by squandering non-replenishable resources (oil, gas, rare earth elements);
You lost me there. Rare Earth Elements aren't rare. They are "rare" because they aren't found in large concentrated pockets. They are not rare in the sense that there aren't enough of them. There's enough, they are just not cheap to extract because of the low-concentrations of them. Oil and gas are energy, something we have enough of. More solar lands on the surface of the Earth than we could ever use, stored solar in the form of oil is convenient, but not necessary.
Because not everyone has a box for that. PS3 had playTV, which was a full featured DVR (by full-featured, that was the specs, in practice, development ended a few weeks after it was released, and most of the features ended up not working right, and were never fixed). X-Box targeted that feature, but since the PS4 doesn't support the PlayTV, someone with a PlayTV can use it on their PC (just a 2-tuner USB tuner), but not the PS4. So, since PS4 didn't do DVR, MS abandoned it in the Xbox.
My mother had an engine fail in an Audi at about 10% over warranty age and miles. Audi paid 0%. Known issue. Not technically recalled, but TSB on it. Sold for scrap.
There is no such thing as catastrophic man-made global warming,
Since you need so many disclaimers, one would presume that the drop of any single disclaimer would make the rest true. So by logic, and your statement, there is both "catastrophic global warming" and "man-made global warming". If not, the simpler "there is no global warming" would be the correct statement.
There was an error in a guess at time to happen for something never done before. The geological ages take much longer, but the conditions are different. Their guesses may be way-wrong, but that's in no way a "calculation". To imply it is makes you a liar. Why are you lying?
You can't notify the NHTSA, but if the NHTSA launches an actual investigation, you can tell them you have something to say, but can only say it if formally subpoenaed and deposed, which complies with the contract 100%, while aiding an investigation. So this doesn't impede an investigation by the NHTSA.
Nope. The word "voluntarily" was in there. When the NHTSA comes knocking, you tell them you are not free to talk without a court action. 'Please subpoena me' and done. It's quite common to subpoena willing witnesses. I've seen it happen hundreds of times, and with a subpoena, you are no longer "voluntarily" testifying.
The wording has nothing in it that would impede an investigation in any way, other than requiring a few seconds of paperwork.
It's anonymous if they can't identify that "same user", they don't know it's Bob, and they can't figure it out. They have to identify that user to be able to perform the statistical analysis.
When you ignore the symptoms until you are too sick to do anything, you don't do a bucket list. Because the health care system in the US is so bad, many people in the US wait until they are too sick to have any options. I know more than one person who was having deadly symptoms before the first time they sought care.
So a false negative rate of 85% to 95% is so high that you find they must be lying. You have unreasonably high standards. They tuned to minimize false positives, at the expense of false negatives. They could get the false positive rate you demand, and greatly improve the false negative rate. And, then with the same data and analysis, meet your false positive rate requirements.
Nope. The researchers don't know or care about "symptoms". If everyone with lung cancer googles for "left handed mouse" and "pineapple and red bean ice cream" 7 months before being diagnosed with cancer. It's a correlation, not a diagnosis, and not "symptoms". If a correlation is strong, it's useful. Though, as discussed, the better correlations happen among more logical things, like possible cancer symptoms.
That's simply not true. You take 100% of the data, run the analysis on 50%, then, when done, apply that analysis on the remaining 50% and measure your success. If successful, it should apply to any data source. Even future ones.
What's wrong about letting people have a single sign on, if they want it? Having separate authentication systems is more expensive and less secure. Why do you want a more expensive and less secure result?
I don't know a single Sander's voter that wants "free shit". They seemed equally split between Hillary and Donald. Donald is offering an equality nobody else has. Drag all the middle class down to poor, so the poor that want free stuff will feel better, because misery loves company. And the "free stuff" democrats are mainstream enough, they went for Hillary. Republicans take more "free stuff" than Democrats. So the "Free stuff" party is the Republicans, not the Democrats.
The issue with me is that if I'm using it for media, the remote falls asleep (or I put it there to save battery) and waking it up takes longer than the voice command, even if the button presses were instantaneous.
And if you are doing all that, you can use a fake login as well. Read the proposal, and what others are doing with government logins, not what the government-haters on Slashdot say about it. It's about protecting people, and actually reduces tracking for 99% of users. But yes, some things about it might make it harder for the 1% that only uses a VPN over TOR in a read-only boot image with a randomized user string.
So why did the UK insist that Scotland shouldn't leave the UK because it would force their exit from the EU, when the UK didn't want to be in the EU anyway?
The whole idea of working harder, or what you know in a supply-demand labor market is disproven by CEOs. Millions would take their job for 1/10th the pay. And, judging from some recent performances by high profile CEOs, couldn't do worse than the people that got the job.
You are misinterpreting what I am saying. I am talking about legal consequences, not civil.
Go back to 3rd grade.
I'm understanding what you are "saying". I'm not understanding what you meant to say. Civil consequences are legal consequences. Criminal consequences are not civil. That you don't understand the words you are using isn't my problem. Yet, it's my fault for correctly parsing what you said, and not ignoring everything you said to try to guess what you really meant. Next time, try saying what you mean correctly in the first place.
only Alice can be charged with a crime
Again, incorrect. The burden of proof is much higher, but 3rd parties can be charged with crimes. Exxon wasn't "sued" for the Valdez spill (well, they were, but those were separate to this). They were charged with crimes. Exxon wasn't driving. Negligence is a high standard to prove against a corporation, so they are rarely charge with it, but it does happen. It's a separate action, unrelated to the actions of Alice. Much like it's possible for a group that commits a crime, for one person to be found not guilty and the rest found guilty. There isn't a shield of criminal liability around the corporation because Alice has criminal responsibility. The shield is because they are a corporation. That's a separate issue. https://www.fbi.gov/newyork/pr... More recenty (and related to cars), GM was convicted of a crime. They allowed crashes to happen. They were found negligent (actually, pled to the equivalent). Not driving didn't protect them from criminal prosecution.
I will not be responsible for voting for "awful". I'll throw my vote away on a 3rd party or stay home before I'll do that. The polls show that many others do the same. If neither party will put up a "good" candidate, people will stay home. That's why Bernie beats Drumpf, and Hillary doesn't. Bernie is less hated/polarizing, and so people will vote for him as a "not awful" candidate. They aren't "Sanders supporters", they are voters. No more. No less. And they don't want to vote for Hillary or Drumpf.
A vote for Satan is a vote against the establishment as well. And no, a vote for a self proclaimed multi-billionaire isn't anti-establishment. Hillary represents the establishment, Drumpf *is* the establishment.
Slashdot Mirror
by squandering non-replenishable resources (oil, gas, rare earth elements);
You lost me there. Rare Earth Elements aren't rare. They are "rare" because they aren't found in large concentrated pockets. They are not rare in the sense that there aren't enough of them. There's enough, they are just not cheap to extract because of the low-concentrations of them. Oil and gas are energy, something we have enough of. More solar lands on the surface of the Earth than we could ever use, stored solar in the form of oil is convenient, but not necessary.
Because not everyone has a box for that. PS3 had playTV, which was a full featured DVR (by full-featured, that was the specs, in practice, development ended a few weeks after it was released, and most of the features ended up not working right, and were never fixed). X-Box targeted that feature, but since the PS4 doesn't support the PlayTV, someone with a PlayTV can use it on their PC (just a 2-tuner USB tuner), but not the PS4. So, since PS4 didn't do DVR, MS abandoned it in the Xbox.
My mother had an engine fail in an Audi at about 10% over warranty age and miles. Audi paid 0%. Known issue. Not technically recalled, but TSB on it. Sold for scrap.
There is no such thing as catastrophic man-made global warming,
Since you need so many disclaimers, one would presume that the drop of any single disclaimer would make the rest true. So by logic, and your statement, there is both "catastrophic global warming" and "man-made global warming". If not, the simpler "there is no global warming" would be the correct statement.
There was an error in a guess at time to happen for something never done before. The geological ages take much longer, but the conditions are different. Their guesses may be way-wrong, but that's in no way a "calculation". To imply it is makes you a liar. Why are you lying?
You can't notify the NHTSA, but if the NHTSA launches an actual investigation, you can tell them you have something to say, but can only say it if formally subpoenaed and deposed, which complies with the contract 100%, while aiding an investigation. So this doesn't impede an investigation by the NHTSA.
Nope. The word "voluntarily" was in there. When the NHTSA comes knocking, you tell them you are not free to talk without a court action. 'Please subpoena me' and done. It's quite common to subpoena willing witnesses. I've seen it happen hundreds of times, and with a subpoena, you are no longer "voluntarily" testifying.
The wording has nothing in it that would impede an investigation in any way, other than requiring a few seconds of paperwork.
It's anonymous if they can't identify that "same user", they don't know it's Bob, and they can't figure it out. They have to identify that user to be able to perform the statistical analysis.
When you ignore the symptoms until you are too sick to do anything, you don't do a bucket list. Because the health care system in the US is so bad, many people in the US wait until they are too sick to have any options. I know more than one person who was having deadly symptoms before the first time they sought care.
So a false negative rate of 85% to 95% is so high that you find they must be lying. You have unreasonably high standards. They tuned to minimize false positives, at the expense of false negatives. They could get the false positive rate you demand, and greatly improve the false negative rate. And, then with the same data and analysis, meet your false positive rate requirements.
Nope. The researchers don't know or care about "symptoms". If everyone with lung cancer googles for "left handed mouse" and "pineapple and red bean ice cream" 7 months before being diagnosed with cancer. It's a correlation, not a diagnosis, and not "symptoms". If a correlation is strong, it's useful. Though, as discussed, the better correlations happen among more logical things, like possible cancer symptoms.
That's simply not true. You take 100% of the data, run the analysis on 50%, then, when done, apply that analysis on the remaining 50% and measure your success. If successful, it should apply to any data source. Even future ones.
What's wrong about letting people have a single sign on, if they want it? Having separate authentication systems is more expensive and less secure. Why do you want a more expensive and less secure result?
I don't know a single Sander's voter that wants "free shit". They seemed equally split between Hillary and Donald. Donald is offering an equality nobody else has. Drag all the middle class down to poor, so the poor that want free stuff will feel better, because misery loves company. And the "free stuff" democrats are mainstream enough, they went for Hillary. Republicans take more "free stuff" than Democrats. So the "Free stuff" party is the Republicans, not the Democrats.
The issue with me is that if I'm using it for media, the remote falls asleep (or I put it there to save battery) and waking it up takes longer than the voice command, even if the button presses were instantaneous.
And if you are doing all that, you can use a fake login as well. Read the proposal, and what others are doing with government logins, not what the government-haters on Slashdot say about it. It's about protecting people, and actually reduces tracking for 99% of users. But yes, some things about it might make it harder for the 1% that only uses a VPN over TOR in a read-only boot image with a randomized user string.
The pro-government mainstream parties didn't either.
The no-government libertarians on Slashdot try to make every government action look stupid.
The financial consequence is cost savings. They aren't the first place to consider this, and are looking at places that have done it successfully.
So why did the UK insist that Scotland shouldn't leave the UK because it would force their exit from the EU, when the UK didn't want to be in the EU anyway?
The whole idea of working harder, or what you know in a supply-demand labor market is disproven by CEOs. Millions would take their job for 1/10th the pay. And, judging from some recent performances by high profile CEOs, couldn't do worse than the people that got the job.
So if my username is "user" and my password is "password", Netflix has no way of knowing whether my username/password combination is correct.
No, that seems silly, Netflix can verify a username/password combination as "valid" or "invalid" while their passwords are salted and hashed.
You are misinterpreting what I am saying.
I am talking about legal consequences, not civil.
Go back to 3rd grade.
I'm understanding what you are "saying". I'm not understanding what you meant to say. Civil consequences are legal consequences. Criminal consequences are not civil. That you don't understand the words you are using isn't my problem. Yet, it's my fault for correctly parsing what you said, and not ignoring everything you said to try to guess what you really meant. Next time, try saying what you mean correctly in the first place.
only Alice can be charged with a crime
Again, incorrect. The burden of proof is much higher, but 3rd parties can be charged with crimes. Exxon wasn't "sued" for the Valdez spill (well, they were, but those were separate to this). They were charged with crimes. Exxon wasn't driving. Negligence is a high standard to prove against a corporation, so they are rarely charge with it, but it does happen. It's a separate action, unrelated to the actions of Alice. Much like it's possible for a group that commits a crime, for one person to be found not guilty and the rest found guilty. There isn't a shield of criminal liability around the corporation because Alice has criminal responsibility. The shield is because they are a corporation. That's a separate issue. https://www.fbi.gov/newyork/pr... More recenty (and related to cars), GM was convicted of a crime. They allowed crashes to happen. They were found negligent (actually, pled to the equivalent). Not driving didn't protect them from criminal prosecution.
I will not be responsible for voting for "awful". I'll throw my vote away on a 3rd party or stay home before I'll do that. The polls show that many others do the same. If neither party will put up a "good" candidate, people will stay home. That's why Bernie beats Drumpf, and Hillary doesn't. Bernie is less hated/polarizing, and so people will vote for him as a "not awful" candidate. They aren't "Sanders supporters", they are voters. No more. No less. And they don't want to vote for Hillary or Drumpf.
A vote for Satan is a vote against the establishment as well. And no, a vote for a self proclaimed multi-billionaire isn't anti-establishment. Hillary represents the establishment, Drumpf *is* the establishment.