Comment Re:Nobody Panic (Score 1) 295
I can't say I ever used Hotmail, but I sure knew/know a lot of people who have Hotmail accounts.
Are you sure it's not one person with lots and lots of Hotmail accounts?
I can't say I ever used Hotmail, but I sure knew/know a lot of people who have Hotmail accounts.
Are you sure it's not one person with lots and lots of Hotmail accounts?
Is that you, Bob?
I ain't lookin' to compete with you,
Beat or cheat or mistreat you,
Simplify you, classify you,
Deny, defy or crucify you.
All I really want to do
Is, baby, be friends with you.
No true Scotsman would have such a small antenna!
Ah yeah, we can make up our own endings to anything, just to help us completely miss the point.
I like fracking because liberals aren't quite sure what line to tow.
First of all, try and get the freakin' idiom right. It's toe, not tow.
Second, where's the evidence liberals are looking for a line to toe? You made some extraordinary claims that you weren't able to find any citation for:
According to liberals:
Fracking is evil when it's for oil.
Fracking is good when it's for natural gas.
HOLD IT! Now that oil companies are heavily investing in natural gas, the environmental effects due to getting it and processing it must be scrutinized!
Natural gas bad! Better than coal, but bad!
Third, this is how you decide policy? Sounds like typical right-wing mindlessness to me.
Er, you can say it. The two aren't identical. But never say that correlation is not evidence of causation, because it is.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Ah, but it is.
Admittedly, I think this proof assumes that the absence of evidence is not due to coverup or just plain laziness -- although one could argue that absence of evidence of coverup or laziness is evidence for their absence.
Careful there.
Implication is conditional, but that is the only difference between implication and proof.
A = correlation
B = causation
"A imples B" is the same as "B or not A" (see the linked article). So your first clause is the same as "there is causation, or there is no correlation". Then, if we grant that there is correlation, it follows that causation is proven, which contradicts the second clause of your statement.
I think what you meant is that "correlation is evidence of causation". This is different from implication.
I'd not be surprised if there we such side effects, but the regulations you listed did not originate from an intent to protect sellers in the markets being regulated.
Exactly how your thinking but with a slightly posh London accent.
What, to give it panache?
What do any of the regulations you cite have to do with protecting "existing business models"?
Nothing? Maybe that is where the difference lies?
Interestingly, that opinion went against this precedent. It was quite the activist ruling.
You could mask it with this noise.
or maybe this one.
when I can buy a Mr. Fusion.
That's why I've been using Graham's number-level rot13 for some time now.
I program, therefore I am.
