That's not what "smoking ban" means, it's not the kind that gets all the press it's been getting and it's not the kind that gets comments like the G(whatever)PP. I _live_ in a county with a smoking ban and there _are_ no "closed off areas with dedicated air".
A couple hundred years? What smoker that will be alive a couple hundred years from now was alive to "abuse" non-smokers a couple hundred years ago
yeah - but (if we assume there aren't other influences like paranoia), the probability of an accident happening tomorrow, though quite small, is no less if there was or is not an accident yesterday. That is, the laws of probability themselves don't cause any difference (casinos love people who think they do, they tend to be real suckers at the roulette table).
Which one is losing rights? The person that expects to go out in public and TASTE the meal they paid for or the smoker who is asked to step into a smoking area so as to not abuse other's rights?
How about the smoker who wants to step into a smoking area but has had it taken away by the government? I can't believe you even brought up the term "smoking area" in defense of the idea of a ban. Aren't you even paying attention? Dumb@$$.
As I said, I have been using Writely for several months. It was recently acquired by Google and they closed registration of new users. It appears that they have opened up registration,
Site still says it's closed, and I never got the email I signed up for - what indication did you have that makes you think they opened it up.
The probability of getting 100 heads in a row is the same as that of getting 99 heads and then a tail. or of getting 5 heads, followed by 3 tails, followed by 2 heads, followed by 18 tails, followed by 3 heads, followed by 7 tails, etc for a total of 100 tosses.
The probability of future events isn't influenced by past events unless there are forces outside the laws of probability themselves (like the guy getting extra paranoid in the example we're already two analogies away from) that cause it.
The probability of the same incident happening again is still Z. The other Z already happened, so the probability, after the fact, of the first incident having happened is now 1. (Certainly it has been a while, since you cited the gambler's fallacy as a serious theory)
In other words: If you flip a coin and it lands on heads, the probability of it landing heads again when you flip it a second time is.25, right? wrong.
Actually, in my neighborhood, they sent around an officer to advise people on how to save money on their insurance, pointing out stuff like window security, deadbolt strength, just general stuff. Things you wouldn't necessarily think of.
No-one's saying that having overhead powerlines is good for the economy - just that it's good for the people who are deciding what kind of powerlines to have.
His belief about the meaning didn't even pass the laugh test, so I didn't feel the need to cite a better source than Wikipedia.
And I don't see why "one cannot allege a murderer" - sure, that particular construction is grammatically laughable, but one can allege that someone is a murderer, they would then be "the alleged murderer."
The idea that a crime is not "alleged" until someone has been convicted of it is so ridiculous that, even if I'm wrong, he's not right.
It's _leaving out_ "alleged" that requires that there have been a conviction (or some other sort of thing, depending on what the allegation is actually of).
Now, if a complaint hasn't actually been filed against the person in question, it's possible that there has not technically been an allegation. But you don't know that, since you've been operating under the assumption "If they're not convicted, it's not 'alleged'"
There are plenty of mistakes that _did_ become permanent, though. Time will tell, of course, whether "hacker" will become one of them, but see internecine. hacker may also be instructive.
Except for the fact that the artwork for the Firefox logo isn't released under a free copyright license either. That's why Debian only uses a globe for the icon in their release of firefox
One problem is that there are some liars who claim their code is open source just because you can see it, while still violating nearly every point of the definition (points 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, and some of the rest are made ineffective by these violations. it used to also violate 5 by discriminating against the US government, military, and all employees thereof - that's been changed without noting it.) This is a source of some confusion.
False. Open Source means the same as Free Software, it's just a marketing term to avoid confusing the suits since they might otherwise think "free" means "costs no money".
Slashdot Mirror
That's not what "smoking ban" means, it's not the kind that gets all the press it's been getting and it's not the kind that gets comments like the G(whatever)PP. I _live_ in a county with a smoking ban and there _are_ no "closed off areas with dedicated air".
A couple hundred years? What smoker that will be alive a couple hundred years from now was alive to "abuse" non-smokers a couple hundred years ago
Note: I don't smoke. Never have, never will.
yeah - but (if we assume there aren't other influences like paranoia), the probability of an accident happening tomorrow, though quite small, is no less if there was or is not an accident yesterday. That is, the laws of probability themselves don't cause any difference (casinos love people who think they do, they tend to be real suckers at the roulette table).
Which one is losing rights? The person that expects to go out in public and TASTE the meal they paid for or the smoker who is asked to step into a smoking area so as to not abuse other's rights?
How about the smoker who wants to step into a smoking area but has had it taken away by the government? I can't believe you even brought up the term "smoking area" in defense of the idea of a ban. Aren't you even paying attention? Dumb@$$.
As I said, I have been using Writely for several months. It was recently acquired by Google and they closed registration of new users. It appears that they have opened up registration,
Site still says it's closed, and I never got the email I signed up for - what indication did you have that makes you think they opened it up.
The probability of getting 100 heads in a row is the same as that of getting 99 heads and then a tail. or of getting 5 heads, followed by 3 tails, followed by 2 heads, followed by 18 tails, followed by 3 heads, followed by 7 tails, etc for a total of 100 tosses.
The probability of future events isn't influenced by past events unless there are forces outside the laws of probability themselves (like the guy getting extra paranoid in the example we're already two analogies away from) that cause it.
The probability of the same incident happening again is still Z. The other Z already happened, so the probability, after the fact, of the first incident having happened is now 1. (Certainly it has been a while, since you cited the gambler's fallacy as a serious theory)
.25, right? wrong.
In other words:
If you flip a coin and it lands on heads, the probability of it landing heads again when you flip it a second time is
Actually, in my neighborhood, they sent around an officer to advise people on how to save money on their insurance, pointing out stuff like window security, deadbolt strength, just general stuff. Things you wouldn't necessarily think of.
Sure those were cops?
Yeah, but the laws of probability aren't what actually makes it safer - the first was just as unlikely as the second.
What makes it safer, both in this case, and maybe also with airlines, is the guy getting extra paranoid after there's been an accident.
No-one's saying that having overhead powerlines is good for the economy - just that it's good for the people who are deciding what kind of powerlines to have.
Who uses floppies anymore? USB hard drives at least aren't "bare" magnetic media - it seems to me they'd be a lot less likely to be affected.
But the problem is, he has the meaning exactly backwards.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegation
http://www.answers.com/allegation
His belief about the meaning didn't even pass the laugh test, so I didn't feel the need to cite a better source than Wikipedia.
And I don't see why "one cannot allege a murderer" - sure, that particular construction is grammatically laughable, but one can allege that someone is a murderer, they would then be "the alleged murderer."
The idea that a crime is not "alleged" until someone has been convicted of it is so ridiculous that, even if I'm wrong, he's not right.
Even with such a policy, the shill would only need two accounts to get you within two increments of your maximum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail (see the 'broader definition' part).
Note for example that the word "alleged" has a critical and specific meaning in law, that someone has been convicted of a crime.
You fail.
It's _leaving out_ "alleged" that requires that there have been a conviction (or some other sort of thing, depending on what the allegation is actually of).
Now, if a complaint hasn't actually been filed against the person in question, it's possible that there has not technically been an allegation. But you don't know that, since you've been operating under the assumption "If they're not convicted, it's not 'alleged'"
Heh. My password that I was (still) using for nickserv was _already_ compromised from a break-in at purdue over a year ago.
There are plenty of mistakes that _did_ become permanent, though. Time will tell, of course, whether "hacker" will become one of them, but see internecine. hacker may also be instructive.
except a lot more people could be tapping the wire than just the government.
Connect to the Canadian PSTN, then. It's all in the same numbering area, right, so it's just long distance?
Except for the fact that the artwork for the Firefox logo isn't released under a free copyright license either. That's why Debian only uses a globe for the icon in their release of firefox
Yeah, but the phone book doesn't contain a correlation with "likely to be a pirate".
No - to "might as well figure out how much top margin is needed" you also need the height of the viewport.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
One problem is that there are some liars who claim their code is open source just because you can see it, while still violating nearly every point of the definition (points 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, and some of the rest are made ineffective by these violations. it used to also violate 5 by discriminating against the US government, military, and all employees thereof - that's been changed without noting it.) This is a source of some confusion.
If someone makes a proprietary fork of a BSD-licensed program, what freedom have they taken away from me?
False. Open Source means the same as Free Software, it's just a marketing term to avoid confusing the suits since they might otherwise think "free" means "costs no money".