A sufficiently large random sample of people (which this isn't, but bear with me) will have an average IQ of 100, with half of them below that point, and half above.
He said that 2/4 will "likely" be below average. If you take this to mean litterally 2 people, and litterally 4 people, he's still right. You've calculated the probability of that occurance, which is the most "likely" occurance. If you plot the graph, you will see that.375 is right at the top.
Hold it a moment. IQ is determined by the normal distribution (bell curve) of people taking intelligence tests. The mean is defined as being an IQ of 100, with a standard deviation of 15 (If I remember correctly). If the whole population was weighed like that (and not a sample) then your numbers simply don't work.
I've found that statement to be strongly dependent on the streets you frequent.
I think this is the point you were trying to make. Someone beat you to it.
3 out of 4 people make up 75% of our population.
Yeah... so that means... (in this context, reread his post. You might get the joke.)
I don't know about mode, but I have heard college math teachers say that about mean and median.
(An average being a measure of the middle of a data set, or a representative value of them all, I wouldn't expect to use mode unless it was so prominent as to nearly be the median anyways. IANAMG)
He got modded down because he's an AC troll. It only sounds like a joke until you realize that it's the same type of drivel that we've become accustomed to seeing from ACs. He's either being serious, or trying to be provocative. Either way, I'm not laughing. You may laugh at him, if you like.
A lot of people seem to be forgetting ESMTP with TLS. The message itself isn't encrypted as such, but the whole session it's transmitted in is (after STARTTLS, anyway). It's normally transparent to the user, when it's present at all. It's becoming more and more common (though not common enough IMO).
Normally I don't bring it up. But in this case, it would be one reason for the traffic to be encrypted, but still readable by the other company. But you (and others) are right about the possibility of setting up a forward account.
In fact most GPL code is licensed under "version 2 or later", so if they use that their users can just treat it as if it were GPLv3 licensed. or GPLv4 when it comes out, which might have additional anti Tivo clauses.
Whoa, there. You've not thought this through. Tivo is required to accept the terms of version 2 or greater in order to redistribute. Their clients may choose a higher version if they redistribute it. There is nothing in the license that allows a customer to enforce a newer version of the license on their supplier. That would be absurd.
The license is not between Tivo and their customers. The license is between Tivo and their suppliers (FSF, kernel team, etc). Tivo's customers are (theoretically) benefited by the GPL, but they are not party to that agreement, and cannot change its terms.
If one of Tivo's customers were to (hypothetically) redistribute that code, then the GPL license is still between this new distributor and the copyright holder. (In this hypothetical, let's assume they don't redistribute any proprietary Tivo code.) The GPL is not, in this case, a license between Tivo and their customer. Tivo would not be party to this license either, and cannot be held to it.
The only time the GPL would be a license between Tivo and their customers would be if Tivo released some of their code under the GPL. Even then, assuming if they choose to include the greater version clause, it would only affect the people their customers distributed to. (That clause is not actually part of the GPL, by the way. It's just been recommended by the FSF.)
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Tivo's worries are that the code maintainers who they get their code from will change the license terms, and Tivo will lose access to newer versions of GPLed software.
Ah, but it's not about the base. It's about the swing voters. In this case, stealing dissatisfied Clinton voters.
You use scare tactics to get the base out to vote (convince them that they really don't want Obama) and you use appeasement to get the swing voters to vote for you (oh, a woman).
I'm not saying she wont make a good candidate; we'll see when the dirt gets dug up. It would be fun for the Republicans to get a woman in the white house before the Democrats do. I think it's a nice touch, even if it is blatant political pandering.
Scary. I thought it was half a dozen. Still, my point is they cannot do it without popping open the drive (with the possible exception of a few tracks using special drivers).
Actually, it has become a generic term very much like Kleenex or Jello. That's why they're trying hard to push the term "bricks". The courts might take the legal protection away if they're not careful. It's the same with other brands too, such as Jello ("gelatin")
You were making a ridiculous universal statement to support your point. A fallacy in a universal statement is still a fallacy, even when there is an otherwise good point being made. And no, the subtext was not lost on me. I just didn't care in light of your bad argument.
The point that you're missing entirely is that there is NO SUCH THING as a good person.
Which is a premise that I fundamentally disagree with and why I'm not a christian.
I appreciate that point of view, though I disagree with it. One can be a Christian without buying into the "original sin" fallacy. Not all sects focus on hellfire and damnation. Fallen, yes; Inherently sinful, no; Inherently prone to sin, yes; Impossible to be good without having accepted Christ, no, certainly not.
Frankly, I consider teaching that all humans are inherently evil to be theological malware. Just as many people cannot live without their nifty screen savers, many people need to find any excuse to justify why they are better than someone else.
anyone can make accurate observations. Or would you like to deny that?
I do. Granted, I'm feeling particularly pedantic right now.
There are several reasons why not everyone can make accurate observations. I choose to name two of them. (1) Not everyone is in in the right physical or social situation to make an observation. (2) Not everyone has the proper foreknowledge to understand what they are seeing/experiencing.
I wouldn't go that far. Full counts are expensive. At least, when they have sufficient public oversight.
I would instead propose that watch groups be allowed to purchase heavily subsidized recounts (80+% subsidized). That would allow for a truly random recount on several precincts, or a recount of key precincts. It would still be expensive, but far less expensive than a full recount.
That's only true if you don't actually overwrite the data while formating. In other words, if you do a so-called "quick format", all your data is really still there. If you actually format the drive correctly, then they will need to send it to a lab for much more expensive forensic recovery.
Of course, running a "file shredding" program on the full volume is preferred.
That's a terrible counter-argument on its own. It's a feel good argument, and nothing more.
For example, "Because I was ordered to" has also been attached to many crimes in human history, and some of the absolute worst crimes, for that matter. Most of the time this type of statement is used it is entirely valid.
"Why did you file X instead of Y on your taxes?" "Because my accountant told me to."
"Why did you leave your horse tied up over there?" "Because the instructor told me to."
"Why did you issue that desk to so-and-so?" "Because my boss told me to."
ad infinitum.
And it's not that "somebody else would", it's "somebody else already is and will continue to, without sufficient environmental safety precautions". that's a huge difference. One is very hypothetical, and the other is very real. There is nothing wrong with our drilling there. Now if we go in there and start drilling with bad environmental safety precautions ourselves, that would be bad. That's a matter of hoping that our middle bureaucracies in government work correctly. There are no guarantees there, but it will probably be done correctly. It certainly will happen better than it has for countries which have few environmental cares. Especially since it's not their shores that will be covered with oil when they foul up.
Slashdot Mirror
A sufficiently large random sample of people (which this isn't, but bear with me) will have an average IQ of 100, with half of them below that point, and half above.
He said that 2/4 will "likely" be below average. If you take this to mean litterally 2 people, and litterally 4 people, he's still right. You've calculated the probability of that occurance, which is the most "likely" occurance. If you plot the graph, you will see that .375 is right at the top.
Hold it a moment. IQ is determined by the normal distribution (bell curve) of people taking intelligence tests. The mean is defined as being an IQ of 100, with a standard deviation of 15 (If I remember correctly). If the whole population was weighed like that (and not a sample) then your numbers simply don't work.
I've found that statement to be strongly dependent on the streets you frequent.
I think this is the point you were trying to make. Someone beat you to it.
3 out of 4 people make up 75% of our population.
Yeah... so that means... (in this context, reread his post. You might get the joke.)
And that 80% of all statistics are made up on the spot. ;-)
I don't know about mode, but I have heard college math teachers say that about mean and median.
(An average being a measure of the middle of a data set, or a representative value of them all, I wouldn't expect to use mode unless it was so prominent as to nearly be the median anyways. IANAMG)
He got modded down because he's an AC troll. It only sounds like a joke until you realize that it's the same type of drivel that we've become accustomed to seeing from ACs. He's either being serious, or trying to be provocative. Either way, I'm not laughing. You may laugh at him, if you like.
Must... not... feed... AC... Troll...
Ghaaah!!!
Well, my new hope is that people will stop making bad puns.
*Runs like mad for the nearest door.*
Please don't insult us.
A lot of people seem to be forgetting ESMTP with TLS. The message itself isn't encrypted as such, but the whole session it's transmitted in is (after STARTTLS, anyway). It's normally transparent to the user, when it's present at all. It's becoming more and more common (though not common enough IMO).
Normally I don't bring it up. But in this case, it would be one reason for the traffic to be encrypted, but still readable by the other company. But you (and others) are right about the possibility of setting up a forward account.
You're "just sayin' " what? That Republican governors are racists?
I hope not. That's the same kind of smear logic that racists and other bigots use.
(And yes, your main point has merit.)
In fact most GPL code is licensed under "version 2 or later", so if they use that their users can just treat it as if it were GPLv3 licensed. or GPLv4 when it comes out, which might have additional anti Tivo clauses.
Whoa, there. You've not thought this through. Tivo is required to accept the terms of version 2 or greater in order to redistribute. Their clients may choose a higher version if they redistribute it. There is nothing in the license that allows a customer to enforce a newer version of the license on their supplier. That would be absurd.
The license is not between Tivo and their customers. The license is between Tivo and their suppliers (FSF, kernel team, etc). Tivo's customers are (theoretically) benefited by the GPL, but they are not party to that agreement, and cannot change its terms.
If one of Tivo's customers were to (hypothetically) redistribute that code, then the GPL license is still between this new distributor and the copyright holder. (In this hypothetical, let's assume they don't redistribute any proprietary Tivo code.) The GPL is not, in this case, a license between Tivo and their customer. Tivo would not be party to this license either, and cannot be held to it.
The only time the GPL would be a license between Tivo and their customers would be if Tivo released some of their code under the GPL. Even then, assuming if they choose to include the greater version clause, it would only affect the people their customers distributed to. (That clause is not actually part of the GPL, by the way. It's just been recommended by the FSF.)
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Tivo's worries are that the code maintainers who they get their code from will change the license terms, and Tivo will lose access to newer versions of GPLed software.
Ah, but it's not about the base. It's about the swing voters. In this case, stealing dissatisfied Clinton voters.
You use scare tactics to get the base out to vote (convince them that they really don't want Obama) and you use appeasement to get the swing voters to vote for you (oh, a woman).
I'm not saying she wont make a good candidate; we'll see when the dirt gets dug up. It would be fun for the Republicans to get a woman in the white house before the Democrats do. I think it's a nice touch, even if it is blatant political pandering.
Scary. I thought it was half a dozen. Still, my point is they cannot do it without popping open the drive (with the possible exception of a few tracks using special drivers).
Actually, it has become a generic term very much like Kleenex or Jello. That's why they're trying hard to push the term "bricks". The courts might take the legal protection away if they're not careful. It's the same with other brands too, such as Jello ("gelatin")
You were making a ridiculous universal statement to support your point. A fallacy in a universal statement is still a fallacy, even when there is an otherwise good point being made. And no, the subtext was not lost on me. I just didn't care in light of your bad argument.
But this is irrelevant to my claim,...
I never said it was. I merely pointed out that you ended your post on a terrible fallacy.
The point that you're missing entirely is that there is NO SUCH THING as a good person.
Which is a premise that I fundamentally disagree with and why I'm not a christian.
I appreciate that point of view, though I disagree with it. One can be a Christian without buying into the "original sin" fallacy. Not all sects focus on hellfire and damnation. Fallen, yes; Inherently sinful, no; Inherently prone to sin, yes; Impossible to be good without having accepted Christ, no, certainly not.
Frankly, I consider teaching that all humans are inherently evil to be theological malware. Just as many people cannot live without their nifty screen savers, many people need to find any excuse to justify why they are better than someone else.
Says the flame-baiting AC troll.
He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
Riddle me this: What made this passage poignant and believable to an OT Bible-thumping crowd?
anyone can make accurate observations. Or would you like to deny that?
I do. Granted, I'm feeling particularly pedantic right now.
There are several reasons why not everyone can make accurate observations. I choose to name two of them. (1) Not everyone is in in the right physical or social situation to make an observation. (2) Not everyone has the proper foreknowledge to understand what they are seeing/experiencing.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
I wouldn't go that far. Full counts are expensive. At least, when they have sufficient public oversight.
I would instead propose that watch groups be allowed to purchase heavily subsidized recounts (80+% subsidized). That would allow for a truly random recount on several precincts, or a recount of key precincts. It would still be expensive, but far less expensive than a full recount.
Formatting your hard drive doesn't erase or make the data unreadable. There are a nmuber of programs that can unformat a disk and recover the data.
You mean "quick formating" doesn't erase all data. So-called "full formating" does, though there are still ways of recovering the data in a lab.
That's only true if you don't actually overwrite the data while formating. In other words, if you do a so-called "quick format", all your data is really still there. If you actually format the drive correctly, then they will need to send it to a lab for much more expensive forensic recovery.
Of course, running a "file shredding" program on the full volume is preferred.
You sound confused, but you're an AC, so I guess that's a given.
Iceweasel is Firefox for Debian users. It really is that simple.
Please don't confuse "conceited and partisan" with "always wrong". Those concepts are very different.
That's a terrible counter-argument on its own. It's a feel good argument, and nothing more.
For example, "Because I was ordered to" has also been attached to many crimes in human history, and some of the absolute worst crimes, for that matter. Most of the time this type of statement is used it is entirely valid.
"Why did you file X instead of Y on your taxes?" "Because my accountant told me to."
"Why did you leave your horse tied up over there?" "Because the instructor told me to."
"Why did you issue that desk to so-and-so?" "Because my boss told me to."
ad infinitum.
And it's not that "somebody else would", it's "somebody else already is and will continue to, without sufficient environmental safety precautions". that's a huge difference. One is very hypothetical, and the other is very real. There is nothing wrong with our drilling there. Now if we go in there and start drilling with bad environmental safety precautions ourselves, that would be bad. That's a matter of hoping that our middle bureaucracies in government work correctly. There are no guarantees there, but it will probably be done correctly. It certainly will happen better than it has for countries which have few environmental cares. Especially since it's not their shores that will be covered with oil when they foul up.