First, correlation: If A then B is more likely than if not A.
Then Causation: If first A then B, all the time.
It is pretty clear that these two statements do not have any implication. There is nothing in Correlation's definition at all about 'first', which determines whether A causes B or B causes A. In addition, it is clearly worded to avoid the definitive 'all the time' which is necessary for causation.
Basically, Causation causes Correlation, but not the other way around. It is exactly as likely to be reversed, and also possible it is a third cause, or even random correlation. If A correlates with B, then A might cause B, but B is just as likely to cause A, or both could be caused by C, or it could be random chance.
Saying that Correlation implies causation is like saying that living in a penthouse causes you to be wealthy. Yes most people that live in penthouses are wealthy, but not all. Some penthouses are in slums. And even so, the wealth causes the penthouse, not the other way around.
If it is legal and not unreasonably dangerous for a business to use an open wifi connection, then why can't I?
If I get incorporated, does that make it safe?
The only 'danger' you expose yourself to by keeping an open wifi is that a moronic lawyer claims it must have been you and decides to sue you for things you didn't do.
The proper response to that is to counter sue the lawyer and to educate the public, judges and jury that an IP address does not prove identity. I have the right to keep an open WIFI connection and if someone else uses it for bad purposes that does NOT expose me to any reasonable danger or risk.
People have the right to anonymity and that means government and lawyers do not have the right to intimidate people into making anonymity harder to obtain.
Hiring an employee is an incredible crapshoot. You are risking a LOT of money on them. You want every possible shot ant finding and weeding out the bad apples.
This is why corporations used to pull crap like not hiring women (afraid they would get pregnant and quit), etc. etc.
Corporations do not have the job of enforcing the law. If there is no clear law on something, they will push it to the edge.
That is if they just give me their word they would destroy it, I would say no.
Too many laws are written without stated punishments, which means that the government breaks the law without any consequences.
If they explicitly stated that if they failed to destroy my DNA records within 3 months, they would pay me me cash, I would do it. Probably for a minimum payment of $1,000 dollars.
No one objects to maintaining a warehouse to stabilize worldwide maple syrup production.
Similarly, it may be true that a car is in fact an "four-wheeled, internal combustion powered device for the transportation of people and light cargo".
But only a MORON would call it a four-wheeled, internal combustion powered device for the transportation of people and light cargo.
Intelligent people use short simple words, they don't make up laughably ridiculously over-important phrases to describe simple concepts.
IT IS A WAREHOUSE. In it, they keep maple syrup. Calling it the anything else is just moron trying to make it seem more important than it (and therefore his job) really is.
What idiot decided that their maple syrup warehouse should be called the "global strategic reserve for maple syrup", and what moronic reporter accepted their statement instead of rolling on the floor laughing at them?
Fact: Fingerprints are more reliable than DNA
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 1
Yes, believe it or not, fingerprints are far more reliable than DNA.
1) It is much harder to move a fingerprint to frame someone. Yes, you could unscrew a light switch from your framing target, and trade it with the dead guys, but that can be detected fairly easy. You can on the other hand, grab a hairbrush from a framing victim and remove some hairs and leave it at the dead guy's body. Not to mention that it is incredibly easy to copy DNA - that's what makes it the stuff of light..
2) Some people have the same DNA as other people (Twin) and some people have 2+ DNA in their own body (Chimera). There has not been a known case of two people having the same fingerprint and no finger can have more than one fingerprint.
3) They do a full scan of your fingerprints. The police only examine a tiny sub-section of your DNA. When they don't get the full fingerprint, they call it a "partial". All DNA is 'partial', but they don't tell the jury that - they imply that they test it all.
Most civilized countries are relatively happy to accept American citizens.
We aren't refugees, there aren't a huge number of us clamoring to get in, and most of us don't even think of leaving the country unless we are well educated and have some financial resources.
Now, if there were a huge disaster and millions of Americans, particularly poor Americans, were to pack and and try to move, that would be a different story.
That is, if you 'agree', then send a signed notice, will they drop you?
More importantly, can you 'agree', participate in an auction, then drop out and then join a class action suit for the one auction you participated in before you dropped out?
Actually Akin is sort of kind of right.
You see, when a woman is raped, the neurons in her brain can fire, causing her legs to take her to the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic. Then those same neurons can trigger her mouth to say "give me an abortion."
But that's the only way her body can 'shut that whole thing down'
You can read the rest of the blog here.
I have an old (if anything this new can be called 'old') nook that came with 3G. It has battery issues (batteries are always the first thing to go - invent a new one and rule the world).
But I still stick with it because I like the 3G. I would rather use my old one with the heavy case and light, then buy a new one without the 3G connection that weighs half as much and has the integral light/color.
If 54% think it's doing a 'good job', that means that 46% of Americans DON'T think it's doing a good job.
Fifty four percent is incredibly bad performance - it's a failure at a high school test.
What if I were to tell you that 55% of Americans think the IRS is doing a good job? It's certainly something I could believe - as the IRS audits less than 1% of Americans each year. Give something to compare it to. Otherwise, this is a puff article designed to make the TSA look good without any evidence WHATSOEVER.
If you don't already know it, you don't realize someone else does.
Most people learn it back in school then promptly forget it.
You can't measure how much people use things - those that remember it/learned it, will use it.
Those that don't remember it will take twenty times as long (or their software will take twenty times as long) to do the same thing, and think "I don't need math."
Every single room in a police station (aside from the bathrooms) and every single police car should be under constant surveillance, going directly to the Internal Affairs office, and is also recorded and retained for a minimum of 10 years.
If the video is not shown, then by law, the cops should not be allowed to testify about what they saw, heard, said, or did. I.e. it should be assumed that the cops destroyed the evidence to allow them to lie.
As I have said before (check my posts): Passwords are ways to keep the ignorant out, not the determined or skilled.
We need real security - which comes from an obvious list of last attempts to log in. That way we know when and where (IP address tells all), someone tried to log into our accounts. If we don't recognize the times and places, then we can act.
We certainly can't trust the websites themselves to protect us.
DC is run by Congress. Congress is very conservative recently. Yes, the city itself has a lot of liberals in it, but congress has direct control and can over-ride pretty much anything the mayor or other city officials try to do.
You are absolutely correct. He did in fact leave out the words "on record". If he had put that in, his statement would be right.
Of course, that means his point is still valid, even if sentence isn't. You on the other hand either have no point (was making a joke/just commenting about his gram error) or don't understand rather simple, obviously true concepts, such as IT'S HOTTER than any other time since human beings have recorded the temperature.
Since you can't argue with that basic fact, you can instead point out irrelevant, minute flaws in how people state the argument.
Like I said before, an intelligent 5 year old child can break into my window and climb in.
I am older than 5, and I'm pretty smart, so changing the lock doesn't do much. Maybe if they tried to get my title revoked, that would be a different thing.
But if you want an IT It's really not that hard to set up security to a) notify you of an attempt to change the lock immediately and b) ensure that the old password works for a period of 1 week after you changed it - as long as it came from any approved computer that you had used at least a month before changing the password.
That's just one way. There are lots of really good ways to prevent passwords being changed by anyone but the person that set it up - particularly if you don't demand a secure password. You could have the account send you an email and a snail mail letter with the new password (to all addresses listed as your current address within the past month.)
Slashdot Mirror
Now I have to come up with a new plan.
Then Causation: If first A then B, all the time.
It is pretty clear that these two statements do not have any implication. There is nothing in Correlation's definition at all about 'first', which determines whether A causes B or B causes A. In addition, it is clearly worded to avoid the definitive 'all the time' which is necessary for causation.
Basically, Causation causes Correlation, but not the other way around. It is exactly as likely to be reversed, and also possible it is a third cause, or even random correlation. If A correlates with B, then A might cause B, but B is just as likely to cause A, or both could be caused by C, or it could be random chance.
Saying that Correlation implies causation is like saying that living in a penthouse causes you to be wealthy. Yes most people that live in penthouses are wealthy, but not all. Some penthouses are in slums. And even so, the wealth causes the penthouse, not the other way around.
If it is legal and not unreasonably dangerous for a business to use an open wifi connection, then why can't I? If I get incorporated, does that make it safe? The only 'danger' you expose yourself to by keeping an open wifi is that a moronic lawyer claims it must have been you and decides to sue you for things you didn't do. The proper response to that is to counter sue the lawyer and to educate the public, judges and jury that an IP address does not prove identity. I have the right to keep an open WIFI connection and if someone else uses it for bad purposes that does NOT expose me to any reasonable danger or risk. People have the right to anonymity and that means government and lawyers do not have the right to intimidate people into making anonymity harder to obtain.
Hiring an employee is an incredible crapshoot. You are risking a LOT of money on them. You want every possible shot ant finding and weeding out the bad apples. This is why corporations used to pull crap like not hiring women (afraid they would get pregnant and quit), etc. etc. Corporations do not have the job of enforcing the law. If there is no clear law on something, they will push it to the edge.
You can have my password when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.
Too many laws are written without stated punishments, which means that the government breaks the law without any consequences.
If they explicitly stated that if they failed to destroy my DNA records within 3 months, they would pay me me cash, I would do it. Probably for a minimum payment of $1,000 dollars.
Similarly, it may be true that a car is in fact an "four-wheeled, internal combustion powered device for the transportation of people and light cargo".
But only a MORON would call it a four-wheeled, internal combustion powered device for the transportation of people and light cargo.
Intelligent people use short simple words, they don't make up laughably ridiculously over-important phrases to describe simple concepts.
IT IS A WAREHOUSE. In it, they keep maple syrup. Calling it the anything else is just moron trying to make it seem more important than it (and therefore his job) really is.
What idiot decided that their maple syrup warehouse should be called the "global strategic reserve for maple syrup", and what moronic reporter accepted their statement instead of rolling on the floor laughing at them?
1) It is much harder to move a fingerprint to frame someone. Yes, you could unscrew a light switch from your framing target, and trade it with the dead guys, but that can be detected fairly easy. You can on the other hand, grab a hairbrush from a framing victim and remove some hairs and leave it at the dead guy's body. Not to mention that it is incredibly easy to copy DNA - that's what makes it the stuff of light..
2) Some people have the same DNA as other people (Twin) and some people have 2+ DNA in their own body (Chimera). There has not been a known case of two people having the same fingerprint and no finger can have more than one fingerprint.
3) They do a full scan of your fingerprints. The police only examine a tiny sub-section of your DNA. When they don't get the full fingerprint, they call it a "partial". All DNA is 'partial', but they don't tell the jury that - they imply that they test it all.
So yes, DNA is not perfect.
You need to find someone to pick the right start-ups. Those people are rare, and unlikely to work for a city.
You need a pro-privacy, pro-free speach atmosphere, something that UK seriously lacks. (Cameras, libel laws, etc)
You need a good source of well educated people interested in science, not business.
You need a good place to live. Something that will attract smart people to live there besides the money. The UK is not sunny California.
Or of how exactly fit these kinds of robot aids need to be?
I know lots of cases where parents end up never using clothing bought for their kid because the kid outgrew them.
I'm betting that these medical aids are a tad more expensive than children's clothing.
Are we supposed to rent them?
We aren't refugees, there aren't a huge number of us clamoring to get in, and most of us don't even think of leaving the country unless we are well educated and have some financial resources.
Now, if there were a huge disaster and millions of Americans, particularly poor Americans, were to pack and and try to move, that would be a different story.
More importantly, can you 'agree', participate in an auction, then drop out and then join a class action suit for the one auction you participated in before you dropped out?
Actually Akin is sort of kind of right. You see, when a woman is raped, the neurons in her brain can fire, causing her legs to take her to the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic. Then those same neurons can trigger her mouth to say "give me an abortion." But that's the only way her body can 'shut that whole thing down' You can read the rest of the blog here.
You can't have it both ways - either it is so insignificant that you should let the other guy win on it, or it is significant.
But I still stick with it because I like the 3G. I would rather use my old one with the heavy case and light, then buy a new one without the 3G connection that weighs half as much and has the integral light/color.
There have been several that were known to be terrorists who, under a sting operation, the TSA were waiting for.
But there has not been a SINGLE confirmed terrorist that the TSA did not know was a terrorist the day before they showed up, that the TSA caught.
Of course, the TSA is a relatively new agency.
Fifty four percent is incredibly bad performance - it's a failure at a high school test.
What if I were to tell you that 55% of Americans think the IRS is doing a good job? It's certainly something I could believe - as the IRS audits less than 1% of Americans each year. Give something to compare it to. Otherwise, this is a puff article designed to make the TSA look good without any evidence WHATSOEVER.
If you don't already know it, you don't realize someone else does. Most people learn it back in school then promptly forget it. You can't measure how much people use things - those that remember it/learned it, will use it. Those that don't remember it will take twenty times as long (or their software will take twenty times as long) to do the same thing, and think "I don't need math."
If the video is not shown, then by law, the cops should not be allowed to testify about what they saw, heard, said, or did. I.e. it should be assumed that the cops destroyed the evidence to allow them to lie.
We need real security - which comes from an obvious list of last attempts to log in. That way we know when and where (IP address tells all), someone tried to log into our accounts. If we don't recognize the times and places, then we can act.
We certainly can't trust the websites themselves to protect us.
So you would be wrong.
Of course, that means his point is still valid, even if sentence isn't. You on the other hand either have no point (was making a joke/just commenting about his gram error) or don't understand rather simple, obviously true concepts, such as IT'S HOTTER than any other time since human beings have recorded the temperature.
Since you can't argue with that basic fact, you can instead point out irrelevant, minute flaws in how people state the argument.
What I have heard is a ton of conservative saying that government never solved anything. If you check what you wrote, soemthing pretty close is in it.
In other words, the claim you just made against the liberals? The opposite claim is what I hear from the conservatives.
Both are entirely ridiculous. Any sane person recognizes that if something always does bad, it gets replaced with something better.
You are clearly a hypocrite. People that live in glass houses have no business throwing stones - and you built a glass house with your post.
I am older than 5, and I'm pretty smart, so changing the lock doesn't do much. Maybe if they tried to get my title revoked, that would be a different thing.
But if you want an IT It's really not that hard to set up security to a) notify you of an attempt to change the lock immediately and b) ensure that the old password works for a period of 1 week after you changed it - as long as it came from any approved computer that you had used at least a month before changing the password.
That's just one way. There are lots of really good ways to prevent passwords being changed by anyone but the person that set it up - particularly if you don't demand a secure password. You could have the account send you an email and a snail mail letter with the new password (to all addresses listed as your current address within the past month.)