I moderated this Funny, but felt a need to respond.
If we accept your numbers as the correct numbers, and that anything outside those numbers is guaranteed to be wrong; we can then calculate the likelihood of any one piece of data in any TFA's posted to/. .
For one piece of data, we have 1. We know that 20% of the time, it's going to outright fail. So, 0.8 chance, 1 being 100%.
Of that amount, we know that 75% of the time, it will be right. So, 0.8 * 0.75 = 0.6.
We also know that 44% of that 0.6 is possibly correct. So 0.6 * 0.44 = 0.264.
We again know that 87% of that 0.264 is correct. 0.264 * 0.87 = 0.22968.
But, only 9 times out of 10. 0.22968 * 0.9 = 0.206712.
Now, we can state that for any given piece of data, on any TFA on/. there is a 20.6712% chance of it being correct.
Ahh, but you also fail to see some really BAD parts of this. What this map is doing is giving anyone EASY access to find out where people with guns live. What better way to find out where you could procure some guns? Just case the joint, wait until everyone is gone, in an out with a gun untraceable to you..
Or, what about nutters deciding that they think someone at a house is a little too 'crazy'(completely subjective, I'm fucking nuts, but I wouldn't ever shoot someone unless you came into my house and going to hurt myself or my family) to own a gun, and decides to take matters into their own hands.
As someone already posted in response to you: These are not really 'public information' but information gain from FOIA requests. So, these are pretty much as close to public court records as military contingency plans are. That's not something most Americans would agree to be released.
These are things that people buy for hunting and protecting their families; not something to be displayed for the whole world to see, just because a couple of nutters decided to go crazy.
Full disclosure: I have shot guns before, but do not own one(or many, for those looking to poke a hole in the term I used).
I wanted to mod this down, but there is no -1 Wrong..
Natural selection is not the only way evolution happens. Although if you follow Darwin's definition of 'Natural Selection', any way in which a set of genes are passed on falls under the term, most people mention Natural Selections in reference to the 'Survival of the Fittest'. Charles mentioned that as well as others, including Sexual Selection as well as other ways of 'Natural Selection'. Oddly enough, we found that 'Natural Selection' (in the sense of 'Survival of the Fittest') is actually a minor one(until such a time that natural selection comes into play and wipes out half, or more, of a population.
We found that 'Sexual Selection' is actually the one that produces the most obvious and huge changes. As another poster has pointed out, natural selection only really comes into play for a population and civilization of our size when something pretty massive changes. IE, a new predator(could even be viral in size), a sudden shortage of food, etc. Otherwise, Sexual Selection is the most prevalent.
*Sexual selection is the process in which mates of a species select genetic traits that they like or prefer over others. Which means us, birds, dogs, cats, the random spider you see on the wall, all animals; we all select mates that we prefer. By preferring them, and having a child(or many hundreds, in the case of spiders) you are saying that the traits this specimen of your species has, is how you would prefer your species to be. Which has incredible and long lasting effects.
How would you go about measuring the energy emitting out of a star?
Probably something like measuring the spectrum qualities of the light being emitted....
Or, you know, have a superconducting power line running the length of the track.
From the wikipedia page on superconductivity: "An electric current flowing in a loop of superconducting wire can persist indefinitely with no power source"
That logic would prevail as having virtually no transmission loss.
For those to lazy to read about it, scientists have created all of the amino acids required by life, using nothing but inorganic compounds, by recreating the atmospheric conditions of early Earth.
Life may or may not have originated on Earth, but we tested it and found that it could have. If it could have been created here, using nothing but the things that the universe placed here, why couldn't it have also developed else where? Are we the seeding planet of the galaxy/universe? Were we seeded? Or is life just incredibly common?
Your argument is invalid. You fail to take into account the large amount of legal 'drugs' (prescriptions) that are widely available, and endorsed by the US government(not to mention many others).
So, tell me circletimessquare, how do you feel about a large amount of K-12 students being put on drugs like Ritalin or Adderall to control their 'attention span'? I'll remind you, that both of these drugs are amphetamines, and in the same class as Meth(logically, not necessarily by government standards).
I hate to inform you of this, but you do live in that totalitarian government that gives mind control drugs to its population. They just guise it as helping you through the 'wonders of modern medicine'.
Here's a simple rule of thumb: if you don't want people searching for evidence of your crimes, DON'T DO THE CRIMES.
That's funny..
Your views will change very quickly when the things you are doing now, become things people view as 'illegal'. There is a very very large difference between 'what is illegal' and 'what is morally wrong'
Regardless of if anybody actually did what they claim they did, what the US government is doing is a classic case of the 'ends justifying the means'. Everyone loves it until they suddenly have a problem with what YOU do every day.
Wikipedia, by policy, does not allow any information on their site that is not sourced or source-able. You are not allowed to make a novel point, or connection, to the data that is not made by the source-able information.
What does this mean to academics? Well, we're talking about the very group that writes articles making novel points, and using original research. If you tell them they are not allowed to post any of that information (and you're also not allowed to self-source, with some exception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources), except "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", why would they want to write anything for your website? They could just write the "expert" article, and leave it to John Q. Public to make the Wikipedia article on it.
Slashdot Mirror
I moderated this Funny, but felt a need to respond.
/. .
/. there is a 20.6712% chance of it being correct.
If we accept your numbers as the correct numbers, and that anything outside those numbers is guaranteed to be wrong; we can then calculate the likelihood of any one piece of data in any TFA's posted to
For one piece of data, we have 1. We know that 20% of the time, it's going to outright fail. So, 0.8 chance, 1 being 100%. Of that amount, we know that 75% of the time, it will be right. So, 0.8 * 0.75 = 0.6.
We also know that 44% of that 0.6 is possibly correct. So 0.6 * 0.44 = 0.264.
We again know that 87% of that 0.264 is correct. 0.264 * 0.87 = 0.22968.
But, only 9 times out of 10. 0.22968 * 0.9 = 0.206712.
Now, we can state that for any given piece of data, on any TFA on
Which, oddly enough, doesn't sound that far off.
Ahh, but you also fail to see some really BAD parts of this. What this map is doing is giving anyone EASY access to find out where people with guns live. What better way to find out where you could procure some guns? Just case the joint, wait until everyone is gone, in an out with a gun untraceable to you..
Or, what about nutters deciding that they think someone at a house is a little too 'crazy'(completely subjective, I'm fucking nuts, but I wouldn't ever shoot someone unless you came into my house and going to hurt myself or my family) to own a gun, and decides to take matters into their own hands.
As someone already posted in response to you: These are not really 'public information' but information gain from FOIA requests. So, these are pretty much as close to public court records as military contingency plans are. That's not something most Americans would agree to be released.
These are things that people buy for hunting and protecting their families; not something to be displayed for the whole world to see, just because a couple of nutters decided to go crazy.
Full disclosure: I have shot guns before, but do not own one(or many, for those looking to poke a hole in the term I used).
I wanted to mod this down, but there is no -1 Wrong..
Natural selection is not the only way evolution happens. Although if you follow Darwin's definition of 'Natural Selection', any way in which a set of genes are passed on falls under the term, most people mention Natural Selections in reference to the 'Survival of the Fittest'. Charles mentioned that as well as others, including Sexual Selection as well as other ways of 'Natural Selection'. Oddly enough, we found that 'Natural Selection' (in the sense of 'Survival of the Fittest') is actually a minor one(until such a time that natural selection comes into play and wipes out half, or more, of a population.
We found that 'Sexual Selection' is actually the one that produces the most obvious and huge changes. As another poster has pointed out, natural selection only really comes into play for a population and civilization of our size when something pretty massive changes. IE, a new predator(could even be viral in size), a sudden shortage of food, etc. Otherwise, Sexual Selection is the most prevalent.
*Sexual selection is the process in which mates of a species select genetic traits that they like or prefer over others. Which means us, birds, dogs, cats, the random spider you see on the wall, all animals; we all select mates that we prefer. By preferring them, and having a child(or many hundreds, in the case of spiders) you are saying that the traits this specimen of your species has, is how you would prefer your species to be. Which has incredible and long lasting effects.
How would you go about measuring the energy emitting out of a star? Probably something like measuring the spectrum qualities of the light being emitted....
Or, you know, have a superconducting power line running the length of the track. From the wikipedia page on superconductivity: "An electric current flowing in a loop of superconducting wire can persist indefinitely with no power source" That logic would prevail as having virtually no transmission loss.
Stephen Hawking, Stephen King, what's the difference?!
You should read about the Miller-Urey experiment.
For those to lazy to read about it, scientists have created all of the amino acids required by life, using nothing but inorganic compounds, by recreating the atmospheric conditions of early Earth.
Life may or may not have originated on Earth, but we tested it and found that it could have. If it could have been created here, using nothing but the things that the universe placed here, why couldn't it have also developed else where? Are we the seeding planet of the galaxy/universe? Were we seeded? Or is life just incredibly common?
Imagine the liquid cooling possibilities of computers that couldn't be injured by submerging them!
Didn't I see someone comment about dolphins flying water filled spaceships a couple days ago here? We should let them know we've solved one problem!
PST is different than PDT...
Your argument is invalid. You fail to take into account the large amount of legal 'drugs' (prescriptions) that are widely available, and endorsed by the US government(not to mention many others).
So, tell me circletimessquare, how do you feel about a large amount of K-12 students being put on drugs like Ritalin or Adderall to control their 'attention span'? I'll remind you, that both of these drugs are amphetamines, and in the same class as Meth(logically, not necessarily by government standards).
I hate to inform you of this, but you do live in that totalitarian government that gives mind control drugs to its population. They just guise it as helping you through the 'wonders of modern medicine'.
Here's a simple rule of thumb: if you don't want people searching for evidence of your crimes, DON'T DO THE CRIMES.
That's funny..
Your views will change very quickly when the things you are doing now, become things people view as 'illegal'. There is a very very large difference between 'what is illegal' and 'what is morally wrong'
Regardless of if anybody actually did what they claim they did, what the US government is doing is a classic case of the 'ends justifying the means'. Everyone loves it until they suddenly have a problem with what YOU do every day.
Just say no to w3schools... http://w3fools.com/
I can't believe no one else has pointed this out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
Wikipedia, by policy, does not allow any information on their site that is not sourced or source-able. You are not allowed to make a novel point, or connection, to the data that is not made by the source-able information.
What does this mean to academics? Well, we're talking about the very group that writes articles making novel points, and using original research. If you tell them they are not allowed to post any of that information (and you're also not allowed to self-source, with some exception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources), except "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", why would they want to write anything for your website? They could just write the "expert" article, and leave it to John Q. Public to make the Wikipedia article on it.