No mention of TeX version numbering? (Asymptotically approaching pi?)
No mention of the Marathon series using the largest "version bump" ever? (From Marathon 2 to Marathon Infinity?)
And this probably isn't true 100% of the time, but most of the time, those aren't decimal points; it's not three-point-one-one, it's three-point-eleven; 3.2 is before 3.11, not after. And that's the only way multi-point versioning makes any sense, like 2.6.26.
...and they came all this way and didn't even say hello?
Because that's the part he refused to believe; that UFOs are full of little green men who enjoy slicing up cows and sticking thermometers up lonely farmers rears, but won't so much as say hello to anyone who's credible. He's sure they're out THERE. But if they'd bothered to come HERE, surely they'd let us know. But they haven't done so, so they haven't been here. They didn't build the pyramids, they didn't crash in Roswell, and they didn't put any faces on Mars.
I thought the "big deal" with NASA's new protocol was that it could handle the overly-long round trip times (stupid speed of light and vast interplanetary distances!) that would make TCP unusable. I suppose that's what the store-and-forward process is suppose to get around (among other things), but the article doesn't make that particularly clear.
set content from other domains to be on a shorter timeout.
Or the site designers could, you know, write the page so that it'll still display the content correctly while the off-site content is loading. Actually, that should be the case for even the on-site content. Isn't that that whole point of "height" and "width" attributes?
Our party system evolved for one reason and one reason only
...because voting with single-member plurality districts naturally gravitates towards two parties as described by Maurice Duveger in the 70s?
If we don't want a two-party system, we need to use an electoral system that Duverger's law doesn't apply to; either single-member districts with score- or approval-voting (and no, not instant runoff voting), or proportional representation.
Probably not. The scientist's current guess is that it's an unexplained combination involving charmed quarks; possibly with gluons or as part of a four-quark structure. Which we don't have any theories to support... but it's not quite so bad as having to trash the standard model. Same set of pieces, but put together in a way we didn't expect.
At least, that's the guess. If they're wrong, that would be much more interesting!
To be pedantic, the emulators are perfectly legal; the pirated ROMs are not (although there are a few good original distributed-as-free-software ROMs.)
I think you missed her point. Or rather, missed that you agree with her point.
Her point, and yours, is that annonymity IS necessary BECAUSE there are those who would seek harm to those that post opposing view points. If there was no fear of reprisal, than annonymity wouldn't be so necessary. (Just like abortion wouldn't be so necessary if we'd teach comprehensive sex education. Funny how the same people oppose abortion and sex-ed.)
most of Earth's fissle material is in the crust, not the core.
Citation? Because most fissile material is in the mantle, not the crust.
Similar to an idea of my own
on
Censorship By Glut
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The solution the author presents is not entirely unlike an idea I've had on my own, but applied to a completely different realm: moderation of internet forums. Many people have noticed that a site tends to coalesce toward a particular "group think" as it goes along (Slashdot hates copyright; every political blog is either left- or right-leaning; etc.)
My idea goes in two stages: in stage one, a new user can only indicate whether they agree or disagree with a comment. Once the system can, by comparison with other users, determine with some certainty what a user will agree with, they then can instead indicate how well-written (or compelling or convincing) those comments are. The trick is users are not shown low-rated dissenting opinions, only the most highly-rated; and when a reply is made, again, it will only make it back to the dissenting camp if it is highly-rated.
The idea is to weed-out the flame-warriors and troll-feeders, to cut through the glut, and get the really interesting ideas in front of people, which is how it's similar to this.
What, 20 replies now, and not a single variation on "There is a real energy crisis, we have to focus on fixing it! Oil doesn't grow on trees! Wait, what now? Oh...."
And that's just in the last 30 days. The ACLU is against the government favoring (or penalizing) any establishment of religion over another, and is a strong supporter of any individual's right to worship who, what, and how they please without government intervention. That morons like you think this makes them anti-relgion and anti-American is both sad and hilarious.
I love it; you mention Iraq, and then claim that a few dedicated persons with nothing but small arms couldn't possible stand in the way of the US Government. Would you like to try for the other foot?
Considering your sig, I find it hilarious that you bring up the "Congress' approval is
To paraphrase: Every *congressman* has a high approval rating. *Congress* has a low approval rating, and you know it.
(Where "high" is >50%, approval rating is only counted among their constituency, and "every" means "every except Joe Lieberman".)
Check out BitScope's products. (bitscope.com) They have pocket-sized $100 systems (2-ch analog and 8-ch digital). They save money by off-loading all the heavy lifting to your computer and using their DSO (open source, available as a debian package) software; you can even try it out by connecting over the internet to their logic analyzers, to see how you like the software and using it with real data.
I remember when this guy was on The Colbert Report, plugging his book. He was such a pompous, self-important blowhard that Colbert (who is very good at pretending to be a pompous, self-important blowhard) seemed completely flat.
Author is wrong; article is wrong. Nothing to see here.
For an excellent (and accessible) work on this topic, see James Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed," either the book, or the companion television series (much of it available at YouTube).
If each editor has only a slightly-better than 50% chance of correctness, then the optimal number of editors is infinite.
Replace "editor" with "juror" and you have
Condorcet's Jury Theorem. This handily explains both why Wikipedia works better than many traditionalists would expect (most of the time), and why popular misconceptions are still so persistant.
I prefer the answer: "So you think a rag-tag band of locals defending their homes and equipped with only small arms would be no match for the U.S. Army? How's Iraq going?"
I know it's really easy to, after the fact, say "I knew that all along," but now it's +5 Insightfull? Guess what? Saying "that was obvious" is not how science works! There were lots of scientist who thought it was "obvious" that there would be black holes, and a lot who thought it was "obvious" that there wouldn't be; so this result, despite your dismissive attitude, is news. But even if that WEREN'T the case, it's still good science to find out for CERTAIN something we, thusfar, were only able to ASSUME.
And to answer your question, by expanding faster than light. Obviously.
I am so full of hate at sites that continually want to open new windows. When I can, I use a browser that lets me turn that off. So what's the point of you breaking the standard in ugly javascript, only to have me turn it off?
You don't need multiple windows. If you think you do, you're wrong. If you're not wrong *I'll* open a new window.
Ignoring AC's assertion that there are no differences between the candidates, he *does* have a good point that these debates are being generated not by any independent organization or media, but by a join venture of the Republican and Democratic parties.
This was not always the case: up until '88, the League of Women Voters would organize the pressidential debates. But they got so fed-up with the Democrats and Republicans throwing hissy fits about the format and trying to block out third-party candidates, that they withdrew from that role.
Slashdot Mirror
No mention of the Marathon series using the largest "version bump" ever? (From Marathon 2 to Marathon Infinity?)
And this probably isn't true 100% of the time, but most of the time, those aren't decimal points; it's not three-point-one-one, it's three-point-eleven; 3.2 is before 3.11, not after. And that's the only way multi-point versioning makes any sense, like 2.6.26.
Lame article.
Because that's the part he refused to believe; that UFOs are full of little green men who enjoy slicing up cows and sticking thermometers up lonely farmers rears, but won't so much as say hello to anyone who's credible. He's sure they're out THERE. But if they'd bothered to come HERE, surely they'd let us know. But they haven't done so, so they haven't been here. They didn't build the pyramids, they didn't crash in Roswell, and they didn't put any faces on Mars.
I assure you, that's not a coincidence; that's genius marketing. And I don't see what it has to do with Idiocracy.
I thought the "big deal" with NASA's new protocol was that it could handle the overly-long round trip times (stupid speed of light and vast interplanetary distances!) that would make TCP unusable. I suppose that's what the store-and-forward process is suppose to get around (among other things), but the article doesn't make that particularly clear.
Or the site designers could, you know, write the page so that it'll still display the content correctly while the off-site content is loading. Actually, that should be the case for even the on-site content. Isn't that that whole point of "height" and "width" attributes?
...because voting with single-member plurality districts naturally gravitates towards two parties as described by Maurice Duveger in the 70s?
If we don't want a two-party system, we need to use an electoral system that Duverger's law doesn't apply to; either single-member districts with score- or approval-voting (and no, not instant runoff voting), or proportional representation.
At least, that's the guess. If they're wrong, that would be much more interesting!
To be pedantic, the emulators are perfectly legal; the pirated ROMs are not (although there are a few good original distributed-as-free-software ROMs.)
Her point, and yours, is that annonymity IS necessary BECAUSE there are those who would seek harm to those that post opposing view points. If there was no fear of reprisal, than annonymity wouldn't be so necessary. (Just like abortion wouldn't be so necessary if we'd teach comprehensive sex education. Funny how the same people oppose abortion and sex-ed.)
Citation? Because most fissile material is in the mantle, not the crust.
My idea goes in two stages: in stage one, a new user can only indicate whether they agree or disagree with a comment. Once the system can, by comparison with other users, determine with some certainty what a user will agree with, they then can instead indicate how well-written (or compelling or convincing) those comments are. The trick is users are not shown low-rated dissenting opinions, only the most highly-rated; and when a reply is made, again, it will only make it back to the dissenting camp if it is highly-rated.
The idea is to weed-out the flame-warriors and troll-feeders, to cut through the glut, and get the really interesting ideas in front of people, which is how it's similar to this.
Don't take my word for it, take the word of a cellular biologist.
What, 20 replies now, and not a single variation on "There is a real energy crisis, we have to focus on fixing it! Oil doesn't grow on trees! Wait, what now? Oh. ..."
And that's just in the last 30 days. The ACLU is against the government favoring (or penalizing) any establishment of religion over another, and is a strong supporter of any individual's right to worship who, what, and how they please without government intervention. That morons like you think this makes them anti-relgion and anti-American is both sad and hilarious.
I love it; you mention Iraq, and then claim that a few dedicated persons with nothing but small arms couldn't possible stand in the way of the US Government. Would you like to try for the other foot?
(Where "high" is >50%, approval rating is only counted among their constituency, and "every" means "every except Joe Lieberman".)
(full disclosure: satisfied customer)
Author is wrong; article is wrong. Nothing to see here.
For an excellent (and accessible) work on this topic, see James Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed," either the book, or the companion television series (much of it available at YouTube).
Replace "editor" with "juror" and you have Condorcet's Jury Theorem. This handily explains both why Wikipedia works better than many traditionalists would expect (most of the time), and why popular misconceptions are still so persistant.
I prefer the answer: "So you think a rag-tag band of locals defending their homes and equipped with only small arms would be no match for the U.S. Army? How's Iraq going?"
And to answer your question, by expanding faster than light. Obviously.
You don't need multiple windows. If you think you do, you're wrong. If you're not wrong *I'll* open a new window.
This was not always the case: up until '88, the League of Women Voters would organize the pressidential debates. But they got so fed-up with the Democrats and Republicans throwing hissy fits about the format and trying to block out third-party candidates, that they withdrew from that role.