select user_id, lower(username) user_name from user_users where username = user;
select lower(substr(global_name,1,(instr(global_name,'.', 1,1)-1))) db_name
from global_name;
rem set the prompt
set sqlprompt "&db_name::&user_name> "
It's a free market, companies should be able to do what they want to do, and if you don't like it, don't use that company.
Agreed. In principle at least. However, there are a couple issues at hand. For one, you are almost required to have a bank account somewhere. Try cashing a check that the government gives you without having a bank account in that bank or ind an employer that pays in cash (legally). One bank wanted to charge me 3 dollars! There are other issues such as Car Insurance (required by law if you want to drive). Since these are basically required, you can now advocate the government to issue some basic guidelines.
Another example is what people call the "Information Age". It's not that we just have more information, it's that it's all about information. The government as well as basic institutions rely on identifying you by your personal information. Thus, people say that it should be offered the same protection that your body has. Imagine a someone was to create fingerprints and go all over the place placing them everywhere, while excersing individual rights to do so. Who you also say that he is within his rights, or would you prevent him on the basis of society agrees to certain laws governing their behaviour in order to live more "normally"?
I mean, if it's such a bad word, why couldn't you just decide that it isn't. Poof, one less evil in the world
You could decide that some words have different meanings. The problem, however, is not the action itself, but the impression it leaves on the individual that says the word, and those who hear it.
The impression on the one who says it, is the feeling of freedom to do as one wishes. Although the irreligious may say this is the greatest thing -- freedom -- the religious will argue by either saying that full freedom is immoral or that true freedom is having control. Either way is is up to the indivdual to do as they please, and at the same time, to recognize and respect others' (rights to have other) beliefs and rights as well.
There are also those who hear it. Generally, one does not know the relgious and moral beliefs of others, and as such, one needs to be very careful with what they force others to hear. Thus, the Michigan law upholds individual feeedom.
We cannot outlaw everything that might offend somebody. But the when a belief is widely held, the legislature may put force behind liberty with laws. Offensive language is such a thing. It offends a good deal of people.
Why the law only protects women and children I do not know. Personally, I think it discriminates against those of the masculine gender.
One weird thing I noticed with myself. Once I am already up, getting out of bed is easier the closer my mattress is to the floor. Also, sliding my feet off the bed in one move, and then attempting to sit up seems to be easier then then one motion.
I mean no disrespect to you. I thought evidence means proof. I checked http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?evidence and found "b : something that furnishes proof". If the title of the story used another meaning, then I misread it and my comment was unwarrented..
Do you mean to say that if a hypothesis is contrary to an interpretation of a religious tradition, it shouldn't be investigated at all, whether or not the hypothesis is true?
No, I was just wondering what all the excitement was about. Especially why the story on slashdot had the title indicating that it was proof as opposed to the actual title which mentioned the possibility of proof. My opinion is that the need to elevate things to the level of proof was as you mentioned. I am not against any story being published, or any belief being pursued.
If an experiment gave reason to doubt a major theory like the Big Bang, it would be written up and sent to Nature or Science as fast as possible.
The article merely provides evidence that the theory is correct, but it will never be possible to prove the theory.
You mean that it was not incorrect. Anyway, that is not the point. I am just amazed at the excitement over the possibility of a proof which seems to be rather unwarranted.
The title is "Possible traces of Big Bang discovered". Note the word possible. If I have a theory and I find some circumstantial evidence, which by itself would prove nothing, but fits in with the theory, that is proof? If anything, this has not disproven the theory.
Why get so excited over such a little thing? I would presume that people need to prove the theory so as to disprove other theories based in theology. If that is the case, I find the reporting of this proof quite pedantic.
I wonder what if this find didn't prove the theory. In fact, what if it slightly disproved it. Would it have been reported as well?
Just wanting to join some standard doesn't mean that you are "good" at it. Check out the newsgroups and email lists about the languages. Learn what others know, and talk about it. Eventually your name will mean something, if it should, and people might actually come to you when working on the language.
Exactly that. A spiritual feeling. Remember, when Spock told Mccoy, that he couldn't explain the feeling of death to him since he would have had to have been dead to understand it? Well, whether I agree with that or not, I do believe a spritiual feeling is a feeling that cannot be described otherwise.
I wasn't arguing the logic. Rather the statement that the second question could not be asked. Every question can be asked, even if there is no answer. This one has an answer and is interesting to some, therefore it was asked. I just didn't think the second sentence of that poster was worded appropriately to convey the intended meaning.
You'd think you had a 50/50 chance by knowing that you seem to have a choice between two doors. Because, should a second person come along not knowing of your choice, and choose between the two doors, his chances would have to be 50/50.
Let's ask the question another way. Monty asks you to choose a door with no chance to switch. Your chances are 1/3. Even if he opens one of the wrong doors before he tells you if you won or lost, you cannot change, and therefore your chances are 1/3.
Again, but this time Monty asks you to *remove* a door. In other words, you win if the door is *not* the one that you pick. Your chances are 2/3. Even if Monty opens up a losing door before he tells you the winner.
Should you choose to stay or switch *before* you choose any doors, these two cases are stay and switch respectively, showing the odds are 1/3 for staying and 2/3 for switching.
The thing that boggles the mind, is if someone else chose his chances are 50/50. Yes, this is true. But had he known the previous situation, his chances are the same as yours.
It still seems not to make sense since how does opening the door affect your decision. So here is what helped me. When you make your first choice, you have a 1/3 chance of getting the car. So, in 1/3 of the cases, Monty can choose either of the other two doors to open, as they are both losers. In 2/3 of the cases (that is, when you choose a goat door) the door that monty open is chosen by your choice. That is, he can't choose your choice to open, nor can he open the one with the car. Thus, in 2/3 of the cases you *affected* the opening and cancellation of one of the doors. Thus bring it into the equation and allowing it to raise the cahnces of the other door.
I posted this lat time Ask/. had a puzzle of boring Sunday a while back.
Three smart kids are on a beach and all have mud on their foreheads. An old man comes over to them and asks for each of them to look at *both* their friends, and should one *or* both of their friends have mud on their foreheads, they should raise their hands. All three kids look at both of their friends, and seeing mud on both of their friends heads, they raise their hands.
The old man then offers a dollar to anyone who can answer his next question, and prove it. He asks if any of the kids know that they do, or do not, have mud on their foreheads, and if they can prove it. The kids look at each other and are bewildered for a bit. Suddenly, one of them screaches, "Oh!" and raises his hand. He then explains to the old man how he must have mud on his forehead and explains his reasoning. As his reasoning was excellent, the old man gives him the dollar.
Screwing over your customers is one thing, but it sucks that they would jerk around employees too.
Sure, some overplay it, but some employee's *are* out to get their employers. I want some real numbers. What is the actual ratio to employee's who left any tech companies that were barred from any other job?
As the article mentioned, the real problem is not the law, its the non-technical judge applying them. We're in a new era, judges will catch up sooner or later. In the meanwhile, advocate knowledge of what does, and what does not infringe, but don't say the laws are bad.
Is this the "New" science they teach in schools these days?
No, this is what I believe. You are correct in that you can only prove something by disproving its opposite. My sentence was misleading. I meant to say, that you cannot prove that something *doesn't* exist, you can only prove that it does exist.
Nothing can ever be disproven, things can only be proven. You cannot *prove* that you are not some program running in someone else's computer, you can only prove that you are here right now reading this.
This does bring some basis to Darwin's theory, as it now seems to fit better, but it certainly doesn't even prove that, let alone disprove Scientific Creationism.
The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right -- mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.
That is an opinion. An early one, and one to spark debate. I cannot believe a serious journalist reported that.
Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true.
Not only can something like that not be proven, as aforementioned, this statment is inflammatory.
Hey, if someone posted the *story* as a *comment* to this Slashdot story, it'd probably get modded as Flaimbait!
Slashdot Mirror
select user_id, lower(username) user_name from user_users where username = user; select lower(substr(global_name,1,(instr(global_name,'.', 1,1)-1))) db_name
from global_name;
rem set the prompt
set sqlprompt "&db_name::&user_name> "
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
PS1='\w>'
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
It's a free market, companies should be able to do what they want to do, and if you don't like it, don't use that company.
Agreed. In principle at least. However, there are a couple issues at hand. For one, you are almost required to have a bank account somewhere. Try cashing a check that the government gives you without having a bank account in that bank or ind an employer that pays in cash (legally). One bank wanted to charge me 3 dollars! There are other issues such as Car Insurance (required by law if you want to drive). Since these are basically required, you can now advocate the government to issue some basic guidelines.
Another example is what people call the "Information Age". It's not that we just have more information, it's that it's all about information. The government as well as basic institutions rely on identifying you by your personal information. Thus, people say that it should be offered the same protection that your body has. Imagine a someone was to create fingerprints and go all over the place placing them everywhere, while excersing individual rights to do so. Who you also say that he is within his rights, or would you prevent him on the basis of society agrees to certain laws governing their behaviour in order to live more "normally"?
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
I mean, if it's such a bad word, why couldn't you just decide that it isn't. Poof, one less evil in the world
You could decide that some words have different meanings. The problem, however, is not the action itself, but the impression it leaves on the individual that says the word, and those who hear it.
The impression on the one who says it, is the feeling of freedom to do as one wishes. Although the irreligious may say this is the greatest thing -- freedom -- the religious will argue by either saying that full freedom is immoral or that true freedom is having control. Either way is is up to the indivdual to do as they please, and at the same time, to recognize and respect others' (rights to have other) beliefs and rights as well.
There are also those who hear it. Generally, one does not know the relgious and moral beliefs of others, and as such, one needs to be very careful with what they force others to hear. Thus, the Michigan law upholds individual feeedom.
We cannot outlaw everything that might offend somebody. But the when a belief is widely held, the legislature may put force behind liberty with laws. Offensive language is such a thing. It offends a good deal of people.
Why the law only protects women and children I do not know. Personally, I think it discriminates against those of the masculine gender.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
There goes my changes of using those rays to generate PGP keys. Stupid computers.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
One weird thing I noticed with myself. Once I am already up, getting out of bed is easier the closer my mattress is to the floor. Also, sliding my feet off the bed in one move, and then attempting to sit up seems to be easier then then one motion.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Uh... "provides evidence for" != proof.
I mean no disrespect to you. I thought evidence means proof. I checked http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?evidence and found "b : something that furnishes proof". If the title of the story used another meaning, then I misread it and my comment was unwarrented..
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Do you mean to say that if a hypothesis is contrary to an interpretation of a religious tradition, it shouldn't be investigated at all, whether or not the hypothesis is true?
No, I was just wondering what all the excitement was about. Especially why the story on slashdot had the title indicating that it was proof as opposed to the actual title which mentioned the possibility of proof. My opinion is that the need to elevate things to the level of proof was as you mentioned. I am not against any story being published, or any belief being pursued.
If an experiment gave reason to doubt a major theory like the Big Bang, it would be written up and sent to Nature or Science as fast as possible.
Could be. I just wonder sometimes.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
The article merely provides evidence that the theory is correct, but it will never be possible to prove the theory.
You mean that it was not incorrect. Anyway, that is not the point. I am just amazed at the excitement over the possibility of a proof which seems to be rather unwarranted.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Nobody is claiming proof of anything.
Did you read the title of the story on slashdot? 'Antarctic Detectors Provide Evidence For Big Bang'
The actual story correctly stated that it was not a proof.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
The title is "Possible traces of Big Bang discovered". Note the word possible. If I have a theory and I find some circumstantial evidence, which by itself would prove nothing, but fits in with the theory, that is proof? If anything, this has not disproven the theory.
Why get so excited over such a little thing? I would presume that people need to prove the theory so as to disprove other theories based in theology. If that is the case, I find the reporting of this proof quite pedantic.
I wonder what if this find didn't prove the theory. In fact, what if it slightly disproved it. Would it have been reported as well?
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Just wanting to join some standard doesn't mean that you are "good" at it. Check out the newsgroups and email lists about the languages. Learn what others know, and talk about it. Eventually your name will mean something, if it should, and people might actually come to you when working on the language.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
What's a spiritual feeling?
Exactly that. A spiritual feeling. Remember, when Spock told Mccoy, that he couldn't explain the feeling of death to him since he would have had to have been dead to understand it? Well, whether I agree with that or not, I do believe a spritiual feeling is a feeling that cannot be described otherwise.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
I wasn't arguing the logic. Rather the statement that the second question could not be asked. Every question can be asked, even if there is no answer. This one has an answer and is interesting to some, therefore it was asked. I just didn't think the second sentence of that poster was worded appropriately to convey the intended meaning.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
99 + 9/9
Too easy, took about ten seconds.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
The second question was asked for an answer. It would have been asked even if none, or only one, had mud.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
You'd think you had a 50/50 chance by knowing that you seem to have a choice between two doors. Because, should a second person come along not knowing of your choice, and choose between the two doors, his chances would have to be 50/50.
Let's ask the question another way. Monty asks you to choose a door with no chance to switch. Your chances are 1/3. Even if he opens one of the wrong doors before he tells you if you won or lost, you cannot change, and therefore your chances are 1/3.
Again, but this time Monty asks you to *remove* a door. In other words, you win if the door is *not* the one that you pick. Your chances are 2/3. Even if Monty opens up a losing door before he tells you the winner.
Should you choose to stay or switch *before* you choose any doors, these two cases are stay and switch respectively, showing the odds are 1/3 for staying and 2/3 for switching.
The thing that boggles the mind, is if someone else chose his chances are 50/50. Yes, this is true. But had he known the previous situation, his chances are the same as yours.
It still seems not to make sense since how does opening the door affect your decision. So here is what helped me. When you make your first choice, you have a 1/3 chance of getting the car. So, in 1/3 of the cases, Monty can choose either of the other two doors to open, as they are both losers. In 2/3 of the cases (that is, when you choose a goat door) the door that monty open is chosen by your choice. That is, he can't choose your choice to open, nor can he open the one with the car. Thus, in 2/3 of the cases you *affected* the opening and cancellation of one of the doors. Thus bring it into the equation and allowing it to raise the cahnces of the other door.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
I posted this lat time Ask /. had a puzzle of boring Sunday a while back.
Three smart kids are on a beach and all have mud on their foreheads. An old man comes over to them and asks for each of them to look at *both* their friends, and should one *or* both of their friends have mud on their foreheads, they should raise their hands. All three kids look at both of their friends, and seeing mud on both of their friends heads, they raise their hands.
The old man then offers a dollar to anyone who can answer his next question, and prove it. He asks if any of the kids know that they do, or do not, have mud on their foreheads, and if they can prove it. The kids look at each other and are bewildered for a bit. Suddenly, one of them screaches, "Oh!" and raises his hand. He then explains to the old man how he must have mud on his forehead and explains his reasoning. As his reasoning was excellent, the old man gives him the dollar.
What was the boy's reasoning?
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
This question was asked earlier in the comments. They beat me to it. :-)
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
The first try is a 1/3 shot. The second is a 1/2 shot. So, the real question here is will the 1/2 chance match with your 1/3 chance.
Let's add a point. You choose. He opens. You have a sudden bout of amnesia and forget which you chose. Being embarrased you say nothing.
You choose from the remaining two. You are now correct fifty percent of the time.
What are the chances that your second choice is the same as the first choice?
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Screwing over your customers is one thing, but it sucks that they would jerk around employees too.
Sure, some overplay it, but some employee's *are* out to get their employers. I want some real numbers. What is the actual ratio to employee's who left any tech companies that were barred from any other job?
As the article mentioned, the real problem is not the law, its the non-technical judge applying them. We're in a new era, judges will catch up sooner or later. In the meanwhile, advocate knowledge of what does, and what does not infringe, but don't say the laws are bad.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Will this number now be a prime suspect?
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Is this the "New" science they teach in schools these days?
No, this is what I believe. You are correct in that you can only prove something by disproving its opposite. My sentence was misleading. I meant to say, that you cannot prove that something *doesn't* exist, you can only prove that it does exist.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Bionic Fish, using is super power frog muscles to save the day. Hey, it's like Mighty Mouse meets the six million dollar man.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Nothing can ever be disproven, things can only be proven. You cannot *prove* that you are not some program running in someone else's computer, you can only prove that you are here right now reading this.
This does bring some basis to Darwin's theory, as it now seems to fit better, but it certainly doesn't even prove that, let alone disprove Scientific Creationism.
The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right -- mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.
That is an opinion. An early one, and one to spark debate. I cannot believe a serious journalist reported that.
Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true.
Not only can something like that not be proven, as aforementioned, this statment is inflammatory.
Hey, if someone posted the *story* as a *comment* to this Slashdot story, it'd probably get modded as Flaimbait!
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;