The fact that there may not have been a previous decision to warn the teacher that this was unacceptable behavior doesn't mean that htis behavior was acceptable, and the court shouldn't have ducked the issue in this way. Moreover, when the issue has been teacher who were presenting their religious views rather than their atheistic views, the 9th circuit has not ducked the issue in this way.
The "giant spaghetti monster" line that the teacher used is not a neutral symbol, but a deliberate and overt attack on Christian belief. He should not be allowed to present such material in a classroom context if a Christian creationist is not allowed to present their beliefs in a classroom context.
Note that they are apparently just orbiting the moon, not landing. May seem like a "minor detail", but the engineering problems are of an entirely different magnitude.
While your comment is superficially accurate, it is also grossly misleading.
Yes, Seroquel is an atypical antipsychotic. However, like all the atypical antipsychotics, it can also be used to treat other disorders, including severe depression (such as bipolar I and II.)
Call me when it's been published in NEJM, or JAMA or The Lancet. PLoS ONE is peer reviewed, kind of, but it's an "open access journal" and not exactly where you'd look for something of this magnitude. I'd imagine there are some serious problems if they couldn't get it published in one of the mainstream journals.
What I resent is not the amount of taxes I pay, but the ridiculous complexity of the tax code, which makes it nearly impossible to know how much you're going to owe any given year if the picture is at all complex. I literally went from receiving a $3500 refund one year to owing $22K the next. What changed? My wife left me, I lost all my tax credits (like the child tax credit, etc.), I got hit with the marriage penalty tax, the alternative minimum tax, etc. etc. ad nauseam.
This has literally forced me into bankruptcy.
Give me a simple system where my taxes are predictable and reasonable, and I'll pay them happily. But get rid of this ridiculous tax code that is designed to enrich the lawyers and the accountants!
There's no preferred point of reference, so you could just as well say that the Sun revolves around the Earth as vice versa. It's not like the Sun is a fixed immovable point around which everything revolves either, at least once you get beyond the solar system. Nor is there any other single fixed immovable point. You can pick any fixed immovable point you like and construct a model to match it. (The big problem with a geocentric model is retrograde motion--that is, the planets appear to go backwards from time to time.) The thing is that it's a lot simpler to look at it from the point of view that that the Earth goes around the Sun--both conceptually and mathematically, which is why astronomers do so when they are looking at the solar system. But it is possible to construct a description of the universe in which the opposite is true that is consistent, just damned inconvenient and not very useful.
So, in that limited since, Aristotle was as right as Galileo. Galileo just happens to be more useful.
Why do you think Oracle bought Sun in the first place? It was for their presence in the "enterprise server market." Yes, some people are using Oracle RAC and the like, but there are still plenty of applications for that 64-way box running Oracle.
The CDDL is not a BSD license. It's more like an MPL or NPL style license, in that it privileges a particular company (in this case, Sun) to a special status with regard to derivative works.
Oracle didn't care, because Oracle has said that they are no longer interested in having an open development model for Solaris. In fact, the fact that Oracle doesn't care is why they're dissolving in the first place. Solaris users don't care because, let's face it... does anybody actually use OpenSolaris? I work for a huge Solaris shop, and we use stock, Sun-supported Solaris. If we wanted an Open Source operating system, we'd use Linux. We use Solaris for huge database servers that are too big to run Linux (mostly Oracle DB.)
So, that leaves OpenSolaris developers. Look, this is the risk you take when you work on a project dominated by one company, especially when you have a license like the CDDL. I feel bad that you're in this position, but it was kind of predictable, and I really think you're missing the boat with Illumos. You're unlikely to get enough interest to ever make a go of it with Oracle being disinterested. Go work on making Linux better instead!
Question for those in the know: is SpaceX leading a charmed life, or are they just incredibly good at managing their press lately? To hear the press release, this sounds like another home run for SpaceX.
I was an ADHD kid who went undiagnosed. Ultimately, I ended up dropping out of high school with an IQ of 156 and SAT scores of 1530. Why? I simply couldn't pay attention in class. Finally, at the age of 29 I was diagnosed, and turned around and got a B.S., M.A., and Ph.D. in the course of 8 years, while working full-time.
Every study I've seen, prior to this one, says that ADHD is more often underdiagnosed than overdiagnosed. And the consequences of a missed diagnosis can be devastating.
Verizon's Market Cap is 84B. Google's got $30B in cash, and $48B in "assets", not to mention plenty of profits. Issue stock for the rest and they could BUY verizon if that's the business they wanted to be in.
No, correlation NEED NOT imply causation
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's a common error to say that correlation does not imply causation. In fact, correlation need not imply causation. There's a subtle difference here, because sometimes correlation does imply causation--that is, when there is a reasonable causal link. A better way to put it is that correlation doesn't prove causation. At best, it gives you a clue that can then be followed up on. But it's the height of foolishness to say that trillions of dollars spent on the suppression of terror has no link whatsoever to... ahem... the suppression of terrorist attacks. The two are correlated, and the two might be causally linked. The correlation gives us a clue to look for a causal link. It doesn't prove the causal link, by itself, but it is one piece of evidence that points in that direction. And, more importantly, if there was no correlation, it could disprove it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you say social skills aren't hard to learn. Speaking as someone with Asperger's syndrome... HOW!? I've been trying for 38 years, and still seem to be a complete failure. Is there a book? A manual? A magic bullet?
Learning social skills might be easy for you, but I've not found it easy. So kindly stop beating people like me up (metaphorically) and shut up until you've got some useful advice.
I had a guy who was doing some work for me steal my wife's checkbook and forge several checks some years back. That would seem like pretty major crime to me... the police were entirely disinterested. Pretty much, the police aren't interested unless it involves a weapon or violence, from what I've been able to gather. The problem with this is that ignoring "minor" crimes leads to major crimes. That is... Why do we have major crime? Because we don't prosecute petty crime. It's called the "Broken Window Principle". The idea is that the reason neighborhoods degrade is because minor problems (broken windows) are allowed to go unfixed. Same thing here. If they would draw the line at petty crimes like breaking into someone's car or forging a check and deal with those, maybe the major crimes would never happen.
Or maybe this was the ancient frickin' world, and they didn't have very good measuring tapes, and getting it right to one significant digit was considered "good enough"? Or maybe looking at the Bible for mathematics is just plain dumb? One thing that has always struck me (as someone with a Ph.D. in New Testament from a very good, secular school) is the way in which self-proclaimed "skeptics" and "fundamentalists" seem to agree on how the Bible ought to be interpreted. Then they just spend their time bickering about whether it's true or not. It seems to me that the real problem is that both of them are missing the boat, because they're not reading the Bible in anything resembling the way it would be read by someone from the ancient world. The whole "is PI equal to 3?" thing is just one example of this, and it's stupid.
Granted, I'm a novice in this area, but it seems to me that hydrogen based fusion is a failure, and it's time to admit it. They've been promising that we'd have fusion "real soon now" since I was a kid (say 1984 or so), and it is still just as far off now as it was then. I'm far more interested in alternative approaches. Lately, the best approaches to me seem to be space-based--especially solar power satellites and helium-3 fusion using helium 3 harvested from the Lunar regolith. Probably, a combination of the two...
Sorry, but it just seems like we're throwing good money after bad here.
This is many $/kg cheaper than either the Atlas or the Delta series, with the goal of becoming cheaper still. Atlas and delta, developed on a cost plus basis, don't even have that as a goal.
Do you need a tutorial on the meaning of the word "probably"? My definition would be something like, "likely, to be expected, but less than certain." Of course every newspaper has had factual errors... but a paper like the Financial Times will have much fewer and less substantial errors than some random blog. So, we need to proportion our skepticism to the source. The OP doesn't seem to be doing that. The story really isn't all that far-fetched, and the source (the FT) is one of the best newspapers out there. So why all the over-wrought bent-over-backwards skepticism?
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that there may not have been a previous decision to warn the teacher that this was unacceptable behavior doesn't mean that htis behavior was acceptable, and the court shouldn't have ducked the issue in this way. Moreover, when the issue has been teacher who were presenting their religious views rather than their atheistic views, the 9th circuit has not ducked the issue in this way. The "giant spaghetti monster" line that the teacher used is not a neutral symbol, but a deliberate and overt attack on Christian belief. He should not be allowed to present such material in a classroom context if a Christian creationist is not allowed to present their beliefs in a classroom context.
Note that they are apparently just orbiting the moon, not landing. May seem like a "minor detail", but the engineering problems are of an entirely different magnitude.
While your comment is superficially accurate, it is also grossly misleading. Yes, Seroquel is an atypical antipsychotic. However, like all the atypical antipsychotics, it can also be used to treat other disorders, including severe depression (such as bipolar I and II.)
Call me when it's been published in NEJM, or JAMA or The Lancet. PLoS ONE is peer reviewed, kind of, but it's an "open access journal" and not exactly where you'd look for something of this magnitude. I'd imagine there are some serious problems if they couldn't get it published in one of the mainstream journals.
At least around here, all the courthouses prohibit cell phones.
What I resent is not the amount of taxes I pay, but the ridiculous complexity of the tax code, which makes it nearly impossible to know how much you're going to owe any given year if the picture is at all complex. I literally went from receiving a $3500 refund one year to owing $22K the next. What changed? My wife left me, I lost all my tax credits (like the child tax credit, etc.), I got hit with the marriage penalty tax, the alternative minimum tax, etc. etc. ad nauseam. This has literally forced me into bankruptcy. Give me a simple system where my taxes are predictable and reasonable, and I'll pay them happily. But get rid of this ridiculous tax code that is designed to enrich the lawyers and the accountants!
The phrase is "native-born American." The Supreme Court has determined that this includes someone who is born of American parents abroad. Next?
There's no preferred point of reference, so you could just as well say that the Sun revolves around the Earth as vice versa. It's not like the Sun is a fixed immovable point around which everything revolves either, at least once you get beyond the solar system. Nor is there any other single fixed immovable point. You can pick any fixed immovable point you like and construct a model to match it. (The big problem with a geocentric model is retrograde motion--that is, the planets appear to go backwards from time to time.) The thing is that it's a lot simpler to look at it from the point of view that that the Earth goes around the Sun--both conceptually and mathematically, which is why astronomers do so when they are looking at the solar system. But it is possible to construct a description of the universe in which the opposite is true that is consistent, just damned inconvenient and not very useful.
So, in that limited since, Aristotle was as right as Galileo. Galileo just happens to be more useful.
Why do you think Oracle bought Sun in the first place? It was for their presence in the "enterprise server market." Yes, some people are using Oracle RAC and the like, but there are still plenty of applications for that 64-way box running Oracle.
The CDDL is not a BSD license. It's more like an MPL or NPL style license, in that it privileges a particular company (in this case, Sun) to a special status with regard to derivative works.
Oracle didn't care, because Oracle has said that they are no longer interested in having an open development model for Solaris. In fact, the fact that Oracle doesn't care is why they're dissolving in the first place. Solaris users don't care because, let's face it... does anybody actually use OpenSolaris? I work for a huge Solaris shop, and we use stock, Sun-supported Solaris. If we wanted an Open Source operating system, we'd use Linux. We use Solaris for huge database servers that are too big to run Linux (mostly Oracle DB.)
So, that leaves OpenSolaris developers. Look, this is the risk you take when you work on a project dominated by one company, especially when you have a license like the CDDL. I feel bad that you're in this position, but it was kind of predictable, and I really think you're missing the boat with Illumos. You're unlikely to get enough interest to ever make a go of it with Oracle being disinterested. Go work on making Linux better instead!
Question for those in the know: is SpaceX leading a charmed life, or are they just incredibly good at managing their press lately? To hear the press release, this sounds like another home run for SpaceX.
I was an ADHD kid who went undiagnosed. Ultimately, I ended up dropping out of high school with an IQ of 156 and SAT scores of 1530. Why? I simply couldn't pay attention in class. Finally, at the age of 29 I was diagnosed, and turned around and got a B.S., M.A., and Ph.D. in the course of 8 years, while working full-time.
Every study I've seen, prior to this one, says that ADHD is more often underdiagnosed than overdiagnosed. And the consequences of a missed diagnosis can be devastating.
Verizon's Market Cap is 84B. Google's got $30B in cash, and $48B in "assets", not to mention plenty of profits. Issue stock for the rest and they could BUY verizon if that's the business they wanted to be in.
It's a common error to say that correlation does not imply causation. In fact, correlation need not imply causation. There's a subtle difference here, because sometimes correlation does imply causation--that is, when there is a reasonable causal link. A better way to put it is that correlation doesn't prove causation. At best, it gives you a clue that can then be followed up on. But it's the height of foolishness to say that trillions of dollars spent on the suppression of terror has no link whatsoever to ... ahem ... the suppression of terrorist attacks. The two are correlated, and the two might be causally linked. The correlation gives us a clue to look for a causal link. It doesn't prove the causal link, by itself, but it is one piece of evidence that points in that direction. And, more importantly, if there was no correlation, it could disprove it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you say social skills aren't hard to learn. Speaking as someone with Asperger's syndrome... HOW!? I've been trying for 38 years, and still seem to be a complete failure. Is there a book? A manual? A magic bullet?
Learning social skills might be easy for you, but I've not found it easy. So kindly stop beating people like me up (metaphorically) and shut up until you've got some useful advice.
I had a guy who was doing some work for me steal my wife's checkbook and forge several checks some years back. That would seem like pretty major crime to me... the police were entirely disinterested. Pretty much, the police aren't interested unless it involves a weapon or violence, from what I've been able to gather. The problem with this is that ignoring "minor" crimes leads to major crimes. That is... Why do we have major crime? Because we don't prosecute petty crime. It's called the "Broken Window Principle". The idea is that the reason neighborhoods degrade is because minor problems (broken windows) are allowed to go unfixed. Same thing here. If they would draw the line at petty crimes like breaking into someone's car or forging a check and deal with those, maybe the major crimes would never happen.
Or maybe this was the ancient frickin' world, and they didn't have very good measuring tapes, and getting it right to one significant digit was considered "good enough"? Or maybe looking at the Bible for mathematics is just plain dumb? One thing that has always struck me (as someone with a Ph.D. in New Testament from a very good, secular school) is the way in which self-proclaimed "skeptics" and "fundamentalists" seem to agree on how the Bible ought to be interpreted. Then they just spend their time bickering about whether it's true or not. It seems to me that the real problem is that both of them are missing the boat, because they're not reading the Bible in anything resembling the way it would be read by someone from the ancient world. The whole "is PI equal to 3?" thing is just one example of this, and it's stupid.
Biofuels produce greenhouse gases, but they do so at exactly the same rate (or less) that biofuel crops absorb CO2. So, it cancels out.
Granted, I'm a novice in this area, but it seems to me that hydrogen based fusion is a failure, and it's time to admit it. They've been promising that we'd have fusion "real soon now" since I was a kid (say 1984 or so), and it is still just as far off now as it was then. I'm far more interested in alternative approaches. Lately, the best approaches to me seem to be space-based--especially solar power satellites and helium-3 fusion using helium 3 harvested from the Lunar regolith. Probably, a combination of the two...
Sorry, but it just seems like we're throwing good money after bad here.
This is many $/kg cheaper than either the Atlas or the Delta series, with the goal of becoming cheaper still. Atlas and delta, developed on a cost plus basis, don't even have that as a goal.
In an interview, he said that SpaceX is profitable. Didn't sound like there was too much worry about them going under.
Mac user: Your sad devotion to that dying religion hasn't helped you conjure up the stolen Commodore glory!
Amiga user: I find your lack of faith disturbing. Pinch. Pinch. Damnit. Why isn't it working!?
Do you need a tutorial on the meaning of the word "probably"? My definition would be something like, "likely, to be expected, but less than certain." Of course every newspaper has had factual errors... but a paper like the Financial Times will have much fewer and less substantial errors than some random blog. So, we need to proportion our skepticism to the source. The OP doesn't seem to be doing that. The story really isn't all that far-fetched, and the source (the FT) is one of the best newspapers out there. So why all the over-wrought bent-over-backwards skepticism?
Hence the word, "probably". Is English your first language?