Wow. Great. So you've proven that even exact statistics can't predict the outcome of a single event.
Yes, not everyone not vaccacinated will get catch a disease, yes, there are possible side effects and not everyone vaccacinated is completly immune. Which is espescially obvious as you even mention the fast mutating flu as an example.
From here on, it's statistics and personal risk analysis. I, for example, am pro-vacc, but don't get flu shots. I'm in no risk group for flu complications, I'm in no risk group for catching the flu (office worker, hardly ever in a group of people), too lazy to make an appointment so I'm not taking the (small) risk of side effects for something that not even protects for a whole flu season. (due to the named high mutation rate)
On the other hand, I got all other recommended shots. 5 or 10 years protection from even nastier diseases is worth the small side-effects-risk. (To me)
That would be completly different if I was working as teacher, cashier or whatever.
I've got a WAIS 3 combined cognitive function test score of over 180 (that's all you need to know),
Guess that's combined 3 IQ tests with a result of 60 each...
Yes. If nature was simple. But it isn't, except for some commenters here.
It starts with that life is based on probabilities.
Probability of infection x Probability of outbreak
vaccaination lowers the probability of infection, but not to 0 as you might encounter a new strain of whatever. In return, being in a largely vaccacinated group, reduces the infection risk of unvaccacinated subjects, too.
Which means, that you have to create more of them. But I agree that you're right that the answer to this question depends on the characteristics of the panel.
But to harvest IR, isn't the most common design to create heat and steam from sunlight and run that through conventional turbines? But that may be a matter of scale. A quick Google search didn't bring up any wavelength efficiencies, so I'm mostly making educated guesses here.
1. Higher wavelengths have higher energy. So IR would be worse than visible light. 2. Bad luck 3. Could be configurable (or vary in differnt products based on this tech) Either a charching device with multiple beams, round robin or first come first served 4. Your phone gets a big entrance in the spotlight.
At least it seems they were testing against a wide range of "team problems". The intresting metric for the etical ones may have been how fast the team can agree on a common viewpoint, *espescially* if there isn't a right or wrong answer. And they included logical, organisational and creative tasks, too.
And if you want to have any relevance for real life teams, (instead of purely scientific) your experiment should be a crossection of tasks that mirror the daily life.
Walks like a taxi, quacks like a taxi, acts like a taxi, is paid like a taxi, it's a taxi.
Yes. Nothing wrong with it going through the same burdens as a taxi. But at the same time I hear that it should be banned like taxis are NOT. That's what doesn't make sense.
Obviously, since Uber has not the slightest willingness to stick to the laws, and couldn't possibly stick to the laws, because that would make it impossible to run their business at a profit.
Thank you for one more example of exactly this flawed reasoning: "Uber can't be sticking to the law because "that would make it impossible to run their business at a profit" Bit of tautologic, don't you think?
And may I present you every effing taxi as evidence A that it is possible to get even the most ridiciouus licence asked for anywehere in the world and still not operating at a loss? Should be clear that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a business concept of "charging amount X in exchange for the service of transporting people from A to B".
Go for the drivers who are violating local requirements for commercial transport because THAT is the only offense here. Go for anyone who forces drivers to violate laws, but you should have some evidence that Uber is doing this.
Australia has pretty clear guidelines and regulations for operating for hire service including commercial insurance and commercial drivers license. All Uber really have to do is comply with the laws to operate
And yet everyone and his dog is calling for Uber to be banned and NOT for Uber sticking to the laws. Which would be simpler and more in line with markets and fair competition. Calling for a ban and not even discussing if Uber drivers are licensced/insured according to the laws sounds like a FUD spin to me. Heck they make it even sound as if Uber would FORBID you to get proper insurance.
Somehow I'd still like to call BS on those stories.
There shouldn't be anything easier than catching and putting into jail a rapist driver if you have the (electronic) paper trail of who got into whose car, where was the ride booked, where was the destination. Aren't they automatically checking the GPS logs that the driver ist taking you from A to B on the shortest route? And I'd bet that Uper is checking meticulously that you're not cutting into Ubers share by booking only the first half of your ride by Uber and pay the driver cash for the rest of the trip.
So if you live in a country where rape is not normal and the police actively is trying to catch rapists, Uber should be safer than being anywhere else without GPS tracking. Sounds like cab company FUD to me.
Lots of sense in shutting the barn door after only half of your horses ran out. Probably still enough sense in shutting it, as long as more than one hrse is still in.
And DEFINITLY more sense in shutting it immedeatly and not wasting any time by counting horses first.
Which begs the question. Have we agreed on a definition for "intelligence"? The most agreeable definition I know was "it's what you can measure with your flavour of IQ test".
Add talent and sheer luck to every factor for academic and general success named in the summary.
You won't get far if one of them is missing. If you have a minimum of all these, that's probably 30% of success. The missing 70% can be provided by any of those factors. IMHO.
Are they afraid that the early information might give "bad guys' a leg up, or are they putting this off to buy themselves a few more days to decide which patches are least likely to cause problems?
I doubt that as the usual advance patch notes (and the patch notes themselves) were never more specific than a general "this patch fixes some errors" - specifically to avoid tipping of the bad guys.
My own impressions of 5.0 haven't been too good. The lockscreen doesn't give you the unlock input (eg: PIN) without pushing a button to ask for it, [...] This is the trend in tech - things become more colourful, flat and generally dumbed down. I don't mean dumbed down from a user knowledge point of view, I mean "UI designed in MS Paint" down.
On the other hand: the lock screen is now giving more information about waiting messages/notifications so that you need to do an actual unlock less often. And simple, brightly colored, large buttons aren't a bad thing either when you're in a mobile environment like a train.
After getting over the first shock, I kinda like the new look. (But might be a slight Google fanboiism, too, as I'm using their other products, too.)
The easiest way to guarantee that is NOT to provide any updates after launch and instead of "upgrades" start completly new lines of mobile OS. Remember? Windows CE, Windows Phone, Windows Mobile.... I have a GPS with CE lying in a drawer somewhere. It STILL has the most recent version of WinCE.
I had one of those wireless chargers on my desk, but that completly broke FM radio reception. (streaming is no option due to company security policies)
Slashdot Mirror
+1 common sense
Wow. Great. So you've proven that even exact statistics can't predict the outcome of a single event.
Yes, not everyone not vaccacinated will get catch a disease, yes, there are possible side effects and not everyone vaccacinated is completly immune. Which is espescially obvious as you even mention the fast mutating flu as an example.
From here on, it's statistics and personal risk analysis. I, for example, am pro-vacc, but don't get flu shots. I'm in no risk group for flu complications, I'm in no risk group for catching the flu (office worker, hardly ever in a group of people), too lazy to make an appointment so I'm not taking the (small) risk of side effects for something that not even protects for a whole flu season. (due to the named high mutation rate)
On the other hand, I got all other recommended shots. 5 or 10 years protection from even nastier diseases is worth the small side-effects-risk. (To me)
That would be completly different if I was working as teacher, cashier or whatever.
I've got a WAIS 3 combined cognitive function test score of over 180 (that's all you need to know),
Guess that's combined 3 IQ tests with a result of 60 each...
Yes. If nature was simple. But it isn't, except for some commenters here.
It starts with that life is based on probabilities.
Probability of infection x Probability of outbreak
vaccaination lowers the probability of infection, but not to 0 as you might encounter a new strain of whatever. In return, being in a largely vaccacinated group, reduces the infection risk of unvaccacinated subjects, too.
Rule of thumb: It's not a free choice, if there is a big "or else...." attached.
Which means, that you have to create more of them. But I agree that you're right that the answer to this question depends on the characteristics of the panel.
But to harvest IR, isn't the most common design to create heat and steam from sunlight and run that through conventional turbines? But that may be a matter of scale. A quick Google search didn't bring up any wavelength efficiencies, so I'm mostly making educated guesses here.
1. Higher wavelengths have higher energy. So IR would be worse than visible light.
2. Bad luck
3. Could be configurable (or vary in differnt products based on this tech) Either a charching device with multiple beams, round robin or first come first served
4. Your phone gets a big entrance in the spotlight.
At least it seems they were testing against a wide range of "team problems". The intresting metric for the etical ones may have been how fast the team can agree on a common viewpoint, *espescially* if there isn't a right or wrong answer. And they included logical, organisational and creative tasks, too.
And if you want to have any relevance for real life teams, (instead of purely scientific) your experiment should be a crossection of tasks that mirror the daily life.
Walks like a taxi, quacks like a taxi, acts like a taxi, is paid like a taxi, it's a taxi.
Yes. Nothing wrong with it going through the same burdens as a taxi. But at the same time I hear that it should be banned like taxis are NOT. That's what doesn't make sense.
Obviously, since Uber has not the slightest willingness to stick to the laws, and couldn't possibly stick to the laws, because that would make it impossible to run their business at a profit.
Thank you for one more example of exactly this flawed reasoning: "Uber can't be sticking to the law because "that would make it impossible to run their business at a profit" Bit of tautologic, don't you think?
And may I present you every effing taxi as evidence A that it is possible to get even the most ridiciouus licence asked for anywehere in the world and still not operating at a loss? Should be clear that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a business concept of "charging amount X in exchange for the service of transporting people from A to B".
Go for the drivers who are violating local requirements for commercial transport because THAT is the only offense here. Go for anyone who forces drivers to violate laws, but you should have some evidence that Uber is doing this.
yes, if it was a taxi, then it would be a taxi....
Australia has pretty clear guidelines and regulations for operating for hire service including commercial insurance and commercial drivers license. All Uber really have to do is comply with the laws to operate
And yet everyone and his dog is calling for Uber to be banned and NOT for Uber sticking to the laws. Which would be simpler and more in line with markets and fair competition. Calling for a ban and not even discussing if Uber drivers are licensced/insured according to the laws sounds like a FUD spin to me. Heck they make it even sound as if Uber would FORBID you to get proper insurance.
Somehow I'd still like to call BS on those stories.
There shouldn't be anything easier than catching and putting into jail a rapist driver if you have the (electronic) paper trail of who got into whose car, where was the ride booked, where was the destination. Aren't they automatically checking the GPS logs that the driver ist taking you from A to B on the shortest route? And I'd bet that Uper is checking meticulously that you're not cutting into Ubers share by booking only the first half of your ride by Uber and pay the driver cash for the rest of the trip.
So if you live in a country where rape is not normal and the police actively is trying to catch rapists, Uber should be safer than being anywhere else without GPS tracking. Sounds like cab company FUD to me.
provide anyone with a fake backstory first.
Fun and teambuilding for the whole office crew and training in deductive thinking and the general process of securing evidence for the IT crew.
Lots of sense in shutting the barn door after only half of your horses ran out. Probably still enough sense in shutting it, as long as more than one hrse is still in.
And DEFINITLY more sense in shutting it immedeatly and not wasting any time by counting horses first.
everyone who ever had to give estimations for some software development task will be able to confirm that.
Which begs the question. Have we agreed on a definition for "intelligence"? The most agreeable definition I know was "it's what you can measure with your flavour of IQ test".
Add talent and sheer luck to every factor for academic and general success named in the summary.
You won't get far if one of them is missing. If you have a minimum of all these, that's probably 30% of success. The missing 70% can be provided by any of those factors. IMHO.
Are they afraid that the early information might give "bad guys' a leg up, or are they putting this off to buy themselves a few more days to decide which patches are least likely to cause problems?
I doubt that as the usual advance patch notes (and the patch notes themselves) were never more specific than a general "this patch fixes some errors" - specifically to avoid tipping of the bad guys.
My own impressions of 5.0 haven't been too good. The lockscreen doesn't give you the unlock input (eg: PIN) without pushing a button to ask for it, [...] This is the trend in tech - things become more colourful, flat and generally dumbed down. I don't mean dumbed down from a user knowledge point of view, I mean "UI designed in MS Paint" down.
On the other hand: the lock screen is now giving more information about waiting messages/notifications so that you need to do an actual unlock less often. And simple, brightly colored, large buttons aren't a bad thing either when you're in a mobile environment like a train.
After getting over the first shock, I kinda like the new look. (But might be a slight Google fanboiism, too, as I'm using their other products, too.)
I bought my Nexus4 specifically as it is NOT tied to a carrier.
The easiest way to guarantee that is NOT to provide any updates after launch and instead of "upgrades" start completly new lines of mobile OS. Remember? Windows CE, Windows Phone, Windows Mobile.... I have a GPS with CE lying in a drawer somewhere. It STILL has the most recent version of WinCE.
Same thing for the light snack or entertainment. I don't have to pay for it. Or I can bring my own candy bar.
But good luck bringing your own soda.
I had those effects with both a (I guess also cheap chinese) qi-compliant and a high-end apple mouse charger.
I had one of those wireless chargers on my desk, but that completly broke FM radio reception. (streaming is no option due to company security policies)
23:59:60 is well defined for decades and shouldn't be unexpected to anyone.