"Science has no room for belief or denial." - Says the AC who's using pseudoscientific talking points to deny the results of a decade long scientific study published in Nature.
Guns are not the problem, culture is the problem. Every western nation defines health care as a right and gun ownership as a privilege, except the US who have it backwards. This is why the US is at then top of the list for gun violence and the bottom of the list for health care affordability and outcomes.
Where do people get this idea that company directors are bound by law to make as much profit as possible?
"Fiduciary responsibly" simply means telling the truth about company finances in a timely manner, it has nothing to do with the desire or otherwise to make a profit. The law is that the directors must do what the majority of shareholders want to do, if the shareholders vote to spend more money than they earn then that's what the directors are bound to do.
Glad you cleared that up. I would have thought the fact that they have a large number of retractions indicates their peer-review system is working, not failing. For comparison, how long did it take before Andrew Wakefield's "research" was retracted?
Did he teach him that by providing an example of what not to do?
Came here to say the same thing. Job's shunned the medical profession in favour of new age mumbo-jumbo, he basically killed himself with his own arrogance and hubris.
Came here to say the same thing. Anyone who thinks knowing a bit of math gives them the ability to become an instant expert on every technical subject is an arrogant fool.
Slashdot Mirror
When you hold all the cards you don't have to suffer fools, nor do you have to attack them. Simply ignoring them is always an option.
MS performance counters typically use 100NS timer tick.
"YOU have to show WHY it's immoral"
Really? You need to be told why enacting a policy of child abuse as a bargaining tool to extract money from congress is immoral?
"Science has no room for belief or denial." - Says the AC who's using pseudoscientific talking points to deny the results of a decade long scientific study published in Nature.
Program = Algorithm + Data. ~ Niklaus Wirth 1976.
What AI lacks is imagination, not intelligence.
Aussie here - Local media are reporting that South Australia's mega battery has reduced the state's grid maintenance costs by 90%
"innocent before proven guilty" is a British concept.
Nazi Germany was socialist in the same way the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is democratic.
Pro Tip : Read the summary.
What part is science denial?
"a decade of missing temp rises".
"Ecology... Nature is only model we have that has survived climate change with sheer, total, utter neglect..."
"The planet is fine, the people are fucked" ~ George Carlin.
The summary seems to suggest that results should be reproduced before a paper is published?
Guns are not the problem, culture is the problem. Every western nation defines health care as a right and gun ownership as a privilege, except the US who have it backwards. This is why the US is at then top of the list for gun violence and the bottom of the list for health care affordability and outcomes.
You're wasting your breath, losers will always tear others down to build themselves up, it's a defence mechanism that protects their ego.
Where do people get this idea that company directors are bound by law to make as much profit as possible? "Fiduciary responsibly" simply means telling the truth about company finances in a timely manner, it has nothing to do with the desire or otherwise to make a profit. The law is that the directors must do what the majority of shareholders want to do, if the shareholders vote to spend more money than they earn then that's what the directors are bound to do.
# - Name one case where that is true.
Property law.
Capitalism cannot exist without property laws.
The only people who can't see that left and right extremist are cut from the same cloth are left and right extremists.
Glad you cleared that up. I would have thought the fact that they have a large number of retractions indicates their peer-review system is working, not failing. For comparison, how long did it take before Andrew Wakefield's "research" was retracted?
Did he teach him that by providing an example of what not to do?
Came here to say the same thing. Job's shunned the medical profession in favour of new age mumbo-jumbo, he basically killed himself with his own arrogance and hubris.
Came here to say the same thing. Anyone who thinks knowing a bit of math gives them the ability to become an instant expert on every technical subject is an arrogant fool.
I hate to dampen anyone's outrage but it wasn't a secret, none of the data stolen was classified.
The most important detail is AWOL in this discussion - none of the data stolen was classified information.
Agree, lying to authorities and/or lying to consumers is a crime in the developed world, it has nothing to do with "free speech".