I see what you are saying now, I mis-read your list. However the dog/cat thing may be messing things up as I've seen it wrongly portrayed in other posts. If "a boy born on Tuesday, a girl born on Tuesday" and "a girl born on Tuesday, a boy born on Tuesday" are two different events, then "a boy born on Tuesday, a boy born on Tuesday" must be counted twice (because even if they are both born or tuesday they might not have been born on the same tuesday). If not, they both should only be counted once.
Let me see if I can create the list of unique possibilities:
This list doesn't consider the order of birth/age of the two children as relevant (because it isn't). In the scenario given one child is always a boy born on Tuesday and we are enumerating the list of possibilities of the second child only. With this in mind there are 14 possibilities, 7 of which are boy/boy which is 1/2 (50% chance).
Male Cat born Tuesday, Male Dog born Monday
Male Cat born Tuesday, Male Dog born Tuesday *
Male Cat born Tuesday, Male Dog born Wednesday
Male Cat born Tuesday, Male Dog born Thursday
Male Cat born Tuesday, Male Dog born Friday
Male Cat born Tuesday, Male Dog born Saturday
Male Cat born Tuesday, Male Dog born Sunday
Male Dog born Tuesday, Male Cat born Monday
Male Dog born Tuesday, Male Cat born Tuesday *
Male Dog born Tuesday, Male Cat born Wednesday
Male Dog born Tuesday, Male Cat born Thursday
Male Dog born Tuesday, Male Cat born Friday
Male Dog born Tuesday, Male Cat born Saturday
Male Dog born Tuesday, Male Cat born Sunday
Both of these sets have a Male Dog and Male Cat born on a particular day of the week, the only difference is the order in which you listed Cat and Dog (Which is the same difference between the "Tuesdays" but you decided one should be discarded because its a dupe).
* Note that I enumerated the case where both are males born on Tuesday twice. These are redundant and one must be discarded else I will double count that situation. After doing so there are 13/27 cases where both are males.
Note that you also did that for every other day of the week where the only thing that is different is the order, but you did not exclude them from the final calculation. Either order matters in all cases or in no cases, you can't pick and choose what's convenient for your theory.
This makes the totals if you are consistent either way:
Because that would require injecting ambiguity that doesn't exist. You don't say I have two when you have 3 unless you are lying. On the other hand saying something about "one of whom" does not say anything about the other, you are more specifically describing one of them. Any extrapolation of the other from the information given about one of them, is simply incorrect; jumping to conclusions if you will.
In my hand I have two coins totaling $0.55. One of them is not a nickel. What are the two coins?
What's the answer to this riddle, and why is it correct and but its not correct when applied to this instance.
If you say to someone I have several pieces of fruit and one of them is a banana
I'm sorry but that's not what was said, let me rephrase for you; I have several pieces of fruit; one of which is a banana. This says nothing to what the other pieces of fruit are, some might also be bananas. You implying that it means exactly one is a banana is just that, your implication/assuming which could very well be wrong.
So, in the world regarding to zzsmirkzz, people ought to be shot for *believing* something.
No, in the world regarding to zzsmirkzz, people ought to be shot for trying to foist their beliefs onto others. If he does not want HFCS that is his choice, and he has the tools necessary to make that choice for himself. He can even get on a podium and convince others that they should also go along with his choice. But this isn't good enough for him, he wants to make the choice for you and deny you your right to choose for yourself. People who are intolerant of the right of others to make their own choices are enemies of freedom. I, for one, will fight to the death to protect my freedom from these enemies.
or, the smiley face could of meant I was joking....;)
These days US is (by traditional US thinking) a socialist country too, where other people end up paying for other peoples mistakes (such as getting ill by smoking, getting obese by cheap HFCS-filled foods). And if you pay for it, you should get to have a say about it...
This has nothing to do with socialism or having to pay for the health care costs of others which may or may not be due to their own personal choices. This has everything to do with the federal government over-stepping their authority, and exerting power they were not granted in the constitution thereby threatening the very freedom this country was founded on. You don't like HFCS, that's fine, all food products have been required to be labeled so that you know its in there and you can make the choice to eat it or not. It's not the governments purpose, role, or place to make these decisions for anybody. It is their place to provide (or require it to be provided) the correct and necessary information for the people to make their own choices. And yes, freedom includes the ability to choose to do the wrong thing. But along with it is the responsibility to accept the consequences of ones decisions. The accepting responsibility part is what is wrong in this country, nobody does it or is expected to do it. This is the root of the problem. Address it and all of the side-effects will be taken care of.
I didn't say he should leave or be shot for saying it. I said that he should be for believing it;). This belief goes against the very grain of freedom this country was founded and based on and for that fact alone, this person would be better suited in place that doesn't believe in freedom. One bad apple spoils the bunch and this country has lots of them (enemies of freedom) lying around....
Now, nicotine's not harmless in the slightest - it is, in fact, rat poison.
No, it is not. In large doses it could kill a rat, just as in large enough doses it could kill a human. But the same goes for salt, so not a good/valid argument.
Rat poisons are typically anti-coagulants which reduce the rats ability to create blood clots and they eventually bleed out and die.
So the ALA has a pretty valid point that E-cigs are still bad, even if they are less bad.
Perhaps, if that was their point, but it wasn't. Their point is that E-Cigs should be banned while regular cigarettes should not. This does not compute and smells of money changing hands, lots of it.
Um, I'd buy that expect for all the posturing they've been doing to lead up to this film in small bits at the end of newer movies. I know Robert Downy Jr. shows up to recruit one of the avengers at the end of their movie (I forget which one it was) just as they had Samuel L Jackson recruit him at the end of Iron Man 1. They have the new Captain America signed up to do a series of movies including the avengers. So it seems to me that they are very serious about making this movie.
That's not what I said. The market is the software for the iPhone/iPad which hundreds/thousands of developers serve. It is this market that Apple is abusing its monopoly control of to reduce competition.
I agree with password aging, it protects against a real threat. A password that has been compromised but to which no one knows this fact. If passwords change every 30,60,90 days it limits the damage this could cause and ultimately solve problems people weren't even sure existed. It also limits the amount of time an attacker has to brute force your password list.
Where this goes wrong is when its taken to the extreme of not being able to re-use an old password, or any one of the last bagillion passwords you've used. This is just dumb and I cannot see what measurable threat it addresses. It just sounds good on paper.
A) It is not their device once they sell it to a consumer. Physical property, not software, not a license to use. Stop calling it their device, once you buy it, it is your device.
B) It is their App Store which they are in contractual relationships with all developers. This App Store is a market (in and of itself) in which they exert 100% control. Hence a monopoly.
C) They exert their control over the market to prevent a competitor from providing services to customers.
But it does have monopoly control on it's own app store and then leverages that monopoly power to control another market, in this case browser-enabled video players.
How does the work "Effects" not cover electronic communications. Even the fact that they go through the pain of listing so many nouns should make the intent clear. Nothing can be searched or seized without probable cause and without a description of the places to be searched and the items to be seized.
So to reduce costs, you force consumers to pay out of pocket for lots of services, and relegate insurance back to just catastrophic coverage, like it used to be.
I completely agree. Insurance is supposed to cover an expensive risk of loss, that could happen. Not for things like routine medical care that will happen. Merging the two concepts was a bad idea and flies in the face of the very concept of insurance.
Secondly, the only reason doctor's, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies can charge the prices they do is because everyone pools their money in an insurance company. The insurance company is the only one who can actually afford these things. And it's not because they actually need/do cost that much, but because they can charge that much. If it went back to everyone having to pay out of their own pocket, the medical industry would be forced to cut prices, reduce profit-margins, to come back to reality on both what they are worth and what people can afford. People forget the price of an item isn't necessarily linked to its intrinsic cost/value it is also linked to what people are willing to pay for it.
He is also guilty of copyright violations. Standard license for DVDs at Walmart are for PERSONAL use only. DVD's that rental companies buy have different licenses that allow them to be rented out and as a result cost much more.
It's just like instituting a tax on an undesirable substance via the purchase of tax stamps. Having said substance without the stamp is avoiding paying tax and thus illegal and punishable by force of law. Now, all you have to do is not produce or allow anyone to buy the tax stamps. Boom! Instantly banned substance. That's how this good ol' US of A originally banned marijuana back when Congress attempted to stay within the confines of the Constitution. Now, they don't even try to come up with convoluted reasoning, they just act like they have the power to make any law they want.
The part you are missing is who decides (and how do they decide) when an American citizen is an enemy combatant. In some cases, like the ones most parroted in this thread, are cut-and-dried and dead simple. There may be other cases that are less so. A lot of people are assuming it is only the people in the first case that are being targeted while the ACLU doesn't want to assume, it wants to know. What evidence must there be to declare an American citizen an enemy combatant and thus target them for execution? They want the entire, written procedure that is followed and they only want it to ensure American citizens are provided due process of law when there is any reasonable doubt of their guilt as that is their right as citizens. This is something every citizen of this country should not only want but demand.
Also, keep in mind, you (as well as many others) use Enemy Combatant as a word that has definite meaning and that when used, inherently proves the guilt of the person labeled. When, in fact, a person can labeled an enemy combatant just by the President's (as well as some members of his staff's) say so. No proof, no trial, no accusation, just he's an enemy combatant said by the right person, makes it so. Its just another form of conveying guilt by label and not by proof, like witch, commie and terrorist before it.
Its not so much that it was installed by default as it was integrated into the operating system and couldn't be removed. Sure you could install another browser, but IE would still remain and be required for certain OS functions. That is what got them into this mess; and this is one of the steps they are required to take get out of it.
An operating system is not just the kernel, but all the software bundled on top.
Um, no an operating system is supposed to be just the kernel and driver framework. The software bundled on top (i.e. the applications) are separate from the OS. This is how it is meant to be and how it is supposed to be. Sure an OS can include applications but they must behave like applications and must be able to be removed if they user does not want them.
It's sort of like the US federal government, it's main/only purpose is to provide for National Defense with all other power/issues left to state and local governments where they are in close contact with the people they are affecting. A politician might not care what Joe Blow in CA cares when they are in DC, but Joe Blow done the street from them is a different story. People forget to easily what the government's function is and what it isn't.
You know what? It's easier to charge less when you don't have to pay taxes. It's easier to charge less when you don't have to pay Social Security & Medicare. It's easier for an employer to charge less when they don't have to pay Social Security match, unemployment insurance and other payroll expenses. The reason the work is cheaper isn't because illegals are willing to work for a lesser fair wage, they are willing to work for a lesser unfair wage that a legal, upstanding citizen can't afford because he has to play by the rules. It's easy to win when you cheat.
Nice argument you got there, got any data to back it up? How about separating ideas for a starter. The problem with your argument is that they are not just offering jobs that illegal immigrants are doing, they are offering them jobs that illegal immigrants are doing for the same pay the illegal immigrants are willing to work for. This typically is at or below minimum wage (with a trade-off of 0 taxes). The problem with this is that illegal immigrants don't have bargaining power to negotiate better wages (because they are illegal), so they race each other to the bottom. This artificially reduces the value of these positions to the point where no legal worker would feel that the pay is fair for the work and they refuse the job. Not because they don't want to do the work but because the pay is too low. It's like asking a Sr Level Programmer to work for $8/hr and arguing that Americans don't want the job when they say no.
Mod parent up. Guilty until proven innocent goes against the very notion our justice system is based on. It is also the sole reason why I'm against Breathalyzer integration in ignition systems, DUI checkpoints, intrusive scanning/searching of person and affects at airlines, etc. They all mean the same thing, that you must prove your innocence. That it is okay to assume everyone is guilty.
Slashdot Mirror
I see what you are saying now, I mis-read your list. However the dog/cat thing may be messing things up as I've seen it wrongly portrayed in other posts. If "a boy born on Tuesday, a girl born on Tuesday" and "a girl born on Tuesday, a boy born on Tuesday" are two different events, then "a boy born on Tuesday, a boy born on Tuesday" must be counted twice (because even if they are both born or tuesday they might not have been born on the same tuesday). If not, they both should only be counted once.
Let me see if I can create the list of unique possibilities:
C1-M-Tu, C2-M-Mo
C1-M-Tu, C2-M-Tu
C1-M-Tu, C2-M-We
C1-M-Tu, C2-M-Th
C1-M-Tu, C2-M-Fr
C1-M-Tu, C2-M-Sa
C1-M-Tu, C2-M-Su
C1-M-Tu, C2-F-Mo
C1-M-Tu, C2-F-Tu
C1-M-Tu, C2-F-We
C1-M-Tu, C2-F-Th
C1-M-Tu, C2-F-Fr
C1-M-Tu, C2-F-Sa
C1-M-Tu, C2-F-Su
This list doesn't consider the order of birth/age of the two children as relevant (because it isn't). In the scenario given one child is always a boy born on Tuesday and we are enumerating the list of possibilities of the second child only. With this in mind there are 14 possibilities, 7 of which are boy/boy which is 1/2 (50% chance).
Male Cat born Tuesday, Male Dog born Monday Male Cat born Tuesday, Male Dog born Tuesday * Male Cat born Tuesday, Male Dog born Wednesday Male Cat born Tuesday, Male Dog born Thursday Male Cat born Tuesday, Male Dog born Friday Male Cat born Tuesday, Male Dog born Saturday Male Cat born Tuesday, Male Dog born Sunday
Male Dog born Tuesday, Male Cat born Monday Male Dog born Tuesday, Male Cat born Tuesday * Male Dog born Tuesday, Male Cat born Wednesday Male Dog born Tuesday, Male Cat born Thursday Male Dog born Tuesday, Male Cat born Friday Male Dog born Tuesday, Male Cat born Saturday Male Dog born Tuesday, Male Cat born Sunday
Both of these sets have a Male Dog and Male Cat born on a particular day of the week, the only difference is the order in which you listed Cat and Dog (Which is the same difference between the "Tuesdays" but you decided one should be discarded because its a dupe).
* Note that I enumerated the case where both are males born on Tuesday twice. These are redundant and one must be discarded else I will double count that situation. After doing so there are 13/27 cases where both are males.
Note that you also did that for every other day of the week where the only thing that is different is the order, but you did not exclude them from the final calculation. Either order matters in all cases or in no cases, you can't pick and choose what's convenient for your theory.
This makes the totals if you are consistent either way:
Order Matters = 14/28 = 1/2
Order Doesn't Matter = 7/14 = 1/2
Get it now?
Because that would require injecting ambiguity that doesn't exist. You don't say I have two when you have 3 unless you are lying. On the other hand saying something about "one of whom" does not say anything about the other, you are more specifically describing one of them. Any extrapolation of the other from the information given about one of them, is simply incorrect; jumping to conclusions if you will.
What's the answer to this riddle, and why is it correct and but its not correct when applied to this instance.
If you say to someone I have several pieces of fruit and one of them is a banana
I'm sorry but that's not what was said, let me rephrase for you; I have several pieces of fruit; one of which is a banana. This says nothing to what the other pieces of fruit are, some might also be bananas. You implying that it means exactly one is a banana is just that, your implication/assuming which could very well be wrong.
So, in the world regarding to zzsmirkzz, people ought to be shot for *believing* something.
No, in the world regarding to zzsmirkzz, people ought to be shot for trying to foist their beliefs onto others. If he does not want HFCS that is his choice, and he has the tools necessary to make that choice for himself. He can even get on a podium and convince others that they should also go along with his choice. But this isn't good enough for him, he wants to make the choice for you and deny you your right to choose for yourself. People who are intolerant of the right of others to make their own choices are enemies of freedom. I, for one, will fight to the death to protect my freedom from these enemies.
;)
or, the smiley face could of meant I was joking....
These days US is (by traditional US thinking) a socialist country too, where other people end up paying for other peoples mistakes (such as getting ill by smoking, getting obese by cheap HFCS-filled foods). And if you pay for it, you should get to have a say about it...
This has nothing to do with socialism or having to pay for the health care costs of others which may or may not be due to their own personal choices. This has everything to do with the federal government over-stepping their authority, and exerting power they were not granted in the constitution thereby threatening the very freedom this country was founded on. You don't like HFCS, that's fine, all food products have been required to be labeled so that you know its in there and you can make the choice to eat it or not. It's not the governments purpose, role, or place to make these decisions for anybody. It is their place to provide (or require it to be provided) the correct and necessary information for the people to make their own choices. And yes, freedom includes the ability to choose to do the wrong thing. But along with it is the responsibility to accept the consequences of ones decisions. The accepting responsibility part is what is wrong in this country, nobody does it or is expected to do it. This is the root of the problem. Address it and all of the side-effects will be taken care of.
I didn't say he should leave or be shot for saying it. I said that he should be for believing it ;). This belief goes against the very grain of freedom this country was founded and based on and for that fact alone, this person would be better suited in place that doesn't believe in freedom. One bad apple spoils the bunch and this country has lots of them (enemies of freedom) lying around....
Now, nicotine's not harmless in the slightest - it is, in fact, rat poison.
No, it is not. In large doses it could kill a rat, just as in large enough doses it could kill a human. But the same goes for salt, so not a good/valid argument.
Rat poisons are typically anti-coagulants which reduce the rats ability to create blood clots and they eventually bleed out and die.
So the ALA has a pretty valid point that E-cigs are still bad, even if they are less bad.
Perhaps, if that was their point, but it wasn't. Their point is that E-Cigs should be banned while regular cigarettes should not. This does not compute and smells of money changing hands, lots of it.
NO THEY SHOULDN'T!!!! If you live in the USA and feel this way get out or get shot!
Um, I'd buy that expect for all the posturing they've been doing to lead up to this film in small bits at the end of newer movies. I know Robert Downy Jr. shows up to recruit one of the avengers at the end of their movie (I forget which one it was) just as they had Samuel L Jackson recruit him at the end of Iron Man 1. They have the new Captain America signed up to do a series of movies including the avengers. So it seems to me that they are very serious about making this movie.
Yes, Apple has a monopoly on producing iPhones
That's not what I said. The market is the software for the iPhone/iPad which hundreds/thousands of developers serve. It is this market that Apple is abusing its monopoly control of to reduce competition.
Where this goes wrong is when its taken to the extreme of not being able to re-use an old password, or any one of the last bagillion passwords you've used. This is just dumb and I cannot see what measurable threat it addresses. It just sounds good on paper.
B) It is their App Store which they are in contractual relationships with all developers. This App Store is a market (in and of itself) in which they exert 100% control. Hence a monopoly.
C) They exert their control over the market to prevent a competitor from providing services to customers.
A,B,C: How is this not anti-competitive
But it does have monopoly control on it's own app store and then leverages that monopoly power to control another market, in this case browser-enabled video players.
How does the work "Effects" not cover electronic communications. Even the fact that they go through the pain of listing so many nouns should make the intent clear. Nothing can be searched or seized without probable cause and without a description of the places to be searched and the items to be seized.
So to reduce costs, you force consumers to pay out of pocket for lots of services, and relegate insurance back to just catastrophic coverage, like it used to be.
I completely agree. Insurance is supposed to cover an expensive risk of loss, that could happen. Not for things like routine medical care that will happen. Merging the two concepts was a bad idea and flies in the face of the very concept of insurance.
Secondly, the only reason doctor's, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies can charge the prices they do is because everyone pools their money in an insurance company. The insurance company is the only one who can actually afford these things. And it's not because they actually need/do cost that much, but because they can charge that much. If it went back to everyone having to pay out of their own pocket, the medical industry would be forced to cut prices, reduce profit-margins, to come back to reality on both what they are worth and what people can afford. People forget the price of an item isn't necessarily linked to its intrinsic cost/value it is also linked to what people are willing to pay for it.
He is also guilty of copyright violations. Standard license for DVDs at Walmart are for PERSONAL use only. DVD's that rental companies buy have different licenses that allow them to be rented out and as a result cost much more.
It's just like instituting a tax on an undesirable substance via the purchase of tax stamps. Having said substance without the stamp is avoiding paying tax and thus illegal and punishable by force of law. Now, all you have to do is not produce or allow anyone to buy the tax stamps. Boom! Instantly banned substance. That's how this good ol' US of A originally banned marijuana back when Congress attempted to stay within the confines of the Constitution. Now, they don't even try to come up with convoluted reasoning, they just act like they have the power to make any law they want.
enemy combatant trumps citizenship (and rightly so)
The part you are missing is who decides (and how do they decide) when an American citizen is an enemy combatant. In some cases, like the ones most parroted in this thread, are cut-and-dried and dead simple. There may be other cases that are less so. A lot of people are assuming it is only the people in the first case that are being targeted while the ACLU doesn't want to assume, it wants to know. What evidence must there be to declare an American citizen an enemy combatant and thus target them for execution? They want the entire, written procedure that is followed and they only want it to ensure American citizens are provided due process of law when there is any reasonable doubt of their guilt as that is their right as citizens. This is something every citizen of this country should not only want but demand.
Also, keep in mind, you (as well as many others) use Enemy Combatant as a word that has definite meaning and that when used, inherently proves the guilt of the person labeled. When, in fact, a person can labeled an enemy combatant just by the President's (as well as some members of his staff's) say so. No proof, no trial, no accusation, just he's an enemy combatant said by the right person, makes it so. Its just another form of conveying guilt by label and not by proof, like witch, commie and terrorist before it.
An operating system is not just the kernel, but all the software bundled on top.
Um, no an operating system is supposed to be just the kernel and driver framework. The software bundled on top (i.e. the applications) are separate from the OS. This is how it is meant to be and how it is supposed to be. Sure an OS can include applications but they must behave like applications and must be able to be removed if they user does not want them.
It's sort of like the US federal government, it's main/only purpose is to provide for National Defense with all other power/issues left to state and local governments where they are in close contact with the people they are affecting. A politician might not care what Joe Blow in CA cares when they are in DC, but Joe Blow done the street from them is a different story. People forget to easily what the government's function is and what it isn't.
You know what? It's easier to charge less when you don't have to pay taxes. It's easier to charge less when you don't have to pay Social Security & Medicare. It's easier for an employer to charge less when they don't have to pay Social Security match, unemployment insurance and other payroll expenses. The reason the work is cheaper isn't because illegals are willing to work for a lesser fair wage, they are willing to work for a lesser unfair wage that a legal, upstanding citizen can't afford because he has to play by the rules. It's easy to win when you cheat.
scrubbing toilets for low wages
Nice argument you got there, got any data to back it up? How about separating ideas for a starter. The problem with your argument is that they are not just offering jobs that illegal immigrants are doing, they are offering them jobs that illegal immigrants are doing for the same pay the illegal immigrants are willing to work for. This typically is at or below minimum wage (with a trade-off of 0 taxes). The problem with this is that illegal immigrants don't have bargaining power to negotiate better wages (because they are illegal), so they race each other to the bottom. This artificially reduces the value of these positions to the point where no legal worker would feel that the pay is fair for the work and they refuse the job. Not because they don't want to do the work but because the pay is too low. It's like asking a Sr Level Programmer to work for $8/hr and arguing that Americans don't want the job when they say no.
Mod parent up. Guilty until proven innocent goes against the very notion our justice system is based on. It is also the sole reason why I'm against Breathalyzer integration in ignition systems, DUI checkpoints, intrusive scanning/searching of person and affects at airlines, etc. They all mean the same thing, that you must prove your innocence. That it is okay to assume everyone is guilty.