>I'd move except that Montana is possibly the world's most boring region.
BTW, Montana most certainly DOES have speed limits.
I just returned from a trip to Lewistown (central Montana), and every highway we travelled on (from interstates down to rural two-laners) had a clearly posted speed limit (granted, usually the interstates were 75, and the small two-lane highways were still 55 or more).
>I remember one of the antonova's going down due
>to faulty fuel, but I am not sure it was this one
While it may have been another Antonov, it couldn't have been another An-225.
>nothing compared to Russia
Except that only one has ever been built, while the C-5 has seen extensive peacetime AND wartime use.
The Cossack is an impressively huge plane, no argument, but it's rather like the Spruce Goose - anyone can build ONE big plane. To build and operate an entire fleet is, IMO, a much more impressive feat.
I work for... a major network management software company... and our flagship product is pretty much useless if you just install it with the default options. You need to do a fair amount of customization, and some of the modules that go with it won't even install without having a commercial RDBMS to back them up.
Oh, and our software is *expensive*.
Ganymede is free and does a lot of what our propietary solution does.
>Who would put serious money down on 100000:1 odds?
Millions of people all over the US do exactly this every week on odds that are significantly worse.
It's called the lottery.
(and most casino gambling games have odds far better than 100,000:1. the odds of being dealt a straight flush in five-card stud (or the first round of cards in five-card draw) poker are only about 65,000:1, and that's a phenomonal hand)
>i can't quite comprehend how arming the crims
>will make them less violent
Ah, the common non-argument that gun control laws help disarm criminals.
Criminals by definition don't obey the laws. They already HAVE guns. Didn't I see recently that the English cops have started carrying guns again?
>US gun related annual homicides 20,000,
>UK - twenty odd
Gun related DEATHS. This includes gang-bangers shooting each other up as well as individuals legally defending their own lives and property.
I'd be willing to bet those "twenty odd" gun related deaths in the UK are nearly all criminals or terrorists gunning down someone who was relieved of his right to protect himself by the government.
And the statistic that the US is no longer in the top ten IS signifcant, because it's something all the antis liked to trot out like a show horse.
A more civilized country like what? England? Australia? Where the gun control laws have resulted in a surge in violent crime?
No thank you.
America is no longer even in the top 10 in the world for violent crime rates.
-LjM
Re:Everybody's not above average!
on
IT Unions?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, the part about drivers claiming to be above average was irrelevant to the point, the important part was about the 50-50 statement.
It IS possible for 80% of the drivers on the road to be "above average". It only takes a handful of really REALLY bad drivers (and I think they all live here in Austin) to bring the average down so low that 90% of the drivers COULD be above average.
-LjM
Re:Everybody's not above average!
on
IT Unions?
·
· Score: 1
>Not to pick nits, but in you example the median is 100, so you still only have 20% below the median.
Yeah, I realized this after the fact... but the point remains that it only takes one extremely high or extremely low score to skew the average so drastically that the "50% are below average" statement just isn't true.
Think Stephen Hawking in an IRC channel. Suddenly everyone except him is below average.
-LjM
Re:Everybody's not above average!
on
IT Unions?
·
· Score: 2
>Well, guess what pal - the odds are somewhere around, say, 50-50 that you're below average. It
>reminds me of the stats that 80% or whatever of drivers say they are an "above average" driver...
Uh, I think you're confusing "average" with "median".
If you have 100 employees, and you give them all a test, it is possible for 80 of them to score 100 points, and 20 to score 0 points.
You now have an average of 80 points. However, 80 employees scored above that.
Which half is below average?
Granted, this is not a likely example, it's hyperbole to illustrate the point: 50% of the people are not always below average. 50% of the people *are* always below the MEDIAN. There's a difference.
I liked my Apple//e's and Commodore 64s Back In The Day(tm), but I have no desire to use either one ever again.
As fun as those machines were, something about my modern P3 and UltraSparc-based systems makes me a little less than nostalgic.
Maybe it's that the memory is a little more ideal than the reality was. Go back and watch a TV show or movie you LOVED when you were 9 and see how it doesn't really stand the test of time.
I don't think these were the Levis spots in particular, but these DID turn out to be fakes to promote something or another. Very subtle, since there are no products mentioned...
>The Mentor, IIRC, was unfortnately nailed by the
>Secret Service for crimes I've long since
>forgotten.
If nothing else, Loyd was working for Steve Jackson Games when Operation Sun Devil went down.
I seem to recall something else involving stolen Apples in the mid 80's, but I can't remember any sort of details and I really wouldn't want to spread misinformation about it...
I don't know that he ever actually did any real time.
Haven't seen him in years, but I remember him being an interesting guy to hang out with.
>Take a bank shot, for example. If you assume
>that the angle of deflection of the object ball
>into the rail equals the angle of deflection,
>calculate that angle and shoot, there's still a
>good chance you won't make the shot. One reason:
>from table to table the hardness of the rails
>varies.
Even without the hardness of the rails coming into play, you'll probably miss if you only take into consideration the absolute angles anyway, and not for the reasons you mentioned later in your post.
The speed of the shot will cause the angle to narrow.
Take two shots at the same spot on the rail from the same spot on the table. Hit one softly and the other quite a bit harder. The ball you hit harder will rebound with a much narrower angle.
Slashdot Mirror
>I'd move except that Montana is possibly the world's most boring region.
BTW, Montana most certainly DOES have speed limits.
I just returned from a trip to Lewistown (central Montana), and every highway we travelled on (from interstates down to rural two-laners) had a clearly posted speed limit (granted, usually the interstates were 75, and the small two-lane highways were still 55 or more).
-LjM
Sounds like he's read a lot of Clancy books.
In other words, All your buzzword are belong to him.
-LjM
>Errrr, do you really need to use the doppler >effect to notice that 1 minute after you last >checked, a flock of birds have flown 25 miles?
How do you know it's the SAME flock of birds?
-LjM
>I remember one of the antonova's going down due
>to faulty fuel, but I am not sure it was this one
While it may have been another Antonov, it couldn't have been another An-225.
>nothing compared to Russia
Except that only one has ever been built, while the C-5 has seen extensive peacetime AND wartime use.
The Cossack is an impressively huge plane, no argument, but it's rather like the Spruce Goose - anyone can build ONE big plane. To build and operate an entire fleet is, IMO, a much more impressive feat.
-LjM
slashdot.org, redhat.com, and spamcop.net all pop up alerts (granted, Spamcop's alert is compeltely bogus)
microsoft.com, sun.com, and ibm.com come up clean.
-LjM
>Why did they have to pick such a gay name?
F>r those of you who think I'm being homophobic
>ook up somewhere who Ganymede was in Greek
>ythology
Cup boy to the gods.
Seems an appropriate name for a serving system, all things considered...
-LjM
And?
I work for
Oh, and our software is *expensive*.
Ganymede is free and does a lot of what our propietary solution does.
Your point is what, exactly?
-LjM
>Who would put serious money down on 100000:1 odds?
Millions of people all over the US do exactly this every week on odds that are significantly worse.
It's called the lottery.
(and most casino gambling games have odds far better than 100,000:1. the odds of being dealt a straight flush in five-card stud (or the first round of cards in five-card draw) poker are only about 65,000:1, and that's a phenomonal hand)
-LjM
>Or, get a Dell OptiPlex GX150. Dell only sells
>these to Corporate/Educational institutions
You can get GX150's from the Factory Outlet as a home/small business buyer.
Quite a few of them available right here.
-LjM
>in-no-vate (IN no vait) vt. - to take an idea from another company (cf. Apple)
I think you mean (cf. Xerox).
-LjM
>i can't quite comprehend how arming the crims
>will make them less violent
Ah, the common non-argument that gun control laws help disarm criminals.
Criminals by definition don't obey the laws. They already HAVE guns. Didn't I see recently that the English cops have started carrying guns again?
>US gun related annual homicides 20,000,
>UK - twenty odd
Gun related DEATHS. This includes gang-bangers shooting each other up as well as individuals legally defending their own lives and property.
I'd be willing to bet those "twenty odd" gun related deaths in the UK are nearly all criminals or terrorists gunning down someone who was relieved of his right to protect himself by the government.
And the statistic that the US is no longer in the top ten IS signifcant, because it's something all the antis liked to trot out like a show horse.
And btw, the UK and Australia ARE in the top ten.
Sleep well tonight.
-LjM
>In a more civilized country
I can't pass this one up.
A more civilized country like what? England? Australia? Where the gun control laws have resulted in a surge in violent crime?
No thank you.
America is no longer even in the top 10 in the world for violent crime rates.
-LjM
Actually, the part about drivers claiming to be above average was irrelevant to the point, the important part was about the 50-50 statement.
It IS possible for 80% of the drivers on the road to be "above average". It only takes a handful of really REALLY bad drivers (and I think they all live here in Austin) to bring the average down so low that 90% of the drivers COULD be above average.
-LjM
>Not to pick nits, but in you example the median is 100, so you still only have 20% below the median.
Yeah, I realized this after the fact... but the point remains that it only takes one extremely high or extremely low score to skew the average so drastically that the "50% are below average" statement just isn't true.
Think Stephen Hawking in an IRC channel. Suddenly everyone except him is below average.
-LjM
>Well, guess what pal - the odds are somewhere around, say, 50-50 that you're below average. It
>reminds me of the stats that 80% or whatever of drivers say they are an "above average" driver...
Uh, I think you're confusing "average" with "median".
If you have 100 employees, and you give them all a test, it is possible for 80 of them to score 100 points, and 20 to score 0 points.
You now have an average of 80 points. However, 80 employees scored above that.
Which half is below average?
Granted, this is not a likely example, it's hyperbole to illustrate the point: 50% of the people are not always below average. 50% of the people *are* always below the MEDIAN. There's a difference.
-LjM
Accessibility.
// line was the first truly mainstream personal computer aimed at the home.
The Apple
The Commodore 64 was a reasonably powerful (for the time) computer that could be purchased for under $200.
Those are significant.
>the Apple II and the C=64 weren't 10 years ahead
>of their time performance-wise
No, but they were both very significant for other reasons.
-LjM
I've wondered about this myself.
//e's and Commodore 64s Back In The Day(tm), but I have no desire to use either one ever again.
I liked my Apple
As fun as those machines were, something about my modern P3 and UltraSparc-based systems makes me a little less than nostalgic.
Maybe it's that the memory is a little more ideal than the reality was. Go back and watch a TV show or movie you LOVED when you were 9 and see how it doesn't really stand the test of time.
-LjM
He referred to Mahir, yes.
He also referred to the sites MODELLED after Mahir.
You know. This part.
>"Reminds me of the Levi jeans pages modeled on
>the "I kiss you!" guy that people thought were >real as well."
-l
>The I Kiss You guy was real. Asswipe.
I believe the story was referring to stuff like Rubber Burner and Super Greg.
I don't think these were the Levis spots in particular, but these DID turn out to be fakes to promote something or another. Very subtle, since there are no products mentioned...
-l
>The Mentor, IIRC, was unfortnately nailed by the
>Secret Service for crimes I've long since
>forgotten.
If nothing else, Loyd was working for Steve Jackson Games when Operation Sun Devil went down.
I seem to recall something else involving stolen Apples in the mid 80's, but I can't remember any sort of details and I really wouldn't want to spread misinformation about it...
I don't know that he ever actually did any real time.
Haven't seen him in years, but I remember him being an interesting guy to hang out with.
-LjM
>But of course the fuel injection systems in
>automobiles still work fine (all the new GMCs
>and the motorcycle she rides).
FWIW, the motorcycle she rides isn't fuel injected.
It's a Kawasaki ZX-6R.
Computer controlled IGNITION, sure. But not FI.
-LjM
>Take a bank shot, for example. If you assume
>that the angle of deflection of the object ball
>into the rail equals the angle of deflection,
>calculate that angle and shoot, there's still a
>good chance you won't make the shot. One reason:
>from table to table the hardness of the rails
>varies.
Even without the hardness of the rails coming into play, you'll probably miss if you only take into consideration the absolute angles anyway, and not for the reasons you mentioned later in your post.
The speed of the shot will cause the angle to narrow.
Take two shots at the same spot on the rail from the same spot on the table. Hit one softly and the other quite a bit harder. The ball you hit harder will rebound with a much narrower angle.
-LjM
Technically, Wolfenstein 3D was the third.
Castle Wolfenstein, MUSE Software, early 80's (C64 version came out in 1983 or so)
Beyond Castle Wolfenstein, MUSE Software, C64 version in 1984.
Then Wolfenstein 3D.
So Return to Castle Wolfenstein will be Wolf 4, not Wolf 3.
-LjM
Probably a question of volume/scale (size of the run, not size of the model).
I doubt they'll be making as many of these. Some of the little pewter model car makers churn out thousands of them...
-LjM