Gravity isn't a fact. It's a theory. It's "just" a theory, in the same sense that Evolution is, by the way.
Not all facts are mathematical in nature. "Facts" can refer to observations, as well. Even observations that are not 100% repeatable or 100% accurate come within the realm of fact. The effects of gravity and evolution are observed facts. Various theories (there isn't just one theory of gravitation, you know) have sprung up to help us understand those observations. So, GP was right: It's a fact that if he jumps up, he will come back down. Is it faith to say that the same thing will happen every time he tries the experiment (as long as he stays on planet Earth, at least), he will get that result? My answer is no: It's a statement consistent with every observed fact that might be relevant to the question. You are equating faith with inductive reasoning, but I don't think that equation stands.
No, he got it exactly right; if the problem as stated in the article is that negation operators are dropped in people's minds, then an affirmative statement is the way to go.
On the other hand, they'll be disappointed that only simple life forms can be created. In millions of years, those life forms we create in the near future might actually evolve into something interesting, though.
There's no right to copyright. In spite of the name, it's a privilege, granted by the government and subject to the government's terms, not an innate right.
Read up: Net Neutrality. Bandwidth != access. Non-neutrality can take many forms but it usually means a scenario where some form of discriminatory pricing for access is in effect. In the context of this discussion, it refers to ISPs taking money from content providers for access to end users (not for bandwidth, which they are already buying), vs. those end users paying extra to their ISPs in order to be excluded from the harmful effects (i.e., "protection money").
Of course they pay for the data lines, but that has nothing to do with net neutrality, and those aren't the fees I am referring to. Nice job of completely missing the point.
As a Democrat, I have no problem limiting executive power for all presidents, current and future (nothing we can do about past abuses). There is way too much power concentrated in the executive branch, and this has been true for decades. Congressional Democrats should be OK with it, in theory, since less executive power means Congressional oversight can finally actually mean something; but in practice some of them may answer to other persuasions.
I'd actually like to hear a Presidential candidate state that executive power should be far more limited than it is today. So far, I haven't heard any of them state that, although if I were to guess, I'd expect that Kucinich might believe it.
Whether or not Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats would not make a 50-50 tie more or less likely. He caucuses with the Democrats today yet frequently votes with the Republicans.
Also, don't forget Tim Johnson (D), who has been absent from the Senate all year due to a brain hemorrhage. It's currently a 50-49 split. And with Lieberman frequently voting the wrong way, that's not much of a majority.
So with this new approach, I pay so that Amazon doesn't have to. Sounds like the burden imposed by non-neutrality is just being shifted from content providers to end users.
Yes, I know the original source well. But I always liked the new meaning added by the closing phrase in the song. Especially as it relates to the 1960s, and to this time as well.
Yes, they are private but not as large as a hypothetical government-run insurance program. But in the scale of things, there's too small, large enough, and more than large enough. In most cases, the private insurers *are* large enough, and the delta of risk containment between a multi-billion dollar insurance company and a federal insurance program would not be sufficient to make federal programs for auto or homeowner's insurance worthwhile in most cases. That doesn't mean private insurers will perform better than government could. California moved to a state-run earthquake insurance program in the 1990s, because the private insurers proved they couldn't handle it (and we had a lousy insurance commissioner named Chuck Quackenbush who let them off easy). An example where risk pooling on the federal scale makes sense can be seen in the FDIC.
Vague? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory: 'The people' need as much firepower as would be necessary to ward off an army sent by the federal government. The founders differed on the specifics, but they all agreed on that.
Wow, you read all that into it? It obviously isn't self-explanatory if nothing in that sentence comes close to what you said.
No, if a libertarian argues that private insurance is the best way to manage risk, then it is he who has lost the argument. From the rest of your post, you seem to agree.
Private companies do not work on the scale of the federal government. The way you manage risk is to create the largest risk pool possible. That is the principal of all insurance. If you want insurance, you don't go down to Bob's Insurance Shop to take out a policy from him, you call Mercury or Allstate or Geico.
In addition to the NiMH, the Prius has a small 12-volt storage battery (lead-acid). Like conventional cars, this is used to power accessories. However, it does not have to turn over a starter motor, so it is much smaller.
Go to the linked article, and search for "Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation". There are two tables, one showing the top 10 based on new data and one showing the top 10 based on old data. The order is different, but the biggest change is that 2001 is not in the new ordering, being replaced by 1939. The changes in the tabulated years are 0.1 degrees Celsius or less, and are typically 0.01 to 0.03 degrees Celsius, except for 2001, which had an error of 0.14 degrees Celsius.
How are these small errors characteristic of a "Y2K bug"? Wouldn't we see something more gross, like the 2001 data equaling the 1901 data?
Slashdot Mirror
Gravity isn't a fact. It's a theory. It's "just" a theory, in the same sense that Evolution is, by the way.
Not all facts are mathematical in nature. "Facts" can refer to observations, as well. Even observations that are not 100% repeatable or 100% accurate come within the realm of fact. The effects of gravity and evolution are observed facts. Various theories (there isn't just one theory of gravitation, you know) have sprung up to help us understand those observations. So, GP was right: It's a fact that if he jumps up, he will come back down. Is it faith to say that the same thing will happen every time he tries the experiment (as long as he stays on planet Earth, at least), he will get that result? My answer is no: It's a statement consistent with every observed fact that might be relevant to the question. You are equating faith with inductive reasoning, but I don't think that equation stands.
No, he got it exactly right; if the problem as stated in the article is that negation operators are dropped in people's minds, then an affirmative statement is the way to go.
No, fair use is just one of the limitations our government imposes on the copyright privilege.
On the other hand, they'll be disappointed that only simple life forms can be created. In millions of years, those life forms we create in the near future might actually evolve into something interesting, though.
There's no right to copyright. In spite of the name, it's a privilege, granted by the government and subject to the government's terms, not an innate right.
Read up: Net Neutrality. Bandwidth != access. Non-neutrality can take many forms but it usually means a scenario where some form of discriminatory pricing for access is in effect. In the context of this discussion, it refers to ISPs taking money from content providers for access to end users (not for bandwidth, which they are already buying), vs. those end users paying extra to their ISPs in order to be excluded from the harmful effects (i.e., "protection money").
American "liberals" are not liberal btw, they're socialists.
I'm an American liberal, and I define liberal as "opposed to authoritarianism". American socialists are not necessarily liberal.
Can you say, "Recess appointment"?
Of course they pay for the data lines, but that has nothing to do with net neutrality, and those aren't the fees I am referring to. Nice job of completely missing the point.
As a Democrat, I have no problem limiting executive power for all presidents, current and future (nothing we can do about past abuses). There is way too much power concentrated in the executive branch, and this has been true for decades. Congressional Democrats should be OK with it, in theory, since less executive power means Congressional oversight can finally actually mean something; but in practice some of them may answer to other persuasions.
I'd actually like to hear a Presidential candidate state that executive power should be far more limited than it is today. So far, I haven't heard any of them state that, although if I were to guess, I'd expect that Kucinich might believe it.
With this release, it seems we've only got 56 more minor release to go!
I wish we had some system here that would prevent the US congress from being only a two party body for all intents and purposes.
Here ya go.
Whether or not Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats would not make a 50-50 tie more or less likely. He caucuses with the Democrats today yet frequently votes with the Republicans. Also, don't forget Tim Johnson (D), who has been absent from the Senate all year due to a brain hemorrhage. It's currently a 50-49 split. And with Lieberman frequently voting the wrong way, that's not much of a majority.
So with this new approach, I pay so that Amazon doesn't have to. Sounds like the burden imposed by non-neutrality is just being shifted from content providers to end users.
Yes, I know the original source well. But I always liked the new meaning added by the closing phrase in the song. Especially as it relates to the 1960s, and to this time as well.
Yes, they are private but not as large as a hypothetical government-run insurance program. But in the scale of things, there's too small, large enough, and more than large enough. In most cases, the private insurers *are* large enough, and the delta of risk containment between a multi-billion dollar insurance company and a federal insurance program would not be sufficient to make federal programs for auto or homeowner's insurance worthwhile in most cases. That doesn't mean private insurers will perform better than government could. California moved to a state-run earthquake insurance program in the 1990s, because the private insurers proved they couldn't handle it (and we had a lousy insurance commissioner named Chuck Quackenbush who let them off easy). An example where risk pooling on the federal scale makes sense can be seen in the FDIC.
Vague? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory: 'The people' need as much firepower as would be necessary to ward off an army sent by the federal government. The founders differed on the specifics, but they all agreed on that.
Wow, you read all that into it? It obviously isn't self-explanatory if nothing in that sentence comes close to what you said.
No, if a libertarian argues that private insurance is the best way to manage risk, then it is he who has lost the argument. From the rest of your post, you seem to agree. Private companies do not work on the scale of the federal government. The way you manage risk is to create the largest risk pool possible. That is the principal of all insurance. If you want insurance, you don't go down to Bob's Insurance Shop to take out a policy from him, you call Mercury or Allstate or Geico.
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace, I swear it's not too late.
In addition to the NiMH, the Prius has a small 12-volt storage battery (lead-acid). Like conventional cars, this is used to power accessories. However, it does not have to turn over a starter motor, so it is much smaller.
Whether you believe the writers thought this when they wrote it is another issue altogether.
It does make a pretty good "backsplanation", though, you've got to admit.
Kessel Run
Not from around here...but a real square, little, fellow.
Go to the linked article, and search for "Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation". There are two tables, one showing the top 10 based on new data and one showing the top 10 based on old data. The order is different, but the biggest change is that 2001 is not in the new ordering, being replaced by 1939. The changes in the tabulated years are 0.1 degrees Celsius or less, and are typically 0.01 to 0.03 degrees Celsius, except for 2001, which had an error of 0.14 degrees Celsius.
How are these small errors characteristic of a "Y2K bug"? Wouldn't we see something more gross, like the 2001 data equaling the 1901 data?
I'd also like to know how the shark moves through the air.
Or, you can use the Doomsday Algorithm.