Prime numbers are distributed in pretty much the same way as they were before the proof.
The proof is mathematics for the sake of mathematics. The Riemann Hypothesis has been accepted as true true for over a hundred years, so practical applications that derive from it already exist.
I believe that in your example the user that is potentially being harmed is not the searcher, it is the advertiser that paid for the ads that the searcher sees. Hopefully when viewed from the advertiser's point of view, the concern about non competition will be apparent.
Privatize the power to conduct a legal prosecution. Imagine the possibilities.
How can replacing a government function with a group that has government like powers possibly become anything other than the government? In the US we had a system to do all the things you describe, then it got corrupt. The only possibility that I can imagine is that the private prosecution would be corrupted too.
Any group that has authority over others is going to abuse that authority. The trick is to grant enough authority to get the job done, but at the same time limit the authority and therefore limit the abuse. It is apparently a very difficult trick.
I'd much rather they charge people with 2 bags more than they charge me and my 1 bag than I would they charge everybody the same.
Then shouldn't they just weigh everybody with their bags and then price the ticket per pound?
If a person comes to the airport with a single 40 pound bag that person will pay $25 less than the flier that comes with two 20 pound bags. That strikes most people as unjust.
Simply put, it's an election year and none of the Democrats want to appear "soft on terrorism/defense/insert-the-buzzword-of-the-day-here", out of fear of losing their jobs.
I'm feeling informative today, so I'll add some stuff to your post for people who aren't that familiar with US politics (like Americans).
The entire House of Representatives is elected every 2 years, so the House Democrats are understandably more sensitive to losing their jobs.
The Senate elects 1/3 of the 100 seats) every 2 years, and this year there are 35 seats up for election (33 regular and 2 special elections). Those 35 seats can be broken down into 23 Republicans and 12 Democrats.
The Senate is currently composed of 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and 2 Independents who vote with the Democrats.
The summary is a little bit misleading when it says that Dodd & Feingold "require the vote of 40 senators". Dodd & Feingold want to filibuster, which is a tool used by the minority to waste time doing nothing (and how is that different from every other day in Congress? - Zing!) to prevent a vote on an issue that they expect the majority to win. I am using minority / majority to refer to the position on the issue, not the number of party members.
Cloture is an attempt by the majority to prevent filibuster. In order to achieve cloture, the majority will have to receive 60 votes. Even if only 60 senators show up to work that day, they would still need 60 votes. So Dodd & Feingold really require the vote or non vote of 40 senators to succeed with the filibuster.
The bill originated in the House (and passed easily). If the Senate passes it, it goes to the president to be signed into law. If the filibuster succeeds, the bill will not be voted on and will expire, which is not as good as being voted down, but it is good enough given the circumstances.
Why is it bad for the tourists? I don't think that I've ever seen a wind turbine with my own eyes. What's wrong with it?
A lot of wealthy and powerful people have bought homes in places that look out over the ocean, and they want to see the ocean, not a bunch of wind turbines or oil rigs or boat people. These people will say anything do stop the project, so if the area gets money from tourism, they say that tourists will stop coming. I agree with you, I don't see anything wrong with it. While I like looking at mountains or the ocean, if I was going to buy a home because of the view it would be a view of the Chicago skyline.
Also, the web site and the submission didn't mention why it would only be visible in winter. I thought that it would be visible in summer and not the winter, if anything. Does anybody understand why?
In the summer the humidity is higher and the air holds more water which reduces visibility. In the winter there is less humidity and visibility improves. It isn't stated in the summary, but it is implied that they are referring to clear, sunny days (which probably occur less often during the winter, but do still occur occasionally).
Then ask the folks in Georgia, Arizona, and southern California where they'll get the water to cool their share of the 45 new reactors.
Arizona already has one (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 50 miles west of Phoenix) so they probably wouldn't get another one, but Arizona is a big state so who knows.
An interesting thing about Palo Verde is that it uses treated sewage from Phoenix for cooling since Arizona does not have an abundance of spare water.
I'm not against (or for) your position since I don't have enough info, but I thought these facts would be interesting to you.
Paradoxically, after decades of this wrong-headed policy, Sweden seems very enterprising, very prosperous and well supplied by good leaders. I can't explain it.>
I listened to this guy for a while, but he is awful. He confuses being a skeptic (which he isn't) with being disputatious (which he is). But being a curmudgeon isn't as cool as being a skeptic, so he calls himself a skeptic.
The episode that drove me away (ha ha!) was one defending SUVs. He said something like, "Did you know that a single container ship coming into Long Beach Harbor generates as much carbon emissions as 300,000 cars?". A real skeptic would never make an ambiguous statement like this. Part of being a skeptic is recognizing meaningless statements that are intended to mislead the listener.
However, I do think his podcasts would be useful in an academic setting. Recognizing false skeptics is an important part of developing skepticism.
Re:Whatever happened to actual economy cars?
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
There are probably at least two reasons for this.
First, the EPA has changed their MPG ratings system twice (early 80s and mid 90s I think) and is changing it again this year. I think the original test for highway MPG was done driving at 50 mph, so people tended to not get what was advertised (although I once drove a VW Golf diesel and it got about 50mpg also). This means that the same car would have gotten lower EPA estimates with each successive test.
The other reason is the requirement for more safety equipment is increasing the weight of the cars, which will also hurt gas mileage. Even for the non government related stuff, nobody wants their car to get a bad crash test rating or else they won't be making it any more (remember the Isuzu Trooper?). If they had done crash test ratings in 1973 I wonder what kind of score the Honda Civic of that era would have received.
But imagine an anonymizing proxy that costs $9.95 to get an account on.
And imagine that you run the risk that if you post something that the moderator doesn't agree with you lose $10. People won't sign up for that service. They'll just go back to yelling at the TV.
Here is the data from the original link:
McD sells 1 billion cups of coffee a year.
There have been 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade
So McD sells 10 billion cups of coffee a in decade. Let's write that out:
10,000,000,000
And 700 people burn themselves. Let's write that out:
00,000,000,700
This tells us that 99.9999993% of people can drink McD coffee without getting hurt.
Any product can be used improperly. Someone can poke their eye out with a straw when they lean forward to get a drink. But nobody would say that it was McD's fault that they did it.
Let's talk about tort reform. Proponents of tort reform don't like that in our current system an accident or stupidity (or both) can cause someone to injure themselves and then sue and win the lottery. So proponents of tort reform want this changed so that people take responsibility for their actions.
Then the lawyers step in and say that we can't have tort reform because there really are companies out there that are producing dangerous products and only through the courts and substantial damages can they be encouraged to produce safe products. Which is probably true.
But the McD coffee lady is clearly not in that category. A product that is not harmful to 99.9999993% of its users is not a dangerous product. By muddying the waters and claiming that the McD coffee lady is a legitimate case, it makes tort reform look bad.
And finally, also from the original link, McD still sells coffee at the same temperature. Why? Because it is safe.
and also go through the motions of selling back wind generated power which is useless to the electricity company
Your statement that the wind generated power is useless to the electric company indicates that you don't understand how the system works. I don't say this to discourage you from posting, I say this to encourage you to look it up.
You shut the fuck up with your stupid lawyer fanboying. Read your own link - it says that McD sells 1 billion cups of coffee a year and they are all the same temperature. If it was so dangerous, how come more people aren't getting hurt?
I can't believe I am typing this, but according to your logic if the law says that slavery is legal then it means that people don't have a basic human right to not be slaves.
Calling the cell company, we had the Sheriff on the phone along with the parents of the missing kids, and the parents paid the bill, and AT&T would not release the location info.
Maybe someone with more knowledge can explain to me how AT&T knows who is using the phone. If the parents are paying the bill, how does AT&T know that the parents aren't the ones using the phone?
Your post indicates that you think that a person does not have the right to take their own life (i.e, it is an emergency and they need to be saved them from themselves).
I don't think this forum is appropriate to debate whether or not a person does have such a right, but it would probably help to understand the other posts if you realize that many people consider suicide to be an inalienable right.
Slashdot Mirror
it has huge effects on prime number distribution
Prime numbers are distributed in pretty much the same way as they were before the proof.
The proof is mathematics for the sake of mathematics. The Riemann Hypothesis has been accepted as true true for over a hundred years, so practical applications that derive from it already exist.
I believe that in your example the user that is potentially being harmed is not the searcher, it is the advertiser that paid for the ads that the searcher sees. Hopefully when viewed from the advertiser's point of view, the concern about non competition will be apparent.
Privatize the power to conduct a legal prosecution. Imagine the possibilities.
How can replacing a government function with a group that has government like powers possibly become anything other than the government? In the US we had a system to do all the things you describe, then it got corrupt. The only possibility that I can imagine is that the private prosecution would be corrupted too.
Any group that has authority over others is going to abuse that authority. The trick is to grant enough authority to get the job done, but at the same time limit the authority and therefore limit the abuse. It is apparently a very difficult trick.
I'd much rather they charge people with 2 bags more than they charge me and my 1 bag than I would they charge everybody the same.
Then shouldn't they just weigh everybody with their bags and then price the ticket per pound?
If a person comes to the airport with a single 40 pound bag that person will pay $25 less than the flier that comes with two 20 pound bags. That strikes most people as unjust.
Simply put, it's an election year and none of the Democrats want to appear "soft on terrorism/defense/insert-the-buzzword-of-the-day-here", out of fear of losing their jobs.
I'm feeling informative today, so I'll add some stuff to your post for people who aren't that familiar with US politics (like Americans).
The entire House of Representatives is elected every 2 years, so the House Democrats are understandably more sensitive to losing their jobs.
The Senate elects 1/3 of the 100 seats) every 2 years, and this year there are 35 seats up for election (33 regular and 2 special elections). Those 35 seats can be broken down into 23 Republicans and 12 Democrats.
The Senate is currently composed of 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and 2 Independents who vote with the Democrats.
The summary is a little bit misleading when it says that Dodd & Feingold "require the vote of 40 senators". Dodd & Feingold want to filibuster, which is a tool used by the minority to waste time doing nothing (and how is that different from every other day in Congress? - Zing!) to prevent a vote on an issue that they expect the majority to win. I am using minority / majority to refer to the position on the issue, not the number of party members.
Cloture is an attempt by the majority to prevent filibuster. In order to achieve cloture, the majority will have to receive 60 votes. Even if only 60 senators show up to work that day, they would still need 60 votes. So Dodd & Feingold really require the vote or non vote of 40 senators to succeed with the filibuster.
The bill originated in the House (and passed easily). If the Senate passes it, it goes to the president to be signed into law. If the filibuster succeeds, the bill will not be voted on and will expire, which is not as good as being voted down, but it is good enough given the circumstances.
Why is it bad for the tourists? I don't think that I've ever seen a wind turbine with my own eyes. What's wrong with it?
A lot of wealthy and powerful people have bought homes in places that look out over the ocean, and they want to see the ocean, not a bunch of wind turbines or oil rigs or boat people. These people will say anything do stop the project, so if the area gets money from tourism, they say that tourists will stop coming. I agree with you, I don't see anything wrong with it. While I like looking at mountains or the ocean, if I was going to buy a home because of the view it would be a view of the Chicago skyline.
Also, the web site and the submission didn't mention why it would only be visible in winter. I thought that it would be visible in summer and not the winter, if anything. Does anybody understand why?
In the summer the humidity is higher and the air holds more water which reduces visibility. In the winter there is less humidity and visibility improves. It isn't stated in the summary, but it is implied that they are referring to clear, sunny days (which probably occur less often during the winter, but do still occur occasionally).
For both men and women!
We're talking about Congress here. They have a better chance of dying of old age and/or indicted than of being voted out of office.
Don't forget that two of the members of the Senate are running for president this November. Maybe one of them will impress / surprise us. Let's watch.
Then ask the folks in Georgia, Arizona, and southern California where they'll get the water to cool their share of the 45 new reactors.
Arizona already has one (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 50 miles west of Phoenix) so they probably wouldn't get another one, but Arizona is a big state so who knows.
An interesting thing about Palo Verde is that it uses treated sewage from Phoenix for cooling since Arizona does not have an abundance of spare water.
I'm not against (or for) your position since I don't have enough info, but I thought these facts would be interesting to you.
1 at a time: $9 / month
2 at a time: $14 / month
Proportionally, a 29% surcharge to have 2 x 1 at a time.
Paradoxically, after decades of this wrong-headed policy, Sweden seems very enterprising, very prosperous and well supplied by good leaders. I can't explain it.>
You missed this vote yesterday
LaBatt is owned by Belgians and Molson is owned by Coors. Moosehead is Canadian! (but not French Canadian)
If you really think the N810 would be perfect for you, you might want to check out Skype.
The parent left out Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion for the "good" guys.
I listened to this guy for a while, but he is awful. He confuses being a skeptic (which he isn't) with being disputatious (which he is). But being a curmudgeon isn't as cool as being a skeptic, so he calls himself a skeptic.
The episode that drove me away (ha ha!) was one defending SUVs. He said something like, "Did you know that a single container ship coming into Long Beach Harbor generates as much carbon emissions as 300,000 cars?". A real skeptic would never make an ambiguous statement like this. Part of being a skeptic is recognizing meaningless statements that are intended to mislead the listener.
However, I do think his podcasts would be useful in an academic setting. Recognizing false skeptics is an important part of developing skepticism.
At last Cowboy Neal will win a poll!
There are probably at least two reasons for this.
First, the EPA has changed their MPG ratings system twice (early 80s and mid 90s I think) and is changing it again this year. I think the original test for highway MPG was done driving at 50 mph, so people tended to not get what was advertised (although I once drove a VW Golf diesel and it got about 50mpg also). This means that the same car would have gotten lower EPA estimates with each successive test.
The other reason is the requirement for more safety equipment is increasing the weight of the cars, which will also hurt gas mileage. Even for the non government related stuff, nobody wants their car to get a bad crash test rating or else they won't be making it any more (remember the Isuzu Trooper?). If they had done crash test ratings in 1973 I wonder what kind of score the Honda Civic of that era would have received.
John McCain!
I'll be here all week, try the broccoli.
But imagine an anonymizing proxy that costs $9.95 to get an account on.
And imagine that you run the risk that if you post something that the moderator doesn't agree with you lose $10. People won't sign up for that service. They'll just go back to yelling at the TV.
Jane, you ignorant slut.
Here is the data from the original link:
McD sells 1 billion cups of coffee a year.
There have been 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade
So McD sells 10 billion cups of coffee a in decade. Let's write that out:
10,000,000,000
And 700 people burn themselves. Let's write that out:
00,000,000,700
This tells us that 99.9999993% of people can drink McD coffee without getting hurt.
Any product can be used improperly. Someone can poke their eye out with a straw when they lean forward to get a drink. But nobody would say that it was McD's fault that they did it.
Let's talk about tort reform. Proponents of tort reform don't like that in our current system an accident or stupidity (or both) can cause someone to injure themselves and then sue and win the lottery. So proponents of tort reform want this changed so that people take responsibility for their actions.
Then the lawyers step in and say that we can't have tort reform because there really are companies out there that are producing dangerous products and only through the courts and substantial damages can they be encouraged to produce safe products. Which is probably true.
But the McD coffee lady is clearly not in that category. A product that is not harmful to 99.9999993% of its users is not a dangerous product. By muddying the waters and claiming that the McD coffee lady is a legitimate case, it makes tort reform look bad.
And finally, also from the original link, McD still sells coffee at the same temperature. Why? Because it is safe.
and also go through the motions of selling back wind generated power which is useless to the electricity company
Your statement that the wind generated power is useless to the electric company indicates that you don't understand how the system works. I don't say this to discourage you from posting, I say this to encourage you to look it up.
You shut the fuck up with your stupid lawyer fanboying. Read your own link - it says that McD sells 1 billion cups of coffee a year and they are all the same temperature. If it was so dangerous, how come more people aren't getting hurt?
I can't believe I am typing this, but according to your logic if the law says that slavery is legal then it means that people don't have a basic human right to not be slaves.
Calling the cell company, we had the Sheriff on the phone along with the parents of the missing kids, and the parents paid the bill, and AT&T would not release the location info.
Maybe someone with more knowledge can explain to me how AT&T knows who is using the phone. If the parents are paying the bill, how does AT&T know that the parents aren't the ones using the phone?
Your post indicates that you think that a person does not have the right to take their own life (i.e, it is an emergency and they need to be saved them from themselves).
I don't think this forum is appropriate to debate whether or not a person does have such a right, but it would probably help to understand the other posts if you realize that many people consider suicide to be an inalienable right.