1.) They are certain that heredity is solely controlled by genes.
2.) They are certain that DNA is the sole mechanism for passing on genes.
3.) That looking at DNA sequences is a productive method of finding causes of things.
Personally I believe that they are uncertain in (1), uncertain in (2) and that (3) is not true. DNA is a waste of time with regards to 99.99999% of human behaviour.
The mathematical models need access to a large number of independent human minds to effectively control the level of uncertainty exhibited by the stock market. Formal (and hence finitary) mathematical methods just cannot cope properly and reliance on them is usually the cause of stock market bubbles and crashes.
It doesn't hurt, and IE 9 has no free foundations, so I can't really accept it. Firefox works just fine, as does Chromium, under Ubuntu. Under Windoze I use FF also. IE just isn't relevant anymore. Microsoft should GPL the source of IE... then it would be a real player in the browser market, but for now it is their pet and not mine, and they can keep it.
In the European Convention, as I read it, rights to not extend to the extent that they seriously impinge upon the rights of others. I am just asking JustAnswer about my rights. What we need in the decision process is accountability: everybody who makes a decision or interpretation of weight should write down their decision or interpretation and sign it and the trail of authority should be available for inspection under Freedom of Information laws.
They start saying 'we got 80.34%, they got 67%, so we're better' stuff. We want qualitative arguments that are clear and succinct. I you don't have one, you don't have a point and what you are saying is therefore pointless, so why bother? With that, I move on. Google works for me and Bing doesn't, so for me that is a 100% effectiveness for Google and a 0% effectiveness for Bing, which roughly corresponds to my actual usage pattern, so the 'vote with your feet' economic model works well in this case. When will marketroids get it that 'measurably better' is a silly idea because there is no standard of measure!
...don't understand the internet, computers and above all our social instincts to communicate with each other will make stupid suggestions like this again and again and again. When will we get it that we don't want professional politicians coming up with ideas to govern us. They should select the sources of ideas they trust, listen to the people, weight up the options and choose between what is offered, without adding any colouration from their own thinking. As our representatives, they should represent us, and our interests, not themselves, their ideas and their ultimate interest of getting re-elected. Absolutist monarchs never had these problems so why, as a purportedly more advanced and democratic society are we still ruled by the Absolutist Monarch that is the current community of professional politicians. We need a constitutional system so that politicians are not free to have their own ideas written into laws: they must give the ideas to the public and the public must think them through and, en masse, give them back before an idea should be considered worthy or writing onto the statue books. END RANT.
1) Laws about computers are written by politicians who don't understand them.
2) Laws about computers are interpreted by judges who don't understand them.
3) Lawyers only care about who wins.
The current system is fundamentally broken.
Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek