This was the way the system used to work in the 18th century: Dr Johnson had to line up a number of sponsors before he produced his dictionary.
This is completely wrong. The Statute of Anne was introduced in 1710, when Johnson was less than one year old. And Johnson was contracted to write the dictionary by a group of London book-sellers who approached *him* for the task.
Oh, I don't. Many people are sincerly good people and are polite with it. You're not one of them. You're weren't looking for the best in someone, you were looking for the worst. You're the Wormtongue of this particular scene and your "Perhaps the latter..." is yet another example of your passive-aggressive crap. No doubt you were "just asking questions". Grow some balls and stop being the worst kind of human being. You could be better if you tried.
It's been claimed that the real reason to ban DDT is racism. DDT kills mosquitoes. Mosquitoes carry malaria.
DDT isn't banned for use against malaria. Interesting that you're trying to make our that you're so knowledgable about DDT and yet you didn't even know that...
Ahh, I see. You were referring to the youngsters born in the 1940s:-) It seems the liturgy was translated by a committee in the early 1960s. I would have thought the creed would have been translated before that, though. Isn't is used in some Presbyterian churches?
Oddly enough, I remembered the creed as "Tha mi creidsinn" but when I Googled it it said "Tha sinn" so I assumed my memory was at fault.
but in Scottish Gaelic only conservative speakers use "creididh mi" (or more idiomatically "cha chreid mi" -- I don't believe) and increasing numbers of youngsters (and learners) are saying "tha mi a' creidsinn" -- "I am believing".
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding (I will get around to around to studying languages some time!), but that doesn't seem to be a particularly new formation to me. The Nicene Creed begins, "Tha sinn a' creidsinn ann an aon Dia" and that translation has been around a while. At least since I was a child and had to learn it at school;-)
although Scottish Gaelic has recently developed a tendency to use the continuous aspect where it probably shouldn't be.
What does this mean? I assume that "shouldn't" is linguistic shorthand for "historically didn't but now do"; but I mean can you give me an example of where this happens and has changed. Thanks!
With 99% of software packages you can indeed just "mess around with it" and pick up the basic usage. Not with 3D packages. Install Blender and then do the Complete Newbie tutorial. You'll be glad you did!
When was the last time the number of transistors per cm2 doubles in 18 months? 2203? 2004?
Actually, it's every 2 years. The 18 month period was from David House and referred to computing power (due to the combination of transister count increasing and speed increasing).
And the answer to your question would appear to be
2011:)
Oh, and Inflation does not depend on exponential growth, just on any kind of growth. Nothing depends on exponential growth. But apparently you don't have the slightest idea of what is exponential growth either. Just to give you some numbers a growth of 4-5% a year tends to generate a very healthy inflation.
Any kind of percentage growth is exponential growth. Taking your 4% as an example, means doubling in size every 17.67 years. In other words, you can consider it as 100% growth over that term.
You can calculate the time it takes to reach 100% growth, at rate r%, with the following (I'm using "ln" to represent the natural logarithm since that's what spreadsheets use):
=ln(2) / ln(1 + r)
So, for 5% growth per annum, for example, it's
=ln(2) / ln(1.05)
which is 14.21 years.
That's why percentage growth of any kind is unsustainable over the longer term.
I once tried Inkscape and realized in disgust that the "manual" was a wiki.
No, it's not. What gave you that idea?
What you really need to try, though, are the Tutorials. They're under the Help menu and actually consist of SVG documents opened in a normal Inkscape window. It's simple yet brilliant -- when talking about a feature it simply suggests you try it there and then on that document. You should give it a try. Inkscape is an example of documentation done *right*!
Oil, coal and gas prices won't wreck havoc on the local economy.
You can't really wreck havoc. Havoc is chaos; it's about as wrecked as wrecked can be. You could *cause* havoc. Or, in other words "wreak havoc". That's a different matter...
Assume the climate is completely unchanging (rather than systematically drifting) and the measurements are randomly distributed (a multi-modal distribution around the various weather patterns typical for the date).
They're either randomly distributed or have a modal distribution. They can't be both: the terms are mutually exclusive.
Then this year's new sample is exactly as likely to be the new record (in a given direction) as any of the others. 1 in 181.
No, because they're clearly *not* randomly distributed. The idea that the temperature on the 5th of August, in any particular location, is equally likely to be -10 degrees, 30 degrees or 70 degrees, is clearly and obviously ridiculous.
See, now I'm left in a quandary....you used the term "multi-modal" distribution in your post: now, either you don't actually know what that means and were just trying to intimidate people into accepting your rather silly statistical analysis, or you did know what it meant and were deliberately lying to people.
You don't present a good appearance either way. Perhaps you can offer a nicer alternative?
Did you just -- in the same comment -- show yourself sceptical of the new technique, provide some evidence for your scepticism and approval for the old, then cast doubt on the old technique and provide evidence why the new was superior to the old?
The sky is blue because air is blue and the sunlight is shining through the air.
Where do babies come from?
When a man and a woman love each other very much, they cuddle is a special way and make a baby.
How can I make this other person like me?
Firstly, you need to record all your actions for a whole month.
Once you have that footage, kidnap the person. Then randomly torture them for a couple of days asking questions that are totally irrelevant to your purpose. This is to invoke a Stockholm syndrome with the torturer.
Now, start showing clips of the video of yourself in different scenarios, and following that you test your victim with choices on their actions... such as way of walking, responding to people, types of clothing etc. If they choose the same as you would, they are rewarded. If not, they are beaten and tortured further.
After about 18 months of this treatment, this person will be just like you.
The argument is not that their world must "just exist", but rather that there is no evidence either way, and that the model without a creator is the one with fewer assumptions.
And that's where they're wrong. The massive assumption they are making there is: it is possible for their world to exist without a creator. I've no idea where they got that idea from.;-) That assumption is factually incorrect.
The burden of proof is on those postulating the existence of a creator to come up with actual evidence supporting the more complex model.
In this case, which of the models is more complex depends on your initial assumptions.
Slashdot Mirror
Wars not make one great.
I call bullshit on this one. This works for three month at a maximum, and then you are exhausted.
That's the bit that you found unrealistic? The 80 hour work week?
Not, for example, the idea of fighting off H1Bs from a 22nd Century space station?
Huh.
This was the way the system used to work in the 18th century: Dr Johnson had to line up a number of sponsors before he produced his dictionary.
This is completely wrong. The Statute of Anne was introduced in 1710, when Johnson was less than one year old. And Johnson was contracted to write the dictionary by a group of London book-sellers who approached *him* for the task.
Did you just try to make a point by beginning with "I read an editorial..."?
Are you ill or something?
another one says the earth will absorb the heat Which one do you trust?
I think I'd have to go with the one that doesn't redefine "absorb" to mean "magically disappear".
Oh, I don't. Many people are sincerly good people and are polite with it. You're not one of them. You're weren't looking for the best in someone, you were looking for the worst. You're the Wormtongue of this particular scene and your "Perhaps the latter..." is yet another example of your passive-aggressive crap. No doubt you were "just asking questions". Grow some balls and stop being the worst kind of human being. You could be better if you tried.
Linus Torvalds has produced the Linux kernel.
Whereas you, with your sneaking, sneering faux-politeness...what have you done?
I prefer Torvalds' approach, thanks.
It's been claimed that the real reason to ban DDT is racism. DDT kills mosquitoes. Mosquitoes carry malaria.
DDT isn't banned for use against malaria. Interesting that you're trying to make our that you're so knowledgable about DDT and yet you didn't even know that...
Pressure? Really? Photons have no mass, how are they expected to apply a pressure on the hull?
Yes, really. The wikipedia article on Radiation Pressure explains it fairly. Also have a look at the one on Solar Sails.
Ahh, I see. You were referring to the youngsters born in the 1940s :-) It seems the liturgy was translated by a committee in the early 1960s. I would have thought the creed would have been translated before that, though. Isn't is used in some Presbyterian churches?
Oddly enough, I remembered the creed as "Tha mi creidsinn" but when I Googled it it said "Tha sinn" so I assumed my memory was at fault.
but in Scottish Gaelic only conservative speakers use "creididh mi" (or more idiomatically "cha chreid mi" -- I don't believe) and increasing numbers of youngsters (and learners) are saying "tha mi a' creidsinn" -- "I am believing".
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding (I will get around to around to studying languages some time!), but that doesn't seem to be a particularly new formation to me. The Nicene Creed begins, "Tha sinn a' creidsinn ann an aon Dia" and that translation has been around a while. At least since I was a child and had to learn it at school ;-)
.to everyone who's pride was hurt when MENSA rejected them.
Did they refuse you for confusing "who's" and "whose"? ;)
although Scottish Gaelic has recently developed a tendency to use the continuous aspect where it probably shouldn't be.
What does this mean? I assume that "shouldn't" is linguistic shorthand for "historically didn't but now do"; but I mean can you give me an example of where this happens and has changed. Thanks!
Have they been? WD announced 2TB drives in early January 2009.
Yes, they have. It's a *trend*. Look at it over a longer time period. By definition, you can't tell when a trend has stopped as it's stopping.
With 99% of software packages you can indeed just "mess around with it" and pick up the basic usage. Not with 3D packages. Install Blender and then do the Complete Newbie tutorial. You'll be glad you did!
When was the last time the number of transistors per cm2 doubles in 18 months? 2203? 2004?
Actually, it's every 2 years. The 18 month period was from David House and referred to computing power (due to the combination of transister count increasing and speed increasing).
And the answer to your question would appear to be 2011 :)
Oh, and Inflation does not depend on exponential growth, just on any kind of growth. Nothing depends on exponential growth. But apparently you don't have the slightest idea of what is exponential growth either. Just to give you some numbers a growth of 4-5% a year tends to generate a very healthy inflation.
Any kind of percentage growth is exponential growth. Taking your 4% as an example, means doubling in size every 17.67 years. In other words, you can consider it as 100% growth over that term.
You can calculate the time it takes to reach 100% growth, at rate r%, with the following (I'm using "ln" to represent the natural logarithm since that's what spreadsheets use):
=ln(2) / ln(1 + r)
So, for 5% growth per annum, for example, it's
=ln(2) / ln(1.05)
which is 14.21 years.
That's why percentage growth of any kind is unsustainable over the longer term.
I once tried Inkscape and realized in disgust that the "manual" was a wiki.
No, it's not. What gave you that idea?
What you really need to try, though, are the Tutorials. They're under the Help menu and actually consist of SVG documents opened in a normal Inkscape window. It's simple yet brilliant -- when talking about a feature it simply suggests you try it there and then on that document. You should give it a try. Inkscape is an example of documentation done *right*!
Oil, coal and gas prices won't wreck havoc on the local economy.
You can't really wreck havoc. Havoc is chaos; it's about as wrecked as wrecked can be. You could *cause* havoc. Or, in other words "wreak havoc". That's a different matter...
oysters are a hugely expensive luxury item; those peasant recipes would cost £100's to cook at today's prices
Well, £4 anyway. Maybe if you're cooking for 400?
Uhhhh, yeah. Unlike Finland though, we have to connect up all the states together. That's how the Internet workie workie.
Quoted for sheer, mind-buggering stupidity. You are officially too dumb for slashdot. Please seek immediate medical attention.
Holy fuck, how do these people even breathe?!
Assume the climate is completely unchanging (rather than systematically drifting) and the measurements are randomly distributed (a multi-modal distribution around the various weather patterns typical for the date).
They're either randomly distributed or have a modal distribution. They can't be both: the terms are mutually exclusive.
Then this year's new sample is exactly as likely to be the new record (in a given direction) as any of the others. 1 in 181.
No, because they're clearly *not* randomly distributed. The idea that the temperature on the 5th of August, in any particular location, is equally likely to be -10 degrees, 30 degrees or 70 degrees, is clearly and obviously ridiculous.
See, now I'm left in a quandary....you used the term "multi-modal" distribution in your post: now, either you don't actually know what that means and were just trying to intimidate people into accepting your rather silly statistical analysis, or you did know what it meant and were deliberately lying to people.
You don't present a good appearance either way. Perhaps you can offer a nicer alternative?
Did you just -- in the same comment -- show yourself sceptical of the new technique, provide some evidence for your scepticism and approval for the old, then cast doubt on the old technique and provide evidence why the new was superior to the old?
Sir Humphrey?
Where do babies come from?
When a man and a woman love each other very much, they cuddle is a special way and make a baby.
How can I make this other person like me?
Firstly, you need to record all your actions for a whole month.
Once you have that footage, kidnap the person. Then randomly torture them for a couple of days asking questions that are totally irrelevant to your purpose. This is to invoke a Stockholm syndrome with the torturer.
Now, start showing clips of the video of yourself in different scenarios, and following that you test your victim with choices on their actions... such as way of walking, responding to people, types of clothing etc. If they choose the same as you would, they are rewarded. If not, they are beaten and tortured further.
After about 18 months of this treatment, this person will be just like you.
They would not be factually wrong.
Yes they would.
The argument is not that their world must "just exist", but rather that there is no evidence either way, and that the model without a creator is the one with fewer assumptions.
And that's where they're wrong. The massive assumption they are making there is: it is possible for their world to exist without a creator. I've no idea where they got that idea from. ;-) That assumption is factually incorrect.
The burden of proof is on those postulating the existence of a creator to come up with actual evidence supporting the more complex model.
In this case, which of the models is more complex depends on your initial assumptions.