All of those people ultimately believe that they are being lied to in one way or another, which is not unreasonable.
There is no important difference between guessing the authorities are telling the truth and guessing the authorities are lying, if you are too mentally lazy to consider the topic in a non-superficial way. That is not "critical thinking".
Critical thinking means coming up with a coherent set of thoughts, supported by some amount of evidence, that is more likely to reveal the truth than pure guessing.
If you believe the people around you are sheep who are not thinking, dyeing your wool to be a more garish colored sheep who is also not thinking is not an improvement. In fact, it is sincere endorsement of sheep-thinking.
I am only asking people show an actual reason based on some kind of evidence. If they can do that, I will likely be very supportive of their position.
But, of course, being reasonable is too much to ask. So best to change the subject and finger point at unnamed arrogant people for being the root of their own problem.
I am only asking they show evidence that their risk is actually significantly larger than the completely miniscule normal risk.
I am not asking anyone to prove anything. Only show that there is a real reason to believe the normal broad population statistics may not apply to them.
If they cannot step over such a low bar, then their opinions do not matter, and I feel no sympathy, no.
I fully support people not getting a vaccine when they have genuine medical evidence that they are especially vulnerable to side effects. In fact, that is why it is so important to have as many people as possible to be vaccinated -- so that we can protect those who cannot afford to take the risk.
I would take the risk of measles over becoming parapelegic any day of the week.
If you actually had a real risk, that may be correct. But if it is just something you made up to push blame of your mother's hidden but already existing MS on someone, so you can have a fairy tale that you can protect yourself, well, I cannot persuade the purposefully stupid.
Furthermore I would also point out that if you have some extreme autoimmune risk, contracting the real flu is inherently dangerous to you, even if the vaccine might be more dangerous. So, in this scenario, one should think real hard about whether lots of people avoiding vaccines on weakly thought out reasons is a good policy -- since those people not getting vaccinated might literally kill you.
That question applies to most copyrighted work, not just dancing, whether it be a portion of a novel, or the text of a piece of software code.
At some small size we say there is no copyright. As some larger size judges allow fair use, while recognizing that the larger work can be copyrighted. As some still larger size we find a violation in which the possibility of damages would be discussed with a judge.
The lines have not be drawn for dancing so clearly, but the general principle is not new.
So he was going to arc electricity significant distances, with the advantage they (the thought) he knew the right radio frequencies to help induce ionization, so the voltage to get the plasma path rolling was not absurdly too high.
And this is supposed to be better than using high voltage over copper or aluminum wires?
I think the answer is no, it would not work. I can see why Tesla believed this idea had nice scaling properties when moving very large amounts of power. In particular the plasma path will become much less lossy the more power it moves, and it looks even more promising if it arcs through the thin upper atmosphere.
The fundamental problem is there are so many things that can go wrong, such that you simply blast immense amounts of energy into space and little to none is recoverable.
If all you care about is the health of one single individual as some kind of purely isolated mathematical fact, then what you are saying makes some degree of sense. But those of us who have families, which presumably includes, in some fashion, every single school aged child, then your reasoning is woefully incomplete.
In fact, the biggest beneficiaries of school aged kids getting vaccinated would be younger siblings who have suffer significantly less mortality for it. Yes, that 7 year old being vaccinated from measles greatly reduces the risk of the 3 year old sister dying from measles. That makes a huge amount of sense, if we think about. It also saves grandma and dad, etc., whose immunities might have faded over the decades for all kinds of reasons.
That is probably right if we have a sophisticated concept of work as something beyond simply pushing up GDP. Taking care of a long term sick family member is work, too, it just does not generate pay check. Being a stay at home parent that keeps the home running and the children looked after is work, too, it just does not generate a pay check.
We do not actually have to imagine what the world would be like if white men could get funding for bad science that throws out data that fails to show that white men are superior, and cherry-picking what they prefer, do we?
Doesn't happen so much now, but it is undeniably exactly part of what made the world we live in.
It is not money but some kind of pride that prevents someone from being certain ahead of time, for timely medical care for foreseeable dangerous side effects of their lifestyle. That applies to both Colin Kroll and Michael Jackson. If either had someone reliable on hand actually checking their pulse at regular intervals, they would have gotten assistance in time to save their lives.
It is more like someone who is known to love to drive his sports cars 110mph deserved to die in a car accident.
I have driven 100mph for a few moments in my life. But I sure would not make a habit of it, even if I owned an appropriate vehicle, because I do not want a minor mistake by myself or someone else to snowball into a stupid death.
Did this guy deserve to die? I would say no. But he lived a life where a minor mistake by himself or someone else could snowball into a stupid death. He rolled the dice, and it came up snake eyes.
It could well be that a middle man saw an opportunity to sell cocaine+heroin+fentanyl for a bigger profit than a comparable amount of cocaine+heroin. And many customers may actually like this better, at least the ones that live.
The simple solution is not adopted for a simple reason: it would hurt Amazon profits.
The reason this shows up in an investor report at all is precisely because it is so large a "problem" that doing something about it could noticeably hurt future profits. At some point, hiding knowledge of a growing problem invites lawsuits, lawsuits that are more likely to win if there is a cover up.
Pretty much all these exchange failures look like inside jobs. A little actual thievery is a useful distraction to cover for massive looting (MtGOX). In this case the "unexpected" death is a useful crisis with an obvious scapegoat.
Moving and storing non-small amounts of money has associated costs, whether that comes in the form of guards standing in front of the pile of bullion with AK-47s or it is layers of bureaucracy that allow for paper trails and insurance (and gov't bailouts).
The idea of the "untrusted player" to serve your needs as an individual small fish might be just fine, as you can hedge your bets by spreading your exposure across different kinds of risks. But doing that kind of thing wisely also has costs, at the minimum it means you have to research several options carefully enough to know you are not blindly guessing. (Or perhaps you are blindly guessing, and you are only kidding yourself that what you are doing is cheaper in the long run than paying The Man for the stupidity tax.)
Big fish have too much money to do what an individual might do. They need better liquidity and bureaucratic controls. Unfortunately it seems many people who should know better are vastly underestimating the risk profile of cryptocurrencies, that they are inherently riskier than fiat currencies in certain important respects.
Health care and women's education are the main factors that drove reproduction rates down, not stable governments or wealth. They do help, but are less important than you think.
I was with you until the last bit here.
How negative the population growth is may have only a little to with the gov't -- I do not have an opinion on that.
But those remaining regions of the world with significant positive population growth are all places suffering wars and civil unrest, so it is not mystery as to why food, education, healthcare are in short supply. It is not really credible to deny gov't has a lot to do with the continued population growth, based on the actual data on hand.
The real problem? Suppose one of my relatives is a major asshat, my DNA matches enough that I get arrested.
Realistically, you may get investigated because of your criminal cousin, but when it actually comes to time to indict, you can spit into a cup and it will show your DNA definitely does not match the strand of hair at the crime scene.
They are guessing about you based on family background. They are not really guessing about the DNA of the sample they found at the crime scene. If you provide a DNA sample, that should clear things up.
But, yes, this may well cost you four figures. But probably not the five or six figures of a full trial.
That I will be prosecuted for a crime where my DNA shows up at a crime scene, based on fourth cousins spitting into a 23andme family pact for Christmas fun seems not all that important to most people.
However, that the insurance companies will profile my family and decide I am a high risk based on my cousins, that seems like a scary and very real possibility. At least to me. What can I do about that?
Third or fourth cousin match means the FBI has ballpark 100 living possible suspects at the outset. Probably 90 can be eliminated as too unlikely by a cursory investigation while sitting behind a desk. Then they can look carefully at the records of the 10, to see which are the most promising and worth a real investigation.
DNA records of ~1 million random Americans, and I bet the FBI can track down 99% of the people whose families have lived in this country for a few generations, based on a single strand of hair at a crime scene.
Of course, there is real detective work to be done, when your careful combing finds the hair strands from 100 different people at a crime scene. No guarantee the perp actually dropped a hair either.
Even without this Family Tree data, the FBI will eventually get the data it wants by just collecting data from suspects who are indicted for crimes that suggest a sample is appropriate -- it will only take longer. The portion of the population who has one convicted sexual predator amongst their one thousand closest relatives is going to be ninety something per cent pretty quickly, as this data gets accumulated.
Slashdot Mirror
All of those people ultimately believe that they are being lied to in one way or another, which is not unreasonable.
There is no important difference between guessing the authorities are telling the truth and guessing the authorities are lying, if you are too mentally lazy to consider the topic in a non-superficial way. That is not "critical thinking".
Critical thinking means coming up with a coherent set of thoughts, supported by some amount of evidence, that is more likely to reveal the truth than pure guessing.
If you believe the people around you are sheep who are not thinking, dyeing your wool to be a more garish colored sheep who is also not thinking is not an improvement. In fact, it is sincere endorsement of sheep-thinking.
I am only asking people show an actual reason based on some kind of evidence. If they can do that, I will likely be very supportive of their position.
But, of course, being reasonable is too much to ask. So best to change the subject and finger point at unnamed arrogant people for being the root of their own problem.
No, you are 100% wrong.
I am only asking they show evidence that their risk is actually significantly larger than the completely miniscule normal risk.
I am not asking anyone to prove anything. Only show that there is a real reason to believe the normal broad population statistics may not apply to them.
If they cannot step over such a low bar, then their opinions do not matter, and I feel no sympathy, no.
I fully support people not getting a vaccine when they have genuine medical evidence that they are especially vulnerable to side effects. In fact, that is why it is so important to have as many people as possible to be vaccinated -- so that we can protect those who cannot afford to take the risk.
I would take the risk of measles over becoming parapelegic any day of the week.
If you actually had a real risk, that may be correct. But if it is just something you made up to push blame of your mother's hidden but already existing MS on someone, so you can have a fairy tale that you can protect yourself, well, I cannot persuade the purposefully stupid.
Furthermore I would also point out that if you have some extreme autoimmune risk, contracting the real flu is inherently dangerous to you, even if the vaccine might be more dangerous. So, in this scenario, one should think real hard about whether lots of people avoiding vaccines on weakly thought out reasons is a good policy -- since those people not getting vaccinated might literally kill you.
That question applies to most copyrighted work, not just dancing, whether it be a portion of a novel, or the text of a piece of software code.
At some small size we say there is no copyright. As some larger size judges allow fair use, while recognizing that the larger work can be copyrighted. As some still larger size we find a violation in which the possibility of damages would be discussed with a judge.
The lines have not be drawn for dancing so clearly, but the general principle is not new.
So he was going to arc electricity significant distances, with the advantage they (the thought) he knew the right radio frequencies to help induce ionization, so the voltage to get the plasma path rolling was not absurdly too high.
And this is supposed to be better than using high voltage over copper or aluminum wires?
I think the answer is no, it would not work. I can see why Tesla believed this idea had nice scaling properties when moving very large amounts of power. In particular the plasma path will become much less lossy the more power it moves, and it looks even more promising if it arcs through the thin upper atmosphere.
The fundamental problem is there are so many things that can go wrong, such that you simply blast immense amounts of energy into space and little to none is recoverable.
As a practical matter, lasers also drop off by the inverse square law. They may be focused tight cones of light, but they are still cones.
If all you care about is the health of one single individual as some kind of purely isolated mathematical fact, then what you are saying makes some degree of sense. But those of us who have families, which presumably includes, in some fashion, every single school aged child, then your reasoning is woefully incomplete.
In fact, the biggest beneficiaries of school aged kids getting vaccinated would be younger siblings who have suffer significantly less mortality for it. Yes, that 7 year old being vaccinated from measles greatly reduces the risk of the 3 year old sister dying from measles. That makes a huge amount of sense, if we think about. It also saves grandma and dad, etc., whose immunities might have faded over the decades for all kinds of reasons.
That is probably right if we have a sophisticated concept of work as something beyond simply pushing up GDP. Taking care of a long term sick family member is work, too, it just does not generate pay check. Being a stay at home parent that keeps the home running and the children looked after is work, too, it just does not generate a pay check.
We do not actually have to imagine what the world would be like if white men could get funding for bad science that throws out data that fails to show that white men are superior, and cherry-picking what they prefer, do we?
Doesn't happen so much now, but it is undeniably exactly part of what made the world we live in.
It is not money but some kind of pride that prevents someone from being certain ahead of time, for timely medical care for foreseeable dangerous side effects of their lifestyle. That applies to both Colin Kroll and Michael Jackson. If either had someone reliable on hand actually checking their pulse at regular intervals, they would have gotten assistance in time to save their lives.
It is more like someone who is known to love to drive his sports cars 110mph deserved to die in a car accident.
I have driven 100mph for a few moments in my life. But I sure would not make a habit of it, even if I owned an appropriate vehicle, because I do not want a minor mistake by myself or someone else to snowball into a stupid death.
Did this guy deserve to die? I would say no. But he lived a life where a minor mistake by himself or someone else could snowball into a stupid death. He rolled the dice, and it came up snake eyes.
Probably. Mix a little heroin plus a little fentanyl with a good amount, water it down, and sell it as a more expensive real heroin. Bigger profits.
Did he even know what is in the mix?
It could well be that a middle man saw an opportunity to sell cocaine+heroin+fentanyl for a bigger profit than a comparable amount of cocaine+heroin. And many customers may actually like this better, at least the ones that live.
The simple solution is not adopted for a simple reason: it would hurt Amazon profits.
The reason this shows up in an investor report at all is precisely because it is so large a "problem" that doing something about it could noticeably hurt future profits. At some point, hiding knowledge of a growing problem invites lawsuits, lawsuits that are more likely to win if there is a cover up.
There is a pretty good chance that did happen. Are we so sure those coins are actually lost?
Bingo.
In the long run, Bitcoin is only a meaningful currency if there are multiple large exchanges, to provide liquidity and value/price stability.
The death of yet another exchange under suspicious circumstances is another reason to avoid Bitcoin, another nail in its coffin.
Pretty much all these exchange failures look like inside jobs. A little actual thievery is a useful distraction to cover for massive looting (MtGOX). In this case the "unexpected" death is a useful crisis with an obvious scapegoat.
Moving and storing non-small amounts of money has associated costs, whether that comes in the form of guards standing in front of the pile of bullion with AK-47s or it is layers of bureaucracy that allow for paper trails and insurance (and gov't bailouts).
The idea of the "untrusted player" to serve your needs as an individual small fish might be just fine, as you can hedge your bets by spreading your exposure across different kinds of risks. But doing that kind of thing wisely also has costs, at the minimum it means you have to research several options carefully enough to know you are not blindly guessing. (Or perhaps you are blindly guessing, and you are only kidding yourself that what you are doing is cheaper in the long run than paying The Man for the stupidity tax.)
Big fish have too much money to do what an individual might do. They need better liquidity and bureaucratic controls. Unfortunately it seems many people who should know better are vastly underestimating the risk profile of cryptocurrencies, that they are inherently riskier than fiat currencies in certain important respects.
The advantage of an exchange is liquidity, which translates into more consistent and predictable pricing.
An individual dealing in pocket change perhaps does not care. But if you are running a business, it can matter.
Health care and women's education are the main factors that drove reproduction rates down, not stable governments or wealth. They do help, but are less important than you think.
I was with you until the last bit here.
How negative the population growth is may have only a little to with the gov't -- I do not have an opinion on that.
But those remaining regions of the world with significant positive population growth are all places suffering wars and civil unrest, so it is not mystery as to why food, education, healthcare are in short supply. It is not really credible to deny gov't has a lot to do with the continued population growth, based on the actual data on hand.
The real problem? Suppose one of my relatives is a major asshat, my DNA matches enough that I get arrested.
Realistically, you may get investigated because of your criminal cousin, but when it actually comes to time to indict, you can spit into a cup and it will show your DNA definitely does not match the strand of hair at the crime scene.
They are guessing about you based on family background. They are not really guessing about the DNA of the sample they found at the crime scene. If you provide a DNA sample, that should clear things up.
But, yes, this may well cost you four figures. But probably not the five or six figures of a full trial.
That I will be prosecuted for a crime where my DNA shows up at a crime scene, based on fourth cousins spitting into a 23andme family pact for Christmas fun seems not all that important to most people.
However, that the insurance companies will profile my family and decide I am a high risk based on my cousins, that seems like a scary and very real possibility. At least to me. What can I do about that?
Third or fourth cousin match means the FBI has ballpark 100 living possible suspects at the outset. Probably 90 can be eliminated as too unlikely by a cursory investigation while sitting behind a desk. Then they can look carefully at the records of the 10, to see which are the most promising and worth a real investigation.
DNA records of ~1 million random Americans, and I bet the FBI can track down 99% of the people whose families have lived in this country for a few generations, based on a single strand of hair at a crime scene.
Of course, there is real detective work to be done, when your careful combing finds the hair strands from 100 different people at a crime scene. No guarantee the perp actually dropped a hair either.
Even without this Family Tree data, the FBI will eventually get the data it wants by just collecting data from suspects who are indicted for crimes that suggest a sample is appropriate -- it will only take longer. The portion of the population who has one convicted sexual predator amongst their one thousand closest relatives is going to be ninety something per cent pretty quickly, as this data gets accumulated.
Yo quiero telco bell
Can't get that image out of my head...