Those numbers are based on statistics from the 1960s, when transitioning was next to impossible, and are probably a couple orders of magnitude too low. More to the point, that threefold difference seems to be much smaller, if it exists at all.
Not that it excuses this so-called security, but for the insecurity question, you could just lie. Only problem is, then you have to remember your lies.
"It makes me wish we didn't have names for these things for people to rally around. If you replace "I'm a libertarian" with "I'm skeptical of government solutions without sufficient supporting evidence" notice how the lack of abstraction makes it impossible to avoid focusing on the issue at hand."
This is a good point. I'll keep it in mind for the future. On less civil sites, it also at least makes someone work to invoke a string of identity-politics nonsense like "LOL LIBERTARIAN MOAR LIKE STRAIGHT RICH WHITE MAN AMIRITE?"
Ah, the old "criminals will rob you if you don't consent to have the government take your money to hand out to them" argument. Often peddled by those who also believe criminals are not responsible for their actions, they're just oppressed/had a bad childhood/whatever.
I'm fine with universal (modulo pacifists and those not capable of handling a gun) individual gun ownership. Combined with anything resembling rule of law, in that case armed robbery quickly drops off the list of "what it takes to survive", because it no longer results in long survival. The criminals will always be outnumbered.
But let's get back to the real topic. Fact is, I like libraries. I think they're very positive for everyone in many ways, in particular for being an intellectually-oriented gathering place.
I never had them until my mid-20s, but apparently a lot of people's only experience of brussels sprouts is boiled to death, which allegedly increases their bitterness. I've had them roasted, and they were reasonably good.
Good lawyers have surprised me before, but that's so clearly false, as one glance at Facebook will show, that I have to think it would get laughed out of any courtroom.
"Universities don't charge enough as evident from the fact that there are an order of magnitude more applicants than spaces at many of them."
However, people who apply to universities in this class normally apply to many of them. Granted, some of them also get into many of them, but usually not all or most.
Yep, as anyone who watched the World Cup learned: see the phantom foul (no one even knows who it was allegedly on) that took away the US victory over Slovenia, or the referee denying a game-tying goal by England against Germany that the whole stadium got to see on replay, to which FIFA's response was to ban replay from the rest of the World Cup.
It's not good in sports and it's far worse in government.
"A weird-ass cross section of human" is a great description of Carnegie Mellon.
Also, for all of the article's bashing of "dumb jocks" athletes at Carnegie Mellon slightly outperform non-athletes in GPA (something like 3.23 to 3.16 while I was there.) I ran cross-country and track there with people who were studying Computer Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Architecture, Physics, Biomedical Engineering, etc. -- the one who was studying Biomedical Engineering ended up with a 3.97 as well as being one of the best distance runners in school history (3:51 1500m, 14:40 5000m, runner-up at the DIII national track and field championship for 5000m.) The team has consistently gone to the DIII national cross-country championship in recent years as well. I was never good enough to go with them, but some of my best memories are with that team. That's an important part of college too.
Which unnecessary body parts are those? The appendix is there to repopulate the intestines with beneficial bacteria when they get wiped out. Extra kidneys, lungs, etc., are there because that's what naturally happens with bilateral symmetry, and provide useful redundancy. I'm having trouble thinking of other "unnecessary" ones.
The traditional diets (which varied dramatically, by the way) resulted in consistently good teeth for people who never touched a toothbrush. In fact, their results were much better than those of people on processed diets who had toothbrushes. That's the point.
>That said the study is highly biased. The "native" people are always laughing in the photos and the "modernized" people are looking sad.
But this doesn't explain away the order-of-magnitude differences in dental health Price found everywhere he went between people living on traditional diets (who typically didn't have toothbrushes, either) and those living on processed diets.
At the risk of being even more pedantic, quicksort with the O(n) deterministic median finding algorithm has a worst-case runtime of O(n log n) -- you use that algorithm to find the median each time and use that as the pivot.
The constants would make it less efficient for most cases, though.
I can't believe you've played much chess if you think that it's purely about deductive reasoning. Humans can't calculate even the least part of all the possibilities in most positions. Knowing where to look -- which is just one role intuition plays -- is indispensable for a chess player.
I'd just like to point out the difference between this and some comments below that basically say "LOL NAZIS JUST DID THEIR JOB" -- 134 points and counting vs. -4 and probably even lower in fact.
This is how you make this sort of argument. And I'm not just saying that because I agree with it. (That's what my upvote was for.)
45 million dead in four years. Yep, that's about right for the Holodomor times four.
Of course, Stalin and Mao still aren't as synonymous with ultimate evil as Hitler was, and won't be, despite killing quite a few million more people. For decades Western leftists even praised them. It probably has to do something with not being utterly defeated in the biggest war of all time. History is written by the winners and all that, and Stalin was a winner of WWII. (Mao wasn't in power yet.)
Not to mention you were predestined to assume so.