You're not missing anything if you don't see GoT. It's just tits and swords.
Paraphrase: You're not missing anything interesting. It's just the most awesome thing in the world and the fourth most awesome thing in the world. All the time.
The fact that Facebook seems to be genuinely surprised by this response tells me everything I need to know about how they regard their users. They see them the same way an entomologist sees bugs - something to be cataloged and experimented on but not worthy of the respect one normally gives other human beings.
And how can this surprise you? Have you ever heard anything at all about Facebook respecting the privacy of its users? In fact, again and again and again Facebook ends up in the news with an anti-privacy scandal on its hands.
I am not saying that running social experiments on random people is a great idea (though it is funny), I am saying this is a 'no biggie' because it is neither surprising nor out of line with previous actions. That doesn't make it right, but anyone with half a brain should have seen it coming five years ago, and stopped using social media platforms 4 years ago. The only people who need to have these accounts are the marketeers. The rest will get much better 'social' results using 1) a phone and 2) mouth + ears.
I suppose since Facebook is owned and run by an immature child billionaire that I shouldn't be surprised.
And yet you appear to be. Facebook is run by a greedy thief, and you expect non-greedy-thief behavior. That is inconsistent.
Failbook has always proved and will always prove to be intrusive. Yet the sheep that use failbook continue to prove they are nothing more than stuipid little fucks that value nothing at all. Now with this "emotion experiment" the dumb asspie cracker Zuckerberg feels he is beyond any and all laws with his sheep still saying "fuck me in the ass harder Mark." The solution to this simple, shut failbook down. If you must keep in touch that is what email and *gasp* letters via snail fucking mail is for. Then there are also a new fangdangled method called a "website" that will allow for someone to put their shit up. Making a webpage is all too simple. If they can't make one then they are too fucking stupid to even exist let alone use a fucking computer so it is best to let the fucktarded sheeple that use failbook to fucking self destruct and perhaps earn themselves a fucking darwin award along the way.
I dare say I smell the distinct aroma of a Pulitzer from your florid loquaciousness.
Link to Original Source
And then presumably the scientists get replaced by cheaper H1B "scientists"?
Patent reform advocates have long argued that "patent trolls"—companies that do nothing but sue over patents—are harmful to innovation, not just a plague on big companies. A new study attempted to find out if there's any real data behind that accusation or if it's just a few sad anecdotes.
Turns out there is a very real, and very negative, correlation between patent troll lawsuits and the venture capital funding that startups rely on. A just-released study [PDF] by Catherine Tucker, a professor of marketing at MIT's Sloan School of Business, finds that over the last five years, VC investment "would have likely been $21.772 billion higher... but for litigation brought by frequent litigators."
The study defines "frequent litigators" as companies that file 20 or more patent lawsuits, which limits the definition to true-blue "patent trolls," or Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), the term used by the paper. The study covers the period from 1995 to 2012.
Tucker's paper estimates a 95 percent confidence interval for the amount of lost investment to be between $8.1 billion and $41.8 billion. Those numbers are relative to a baseline of just under $131 billion of investment that actually occurred during that five-year period time."
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
But while a correlation does not prove cause-and-effect, a lack of correlation -- or more properly, a negative correlation -- can DISprove cause-and-effect.
Only in a closed system, unless you presume to have knowledge of the grand unifying theorem, and can thus explain every action in the universe.
Example: something -- all evidence points to one animal -- has been killing your chickens. You suspect the neighbor's dog. So you start keeping tabs on when the dog is let out, and when it is in the house. It turns out, after examination, that whatever it is has been killing your chickens when the dog was locked up in the house. There is no dispute... it is indisputable that the dog wasn't there when the chickens died. This negative correlation between the dog being out and dead chickens has DISproved your theory that the dog was killing the chickens.
Or, which is the recurring problem of the debate, there are two dogs, meaning that while your specific dog didn't kill the chickens, the biological family dog (Canis I believe) is responsible for the increased chicken mortality in the area. This is actually the same example as you first provide, with the rum and minister, except you have obfuscated the scenario.
It gets a bit more complicated when the numbers go up but the same principle still holds. If your theory is that X causes Y, and you find a negative correlation, for example X goes up while Y goes down, you have DISproved that X causes Y. Otherwise, barring other outside influences, you would have (no dispute) observed that Y went up as X went up. Anything else contradicts your theory.
I like how "barring other outside influences" is mentioned only in passing here, while it is considered the key disrupting factor in scientific statistical analysis, something a lot of very smart people spend a lot of time on accounting for and avoiding.
And X going up with Y going down only works when X is the entire environment. If X is merely a part of the environment (as in both of your examples) it proves that X is 1: negatively correlated to Y, or 2: X is not correlated to Y but something(s) else is, or 3: X is correlated to Y while something else is stronger negatively correlated to Y. Given that these three points can be proven without any analysis, it does not seem the statistical addition shed much light on the facts.
And in the gun-control debate, we have in fact had ample time and opportunity to control for other factors. And it is extremely important to note that try as we might, we have found no other causal factors that apply to the situation. Yet even so, as X (per-capita gun ownership and frequency of carry) has gone up, Y (violent crime of all sorts) has continued to go down. Therefore: X does not cause Y. Q.E.D.
I love this. Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Merck, GSK, and many, many other pharmaceutical companies are spending billions and billions of dollars on trying to control for all the factors of a single human being, and yet are unable to do so for approximately 19 of every 20 candidates that go to phase 3 trials. And here, all along, you ( though stated as "we" by which I guess you are referring to other paid members of NRA) have somehow managed to control for all factors of every human being in the United States. That is an impressive feat. Even more impressive, you have managed to reduce this incredible superhuman complexity to just two features, X and Y. Not even FOX News can boil the world down so succinctly. Well done.
It isn't an opinion. It's as scientific as it gets.
I shall leave the refutation of this part as an exercise to the reader.
If Snowden is a "whistleblower", why did he release so much material about things the NSA does which are not illegal? Why did he release info about capabilities which are clearly under the NSA purview and in the national interest?
Nothing the NSA did was "illegal", since they are a part of the government. This can also be seen in that no one has been arrested for what amounts to systematically breaking the constitutional rights of the american citizen.
Their actions are however highly immoral and reprehensible, which is the reason that Snowden wanted to inform the public. This because he values right over might.
Does that answer your question?
Does uploading a coroner's report into the death of a "patient" who purchased fake medicine count as personal?
Unless it was Jesus, I think you're safe.
...Stop creating new cards I can cook and egg on...
I think I've found your problem. What you are looking for is called a skillet, and it does not go in the computer.
The talk focuses on Mike Rogers, in all his glory, a former FBI agent who delivers a veritable litany of hyperbolic misstatements (likely to be repeated endlessly on AM radio). Rather than allow the DEFCON Review Board to pass judgement as supposed
Link to Original Source