His gag isn't so much making fun of politicians, but lampooning over-the-top conservative personalities. In the process, he rips on politicians on both sides of the aisle, but that's more the secondary goal, I think.
I think that if you need judges it shouldn't be considered a sport since the result depends on someones opinion, not actual data (like time, points, distance, etc).
How about soccer? One of the things I like about it is that the referee's call is final, and there's no pausing the game to review the instant replay before making a call. The winner of the game is indeed determined on "actual data": the number of goals, but whether goals are counted and how the game progresses is very subjective, based on what the referee's opinion (e.g. the infamous Hand of God goal).
I guess you never played the first two Warcrafts? Warcraft games have always been cartoony.
I dunno, in the original Warcraft your units were about 7 pixels wide and, given that, their proportions and such seemed pretty close to realistic.
Granted, I haven't played it in a long time, I could be mistaken. I should pull it out again... though I recall trying it out once after it had already been gathering dust for years, and being flabbergasted and annoyed that I could neither right-click nor drag to select groups. Maybe I'll go back to Warcraft 2, instead.
To be fair, though, I (a native, English-speaking American) couldn't parse "Buck a scoop Chinese food" the first two times I read it. Without a number ahead of it, "buck" reads like a verb. I think you'd need near human-level intelligence when given that string out of context to deduce that you're not talking about bucking a scoop of Chinese food, whatever that means.
Also, Babelfish kinda sucks at producing natural-sounding translations. Google gives me "Blame the spoon will be Chinese food." See how much clearer that is?
There are more male winners of the field's medal.
This article makes a pretty convincing case that the reason is because males have a wider sigma and that there will be more male super geniuses than women.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm
I have a fledgling theory related to that:
Women are biologically more stable than men. They're at less risk for most every genetic disorder, live longer, have stronger immune systems (I'm pretty sure I've read a study to that effect), are way less likely to take stupid risks or lash out violently.
I suspect that, in many different ways, women have a smaller standard deviation from the mean. Men seem to be a bit more biologically experimental, with far more outliers. If you take the very top achievers in pretty much any field, it's a relatively safe bet they'll be men, and there's no female to match Newton, Einstein, and Co. Similarly, on the other end, you'll find far more male murderers and other criminals, and far more mentally retarded men.
A possible explanation (though it obviously over-simplifies things) is that a woman's body needs to capable of nurturing a child for 9 months, and that's not a situation in which nature wants to be beta-testing new traits. Men have much less of an unbreakable commitment in procreation, so they can be a little less stable. It's worth the risk (and the failures), since you'll get more outstanding men, who can both make a positive impact on the world and, in doing a better job of surviving, positively impact the gene pool.
In summary, I think evolution takes more chances on men, resulting both in more "super-geniuses" and in more colossal failures. In contrast, women are given more tried-and-true genes and they don't end up outliers as often.
I'd imagine that some illiterate peasant bog-farmer had more kids than, say, Sir Isaac Newton, for example. (don't know if that's actually true, but you see where I'm going, right?)
A bit offtopic, but a movie on the development of calculus they had us watch in high school said that near the end of his life, Newton said that the achievement he was most proud of was dying a virgin. So... yeah. Definitely didn't contribute to the gene pool, there.
It doesn't have as nice an interface, but if you're switching in support of NOAA you may as get it from them directly, at weather.gov. (I generally use Weather Underground, which is pretty good, though last I checked they have a lot of ads if you don't block them)
I used to think that, too! I always thought it was pretty harsh to specify that you have to read the full manual (some of those things are looong). Telling someone to read the fucking manual just seems nicer, more casual.
It's a program where high school students can take a test in a certain subject and gain college credit for it (if they score well and they go to a college that accepts it). Many high schools have classes which teach specifically to these tests.
It's a pretty good program, if the courses are taught well. The tests I took seemed pretty well-written to test actual ability in a subject (much better than most standardized tests). I was able to enroll in college with 30 credit-hours off the bat.
This externality is not compensated for by the "free" market.
Isn't it, though? Presumably the "smart" people who read and understand the non-compete are worth more to the company than the dumbasses who don't.
So, yeah, you have less bargaining power because of all the people who will sign anything you put in front of them, but that's mitigated somewhat because the people who pay attention to that sort of thing would theoretically be more competent.
Wikipedia has gone beyond a traditional encyclopedia, though. Both in how many topics it covers, and that detail of information on each topic. It's not beyond a traditional encyclopedia, it's just a much more comprehensive and successful encyclopedia than any that have come before it. Having tons of information doesn't make it "beyond" an encyclopedia, it makes it a better/bigger/more useful encyclopedia.
Oh man, I'm excited about that fabric PC (even if it'll be vaporware for the next decade+). I'm a young programmer who hates looking at backlit screens... so I have a problem. I've been hoping for a good-sized e-paper screen or laptop for a while now (ideally in color), and this is the first time I've seen an e-paper concept in that form rather than only as an ebook reader.
I really want to meet this mythical 'average user' someday.
Every user has different needs and different expectations. Well, yeah. I think you might be fuzzy on the term "average." The average user isn't some guy down the street with exactly 2.4 children, it's a more abstract concept. Saying "Linux is ready for the average user" means it meets the needs and expectations of a large portion (probably a sizable majority) of those various different users you're so uniquely aware of.
Wait, are you trying to say that your problem is just like the Monty Hall problem (because it's not)? Or is it just an unrelated misleading-probability riddle?
Either way, the problem is that X is a random variable, and the expected value calculation depends on X, making what you have simply nonsense. If you defined the amount in the smaller envelope as X (not a random variable), you stand to either gain X or lose X by switching. The expected value of switching would be 0.5*X + 0.5*(-X) = 0.
I look forward to the day when there are full color, 60 FPS, reflected light monitors. Yes! LCD screens (and CRT, and any screen that emits light) will be the death of me. This is a problem, as I'm a computer science student... I plan to be the first on the bandwagon as soon as I hear about e-paper monitors of any sort. Hell, a black-and-white one would work perfectly well for coding, and I wouldn't need much in the way of FPS at all.
if you follow along on Google maps you can see that the street appears to extend all the way to their garage. I noticed the exact same thing, except it looks like the area in front of their garage is the obligatory turnaround at the end of a one-lane road, so the road does, in fact, extend all the way to their garage. From what I can see, unless there's a sign, I would end up driving all the way up, just so I could turn around comfortably. Maybe the driver should have turned off the camera, but I think they had every right to be there. I'm not sure how much control the driver has over the camera, or if it just runs all day regardless, and they filter out the unnecessary shots later.
One more thing: the picture on the county website which they're okay with because it was taken from a "public street" was taken barely 100 feet from their garage, at a place that's obviously not the end of the road and not the beginning of a private road.
This whole lawsuit screams of greed. I think they just saw an opportunity to sue a big company and grabbed for it.
I don't see how their home should suffer from "diminished value". Their home is going to be worth *more* if anything (more visibility = more famous = more value). It might be more of a subjective metric for "value." Their names are "Aaron and Christine Boring" (I glanced at TFA, so sue me), so more visibility = more exciting place to live = not boring.
Especially after this lawsuit, they'll have to get the hell out of there to live up to their name.
Slashdot Mirror
...I'm sure Colbert is in the same line of thinking but you never see him talk out of character.
Just FYI, this is the only out-of-character interview of his I've seen: http://www.avclub.com/content/node/44705
His gag isn't so much making fun of politicians, but lampooning over-the-top conservative personalities. In the process, he rips on politicians on both sides of the aisle, but that's more the secondary goal, I think.
in this case due to their hypocrisy because several Republicans are homosexual.
So, do we get to rip on Democrats for being Catholic and pro-abortion?
No, but you could rip on Democrats if they were fetuses and pro-abortion.
I think that if you need judges it shouldn't be considered a sport since the result depends on someones opinion, not actual data (like time, points, distance, etc).
How about soccer? One of the things I like about it is that the referee's call is final, and there's no pausing the game to review the instant replay before making a call. The winner of the game is indeed determined on "actual data": the number of goals, but whether goals are counted and how the game progresses is very subjective, based on what the referee's opinion (e.g. the infamous Hand of God goal).
Ever since Warcraft 3 [...]
I guess you never played the first two Warcrafts? Warcraft games have always been cartoony.
I dunno, in the original Warcraft your units were about 7 pixels wide and, given that, their proportions and such seemed pretty close to realistic.
Granted, I haven't played it in a long time, I could be mistaken. I should pull it out again... though I recall trying it out once after it had already been gathering dust for years, and being flabbergasted and annoyed that I could neither right-click nor drag to select groups. Maybe I'll go back to Warcraft 2, instead.
To be fair, though, I (a native, English-speaking American) couldn't parse "Buck a scoop Chinese food" the first two times I read it. Without a number ahead of it, "buck" reads like a verb. I think you'd need near human-level intelligence when given that string out of context to deduce that you're not talking about bucking a scoop of Chinese food, whatever that means.
Also, Babelfish kinda sucks at producing natural-sounding translations. Google gives me "Blame the spoon will be Chinese food." See how much clearer that is?
There are more male winners of the field's medal. This article makes a pretty convincing case that the reason is because males have a wider sigma and that there will be more male super geniuses than women. http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm
I have a fledgling theory related to that:
Women are biologically more stable than men. They're at less risk for most every genetic disorder, live longer, have stronger immune systems (I'm pretty sure I've read a study to that effect), are way less likely to take stupid risks or lash out violently.
I suspect that, in many different ways, women have a smaller standard deviation from the mean. Men seem to be a bit more biologically experimental, with far more outliers. If you take the very top achievers in pretty much any field, it's a relatively safe bet they'll be men, and there's no female to match Newton, Einstein, and Co. Similarly, on the other end, you'll find far more male murderers and other criminals, and far more mentally retarded men.
A possible explanation (though it obviously over-simplifies things) is that a woman's body needs to capable of nurturing a child for 9 months, and that's not a situation in which nature wants to be beta-testing new traits. Men have much less of an unbreakable commitment in procreation, so they can be a little less stable. It's worth the risk (and the failures), since you'll get more outstanding men, who can both make a positive impact on the world and, in doing a better job of surviving, positively impact the gene pool.
In summary, I think evolution takes more chances on men, resulting both in more "super-geniuses" and in more colossal failures. In contrast, women are given more tried-and-true genes and they don't end up outliers as often.
I'd imagine that some illiterate peasant bog-farmer had more kids than, say, Sir Isaac Newton, for example. (don't know if that's actually true, but you see where I'm going, right?)
A bit offtopic, but a movie on the development of calculus they had us watch in high school said that near the end of his life, Newton said that the achievement he was most proud of was dying a virgin. So... yeah. Definitely didn't contribute to the gene pool, there.
Well how about that, this _is_ rather friendly.
I think I'll be using this interface from now on, thanks for the tip!
It doesn't have as nice an interface, but if you're switching in support of NOAA you may as get it from them directly, at weather.gov. (I generally use Weather Underground, which is pretty good, though last I checked they have a lot of ads if you don't block them)
I used to think that, too! I always thought it was pretty harsh to specify that you have to read the full manual (some of those things are looong). Telling someone to read the fucking manual just seems nicer, more casual.
Hah! That picture is hilarious, though maybe that's just after reading all the "what do you do with the other hand?" jokes made so far.
Advanced Placement
It's a program where high school students can take a test in a certain subject and gain college credit for it (if they score well and they go to a college that accepts it). Many high schools have classes which teach specifically to these tests.
It's a pretty good program, if the courses are taught well. The tests I took seemed pretty well-written to test actual ability in a subject (much better than most standardized tests). I was able to enroll in college with 30 credit-hours off the bat.
This externality is not compensated for by the "free" market.
Isn't it, though? Presumably the "smart" people who read and understand the non-compete are worth more to the company than the dumbasses who don't.So, yeah, you have less bargaining power because of all the people who will sign anything you put in front of them, but that's mitigated somewhat because the people who pay attention to that sort of thing would theoretically be more competent.
Oh man, I'm excited about that fabric PC (even if it'll be vaporware for the next decade+). I'm a young programmer who hates looking at backlit screens... so I have a problem. I've been hoping for a good-sized e-paper screen or laptop for a while now (ideally in color), and this is the first time I've seen an e-paper concept in that form rather than only as an ebook reader.
Quite right. He should invest in games and hookers.
Awesome! You're the only person ever to have said dipsoaurigaeophobic on the whole internet!
You mean V for Vendetta ?
Well, it might make sense to think of Polaris, Magneto's daughter, who has the same powers as her father, green hair, and impressive tail.
Wait, are you trying to say that your problem is just like the Monty Hall problem (because it's not)? Or is it just an unrelated misleading-probability riddle?
Either way, the problem is that X is a random variable, and the expected value calculation depends on X, making what you have simply nonsense. If you defined the amount in the smaller envelope as X (not a random variable), you stand to either gain X or lose X by switching. The expected value of switching would be 0.5*X + 0.5*(-X) = 0.
Damn you! I was just looking for somewhere to post this and be witty.
One more thing: the picture on the county website which they're okay with because it was taken from a "public street" was taken barely 100 feet from their garage, at a place that's obviously not the end of the road and not the beginning of a private road.
This whole lawsuit screams of greed. I think they just saw an opportunity to sue a big company and grabbed for it.
Especially after this lawsuit, they'll have to get the hell out of there to live up to their name.