In this case, the most natural explanation for such things is a wide variety of different forms of biases that humans have when processing information. I.e., the described facts are not actually true.
So in that sense, no. "Anecdote" is not the singular of data.
Homer died before the Greeks had writing. "When did Homer write the Illiad"? This is a trick question when studying the classics.
The epics you reference did not do detailed world creation of epic scale, no. Epic-scale writing perhaps, but a rich alternate universe
If you think Tolkien is a poor story teller, I think its possible you may have an imaginiation deficit.
This particular type of argument always reveals more about the arguer than the person being targeted by the remark. Should we ignore the irony that the remark about the mental faculties of another contains a misspelling?
Well, I would argue that Tolkien's contribution to "literature" was to put the epic-scale world-creation fantasy genre onto the map.
I would also argue that he contributed nothing more than that. I, personally, hated his writing style. As others have said--dry, and poor story telling.
These are true remarks, but you'll note I'm talking about tweaking the noses of legislators. Whether or not it is illegal to be a monopoly matters little if congress decides to legislation not in your favor.
While true, the issue is pretty academic. Many behaviors which are legal when you are not a monopoly, become illegal when you are. In any case, neither here nor there. It's also "not illegal" for congress to "break up" a legally operating monopoly. Not that I would expect this to happen here. But if you're Google, you certainly don't want the dire gaze of legislators looking in your direction.
Certainly you don't think that Google would be unwise enough to deliberately tweak a legislative body on the nose? When already there are murmurings of their monopoly status in the search business? Not wise, no not wise.
There is no source. We are overflowing in intelligence; what we lack are adequate interpreters of the data. As for a source, you'll have to take it on faith.:-P
Killed? I'm not talking about war casualties at all, and I'm referring to the first and not second gulf war. What I am referring to is starvation, disease, early medical death, child mortality and the like. Taking out a civil infrastructure is superficially appealing, due to the clean nature of modern precision guided munitions, but the long term reality is far darker: abject misery. This isn't to be construed as a political remark about either war. But to be fair, my remark about the civilian death from secondary effects of war with the united states was exaggerated grandstanding. Regardless, the consequences will be simply awful for the Iranian people.
Actually, such Iranian grandstanding in the past has raised the price of oil, and resulted in quite excellent additional profit for Iran. Very clever of them, and yes, I think they are well aware of such things and do it on purpose.
But in order to avoid this, the Iranian government only need convince the US that it would it turn suffer unacceptable military and economic losses.
The Iranians must be ignorant, then, of modern US war practices, and how precision guided munitions are used in conjunction with policies "to deny the ability of the enemy to make war." I understand these practices and policies all too well, and feel deeply for the Iranian people should their government provoke a war. To wit:
With a war provoked, the US will use air power to "deny the ability of the Iranian government to make war". What this means in more guttural terms is that the US will take out every high value civil-military infrastructural item that it can reach and does not need for its own purposes: radio towers, any radar source that is so much as "on", bridges, overpasses, underpasses, freeway interchanges, runways, various port infrastructure items, and so forth. The upshot (or is that "downshot"?) of all of this precision-guided civilian-casualty-free surgical striking will indeed be millions and millions and millions of civilian deaths. They'll die from starvation and other bits of nastiness, as the very same infrastructure the military needs in order to mobilize is the same infrastructure needed to move necessities such as food. And all that happens if the US doesn't actually get *mean*, and try to do that kind of thing on purpose.
There was some question of whether the original script had the proper copyright notices (which aren't required, but are a good idea). The reason such notices are a good idea is that not only is it a "GPL violation" it is also against the law to remove copyright notices. I remember copyright notice removal to have penalties associated with it under the criminal code, actually, although it's been a long time since I looked at that...
As a refinement, there are many states where making the employment sign the agreement to give away their assigned rights is itself both illegal and actionable. Although if there was no other harm done (other than the illegally made agreement), I won't go so far as to say that damages are particularly likely.
Such terms could easily be void in many states. For example, I know that in California, there are employment contracts that are illegal to even try to make with a California citizen. Not that companies don't try. You'd be surprised at how many large companies can't keep track of individual state laws.
My girlfriend works in strategic HR for a fortune 500. They can barely keep track of the states where you cannot have "use it or lose it" provisions for vacation time, no less some of the more complex state laws regarding labor.
Slashdot Mirror
TLDR; "Shut up and only believe it when you see it."
The slashdot/reddit blather and yammering will not help.
$150/kW was the proposed cost to own the generation capacity, not the unit cost of the kW. Your thinking of cents/kW/hr.
$150/kW/Yr = .01/kW/Hr.
You'd have to postulate how long the device would last to get to a genuine kW/hr figure.
Granted, I won't believe it until I see it.
In this case, the most natural explanation for such things is a wide variety of different forms of biases that humans have when processing information. I.e., the described facts are not actually true.
So in that sense, no. "Anecdote" is not the singular of data.
Well, one might hope, it's just not likely to be true. :-P
I would argue Homer did that already,...
Homer died before the Greeks had writing. "When did Homer write the Illiad"? This is a trick question when studying the classics.
The epics you reference did not do detailed world creation of epic scale, no. Epic-scale writing perhaps, but a rich alternate universe
If you think Tolkien is a poor story teller, I think its possible you may have an imaginiation deficit.
This particular type of argument always reveals more about the arguer than the person being targeted by the remark. Should we ignore the irony that the remark about the mental faculties of another contains a misspelling?
C//
I have never had any illness of any kind while drinking this at least every 3 days.
"Anecdote is not the singular of 'data'"
I am beginning to believe that practically every infection can be prevented to some degree by drinking this.
Yet everyone thinks I'm a health loon.
Yep.
I suspect that whatever else is true, one should not hope that there is just one cause of insulin resistance.
Well, I would argue that Tolkien's contribution to "literature" was to put the epic-scale world-creation fantasy genre onto the map.
I would also argue that he contributed nothing more than that. I, personally, hated his writing style. As others have said--dry, and poor story telling.
But world building? Outstanding.
Score: 5, Funny!?!?
Arg, that should be Score -5, PAINFUL. :-P
These are true remarks, but you'll note I'm talking about tweaking the noses of legislators. Whether or not it is illegal to be a monopoly matters little if congress decides to legislation not in your favor.
Making your case to the public = good idea.
Twisting the noses of legislators = bad idea.
While true, the issue is pretty academic. Many behaviors which are legal when you are not a monopoly, become illegal when you are. In any case, neither here nor there. It's also "not illegal" for congress to "break up" a legally operating monopoly. Not that I would expect this to happen here. But if you're Google, you certainly don't want the dire gaze of legislators looking in your direction.
Certainly you don't think that Google would be unwise enough to deliberately tweak a legislative body on the nose? When already there are murmurings of their monopoly status in the search business? Not wise, no not wise.
There is no source. We are overflowing in intelligence; what we lack are adequate interpreters of the data. As for a source, you'll have to take it on faith. :-P
Killed? I'm not talking about war casualties at all, and I'm referring to the first and not second gulf war. What I am referring to is starvation, disease, early medical death, child mortality and the like. Taking out a civil infrastructure is superficially appealing, due to the clean nature of modern precision guided munitions, but the long term reality is far darker: abject misery. This isn't to be construed as a political remark about either war. But to be fair, my remark about the civilian death from secondary effects of war with the united states was exaggerated grandstanding. Regardless, the consequences will be simply awful for the Iranian people.
Actually, such Iranian grandstanding in the past has raised the price of oil, and resulted in quite excellent additional profit for Iran. Very clever of them, and yes, I think they are well aware of such things and do it on purpose.
But in order to avoid this, the Iranian government only need convince the US that it would it turn suffer unacceptable military and economic losses.
The Iranians must be ignorant, then, of modern US war practices, and how precision guided munitions are used in conjunction with policies "to deny the ability of the enemy to make war." I understand these practices and policies all too well, and feel deeply for the Iranian people should their government provoke a war. To wit:
With a war provoked, the US will use air power to "deny the ability of the Iranian government to make war". What this means in more guttural terms is that the US will take out every high value civil-military infrastructural item that it can reach and does not need for its own purposes: radio towers, any radar source that is so much as "on", bridges, overpasses, underpasses, freeway interchanges, runways, various port infrastructure items, and so forth. The upshot (or is that "downshot"?) of all of this precision-guided civilian-casualty-free surgical striking will indeed be millions and millions and millions of civilian deaths. They'll die from starvation and other bits of nastiness, as the very same infrastructure the military needs in order to mobilize is the same infrastructure needed to move necessities such as food. And all that happens if the US doesn't actually get *mean*, and try to do that kind of thing on purpose.
That is not part of the calculus of war, I'm afraid.
There was some question of whether the original script had the proper copyright notices (which aren't required, but are a good idea). The reason such notices are a good idea is that not only is it a "GPL violation" it is also against the law to remove copyright notices. I remember copyright notice removal to have penalties associated with it under the criminal code, actually, although it's been a long time since I looked at that...
Yes, that's what he's saying. It's true.
What exact business do you think Red Hat is in? Surely you don't think that they make all that stuff, right?
C//
As a refinement, there are many states where making the employment sign the agreement to give away their assigned rights is itself both illegal and actionable. Although if there was no other harm done (other than the illegally made agreement), I won't go so far as to say that damages are particularly likely.
He meant whole cloth reinterpretation, bypassing the constitution without amendment, which is the problem we have today.
It's called an Amendment.
Such terms could easily be void in many states. For example, I know that in California, there are employment contracts that are illegal to even try to make with a California citizen. Not that companies don't try. You'd be surprised at how many large companies can't keep track of individual state laws.
My girlfriend works in strategic HR for a fortune 500. They can barely keep track of the states where you cannot have "use it or lose it" provisions for vacation time, no less some of the more complex state laws regarding labor.
I'm skeptical, on the grounds that contract law varies by state; I'm uncertain why SCOTUS would put their nose in it.