip did not warrant the search, the tip only warranted pulling the driver over. The marijuana smell warranted the search, something that was not introduced by this ruling. As for #2, did you even read the digest? The ruling only accounts for when anonymity does not hold.
Get the tinfoil hat out of your eyes and read TFA please.
In Soviet Russia, book FaceYou!
The US should resume its former campaign of organising cope d'etat in communist countries. Russia is clearly out of control.
You use the word communist, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
Are you sure it was only 90%? Last I heard it was 123%.
Which is fully understandable. Putin, much like Kim Jong-iI, is so filled with awesomeness that people can express more than 100% of their love towards him. Furthermore, IEEE has declared that this percentage can only go down when Putin does manly things with his shirt on, which is very rare.
Honestly I don't get the stance of some ppl from the US against Russia.
Russia is the best friend and has been the most loyal, the strongest and the most valuable ally for the USA. Really. At times of apocalyptic events Russians and Americans stood together. It was before and it may be again when we have to save the Earth itself. Nobody can help the US but Russia when things get hot. Alienating Russians is what make things worse.
Those things are called movies. The space aliens didn't really invade Earth.
It doesn't matter if she used to be a Playboy model, or if she used to build skyscrapers, or if she used to be a circus performer: the only thing that's relevant is that she's not and never has been a medical professional. She's just as wrong as any other anti-vaxxer
And that all "anti-vaxxers" are wrong is your professional medical experience talking, or are you holding her to standards you don't hold yourself too?
If you can tell me how one anti-vaxxer can be wrong while another is not when they hold the same opinion, I would like to be your apprentice.
In communist Russia, base moons you!
Buzzzzz
Appeal to authority does not proove things in science.
One fact or data point can make all the experts wrong.
Actually, science is very authoritarian. That is why you seldom see the janitor overturn the professor with un-proven claims. The fact alone that he's a professor indicates that he has a long history of substantiating his claims and proving his research. This is what we in the adult world call credibility.
When a random person with no qualifications whatsoever other than the capabibility of using a keyboard attempts to discredit such a professor while providing no sources or proofs... well, I'm sure you can work it out.
And to sum up the counter argument...
Looking at the probabilities: If Iceland declares war on the US, chances are that the US will win. It's not 100% guaranteed, but I wouldn't put my money on Iceland.
I am Jack's outraged period.
Think of me, think of me fondly ...
When we've said goodbye
Remember me once in a while
Please promise me, you'll try
Says it all...
Curse you, actual scientists, with your "facts" and "data". Where we come from, we don't need no facts.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. I was recently afflicted by a non-systematic, unnamed condition, and drinking lots of water helped.
Hmm, now that I think about it, I may have been thirsty.
Damn all of you eukaryotic thingamajiggs and your hippityhop music!
I have a conch that does exactly what I need it to do - To hear the lamentations of their women.
Also: I get the feeling that European English speaking people swear a lot more than in the USA, and I wonder if this will be reflected in the moderation.
I too %*&!#$! wonder if this will be *(@&#$&%@ reflected in the @$&!%(#!%$&! moderation.
" ...Chicago Teachers Union president Karen Lewis said she'd rather see companies pay more in taxes ..."
Wouldn't they have to pay taxes first?
Actually, some people are completely straight, some people are completely gay, and then there are people in the middle, shades of gray, for whom it is a choice of lifestyle.
So you sound as ignorant as your parent.
Alas, you are confusing choice of action with choice of existence.
For someone that is, to use your term, a "shade of gay", there is only the choice of acting upon this desire. There is no choice in having these partial homosexual tendencies.
To dumb it down, you may choose to never sexually interact with a man for your entire life. This is your choice. You cannot however, choose to not be attracted to other men if you are fully or partially homosexual.
I find it nerdy and interesting the body has in place it's own sentinel to address DNA irregularities.
FTA: More than half the women with a mutated copy of the BRCA1 gene will develop breast cancer...
I suspect this is the marker used to inspire Mrs. Pitt to preemptively undergo the double-mastectomy... cue the small brain/breast jokes.
Actually, there are multiple sentinels for this. Unfortunately, they are built in a more hierarchical way than desirable, meaning that once the top tumor suppression mechanism is silenced (through mutations, genetics, epigenetics or what have you), the next level is defenseless (, and DNA repair genes are a part of the tumor defense league). This is also the reason why cancer is so common in the elderly.
As for the connection to brain size evolution in humans, I would take that with a grain of salt. There are far too many functional networks and biological pathways in between brain size and breast homeostasis to make any causal claims.
Hippie version of the scientific method:
1) Form a hypothesis, preferably an unfalsifiable one
2) Cherry pick data and cook numbers to "prove" hypothesis
3) Reject all data that contradicts your hypothesis
4) Promote hypothesis as conclusive science, rake in grant money.
5) Viciously attack anyone who challenges said hypothesis an anti-science "denier."
And if anyone challenges this as the legitimate scientific method, just tell them "clearly you don't understand how science works."
Good thing that you aren't following in that vein then, citing credible sources and supplying a solid, logical argument that can be clearly traced from premise to conclusion. And even better, you're doing it not for your own aggrandizement, but for the betterment of mankind. You go Mr. Anonymous hero!
That which helped me the most with this issue was enforcing Firefox with Adblock and Noscript, and setting the AV to update daily without confirmation and run scans every other day. This has reduced the warnings / malware numbers from roughly 120 to 0 when I run the scans manually.
The only problem is that you need to make sure they don't simply click "allow scripts globally" every time something doesn't work.
Good luck.
Such an admonishment is fine for the computational fields, where a few more permutations can net you a p-value of 0.0005 (assuming that you aren't crunching on a 4-month cluster problem). However, biological laborations are often very expensive and take a lot of time. Furthermore, additional tests are not always possible, since it can be damn hard to reproduce specific mutations or knockout sequences without altering the surrounding interactive factors.
So, should we go for a better p-value for the experiment and scrap any complicated endeavour, or should we allow for difficult experiments and take it with a grain of salt?
Will there be a Ballmer emulator as well? I could use one of those in my stock market crash simulator.
85% of reported rapes in Sweden are perpetrated by Muslim immigrants.
Except those committed by Australians.
When it comes to that: note that's actually a single Australian to allegedly commit the rest of 15%.
(large grin)
The remaining 85% would then be 5 and 2/3. Is the last guy a midget?
However, in Norway the population is, by and large, loyal to the government, believe it or not. In fact, that is how it is in most of Europe, AFAIK. Even if we don't agree with the government's policies, we still trust and respect them.
That's because your government actually represents you reasonably well. And that, in turn, is because you keep it in check.
Americans believe that any government is bad government, but that's because all they ever saw is bad government. They don't realize that a strong government can do a great many things for its citizens so long as the citizens keep it in check and make it focus its power towards their needs.
I don't think we have the same idea here. We don't keep our government "in check". Instead, we populate the government with people representative to some degree of the population at large. When the richest 1% are not the ruling class, you get wonderful benefits like a taxation of not only the poor, but also the rich. And that there provides a fantastic boost to the national economy.
In short, keeping your government "in check" is less important when the government already attempts to work for the nation at large rather than only for those that might fund the next election. Also, it builds one hell of a trusting relation which helps when you need to do unpleasant things like slash the retirement funds or raise the retirement age.