If causation is not correlation, then what is causation? Can you give me an example of causation that isn't merely correlation?
Cigarette smoke causes lung cancer? Where's the causation apart from correlation there? Smoke goes in habitually and cancer forms. They are just correlated. Or you can say that the smoke molecules cause the disruption of molecules in the cells. But where's the causation apart from correlation there? The smoke molecules enter in proximity to the cell molecules and then the cells molecules are changed. That's just correlation. Or you can say that those molecules are caused to do that because of electromagnetism. But where's the causation apart from correlation there? Opposite charges attract and similar charges repel. What causes that? That's just correlation.
"the people working on the projects aren't obliged to do anything either"
What if I'm using the software to run a heart bypass machine and it is malfunctioning and if the project would support me then I could save this person's life. But if they don't help me then the person will die. All they have to do is send me one email back with a one line answer to a question. They don't have an obligation to do this to help this person live? If someone is dying isn't there some amount of effort that people who can help are obliged to do? And if they are obliged to help this person live then it can't be true that they "aren't obliged to do anything" as you said.
I think it's supposed to be the use of the transitive verb "disappear." Because quite literally the judges disappeared the celebrities from those search results -- no mobster euphemism for killing there.
Hume said that causation was a correlation, that of constant conjunction. So if playing video games was always correlated with an encrease in violence after playing the video games, then we wou'd say that the video games caus'd the encreased aggression. In the say way we say that hitting a billiard ball with the cue ball causes the billiard ball to move: we never perceive any force in the hitting by virtue of which the billiard ball moves, we only perceive that it does move, and that this arrangement is constant in reproductions.
You have to mention a species he might not actually want to help save. I don't think he'd mind helping you save wheat. I'm pretty sure by buying some wheat product he ever-so-slightly increases the demand for wheat thereby causing more of it to be sown by farmers. I'm sure he's not adverse to buying some dinner rolls. What he's saying is that any species that requires particular effort to save has no established benefit to him.
I'll just end this here and take LobsterThermidorACrevetteWithAMornaySauceServedInAProvencaleManner- WithShallotsAndAuberginesGarnishedWithTrufflePateBrandyAndWithAFriedEggOnTopAnd.spam
I think the idea is that resources are scarce and so if high-risk people are denied coverage more people can be treated because resources can cover more if they're not being spent on people who require expensive treatment. So it's sort of a utilitarian argument. Say there are three people and two indivisble pills for headaches. One guy is incapacitated with such a headache that he needs the two pills to get rid of his headache, and two of the people are incapacitated in the same way as the first guy with such headaches that they need one each to get rid of their headaches. The idea is that that you give the two pills to the guys who only need one pill each, because then you have two healthy people rather than one.
The further idea is that although there are inefficiencies and deficiencies with the market distribution method, the alternatives are worse.
Wishful thinking to imagine that if the Liberal, NDP and Green parties amalgamated that they would receive the sum of their votes separated. For example, some people who would vote Liberal would then vote Conservative or Bloc. And some people who would vote NDP would then vote Bloc or Marxist-Leninist or some other socialist party. Etc.
Eno and Byrne had a song called with Quran verses in the 80's and they were told by some imam that it was blasphemy to put the words of god to "grooves" (Byrne's word I think), so they took the song off the album.
How do you put them in a pseudo time-out without using force if they don't want to go into this state?
What "host of other punishments"?
If the kid doesn't want to do what you want him to do - no matter what - and you can't use force, how can you get him to do what you want him to do?
Send him to his room? He won't go. Tell him to go more angrily? He still won't go. Tell him to go or won't get any treats for some time? He still won't go. What's your solution?
In fact, if the kid really doesn't want to listen, there is no solution. The child essentially controls the parent: because the parent has legal responsibility to feed and shelter and protect the child, yet the child has no legal responsbility, and has only legal protection. You could even threaten to spank him and then proceed to do it if he doesn't listen (if your jurisdiction allows), but spanking doesn't hurt very much and he can keep on being bad even if it did hurt, because the spanking certainly doesn't incapacitate him, and no juridiction except perhaps some Islamic ones (I don't know, just a guess) let a parent truly incapacitate a child. (Throuhgout at least some of the Roman Republic, the head of the household, the pater familias, had total power over other members of the household like the children. He could legally abandon them in the woods to die.)
Here some of the things that are common suggestions from Slashdot:
1. Just tell your kids, "No."
2. Video games, TV, these things are privileges that they have to earn.
3. Discipline them if they don't listen.
How can I tell my kids no? When they go to their mom's house and simply tell her that Dad didn't do it/buy it for them, and then, always trying to make herself look better than me, will simply do it/but it for them? Then I'm the bad guy because I never give them what they want and she's the good guy because she always gives them what they want. Therefore they only learn to hate me and love her. Solve that one for me brain-geniuses.
How can I prevent them from playing video games or watching TV all day at their mother's house? When I don't let them do such things at my house then they just learn that Dad's house is boring and they don't want to be there with me.
Why would they listen when mom tells them not to listen to me, and how could I punish them if they don't listen? When I tell them to go to their rooms and they don't go, what's next? Grab them, and physically force them into the room? What happens when they just leave after I close the door? Put them in again? And they just leave again. What punishment could I possibly inflict that they would have to follow and wouldn't get me in trouble with the mother?
"Breaking the law" involves intentionality or at least negligence which is considered to involve intentionality in maybe not a common-sense notion of the term. So your statement '"Oops," isn't a defense if you or I break the law because if it was we would all claim everything we did was accidental' is a strange one.
If you did break the law and were already determined finally to have broken the law, then you don't have a legal defense anymore, so of course you can't say "Oops" as a legal defense. But if you are accused of breaking some law, "Oops" IS a defense! If I accidentally kill someone, and they accuse me of murder, I can indeed say it was an accident and get off absolutely scott-free if they believe me.
"...you states that anyone who has been convicted of a crime is liable for a "good faith" warrant based on past "crimes," you are including in fact people like me who have done nothing wrong."
He never said that anyone who has been convicted of a crime is liable for as much, read what he said more closely, and then you may not have to consider him a "stupid *ss."
The officer phones the clerk to ask if there is a warrant for this person's arrest. The clerk wants to trick the officer, so she says there is a warrant when she doesn't think there is. But she is mistaken and there really is a warrant she doesn't know about! The officer makes the arrest in the belief there was a warrant, which there was. Was the officer justified in making the arrest?
Don't spammer AIs for solving captchas usually have a high error rate? They are only useful for the spammers because they repeat after failure. Wouldn't that sort of make them useless for helping out recaptcha?
In fact, if those AIs were any good at identifying the text without error, then why wouldn't whoever is digitizing the texts just use them for the job?
Aren't there samples from before 1969 when that "within the next 5 to 10 years" Senate testimony was made that have HIV within them? In fact, from TFA:
"Key to the new work was the discovery of an HIV sample that had been taken from a woman in Kinshasa in 1960. It was only the second such sample to be found from before 1976; the other was from 1959, also from Kinshasa."
I might lose 25 dollars a month playing poker for 10 hours of entertainment, because I'm not that good, but still I only play 5 dollar games that aren't winner-takes all. My neighbour rents 5 movies a month for 10 hours of entertainment, spending 25 dollars. He's the good guy and I'm the bad guy why exactly?
Investing your money in stocks is a gamble -- stocks could go down. Keeping your money at home is a gamble -- could be stolen or there could be hyperinflation. Keeping your in the bank is a gamble -- bank could go bankrupt or there could be hyper-inflation. Trading your money for gold is a gamble -- price of gold could collapse with the opening of giant mines or some other reason. Et cetera.
It's impossible to not gamble when you have money.
So if I have just one assumption -- "Deciding whatever I have a gut feeling for deciding is best" -- that would be the smallest possible set of assumptions, and so deciding and acting on that one assumption would be perfectly rational?
Violation of just your vales and principles or everyone in America's? And a not trusting Obama because he was raised a Muslim is a violation of everyone in America's values and principles or just yours?
Slashdot Mirror
If causation is not correlation, then what is causation? Can you give me an example of causation that isn't merely correlation?
Cigarette smoke causes lung cancer? Where's the causation apart from correlation there? Smoke goes in habitually and cancer forms. They are just correlated. Or you can say that the smoke molecules cause the disruption of molecules in the cells. But where's the causation apart from correlation there? The smoke molecules enter in proximity to the cell molecules and then the cells molecules are changed. That's just correlation. Or you can say that those molecules are caused to do that because of electromagnetism. But where's the causation apart from correlation there? Opposite charges attract and similar charges repel. What causes that? That's just correlation.
"the people working on the projects aren't obliged to do anything either"
What if I'm using the software to run a heart bypass machine and it is malfunctioning and if the project would support me then I could save this person's life. But if they don't help me then the person will die. All they have to do is send me one email back with a one line answer to a question. They don't have an obligation to do this to help this person live? If someone is dying isn't there some amount of effort that people who can help are obliged to do? And if they are obliged to help this person live then it can't be true that they "aren't obliged to do anything" as you said.
I think it's supposed to be the use of the transitive verb "disappear." Because quite literally the judges disappeared the celebrities from those search results -- no mobster euphemism for killing there.
Hume said that causation was a correlation, that of constant conjunction. So if playing video games was always correlated with an encrease in violence after playing the video games, then we wou'd say that the video games caus'd the encreased aggression. In the say way we say that hitting a billiard ball with the cue ball causes the billiard ball to move: we never perceive any force in the hitting by virtue of which the billiard ball moves, we only perceive that it does move, and that this arrangement is constant in reproductions.
How did you "get" him?
You have to mention a species he might not actually want to help save. I don't think he'd mind helping you save wheat. I'm pretty sure by buying some wheat product he ever-so-slightly increases the demand for wheat thereby causing more of it to be sown by farmers. I'm sure he's not adverse to buying some dinner rolls. What he's saying is that any species that requires particular effort to save has no established benefit to him.
Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam
Which "US land or coastal border" is Milwaukee 100 miles from? Chicago?
I'll just end this here and take LobsterThermidorACrevetteWithAMornaySauceServedInAProvencaleManner-
WithShallotsAndAuberginesGarnishedWithTrufflePateBrandyAndWithAFriedEggOnTopAnd.spam
I think the idea is that resources are scarce and so if high-risk people are denied coverage more people can be treated because resources can cover more if they're not being spent on people who require expensive treatment. So it's sort of a utilitarian argument. Say there are three people and two indivisble pills for headaches. One guy is incapacitated with such a headache that he needs the two pills to get rid of his headache, and two of the people are incapacitated in the same way as the first guy with such headaches that they need one each to get rid of their headaches. The idea is that that you give the two pills to the guys who only need one pill each, because then you have two healthy people rather than one.
The further idea is that although there are inefficiencies and deficiencies with the market distribution method, the alternatives are worse.
Wishful thinking to imagine that if the Liberal, NDP and Green parties amalgamated that they would receive the sum of their votes separated. For example, some people who would vote Liberal would then vote Conservative or Bloc. And some people who would vote NDP would then vote Bloc or Marxist-Leninist or some other socialist party. Etc.
Eno and Byrne had a song called with Quran verses in the 80's and they were told by some imam that it was blasphemy to put the words of god to "grooves" (Byrne's word I think), so they took the song off the album.
Would you like to have such a satellite system for yourself? I probably would.
How do you put them in a pseudo time-out without using force if they don't want to go into this state?
What "host of other punishments"?
If the kid doesn't want to do what you want him to do - no matter what - and you can't use force, how can you get him to do what you want him to do?
Send him to his room? He won't go. Tell him to go more angrily? He still won't go. Tell him to go or won't get any treats for some time? He still won't go. What's your solution?
In fact, if the kid really doesn't want to listen, there is no solution. The child essentially controls the parent: because the parent has legal responsibility to feed and shelter and protect the child, yet the child has no legal responsbility, and has only legal protection. You could even threaten to spank him and then proceed to do it if he doesn't listen (if your jurisdiction allows), but spanking doesn't hurt very much and he can keep on being bad even if it did hurt, because the spanking certainly doesn't incapacitate him, and no juridiction except perhaps some Islamic ones (I don't know, just a guess) let a parent truly incapacitate a child. (Throuhgout at least some of the Roman Republic, the head of the household, the pater familias, had total power over other members of the household like the children. He could legally abandon them in the woods to die.)
Here some of the things that are common suggestions from Slashdot:
1. Just tell your kids, "No."
2. Video games, TV, these things are privileges that they have to earn.
3. Discipline them if they don't listen.
How can I tell my kids no? When they go to their mom's house and simply tell her that Dad didn't do it/buy it for them, and then, always trying to make herself look better than me, will simply do it/but it for them? Then I'm the bad guy because I never give them what they want and she's the good guy because she always gives them what they want. Therefore they only learn to hate me and love her. Solve that one for me brain-geniuses.
How can I prevent them from playing video games or watching TV all day at their mother's house? When I don't let them do such things at my house then they just learn that Dad's house is boring and they don't want to be there with me.
Why would they listen when mom tells them not to listen to me, and how could I punish them if they don't listen? When I tell them to go to their rooms and they don't go, what's next? Grab them, and physically force them into the room? What happens when they just leave after I close the door? Put them in again? And they just leave again. What punishment could I possibly inflict that they would have to follow and wouldn't get me in trouble with the mother?
Sorry I got all mixed up in what I was reading. You're right.
"Breaking the law" involves intentionality or at least negligence which is considered to involve intentionality in maybe not a common-sense notion of the term. So your statement '"Oops," isn't a defense if you or I break the law because if it was we would all claim everything we did was accidental' is a strange one.
If you did break the law and were already determined finally to have broken the law, then you don't have a legal defense anymore, so of course you can't say "Oops" as a legal defense. But if you are accused of breaking some law, "Oops" IS a defense! If I accidentally kill someone, and they accuse me of murder, I can indeed say it was an accident and get off absolutely scott-free if they believe me.
"...you states that anyone who has been convicted of a crime is liable for a "good faith" warrant based on past "crimes," you are including in fact people like me who have done nothing wrong."
He never said that anyone who has been convicted of a crime is liable for as much, read what he said more closely, and then you may not have to consider him a "stupid *ss."
Hypothetical Gettier scenario:
The officer phones the clerk to ask if there is a warrant for this person's arrest. The clerk wants to trick the officer, so she says there is a warrant when she doesn't think there is. But she is mistaken and there really is a warrant she doesn't know about! The officer makes the arrest in the belief there was a warrant, which there was. Was the officer justified in making the arrest?
Don't spammer AIs for solving captchas usually have a high error rate? They are only useful for the spammers because they repeat after failure. Wouldn't that sort of make them useless for helping out recaptcha?
In fact, if those AIs were any good at identifying the text without error, then why wouldn't whoever is digitizing the texts just use them for the job?
Aren't there samples from before 1969 when that "within the next 5 to 10 years" Senate testimony was made that have HIV within them? In fact, from TFA:
"Key to the new work was the discovery of an HIV sample that had been taken from a woman in Kinshasa in 1960. It was only the second such sample to be found from before 1976; the other was from 1959, also from Kinshasa."
I might lose 25 dollars a month playing poker for 10 hours of entertainment, because I'm not that good, but still I only play 5 dollar games that aren't winner-takes all. My neighbour rents 5 movies a month for 10 hours of entertainment, spending 25 dollars. He's the good guy and I'm the bad guy why exactly?
Investing your money in stocks is a gamble -- stocks could go down. Keeping your money at home is a gamble -- could be stolen or there could be hyperinflation. Keeping your in the bank is a gamble -- bank could go bankrupt or there could be hyper-inflation. Trading your money for gold is a gamble -- price of gold could collapse with the opening of giant mines or some other reason. Et cetera.
It's impossible to not gamble when you have money.
Alternative ending.
CS: Well yes but just think about how fun sledding would be with 1/3 gravity!
CF: Sweeeeet
So if I have just one assumption -- "Deciding whatever I have a gut feeling for deciding is best" -- that would be the smallest possible set of assumptions, and so deciding and acting on that one assumption would be perfectly rational?
Violation of just your vales and principles or everyone in America's? And a not trusting Obama because he was raised a Muslim is a violation of everyone in America's values and principles or just yours?