That would be a good pairing. I voted Lethe and Styx. My beef with the voting is that many of the names work much better pairwise, but you could end up mix and match. I guess that's only an issue until the next moon is found, but even so, Eurydice and Lethe just wouldn't be as good.
Criminality is not the same thing as morality. I agree with you there.
But criminality is also not the same thing as court conviction. A person who commits crimes is a criminal even if he is never convicted or never caught. A court trial is just the best way we know to determine whether crimes have been committed.
That merely freed them in the future. Had they been freed retroactively anyone who owned a slave within the previous years could have been imprisoned for kidnapping.
Still, some retroactive decisions are good. I don't think this tax collection is one of them, though I do agree with the court's ruling.
A right to be forgotten, were such a thing to exist, would itself be a violation of the right to privacy. My memories, records, etc. are my own. Nobody else gets to tell me what I do or do not remember, or even force me to tell them what I know. A right to be forgotten tramples all over what is perhaps the most basic and fundamental right we have, the freedom of thought. The whole concept is ridiculous. You simple have no right to be forgotten. What you may have is a desire to be fogotten.
The US and anyone else has every right to be lobbying the EU. The EU doesn't have to agree or even listen, but everyone has a right to state his position.
You said "that was covered," and now you say it actually wasn't. Now you say it's "common knowledge" when it isn't. You're right about Google and the sky though.
If the cause is that the US chooses to educate a greater proportion of students in lower economic classes then it's hardly a failure to level the playing field. It would be the opposite. An attempt to level the playing field causes the test scores to decrease, that is if you consider educating kids on lower economic groups to be an attempt to level the playing field when compared with the alternative of not educating them.
On the other hand if the cause is that the US has a greater economic divide then that could be construed as a "failure of our social policy to level the playing field appropriately" at least if you consider a divide to be inherently a problem and the goal of social policy to eliminate that divide.
Finally, it could be that the US is just generally poorer which would yield more kids on lower economic groups without their being a divide. I think other economic indicators suggest this is not the case.
That's not quite right. Higher economic status is correlated to higher scores. This is true everywhere. The article has two claims related to this:
1. The US was badly sampled. It should be the case that a student in any economic group has the same probability of being included in the sample. However the sample they took has a disproportionately large number of students in lower economic groups. As an example, students attending schools with half of more of their students in poverty represent 23% of the total population of US students but 40% of the population of the test sample. Due to the correlation mentioned above, this lowers the measures scores of US students. 2. A higher proportion of US students are in lower economic groups than in other countries.
The first is clearly a methodology fault, and given the big difference in the example group of 40% vs 23% it could have large effects. The article doesn't discuss the details of the second group. It could be that the socio-economic divide is larger in which case it would be justified to say that still represents the country fairly and doesn't invalidate the comparison. Or it could be that children in lower economic groups are more likely to be students in the US than elsewhere. In that case it would seem perverse to claim the US educational system is worse than others because it attempts to educate poor kids. It could be both of these things or something else.
I'm considering canceling my Comcast subscription because their new dta scheme means no more local HD on the basic plan. I hadn't even heard of hopper, but now I think I've found my replacement. Barbra Streisand would be so proud.
There hasn't been an awful lot of research that I know of about CTE in soccer. But some early studies show that heading the ball in soccer is pretty similar to the frequent low level collisions that linemen experience in football. In a game a player is not going to head the ball that frequently. But in practice they often do.
My guess is that the precalc student is in high school. The student couldn't fit the class into his schedule with other classes he wanted to take, so taking it online at the university gets him the high school credit, and also gets you a college credit when you do end up enrolling wherever you go. That sort of thing happened a lot where I went to high school.
People are confusing standardizing sized with standardizing measurements. Metric is already a standard. It already exists. Likewise with customary/imperial. When the speed limit is 60 miles per hour that means that the speed that is describes as 60 miles per hour is the speed limit. That speed is a concept independent of the units being used to describe it. If your speedometer measures only in kph then don't go above 96.56 and you're doing the same thing. You can choose to describe the same thing multiple ways, and indeed, we already do. Add two cups of water 250 grams of milk, a pinch of salt. Heat to 350 degrees Fahrenheit for 300 seconds.
What does it mean to bring the metric system to the US? Have we not heard of it? Can I not right now describe myself as two meters tall? Is this all about which unit the government puts on road signs?
Slashdot Mirror
Unless it's Kevin Smith. I imagine he is capable of some quality airplane banter.
I think I've just come up with a polynomial time solution to the knapsack problem.
New young Han Solo to be played by Joaquin Phoenix.
FTA:
"Thus, in the US, individual consumers are largely insulated from the direct financial consequences of credential theft..." (emphasis in original)
"While 'we all pay for cyber-crime' is true in a general sense, it is not the case that individual users face grave financial risk."
They're pretty clear that they are discussing risk of catastrophic loss to a single individual rather than increased shared costs.
Vegemite slathered Texas toast with a tall glass of Code Red - the breakfast of champions.
That would be a good pairing. I voted Lethe and Styx. My beef with the voting is that many of the names work much better pairwise, but you could end up mix and match. I guess that's only an issue until the next moon is found, but even so, Eurydice and Lethe just wouldn't be as good.
Is 0 a natural number?
He said all the scenes. Of course that part is accurate.
Criminality is not the same thing as morality. I agree with you there.
But criminality is also not the same thing as court conviction. A person who commits crimes is a criminal even if he is never convicted or never caught. A court trial is just the best way we know to determine whether crimes have been committed.
That merely freed them in the future. Had they been freed retroactively anyone who owned a slave within the previous years could have been imprisoned for kidnapping.
Still, some retroactive decisions are good. I don't think this tax collection is one of them, though I do agree with the court's ruling.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. Forcing someone to forget you violates their privacy. Which part of that is confusing you?
A right to be forgotten, were such a thing to exist, would itself be a violation of the right to privacy. My memories, records, etc. are my own. Nobody else gets to tell me what I do or do not remember, or even force me to tell them what I know. A right to be forgotten tramples all over what is perhaps the most basic and fundamental right we have, the freedom of thought. The whole concept is ridiculous. You simple have no right to be forgotten. What you may have is a desire to be fogotten.
The US and anyone else has every right to be lobbying the EU. The EU doesn't have to agree or even listen, but everyone has a right to state his position.
I like to use Proxy Switchy for that.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/proxy-switchy/caehdcpeofiiigpdhbabniblemipncjj
Saxon AV has always been better.
You said "that was covered," and now you say it actually wasn't. Now you say it's "common knowledge" when it isn't. You're right about Google and the sky though.
Sorry, I couldn't find that in the article or the full report. Could you point out where?
That depends on the cause for #2.
If the cause is that the US chooses to educate a greater proportion of students in lower economic classes then it's hardly a failure to level the playing field. It would be the opposite. An attempt to level the playing field causes the test scores to decrease, that is if you consider educating kids on lower economic groups to be an attempt to level the playing field when compared with the alternative of not educating them.
On the other hand if the cause is that the US has a greater economic divide then that could be construed as a "failure of our social policy to level the playing field appropriately" at least if you consider a divide to be inherently a problem and the goal of social policy to eliminate that divide.
Finally, it could be that the US is just generally poorer which would yield more kids on lower economic groups without their being a divide. I think other economic indicators suggest this is not the case.
That's not quite right. Higher economic status is correlated to higher scores. This is true everywhere. The article has two claims related to this:
1. The US was badly sampled. It should be the case that a student in any economic group has the same probability of being included in the sample. However the sample they took has a disproportionately large number of students in lower economic groups. As an example, students attending schools with half of more of their students in poverty represent 23% of the total population of US students but 40% of the population of the test sample. Due to the correlation mentioned above, this lowers the measures scores of US students.
2. A higher proportion of US students are in lower economic groups than in other countries.
The first is clearly a methodology fault, and given the big difference in the example group of 40% vs 23% it could have large effects. The article doesn't discuss the details of the second group. It could be that the socio-economic divide is larger in which case it would be justified to say that still represents the country fairly and doesn't invalidate the comparison. Or it could be that children in lower economic groups are more likely to be students in the US than elsewhere. In that case it would seem perverse to claim the US educational system is worse than others because it attempts to educate poor kids. It could be both of these things or something else.
He said Roman, not Greek.
I'm considering canceling my Comcast subscription because their new dta scheme means no more local HD on the basic plan. I hadn't even heard of hopper, but now I think I've found my replacement. Barbra Streisand would be so proud.
There hasn't been an awful lot of research that I know of about CTE in soccer. But some early studies show that heading the ball in soccer is pretty similar to the frequent low level collisions that linemen experience in football. In a game a player is not going to head the ball that frequently. But in practice they often do.
The computer matches are so perfect as to eliminate the thrill of romantic conquest?
Where have I heard that before? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE7mi-gdIYw
My guess is that the precalc student is in high school. The student couldn't fit the class into his schedule with other classes he wanted to take, so taking it online at the university gets him the high school credit, and also gets you a college credit when you do end up enrolling wherever you go. That sort of thing happened a lot where I went to high school.
People are confusing standardizing sized with standardizing measurements. Metric is already a standard. It already exists. Likewise with customary/imperial. When the speed limit is 60 miles per hour that means that the speed that is describes as 60 miles per hour is the speed limit. That speed is a concept independent of the units being used to describe it. If your speedometer measures only in kph then don't go above 96.56 and you're doing the same thing. You can choose to describe the same thing multiple ways, and indeed, we already do. Add two cups of water 250 grams of milk, a pinch of salt. Heat to 350 degrees Fahrenheit for 300 seconds.
What does it mean to bring the metric system to the US? Have we not heard of it? Can I not right now describe myself as two meters tall? Is this all about which unit the government puts on road signs?