I get 30 Spam emails each day into my gmail account, although they go straight to the Spam Box. It's still annoying that I they still actually come through though.
> The other one, which is still being produced and not yet out (due this fall) is Flatland the Movie, done by a studio with a much bigger budget, and with professional actors like Martin Sheen, Joe Estevez, and Michael York. Considerably more polished.
Osmosis: Diffusion of water molecules through a semi-permeable membrane from a solution with a low solute concentration to a solution with a higher solute concentration until there is an equal concentration of fluid on both sides of the membrane.
Actually, there *are* two different methods to walking. One is the referred to 'falling' method where we lean forward and place a foot out to catch ourselves. The other is where we extend our leg out and then transfer the weight afterwards.
You can tell if you are doing the former if you trip when your foot catches something. The latter method is recommended for use by aged people due to the decrease in response time and hence increase risk of falling (falling having a higher risk of injury in the elderly due to weaker bones)
...when she saw the picture of her lower back tattoo, burst into tears...
Hmm, the infamous 'slag tag'. No surprise there then!
Look, just because you think you'd end up regretting it yourself, and you have some anecdotal evidence that someone actually did, that doesn't mean that everyone will.
You didn't make a mistake. You should be modded up as informative, although most people don't actually understand statistics, so I doubt you will be.:(
And, if you'll allow me, now to summarise your calculation for the layman (the language won't be fully technically correct, but hopefully lay enough that it can be understood. Please post corrections (or questions):
You took the chance that the person selected from the population was correctly identified as the criminal (0.8 * 0.1), or 80% of 10%, and divided it by the total chance of the a person being identified (Positive result when IS criminal + positive result when ISN'T criminal), or (80% * 20%) + (20% * 90%).
Which give you your 0.308 chance that person indicated is the criminal.
Thankfully they also apply the same statistical analysis to medical tests to see how effective they are.
Feeling good about an altruistic behaviour doesn't negate the altruism involved in it.
Just because we evolved to feel good about doing things that in the short term wouldn't benefit us (because in the long term, in general, they would), it doesn't follow that EVERY time we do something altruistic (and feel good about it) that it's a selfish act.
If, for example, I donate £5 to a charity so they can build a water-pump in an obscure village in Ghana [I live in the UK], and I don't tell anyone I did so - how am I being selfish here?
(Btw, before you suggest it's selfish BECAUSE I will be feeling good about the donation - please keep in mind that 'feeling good' is just a quirk of how my brain evolved. It doesn't mean that my brain actually SHOULD be feeling good about that.)
He mentions two in his post (Germany and Austria), and there are a total of 6 in the Wikipedia link he gives.
Why do you think he counts 'one' as 'many'?
Slashdot Mirror
I get 30 Spam emails each day into my gmail account, although they go straight to the Spam Box. It's still annoying that I they still actually come through though.
> The other one, which is still being produced and not yet out (due this fall) is Flatland the Movie, done by a studio with a much bigger budget, and with professional actors like Martin Sheen, Joe Estevez, and Michael York. Considerably more polished.
I hear there are some great lines in that movie.
2 for 2 with the not-funny. At least you're consistent.
I understood the stretched simile/metaphor, I just didn't think it was funny. So I thought I'd take it literally and be an ass about it.
Osmosis: Diffusion of water molecules through a semi-permeable membrane from a solution with a low solute concentration to a solution with a higher solute concentration until there is an equal concentration of fluid on both sides of the membrane.
Nope, don't see how that's relevant here.
Actually, there *are* two different methods to walking. One is the referred to 'falling' method where we lean forward and place a foot out to catch ourselves. The other is where we extend our leg out and then transfer the weight afterwards.
You can tell if you are doing the former if you trip when your foot catches something. The latter method is recommended for use by aged people due to the decrease in response time and hence increase risk of falling (falling having a higher risk of injury in the elderly due to weaker bones)
When the GP said "Imagine DoSing someone with a connection like that", I understood it as "Imagine DoSing someone using a connection like that".
Hmm, annoying that you linked just to the image and not the page it was found on.
...when she saw the picture of her lower back tattoo, burst into tears...
Hmm, the infamous 'slag tag'. No surprise there then!
Look, just because you think you'd end up regretting it yourself, and you have some anecdotal evidence that someone actually did, that doesn't mean that everyone will.
Haha, I think no-one noticed your "Koreans eat dogs" joke. I noticed, and it was good. :)
Too bad you can't trust your own judgement. :(
Um, it's banned, and you should have left out 'of voice' as well
And that's where having an element of socialism is useful - to help support the people at the bottom end of the spectrum.
Wouldn't a stuntman (like *most* people working on a movie) get a fixed fee?
Isn't it only a few who get fees that are connected to how well the movie does/sells?
Ugh, I was more disgusted by that than a goatse troll
[quote]When I read the title, I thought they were bringing back the old PC game Syndicate and making it a Massively Multiplayer game.[/quote]
I thought exactly the same thing!
That's just dumb - squeezing out mass from the inside on the planet doesn't increase the overall mas of the planet. No wonder you posted AC..
Heh, that's how most people argue against the theory of evolution:
"I can't even imagine one single way that B could have evolved from A. Therefore it was designed."
- Somehow admitting you don't have enough creativity or imagination is proof of your arguement.
You didn't make a mistake. You should be modded up as informative, although most people don't actually understand statistics, so I doubt you will be. :(
And, if you'll allow me, now to summarise your calculation for the layman (the language won't be fully technically correct, but hopefully lay enough that it can be understood. Please post corrections (or questions):
You took the chance that the person selected from the population was correctly identified as the criminal (0.8 * 0.1), or 80% of 10%, and divided it by the total chance of the a person being identified (Positive result when IS criminal + positive result when ISN'T criminal), or (80% * 20%) + (20% * 90%).
Which give you your 0.308 chance that person indicated is the criminal.
Thankfully they also apply the same statistical analysis to medical tests to see how effective they are.
And which 2 pipes do bi-sexual men have, that straight, or gay, men don't?
Hey dumbass, This Guy invented the internet. He is NOT American.
America did not invent the phone either, and other claimants to that honour arn't American either.
And if he leaves America, how *could* he use your imports.
Feeling good about an altruistic behaviour doesn't negate the altruism involved in it.
Just because we evolved to feel good about doing things that in the short term wouldn't benefit us (because in the long term, in general, they would), it doesn't follow that EVERY time we do something altruistic (and feel good about it) that it's a selfish act.
If, for example, I donate £5 to a charity so they can build a water-pump in an obscure village in Ghana [I live in the UK], and I don't tell anyone I did so - how am I being selfish here?
(Btw, before you suggest it's selfish BECAUSE I will be feeling good about the donation - please keep in mind that 'feeling good' is just a quirk of how my brain evolved. It doesn't mean that my brain actually SHOULD be feeling good about that.)
He mentions two in his post (Germany and Austria), and there are a total of 6 in the Wikipedia link he gives.
Why do you think he counts 'one' as 'many'?
In that vein, did you know that 69% of people have dirty minds?
(btw, if you had to re-read that, then you're not one of them.)
that was good link, you should get modded up as informative