wysifnwyg

That's happening already as manufacturing countries ignore copyrights from the source country.

To further that point, when country X does not respect country Y's copyrights and begin undercutting country Y's market for those items, it creates a further imbalance.

More like mineral rights.

It's not per year. It's a one time fee.

While it may only be a small fraction of the total withdrawn, the issue should focus on the overall volume of aquifer. If the amount is decreasing then there ought to be considerations for halting non-essential usage.

Repair is quite expensive.

1. The emails are not end-to-end encrypted.

2. Google retains full access to the email even when you set a self-destruct timer.

3. If you password-protect an email, Google can link your recipient's phone number with their email address.

I think those are valid concerns. Don't you?

While they were playing chess no less!

It's the point and time where the body spends energy on repair.

I think you may have missed something in the article. It does not state that the five years of work had been continuous or at the same location. It mentions multiple places they worked and that they were fired from multiple positions.

>are some of these shorthand for well known math concepts that make it unnecessary to have a more descriptive name?

With context, I would agree that it's unnecessary to have a more descriptive name. N is the population, n is a sample in the population. However, without the context and experience which makes these values recognizable, they're exceptionally unhelpful.

I had a scary similar situation. I continued to search for a new position and after four months, I was able to find something that was a much better fit.

I'm having a hard time balancing work and my health. According to my manager, I'm performing far beyond their expectations for the role but I can't seem to stay healthy enough to stay within my sick hours.

I wrote on the subject of cyber warfare and the vulnerability of our nation's utilities first in 2015. At that point, a single malicious actor had gained access to a water treatment plant in Chicago that had no air-gap. They were able to cripple a system by turning a key portion on and off until it burnt out. In 2016, a water treatment plant was targeted in an attack which released high levels of treatment chemicals into the water supply. There is an exceptionally high risk of damage.

https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/water-treatment-p...

I've taken a look at the statistics presented here and mathematically that conclusion is not supported.

An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. From an economical standpoint (especially through the viewpoint of the situation in America) measures like these would save the taxpayer money in the long run with less emergency issues arising and needing to be covered by public funds. I'm not sure why measures like these aren't used everywhere.

Reintroduction takes time, time which those species that depend on it as prey (or are kept in check by it if it's a predator) will die out.

Has there been any successful patent infringement lawsuits over the last three years that targets a Chinese company that has infringed upon a US company? Isn't that part of the issue in the current trade deal talks with China?

Except that on the departure trip after dropping off and the arrival trip before picking up does not have to take congested routes and instead take paths that could reduce congestion. It's not like the car has somewhere to be during non-peak hours.

It's due to the concerns that a genetically modified species may return to the native ecosystem and decimating their natural habitat.

The way to contest evidence is to show that either: the statistical analysis has an error in the math, or that there is an issue with the scientific process used to obtain those results.

Have you checked the math on the statistical analysis?

I've taken a look at the statistics presented here and mathmatically there isn't a statistically significant link between their groups. Are you suggesting there is?

As I said, if you don't like it, you can buy a filter or not participate in the service. You're free to do whatever you want!

There are a lot of companies which completely avoid paying any taxes through multiple sources of side stepping taxes. Immoral but not illegal.

Many people ask questions they don't want the answers to. The question "How are you?" is a specific type of social interaction where there is an expected answer and that isn't to actually explain how you are. There are a lot of unspoken rules (such as saying yes when a person in authority asks/tells you to do something). A person with functioning social skills recognizes that a different approach is needed if they actually need to say no to their manager. Or that they need to seek guidance to see if they should be placing that higher on their priorities.

Returning to the math, I did the calculations and here is the margin of error for each group: 11%, 9%, 9%. Their common error (the overlapping region of area) is the interval 87.79-104.95. The IQ scores from each group (94.91, 96.29, 96.47) are well within that margin of error. If you perform a t-test on 3-Ca vs. 3-placibo you'll see that the difference is not statistically significant.

Returning to this, I did the calculations and here is the margin of error for each group: 11%, 9%, 9%. Their common error (the overlapping region of area) is the interval 87.79-104.95. The IQ scores from each group (94.91, 96.29, 96.47) are well within that margin of error. If you perform a t-test on 3-Ca vs. 3-placibo you'll see that the difference is not statistically significant.

How is this study concluding these results? What math are they using?

If you took a look at the study and the margin of error for their results, you'd notice that the margin of error has an overwhelming overlap.

If the math was solid, you'd have a point. But it doesn't, so you don't.