I find this verdict astonishing, TBH. Does anyone understand what the money is supposedly awarded for? "Lost earnings" is clearly not reasonable, for instance. Also, what normally happens about cover versions? Is the money in the verdict based on laws relating to that?
A friend of mine had his Android phone stolen in Baltimore a couple of years back. Thief contacted him via the phone and ransomed it back to him for a couple of hundred bucks. High risk scenario for the thief, of course.
I don't agree with a lot of what the recording industry do but, to be fair, they are obviously to be paying taxes on profits. +/- a bit of dodgy account, of course. So I don't see how it's really "different" for them.
Re:R is not a programming language
on
Go R, Young Man
·
· Score: 1
The other thing I don't get about this article is that to use R you need a pretty good understanding of statistics. It doesn't hold your hand. I know plenty of practising scientists who would be unable to use R because they don't understand their analyses properly. How the hell "business professionals" would benefit is beyond me.
Re:R is not a programming language
on
Go R, Young Man
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Exactly. Terrible as a programming language. Telling someone to learn R is basically the same as telling someone to learn statistics and analyse their data properly.
On the other hand, a laser would have relatively little difficulty hitting the aircraft even if it were in geosync orbit, or even on the surface of the moon.
Are you sure about that? Laser beams diffract. The tighter you make it the more it diffracts. There are limits, therefore, as to far away it will work. I don't know how the numbers work out, however, or to what degree you can get around this with collimating lenses.
Chief on the list is salt substitute. Many people buy the 'low sodium salt substitute" Potassium Chloride to replace table salt Sodium Chloride. But it is the exact same substance used by several states to execute death penalty cases.
Misleading. It's deadly when injected. So are many other things, including table salt. There is a substantially bigger safety buffer when eating it.
Even as a young teenager I could see Commodore was screwing itself. It seemed like every other issue of Amiga format bright with it a new Commodore CEO. It's a pity the Amiga died, it was pretty wonderful in its time.
If it's not how you would have portrayed yourself, you're going to lose when you're on your own and have to stand on your own personality. You will eventually expose yourself as a fraud.
That would be true if the advisor were putting words into people's mouths (telling them exactly what to say). But my impression is that this isn't the case (beyond thing such as "wear red", which seem innocuous enough to me). Maybe you're right that this advice borders on "gaming the system" (e.g. username choice) but it's not right, IMO, to say that following this advice will cause you to present a fraudulent image of yourself. It just helps you maximise what you've got.
The advice in the article is no different from the role make up plays on a woman. It makes a heck of a lot of difference but it's not fraud.
Anyone who follows this advice deserves what they get. The age old advice still stands: be yourself.
The summary provides suggestions on choosing a user name, what sort of photo to take (which it suggests should have real smile) and to include real personal traits in the description of yourself. How is this in contradiction of the age old advice?
Astigmatism can behave like this. I do a little astronomy and I've seen cheaper wide-field eyepieces introduce astigmatism in the outer portions of the field (even if the objective is known to be good). The centre is good, though.
You know it's astigmatism because stars turn into shapes such as crosses. Spherical aberation in the objective, on the other hand, decreases contrast throughout the field of view.
What the article seems to be about, though, is the way images as viewed in a VR headset get blurrier as you move away from the center, seemingly equally in all directions.
What you're missing is that astigmatism tends to get worse as you move off-axis and astigmatism causes blurring and other similar effects. Thus, more blur at the edges of the field than in the centre. You can correct for this, but it involves a lot heavy and expensive glass.
or are obviously driven by ideology more than anything else ("extreme climate change").
This is not ideology driven. There is a scientific consensus that extreme climate change is a serious threat. The only ideology I see comes from the deniers who don't accept the science.
One reason they can't tell is because the data are often crooked and the pharma industry has a lot tricks up its sleeve to manipulate the apparent effectiveness of a drug. One of their mainstays is not publishing results that indicate the drug failed to work.
What the authors are doing is supress stress-related signals that propagate along peripheral nerves. So it's not "mood-altering" directly. It potentially alters things that can feed back to mood. It doesn't zap your brain to change your mood directly.
Bogus title. There's nothing "mathematical" about this case for buying the ticket. It's just a circular argument that says it's worth the $2 because you get $2 worth or pleasure out of it. It's a stupid article and an even more stupid submission for a site like this.
Geeze, guy, I said that they don't have to pay back the debts immediately.
Yep, I understood that you think that. But everything, including the article you link to, indicates that this not so.
I read your link and your link does not support what you are saying. You said "Paying back money will begin in 10 years time (if ever, actually)." That's not true: what your link says is that interest repayments are suspended for 10 years. The debt repayments are ongoing and are financed with the bailout loans. The next repayment is March. Half the point of the bailout loans is to finance the repayments. The period of payment is extended (what your link says) but the payments are not suspended.
I said that they _currently_ don't have to pay them back.
Further, the link you sent does not say the Greeks do not have to pay back the debts. It says that they have "suspended interest payments for a decade" and that they "gave Greece more time to repay." In other words, they pay back the debts over a longer period of time. Not that they start in 10 years.
From the Wikipedia: "21 July 2011 in Brussels, where euro area leaders agreed to extend Greek (as well as Irish and Portuguese) loan repayment periods from 7 years to a minimum of 15 years and to cut interest rates to 3.5%" Nowhere do I see information indicating that "they don't have to pay back the debts." Quite the opposite, the Wikipedia page says what I told you earlier: that the "bailout" is to avoid a Greek default. i.e. a failure to pay back. As far as I can tell, only you are saying that they are not currently paying back. But then again, I'm a fool, so what do I know?
they currently don't have to pay their debts anyway
Then why is there a deadline for paying back 1.5 billion Euro to the IMF, which isone of their creditors, in June? That sounds like a debt repayment to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I find this verdict astonishing, TBH. Does anyone understand what the money is supposedly awarded for? "Lost earnings" is clearly not reasonable, for instance. Also, what normally happens about cover versions? Is the money in the verdict based on laws relating to that?
A friend of mine had his Android phone stolen in Baltimore a couple of years back. Thief contacted him via the phone and ransomed it back to him for a couple of hundred bucks. High risk scenario for the thief, of course.
I don't agree with a lot of what the recording industry do but, to be fair, they are obviously to be paying taxes on profits. +/- a bit of dodgy account, of course. So I don't see how it's really "different" for them.
The other thing I don't get about this article is that to use R you need a pretty good understanding of statistics. It doesn't hold your hand. I know plenty of practising scientists who would be unable to use R because they don't understand their analyses properly. How the hell "business professionals" would benefit is beyond me.
Exactly. Terrible as a programming language. Telling someone to learn R is basically the same as telling someone to learn statistics and analyse their data properly.
On the other hand, a laser would have relatively little difficulty hitting the aircraft even if it were in geosync orbit, or even on the surface of the moon.
Are you sure about that? Laser beams diffract. The tighter you make it the more it diffracts. There are limits, therefore, as to far away it will work. I don't know how the numbers work out, however, or to what degree you can get around this with collimating lenses.
Karma. Just different words for the same superstition.
Chief on the list is salt substitute. Many people buy the 'low sodium salt substitute" Potassium Chloride to replace table salt Sodium Chloride. But it is the exact same substance used by several states to execute death penalty cases.
Misleading. It's deadly when injected. So are many other things, including table salt. There is a substantially bigger safety buffer when eating it.
Even as a young teenager I could see Commodore was screwing itself. It seemed like every other issue of Amiga format bright with it a new Commodore CEO. It's a pity the Amiga died, it was pretty wonderful in its time.
If it's not how you would have portrayed yourself, you're going to lose when you're on your own and have to stand on your own personality. You will eventually expose yourself as a fraud.
That would be true if the advisor were putting words into people's mouths (telling them exactly what to say). But my impression is that this isn't the case (beyond thing such as "wear red", which seem innocuous enough to me). Maybe you're right that this advice borders on "gaming the system" (e.g. username choice) but it's not right, IMO, to say that following this advice will cause you to present a fraudulent image of yourself. It just helps you maximise what you've got.
The advice in the article is no different from the role make up plays on a woman. It makes a heck of a lot of difference but it's not fraud.
Anyone who follows this advice deserves what they get. The age old advice still stands: be yourself.
The summary provides suggestions on choosing a user name, what sort of photo to take (which it suggests should have real smile) and to include real personal traits in the description of yourself. How is this in contradiction of the age old advice?
Interesting, thanks for that. I didn't know the colours were visible only in time-lapse.
Astigmatism can behave like this. I do a little astronomy and I've seen cheaper wide-field eyepieces introduce astigmatism in the outer portions of the field (even if the objective is known to be good). The centre is good, though. You know it's astigmatism because stars turn into shapes such as crosses. Spherical aberation in the objective, on the other hand, decreases contrast throughout the field of view.
What the article seems to be about, though, is the way images as viewed in a VR headset get blurrier as you move away from the center, seemingly equally in all directions.
What you're missing is that astigmatism tends to get worse as you move off-axis and astigmatism causes blurring and other similar effects. Thus, more blur at the edges of the field than in the centre. You can correct for this, but it involves a lot heavy and expensive glass.
Well you can find out! Go look at an image of the Andromeda galaxy. Then go to a dark site and look at the summer Milky Way. Compare the two.
many of the colors out in space are pretty muted and there's a whole lot of brown and grey
My astrophotography friends would beg to differ. There's plenty of awesome color there without the need to falsify it.
or are obviously driven by ideology more than anything else ("extreme climate change").
This is not ideology driven. There is a scientific consensus that extreme climate change is a serious threat. The only ideology I see comes from the deniers who don't accept the science.
One reason they can't tell is because the data are often crooked and the pharma industry has a lot tricks up its sleeve to manipulate the apparent effectiveness of a drug. One of their mainstays is not publishing results that indicate the drug failed to work.
What the authors are doing is supress stress-related signals that propagate along peripheral nerves. So it's not "mood-altering" directly. It potentially alters things that can feed back to mood. It doesn't zap your brain to change your mood directly.
That said, there is hope that this technology or the transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) experiments will prove useful.
The effects of TMS are generally considered to be very short term. The efficiacy in clinical domains appears weak to me.
That is, I think data scientists would be more useful if they used the study as a jumping off point to doing an actual study.
At which point they'd be "scientists" not "data scientists"
Bogus title. There's nothing "mathematical" about this case for buying the ticket. It's just a circular argument that says it's worth the $2 because you get $2 worth or pleasure out of it. It's a stupid article and an even more stupid submission for a site like this.
Geeze, guy, I said that they don't have to pay back the debts immediately.
Yep, I understood that you think that. But everything, including the article you link to, indicates that this not so.
I read your link and your link does not support what you are saying. You said "Paying back money will begin in 10 years time (if ever, actually)." That's not true: what your link says is that interest repayments are suspended for 10 years. The debt repayments are ongoing and are financed with the bailout loans. The next repayment is March. Half the point of the bailout loans is to finance the repayments. The period of payment is extended (what your link says) but the payments are not suspended.
I said that they _currently_ don't have to pay them back.
Indeed, I realise what you think.
Further, the link you sent does not say the Greeks do not have to pay back the debts. It says that they have "suspended interest payments for a decade" and that they "gave Greece more time to repay." In other words, they pay back the debts over a longer period of time. Not that they start in 10 years.
From the Wikipedia: "21 July 2011 in Brussels, where euro area leaders agreed to extend Greek (as well as Irish and Portuguese) loan repayment periods from 7 years to a minimum of 15 years and to cut interest rates to 3.5%" Nowhere do I see information indicating that "they don't have to pay back the debts." Quite the opposite, the Wikipedia page says what I told you earlier: that the "bailout" is to avoid a Greek default. i.e. a failure to pay back. As far as I can tell, only you are saying that they are not currently paying back. But then again, I'm a fool, so what do I know?
they currently don't have to pay their debts anyway
Then why is there a deadline for paying back 1.5 billion Euro to the IMF, which isone of their creditors, in June? That sounds like a debt repayment to me.