Comment Re:Rounded... (Score 1) 362
The University of Melbourne has crunched the numbers, and you're right, the world probably isn't about to end:
http://www.scc.ms.unimelb.edu.au/whatisstatistics/coins.html
The University of Melbourne has crunched the numbers, and you're right, the world probably isn't about to end:
http://www.scc.ms.unimelb.edu.au/whatisstatistics/coins.html
No. With cash transactions the common practice in Australia is to round to the nearest 5 cent increment, whether up or down. It's not that difficult to do though because the rounding's done by the cash register anyway.
This.
In summary, "Don't be dick, and if you do, don't blame God for your dickishness."
So applicable for so many people I know.
Just commenting to undo a bad mod. Pity about the good mods, but dems da breaks.
Your post clearly indicates you are unaware of this and are attempting to moderate based on a novel concept known as 'merit'. I hope they mod you into oblivion, you community-destroying monster! You corrupt everything
P.S. Thanks.
No, it was a knee jerk downmod of some thoughtful idiot who was making sense in a rational, logical yet fair manner. My knee jerked so badly I accidentally clicked an upmod. It was purely unintentional, I promise.
Just commenting to undo a bad mod. Pity about the good mods, but dems da breaks.
Following a companion called Amelia with one called... Amelia. That probably wouldn't work long term but having two Amelias running around for an episode or two could be amusing.
Of course, with all the doppelgangers and whatnot it could just get confusing.
But IBM uses Lotus Domino and they frown (big time) upon the use of unauthorized software. I would not want to be caught using Gmail by my boss if I were still working for IBM.
Heh. My workplace uses Lotus Domino, and it's the main reason I use gmail at work.
Isn't that using faith in God to help deal with the suffering? Sort of like saying 'it's shit now, but it'll come good in the end'.
Long answer: These verses set up a long sequence of argumentation that is fairly difficult to parse, with a few side excursions and back references to points made before. It's fairly difficult to say what these verses actually mean without simultaneously referring to every other bit that follows and their respective relations to each other, which I find somewhat reminiscent to quantum cryptography.
Short answer: Yes.
Salvation through faith in God and suffering are connected by hope. See Romans 5:
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Stalin and Mao weren't TRUE atheists. No TRUE atheist would do such a thing.
They are headed North...straight towards humanity.
Ah, where the hoomans are. Even after RTFA I couldn't work out exactly where the northern reaches of Antarctica were.
Do you think that after 37 years in the US Army, I didn't hear, 'You won't let me do it because I am a girl or female)" argument? Say OK, do it and then have have to listen to them complain about getting sand in their vagina!
Fair point, but I have to say that hearing guys complain about the chafing their wedding tackle is getting after a week in the desert wears a little thin after a while.
It is axiomatic to rational thought that assertions must be supported. You can't prove everything, but neither can you simply take everything for granted (or even most things).
My point exactly. You're the one who said that unprovable assumptions are invalid.
So unless you can provide a compelling reason why we should treat it as an axiom that all people have bias (known or unknown), you have no ground to stand on.
If you've done any work in epistemology over the last fifty years you'd be well aware that the biggest problem with bias is that we're not always aware of it, and even when we are we don't always know what to do with it. Any observation we make about the world has to be interpreted before we can use it to make statements about the world and is therefore suspect.
The best we can do is minimise the effect by separating raw observation from interpretation. That's why double blind testing is the gold standard in science. That's easy in physics and chemistry, but hard in armchair sociology. It's also why I'm glad when job applicants don't put their gender or date of birth on their résumés.
I think if you don't realize your bias then you are unwittingly probably part of the problem.
You're making the (unprovable, and thus invalid) assumption that everyone has bias, whether they know it or not. That's ridiculous.
So you're assuming that unprovable assumptions are invalid. Could you please prove that and thus validate your claim?
Yes, in November 1975. The Whitlam government was sacked by the GG, John Kerr.
If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.
