In 2003 Saddam didn't say "I have a bunch of missiles loaded with chemical weapons hidden, but after a few more years of neglect, they won't be as affective as they used to be."
If your too stupid to know why someone shoots another person, no amount of explaining is going to help, but here goes:
because he was trying to kill them.
Why?
because he wanted them dead.
Why?
because he didn't want them to live.
We could go on and on, but a better question is "Should he have the right to make that decision?" and a good follow up to the obvious answer is "What are we going to do about it?"
I think you're putting the cart before the jackass (in tweeds and a sport coat with patches)
The word "black" has negative connotations because of all sorts of bad things happening at night, like it getting cold, being hard to see, getting attacked (e.g., by wolves or muggers.) Of course your idiot teacher would probably say the language has a built in negative connotation regarding the word "bad."
NPOV - which is supposed to stand for "neutral point of view" doesn't become a problem in the practical sense. The trouble is that people assert that their own point of view is "neutral", and all others that disagree with it are not.
It's a (misguided) political belief that is (incorrectly) applied to society in general. Some people feel that a small group (themselves inevitably included) would do a better better job of government than a large group (falsing disincluding themselves from) and postulate (ridiculously) that if a minorty government is better than a majority one, that all organizations would be better served by smaller size and (contradictively) assert that when the majority is eventually under their control, that a large homogeneous organization beneath them would be more efficient.
"Entering the age where people...[have] a profit interest."
What a terrible calamity! A society stable enough for the majority of people to retain what they possess, and allowed the freedom to pursue a better standard of living! How dreadful. How we should long for the days of arbitrary rule, where the monarch could take any thing they wished, up to and including our lives. How we should yearn for the oppressive dictatorships which refuse to allow people to create goods and services for which they and others actually want, not that which determined by fiat to be best for them. Woe is me!
Maybe there's just not as many psychotic zombie ignorant walmart hating snobs out there as they want you to believe and when it comes to a democratic forum, the common sense majority drowns out the kook fringe.
Which is a better way to design a VM?
Try forever to implement a pretty design that appeals to your aesthetic sensibilities, eventually hoping to iron all the inconsistencies and gaps in the design.
Or try a hundred different models, refining as you go, discarding flaws, and gaining real world experience on a variety of models?
Let the language do it for the programmers, or the memory management library, or the application framework, or the VM, not the operating system. Why take away the option for the programmer to control to memory? A program using a framework that utilizes a data caching library running in an application server running on top of a virtual machine running on top of the OS is today's reality. Let's not build application level controls into the the hardware controls hoping that someday the heuristics for the hardware controls will be smart enough to be fast enough, even if they're never quite as fast as doing it explicitly.
When I was a kid, we had to walk uphill, both ways, in seven feet of snow, twelve miles to school, pulling a dull plough and carrying 25 pounds of books, with a sack of dirt for lunch, all year long, but, by jove, I swear the summers were hotter then too. You kids these days have it too easy. We only had black and white cable TV, and had to set the timers on our VCRs, and we liked it that way!
Just what was the average summer temperature in 1506? But more to the point, did they take their measurements at all the same places at all the same times? And what about the times and places that weren't measured? Maybe it was the cooler at noon in the summer of 1506, but warmer at 6am, and if that had been taken into account, the "average" of noon and 6am temperatures would have been higher then. Or did they take daily highs? What if the daily lows were warmer, because the daily temperature variation wasn't as great back then (who knows why? -- maybe because of Gulf Stream didn't go as far north because of warmer temperatures in Labrador the previous winter.) Or maybe most of the summer of 1506 was actually quite a bit warmer, but there was that freak storm that had one week of really cool temperatures. Weren't they still using the Julian calendar back then? Are you sure the dates were adjusted for the season. If I recall it was almost 2 weeks off. And I don't think Scotland temperatures were included in the Great Britain tally until 1707, although you'd think if they had, it would have reduced the average temperature. And wasn't Langenchamp Bush expelled from his Midlands Meteorolical Observatory in 1518 for falsifying precipitation amounts recorded over the past five winters. Is there any way to be certain his temperature measurements for Birmingham were not also inaccurate.
Overall there are so many unknown factors, I'm not sure we can really draw conclusions about 500 years ago.
If your standard for scientific evidence is Dan Rather breathlessly reading a memo supposedly written in 1973 that was composed in Microsoft Word, then I could see how you'd fall for the Global Warming bit.
Why does it matter to you? You are a socialist, despite the fact that capitalist societies pay workers enough to survive but socialist societies do not.
The Kyoto protocol isn't about polluting less. It's about making some societies (see Western Civilization) decrease production, but not limiting others (see Socialist Governments) at all.
If you drop 50 years from that 200 years since there is no data at all from it, and then you drop the next hundred because the data is sparse and inaccurate, you have 6 years out of 50 years, which is not a blip. And then if you take into account that for 48 of the remaining 50 nobody was really looking closely at the data, and thus there wasn't the kind of scrutiny that you have, then you have a decade that was supposedly the hottestest ever, and definitely the most watched, directly contradicting the hypothesis that the data was collected for in the first place.
Um... it was science fiction writers who first came up with the idea for global warming. Why? Because they weren't getting as many royalties anymore on their past "impending ice age" books.
So you have 15 datapoints (decades) The first has 10 readings with a margin of error greater than 5% (degrees.) The last has 100000 readings with a margin of error less than 0.01%. Assume an even distribution of the curve inbetween for accuracy. Now say that an average one of those first 14 datapoints registers a 1% change and that the last datapoint (which is more accurate than all previous results combined) registers a 0% change.
5. Physician's assistant
Congratulations, you found a cover for being an escort. We all know you bought the nurse's outfit first and found the job second. Working bankers' hours gives you the ability to pursue more lucrative opportunities on the side.
you know Rachna?
college professor was number two. It would have been #1 because it pays more, you work less, and the benefits are fantastic, with no fear of layoff, months a year off, paid, and occasionally a year or more off, paid, except you have to swallow the politics.
Those had better be some big records. Because my computer can bubble sort 50,000 items really quick, in javascript. If I had to do it very often though, I'd want to cache the result.
Slashdot Mirror
In 2003 Saddam didn't say "I have a bunch of missiles loaded with chemical weapons hidden, but after a few more years of neglect, they won't be as affective as they used to be."
No they aren't.
I think that says less about the reporting of either outlet than the mental stability of people (statistically) who like easy listening faux-jazz.
If your too stupid to know why someone shoots another person, no amount of explaining is going to help, but here goes: because he was trying to kill them. Why? because he wanted them dead. Why? because he didn't want them to live. We could go on and on, but a better question is "Should he have the right to make that decision?" and a good follow up to the obvious answer is "What are we going to do about it?"
I think you're putting the cart before the jackass (in tweeds and a sport coat with patches) The word "black" has negative connotations because of all sorts of bad things happening at night, like it getting cold, being hard to see, getting attacked (e.g., by wolves or muggers.) Of course your idiot teacher would probably say the language has a built in negative connotation regarding the word "bad."
NPOV - which is supposed to stand for "neutral point of view" doesn't become a problem in the practical sense. The trouble is that people assert that their own point of view is "neutral", and all others that disagree with it are not.
It's a (misguided) political belief that is (incorrectly) applied to society in general. Some people feel that a small group (themselves inevitably included) would do a better better job of government than a large group (falsing disincluding themselves from) and postulate (ridiculously) that if a minorty government is better than a majority one, that all organizations would be better served by smaller size and (contradictively) assert that when the majority is eventually under their control, that a large homogeneous organization beneath them would be more efficient.
What a terrible calamity! A society stable enough for the majority of people to retain what they possess, and allowed the freedom to pursue a better standard of living! How dreadful. How we should long for the days of arbitrary rule, where the monarch could take any thing they wished, up to and including our lives. How we should yearn for the oppressive dictatorships which refuse to allow people to create goods and services for which they and others actually want, not that which determined by fiat to be best for them. Woe is me!
Maybe there's just not as many psychotic zombie ignorant walmart hating snobs out there as they want you to believe and when it comes to a democratic forum, the common sense majority drowns out the kook fringe.
Which is a better way to design a VM? Try forever to implement a pretty design that appeals to your aesthetic sensibilities, eventually hoping to iron all the inconsistencies and gaps in the design. Or try a hundred different models, refining as you go, discarding flaws, and gaining real world experience on a variety of models?
Let the language do it for the programmers, or the memory management library, or the application framework, or the VM, not the operating system. Why take away the option for the programmer to control to memory? A program using a framework that utilizes a data caching library running in an application server running on top of a virtual machine running on top of the OS is today's reality. Let's not build application level controls into the the hardware controls hoping that someday the heuristics for the hardware controls will be smart enough to be fast enough, even if they're never quite as fast as doing it explicitly.
I wouldn't doubt that this is at the specific request of Google.
When I was a kid, we had to walk uphill, both ways, in seven feet of snow, twelve miles to school, pulling a dull plough and carrying 25 pounds of books, with a sack of dirt for lunch, all year long, but, by jove, I swear the summers were hotter then too. You kids these days have it too easy. We only had black and white cable TV, and had to set the timers on our VCRs, and we liked it that way!
Just what was the average summer temperature in 1506? But more to the point, did they take their measurements at all the same places at all the same times? And what about the times and places that weren't measured? Maybe it was the cooler at noon in the summer of 1506, but warmer at 6am, and if that had been taken into account, the "average" of noon and 6am temperatures would have been higher then. Or did they take daily highs? What if the daily lows were warmer, because the daily temperature variation wasn't as great back then (who knows why? -- maybe because of Gulf Stream didn't go as far north because of warmer temperatures in Labrador the previous winter.) Or maybe most of the summer of 1506 was actually quite a bit warmer, but there was that freak storm that had one week of really cool temperatures. Weren't they still using the Julian calendar back then? Are you sure the dates were adjusted for the season. If I recall it was almost 2 weeks off. And I don't think Scotland temperatures were included in the Great Britain tally until 1707, although you'd think if they had, it would have reduced the average temperature. And wasn't Langenchamp Bush expelled from his Midlands Meteorolical Observatory in 1518 for falsifying precipitation amounts recorded over the past five winters. Is there any way to be certain his temperature measurements for Birmingham were not also inaccurate. Overall there are so many unknown factors, I'm not sure we can really draw conclusions about 500 years ago.
There are two kinds of people in this world, those who cannot grasp the concept of an analogy and they are like really stupid people.
If your standard for scientific evidence is Dan Rather breathlessly reading a memo supposedly written in 1973 that was composed in Microsoft Word, then I could see how you'd fall for the Global Warming bit.
Why does it matter to you? You are a socialist, despite the fact that capitalist societies pay workers enough to survive but socialist societies do not.
The Kyoto protocol isn't about polluting less. It's about making some societies (see Western Civilization) decrease production, but not limiting others (see Socialist Governments) at all.
If you drop 50 years from that 200 years since there is no data at all from it, and then you drop the next hundred because the data is sparse and inaccurate, you have 6 years out of 50 years, which is not a blip. And then if you take into account that for 48 of the remaining 50 nobody was really looking closely at the data, and thus there wasn't the kind of scrutiny that you have, then you have a decade that was supposedly the hottestest ever, and definitely the most watched, directly contradicting the hypothesis that the data was collected for in the first place.
That's only because 1998 was not a year of major volcanic activity. Try the statistics for 1980, or 1991 for instance.
Um... it was science fiction writers who first came up with the idea for global warming. Why? Because they weren't getting as many royalties anymore on their past "impending ice age" books.
So you have 15 datapoints (decades)
The first has 10 readings with a margin of error greater than 5% (degrees.)
The last has 100000 readings with a margin of error less than 0.01%.
Assume an even distribution of the curve inbetween for accuracy.
Now say that an average one of those first 14 datapoints registers a 1% change and that the last datapoint (which is more accurate than all previous results combined) registers a 0% change.
What would your conclusions be?
5. Physician's assistant Congratulations, you found a cover for being an escort. We all know you bought the nurse's outfit first and found the job second. Working bankers' hours gives you the ability to pursue more lucrative opportunities on the side. you know Rachna?
I think you meant "Welcome to why rich men marry pretty girls"
college professor was number two. It would have been #1 because it pays more, you work less, and the benefits are fantastic, with no fear of layoff, months a year off, paid, and occasionally a year or more off, paid, except you have to swallow the politics.
Those had better be some big records. Because my computer can bubble sort 50,000 items really quick, in javascript. If I had to do it very often though, I'd want to cache the result.