On the other hand, you could hire a local linux company to create a distro that client computers would load on boot. Add a support contract with occational updates to your distro. If you have problems with a client machine, simply reboot it and it will re-image itself.
Don't you think with modern science and communications we could effectively quarantine the disease and stop the spread? I mena, part of the problem with the black plague was that they didn't know how it was spread (let alone germ theory), and even if a few people knew what to do, they didn't have the communications system and social structure to enforce a quarantine.
No, not an Apple-branded Nokia cell phone, an Apple cell phone. Like an Apple computer.
iPod is not a fad. It has a history of beating cheaper portable mp3 players with more storage and battery life. What would Apple bring to the cellphone market table? Apple design. The Apple User Interface. That's why people buy Apple. The average non-geek hates electronic devices and doesn't want to learn another crappy interface. I've been disappointed with every cell phone interface I've encoutered recently, and so has everyone I've talked to. An Apple cell phone user-interface would be awesome.
I've heard this before, and I think its bs. I think that the average person can re-install windows. With instructions they can set up IIS, remove malware, etc.
I consider myself fairly computer savvy. I have a box doing a software raid with 4x80GB drives. I had to migrate it to another machine when the old motherboard died. I set up RH 8 or 9. I still haven't gotten samba working to where I can access the machine from my windows machines. I tried setting up webmin to set up samba in turn, but webmin isn't running. Obviously I'm doing something wrong and I need to troubleshoot it (I've heard this a thousand times from my geek buddies), but I don't want to waste any more time on it. The machine would be running windows if I could do software raid on it.
"Hint: both parties consistently help the rich. Oil companies, for example, for the Republicans and Hollywood, for another example supports the Democrats."
OK, we can see how politicians who receive money from the oil companies could help them, but how do politicians who receive money from Hollywood types help Hollywood? By supporting free speech, subsidizing movies, or promoting theater and cinematography? C'mon. Democrats are not the party of big money.
Note that in your preious arguments, when you talk about statistics, you are speaking solely about sampling -- the part that has data points, confidence levels, etc.
Your dictionary definition sucks. Find a better dictionary, preferably one not on the internet. The first part of its defintion is actually just the definition of 'mathematics'. The second part of its definition is actually the definition of statistics in the modern sense, and in the sense that you used it.
You are saying that physics needs to use sampling to make valid science. I am saying that they've made it this far without it, and they don't need it now.
You are talking out of your ass. That's fine if you believe that science without statistics is worthless, but any physicist would disagree with you. Statistics has its place in biology or sociology, but it *has no place* in the hard sciences like physics. Physics does *not* "use a large number of data points". In physics, one run of one falsifiable experiment, like the classic double-slit experiment is good enough to say that the law applies now, in the past, and in the future, everywhere, and for all time. We don't run 100 experiments and find the confidence level of a particular result. It either works or it doesn't.
You dictionary.com definition of statistics reeks. Statistics is sampling, and that's about it (Sampling gets very complicated, but that's all it boils down to). "The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data" is not *necessarily* statistics.
So any science without statistics is bad science, or at least reeks of it? Most physics only uses a small sample of peer-reviewed experiments. In fact, I would say that statistics has no necessary part in science. Statistics don't help determine law, which is what science is about. Statistics originated as an alternative to doing censuses for a large state. Science started as a method for understanding the laws of the universe. Over time, certain experiments were designed to use statistical methods, and statistics became a part of quantum physics, but there is no *necessity* of statistics in science, and it certainly doesn't make for *bad* science when it doesn't include statistics.
The theory is not based on statistics (even if it was, we don't have any data on the *formation* of the planets on our solar system), it's based on theoretical models of gas in space, etc. that happen to match up to given evidence (perhaps until now).
The question is, given the proposition that any thing 'much' bigger than Jupiter should form a star, why would something that meets that threshold not form a star?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know that surgery are not subjected to double-blind studies? Tested vs. untested is not black and white.
This could be cheaper than $15,000.
Don't you think with modern science and communications we could effectively quarantine the disease and stop the spread? I mena, part of the problem with the black plague was that they didn't know how it was spread (let alone germ theory), and even if a few people knew what to do, they didn't have the communications system and social structure to enforce a quarantine.
Are you sure that MS didn't make it difficult or impossible to access some hardware features without ad administrative account?
What macroevolution have we *observed*? We have deduced it from evidence, but what new species did we observe?
Citizen, the State thanks you for voluntarily reporting desecration of the flag. Please report to the nearest vaporization facility immediately.
Betavoltaics? I'll wait until this radioactive battery is more... stable.
iPod is not a fad. It has a history of beating cheaper portable mp3 players with more storage and battery life. What would Apple bring to the cellphone market table? Apple design. The Apple User Interface. That's why people buy Apple. The average non-geek hates electronic devices and doesn't want to learn another crappy interface. I've been disappointed with every cell phone interface I've encoutered recently, and so has everyone I've talked to. An Apple cell phone user-interface would be awesome.
OK, so what about an apple phone then?
Probably I will just let it sit, like I'm doing now, and do more productive things.
I consider myself fairly computer savvy. I have a box doing a software raid with 4x80GB drives. I had to migrate it to another machine when the old motherboard died. I set up RH 8 or 9. I still haven't gotten samba working to where I can access the machine from my windows machines. I tried setting up webmin to set up samba in turn, but webmin isn't running. Obviously I'm doing something wrong and I need to troubleshoot it (I've heard this a thousand times from my geek buddies), but I don't want to waste any more time on it. The machine would be running windows if I could do software raid on it.
Is that
"Johnny can not program."
"Johnny can so program!"
Or the more hip, modern "Johnny's a great hacker, he can *so* program."
?
OK, we can see how politicians who receive money from the oil companies could help them, but how do politicians who receive money from Hollywood types help Hollywood? By supporting free speech, subsidizing movies, or promoting theater and cinematography? C'mon. Democrats are not the party of big money.
How were the democrats the party of big business? Weren't they the party of labor unions?
Statistics is not mathematics. Cite one physics paper or experiment that use statistical reasoning -- confidence level, p number, etc.
Statistical Physics is a subset of physics. It only covers *a small part* of physics.
Neither statistics, nor math, nor physics is what *you say* it is.
Still think you're right? Then go fix the wikipedia article. Let's see how fast your changes are undone.
Statistical Physics is a subset of physics. It only covers *a small part* of physics.
Neither statistics, nor math, nor physics is what *you say* it is.
Still think you're right? Then go fix the wikipedia article. Let's see how fast your changes are undone.
Milliseconds before impact, the entire windshields and all the windows go blue.
Your dictionary definition sucks. Find a better dictionary, preferably one not on the internet. The first part of its defintion is actually just the definition of 'mathematics'. The second part of its definition is actually the definition of statistics in the modern sense, and in the sense that you used it.
You are saying that physics needs to use sampling to make valid science. I am saying that they've made it this far without it, and they don't need it now.
You dictionary.com definition of statistics reeks. Statistics is sampling, and that's about it (Sampling gets very complicated, but that's all it boils down to). "The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data" is not *necessarily* statistics.
So any science without statistics is bad science, or at least reeks of it? Most physics only uses a small sample of peer-reviewed experiments. In fact, I would say that statistics has no necessary part in science. Statistics don't help determine law, which is what science is about. Statistics originated as an alternative to doing censuses for a large state. Science started as a method for understanding the laws of the universe. Over time, certain experiments were designed to use statistical methods, and statistics became a part of quantum physics, but there is no *necessity* of statistics in science, and it certainly doesn't make for *bad* science when it doesn't include statistics.
Take an astronomy class. For whatever reason, good or bad, those guys don't use statistics.
The theory is not based on statistics (even if it was, we don't have any data on the *formation* of the planets on our solar system), it's based on theoretical models of gas in space, etc. that happen to match up to given evidence (perhaps until now).
The question is, given the proposition that any thing 'much' bigger than Jupiter should form a star, why would something that meets that threshold not form a star?
"Note I am a girl ...
"The other problem is Ford Prefect... is practically a non-entity and not especially funny when he does exist.
"I loved Zaphod though :)"
I am not suprised.