Re:Scientific consensus not quite there yet...
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 1
Consensus does not mean total unanimity.
actually, that was its original meaning and is still a correct meaning of 'consensus'.
second definition from answers.com:
consensus
noun
The quality or condition of being in complete agreement or harmony: unanimity, unanimousness.
when I was a kid I knew that if I wanted to live longer I wouldn't turn up the thermostat, but that had more to do with my dad than any scientific study.
beaches and girls are just fine, but I'm moving to Iraq. After all, I paid for their democracy, so I might as well show up there and reap what I've sown.
This article isn't credible. It must be a hoax. I mean, c'mon, you really expect me to believe someone wrote a 1,000 line perl script. And that it did what it was supposed to?
actually, the script was originally intended to locate hot teenage girls.. like any good programmer, when he saw the results, he updated the spec sheet.
(Of course, this sidesteps discussion of whether IQ tests measure anything significant at all.)
This also seems to sidestep discussion of whether BMI measures anything significant at all.
actually, this demonstrates that both BMI and IQ accurately measure real world phenomena. BMI measures IQ, and IQ measures BMI.
I think the news is that there is still *no* confirmation. North Korea said they were going to test a nuclear bomb, there was an explosion, and AFAIK, they claimed success. However, we're a week out and we are still not sure.
I think the news is that there is still *no* confirmation. North Korea said they were going to test a nuclear bomb, there was an explosion, and AFAIK, they claimed success. However, we're a week out and we are still not sure.
maybe we should ask them to do it again, but this time louder.
Contrary to popular opinion, lawyers don't run around filing lawsuits in their own names. They have clients. Clients are the ones who decide whether or not to sue. Might as well blame the post office for delivering junk mail. Maybe the problem isn't with lawyers, but with the people who hire them.
absolutely. that's the same response I give to the idiots who disparage my chosen profession of 'contract killer'. My clients are the ones who decide whether or not to kill. There's no need to shoot the messenger.
PS. If you ever decide that there is a need to shoot the messenger, I'm you're guy.
you sound like you have only a vague notion of what is required to play starcraft or warcraft 3 at a high (or even medium-high) level. how are you gauging the level of effort/intelligence/talent/training necessary to play these games relative to chess or any other sport? The strategies, counters and openings in these games evolve, relative to the way they do in chess?
I imagine that were chess to have been invented in 1997, you would have dismissed it just as casually, on grounds just as suspect.
that seems overly simplistic. When Bill Frist says that the new gambling law addresses a practice that can lead to horrible addiction, he's telling the truth, insofar as that goes. What he's really doing is implying that that's the motivation behind making the law, when the real reason is that they can't tax it (unlike, for example, betting on horses or state lotteries, which apparently are not addictive). His statement is deceptive but not factually incorrect.
Re:Why would you want an RFID blocking wallet??
on
Top Ten Geek Wallets
·
· Score: 1
But if you are carrying a card, through choice, you want the office door to unlock itself as you walk up to it don't you??"
Hell no. I don't want The Man to know that I'm the kind of person who walks through doors. It's all about privacy.
you are neglecting that many users may use one installation of Vista. For example, on account of a rather freewheeling philosophy toward downloading warez, my roommate's WinXP box now has at least 26 different users, most of whom appear to live in Ukraine.
1) This is already covered in the Outer Space Treaty. If you want to argue China is justified, you would have more luck arguing that all they are doing is temporarily incapacitating the satellites (presuming it is temporary) in the way one might shine a bright light into the lens of a camera someone points into a window of your house.
2) Comparing the recent US invasions to British occupation during the American Revolution seems a bit of a stretch unless you honestly think that the US intends to tax these countries without representation, but drawing an analogy between these invasions and the Nazis invading France is just going to set a lot of eyeballs rolling. You are doing a grave disservice to people who protest the US invasions on rational grounds.
3) What do spy satellites have to do with your claims about the US supposedly appoint itself as global hegemon? Plenty of countries have spy satellites. Does that mean they're all appointing themselves global hegemons?
4) Saying X or Y number of people don't like the US says little in itself about the viability of US policy. Sure lots of people in lots of countries would rather that some of the United States' wealth and power be transferred to themselves. The fact that they do so does not somehow transform these countries collectively into a disinterested source of wisdom regarding the vices and virtues of US policy. If you disagree with this policy, you'll be more persuasive if you say why you disagree, rather than how many people supposedly agree with you when they are in fact simply looking after their own particular self interests.
Slashdot Mirror
this is almost enough to make one lose faith in the noble enterprise of burglary.
there goes their chance to penetrate the market.
when I was a kid I knew that if I wanted to live longer I wouldn't turn up the thermostat, but that had more to do with my dad than any scientific study.
beaches and girls are just fine, but I'm moving to Iraq. After all, I paid for their democracy, so I might as well show up there and reap what I've sown.
it makes spilling your beer on the keyboard that much more of a tragedy.
(sorry)
PS. If you ever decide that there is a need to shoot the messenger, I'm you're guy.
Perhaps you can enlighten us with any news you might spy from up there on top of your high horse.
Can you really call it open source if the source of the software is a supermax?
I imagine that were chess to have been invented in 1997, you would have dismissed it just as casually, on grounds just as suspect.
that seems overly simplistic. When Bill Frist says that the new gambling law addresses a practice that can lead to horrible addiction, he's telling the truth, insofar as that goes. What he's really doing is implying that that's the motivation behind making the law, when the real reason is that they can't tax it (unlike, for example, betting on horses or state lotteries, which apparently are not addictive). His statement is deceptive but not factually incorrect.
hm.. cancer or more 'OMG ponies'. now there's a conundrum.
you are neglecting that many users may use one installation of Vista. For example, on account of a rather freewheeling philosophy toward downloading warez, my roommate's WinXP box now has at least 26 different users, most of whom appear to live in Ukraine.
1) This is already covered in the Outer Space Treaty. If you want to argue China is justified, you would have more luck arguing that all they are doing is temporarily incapacitating the satellites (presuming it is temporary) in the way one might shine a bright light into the lens of a camera someone points into a window of your house. 2) Comparing the recent US invasions to British occupation during the American Revolution seems a bit of a stretch unless you honestly think that the US intends to tax these countries without representation, but drawing an analogy between these invasions and the Nazis invading France is just going to set a lot of eyeballs rolling. You are doing a grave disservice to people who protest the US invasions on rational grounds. 3) What do spy satellites have to do with your claims about the US supposedly appoint itself as global hegemon? Plenty of countries have spy satellites. Does that mean they're all appointing themselves global hegemons? 4) Saying X or Y number of people don't like the US says little in itself about the viability of US policy. Sure lots of people in lots of countries would rather that some of the United States' wealth and power be transferred to themselves. The fact that they do so does not somehow transform these countries collectively into a disinterested source of wisdom regarding the vices and virtues of US policy. If you disagree with this policy, you'll be more persuasive if you say why you disagree, rather than how many people supposedly agree with you when they are in fact simply looking after their own particular self interests.