Which COULD be interpreted "opposing the moral senses of the germanic race"... or something like that. Opposing the party probably outweighed the fact that they were christian.
SB: "Uhh, Mr. Hawking, nobody really knows what you're talking about normally, but being famous and all.. can't you talk about aliens or something cool.. something that people assume you know about. We DO need the publicity, you know."
Mr. Hawking: "Aliens? What should I say"
SB: "You know.. maybe something standard like
"Primitive life is very common and intelligent life is fairly rare," and maybe wrap it up with a joke, something along the lines of
"Some would say it has yet to occur on earth."
No, Monty doesn't pick the car. He just doesn't. HE knows where the car is and doesn't pick that door. This is the fact that lies at the heart of the paradox. The statement of the problem "Monty opens a door that reveals a goat" excludes that possibility and gives away information. This fact is what changes the odds into 1/3 v. 2/3 instead of 50-50.
Indeed, when there are 23 people in the room, the probability is around 55% that some two of them will share a birthday. 23 is the smallest number such that the probability is more than 50%. Then you only need 40 people so that the probability is more then 90%. It is around 91% at n = 40.
Are you sure it's not just the nostalgia of hearing the "crackle" noises in the background? Or holding an objects that is larger and somehow "more real" than tose pesky little CD's or, those impersonal data-streams we know as an MP3? Or even than people just associate the vinyl with an age where music sounde just so much better than this crap we're hearing today?
Emotional value has to count for something... and with music I want to maintain that it is actually MORE IMPORTANT than the technological advances.
For a certain real number "doubling it" just won't help. The book should read "Double your dating, after increasing it by at least one", or to keep accurate while delivering some promise "Double your dating if n >= 1, where n is the number of dates you've had in a reasonably large time interval (to be defined elsewhere), else at least increase up to one, then double it".
People who liked that one would probably like the follow-up title "dating for mathematicians", "the complex plane in moonlight" and "elementary number theory" (just in case).
It's that men from Mars, women from Venus thingy. That depends on the findings of the follow-up study.
Since we are shutting down the rovers, we might never know...
Maybe I'm using the word "feminism" incorrectly, but what the hell. You can deduce the definition approximately from reading the post.
In this case I actually don't like the feministic tone of thie article. Why is the conclusion "when are unable to read women's subtle signals" rather than "women give misleading signals? Those things always seem to play out in the direction that men are stupid jerks and women are so much smarter. What if there simply IS no difference between a friendly smile and a sexual gestures? What if the difference IS only in the mind of the woman who failed to convey her actual intent? This study was conducted as a questionnare, right with "70% of women REPORTING" that there had been cases that men failed to interpret her her signals.
Well, ok, there was also that image recognition thing. But the bulk of my argument is still valid. But it would be natural to assume that women are more capable to understand each other than men are to understand them.
It's always clueless guys, never clueless women. I maintain that they ARE 50% (approximately) of the population. And if most men are cluless, most women are probably too. In my little, frustrated summary of this whole thing, "it just isn't fair god damn it!". I'm tired of being called simple, stupid, unable to read social cues, clueless, etc.
Actually I might just take up the practice of identifying EVERY positive gesture from a woman as sexual. I would become a total pig, of course - but that is to be expected.
I do actually think that geeks, and other similar (mostly male, seemingly) types have the tendency to want one woman only. I don't know, when I fall for someone I find it hard to focus on any other one. I stop "looking around" - I'm simply not interested. This might be a huge problem because when you get rejected it hurts so much more, but it might in the end (as seems to have been your case) be a very good quality. And those "false signals" can actually get a guy like me in pretty deep, even though there was nothing behind it.
I think it has something to do with focus, and that slightly obsessive mentality that is necessary to be able to do the kind of work geeks (and similar types) do. This is in opposition to those "stupid, STUPID, scatter-brained jerks that seem to get all the pretty ones and have the attention span of a housefly and the intelligence of a jellyfish" (sorry 'bout, that, I couldn't help it). Yes, they end up with having sex with a lot of women, but they also often seem to be unable to truly appreciate them.
Of course I'm a little biased here, but I hope my two cents are worth something. Also, men are stupid jerks usually. But we know that in so many things men and women are equal. After all, each make up about 50% of the poplulation. So it is actually with some satisfaction that I declare women to be stupid jerks also. It never ceases to amaze me how often they simply don't KNOW what they are doing to those poor guys they are leading on. It's not just about men reading too much into things, it's also women failing to realize what effect they can have. Or, in some cases, misusing those powers for their own gain.
Am I being too cynical? A little misanthropic even? Well, hell, at least SOME of it is justified.
All this might mean however, that people make the connection between "anonymous", the group that protests scientology, and "anonymous", the internet assholes that cause epileptic seizures. People might not stop to think about all this "no-organization-no-values" ideology and simply make the mental connection that "Anonymous" is just like any other group of people, and they just might now make the conclusion that they are BAD. Thus the whole anti-scientology effort is undermined. Because if a group of assholes protests something - do we have any idea if what they were protesting was bad or not?
It's the message that gets compromised, not the group, which - like you said - isn't really a group anyway.
If you tell a child about sex before puberty he/she is probabloy going to say something like "ewww", then go tell his/her friends about it, which will also say aomething like "ewww". In a weeks time they'll have forgotten it. They might still know about it, but they won't really care.
It shouldn't be "fine". However, there is a difference. One is done out of plain malice, the other one most likely out of ignorance. The parent might not MEAN any harm, so IMO they should be educated, informed or given a warning, before someone takes direct action against them.
EVERYTHING is a matter of debate, like it should be. Some things obviously qualify as terrorism, other things not. The debate is mostly about things that lie in the grey area. It is a way of reflecting: "what these guys over there did was pretty heinous... but could it be that some of the things WE do might be just as bad or almost as bad?"
A way of being enlightened is to not stop debating. I'm not necessarily implying that the "enlightened west" is right in its war on terror (let that be a part of the debate, for now), but that it being a matter of debate is normal. And I want to maintain that what most of us already consider to be terrorism will still be considered terrorism, however the debate turns out.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the Nazis tended their own light. No visual effects are required by the books. It ain't libel if it's true.
Anyway, the Nazis in the history books aren't active members of society, currently being hated. There's no damage to be done and no one to defend.
Which COULD be interpreted "opposing the moral senses of the germanic race"... or something like that. Opposing the party probably outweighed the fact that they were christian.
Mr. Hawking: "Aliens? What should I say"
SB: "You know.. maybe something standard like "Primitive life is very common and intelligent life is fairly rare," and maybe wrap it up with a joke, something along the lines of "Some would say it has yet to occur on earth."
That is what society should be - and hopefully will someday.
No, Monty doesn't pick the car. He just doesn't. HE knows where the car is and doesn't pick that door. This is the fact that lies at the heart of the paradox. The statement of the problem "Monty opens a door that reveals a goat" excludes that possibility and gives away information. This fact is what changes the odds into 1/3 v. 2/3 instead of 50-50.
Haha, just sleep in... then tell everyone that someone played a practical joke on you tweaking your alarm clock.
Indeed, when there are 23 people in the room, the probability is around 55% that some two of them will share a birthday. 23 is the smallest number such that the probability is more than 50%. Then you only need 40 people so that the probability is more then 90%. It is around 91% at n = 40.
Oh, and another one falls for some suave asshole-hustler-prick like the GP. Nobody will ever understand me. Boohoo.
Well, back to the uniqueness theorems. Hmmm, which pair of socks are still soft?
Are you sure it's not just the nostalgia of hearing the "crackle" noises in the background? Or holding an objects that is larger and somehow "more real" than tose pesky little CD's or, those impersonal data-streams we know as an MP3? Or even than people just associate the vinyl with an age where music sounde just so much better than this crap we're hearing today?
Emotional value has to count for something... and with music I want to maintain that it is actually MORE IMPORTANT than the technological advances.
For a certain real number "doubling it" just won't help. The book should read "Double your dating, after increasing it by at least one", or to keep accurate while delivering some promise "Double your dating if n >= 1, where n is the number of dates you've had in a reasonably large time interval (to be defined elsewhere), else at least increase up to one, then double it".
People who liked that one would probably like the follow-up title "dating for mathematicians", "the complex plane in moonlight" and "elementary number theory" (just in case).
Since we are shutting down the rovers, we might never know...
Maybe I'm using the word "feminism" incorrectly, but what the hell. You can deduce the definition approximately from reading the post.
In this case I actually don't like the feministic tone of thie article. Why is the conclusion "when are unable to read women's subtle signals" rather than "women give misleading signals? Those things always seem to play out in the direction that men are stupid jerks and women are so much smarter. What if there simply IS no difference between a friendly smile and a sexual gestures? What if the difference IS only in the mind of the woman who failed to convey her actual intent? This study was conducted as a questionnare, right with "70% of women REPORTING" that there had been cases that men failed to interpret her her signals.
Well, ok, there was also that image recognition thing. But the bulk of my argument is still valid. But it would be natural to assume that women are more capable to understand each other than men are to understand them.
It's always clueless guys, never clueless women. I maintain that they ARE 50% (approximately) of the population. And if most men are cluless, most women are probably too. In my little, frustrated summary of this whole thing, "it just isn't fair god damn it!". I'm tired of being called simple, stupid, unable to read social cues, clueless, etc.
Actually I might just take up the practice of identifying EVERY positive gesture from a woman as sexual. I would become a total pig, of course - but that is to be expected.
I do actually think that geeks, and other similar (mostly male, seemingly) types have the tendency to want one woman only. I don't know, when I fall for someone I find it hard to focus on any other one. I stop "looking around" - I'm simply not interested. This might be a huge problem because when you get rejected it hurts so much more, but it might in the end (as seems to have been your case) be a very good quality. And those "false signals" can actually get a guy like me in pretty deep, even though there was nothing behind it.
I think it has something to do with focus, and that slightly obsessive mentality that is necessary to be able to do the kind of work geeks (and similar types) do. This is in opposition to those "stupid, STUPID, scatter-brained jerks that seem to get all the pretty ones and have the attention span of a housefly and the intelligence of a jellyfish" (sorry 'bout, that, I couldn't help it). Yes, they end up with having sex with a lot of women, but they also often seem to be unable to truly appreciate them.
Of course I'm a little biased here, but I hope my two cents are worth something. Also, men are stupid jerks usually. But we know that in so many things men and women are equal. After all, each make up about 50% of the poplulation. So it is actually with some satisfaction that I declare women to be stupid jerks also. It never ceases to amaze me how often they simply don't KNOW what they are doing to those poor guys they are leading on. It's not just about men reading too much into things, it's also women failing to realize what effect they can have. Or, in some cases, misusing those powers for their own gain.
Am I being too cynical? A little misanthropic even? Well, hell, at least SOME of it is justified.
I don't know why, but I think this post would make an excellent dinosaur comic. (http://www.qwantz.com/)
:P
Right! Mod me off-topic! But I had to say it!
It might encourage him. We don't feed the trolls for a reason. But I agree that this person should indeed go f*** itself.
All this might mean however, that people make the connection between "anonymous", the group that protests scientology, and "anonymous", the internet assholes that cause epileptic seizures. People might not stop to think about all this "no-organization-no-values" ideology and simply make the mental connection that "Anonymous" is just like any other group of people, and they just might now make the conclusion that they are BAD. Thus the whole anti-scientology effort is undermined. Because if a group of assholes protests something - do we have any idea if what they were protesting was bad or not?
It's the message that gets compromised, not the group, which - like you said - isn't really a group anyway.
xpdf? Hey, at least it's easy on the PC!
I'll make the popcorn!
Unless someone actually rents an apartment in the center of the patent system. :)
Haha, I know. I figured that out afterwards. Really, they should have modded me redundant. :P
If you tell a child about sex before puberty he/she is probabloy going to say something like "ewww", then go tell his/her friends about it, which will also say aomething like "ewww". In a weeks time they'll have forgotten it. They might still know about it, but they won't really care.
It shouldn't be "fine". However, there is a difference. One is done out of plain malice, the other one most likely out of ignorance. The parent might not MEAN any harm, so IMO they should be educated, informed or given a warning, before someone takes direct action against them.
EVERYTHING is a matter of debate, like it should be. Some things obviously qualify as terrorism, other things not. The debate is mostly about things that lie in the grey area. It is a way of reflecting: "what these guys over there did was pretty heinous... but could it be that some of the things WE do might be just as bad or almost as bad?"
A way of being enlightened is to not stop debating. I'm not necessarily implying that the "enlightened west" is right in its war on terror (let that be a part of the debate, for now), but that it being a matter of debate is normal. And I want to maintain that what most of us already consider to be terrorism will still be considered terrorism, however the debate turns out.
Hope that made sense...
Good gracious! I just hope it doesn't get into the wrrong hands.