"I think there will be never a quantum theory to prove that the universe is non-deterministic, a perfect case against my God proofs, so hereby I announce that my belief in God is staunch."
What's common in both viewpoints? Obviously one is real and the other is fictional, but what they have in common is that they both make predictions that we can't possibly do something in the future, so basically assuming no new technologies or scientific understanding.
biologists, in the case of evolution, but to be honest even though the evidence towards man made global warming is very solid, the evidence is still new. Maybe after a decade or two, after global warming passed the rigor of time and the environmental effects are starting to stack up so noone denies it any more, maybe then these people should be decertified, but I think it is premature now.
Re:Oh I get it.
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
We need to believe that there was a conspiracy of a magnitude that spanned numerous people who were able to coordinate illegal and treasonous actions. People who planned and coordinated a coup of 10 million votes....secretly.
You do realise that this is the perfect argument for paper ballots and the perfect argument against voting machines, don't you?
One thing to keep in mind is that correlation != causation
You also have to keep in mind, whether the difference is significant enough between the two. The difference is important in highly complex multi variable systems, like climate science, but you have to keep in mind what the difference between correlation and causation actually is: correlation becomes causation when you eliminated every other possible candidate causes by a reasonable standard.
So basically the correlation we're studying is that electronic voting machines correlate with votes for a specific party/candidate and we know that because of the non-electric election results where the results are different (and I'm assuming that the people who wrote the book know their job properly and eliminated the possibility that voting machines were showing different results because they were deployed based on voting preference. I can think of a couple ways of eliminating bad methodology like that and I'm not even a statistician. That would be a mistake to assume that they compared different datasets in the first place).
The question you have to ask now is why electronic machines favor a side. To be honest, I feel that the argument that democratic voters were significantly worse at using voting machines, so they went home and didn't vote after all in statistically significant larger numbers than the republicans, I feel it is a pretty weak argument.
Matching the paper based/electronic results and the exit poll results, it becomes quite a smoking gun that exit poll results seem to validate paper results but not the electronic ones...
The "Reluctant Bush Respondant" theory looks extremely unlikely: response rates actually look slightly better in Bush strongholds than in Kerry strongholds
...I don't see this as a rebuttal of a reluctant voter scenario, at least not fully. I would think that Bush supporters would be more likely to try to conceal their candidate of choice in areas where they aren't the majority. Still, the reluctant Bush respondant theory looks silly for other reasons imo. It would only work if a statistically significant number of Bush supporters would claim they favor democrats, so that the number of democrat voters would get out of sync with election results. The problem is not explaining how Bush had more votes, but how Kerry votes decreased and Bush votes increased if you compare election results to exit polls. I don't think it is likely, if we go along with the theory that Bush supporters didn't want their preference known, that they'd respond that they are democrat supporters instead of saying "don't know/won't tell".
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors.. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt.45 and a.38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
Hopefully ESA...since the EU if counted as a block has the biggest GDP in the world, I'd expect stuff to get more stuff carried out and led by the EU finally.
You do realise that these guys write the algorithms, optimize them to very high levels, then write the code and optimize it? That's lots of work. Without smart thinking you couldn't find such big primes. These are very large numbers. The program runs either on supercomputers or in distributed environments as far as I know.
No, I had no idea who had written the article, didn't pay very much attention to it.
Since english doesn't have a gender-uncertain way to say he/she (unlike for example hungarian), I believe the generally used way is to refer to the unknown case as the person we're talking about were male. It is not discrimination, but a property/custom of the language.
Some people are very good at finding these primes. The now disposed record twin prime's finder was prof. Járai, whose lectures I attended.
I find it interesting that the guy who works with insanely cool things like primes gave mind-numblingly boring lectures. He basically read his book out aloud. Some people are just very good at research and very bad at teaching.
Basically what you describe is a no case. If it's up there, then what this fair use exception gives you is that you can download it and store it on your computer/physical form legally, for your own personal use.
So basically the process of the viewing itself. If someone tries to give the image to somebody else without your permission, or sell it or create a derivative work, it is not exempted from asking your permission.
Better yet, are you so confidant that what you are doing is legal, that you would be willing to publically announce you have a digital copy of the movie (without having any physical copy). Lets say you would not have to implicate any hosting site. No one could possibly get into trouble except for you. Are you so confidant that your acquisition of the digital download was legal? I seriously doubt it.
Yes I am so confident. See this (hungarian RIAA) link. Actually it is not only for digital copies, but if I download something that is not software and burn it to a dvd, I'm still legal. Rough translation:
Can I download movies, music or games for personal use?
Copying under copyright law requires permission from the copyright owner and downloading means copying. The law however, allows certain exceptions, that a private person for private use can make copies of works falling under the copyright protection. The exception includes for example music or movies if they are not protected by copy protection mechanisms, but does not apply to software. So thus, downloading the former today is not against the law, but copying software requires permission from the copyright holder.
Notice, that when it talks about copyright protection it is talking about all media, so this includes physical. The protection is evaluated on a item basis, so it's not enough to claim that "this title is generally protected by DRM", but you have to show that the specific file you found on the internet for download, or the specific dvd you ripped, was in fact DRMd. The only limitation in personal use is that you have to perform the copying yourself, someone else can't perform it on your behalf.
35. (1) Természetes személy magáncélra a mrl másolatot készíthet, ha az jövedelemszerzés vagy jövedelemfokozás célját közvetve sem szolgálja. E rendelkezés nem vonatkozik az építészeti mre, a mszaki létesítményre, a szoftverre és a számítástechnikai eszközzel mködtetett adatbázisra, valamint a m nyilvános eladásának kép - vagy hanghordozóra való rögzítésére.
Rough translation:
A natural person is permitted to copy a work for personal use, if it is not for the reason of profiteering even indirectly. This paragraph doesn't apply to architectural work, engineering installation, software, database operated by information technology means and to the recording of a public performance of a work.
This was an excerpt from the fair use section of the law, which is quite long and allows quite many things, for example to perform "happy birthday" if it is not for profit (not a specific happy birthday exception, but a general performance one that applies to the happy birthday case).
I think any law should describe in detail what do they mean by saying honest, equal and balanced. In my view this position should be taken:
First law: Honesty: presenting facts to the best of the knowledge of the people broadcasting, without intentionally misleading or misdirecting the audience.
Second law: Equality: presenting different viewpoints in an unbiased way, except when it conflicts with the First Law (so basically the recognition that facts are inherently "biased" things, honesty about facts shouldn't be damaged by trying to present differing viewpoints equally, when one or more of those viewpoints conflicts with a reasonable standard of honesty and matter of facts). For example if there is a discussion about evolution, the facts about it should be presented first and foremost and while the intelligent design viewpoint should be mentioned, but not as a comparable scientific theory to evolution, but as a belief some people hold, quickly followed by the statement that the scientific community is in total agreement about evolution. This equality shouldn't be taken as equality in airtime or as "arguing for every side with the same strength", because different views are not equal in worth, they should only be equal in presenting them without the bias for what they are worth.
Third law: Balance: See Second Law.
The above should apply to news. Everything is news which the media presents as not an opinion piece.
I'm hungarian btw. We have copyright fees installed into cd/dvd/memorycard sales, so downloading audio/video is perfectly legal. Software is a different category. There is a sharp distinction between uploading and downloading though, as by hungarian law the one who shares the material commits the copyright infringement in this case.
What I'm talking about is pretty solid, because apart from the clearly phrased law even the hungarian equivalent of RIAA is reluctantly admitting this in a FAQ on their home page.
Let me make it graphic for you. There is a difference between ---/^\--- and |, where the lines signify available data and rate of warming.
The medieval warm period is a totally different curve than the current warming, and even if the same effect is partly responsible for the warming today, it is by a large margin not enough to explain the current warming trend.
I mean really, the jury is still out on Global Warming for many and posting articles with headlines like this is irresponsible.
A good lawyer (corporate shills) might be able to convince the jury (the public) that we have reasonable doubt (controversy) that the suspect (human CO2 contribution) didn't commit murder (global warming), but as we all know making the jury believe something does not make it the truth, it is only a dependent on the skills of a lawyer, the intelligence of the jury and the available evidence.
As the evidence mounts the intelligence of the jury has to decrease in order to the lawyer to reach the result he wants.
And now the inevitable analogy. We don't look at an incident of shooting in the inner city and say, "well people have been shot now, lets not worry about catching the shooter and focus on treating the wounds." We need to work on both.
To develop your analogy more, we need to work on both especially because the shooter is a known serial killer and we have 100% certainty that he's escalating and will kill more and more people unless stopped.
It's interesting that the models are proving to be conservative.
My guess is, that when scientists are pushed, they make more conservative, more solid arguments that they are absolutely certain they can argue, instead of outrageous claims that shills make.
I could be wrong about it, but make no mistake, the climate scientists know that the common people see things as a controversy and there are huge interests in trying to make it stay that way, so I'd think that they know the best way of sorting out a controversy: solid facts.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think there will be never a quantum theory to prove that the universe is non-deterministic, a perfect case against my God proofs, so hereby I announce that my belief in God is staunch."
What's common in both viewpoints? Obviously one is real and the other is fictional, but what they have in common is that they both make predictions that we can't possibly do something in the future, so basically assuming no new technologies or scientific understanding.
biologists, in the case of evolution, but to be honest even though the evidence towards man made global warming is very solid, the evidence is still new. Maybe after a decade or two, after global warming passed the rigor of time and the environmental effects are starting to stack up so noone denies it any more, maybe then these people should be decertified, but I think it is premature now.
So basically the correlation we're studying is that electronic voting machines correlate with votes for a specific party/candidate and we know that because of the non-electric election results where the results are different (and I'm assuming that the people who wrote the book know their job properly and eliminated the possibility that voting machines were showing different results because they were deployed based on voting preference. I can think of a couple ways of eliminating bad methodology like that and I'm not even a statistician. That would be a mistake to assume that they compared different datasets in the first place).
The question you have to ask now is why electronic machines favor a side. To be honest, I feel that the argument that democratic voters were significantly worse at using voting machines, so they went home and didn't vote after all in statistically significant larger numbers than the republicans, I feel it is a pretty weak argument.
Matching the paper based/electronic results and the exit poll results, it becomes quite a smoking gun that exit poll results seem to validate paper results but not the electronic ones...
I was talking about the finding of the now second largest twin prime.
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
.. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
Facts have a liberal bias.
Hopefully ESA...since the EU if counted as a block has the biggest GDP in the world, I'd expect stuff to get more stuff carried out and led by the EU finally.
You do realise that these guys write the algorithms, optimize them to very high levels, then write the code and optimize it? That's lots of work. Without smart thinking you couldn't find such big primes. These are very large numbers. The program runs either on supercomputers or in distributed environments as far as I know.
No, I had no idea who had written the article, didn't pay very much attention to it.
Since english doesn't have a gender-uncertain way to say he/she (unlike for example hungarian), I believe the generally used way is to refer to the unknown case as the person we're talking about were male. It is not discrimination, but a property/custom of the language.
Some people are very good at finding these primes. The now disposed record twin prime's finder was prof. Járai, whose lectures I attended.
I find it interesting that the guy who works with insanely cool things like primes gave mind-numblingly boring lectures. He basically read his book out aloud. Some people are just very good at research and very bad at teaching.
Basically what you describe is a no case. If it's up there, then what this fair use exception gives you is that you can download it and store it on your computer/physical form legally, for your own personal use.
So basically the process of the viewing itself. If someone tries to give the image to somebody else without your permission, or sell it or create a derivative work, it is not exempted from asking your permission.
That's what my first thought as well. If intentional, I wonder why he titled the article this way, if not then it's just funny. :)
You see there are wonderful things like countries in the world. Don't assume that just because I'm posting here I'm from the USA.
But if you still don't believe me, let me quote the hungarian copyright law: Rough translation: This was an excerpt from the fair use section of the law, which is quite long and allows quite many things, for example to perform "happy birthday" if it is not for profit (not a specific happy birthday exception, but a general performance one that applies to the happy birthday case).
I think any law should describe in detail what do they mean by saying honest, equal and balanced. In my view this position should be taken:
First law: Honesty: presenting facts to the best of the knowledge of the people broadcasting, without intentionally misleading or misdirecting the audience.
Second law: Equality: presenting different viewpoints in an unbiased way, except when it conflicts with the First Law (so basically the recognition that facts are inherently "biased" things, honesty about facts shouldn't be damaged by trying to present differing viewpoints equally, when one or more of those viewpoints conflicts with a reasonable standard of honesty and matter of facts). For example if there is a discussion about evolution, the facts about it should be presented first and foremost and while the intelligent design viewpoint should be mentioned, but not as a comparable scientific theory to evolution, but as a belief some people hold, quickly followed by the statement that the scientific community is in total agreement about evolution. This equality shouldn't be taken as equality in airtime or as "arguing for every side with the same strength", because different views are not equal in worth, they should only be equal in presenting them without the bias for what they are worth.
Third law: Balance: See Second Law.
The above should apply to news. Everything is news which the media presents as not an opinion piece.
I'm hungarian btw. We have copyright fees installed into cd/dvd/memorycard sales, so downloading audio/video is perfectly legal. Software is a different category. There is a sharp distinction between uploading and downloading though, as by hungarian law the one who shares the material commits the copyright infringement in this case.
What I'm talking about is pretty solid, because apart from the clearly phrased law even the hungarian equivalent of RIAA is reluctantly admitting this in a FAQ on their home page.
Are you intimately familiar with hungarian law?
I might download it.
Which, I'm perfectly legal to do as I'm using direct FTP so the sharing is done by the uploading side.
But you can obviously take the bandwidth! At least temporarily...
Let me make it graphic for you. There is a difference between ---/^\--- and |, where the lines signify available data and rate of warming.
The medieval warm period is a totally different curve than the current warming, and even if the same effect is partly responsible for the warming today, it is by a large margin not enough to explain the current warming trend.
As the evidence mounts the intelligence of the jury has to decrease in order to the lawyer to reach the result he wants.
I could be wrong about it, but make no mistake, the climate scientists know that the common people see things as a controversy and there are huge interests in trying to make it stay that way, so I'd think that they know the best way of sorting out a controversy: solid facts.