Actually, cyclists die from crush injuries sustained from large vehicles turning unexpectedly. In fairness to drivers, this is often due to bad cycling (as a central London bike commuter, I can attest to this daily).
That's kinda the point of democracy. No, we never know what our elected leaders will turn out like. But it's reassuring that we can vote them out when we catch up.
The world of Constitutional Law was rocked today by an anonymous posting on the well known geek website, Slashdot. In a few eloquent lines, an anonymous coward swept away centuries of misguided thought and ushered in a new era in constitutional thought. "I'm blown away," said Chief Justice Roberts. "My life has been wasted." Other members of the court could not be reached for comment.
Um...you rather missed my point. Once a company is on the stock market (via IPO), it does not raise further capital through the buying and selling of its shares.
Sorry, birthday paradox is a generic name for this kind of setup, after the famous factoid that if you have more than 22/23 people in a room then you have >50% chance of two birthdays matching. When talking about DNA matches, the number of people you need to get a 50% of finding a match scales up to about a stadium's worth, but it's the same underlying mathematics.
You're committing the birthday paradox error. If you take a stadium full of (say) football supporters, it's even money that two people in the stadium match. The odds that one of them matches (say) me or you, though, are still astronomical.
Also it's not impossible that forensics labs have heard of this science stuff and know a little bit about it. Just saying.
You clearly know nothing about double blind testing. Try this. The whole point of a trial is that you're testing somethng where you don't know if it works or if the effect is actually any better than placebo.
There is no such thing as aptitude. There is no such thing as talent. Repeat that until you get it through your head. There is such a thing as attitude, and maybe GP's approach is wrong, but the talent myth does far more damage than misplaced enthusiasm.
Your social cohort knows there their from their there. That doesn't mean that all Americans of your age do, or that if they do, they aren't lacking in something else that would in hindsight have been better for them to have.
Let's just leave them to die of unpleasant diseases. Oh good. What a super human being you are. Did it ever occur to you that there are links between these things? Like, you know, that healthier people are richer and thus have less children? Not that that's really the point. Also, that climate is where your ancestors evolved, so your first world superiority is perhaps a little misplaced. Just being realistic here.
Actually, that's not common sense at all. What would be common sense is that people who do the same thing get paid the same. Making someone jump through hoops to get equal treatment...wow.
USB doesn't supply enough power to run a 5.25" drive, but this might help, though it might be easier just to find an ancient functioning 286 and do it that way.
That's not a fact, that's an assumption. You assume there is an innate difference between men and women, as opposed to a massive culture gap which can be ascribed to historical factors.
Also, your hand waving fails to explain why there is a pay gap after controlling for confounding factors (which include working hours, career history, and the rest).
It's hugely sensitive to the underlying rate, because accidental death is a very small proportion of total mortality. It varies widely between population. You see figures quoted between 500-10,000 years, probably all reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you do a cost-benefit analysis, you can prove that people should wear helmets in cars.
Actually, cyclists die from crush injuries sustained from large vehicles turning unexpectedly. In fairness to drivers, this is often due to bad cycling (as a central London bike commuter, I can attest to this daily).
That's kinda the point of democracy. No, we never know what our elected leaders will turn out like. But it's reassuring that we can vote them out when we catch up.
I don't know for sure, being an ignorant European and all, but I have a suspicion that Supreme Court justices might have read those guys too.
The world of Constitutional Law was rocked today by an anonymous posting on the well known geek website, Slashdot. In a few eloquent lines, an anonymous coward swept away centuries of misguided thought and ushered in a new era in constitutional thought. "I'm blown away," said Chief Justice Roberts. "My life has been wasted." Other members of the court could not be reached for comment.
Yeah, I committed the cardinal sin of failing to read the fine article and din't actually realise this was one of the papers discussed.
You didn't want to learn it and you never applied yourself to learning it. It's hardly surprising that you then didn't learn it.
Um...you rather missed my point. Once a company is on the stock market (via IPO), it does not raise further capital through the buying and selling of its shares.
Citation: www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf
Companies don't raise capital on the stock market. Thanks for playing, though.
Sorry, birthday paradox is a generic name for this kind of setup, after the famous factoid that if you have more than 22/23 people in a room then you have >50% chance of two birthdays matching. When talking about DNA matches, the number of people you need to get a 50% of finding a match scales up to about a stadium's worth, but it's the same underlying mathematics.
Also it's not impossible that forensics labs have heard of this science stuff and know a little bit about it. Just saying.
Yes, but do you really want to broadcast your strategy quite that loudly?
Oh.
You clearly know nothing about double blind testing. Try this. The whole point of a trial is that you're testing somethng where you don't know if it works or if the effect is actually any better than placebo.
Read the damned research. This stupid belief that "I just can't do it" pervades society and it holds us all back.
So no, you're not in the clear with any confidence, though you are more likely than not.
There is no such thing as aptitude. There is no such thing as talent. Repeat that until you get it through your head. There is such a thing as attitude, and maybe GP's approach is wrong, but the talent myth does far more damage than misplaced enthusiasm.
tl;dr love data, bitches.
The drug testing regime we have was built incrementally to deal with flaws that existed in the previous setup. Remember Thalidomide?
Let's just leave them to die of unpleasant diseases. Oh good. What a super human being you are. Did it ever occur to you that there are links between these things? Like, you know, that healthier people are richer and thus have less children? Not that that's really the point. Also, that climate is where your ancestors evolved, so your first world superiority is perhaps a little misplaced. Just being realistic here.
Studies? Here you go.
USB doesn't supply enough power to run a 5.25" drive, but this might help, though it might be easier just to find an ancient functioning 286 and do it that way.
That's not a fact, that's an assumption. You assume there is an innate difference between men and women, as opposed to a massive culture gap which can be ascribed to historical factors.
Also, your hand waving fails to explain why there is a pay gap after controlling for confounding factors (which include working hours, career history, and the rest).
It's hugely sensitive to the underlying rate, because accidental death is a very small proportion of total mortality. It varies widely between population. You see figures quoted between 500-10,000 years, probably all reasonable.