Because, unless the ground imparts such an effect to make the difference in weight due to extra material on one side or another affect the outcome (by inducing a sideways spin) the same spot on the ground will affect the coin the same way regardless of which side hits. There has to be some differentiation to cause the ground to impart a bias on the system that will alter the result. Since the only bias in this system is which side is up during the initial state, this bias will be carried throughout the experiment as we know of no neutralizing factor.
I have not studied this particular example, but I have taken a number of statistics courses, am nearly finished my Bachelor of Mathematics, and have done a few statistical case studies.
Any 'additional' bias for whichever side is up (the 51%) when it hits the ground is neutralized by the same bias for the 49% of the time that the opposite face hits the ground.
If there is someone who has more statistics knowledge who can explain any fallacy in the logic that I present, I would be more than happy to listen and learn.
Well, they would get the attaboy letter, except that the cost of stamps is prohibitively expensive for sending said letter to the artists, and such expenditures would bankrupt said organizations. So instead the RIAA just throws a piece of paper in the trash as their contribution.
I know this'll be flamebait, but it is TAs like you that we (as a student myself) absolutely hate. You remove marks that we are working hard to earn for creating robust code that we go out of our way to prove that it works correctly, even in circumstances outside of the specification. 'It is less efficient' yeah right, am I taking a course on code optimization here? When we write code that is fast, efficient, but can fail on outside of scope or illogical input, we get reamed out because it failed. When we make code robust and only accept valid input, it gets thrown in our face as inefficient.
Too often these days there is not enough testing done, resulting in buggy programs that are flaky at best, production code or not. You should be encouraging your students to do these things so that they can learn it the right way the first time.
It may not matter to you that you'll write off 5 marks for handing in a complete program because it is 'bulky', but it matters a hell of a lot to the student that you just did that to.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't automatically configure the setup, what it means that there should always be an alternate manual setup that overrides the automated system. But it also doesn't mean that everyone should be subjected to that level of configuration detail.
So? Are people without indebt knowledge of unix worth more or something? You see the problem is that you don't have the time to learn linux BUT we don't have the time to teach you or to write tools that we don't need just to hold your hand.
Its fine that you feel this way, but don't complain about Linux NEVER making it to the big time and Windows controlling 95% of the market share because there are many more users than there are developers, and if a developer wants their software to be popular, then it is their job to make the software user friendly.
Guess what? I constantly use my keyboard at the same time as my mouse as well... I just prefer to spread work out between all of my fingers, which is why I have a second mouse button. (and a scroll wheel, and its button, and a third near my thumb)
Not quite... it just means that our process just made a recursive call to itself.
I wonder what the stopping condition is? And I sure as heck don't want to be around when the garbage collector comes to destroy our objects because the reference broke.
Yeah, like how Iraq 'invaded' the US last year? Any country these days that has the time and inclination to create and deploy weapons that could be used to attack and invade the US, have more pressing concerns than attacking a far distant world power. Those space-weapons are offensive weapons to destroy infrastructure and disable a nations ability to see and communicate.
Those weapons are worse than useless against the only credible threats against your nations these days, and that is the loner or small group smuggling in a bomb, or the like. They are worse than useless because they are a money sink that the US likes to think it has an endless supply of cash.
The more the US flaunts these sorts of agreements, going back on their word in full view of everyone else in the world in order to build systems to inspire MORE fear in other countries, then the more likely it becomes that the US will be required to use these weapons in their own defence.
Brief overview of a proposal in front of the UN to ban all space-based weaponry which the US is actively part of.
This, the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament treaties, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and the landmine treaty. Doesn't the US have ANY respect left for other countries let alone their own integrity? This is just getting disgusting.
Yes. As evidenced by satellite cable tv companies where it is illegal to setup a dish-reciever set to harvest electromagnetic radiation in the same frequency at which they broadcast.
Yeah, you're right, I was in a hurry. What I was trying to get across was the 'unproven' bit, that because two theories are conflicting (and possibly mutually exclusive) that does not negate the use of the term 'theory'.
Theory : An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
And if both hypothesis fit the evidence as far as our understanding allows us in this time frame, we have two competing theories.
One theory may be more or less plausible than the other, but if both fit the evidence equally well, and are equally valid at explaining what we have observed, then we do indeed have two theories.
Do not mistake theory for cause, a theory is an unproven statement, although mathematicians like to confuse the issue by calling proven theories 'Theorems'.
Re:Stumping doctors too
on
Cyberchondria
·
· Score: 3, Funny
So, what you're saying is that people living on the african plains are out of luck?
True, but remember that spreading ourselves out without self-sufficiency doesn't help very much. A permanent moon base that relies on earth in order to survive gives us no added value if earth is destroyed. (unlike your new-world analogy)
Under certain theories, yes. However those theories that rely on finding missing matter in the form of undiscovered particles and 'dark energy' though they may match the evidence as well as more conventional theories, Occam's Razor leaves them somewhat wanting.
It is possible that such things exist, however our current 'best' theories seem significantly more plausible.
In addition, Neutrinos, Heavy Bosons and the like, the super-massive sub-atmoic particles, should they exist, they would most likely exist tightly coupled with particles that we do know about, and thus qualify as ordinary matter. The heavy sub-atmoic particles that we have been able to create in super-colliders only existed for the tiniest fractions of a second before decaying. Presumably in the conditions that would be required to create thses particles (inside stars, black-holes, etc) would also mean these particles would decay just as quickly once they left those conditions.
The term 'Dark Matter' refers to all celestial matter that does not radiate to a significant degree rendering it 'invisible' from this distance at which we view it.
The existence of dark matter should be obvious, since we know of the existance of numerous asteroids in our own solar system, there should be many throughout the universe, but since they don't radiate energy we are unable to see them and thus cannot account for how much mass they contribute. Astronomers, by examining the change in the rate of expansion of the universe (a tricky prospect, prone to errors that I do not completely understand) it is believed that such 'dark matter' makes up roughly 70% of all mass in the universe. Which means that we cannot account for 70% of mass because we cannot see it.
Even stars fall into the category of dark matter, old dead stars, halo stars in other galaxies (those in a sphere around galaxies which we have only recently confirmed exist around our own galaxy) and likely many other astronomical bodies exist that we simply have not observed.
Dark matter has too many connotations in lay-man's speech that are overly misleading. I'm sorry, but Star Trek did not 'get it right' by any stretch.
I'll apologize in advance because I feel that the term free trade when referring to NAFTA and Canada/US FTA is misleading.
The softwood lumber dispute, there has been numerous court decisions due to appeals from both sides, and for the most part it has flip-flopped from ruling for one side to the other. The crux is that in the FTAs, there is a clause that the US (and not vice versa) has the provision to allow for protectionist tariffs on goods that are subsidized by the government. In this case, it is not that the government is selling wood to loggers at below market rates, it is that our government owns all forestry rights on Canadian soil, and is selling logging permits to companies who must still pay their own way for the actual logging and milling of the wood. Which is the reason for debate, whether government owned land constitutes 'unfairly subsidizing' of the industry.
It was indeed the grain trade that I was referring to that Canada has won every time the first 13 (I believe, it is near there at any rate) times it went to court. However, recently the US yet again imposed tariffs on Canadian wheat, which has forced us to go through the appeals process once more even though there has been no change to the way we do business. In the case of the grain trade, Canada has an entity known as the Canadian Wheat Board (an independant organization that is recognized by the government) which is simply a marketing organization for Canadian farmers. It does have a monopoly on the marketing and selling of grain in Canada, farmers are required to go through the CWB, but allows for every farmer to sell their grain at a fair price on the world market for the amount and quality they produce, and be able to spend less time, money, and effort doing so.
In regards to China, I did not know that China was a participating member of the WTO, nor the exact circumstances in the tariff discrepancy, but my point was made to the parent that 'the tariff rates should be reversed, and China should have 3% on import and the US have 29%' is a nonsensical statement as the US has no control over protection tariffs set by other countries on their imports, and obviously China is at 29% and the US at 3% for a reason.
These 'trade laws' you are referring to are hardly agreed upon that simply. Sure there is back and forth in regard to tariffs vs. free trade (like NAFTA and the Canadian/American free trade agreement), however just as often a nation with unilaterally increase its protectionist tariffs to prevent foreign competition if its own industry is struggling or can't compete on a fair playing field.
This is the way it is in China, the US has no real say in what tariffs that China imposes on imported goods, but obviously the Chinese government in this situation has chosen to protect its local industry from foreign competition by forcing the competitions prices for their citizens through the roof.
The same applies even to the Canadian/American agreement (see softwood lumber, and grain disputes). The American government has repeatedly placed huge tariffs on Canadian goods (currently over 25% on grain, and upwards of 50% on lumber) because the American companies can't compete with Canadian producers. However in this case with a WTO binding free trade agreement, this is illegal. Which is in fact, why we have been to court on 13 different occasions to have these tariffs repealed (and won, every time).
That "sizzle" is called St. Elmo's Fire and it is present in anything that has high voltage running through it. In wet weather the effect becomes amplified, and thats why its easier to hear that sizzle sound. Regardless, it is present whether or not you hear it, and a shielded and insulated line will make the same noise as a bare wire as electric insulation does not mean noise insulation.
On top of that, standing under high-voltage lines during dry weather is not significantly less dangerous than standing under it in wet weather. Unless the conditions are severe enough to risk a line breaking, a wet 'sizzling' power line is really no different than a dry quiet one.
That is not to say you should stand under power lines nor work or play near them unless necessary, but your emphasis is quite unecessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, unless the ground imparts such an effect to make the difference in weight due to extra material on one side or another affect the outcome (by inducing a sideways spin) the same spot on the ground will affect the coin the same way regardless of which side hits. There has to be some differentiation to cause the ground to impart a bias on the system that will alter the result. Since the only bias in this system is which side is up during the initial state, this bias will be carried throughout the experiment as we know of no neutralizing factor.
I have not studied this particular example, but I have taken a number of statistics courses, am nearly finished my Bachelor of Mathematics, and have done a few statistical case studies.
Any 'additional' bias for whichever side is up (the 51%) when it hits the ground is neutralized by the same bias for the 49% of the time that the opposite face hits the ground.
If there is someone who has more statistics knowledge who can explain any fallacy in the logic that I present, I would be more than happy to listen and learn.
Penny arcade difficult to say as they removed the Tart As A Double Entendre comic in responce to an objection by American Greetings, but came back with the quite subtle Read It Before They Take Legal Action retort.
Well, they would get the attaboy letter, except that the cost of stamps is prohibitively expensive for sending said letter to the artists, and such expenditures would bankrupt said organizations. So instead the RIAA just throws a piece of paper in the trash as their contribution.
Actually, it would still be 51%-49% one way or the other, because any variance in the consistency of the ground is random.
I know this'll be flamebait, but it is TAs like you that we (as a student myself) absolutely hate. You remove marks that we are working hard to earn for creating robust code that we go out of our way to prove that it works correctly, even in circumstances outside of the specification. 'It is less efficient' yeah right, am I taking a course on code optimization here? When we write code that is fast, efficient, but can fail on outside of scope or illogical input, we get reamed out because it failed. When we make code robust and only accept valid input, it gets thrown in our face as inefficient.
Too often these days there is not enough testing done, resulting in buggy programs that are flaky at best, production code or not. You should be encouraging your students to do these things so that they can learn it the right way the first time.
It may not matter to you that you'll write off 5 marks for handing in a complete program because it is 'bulky', but it matters a hell of a lot to the student that you just did that to.
You play a theif... think about it.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't automatically configure the setup, what it means that there should always be an alternate manual setup that overrides the automated system. But it also doesn't mean that everyone should be subjected to that level of configuration detail.
Its fine that you feel this way, but don't complain about Linux NEVER making it to the big time and Windows controlling 95% of the market share because there are many more users than there are developers, and if a developer wants their software to be popular, then it is their job to make the software user friendly.
Meetings? Why would anyone have meetings? They were running a business.
Guess what? I constantly use my keyboard at the same time as my mouse as well... I just prefer to spread work out between all of my fingers, which is why I have a second mouse button. (and a scroll wheel, and its button, and a third near my thumb)
Not quite... it just means that our process just made a recursive call to itself.
I wonder what the stopping condition is? And I sure as heck don't want to be around when the garbage collector comes to destroy our objects because the reference broke.
Yeah, like how Iraq 'invaded' the US last year? Any country these days that has the time and inclination to create and deploy weapons that could be used to attack and invade the US, have more pressing concerns than attacking a far distant world power. Those space-weapons are offensive weapons to destroy infrastructure and disable a nations ability to see and communicate.
Those weapons are worse than useless against the only credible threats against your nations these days, and that is the loner or small group smuggling in a bomb, or the like. They are worse than useless because they are a money sink that the US likes to think it has an endless supply of cash.
The more the US flaunts these sorts of agreements, going back on their word in full view of everyone else in the world in order to build systems to inspire MORE fear in other countries, then the more likely it becomes that the US will be required to use these weapons in their own defence.
Brief overview of a proposal in front of the UN to ban all space-based weaponry which the US is actively part of.
This, the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament treaties, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and the landmine treaty. Doesn't the US have ANY respect left for other countries let alone their own integrity? This is just getting disgusting.
Rotten Eggs.
Its disgusting AND symbolic...
Well, isn't what the whole issue is about? They're scientists, not spin doctors...
Yes. As evidenced by satellite cable tv companies where it is illegal to setup a dish-reciever set to harvest electromagnetic radiation in the same frequency at which they broadcast.
Yeah, you're right, I was in a hurry. What I was trying to get across was the 'unproven' bit, that because two theories are conflicting (and possibly mutually exclusive) that does not negate the use of the term 'theory'.
Theory : An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
And if both hypothesis fit the evidence as far as our understanding allows us in this time frame, we have two competing theories.
One theory may be more or less plausible than the other, but if both fit the evidence equally well, and are equally valid at explaining what we have observed, then we do indeed have two theories.
Do not mistake theory for cause, a theory is an unproven statement, although mathematicians like to confuse the issue by calling proven theories 'Theorems'.
So, what you're saying is that people living on the african plains are out of luck?
True, but remember that spreading ourselves out without self-sufficiency doesn't help very much. A permanent moon base that relies on earth in order to survive gives us no added value if earth is destroyed. (unlike your new-world analogy)
Aside from that, I do agree with you completely.
Under certain theories, yes. However those theories that rely on finding missing matter in the form of undiscovered particles and 'dark energy' though they may match the evidence as well as more conventional theories, Occam's Razor leaves them somewhat wanting.
It is possible that such things exist, however our current 'best' theories seem significantly more plausible.
In addition, Neutrinos, Heavy Bosons and the like, the super-massive sub-atmoic particles, should they exist, they would most likely exist tightly coupled with particles that we do know about, and thus qualify as ordinary matter. The heavy sub-atmoic particles that we have been able to create in super-colliders only existed for the tiniest fractions of a second before decaying. Presumably in the conditions that would be required to create thses particles (inside stars, black-holes, etc) would also mean these particles would decay just as quickly once they left those conditions.
The term 'Dark Matter' refers to all celestial matter that does not radiate to a significant degree rendering it 'invisible' from this distance at which we view it.
The existence of dark matter should be obvious, since we know of the existance of numerous asteroids in our own solar system, there should be many throughout the universe, but since they don't radiate energy we are unable to see them and thus cannot account for how much mass they contribute. Astronomers, by examining the change in the rate of expansion of the universe (a tricky prospect, prone to errors that I do not completely understand) it is believed that such 'dark matter' makes up roughly 70% of all mass in the universe. Which means that we cannot account for 70% of mass because we cannot see it.
Even stars fall into the category of dark matter, old dead stars, halo stars in other galaxies (those in a sphere around galaxies which we have only recently confirmed exist around our own galaxy) and likely many other astronomical bodies exist that we simply have not observed.
Dark matter has too many connotations in lay-man's speech that are overly misleading. I'm sorry, but Star Trek did not 'get it right' by any stretch.
I'll apologize in advance because I feel that the term free trade when referring to NAFTA and Canada/US FTA is misleading.
The softwood lumber dispute, there has been numerous court decisions due to appeals from both sides, and for the most part it has flip-flopped from ruling for one side to the other. The crux is that in the FTAs, there is a clause that the US (and not vice versa) has the provision to allow for protectionist tariffs on goods that are subsidized by the government. In this case, it is not that the government is selling wood to loggers at below market rates, it is that our government owns all forestry rights on Canadian soil, and is selling logging permits to companies who must still pay their own way for the actual logging and milling of the wood. Which is the reason for debate, whether government owned land constitutes 'unfairly subsidizing' of the industry.
It was indeed the grain trade that I was referring to that Canada has won every time the first 13 (I believe, it is near there at any rate) times it went to court. However, recently the US yet again imposed tariffs on Canadian wheat, which has forced us to go through the appeals process once more even though there has been no change to the way we do business. In the case of the grain trade, Canada has an entity known as the Canadian Wheat Board (an independant organization that is recognized by the government) which is simply a marketing organization for Canadian farmers. It does have a monopoly on the marketing and selling of grain in Canada, farmers are required to go through the CWB, but allows for every farmer to sell their grain at a fair price on the world market for the amount and quality they produce, and be able to spend less time, money, and effort doing so.
In regards to China, I did not know that China was a participating member of the WTO, nor the exact circumstances in the tariff discrepancy, but my point was made to the parent that 'the tariff rates should be reversed, and China should have 3% on import and the US have 29%' is a nonsensical statement as the US has no control over protection tariffs set by other countries on their imports, and obviously China is at 29% and the US at 3% for a reason.
These 'trade laws' you are referring to are hardly agreed upon that simply. Sure there is back and forth in regard to tariffs vs. free trade (like NAFTA and the Canadian/American free trade agreement), however just as often a nation with unilaterally increase its protectionist tariffs to prevent foreign competition if its own industry is struggling or can't compete on a fair playing field.
This is the way it is in China, the US has no real say in what tariffs that China imposes on imported goods, but obviously the Chinese government in this situation has chosen to protect its local industry from foreign competition by forcing the competitions prices for their citizens through the roof.
The same applies even to the Canadian/American agreement (see softwood lumber, and grain disputes). The American government has repeatedly placed huge tariffs on Canadian goods (currently over 25% on grain, and upwards of 50% on lumber) because the American companies can't compete with Canadian producers. However in this case with a WTO binding free trade agreement, this is illegal. Which is in fact, why we have been to court on 13 different occasions to have these tariffs repealed (and won, every time).
That "sizzle" is called St. Elmo's Fire and it is present in anything that has high voltage running through it. In wet weather the effect becomes amplified, and thats why its easier to hear that sizzle sound. Regardless, it is present whether or not you hear it, and a shielded and insulated line will make the same noise as a bare wire as electric insulation does not mean noise insulation.
2 001-02-07-wquest-power-line.htm
On top of that, standing under high-voltage lines during dry weather is not significantly less dangerous than standing under it in wet weather. Unless the conditions are severe enough to risk a line breaking, a wet 'sizzling' power line is really no different than a dry quiet one.
That is not to say you should stand under power lines nor work or play near them unless necessary, but your emphasis is quite unecessary.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/wonderquest/
-- a brief article on St. Elmo's Fire.