He's talking about a bill for a service that is not ongoing.
If you had a contractor come and install air conditioning, you could bilk him on the bill because you already got the service you didn't pay for.
Collection agencies and morality are two major reasons why you'd pay. The third, which the GP did miss, is credit rating, which affects your ability to get services for bills in the future.
Canada is mostly metric, especially if you're under about 40 years old. Humans will be weighed in lbs and their height measured in feet and inches, but human-sized things will be in kilograms and meters -- go figure. Other than that, imperial measurements mostly come into play for interop with American units. If I hear something in fahrenheit on TV, I do a conversion in my head; people who aren't good at math just ignore what they don't understand.
Canada also sometimes uses some cups & spoons measurements for cooking, but they aren't the same as US cups & spoons, which are both different from the UK, and they are all different from Australia.
Other countries often have one or two things that they hold out on for various reasons, but for the most part, metric.
Lots of European countries are much more solidly metric.
Oh come on. 30.5 divides cleanly by Jack and Shit? You seriously come out with precisely 30.5 all the time which you want to divide evenly? That's 30. 30 divides by 2, 3, 5, and 6, all by itself without needing the measurement system to be convenient. Dividing by 4 isn't that bad either because a half centimeter is 5 millimeters. Assuming you hit things at precisely 30.5 cm all the time is begging the question, because that means you're not using metric in the first place.
Dividing feet by 3 works, but you can't divide inches or miles or ounces by 3. That's a very feet/yards-specific advantage. I can personally divide metric by 3 in my head because I know that you get 0.33333333..., but I'd need practice dividing a base-16 unit by 3.
As for driving, I like my 120 km/hr highways. Math is easier than 75 mph. I'll grant that if you actually travel at exactly 60 mph all the time, the trivial conversion to miles per minute is convenient -- for exactly the same reason having all of your other units using the same base is convenient in general. If it's that important though, maybe the real solution is to have a separate [distance unit] per minute gauge, because that will always work even if you aren't travelling at a blessed speed.
I don't see the explanation of why gallons are better than liters while travelling.
I'm not trying to argue for the metric system, per se -- I like it mainly because it's what I'm used to because I didn't grow up in the US, and I recognize that's my main reason for liking it. I just don't think these are strong arguments against it.
Factually correct, however it is misleading. He compared the cost per kilowatt hour to nuclear, which provides baseload capacity throughout the day.
Power is not fungible through time. "Batteries" are of extremely limited use at this scale. Part-time, when the part of the time is during peak load, is an *advantage* at a given cost per kW, not a disadvantage (the disadvantageous part is already factored into the cost / kW).
For instance, if this one provides $25000 / kW at times when the demand for energy is $10000 / kW-year, and Nuclear provides $10000 / kW, and sells at the same rate for 1/5th of the year (~ 5 hours a day of peak), and $1000 / KW-year for the other 4/5 of the year, then after 1 year solar has $10000 and Nuclear has $2800. Solar pays for itself after 2.5 years whereas Nuclear takes ~3.6 years.
That said, I pulled those numbers out of my ass and they almost certainly have little bearing on reality. I don't know how this actually competes with nuclear, economics-wise. These people are betting on it.
You could always go the opposite route. Instead of cranking up the enemy hit points and keeping them dumb compared to the player, you could make opponents with very good AI but who brittle as a rose dipped in liquid nitrogen while the player has superhuman endurance.
It's much harder because AI is hard, but I think that, too, would be cinematic.
If 3D were perfect, then I think no one would deny that 3D had >= the immersiveness of traditional 2D.
As it is, I certainly think it's less immersive to me in every incarnation I've encountered. It's kind of cool -- but that's not the same thing. The technical limitations and the sheer sense of "unreality" constantly remind me that this is a game, in a way looking at a 2D surface does not. Maybe it's because I've looked at 2D surfaces for many years? Or maybe it's simply because when I close one eye I see 2D everywhere in real life. Or the "sweet spot" issue.
That said, all of this motion sickness fluff sounds exactly like things people say about truly 2D media. Is 3D just moreso, or is there actually a qualitative difference in the inner-ear confusion between 2D and 3D?
667 would be accurate. However it would be imprecise. 666 is only accurate under an intentionally misleading interpretation, and is really less accurate than 667.
That doesn't explain how cheats were done at all. That explains, at best, a flaw in dead code elimination, and he's arguing that it hasn't been tested broadly because it introduces bugs when he makes nontrivial changes and it still dead code eliminates.
"It's only eliminated because they are cheating" would be one gaping flaw in the dead code elimination, but it's a huge leap to go from "this dead code elimination is flawed" to "IE is cheating", especially without suggesting what kind of cheat they are doing. It cannot be a lexical scan because there are also no-op changes that are still dead-code eliminated just fine. There's *some* kind of actual dead code elimination happening, that is working correctly on Sunspider. There were flaws, but it was a Beta, after all, and now, months later, the DCE works differently.
He also pointed out that the standard says that the javascript minimum timeout should be 4 milliseconds and Firefox wasn't meeting the standard. It's reasonable to test at the standard-mandated minimums.
That might be a recent change to the standard (I don't know) so it might just be unlucky timing, but it's there.
You'd have a hard time putting them on the falls itself because it recedes 1' / year. Your little waterwheels would have to be similarly mobile. There are things we can do to reduce that a bit but it's still a barrier to any major permanent undertaking.
Plus, it's kind of a tourist attraction without the waterwheels. The power plants are a fair ways upstream, and because of the tourism aspect they don't run at the full possible capacity to maintain the impressiveness of the falls.
Correct. It's the net increase in human suffering that makes it wrong.
Now, if there were a completely unanimous vote amongst all those affected, then fine, it's their honour and their suffering. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assert that this didn't happen.
It doesn't really resemble the iPhone much at all, other than that it's a phone. And apparently the clipboard is coming this month too, so then both the iPhone and the Windows Phone 7 will have copy/paste, so I guess that will be a similarity too.
Hmm, I just found that the Collins English dictionary does agree with you. Random House and Merriam-Webster's legal dictionary agrees with me. Even Collins seems to agree with me on "steal" but not with "theft".
I honestly have never understood the word to include intent to indefinitely deprive you of that thing. It doesn't even seem to match common theft. If a guy steals your radio, it's not normally a "fuck you, radio owner, now you'll never have this radio" so much as a "sweet, I can sell this for food money".
I don't think theft has any such definition. I don't think "intent to deprive" enters into whether something is theft in the vast majority of legal jurisdictions, and in my experience it doesn't in common usage either except on slashdot. I don't think "intent to deprive" is an unreasonable distinction to make when you're talking about behaviours, I just don't think it's a necessary part of theft.
I believe the most common definition is basically taking something without the provider's consent, with a couple caveats:
1. If you don't know the provider, make a good-faith effort to return it, but fail, it's not theft to keep it. 2. If you know the consenting provider doesn't have it legally, then it still probably is not legal and questionably ethical to take it unless you have the permission of a legal consenting provider.
I expect registering on the EA forums requires you to tick the "I have read and understood these terms" box, so I can definitely see that argued with a straight face.
The fact that basically *everybody* outright lies on that standard form would be a counterargument.
I'm not opposed to energy conservation, far from it; but reducing energy dependence isn't eliminating energy dependence. A very efficient home will still have nontrivial energy use (including externalities such as the energy to produce and transport the goods that maintain that efficient home), and it's folly to focus exclusively on either supply or demand when there's so much that can be done on both sides.
This isn't pairing AI and an autonomous robot, so your question has no relevance. At this time I would say that yes, we should rush ahead with successive generations of robots.
While I agree there's something off about the tone of Sanderson's dialog, I'm not sure I agree that you've identified it. I'm not even sure that epic fantasy language conventions are in and of themselves a good thing.
There is something tonally off at times, but really I think he just writes poor prose and poorer dialog (although I did enjoy Lightsong and to a lesser extent Denth in Warbringer -- he seems to be able to pull of snark, although Shallan in the Way of Kings was a big step back in that regard). I really like the content of his stories, which is why I keep reading his books, but I don't like the mechanics of reading them. He reminds me of Isaac Asimov in that respect.
The middle-men you speak of actually provide a service in connecting me to those who produce the goods (and storage of those goods).
High frequency traders are not middle-men. There isn't really a good real-life analogy for what they do, so I'll try a fantastic one: they are like fortune-tellers who discover there's going to be a surprise one-day sale tomorrow, so they replace all the store employees with pod people and don't actually hold a sale that day. But they leave behind the price that the goods sold would have commanded if the sale were held, and they keep the difference between the sale price and regular price.
They didn't provide a service to me or the store. They prevented me from benefiting from the sale price and the store from benefiting from the increased sales that a sale price should command.
Google doesn't sell searches, it sells ads. You aren't the consumer, you are the product.
The costs of a Google consumer switching are not negligible. What's different is that the raw materials being sold (people's attention span) is a rivalrous good: the more Google has, the less everybody else has, which inherently perpetuates the monopoly. Contrast to Windows, where the only significantly rivalrous cost to production is employing software developers.
No, you've lost the analogy. Wal-Mart and Target were app stores, and the town was the userbase of a phone OS. Apple is absolutely preventing you from using software purchased in arbitrary app stores on iOS -- in other words, you can't use what you buy from the Wal-Mart at Wal-Martton in your hometown of Targetville.
What Apple doesn't have is bouncers preventing you from moving to Wal-Martton or having two homes.
Re:Watson wasn't exactly conversing with humans
on
Talking To Computers?
·
· Score: 1
Err, I misread you. You didn't say anything nearly so dumb as Watson speaking was impressive. Please pretend I didn't say that.
Slashdot Mirror
He's talking about a bill for a service that is not ongoing.
If you had a contractor come and install air conditioning, you could bilk him on the bill because you already got the service you didn't pay for.
Collection agencies and morality are two major reasons why you'd pay. The third, which the GP did miss, is credit rating, which affects your ability to get services for bills in the future.
It means you need a font that distinguishes capital I from lowercase l. Those are different letters.
The UK is one of the slower to convert other than the US, so it's not a representative example. (you can check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication#Exceptions)
Canada is mostly metric, especially if you're under about 40 years old. Humans will be weighed in lbs and their height measured in feet and inches, but human-sized things will be in kilograms and meters -- go figure. Other than that, imperial measurements mostly come into play for interop with American units. If I hear something in fahrenheit on TV, I do a conversion in my head; people who aren't good at math just ignore what they don't understand.
Canada also sometimes uses some cups & spoons measurements for cooking, but they aren't the same as US cups & spoons, which are both different from the UK, and they are all different from Australia.
Other countries often have one or two things that they hold out on for various reasons, but for the most part, metric.
Lots of European countries are much more solidly metric.
Oh come on. 30.5 divides cleanly by Jack and Shit? You seriously come out with precisely 30.5 all the time which you want to divide evenly? That's 30. 30 divides by 2, 3, 5, and 6, all by itself without needing the measurement system to be convenient. Dividing by 4 isn't that bad either because a half centimeter is 5 millimeters. Assuming you hit things at precisely 30.5 cm all the time is begging the question, because that means you're not using metric in the first place.
Dividing feet by 3 works, but you can't divide inches or miles or ounces by 3. That's a very feet/yards-specific advantage. I can personally divide metric by 3 in my head because I know that you get 0.33333333..., but I'd need practice dividing a base-16 unit by 3.
As for driving, I like my 120 km/hr highways. Math is easier than 75 mph. I'll grant that if you actually travel at exactly 60 mph all the time, the trivial conversion to miles per minute is convenient -- for exactly the same reason having all of your other units using the same base is convenient in general. If it's that important though, maybe the real solution is to have a separate [distance unit] per minute gauge, because that will always work even if you aren't travelling at a blessed speed.
I don't see the explanation of why gallons are better than liters while travelling.
I'm not trying to argue for the metric system, per se -- I like it mainly because it's what I'm used to because I didn't grow up in the US, and I recognize that's my main reason for liking it. I just don't think these are strong arguments against it.
That's not relevant to anybody who cannot travel back in time.
Factually correct, however it is misleading. He compared the cost per kilowatt hour to nuclear, which provides baseload capacity throughout the day.
Power is not fungible through time. "Batteries" are of extremely limited use at this scale. Part-time, when the part of the time is during peak load, is an *advantage* at a given cost per kW, not a disadvantage (the disadvantageous part is already factored into the cost / kW).
For instance, if this one provides $25000 / kW at times when the demand for energy is $10000 / kW-year, and Nuclear provides $10000 / kW, and sells at the same rate for 1/5th of the year (~ 5 hours a day of peak), and $1000 / KW-year for the other 4/5 of the year, then after 1 year solar has $10000 and Nuclear has $2800. Solar pays for itself after 2.5 years whereas Nuclear takes ~3.6 years.
That said, I pulled those numbers out of my ass and they almost certainly have little bearing on reality. I don't know how this actually competes with nuclear, economics-wise. These people are betting on it.
You could always go the opposite route. Instead of cranking up the enemy hit points and keeping them dumb compared to the player, you could make opponents with very good AI but who brittle as a rose dipped in liquid nitrogen while the player has superhuman endurance.
It's much harder because AI is hard, but I think that, too, would be cinematic.
If 3D were perfect, then I think no one would deny that 3D had >= the immersiveness of traditional 2D.
As it is, I certainly think it's less immersive to me in every incarnation I've encountered. It's kind of cool -- but that's not the same thing. The technical limitations and the sheer sense of "unreality" constantly remind me that this is a game, in a way looking at a 2D surface does not. Maybe it's because I've looked at 2D surfaces for many years? Or maybe it's simply because when I close one eye I see 2D everywhere in real life. Or the "sweet spot" issue.
That said, all of this motion sickness fluff sounds exactly like things people say about truly 2D media. Is 3D just moreso, or is there actually a qualitative difference in the inner-ear confusion between 2D and 3D?
667 would be accurate. However it would be imprecise. 666 is only accurate under an intentionally misleading interpretation, and is really less accurate than 667.
One good, one evil? There's a simplistic view. Who were the evil side in World War I?
(note: we are in no way currently fighting World War III -- there's nowhere near that scale of conflict).
That doesn't explain how cheats were done at all. That explains, at best, a flaw in dead code elimination, and he's arguing that it hasn't been tested broadly because it introduces bugs when he makes nontrivial changes and it still dead code eliminates.
"It's only eliminated because they are cheating" would be one gaping flaw in the dead code elimination, but it's a huge leap to go from "this dead code elimination is flawed" to "IE is cheating", especially without suggesting what kind of cheat they are doing. It cannot be a lexical scan because there are also no-op changes that are still dead-code eliminated just fine. There's *some* kind of actual dead code elimination happening, that is working correctly on Sunspider. There were flaws, but it was a Beta, after all, and now, months later, the DCE works differently.
He also pointed out that the standard says that the javascript minimum timeout should be 4 milliseconds and Firefox wasn't meeting the standard. It's reasonable to test at the standard-mandated minimums.
That might be a recent change to the standard (I don't know) so it might just be unlucky timing, but it's there.
You'd have a hard time putting them on the falls itself because it recedes 1' / year. Your little waterwheels would have to be similarly mobile. There are things we can do to reduce that a bit but it's still a barrier to any major permanent undertaking.
Plus, it's kind of a tourist attraction without the waterwheels. The power plants are a fair ways upstream, and because of the tourism aspect they don't run at the full possible capacity to maintain the impressiveness of the falls.
Correct. It's the net increase in human suffering that makes it wrong.
Now, if there were a completely unanimous vote amongst all those affected, then fine, it's their honour and their suffering. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assert that this didn't happen.
It doesn't really resemble the iPhone much at all, other than that it's a phone. And apparently the clipboard is coming this month too, so then both the iPhone and the Windows Phone 7 will have copy/paste, so I guess that will be a similarity too.
(I am an iPhone user).
Hmm, I just found that the Collins English dictionary does agree with you. Random House and Merriam-Webster's legal dictionary agrees with me. Even Collins seems to agree with me on "steal" but not with "theft".
I honestly have never understood the word to include intent to indefinitely deprive you of that thing. It doesn't even seem to match common theft. If a guy steals your radio, it's not normally a "fuck you, radio owner, now you'll never have this radio" so much as a "sweet, I can sell this for food money".
I don't think theft has any such definition. I don't think "intent to deprive" enters into whether something is theft in the vast majority of legal jurisdictions, and in my experience it doesn't in common usage either except on slashdot. I don't think "intent to deprive" is an unreasonable distinction to make when you're talking about behaviours, I just don't think it's a necessary part of theft.
I believe the most common definition is basically taking something without the provider's consent, with a couple caveats:
1. If you don't know the provider, make a good-faith effort to return it, but fail, it's not theft to keep it.
2. If you know the consenting provider doesn't have it legally, then it still probably is not legal and questionably ethical to take it unless you have the permission of a legal consenting provider.
I expect registering on the EA forums requires you to tick the "I have read and understood these terms" box, so I can definitely see that argued with a straight face.
The fact that basically *everybody* outright lies on that standard form would be a counterargument.
No, they want cheap energy.
I'm not opposed to energy conservation, far from it; but reducing energy dependence isn't eliminating energy dependence. A very efficient home will still have nontrivial energy use (including externalities such as the energy to produce and transport the goods that maintain that efficient home), and it's folly to focus exclusively on either supply or demand when there's so much that can be done on both sides.
This isn't pairing AI and an autonomous robot, so your question has no relevance. At this time I would say that yes, we should rush ahead with successive generations of robots.
While I agree there's something off about the tone of Sanderson's dialog, I'm not sure I agree that you've identified it. I'm not even sure that epic fantasy language conventions are in and of themselves a good thing.
There is something tonally off at times, but really I think he just writes poor prose and poorer dialog (although I did enjoy Lightsong and to a lesser extent Denth in Warbringer -- he seems to be able to pull of snark, although Shallan in the Way of Kings was a big step back in that regard). I really like the content of his stories, which is why I keep reading his books, but I don't like the mechanics of reading them. He reminds me of Isaac Asimov in that respect.
The middle-men you speak of actually provide a service in connecting me to those who produce the goods (and storage of those goods).
High frequency traders are not middle-men. There isn't really a good real-life analogy for what they do, so I'll try a fantastic one: they are like fortune-tellers who discover there's going to be a surprise one-day sale tomorrow, so they replace all the store employees with pod people and don't actually hold a sale that day. But they leave behind the price that the goods sold would have commanded if the sale were held, and they keep the difference between the sale price and regular price.
They didn't provide a service to me or the store. They prevented me from benefiting from the sale price and the store from benefiting from the increased sales that a sale price should command.
Google doesn't sell searches, it sells ads. You aren't the consumer, you are the product.
The costs of a Google consumer switching are not negligible. What's different is that the raw materials being sold (people's attention span) is a rivalrous good: the more Google has, the less everybody else has, which inherently perpetuates the monopoly. Contrast to Windows, where the only significantly rivalrous cost to production is employing software developers.
No, you've lost the analogy. Wal-Mart and Target were app stores, and the town was the userbase of a phone OS. Apple is absolutely preventing you from using software purchased in arbitrary app stores on iOS -- in other words, you can't use what you buy from the Wal-Mart at Wal-Martton in your hometown of Targetville.
What Apple doesn't have is bouncers preventing you from moving to Wal-Martton or having two homes.
Err, I misread you. You didn't say anything nearly so dumb as Watson speaking was impressive. Please pretend I didn't say that.
Nevertheless, Watson did not parse spoken input.