windows_tips

Yes, but the incentives improved equally.

If it were self-evident, it would not need to be stated.

Imagine the game monopoly. Then, imagine a house rule that says all players receive $300 at the start of each turn.

>Inequality of outcomes is a requirement for incentives to improve.

What proof do you use?

Maybe a servant's hallway?

There are probably higher dose formulations.

The key here, though, is that formulation contains THC (and extracts from other plants) and is derived from marijuana cannabis plants, instead of just hemp-derived CBD.

The "null" hypothesis would typically be that "there is no effect".

All that you can really do is prove it wrong, by measuring an effect when there "should", by the hypothesis, be none.

Due to what is known as the "problem of induction", it's not sufficient to accept a hypothesis because you appeared to not measure an effect in the past, as that says nothing about whether an effect will occur the next time a measurement is made.

p-value is the "chance" of measuring an effect, given that no effect actually occurred.

What type would you like? Do you think doctors would recommend such products and patients would continue to buy such products if they didn't work/help?

>You could probably write software while on CBD.

It is possible to write software on CBD, THC, and others.

It's not completely different. They appear to be identical in large portion. Check the diagrams at: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6630507B1/en

Absorption through the mouth skips a large portion of the digestive system.

Get a salve made with cannabis and other plants. Something like: http://www.papaandbarkley.com/product/releaf-balm/

>The drug is illegal,

Only in certain contexts (ie. some instances of interstate commerce).

One could still think it, but regret that they said it aloud/sent it as a text message, such that others heard/read it.

I think you can go even farther, to, "intentionally malicious".

Mark hasn't taken back his comments about his users being "dumb fucks" for "trust[ing]" him, as far as I know, although he has apparently said that he regrets saying it[0].

[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-fa...

Source: research and I've asked FB myself

Seems like if your bot can or could meet the expectations of the challenge(s) the contest is open to you.

I'd be wary of signing anything to compete though.

I don't know if they are better off or not, but several years, at least, is what I thought of when I read the original poster refer to "long term".

I do not consider 8 weeks to be "long term".

Maybe the people who wanted them got their way, sometimes.

That's not a long-term study. It's a one-off 'meta-analysis'.

Running small pods underneath roads doesn't seem like it would really increase throughput much at all, while being significantly harder to build and maintain than the area directly above it.

Is someone inferring causation? From the title, we can at least conclude that "therapy" did not "prevent" measured negative changes.

I'm not sure if you are playing or just didn't read the law very carefully, but disturbance of remains is not prohibited by what you linked.

>wantonly disturbs

There is a "HIPPA"[0] law that is often referenced in the US when seeking medical services. Presumably it really only applies to interstate insurers, but is often believed to "protect" some information from being shared without a "patient's" consent.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_a...

I highly doubt California has such a law. It would not be constitutional[0] if it did:

>SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

Also of interest to this thread is:

>SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

How does a dead person enjoy life and liberty? Acquire, possess, protect property?

[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...

If Peggy has to use the password since recieving the email, vimeo could put bounds on the password length, at least.

"Don't urinate on your pillow."?

>Right are a completely arbitrary construction of organized society so it's strange to suggest there are any absolute rules that govern 'rights.'

Are you familiar with the United States Declaration of Independence [0]?

>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It seems to me that 'rights' could exist without an 'organized society'. But, so far, I don't think any 'organized societies' really recognize 'rights of a dead person' (chiefly, I think, because there is no longer a 'person' to have rights).

Do you know of a law that grants rights to dead persons?

[0] http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

npm is distributing this credential tracker?

After a person dies, they don't exist. It is counterfactual to posit that they have 'rights'.

Why do you think she "surely wrote messages to people that she didn't want to share with her parents"? Seems like a pretty big assumption.

>On the other hand, it's their daughter's privacy.

No, the daughter is dead, according to the title.

Email is a plaintext protocol, so having a number in an email really just means that you saw the email, not that you know Peggy's password.