Third faction: mathematicians. People who know the odds are too low to swing a state election to bother with voting. Their personal political views are irrelevant.
First of all, the bacon analogy doesn't work. The risks of bacon causing heart attacks is not even a tangible figure, not to mention that most nutritional science is already on shaky ground.
As to your second point, sure ideological rhetoric convinces a lot of people that voting is worth their time. Some feel they have an obligation, and others get a sense of satisfaction from voting. My point is that the odds of a state election being decided by one vote is too minimal to consider if you're doing what is in your best interests
Ironically, the reason people vote is to fulfill their interests on some level. Whether they want access to better healthcare or want to pay less on their student loans. Everyone votes for a reason. If you play the odds and don't vote, you are saving your time and money. You are guaranteed to get you want!
Nerds should be able to estimate the voter turnout in their state here and calculate the probability that their one vote will swing the election in that state. Obviously the closeness of the race plays a huge role too, but there's no way to know how close the race is until after the elections (margin of error is +/- 3%, and the race will be won by less than 3%).
If you've done all this, you will see that the chance of your vote making a difference is extremely remote. Your entire trip to the voting booth is wasted. You're giving away time and money for nothing.
If tons of people stop voting and a single vote becomes meaningful, then it will be time to start voting again.
The difference in price fluctuations in cars are based on the cost of their respective components. Not so for Apple vs PCs. Some people pay a premium for luxury cars, but Apples are not more luxurious than regular PCs. Apple uses the same hardware as ordinary PCs, making the wise consumer stray away from them. Windows and OS X are free for end users, so that cost is moot.
I think it has to do with Apple hardware being really overpriced. A lot of us want to get use OS X, but no one wants to pay that much for their hardware (which is usually sub top-of-the-line). Apple isn't an option for sensible consumers. I mean, kudos to them for marketing their products well enough to make a profit.. but it's clear why computer enthusiasts don't like them.
It's not the volume that is important, but it's the surface area. The more surface area you have, the more neurons. A smaller brain can have more surface area than a larger brain, but on average the larger will have more.
Your last point is an issue of conventions. It's not that Pluto doesn't fall into the Category of planets (that's just self-indulgent metaphysics), but rather scientists don't want to classify Pluto as a planet for their purposes.
1. Macs run Windows now.
2. The cost of porting the game (and subsequent updates) to Mac probably costs more than the sales they would get from Mac customers. Mythic is a business too.
3. Get a PC with Windows on it. It's cheaper than a Mac and you can run most recent games!
I don't know what sense of 'open' you're talking about, but the one used by the industry for 10+ years has been something ~= 'anyone can get in'. In 'closed' beta only a small percentage are invited in, maybe 1%-5%.
You're not paying to test. It's just an added bonus if you want to pre-order the game.
Besides, why should they let you use their servers, paid employees, and the game they spent millions to develop so that you can play for free? People that like MMOs, hate WOW, or simply have the time will play already know what to expect. If you really don't know, there's plenty of gameplay trailers out there already.
You are allowed to compete if you're 15 as long as your 16th birthday is in the Olympic year. I don't know why there is a minimum age, but when one country breaks the rule they gain the advantage, especially in gymnastics. Lack of hips and weighing light as a feather helped all the Chinese gymnasts.. If it was possible for the U.S. to use such tiny athletes, maybe we would have done better too.
Most of the girls on the Chinese team don't look like they've finished puberty - childish faces, no hips, scrawny. Even for Chinese, these athletes would be extreme cases if they were even close to their 'official' age. Cheng Fei is the only one that does.
I can't wait to see what they look like in 3 or 4 years.. I guarantee they will all be taller, heavier, and curvier.
Science doesn't have anything to say about the existence of anything, since existence claims are merely rules for the applicability of certain terms. You may call them 'entities' if you're doing metaphysics or other mumbo-jumbo. Nonetheless, unqualified existence claims are pure nonsense.
They might make sense in a language with fixed rules, but no natural language works this way.
What constitutes abuse is relative to an individual's desires and interests, but what constitutes legality is not. Please recognize the distinction. Thank you.
Those terms are interchangeable in most contexts. Hypothesis is usually thought of as one sentence whereas a theory can include a set of sentences and a number of background assumptions. The distinction you're appealing to is one often found in popular science, especially regarding evolution ("Evolution is just a theory"), but if you really want to maintain the distinction, then you are committed to calling failed scientific theories (ether, phlogiston, etc) mere 'hypotheses', when in fact they were held by nearly everyone practicing science.
Remember when people said Intel macs would be cheaper? Well they aren't. Similarly spec'd Dell laptops are around 35% cheaper than the Mac alternative. Even if I love macs, that's way too expensive to justify.
Open the image and Photoshop. Use the rubber stamp tool to remove some 'imaginary' seams. It is pretty easy to replicate the mistake and easy to understand how it could be made. The Chinese scientists should have verified their findings with the original un-stitched images before taking it to the press.
Given that we all have different mental capacities, this psychologist seems to offer an account of how ignorant minds work, and it's not particularly revelatory.
Science is an old boys' club: break the social taboos and you'll be shunned -- a process otherwise known as peer review. If you think that science is a dry, dispassionate, truth-finding machine (rather than a thoroughly human, political, and perception-driven process) then I can only assume you've never submitted a research paper through a review process. Science is a body of knowledge and a process to learn new theories or to modify existing ones. The most widely accepted theories usually offer the most in terms of explanation and prediction. Simply because there is a subjective element to publishing in groundbreaking science doesn't mean scientists are accepting these theories, especially when they offer nothing new to explain or predict.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that some sort of supernatural being did, in fact, create the natural world using a supernatural process (by which I mean that it flagrantly violated known laws of physics, such as mass/energy conservation). Does this not leave the whole process of naturalistic science as one of pursuing falsehoods? The true explanation (a supernatural creator) is ruled out a priori by the method of investigation. The method of investigation of science (and all human knowledge generally) relies on meaningful concepts and observable phenomena. This starting point is at least verified by our experience. What justification is there to presuppose anything beyond things observable and meaningful concepts?
Given the importance of falsification to scientific theory, would you not agree that "anti-evolutionists" provide a vital service to science, even if they have no alternative theory? Every field needs its sceptics, devil's advocates, and foils. Why aren't we encouraging attempts to find weaknesses in the theory of evolution? Anti-evolutionists provide the same service to biology as astrologers provide to astronomy. Horoscopes, creationism, and intelligent design are not even at the theory stage yet--they offer nothing explanatorily or predictively to science. In order for an alternative theory to even be considered for science, it should fulfill at least some of the accepted demarcation criteria if we are to have any confidence about its truth or empirical adequacy.
The 1000% profit from higher-end server and Xtreem gaming CPUs go toward research and development. This is good because eventually those CPUs will be priced at the consumer level. I don't see how else Intel could afford to keep developing new architectures.
Slashdot Mirror
Third faction: mathematicians. People who know the odds are too low to swing a state election to bother with voting. Their personal political views are irrelevant.
First of all, the bacon analogy doesn't work. The risks of bacon causing heart attacks is not even a tangible figure, not to mention that most nutritional science is already on shaky ground.
As to your second point, sure ideological rhetoric convinces a lot of people that voting is worth their time. Some feel they have an obligation, and others get a sense of satisfaction from voting. My point is that the odds of a state election being decided by one vote is too minimal to consider if you're doing what is in your best interests
Ironically, the reason people vote is to fulfill their interests on some level. Whether they want access to better healthcare or want to pay less on their student loans. Everyone votes for a reason. If you play the odds and don't vote, you are saving your time and money. You are guaranteed to get you want!
Nerds should be able to estimate the voter turnout in their state here and calculate the probability that their one vote will swing the election in that state. Obviously the closeness of the race plays a huge role too, but there's no way to know how close the race is until after the elections (margin of error is +/- 3%, and the race will be won by less than 3%).
If you've done all this, you will see that the chance of your vote making a difference is extremely remote. Your entire trip to the voting booth is wasted. You're giving away time and money for nothing.
If tons of people stop voting and a single vote becomes meaningful, then it will be time to start voting again.
Bottom line, stop bitching and man up
Nice prescription. I see why you posted AC.
I think it has to do with Apple hardware being really overpriced. A lot of us want to get use OS X, but no one wants to pay that much for their hardware (which is usually sub top-of-the-line). Apple isn't an option for sensible consumers. I mean, kudos to them for marketing their products well enough to make a profit.. but it's clear why computer enthusiasts don't like them.
It's not the volume that is important, but it's the surface area. The more surface area you have, the more neurons. A smaller brain can have more surface area than a larger brain, but on average the larger will have more.
Your last point is an issue of conventions. It's not that Pluto doesn't fall into the Category of planets (that's just self-indulgent metaphysics), but rather scientists don't want to classify Pluto as a planet for their purposes.
In English that's just one sense of 'investment'. The other is the one we use for making large purchases.
The title follows the conventions of use in English. It won't confuse any native speaker.
Just as films can get "good reviews" and "bad reviews", a video game can get "mediocre reviews".
I don't know if the demographics from WoW will necessarily predict the outcome for WAR, simply because its a more PvP oriented game.
1. Macs run Windows now. 2. The cost of porting the game (and subsequent updates) to Mac probably costs more than the sales they would get from Mac customers. Mythic is a business too. 3. Get a PC with Windows on it. It's cheaper than a Mac and you can run most recent games!
I don't know what sense of 'open' you're talking about, but the one used by the industry for 10+ years has been something ~= 'anyone can get in'. In 'closed' beta only a small percentage are invited in, maybe 1%-5%.
Besides, why should they let you use their servers, paid employees, and the game they spent millions to develop so that you can play for free? People that like MMOs, hate WOW, or simply have the time will play already know what to expect. If you really don't know, there's plenty of gameplay trailers out there already.
You are allowed to compete if you're 15 as long as your 16th birthday is in the Olympic year. I don't know why there is a minimum age, but when one country breaks the rule they gain the advantage, especially in gymnastics. Lack of hips and weighing light as a feather helped all the Chinese gymnasts.. If it was possible for the U.S. to use such tiny athletes, maybe we would have done better too.
Most of the girls on the Chinese team don't look like they've finished puberty - childish faces, no hips, scrawny. Even for Chinese, these athletes would be extreme cases if they were even close to their 'official' age. Cheng Fei is the only one that does. I can't wait to see what they look like in 3 or 4 years.. I guarantee they will all be taller, heavier, and curvier.
Science doesn't have anything to say about the existence of anything, since existence claims are merely rules for the applicability of certain terms. You may call them 'entities' if you're doing metaphysics or other mumbo-jumbo. Nonetheless, unqualified existence claims are pure nonsense. They might make sense in a language with fixed rules, but no natural language works this way.
Yea, I think this site assumes that 10+ years is enough time to learn some of the basic HTML tags.
The content of your post has little to do with mine. Did you click the wrong post to reply to?
What constitutes abuse is relative to an individual's desires and interests, but what constitutes legality is not. Please recognize the distinction. Thank you.
Those terms are interchangeable in most contexts. Hypothesis is usually thought of as one sentence whereas a theory can include a set of sentences and a number of background assumptions. The distinction you're appealing to is one often found in popular science, especially regarding evolution ("Evolution is just a theory"), but if you really want to maintain the distinction, then you are committed to calling failed scientific theories (ether, phlogiston, etc) mere 'hypotheses', when in fact they were held by nearly everyone practicing science.
Remember when people said Intel macs would be cheaper? Well they aren't. Similarly spec'd Dell laptops are around 35% cheaper than the Mac alternative. Even if I love macs, that's way too expensive to justify.
Open the image and Photoshop. Use the rubber stamp tool to remove some 'imaginary' seams. It is pretty easy to replicate the mistake and easy to understand how it could be made. The Chinese scientists should have verified their findings with the original un-stitched images before taking it to the press.
Given that we all have different mental capacities, this psychologist seems to offer an account of how ignorant minds work, and it's not particularly revelatory.
The 1000% profit from higher-end server and Xtreem gaming CPUs go toward research and development. This is good because eventually those CPUs will be priced at the consumer level. I don't see how else Intel could afford to keep developing new architectures.