Do you need a confidence level when you're trying to approximate a percentage? I thought it was for confirming a hypothesis.
Anyhow. the size of a sample relative to the population in statistics is irrelevant once you get to Large. Once you get to a Large population, it becomes like rolling a die to determine the opinions of a person; once you get enough rolls of the die in, you can make inferences with higher and higher confidence of the rest of the population.
For instance, if I pick a die out of a million, and roll it, there's a huge possibility I'm wrong about the possible values it can produce. However, if I pick out ~1000 dice, there's a decent chance that each of the sides will have been hit ~167 times. If you increase the size of the population to a billion, that probability won't change.
I assume so, given that most users wouldn't be able to discern a Government Trojan from any other Trojan.
Unless the gov't does something that breaks the 'secret' nature of the virus (Here, take this spyware!), but at that point it's easier just to confiscate the damn computer.
The problem is that Stephen Colbert write-ins would be very good for Republican candidates, as people who are otherwise democratic voters would be more likely to vote for him. This is the same reason that in 2000/2004 Republicans fought to get Nader on the ballot of several swing states[1.
I'll bite.
Correlation is not causation. I would expect the areas with high gun violence to have more restrictive laws, just like I would expect areas with stringent restrictions on curfew for teens or areas with higher police populations/patrols.
The question is: Which rose first? I would suspect the crime.
The Bryant Fire did, however, destroy the electrical box on the outside of the dome and cause smoke damage on the inside. Consequently, the Braswells could not live in their dome home for more than six weeks after the fire, while the electrical system was repaired, painting completed and carpeting replaced.
Additional losses for the Braswells included three antique vehicles, a foam machine, a compressor, a utility trailer and miscellaneous equipment, for an estimated total of about $300,000.
At that point you'd have a nice wide open grass plot that can still catch fire. Not to mention that burning material has been traveling several hundred yards before touching the ground and starting more fires, so if you wiped out all plant life on that land and paved it all over, things would probably catch fire on the other side.
When defining a concept, for instance, "Truthiness" you only need to put quotation marks around the new term once. Thereafter, it is understood that you are referring to the previously defined term.
Furthermore, HTML has mechanisms for emphasizing certain parts of expressions, such as bold, underline, or italic. There's also several commonly accepted non-HTML standards for doing so, such as *stars*, _lines_ or CAPITAL LETTERS.
As for the content, Conspiracy applies to two or more people entering an agreement to break the law at the same time, knowingly aiding someone committing a crime, may cause the breaking of more laws; For instance, evading police after a bank robbery.
Freedom of speech protections end at most destructive, non-political messages, such as shouting "fire" in a theater when no fire is present, or falsely defaming a person or their business. Most courts would rightly consider freedom of expression ended when it concerns illegal acts; Should someone be caught attempting to sell drugs to a police officer, they would most likely not be successful claiming a freedom of speech defense, even though he or she may not have possessed controlled substances at the time.
Finally, the law in question isn't American, so any precedent or legislation in the American legal system doesn't matter as far as this article is concerned.
As a PC assembler, and not a software house, I think you're griping towards the wrong target. Dell could probably afford to give a portion of the profits to the Ubuntu group, but as far as in-house development of the kernel and OS, I think yer boned.
Eh, I think we're looking at it the wrong way, anyhow. VOIP (as a phone replacement) involves a lot more than internet packets; There would be places where the digital signal would be converted into the analog signal for use with normal phones, and since phones are taxed, it's reasonable to tax VOIP.
Plus there's the whole service provider thing, where your VOIP service may not be provided by your ISP, so while it operates over the internet, there's a difference in what precisely they're taxing.
Pick your analogy:
Taxing VOIP:Taxing Internet
Taxing the truck driver:the taxing of gasoline
Taxing your maid service:Taxing your house
Taxing the waterpark:Taxing water
Hard to find an analogy here, they ARE different services, but equally taxable. That Congress wishes to tax just VOIP isn't my problem.
It's not "rational" because it's the same sort of line for internet services as with VOIP, the difference is that VOIP plugs into a phone.
The argument is that this looks an awful lot like Congress saying that you can be taxed on the water that you use on your lawn, but not the water you drink. It's the same water, how could you tell either way?
I don't have VOIP services, so my ability to care, as well as my knowledge on the subject, is limited.
From the 9/11 commission report [p102] standard policy was to hold luggage off the plane until people were confirmed to be boarding, or to search their luggage. There was not much keeping a hijacker from taking control of an airplane.
At that point I'm sure they were more concerned about bombing than hijacking; typically hijackers make a few political demands, the plane lands somewhere and they get shot or arrested.
I don't know if the 9/11 hijackers used fake IDs (I thought they just used student Visas and such), but I'm pretty sure it would have been irrelevant if they had done so, since it's not like they'd have been stopped from boarding the airplane.
Regardless, take off the damn tinfoil hat, it makes you look stupid.
Interesting, a big truck that you could just dump things on...
I was planning on a series of tubes with which to funnel the data centers out, but they might get stuck behind enormous amounts of material.
The wings were for mounting weapons and maneuverability. There's no atmosphere to push on, but the engines are mounted such that it could turn pretty easily.
Slashdot Mirror
ctrl+alt+backspace?
Do you need a confidence level when you're trying to approximate a percentage? I thought it was for confirming a hypothesis.
Anyhow. the size of a sample relative to the population in statistics is irrelevant once you get to Large. Once you get to a Large population, it becomes like rolling a die to determine the opinions of a person; once you get enough rolls of the die in, you can make inferences with higher and higher confidence of the rest of the population.
For instance, if I pick a die out of a million, and roll it, there's a huge possibility I'm wrong about the possible values it can produce. However, if I pick out ~1000 dice, there's a decent chance that each of the sides will have been hit ~167 times. If you increase the size of the population to a billion, that probability won't change.
I assume so, given that most users wouldn't be able to discern a Government Trojan from any other Trojan.
Unless the gov't does something that breaks the 'secret' nature of the virus (Here, take this spyware!), but at that point it's easier just to confiscate the damn computer.
Just in case you might be doubting the noise exists: Still does.
You're not crazy.
Thought you should know.
*I* voted for Kodos.
The problem is that Stephen Colbert write-ins would be very good for Republican candidates, as people who are otherwise democratic voters would be more likely to vote for him. This is the same reason that in 2000/2004 Republicans fought to get Nader on the ballot of several swing states[1.
Citation needed, I love reading that kind of stuff.
I'll bite.
Correlation is not causation. I would expect the areas with high gun violence to have more restrictive laws, just like I would expect areas with stringent restrictions on curfew for teens or areas with higher police populations/patrols.
The question is: Which rose first?
I would suspect the crime.
On topic: lol, facially.
Additional losses for the Braswells included three antique vehicles, a foam machine, a compressor, a utility trailer and miscellaneous equipment, for an estimated total of about $300,000.
Yep, saved a lot of money there, with that dome.
At that point you'd have a nice wide open grass plot that can still catch fire.
Not to mention that burning material has been traveling several hundred yards before touching the ground and starting more fires, so if you wiped out all plant life on that land and paved it all over, things would probably catch fire on the other side.
When defining a concept, for instance, "Truthiness" you only need to put quotation marks around the new term once. Thereafter, it is understood that you are referring to the previously defined term.
Furthermore, HTML has mechanisms for emphasizing certain parts of expressions, such as bold, underline, or italic. There's also several commonly accepted non-HTML standards for doing so, such as *stars*, _lines_ or CAPITAL LETTERS.
As for the content, Conspiracy applies to two or more people entering an agreement to break the law at the same time, knowingly aiding someone committing a crime, may cause the breaking of more laws; For instance, evading police after a bank robbery.
Freedom of speech protections end at most destructive, non-political messages, such as shouting "fire" in a theater when no fire is present, or falsely defaming a person or their business. Most courts would rightly consider freedom of expression ended when it concerns illegal acts; Should someone be caught attempting to sell drugs to a police officer, they would most likely not be successful claiming a freedom of speech defense, even though he or she may not have possessed controlled substances at the time.
Finally, the law in question isn't American, so any precedent or legislation in the American legal system doesn't matter as far as this article is concerned.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
I would be very surprised if Blizzard didn't account for BitTorrent failing and having a backup mechanism or two.
To be fair, those were all within the timespan of 2 minutes.
Well, that answers a lot of questions.
That would never work, nobody updates Windows!
As a PC assembler, and not a software house, I think you're griping towards the wrong target. Dell could probably afford to give a portion of the profits to the Ubuntu group, but as far as in-house development of the kernel and OS, I think yer boned.
IHBT, FSCK
You'd pay a tax on your monthly bill?
Plus there's the whole service provider thing, where your VOIP service may not be provided by your ISP, so while it operates over the internet, there's a difference in what precisely they're taxing.
Pick your analogy:
- Taxing VOIP:Taxing Internet
- Taxing the truck driver:the taxing of gasoline
- Taxing your maid service:Taxing your house
- Taxing the waterpark:Taxing water
Hard to find an analogy here, they ARE different services, but equally taxable. That Congress wishes to tax just VOIP isn't my problem.I am not a member of Congress.
And let's be honest here, I'm not a model of competence either.
It's not "rational" because it's the same sort of line for internet services as with VOIP, the difference is that VOIP plugs into a phone.
The argument is that this looks an awful lot like Congress saying that you can be taxed on the water that you use on your lawn, but not the water you drink. It's the same water, how could you tell either way?
I don't have VOIP services, so my ability to care, as well as my knowledge on the subject, is limited.
I assume that the ban on VOIP regards telephone-like systems, and not stuff like Ventrilo.
If you're paying for VOIP phones, I would believe that you're subject to taxation, much like if you're paying for phone service.
Disclaimer: IANAMOC
The speed of stupidity is actually faster than light, however there's no information being transmitted, so it doesn't break the laws of physics.
From the 9/11 commission report [p102] standard policy was to hold luggage off the plane until people were confirmed to be boarding, or to search their luggage. There was not much keeping a hijacker from taking control of an airplane. At that point I'm sure they were more concerned about bombing than hijacking; typically hijackers make a few political demands, the plane lands somewhere and they get shot or arrested.
I don't know if the 9/11 hijackers used fake IDs (I thought they just used student Visas and such), but I'm pretty sure it would have been irrelevant if they had done so, since it's not like they'd have been stopped from boarding the airplane.
Regardless, take off the damn tinfoil hat, it makes you look stupid.
Interesting, a big truck that you could just dump things on...
I was planning on a series of tubes with which to funnel the data centers out, but they might get stuck behind enormous amounts of material.
The wings were for mounting weapons and maneuverability. There's no atmosphere to push on, but the engines are mounted such that it could turn pretty easily.
Plus it looks kinda neat.