When it comes to automotive performance, horsepower determines top speed and torque acceleration.
Not really. Torque is actually responsible for both, but horsepower is a much better metric for gaging the acceleration and top speed of a car. You have to remember that the torque at the flywheel has very little to do with the torque at the wheels (due to gearing). The amount of torque you get at the wheels is very much dependent on how much torque you are able to put out per unit time (ie. horsepower). If a car has more power then it is capable of greater acceleration. Horsepower measures how much torque you can put out over a unit time. If a car puts out more torque over a unit time then another car, then we can use gearing so that it is actually putting out a higher torque at the wheels. Say you have an Acura RSX type S and a Jetta TDI, both going the same speed, slam on their pedals at the same time. The RSX is making 140 lb. ft. at 7500 RPM and the Jetta is making 236 ft. lb. of torque at 2.5k RPM, which one is accelerating faster? Well, say they are both going the same speed, then, all else being equal, the gearing for the RSX will have to be 3x that of the Jetta TDI (that is, the RSX engine is spinning 3 times for each 1 rotation of the Jetta's). That would mean that the RSX is actually putting out 3 times more torque at the wheels then the Jetta TDI and is accelerating significantly faster. The Jetta would have to make 420 ft. lb. of torque at 2.5k RPM to match the torque at the wheels of the RSX (ie. its acceleration).
It's been a long time since I heard anyone say "but we pay tax on blank cds, it's okay to copy here! We already had this fight over tapes decades ago!" The way things are going I guess we just pay that tax for the hell of it.
Well, in all fairness, the general direction is going towards mp3 players. Canada, currently, does not have a tax on MP3 players, only tapes & CDs. We need to either start taxing mp3 players again or we really do have to give up the "but we pay tax on blank cds" argument.
The platform the Cadillac CTS is based on was designed for the CTS and is still currently only used/available in Cadillacs. It is NOT another modified version of a Chevy. The current Escalade was designed with the same platform as other GM trucks, but it was not based on them. Like it or not, Cadillac really cleaned up its act around 2002 and its reliability and sales have generally been good since then.
The problem is, for most people, a TV is something you upgrade every 15 years. A computer is something you upgrade every 5 or less. A TV is a display device, first and foremost. Shoe horning a computer in there is just a gimmick; a lot changes in 5 years. Also, the OS will always matter, as long as interop is an issue. If we submit that people may use their TV as a computer, as well as a display device, they will still want to interop with their smart phones and netbooks. There won't be any magic, we'll still have to work at it and the OS will matter. TVs may gain functionality, but it really should be to support an external computer that can be upgraded. Sticking it in the TV is just silly. It's like those 10+ year old cars with the outdated GPSes. Sure, it was really cool back then, but GPS (and screen) tech developed a lot faster then the car's life span. It was already outdated in 5 years, and most cars are on the road for well over 10.
Well, for guys, our balls haven't dropped, so there isn't much to protect from chaffing or keep warm. It can also act as an indicator for sexual maturity.
Microsoft doesn't sell hardware, they sell software. A person who buys a license and runs it on a Mac means just as much to Microsoft as a person who runs it on a Dell. I would say they have all the incentive they'll ever get.
The type of learning you are talking about is already widely used (ie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_networks ). You start with a neural network in some initial state (where it knows nothing), then "teach" it to solve some problem. A real cool part of this, is that they learn very much like biological creatures. You can not start with a very complex problem, and just let it continually try to solve it (it'll get nowhere). You actually have to start simple, and work your way up (gotta learn to crawl before you can walk).
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
restriction, including without limitation the rights to use,
copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following
conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Weeeell, I meant staying outside the booth and have her come out when she's decent, but your way is fun too, though against store policy:)
I've never had any problems at stores. My general "policy" is that if a women's clothes store cannot be bothered to provide seating outside the change rooms for the men to sit at (and a lot don't), then I am absolutely going to be going into the booth. I'm not going to stand/walk around a store for 20 minutes looking like a twit.
PS. Also, let her win at things, no matter how good you are. Trust me on this one.
I'm in a 7 year relationship and I'm going to refute this one. I NEVER let her win. Yes, I am a competitive person, but I also think that "letting" someone win is very insulting. I always try my best and she always tries her best. If she beats me, it's because she was better then me, not because I "gave" her that one (and vice versa). If one of us is genuinely better to the point the game is not fun, then you can usually introduce some sort of handicap (that you both acknowledge) to even things out. This goes for anything; from Street Fighter to Cranium to Golf. I don't understand people's aversion to competition.
But we all make these decisions all the time. Just you choosing to drive puts a lot of people at risk. You could walk or bike to that store, but instead put pedestrians and others at risk by driving there. Going over the speed limit, again, adding to the risk (I know, you never speed right?). I know you'd definitely not answer the phone while driving. Certainly never get into an in-depth conversation with a passenger while driving either. Long day at work and crappy sleep? You wouldn't drive, I'm sure. How about if you are sick? Angry? Preoccupied with a problem at work? Blood sugar crashing after eating some carbs? Part of living in most societies is accepting the risks that come with certain freedoms and privileges. Clearly, not all risks are acceptable, but you can't just categorically say something is bad because there is risk involved. If you want to argue that impaired driving is bad, fine, I'm with you there, but you need to show the risk is unacceptable, not that there is simply additional risk.
You are the exception. I used to skateboard back in high school. Everyone always thought they were better when they were high. I can't remember a single person who was (myself included), they all just didn't realize how much more they sucked.
Because there is a difference. The people that arrested him have not fined him or sent him to jail for 10 years; a judge (or jury) will do that after a (presumably) fair trial. A cop can never have all the facts of a case, that's why their job is not to punish people. We have trials, judges and juries to deal with the "moral" issues, whether the law was actually broken and what a fair punishment should be. This kid has not yet been sentenced to life or fined. He will be given a trial, if he does not settle early. If need be, he will even have a jury of his peers that will listen and judge him based on the facts. Given this is a young college bound kid, I imagine he'll probably get a steep fine as a deterrent then go back to racking up even more debt at school.
2.7 doesn't qualify you for anything EXCEPT MacDonald's these days.
The only thing a GPA qualifies your for is grad school and, even then, only minimally. You don't put your GPA on your resume. Worst case, you'll be asked during the interview, but one well written report or well done school project is worth more than a 4 year average of (mostly) exam grades. In an interview, you need to sell yourself and being able to cram and regurgitate information has very little bearing on job performance. If the only reason you can give an employer for hiring you is your GPA and a piece of paper, then you missed the point of post-secondary education and wasted 4 years of your life. It doesn't matter what program you are in or what school you go to, you can only get back what you put in.
If a motorcycle is driving down the middle at a fairly slow pace (twice the speed of traffic would be about right in a traffic jam), then they'll have more then enough time to react if the person actually puts on their turn signals, checks their blind spot, then changes lanes.
Well, WoW has been out for a long time. Knowing a lot about it, doesn't necessarily mean you play too much. I don't think addiction is that hard to define though. If you play WoW, in spite of negative effects to yourself, then you are probably addicted. That is, is it negatively affecting your work, social life, family, school, etc. If you start blowing off friends to play WoW. If you play hookey (work or school) to play WoW. If your sleep is suffering from staying up late and having to get up early. If you aren't getting homework done or aren't studying enough. You get the idea...
Not at all. I do not think you know what an alcoholic is. Some alcoholics drink alone, but a lot drink with other people. Substance abuse is a very widespread problem.
You need to recognize that BOTH sides do EVERYTHING they do for money.
It amuses the piss out of me that you can assume that people who spent an easy 10+ year in post-secondary education, countless tireless hours doing research, sacrificing personal relationships and mental health have done it all in the name of money. These guys are not rich. Sure they aren't poor, but given their determination and intelligence, there are much easier ways they could make significantly more money.
Of course, once you realize the timing of this, it makes the whole of abortions morally reprehensible, since all abortions obviously take place after pregnancy is verified, and therefore it is active, thinking minds that are getting aborted in practice. If these killings (of sentient beings, or at least sentient enough to attempt to fight an abortion) are forbidden, however it will put an end to the MTV generation, for a very simple reason : if you fuck once a week, with a condom, on average you will get pregnant after 2 years. If you fuck once a week with the pill, it will be only 1.5 years. If you combine both, you can expect a little over 4 years before the chances of being pregnant are bigger than the chances of not being pregnant.
You misunderstand the effectiveness ratings. The ratings given are how many women will get pregnant after 1 year of use. I would suspect the average person using contraceptives has sex more then 1x a week (MTV generation? try married). If you are using condoms and take the actual-use effectiveness rating of 15% (misapplication and not using on all occasions are included in this) for a year's use, and you assume you can only get pregnant once a year, then we could assume that after 2 years, your chance of getting pregnant would've been 27.8%. After 4 years, it is 47.8%, still less then half. Finally, after five years your chance of getting pregnant goes above 50% (55.6%). If condoms are applied properly and used every time, then the effectiveness rate shoots to 2%. That is, after 20 years of sex using a condom, you can expect to get pregnant at least once with probability 0.332 (33.2%).
Birth Control gets even better (not worse). Actual-use effectiveness is 8%. That is, it is only after 9 years of use that the probability of getting pregnant at least once jumps above 50% (52.8%). Perfect use of the pill is rated at 0.3%. At that rating, in 100 years you have a 26% chance of getting pregnant at least once.
What would have been "right," is if Amazon had paid the rights-holder out of their pocket for the copies bought to date (since it was their mistake) and left the current copies on other people's devices in tact.
Unfortunately, they were not able to force software vendors to create Vista-compatible versions. While, I agree, Vista had many useful features, unsupported software is probably what held back most companies. I mean, speed-wise, it didn't matter it was marginally slower, it was being sold on computers that were significantly faster. However, some of the more obscure software used around here (but very important) was not running on Vista correctly until recently. No, its not MS' fault, but sometimes some crappy piece of software written by horrible code monkeys is more important to our organization then a shiny new OS.
That said, I do applaud them for getting people to realize that backwards compatibility is not a given.
It does not mean that 90% of the time it picks out a terrorist, it means that the test has a 90% accuracy, on both terrorists and non-terrorist. That is, you can expect an error (ie. a false positive or a false negative) 10% of the time. So, even if you are not a terrorist, there is a 10% chance the test will fail and identify you as a terrorist. If there is 1 terrorist in 3000, then the test will positively identify 300 people, only one of which is the terrorist.
Slashdot Mirror
When it comes to automotive performance, horsepower determines top speed and torque acceleration.
Not really. Torque is actually responsible for both, but horsepower is a much better metric for gaging the acceleration and top speed of a car. You have to remember that the torque at the flywheel has very little to do with the torque at the wheels (due to gearing). The amount of torque you get at the wheels is very much dependent on how much torque you are able to put out per unit time (ie. horsepower). If a car has more power then it is capable of greater acceleration. Horsepower measures how much torque you can put out over a unit time. If a car puts out more torque over a unit time then another car, then we can use gearing so that it is actually putting out a higher torque at the wheels. Say you have an Acura RSX type S and a Jetta TDI, both going the same speed, slam on their pedals at the same time. The RSX is making 140 lb. ft. at 7500 RPM and the Jetta is making 236 ft. lb. of torque at 2.5k RPM, which one is accelerating faster? Well, say they are both going the same speed, then, all else being equal, the gearing for the RSX will have to be 3x that of the Jetta TDI (that is, the RSX engine is spinning 3 times for each 1 rotation of the Jetta's). That would mean that the RSX is actually putting out 3 times more torque at the wheels then the Jetta TDI and is accelerating significantly faster. The Jetta would have to make 420 ft. lb. of torque at 2.5k RPM to match the torque at the wheels of the RSX (ie. its acceleration).
start taxing mp3 players again
It's been a long time since I heard anyone say "but we pay tax on blank cds, it's okay to copy here! We already had this fight over tapes decades ago!" The way things are going I guess we just pay that tax for the hell of it.
Well, in all fairness, the general direction is going towards mp3 players. Canada, currently, does not have a tax on MP3 players, only tapes & CDs. We need to either start taxing mp3 players again or we really do have to give up the "but we pay tax on blank cds" argument.
The platform the Cadillac CTS is based on was designed for the CTS and is still currently only used/available in Cadillacs. It is NOT another modified version of a Chevy. The current Escalade was designed with the same platform as other GM trucks, but it was not based on them. Like it or not, Cadillac really cleaned up its act around 2002 and its reliability and sales have generally been good since then.
The problem is, for most people, a TV is something you upgrade every 15 years. A computer is something you upgrade every 5 or less. A TV is a display device, first and foremost. Shoe horning a computer in there is just a gimmick; a lot changes in 5 years. Also, the OS will always matter, as long as interop is an issue. If we submit that people may use their TV as a computer, as well as a display device, they will still want to interop with their smart phones and netbooks. There won't be any magic, we'll still have to work at it and the OS will matter. TVs may gain functionality, but it really should be to support an external computer that can be upgraded. Sticking it in the TV is just silly. It's like those 10+ year old cars with the outdated GPSes. Sure, it was really cool back then, but GPS (and screen) tech developed a lot faster then the car's life span. It was already outdated in 5 years, and most cars are on the road for well over 10.
Oops, just realized you mentioned it is an indicator. First point still holds, for guys.
Well, for guys, our balls haven't dropped, so there isn't much to protect from chaffing or keep warm. It can also act as an indicator for sexual maturity.
Microsoft doesn't sell hardware, they sell software. A person who buys a license and runs it on a Mac means just as much to Microsoft as a person who runs it on a Dell. I would say they have all the incentive they'll ever get.
Humanity has not yet designed a smarter human.
Exactly.
The type of learning you are talking about is already widely used (ie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_networks ). You start with a neural network in some initial state (where it knows nothing), then "teach" it to solve some problem. A real cool part of this, is that they learn very much like biological creatures. You can not start with a very complex problem, and just let it continually try to solve it (it'll get nowhere). You actually have to start simple, and work your way up (gotta learn to crawl before you can walk).
Copyright (c)
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Weeeell, I meant staying outside the booth and have her come out when she's decent, but your way is fun too, though against store policy :)
I've never had any problems at stores. My general "policy" is that if a women's clothes store cannot be bothered to provide seating outside the change rooms for the men to sit at (and a lot don't), then I am absolutely going to be going into the booth. I'm not going to stand/walk around a store for 20 minutes looking like a twit.
PS. Also, let her win at things, no matter how good you are. Trust me on this one.
I'm in a 7 year relationship and I'm going to refute this one. I NEVER let her win. Yes, I am a competitive person, but I also think that "letting" someone win is very insulting. I always try my best and she always tries her best. If she beats me, it's because she was better then me, not because I "gave" her that one (and vice versa). If one of us is genuinely better to the point the game is not fun, then you can usually introduce some sort of handicap (that you both acknowledge) to even things out. This goes for anything; from Street Fighter to Cranium to Golf. I don't understand people's aversion to competition.
But we all make these decisions all the time. Just you choosing to drive puts a lot of people at risk. You could walk or bike to that store, but instead put pedestrians and others at risk by driving there. Going over the speed limit, again, adding to the risk (I know, you never speed right?). I know you'd definitely not answer the phone while driving. Certainly never get into an in-depth conversation with a passenger while driving either. Long day at work and crappy sleep? You wouldn't drive, I'm sure. How about if you are sick? Angry? Preoccupied with a problem at work? Blood sugar crashing after eating some carbs? Part of living in most societies is accepting the risks that come with certain freedoms and privileges. Clearly, not all risks are acceptable, but you can't just categorically say something is bad because there is risk involved. If you want to argue that impaired driving is bad, fine, I'm with you there, but you need to show the risk is unacceptable, not that there is simply additional risk.
You are the exception. I used to skateboard back in high school. Everyone always thought they were better when they were high. I can't remember a single person who was (myself included), they all just didn't realize how much more they sucked.
Because there is a difference. The people that arrested him have not fined him or sent him to jail for 10 years; a judge (or jury) will do that after a (presumably) fair trial. A cop can never have all the facts of a case, that's why their job is not to punish people. We have trials, judges and juries to deal with the "moral" issues, whether the law was actually broken and what a fair punishment should be. This kid has not yet been sentenced to life or fined. He will be given a trial, if he does not settle early. If need be, he will even have a jury of his peers that will listen and judge him based on the facts. Given this is a young college bound kid, I imagine he'll probably get a steep fine as a deterrent then go back to racking up even more debt at school.
2.7 doesn't qualify you for anything EXCEPT MacDonald's these days.
The only thing a GPA qualifies your for is grad school and, even then, only minimally. You don't put your GPA on your resume. Worst case, you'll be asked during the interview, but one well written report or well done school project is worth more than a 4 year average of (mostly) exam grades. In an interview, you need to sell yourself and being able to cram and regurgitate information has very little bearing on job performance. If the only reason you can give an employer for hiring you is your GPA and a piece of paper, then you missed the point of post-secondary education and wasted 4 years of your life. It doesn't matter what program you are in or what school you go to, you can only get back what you put in.
If a motorcycle is driving down the middle at a fairly slow pace (twice the speed of traffic would be about right in a traffic jam), then they'll have more then enough time to react if the person actually puts on their turn signals, checks their blind spot, then changes lanes.
Well, WoW has been out for a long time. Knowing a lot about it, doesn't necessarily mean you play too much. I don't think addiction is that hard to define though. If you play WoW, in spite of negative effects to yourself, then you are probably addicted. That is, is it negatively affecting your work, social life, family, school, etc. If you start blowing off friends to play WoW. If you play hookey (work or school) to play WoW. If your sleep is suffering from staying up late and having to get up early. If you aren't getting homework done or aren't studying enough. You get the idea...
Not at all. I do not think you know what an alcoholic is. Some alcoholics drink alone, but a lot drink with other people. Substance abuse is a very widespread problem.
You need to recognize that BOTH sides do EVERYTHING they do for money.
It amuses the piss out of me that you can assume that people who spent an easy 10+ year in post-secondary education, countless tireless hours doing research, sacrificing personal relationships and mental health have done it all in the name of money. These guys are not rich. Sure they aren't poor, but given their determination and intelligence, there are much easier ways they could make significantly more money.
Of course, once you realize the timing of this, it makes the whole of abortions morally reprehensible, since all abortions obviously take place after pregnancy is verified, and therefore it is active, thinking minds that are getting aborted in practice. If these killings (of sentient beings, or at least sentient enough to attempt to fight an abortion) are forbidden, however it will put an end to the MTV generation, for a very simple reason : if you fuck once a week, with a condom, on average you will get pregnant after 2 years. If you fuck once a week with the pill, it will be only 1.5 years. If you combine both, you can expect a little over 4 years before the chances of being pregnant are bigger than the chances of not being pregnant.
You misunderstand the effectiveness ratings. The ratings given are how many women will get pregnant after 1 year of use. I would suspect the average person using contraceptives has sex more then 1x a week (MTV generation? try married). If you are using condoms and take the actual-use effectiveness rating of 15% (misapplication and not using on all occasions are included in this) for a year's use, and you assume you can only get pregnant once a year, then we could assume that after 2 years, your chance of getting pregnant would've been 27.8%. After 4 years, it is 47.8%, still less then half. Finally, after five years your chance of getting pregnant goes above 50% (55.6%). If condoms are applied properly and used every time, then the effectiveness rate shoots to 2%. That is, after 20 years of sex using a condom, you can expect to get pregnant at least once with probability 0.332 (33.2%).
Birth Control gets even better (not worse). Actual-use effectiveness is 8%. That is, it is only after 9 years of use that the probability of getting pregnant at least once jumps above 50% (52.8%). Perfect use of the pill is rated at 0.3%. At that rating, in 100 years you have a 26% chance of getting pregnant at least once.
What would have been "right," is if Amazon had paid the rights-holder out of their pocket for the copies bought to date (since it was their mistake) and left the current copies on other people's devices in tact.
Unfortunately, they were not able to force software vendors to create Vista-compatible versions. While, I agree, Vista had many useful features, unsupported software is probably what held back most companies. I mean, speed-wise, it didn't matter it was marginally slower, it was being sold on computers that were significantly faster. However, some of the more obscure software used around here (but very important) was not running on Vista correctly until recently. No, its not MS' fault, but sometimes some crappy piece of software written by horrible code monkeys is more important to our organization then a shiny new OS. That said, I do applaud them for getting people to realize that backwards compatibility is not a given.
It does not mean that 90% of the time it picks out a terrorist, it means that the test has a 90% accuracy, on both terrorists and non-terrorist. That is, you can expect an error (ie. a false positive or a false negative) 10% of the time. So, even if you are not a terrorist, there is a 10% chance the test will fail and identify you as a terrorist. If there is 1 terrorist in 3000, then the test will positively identify 300 people, only one of which is the terrorist.