Actually probably not. If you are told the number is prime, then the answer is already given and not by you. If you are not told, then you have to factor it, which amounts to proving that it is prime. If you can do that with a "really large" number, you are quite the machine.
I find it interesting that it was found Constitutional under taxing power. I don't recall anyone pushing that angle to support the law in the court of public opinion.
I did read all of the ancestral posts, adn I was replying to the AC who said an AZ license was enough. Yes, he did miss the point.
Of course I could also have commented on his "California border patrol" absurdity. I think he was confusing the state's Dept. of Food and Agriculture checkpoints (which help keep out invasive pests) with Arizona's usurping of *federal* authority on immigration matters.
This is regulation of technical quality. If it causes crappy sound to come out of my speakers, it is a technical fault (even if done intentionally). It certainly lies in the scope of what the regulators should be doing.
Well, he never said she told him any such thing. There's nothing in any version of the story that says that she told anyone outside her family, before talking to the TV station. The clerk was simply falling back on company policy, but from the facts presented, it appears he was going beyond that policy.
Citation needed. The linked article says cousin, for starters.
He denied service because he heard her speak Farsi, assumed she was from Iran (which she is not)
Now, what you people need to understand is that the Apple policy is... to refuse sale for export to Iran. The policy is not to refuse service to any person who comes from Iran, even if they are fully a US Citizen and the product is not intended to leave the country. That's not racism, plain and simple.
Except you are wrong and the whole point was the clerk who was Iranian as well heard her say in Iranian while in the store she intended to send it to Iran.
I've seen this point mentioned in several comments, but it wasn't in any of the linked articles. Can you point me to the source?
It's simply a variant of two other fallacies: Moving the goal post and begging the question. Moving the goal post, because if I find a counterexample to the original statement about Scotsmen, the perpetrator of the fallacy negates my counterexample by adding the vague modifier "true". Now I have to find a counterexample that meets that vague condition. And question-begging, because the perpetrator of the fallacy is assuming the counterexample cannot be a (true) Scotsman because he is some kind of pervert. That assumption takes his claim as a given, and uses it to support his claim.
In the Hazelwood example above, if Hazelwood were to claim to be an environmentalist, and this were held up as a counterexample to the statement "No environmentalist would wreak large-scale damage on the environment", one need not resort to an NTS argument to demolish the counteresmaple. One would simply point out that he has no record of supporting environmentalism, and his claim is nothing more than a claim, and an empty one at that. If, on the other hand, he did have a long-standing record of supporting environmentalism, was a member of Greenpeace, etc., and someone then altered the premise to "No true environmentalist would wreak large-scale damage on the environment" in response to this information, then that person *would* be committing an NTS fallacy. A better analogy would be if Hazelwood were held up as a counterexample to the statement, "No ship captain would wreak large-scale damage on the environment", and someone tried to shoot this counterexample down by saying, "No true ship captain would wreak large-scale damage on the environment". Wreaking damage or not wreaking damage have nothing to do (directly, anyway) with being a ship's captain. The addition of the word "true" is nothing more than a rhetorical device.
Now getting to the OP's statement, "fearing change is contrary to the genuine intent of capitalism", this is asserted as a contradiction to the main article's assertion that there are capitalists who fear change. If it can be shown that the examples given are false examples on the surface, then that is one thing. But the poster seemed to be saying, in effect, "These can't be capitalists, because they fear change". So the NTS criticism applies. If you are more comfortable labeling it as begging the question, fine, I'm okay with that label, too.
Yeah, I was wondering about that...The article seemed to contradict my recollection, but I assumed my memory was at fault (what with my shortened telomeres). So I looked on wikipedia and found that, while most cells get shorter telomeres with age, sperm is different. Telomeres in sperm lengthen. What a weird world we live in.
You didn't follow OP's link and read the joke. Then you would have realized I was commenting on that story, not on OP's comment. The student in the story clearly concluded !B from !A.
He got an A in Chem. E. but failed Logic 101. A -> B does not mean that !A -> !B (A = Theresa has slept with him, B = there has previously been a cold night in hell).
You didn't rtfa, did you? It's known that telomeres lengthen with age, and that longer telomeres are known to protect genes from damage. What the study found was that the longer telomeres (from the father) get passed on to the children. So it has nothing to do with survival, in this case.
At any rate, you could eliminate that factor by comparing lifespans of older vs. younger siblings. I don't know if that was done here, but a follow-up study could do that.
Coffee has about 1000 chemical compounds in it. So what did this study do to show that it wasn't one of the many other compounds besides caffeine? And if it is, your tea (or Mountain Dew or whatever) may not have the same beneficial effect.
There was a recent study showing that coffee drinkers live longer than non-coffee drinkers, and IIRC in this study, those drinking decaf had the same benefit as those who drank regular coffee...So in that particular study the effect wasn't from the caffeine.
Slashdot Mirror
Acid rain may have been reduced, but I'm hoping the ozone layer was restored, not reduced.
[pedantic mode]
"hoi polloi" = "the many" (Greek)
You just said "the the many".
[/pedantic mode]
Actually probably not. If you are told the number is prime, then the answer is already given and not by you. If you are not told, then you have to factor it, which amounts to proving that it is prime. If you can do that with a "really large" number, you are quite the machine.
you would be defending them for all it's worth or risk losing the protections patenting provide
You are perhaps confusing patents with trademarks?
'wrap rage,' the linguist-approved word for the anger associated with opening a factory sealed product,
So now all our words and phrases must be approved by a linguist?
I find it interesting that it was found Constitutional under taxing power. I don't recall anyone pushing that angle to support the law in the court of public opinion.
There, FTFY.
I did read all of the ancestral posts, adn I was replying to the AC who said an AZ license was enough. Yes, he did miss the point.
Of course I could also have commented on his "California border patrol" absurdity. I think he was confusing the state's Dept. of Food and Agriculture checkpoints (which help keep out invasive pests) with Arizona's usurping of *federal* authority on immigration matters.
We want our computers to be pedantic. It keeps them predictable.
You are missing the point entirely. His NM driver's license does not meet the Arizona requirements for identification, under Arizona law.
A lot of citizens don't have a "US-issued" ID (typically that would be a passport). They may have state-issued IDs. But so do a lot of foreigners.
Are you going to require every citizen to get a passport or some other form of national ID? I don't think your idea will be very popular.
This is regulation of technical quality. If it causes crappy sound to come out of my speakers, it is a technical fault (even if done intentionally). It certainly lies in the scope of what the regulators should be doing.
Right now he's ambulatory enough that you can't stop him. So you need to wait until he's not ambulatory enough that you can't stop him.
Well, he never said she told him any such thing. There's nothing in any version of the story that says that she told anyone outside her family, before talking to the TV station. The clerk was simply falling back on company policy, but from the facts presented, it appears he was going beyond that policy.
Citation needed. The linked article says cousin, for starters.
He denied service because he heard her speak Farsi, assumed she was from Iran (which she is not)
Now, what you people need to understand is that the Apple policy is ... to refuse sale for export to Iran. The policy is not to refuse service to any person who comes from Iran, even if they are fully a US Citizen and the product is not intended to leave the country. That's not racism, plain and simple.
There, fixed it for you.
Except you are wrong and the whole point was the clerk who was Iranian as well heard her say in Iranian while in the store she intended to send it to Iran.
I've seen this point mentioned in several comments, but it wasn't in any of the linked articles. Can you point me to the source?
I don't think it was misapplied.
It's simply a variant of two other fallacies: Moving the goal post and begging the question. Moving the goal post, because if I find a counterexample to the original statement about Scotsmen, the perpetrator of the fallacy negates my counterexample by adding the vague modifier "true". Now I have to find a counterexample that meets that vague condition. And question-begging, because the perpetrator of the fallacy is assuming the counterexample cannot be a (true) Scotsman because he is some kind of pervert. That assumption takes his claim as a given, and uses it to support his claim.
In the Hazelwood example above, if Hazelwood were to claim to be an environmentalist, and this were held up as a counterexample to the statement "No environmentalist would wreak large-scale damage on the environment", one need not resort to an NTS argument to demolish the counteresmaple. One would simply point out that he has no record of supporting environmentalism, and his claim is nothing more than a claim, and an empty one at that. If, on the other hand, he did have a long-standing record of supporting environmentalism, was a member of Greenpeace, etc., and someone then altered the premise to "No true environmentalist would wreak large-scale damage on the environment" in response to this information, then that person *would* be committing an NTS fallacy. A better analogy would be if Hazelwood were held up as a counterexample to the statement, "No ship captain would wreak large-scale damage on the environment", and someone tried to shoot this counterexample down by saying, "No true ship captain would wreak large-scale damage on the environment". Wreaking damage or not wreaking damage have nothing to do (directly, anyway) with being a ship's captain. The addition of the word "true" is nothing more than a rhetorical device.
Now getting to the OP's statement, "fearing change is contrary to the genuine intent of capitalism", this is asserted as a contradiction to the main article's assertion that there are capitalists who fear change. If it can be shown that the examples given are false examples on the surface, then that is one thing. But the poster seemed to be saying, in effect, "These can't be capitalists, because they fear change". So the NTS criticism applies. If you are more comfortable labeling it as begging the question, fine, I'm okay with that label, too.
It seems that most people who use the NTSFF are lefties.
Hehe, I've got you there, buddy. No true lefty would ever use the NTSFF.
Wouldn't they have to be aleph-nullaires? I.e., the infinitesimal percent?
Yeah, I was wondering about that...The article seemed to contradict my recollection, but I assumed my memory was at fault (what with my shortened telomeres). So I looked on wikipedia and found that, while most cells get shorter telomeres with age, sperm is different. Telomeres in sperm lengthen. What a weird world we live in.
You didn't follow OP's link and read the joke. Then you would have realized I was commenting on that story, not on OP's comment. The student in the story clearly concluded !B from !A.
Oh, a time traveler, eh?
...that he couldn't resist the opportunity to practice a bit of demagoguery in his announcement.
He got an A in Chem. E. but failed Logic 101. A -> B does not mean that !A -> !B (A = Theresa has slept with him, B = there has previously been a cold night in hell).
You didn't rtfa, did you? It's known that telomeres lengthen with age, and that longer telomeres are known to protect genes from damage. What the study found was
that the longer telomeres (from the father) get passed on to the children. So it has nothing to do with survival, in this case.
At any rate, you could eliminate that factor by comparing lifespans of older vs. younger siblings. I don't know if that was done here, but a follow-up study could do that.
Coffee has about 1000 chemical compounds in it. So what did this study do to show that it wasn't one of the many other compounds besides caffeine? And if it is, your tea (or Mountain Dew or whatever) may not have the same beneficial effect.
There was a recent study showing that coffee drinkers live longer than non-coffee drinkers, and IIRC in this study, those drinking decaf had the same benefit as those who drank regular coffee...So in that particular study the effect wasn't from the caffeine.