Unless you live in France, the burden of proof is always on the accuser. So if you want to get your panties in a bunch because some people believe in God, you need some kind of evidence that they are wrong, it's not the other way around.
The burden of proof goes to the one making a positive declaration. In court, that's the accuser. Think of it another way. Religions accuse God of existing, and therefore must bear the burden of proof to support this accusation.
Your personal belief that there is no God is not a fact (unless someone is writing an article about you) and therefore does not qualify as evidence. This belief is shared by about 10% of the American population (14% world-wide) so that makes you part of a minority. Which means that even if the existence of God was to be decided by a jury, by an election or by an "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe" process, odds are that God would win.
Beliefs are mere thoughts, regardless of whether they are subscribed to by a majority or a minority, and do not constitute facts or evidence. One may believe in a provable fact, but the truth of the fact does not depend one your belief.
There's thoughts and there's reality. When they disagree, in the long run, reality wins.
quantity goes up this gains a higher margin with higher quantities. This is why you don't term your 10m a year product line with a 5% return rate. But on a 500k a year product line, 5% may not be as acceptable. So, if OCZ sold 1m drives and crucial 100k... and OCZ's failure rate is 5% and crucial's is 2%, your chances are still higher to get a working drive with OCZ.
Overrated. No, actually, wrong by a two of orders of magnitude. Your link says ~30,000 deaths, NOT 300,000. also, of that number, around 55% were _suicides_ and 40% were homicides. That means around 12,000 homicides in 2000 . In 2009, there were about 3 homicides per 100k people. Population was 305 million, so that's about 9,000 homicides. 300,000? Exaggerate much?
US gun ownership is about 89 per 100 people. For comparison, Switzerland has around 46 guns per 100 people and a homicide rate of 0.6 per 100k people. If you look at the list of firearm-related death statistics and compare homicide rates, and cross reference with gun ownership statistics, you'll find no recognizable pattern.
El Salvador, 50 homicides per 100k, 6 guns per 100. Jamaica 47/8. Honduras 47/6. Guatemala 39/13. Swaziland 37/6. Colombia 27/6. Brazil 19/8. Panama 13/22. Mexico 10/15. Philippines 9/5. South Africa 9/13. USA 3/89.
Do the reverse: USA 89/3; Serbia 58/4; Yemen 55/?; Switzerland 46/0.6; Cyprus 36/0.8; Saudi Arabia 35/?; Iraq 34/?; Finland 32/4; Uruguay 32/3; Sweden 32/(1.5?); Norway 31/2; France 31/0.06; Canada 31/0.8. Same story, no pattern.
Blades are a form of wedge, one of the six simple machines. Miniaturization of technology is generally considered an advancement. In this case, "complex technology" is a comparison between these miniature blades and an unshaped rock or stick. The topic is early (i.e. Paleolithic) humans, right? So yes, for that time-frame, based on what was previously known about their technology, these small blades are rather advanced. The "masters" bit comes in when you consider that they were able to consistently use this technology over a period of over 10k years.
There are bad students out there, we do not live in a perfect happy smiley little world where every human has limitless potential and can do *anything* if only they tried and had good teachers. That nonsense view comes out of what political correctness has done to modern western society.
There are students who truly are unwilling to learn, dont want to be there, and are only in class because they have to.
Perhaps you need to look earlier. Who are your first teachers? Your parents and your early environment. A child can have poor teachers and poor teaching there, and that leaves it mark on them, scars that they'll have to struggle with the rest of their lives. But that struggle began with poor teaching.
There are actually students out there who will never be able to pass certain exams, no matter how good the teachers are and no matter how much they try. Some things are just beyond some people.
If the task or test requires significant physical ability that the student is incapable of performing, maybe. But if the task is primarily mental and the student has a functional brain, I'd disagree. I've taught (tutored, actually) math to kids to were bad, bad, bad at math. High school kids who couldn't do fractions and didn't fully understand numeric place values. Basically, they could do simple arithmetic and that was it. They, their parents and their teachers were convinced they just "couldn't do math". Every single one of those half-dozen kids I've taught passed their math classes and were able to get into college. So maybe I didn't get one of those completely incapable students, but I doubt it. I work on 2 things when I teach: foundational concepts self-belief. It takes a lot of time and a lot of work, but if you can convince your student that it's possible for them to learn the material, you've done the hard part. After that, the foundational concepts are just tools and building blocks and once you get to a certain point, a critical mass of ideas which will vary from student to student, they won't even need you to teach them.
The *real world* is not perfect, humans are not perfect.
If you think that is a cynical view, well then that is utterly irrelevant to my point. Facts are facts, no matter how much we dont or do like that fact.
No, humans aren't perfect and there are a few who have specific physical issues which hinder them. But the vast majority of humans have 1.5kg of functional, self-modifying biological supercomputer in their heads. Sure, some will need more modifying, more programming, more instruction. But all of them are capable of learning. And no, I'm not a shiny-happy-people kind of guy. I'm probably as jaded and cynical as many here on Slashdot, but I do recognize one very simple fact. Stupidity is a choice, the result of laziness. Yes, over 90% of the planet is stupid and getting worse, but it is still a choice.
It's based on population and wealth, which may be measured by income, net worth or any of a number of other metrics.
Maybe, maybe not.
If you have 100 people, and 50 of them are worth $1000 and 50 are worth $500. Where is the top 1%? It's not 1, it's 50.
How is 50 1% of anything in your example?
Yet you aren't either. Likely because you don't actually understand how math works. You're using a simplistic equation that assumes everyone is worth different amounts, and thus you get a nice linear vector where you can chop off 1%. That's not likely true at all.
Actually, it is very, very true. Some people own more than others, in other words, "are worth different amounts". There's nothing simplistic about that equation.
Your question is too vague. Do you mean what percentage of people fall within the top 1% of personal wealth? That doesn't have a 1:1 correlation with population.
"top 1%" requires definition of what the 1% applies to specifically, and how it's measured.
For example, suppose you add up all the total wealth, then take 1% of that and figure out how many people are in that category? You will come out with a different number than if you take the wealthiest person and the poorest person, and take 1% of that range and figure out how many people fall in that 1%.
Wow, you either suck at math or... No, you just suck at math.
Here, let me try and spell it out for you. The top 1% refers to population as ranked by wealth, not the "average number of people who own 1% of the wealth" or "the number of people who own an average amount of wealth". That's why the word "top" is there. You have a list of people, sort them by descending wealth, and you take the top 1% of the entries on your list, that's the top 1%. The source of dissatisfaction (of the 99%) comes from the fact that if you total the wealth of the top 1%, you'll find that they own a disproportionate fraction (approximately 40% in the case of the United States). This trend extends across the whole chart, with the bottom 80% of Americans owning just 15% of the wealth.
By the way, in your example with 100 people, your answer (50) is wrong by either method you described. By your first method, since the total wealth is $75,000, 1% of that is $750, and the number of people who own $750 is zero. By your other method, the wealthiest person owns $1,000 and the poorest owns $500 and that covers everyone (it will, every single time), that's 100 people. 1% of that is 1.
Put your phone in a zip-lock bag and pour a load of rice in with it. Seal the bag and leave it for a couple of days. Alternatively, if you're a nerd like me, slip in four or five silica gel pouches you've hidden away.
Ice doesn't evaporate in a vacuum, it sublimates at pressures below 611 Pa.
the area is permanently dark and therefore extremely cold?
even in persistent shadow,
Oh now you acknowledge the persistent shadow. Whatever happened to
the solar heating of the Lunar day
?
the moon still does not get as cold as a Jovian satellite!
Really now? The Moon's coldest is around 70 K. I think it's a safe assumption that a permanently shadowed portion would be around that temperature, since there's no atmosphere to distribute heat. Of the Jovian satellites, only Europa's coldest is colder than that, at 50 K, and its mean temperature is 102 K. Ganymede's coldest is just as as cold as the Moon, at 70 K, and its mean temperature is 110 K. Callisto's and Io's coldest are both warmer than the Moon's, at 80 K and 90 K, respectively. Metis, ~123 K. Andrasta, ~122 K. Amalthea, ~120 K. Thebe, Themisto, Leda, Himalia, Lysithea, Elara, Carme, Ananke, Pasiphae, Sinope, ~124 K. Carpo, S/2003 J 12, Taygete, Eukelade, S/2003 J 5, Chaldene, Isonoe, Praxidike, Iocaste, Harpalyke, Thyone, Euanthe, Euporie, Callirrhoe, Megaclite, Autonoe, Eurydome, Sponde, S/2003 J 2, no data. Looks like Jovian satellites are a good 50 K warmer than our Moon's cold spots.
Your actual mistake, you pathetic excuse for a ganglion, is that you not actually anywhere as brilliant as you like to think you are, as evidenced by your choice of nickname. As you yourself admitted:
I can't imagine that there can be much anywhere near the surface.
It's in the summary! Was it a failure of reading comprehension or attention span?
Like several craters at the moon's south pole, the small tilt of the lunar spin axis means Shackleton crater's interior is permanently dark and therefore extremely cold.
I sure hope that Apple can keep their products.... fresh, Otherwise folks will lose interest - especially that time of the month when they release new products.
I seriously don't think Google will be cramping Apple's style, but considering the tech press, well, you never know what they say on their rags.
Then again, Apple does stay on bleeding edge technology.
Wow, you're being a real smart-ass there. How are Google's servers useful to _anyone_ who doesn't have a computer with them? Anything with a web browser counts. Just as some supercomputers are distributed clusters, you can think of the Internet as a distributed computer. If you have your browser handy, then you "have your computer with you" and it's useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Quasi-periodic tiling of magnetic spin axii?
"Axii"?
Perhaps you meant "axes" (ahk-sees). See also: Irregular plurals from Latin and Greek.
Sorry, don't mean to be pedantic, but made-up plurals are a pet peeve.
</rant>
Unless you live in France, the burden of proof is always on the accuser. So if you want to get your panties in a bunch because some people believe in God, you need some kind of evidence that they are wrong, it's not the other way around.
The burden of proof goes to the one making a positive declaration. In court, that's the accuser. Think of it another way. Religions accuse God of existing, and therefore must bear the burden of proof to support this accusation.
Your personal belief that there is no God is not a fact (unless someone is writing an article about you) and therefore does not qualify as evidence. This belief is shared by about 10% of the American population (14% world-wide) so that makes you part of a minority. Which means that even if the existence of God was to be decided by a jury, by an election or by an "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe" process, odds are that God would win.
Beliefs are mere thoughts, regardless of whether they are subscribed to by a majority or a minority, and do not constitute facts or evidence. One may believe in a provable fact, but the truth of the fact does not depend one your belief.
There's thoughts and there's reality. When they disagree, in the long run, reality wins.
quantity goes up this gains a higher margin with higher quantities. This is why you don't term your 10m a year product line with a 5% return rate. But on a 500k a year product line, 5% may not be as acceptable. So, if OCZ sold 1m drives and crucial 100k... and OCZ's failure rate is 5% and crucial's is 2%, your chances are still higher to get a working drive with OCZ.
To quote someone's Slashdot sig:
Protip: Never go full retard.
US gun ownership is about 89 per 100 people. For comparison, Switzerland has around 46 guns per 100 people and a homicide rate of 0.6 per 100k people. If you look at the list of firearm-related death statistics and compare homicide rates, and cross reference with gun ownership statistics, you'll find no recognizable pattern.
El Salvador, 50 homicides per 100k, 6 guns per 100. Jamaica 47/8. Honduras 47/6. Guatemala 39/13. Swaziland 37/6. Colombia 27/6. Brazil 19/8. Panama 13/22. Mexico 10/15. Philippines 9/5. South Africa 9/13. USA 3/89.
Do the reverse: USA 89/3; Serbia 58/4; Yemen 55/?; Switzerland 46/0.6; Cyprus 36/0.8; Saudi Arabia 35/?; Iraq 34/?; Finland 32/4; Uruguay 32/3; Sweden 32/(1.5?); Norway 31/2; France 31/0.06; Canada 31/0.8. Same story, no pattern.
TL;DR; It's not the guns, it's the crazy.
East Asia != Southeast Asia.
Troll much?
Birds probably really really suck at piloting drones.
Blades are a form of wedge, one of the six simple machines. Miniaturization of technology is generally considered an advancement. In this case, "complex technology" is a comparison between these miniature blades and an unshaped rock or stick. The topic is early (i.e. Paleolithic) humans, right? So yes, for that time-frame, based on what was previously known about their technology, these small blades are rather advanced. The "masters" bit comes in when you consider that they were able to consistently use this technology over a period of over 10k years.
So, you're comparing a 2009 Dell to a 2012 Mac, nice. You have any idea what 3 years of processor development has done for power efficiency?
You'd have to be a shark to get those...
No, you are quite wrong indeed.
There are bad students out there, we do not live in a perfect happy smiley little world where every human has limitless potential and can do *anything* if only they tried and had good teachers. That nonsense view comes out of what political correctness has done to modern western society.
There are students who truly are unwilling to learn, dont want to be there, and are only in class because they have to.
Perhaps you need to look earlier. Who are your first teachers? Your parents and your early environment. A child can have poor teachers and poor teaching there, and that leaves it mark on them, scars that they'll have to struggle with the rest of their lives. But that struggle began with poor teaching.
There are actually students out there who will never be able to pass certain exams, no matter how good the teachers are and no matter how much they try. Some things are just beyond some people.
If the task or test requires significant physical ability that the student is incapable of performing, maybe. But if the task is primarily mental and the student has a functional brain, I'd disagree. I've taught (tutored, actually) math to kids to were bad, bad, bad at math. High school kids who couldn't do fractions and didn't fully understand numeric place values. Basically, they could do simple arithmetic and that was it. They, their parents and their teachers were convinced they just "couldn't do math". Every single one of those half-dozen kids I've taught passed their math classes and were able to get into college. So maybe I didn't get one of those completely incapable students, but I doubt it. I work on 2 things when I teach: foundational concepts self-belief. It takes a lot of time and a lot of work, but if you can convince your student that it's possible for them to learn the material, you've done the hard part. After that, the foundational concepts are just tools and building blocks and once you get to a certain point, a critical mass of ideas which will vary from student to student, they won't even need you to teach them.
The *real world* is not perfect, humans are not perfect.
If you think that is a cynical view, well then that is utterly irrelevant to my point. Facts are facts, no matter how much we dont or do like that fact.
No, humans aren't perfect and there are a few who have specific physical issues which hinder them. But the vast majority of humans have 1.5kg of functional, self-modifying biological supercomputer in their heads. Sure, some will need more modifying, more programming, more instruction. But all of them are capable of learning. And no, I'm not a shiny-happy-people kind of guy. I'm probably as jaded and cynical as many here on Slashdot, but I do recognize one very simple fact. Stupidity is a choice, the result of laziness. Yes, over 90% of the planet is stupid and getting worse, but it is still a choice.
Ah, so you don't know the difference. And here I thought you were trolling.</sarcasm>
Jeebuz, mods, where the hell are you guys? +1 ROFL.
No, you're just a flaming idiot. Really, the bus suggestion a few posts up? Go for it, improve the gene pool for us.
Moon. Mars. Do you understand the difference?
Send up Bruce Willis and his drilling team, they'll get that done in no time. :)
I think offering to help defray the cost of the cover redesign counts as "nice".
The top 1% is based on income, not population.
I misspoke, I meant net worth.
It's based on population and wealth, which may be measured by income, net worth or any of a number of other metrics.
Maybe, maybe not.
If you have 100 people, and 50 of them are worth $1000 and 50 are worth $500. Where is the top 1%? It's not 1, it's 50.
How is 50 1% of anything in your example?
Yet you aren't either. Likely because you don't actually understand how math works. You're using a simplistic equation that assumes everyone is worth different amounts, and thus you get a nice linear vector where you can chop off 1%. That's not likely true at all.
Actually, it is very, very true. Some people own more than others, in other words, "are worth different amounts". There's nothing simplistic about that equation.
Your question is too vague. Do you mean what percentage of people fall within the top 1% of personal wealth? That doesn't have a 1:1 correlation with population.
"top 1%" requires definition of what the 1% applies to specifically, and how it's measured.
For example, suppose you add up all the total wealth, then take 1% of that and figure out how many people are in that category? You will come out with a different number than if you take the wealthiest person and the poorest person, and take 1% of that range and figure out how many people fall in that 1%.
Wow, you either suck at math or... No, you just suck at math.
Here, let me try and spell it out for you. The top 1% refers to population as ranked by wealth, not the "average number of people who own 1% of the wealth" or "the number of people who own an average amount of wealth". That's why the word "top" is there. You have a list of people, sort them by descending wealth, and you take the top 1% of the entries on your list, that's the top 1%. The source of dissatisfaction (of the 99%) comes from the fact that if you total the wealth of the top 1%, you'll find that they own a disproportionate fraction (approximately 40% in the case of the United States). This trend extends across the whole chart, with the bottom 80% of Americans owning just 15% of the wealth.
By the way, in your example with 100 people, your answer (50) is wrong by either method you described. By your first method, since the total wealth is $75,000, 1% of that is $750, and the number of people who own $750 is zero. By your other method, the wealthiest person owns $1,000 and the poorest owns $500 and that covers everyone (it will, every single time), that's 100 people. 1% of that is 1.
So you're saying the guy in Gattaca could have had his faulty heart gene repaired and lived his dream legally?
Yes, but his parents chose to have him naturally, without screening or augmentation. (IIRC, it's been a while since i last saw it.)
Put your phone in a zip-lock bag and pour a load of rice in with it. Seal the bag and leave it for a couple of days. Alternatively, if you're a nerd like me, slip in four or five silica gel pouches you've hidden away.
Is this before or after you microwave it? ;p
Or maybe they named it after an Antarctic explorer because the crater is at the south pole of the Moon...
BZZZT! Arrogant asshole is WRONG.
ice evaporates in a vacuum
Ice doesn't evaporate in a vacuum, it sublimates at pressures below 611 Pa.
the area is permanently dark and therefore extremely cold?
even in persistent shadow,
Oh now you acknowledge the persistent shadow. Whatever happened to
the solar heating of the Lunar day
?
the moon still does not get as cold as a Jovian satellite!
Really now? The Moon's coldest is around 70 K. I think it's a safe assumption that a permanently shadowed portion would be around that temperature, since there's no atmosphere to distribute heat. Of the Jovian satellites, only Europa's coldest is colder than that, at 50 K, and its mean temperature is 102 K. Ganymede's coldest is just as as cold as the Moon, at 70 K, and its mean temperature is 110 K. Callisto's and Io's coldest are both warmer than the Moon's, at 80 K and 90 K, respectively. Metis, ~123 K. Andrasta, ~122 K. Amalthea, ~120 K. Thebe, Themisto, Leda, Himalia, Lysithea, Elara, Carme, Ananke, Pasiphae, Sinope, ~124 K. Carpo, S/2003 J 12, Taygete, Eukelade, S/2003 J 5, Chaldene, Isonoe, Praxidike, Iocaste, Harpalyke, Thyone, Euanthe, Euporie, Callirrhoe, Megaclite, Autonoe, Eurydome, Sponde, S/2003 J 2, no data. Looks like Jovian satellites are a good 50 K warmer than our Moon's cold spots.
Your actual mistake, you pathetic excuse for a ganglion, is that you not actually anywhere as brilliant as you like to think you are, as evidenced by your choice of nickname. As you yourself admitted:
I can't imagine that there can be much anywhere near the surface.
No, you really can't imagine much of anything at all, can you?. Us ambulatory molds, on the other hand, can engineer train and traffic networks.
Like several craters at the moon's south pole, the small tilt of the lunar spin axis means Shackleton crater's interior is permanently dark and therefore extremely cold.
A MiniPad?
SO the 10" will be the ... MAxiPad?
I sure hope that Apple can keep their products .... fresh, Otherwise folks will lose interest - especially that time of the month when they release new products.
I seriously don't think Google will be cramping Apple's style, but considering the tech press, well, you never know what they say on their rags.
Then again, Apple does stay on bleeding edge technology.
I can't wait for the New iPad with Wings(tm)
Wow, you're being a real smart-ass there. How are Google's servers useful to _anyone_ who doesn't have a computer with them? Anything with a web browser counts. Just as some supercomputers are distributed clusters, you can think of the Internet as a distributed computer. If you have your browser handy, then you "have your computer with you" and it's useful.