which in turn will allow England to cool to a temperature more in keeping with it's latitude ( North Dakota type latitude).
North Dakota runs from about 46 to 49 degrees north. England is 99.9% north of 50 degrees. It would be more accurate to say it's "James Bay type latitude". You should be more careful when you're criticizing people for their ignorance.
That's because "data management practitioners" spend their time practicing data management. I bet if you asked the "data analysts" about it, they'd say most of the important work dealing with data is in the analysis, but they still need to waste 20% of their time on data preparation and integration.
I will swear in a court of law that I did read things that were not there, and were no where in his linked graph. I read the reports it came from. Guilty as charged, you have found me out.
And the error (or is it intellectual dishonesty? I can't tell) comes when you attribute those things you read to someone who didn't say them.
It is Simpson's paradox that makes it appear that poor people vote Republican and rich people vote Democrat, when the reverse is true. That comes from ignoring the other variables that are implicitly included when you subset by state.
Your final paragraph agrees with my claim: richer people tend to vote Republican, poorer people tend to vote Democrat. That's what I said originally.
The interesting fact is at the state level: Republicans living in blue states tend to be richer than Republicans living in red states (just as everyone else in blue states tends to be richer than in red states). If you were a Democrat, you'd attribute this to the success of Democrat policies. If you're a Republican, you say that they are rich in blue states because of the Republicans, despite all those Democrat voters.
Those maps are reasonably accurate from a geographic point of view, but they hugely distort the actual distribution of wealth in the population, because the population isn't distributed evenly. They would be less misleading if they had used cartograms, e.g. this one of 2012 election results. Those would show that there is a big concentration of wealth on the west coast and near Chigago as well as the one on the east coast.
Catching stolen cars is likely a revenue loss for the police department (because it will mean they need to spend time putting together a case for prosecution), and occasionally dangerous for the arresting officer. It doesn't make any sense for them to do their job.
If the budget for intelligence agents were not so bloated, they would spend it more wisely.
The fact that you are paying agents to play WoW is just a sign that you are paying them to do all sorts of wasteful things. Cut their budget to 10% of its current level, and you won't have agents playing WoW. Or if you still do, then cut it to 1% of its current level.
According to Wikipedia, desalination costs about $1 to $5 per m^3, or about $0.11 to $0.55 per barrel. So $10/barrel doesn't seem "comparatively cheap".
29C in your heart would be a big problem, but 29C in your extremities (which the GP was talking about) is not that unusual. Don't you know anyone who has cold hands or feet sometimes?
The war might have had the effect of making the British take the Americans seriously, but it didn't cause the end of the blockade or the impressment. The blockade ended before the Americans declared war (though the Americans weren't aware of the decision), and the impressment ended when the war in Europe ended.
The only thing the Americans could have achieved by the war was the annexation of British North America, and they didn't. They didn't lose so badly that they had to give up territory (that's what Plattsburgh and Baltimore achieved), but they still lost.
So the day after this announcement, they issue one of those requests.
The FISA court would grant them authority to do so, in order to protect the integrity of the FISA system. They would see the notice itself as grounds to issue one targeting you.
Are you volunteering to be one of the names who promises to quit?
But I'm not trying to prove the cause of the accident. I'm trying to close a case (if I'm a policeman). The other party says "he was speeding, I wasn't" -- and the policeman has proof you were doing 80, but only your word that everyone else was too. You will be found to be at fault.
You mean will I pay more if I'm in an at-fault accident, regardless of speed?
I meant that if were in an accident while speeding, you'd pay more if the monitor was in the car so they had proof you were speeding than if it wasn't. Having the monitor only for a limited time is obviously less risky for you.
Same regarding the police: they'll know if there was a monitor in the car and may request the data in case of an accident. If you were speeding, you're more likely to be found to be at fault if they have proof than if they don't.
Have you made any claims yet? I imagine that when you make a claim while driving over the speed limit, it will come back to bite you. Probably they wouldn't get away without paying, but I'll bet you'll be worse off after the claim than you would with a company that didn't monitor your speed.
I would also guess that the information they collect on you will be available to some other driver who sues you, to the police who ticket you, and to the next insurance company you apply to after you decide to move on.
How can cutting the premiums of safe drivers work in practice?
They would raise the premiums of bad drivers, or just not accept the bad drivers as customers.
Isn't the idea of insurance that the premiums of those who don't file claims is what pays for the claims of others?
Yes, but that's after taking all predictable differences into account. Even if you are a safe driver, you'll sometimes have accidents just because of bad luck, or accidents caused by others who are uninsured and won't pay for them, or whatever. The other drivers who didn't have the bad luck will pay for you.
Insurance isn't to allow people who engage in risky behaviour to transfer their costs to others.
You (and one of the ACs) are making the assumption that the cameras make errors independently. But the cameras don't make the decision, the central server does. There's only one of those, and if the data it has on a target happens to look like a different person, it will flag the data from all of the cameras in the same way. The fact that they all agree doesn't reduce that component of the 0.1% error rate.
Slashdot Mirror
which in turn will allow England to cool to a temperature more in keeping with it's latitude ( North Dakota type latitude).
North Dakota runs from about 46 to 49 degrees north. England is 99.9% north of 50 degrees. It would be more accurate to say it's "James Bay type latitude".
You should be more careful when you're criticizing people for their ignorance.
If you have an infinite budget, it makes sense to do that. The NSA comes pretty close.
That's because "data management practitioners" spend their time practicing data management. I bet if you asked the "data analysts" about it, they'd say most of the important work dealing with data is in the analysis, but they still need to waste 20% of their time on data preparation and integration.
I will swear in a court of law that I did read things that were not there, and were no where in his linked graph. I read the reports it came from. Guilty as charged, you have found me out.
And the error (or is it intellectual dishonesty? I can't tell) comes when you attribute those things you read to someone who didn't say them.
Anonymous cowards are nobodies. I'd expect you to be saying it!
I don't see how Arctic air temperature is at all relevant to a story about a ship stuck in Antarctic ice.
But you also seem to be reading things that just aren't there. The post *did not* say "Ha!". It was a statement of a fact. That's all.
The GP posted a statement of fact, relevant to the story. Doesn't sound like a denialist to me.
More likely the GP was replying to the post he replied to.
I don't think you understand Simpson's paradox.
It is Simpson's paradox that makes it appear that poor people vote Republican and rich people vote Democrat, when the reverse is true. That comes from ignoring the other variables that are implicitly included when you subset by state.
Your final paragraph agrees with my claim: richer people tend to vote Republican, poorer people tend to vote Democrat. That's what I said originally.
The interesting fact is at the state level: Republicans living in blue states tend to be richer than Republicans living in red states (just as everyone else in blue states tends to be richer than in red states). If you were a Democrat, you'd attribute this to the success of Democrat policies. If you're a Republican, you say that they are rich in blue states because of the Republicans, despite all those Democrat voters.
I'm not from the US, so I never understood why poor people vote conservative?
They don't. In each state, the poorer people are more likely to vote Democrat, the richer people are more likely to vote Republican.
However, richer states are more likely to vote Democrat, and poorer states are more likely to vote Republican.
So perhaps the question should be posed the other way: if your state votes Republican, why is it poorer?
Those maps are reasonably accurate from a geographic point of view, but they hugely distort the actual distribution of wealth in the population, because the population isn't distributed evenly. They would be less misleading if they had used cartograms, e.g. this one of 2012 election results. Those would show that there is a big concentration of wealth on the west coast and near Chigago as well as the one on the east coast.
Catching stolen cars is likely a revenue loss for the police department (because it will mean they need to spend time putting together a case for prosecution), and occasionally dangerous for the arresting officer. It doesn't make any sense for them to do their job.
If the budget for intelligence agents were not so bloated, they would spend it more wisely.
The fact that you are paying agents to play WoW is just a sign that you are paying them to do all sorts of wasteful things. Cut their budget to 10% of its current level, and you won't have agents playing WoW. Or if you still do, then cut it to 1% of its current level.
According to Wikipedia, desalination costs about $1 to $5 per m^3, or about $0.11 to $0.55 per barrel. So $10/barrel doesn't seem "comparatively cheap".
29C in your heart would be a big problem, but 29C in your extremities (which the GP was talking about) is not that unusual. Don't you know anyone who has cold hands or feet sometimes?
Blood is quite conductive as well, being salty water with a bunch of other junk in it.
The war might have had the effect of making the British take the Americans seriously, but it didn't cause the end of the blockade or the impressment. The blockade ended before the Americans declared war (though the Americans weren't aware of the decision), and the impressment ended when the war in Europe ended.
The only thing the Americans could have achieved by the war was the annexation of British North America, and they didn't. They didn't lose so badly that they had to give up territory (that's what Plattsburgh and Baltimore achieved), but they still lost.
Two? The British won the war of 1812.
So the day after this announcement, they issue one of those requests.
The FISA court would grant them authority to do so, in order to protect the integrity of the FISA system. They would see the notice itself as grounds to issue one targeting you.
Are you volunteering to be one of the names who promises to quit?
But I'm not trying to prove the cause of the accident. I'm trying to close a case (if I'm a policeman). The other party says "he was speeding, I wasn't" -- and the policeman has proof you were doing 80, but only your word that everyone else was too. You will be found to be at fault.
You mean will I pay more if I'm in an at-fault accident, regardless of speed?
I meant that if were in an accident while speeding, you'd pay more if the monitor was in the car so they had proof you were speeding than if it wasn't. Having the monitor only for a limited time is obviously less risky for you.
Same regarding the police: they'll know if there was a monitor in the car and may request the data in case of an accident. If you were speeding, you're more likely to be found to be at fault if they have proof than if they don't.
Have you made any claims yet? I imagine that when you make a claim while driving over the speed limit, it will come back to bite you. Probably they wouldn't get away without paying, but I'll bet you'll be worse off after the claim than you would with a company that didn't monitor your speed.
I would also guess that the information they collect on you will be available to some other driver who sues you, to the police who ticket you, and to the next insurance company you apply to after you decide to move on.
No, the first party is the user, and the second party is the program the user is running.
Google is not proposing to force Adobe Reader to use Chrome.
How can cutting the premiums of safe drivers work in practice?
They would raise the premiums of bad drivers, or just not accept the bad drivers as customers.
Isn't the idea of insurance that the premiums of those who don't file claims is what pays for the claims of others?
Yes, but that's after taking all predictable differences into account. Even if you are a safe driver, you'll sometimes have accidents just because of bad luck, or accidents caused by others who are uninsured and won't pay for them, or whatever. The other drivers who didn't have the bad luck will pay for you.
Insurance isn't to allow people who engage in risky behaviour to transfer their costs to others.
You (and one of the ACs) are making the assumption that the cameras make errors independently. But the cameras don't make the decision, the central server does. There's only one of those, and if the data it has on a target happens to look like a different person, it will flag the data from all of the cameras in the same way. The fact that they all agree doesn't reduce that component of the 0.1% error rate.