Yep, space shuttles were the only way for the US to bring something intact from orbit back down to earth (they had other ways to get stuff up). AFAIK that's one of the features that the US military wanted. That feature is rather expensive, despite all the talk of reusability.
You only save money with reusing stuff if your reusable components are reliable enough so that you don't have to do very extensive and expensive checks and certifications on them after each flight. Otherwise it's actually cheaper to throw/recycle them, and use new components that you are more certain will work without causing stuff to blow up or malfunction.
I remember playing quakeworld teamfortress (customtf) when there were cheaters using aimbots.
How do I know they were using aimbots? I bound some commands so that when I scrolled my mousewheel I would jiggle/sidestep/strafe left and right very quickly (like alternately pressing A and D quickly, assuming a WASD setup).
When I jumped off a wall these bunch would be able to snipe me in the air nearly 100% of the time. But when I was standing right in front of them and "jiggling" they would miss me. Normal unassisted human players would not miss so many times - since I am not actually significantly moving anywhere. I can see the botters shoot to the left or to the right. In contrast the sort of human players who can consistently snipe you falling off the wall (it's not that difficult with low enough ping and high enough skill) would certainly not miss at all in that scenario!
Of course a more sophisticated aimbot will not be fooled by that, but that was years ago.
Police were alerted to the buried vehicle following an incident at Alimontiâ(TM)s property on March 31 in which a tenant, Michael Salsman, 34, allegedly beat his wife, Alacea Dyer Salsman, 23, and attempted to stab her with a butcher knife.
You wouldn't want to work for an employer who thinks a 37 year old is the same person as the one who has a 39 year old tech career.
As for insecure, why would using your real name mean you're insecure?
Jesus didn't say it directly, but his name is on the book.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16
1) And you believe that when Paul wrote that, he believed that the entire letter he was writing to Timothy was scripture? 2) So you believe everything written in the Bible was said by Jesus? Including stuff like the "Dear Theophilus" sentence, and similar (e.g. Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ). If you do, I think you really need to think more about things. 3) Which leads to the next point: note that even Paul said _inspired_ by God. He didn't say written by God. He could have said all scripture is written by God. he didn't, so ask yourself why. There's a difference between stuff that's inspired, and stuff that's written. Do think about the difference carefully. Some stuff in the Bible is likely directly from God. But other stuff is inspired.
Christian teaching and teachers even today could be inspired by God. Since we are his body, some of it could indeed be from him too. But since we are his still extremely imperfect body (poor Jesus to have such a terrible body), much of it is not from him. At best we're like a body prone to epileptic fits, and at worst...
Same as before is easier since you just compare with the immediate memory - can use the "did stuff change" "circuits" in your brain.
But when the task advanced to "is this face the same as the one you saw _two_ people ago" I found it quite challenging for some reason.
That's a variation on the n-back test. And probably tougher since it involves faces (which are more complex) and assuming the number of different faces you might get is big. It's more to do with "working memory" than math.
The cognitive.net site has some n-back tests too which you can try - some are simpler. It takes a while for your brain to rewire itself so it can remember "2 ago". Then you'll probably find that just because you can do "2 ago" at 100% doesn't mean you can do "3 items ago" easily. There seem to be some people who have managed to get up to 9!
Uh, you claimed: "Then why not believe what he says. He gives his genology all the way back to Adam in Genesis."
And so I said: "Where in the Bible did he say that?"
Just because something is written in the gospels doesn't mean that Jesus said it. The gospels were not written by Jesus. Two of the gospels weren't even written by the Apostles.
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
So Luke's genealogy might not have be from Jesus at all, but from Luke's investigation. Similar thing could have happened with Matthew's version.
You claim the genealogy was from Jesus, but you provide no evidence for it.
If you think the whole bible is to be taken literally then you should actually read Jesus' parables some time. And actually try to understand them. You should take effort to read the Bible better than the way you've read my posts.
As for Dawkins he's delusional - he claims stuff like "atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind". I'm sure you can find atheists with nonhealthy or nonindependent minds.
Seems like 24 hours was not enough for you to read my post, look up the meaning of maternal line and paternal line, and actually answer my question.
That is exactly what creation vs evolution is about. God vs No God. There is no need to believe in God if you believe God did nothing. It's all 1 big package.
Why would evolution mean that God did nothing? If God really achieves what he planned from the beginning, then evolution is part of God's ultimate trick shot.
The other problem with the ribbon is it's harder to walk someone through it over the phone. You may have to resort to keyboard shortcuts - hopefully there's a keyboard shortcut for what that person wants to do.
Note: apparently this video was made by some people in Microsoft. So those bunch might actually have a clue when it comes to taste... But wouldn't that make their work rather painful for them?
I think the problem is overhyped. If you're an online site and some hacker already has the hashes and salts of user passwords to bruteforce, you're typically already so pwned it doesn't matter if you are using SHA2048 or whatever.
For the same reason it doesn't matter that much even if I use 8 character passwords for noncritical online sites. I'd be flattered if the attackers are going to DDoS the site just to crack my password via the site's login page! If the site is famous enough I might even have enough warning to switch to a longer password when the DDoS attack hits the news;).
Whereas if they are bruteforcing my password offline - it means the site has already been compromised. And they are likely to be able to access the rest of my data in that site, possibly do actions using my account and perhaps with a bit more effort get the plaintext of my password the next time I log in.
So use different passwords for different sites, don't use passwords that are too short or obvious that they can be bruteforced online, but don't sweat making them super long unless its important or you're paranoid- since the site is more likely to get pwned before they bruteforce it online.
Getting pwned or compromised isn't a rare thing. I've signed up for different stuff using unique email addresses, and I've noticed spam coming to a few of those addresses. Maybe one day I'll have to create new slashdot/facebook/etc accounts when my current ones get pwned. Big deal.
For "offline" stuff like GPG, truecrypt, yes please do use strong and long passphrases.
It's not completely chaotic- Google has the data. There are lots of google users that buy/sell in the stock market. And they do use Google to look up stuff. With the google ads "everywhere", Google knows what sites and pages they are reading, and can predict what they might buy or sell.
My guess is Google is choosing to not take advantage of the info they have in that way, otherwise those users might stop using Google.
Yeah, I had to debug and fix some stuff too. If the module is not too crap, fixing it is usually still faster than writing it from scratch in Lisp. Add in the OK modules that perl has and lisp doesn't and it still could be faster.
Even so many of the modules are written by programmers who are better than I am. That's how I improve the code quality of my program - most of the code is written by better programmers:).
Think of starting up a universe simulation on a computer. Those in the simulation experience time according to the simulation. Those outside the simulation can pause the simulation, or even restart it, and those in the simulation wouldn't know. The creation of a simulation can still occur even in the absence of simulation time.
Of course, this does not mean that our universe is a simulation or works like that. This is just to show how it can be possible for something to occur even if there's no time.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, space shuttles were the only way for the US to bring something intact from orbit back down to earth (they had other ways to get stuff up). AFAIK that's one of the features that the US military wanted. That feature is rather expensive, despite all the talk of reusability.
You only save money with reusing stuff if your reusable components are reliable enough so that you don't have to do very extensive and expensive checks and certifications on them after each flight. Otherwise it's actually cheaper to throw/recycle them, and use new components that you are more certain will work without causing stuff to blow up or malfunction.
I remember playing quakeworld teamfortress (customtf) when there were cheaters using aimbots.
How do I know they were using aimbots? I bound some commands so that when I scrolled my mousewheel I would jiggle/sidestep/strafe left and right very quickly (like alternately pressing A and D quickly, assuming a WASD setup).
When I jumped off a wall these bunch would be able to snipe me in the air nearly 100% of the time. But when I was standing right in front of them and "jiggling" they would miss me. Normal unassisted human players would not miss so many times - since I am not actually significantly moving anywhere. I can see the botters shoot to the left or to the right. In contrast the sort of human players who can consistently snipe you falling off the wall (it's not that difficult with low enough ping and high enough skill) would certainly not miss at all in that scenario!
Of course a more sophisticated aimbot will not be fooled by that, but that was years ago.
Play Crysis? Wait isn't it a GPU benchmark program? ;)
You can click around to see the languages:
http://www.go-hero.net/jam/12/languages/5
http://www.go-hero.net/jam/12/multilang
There's also ranking:
http://code.google.com/codejam/contest/scoreboard?c=1835486
In my country they usually use motorcycles and not cars for that sort of food delivery. But "cost of death" is cheaper here I guess...
Doesn't help for missing passport and notebook.
;).
As for his work, I'm sure much of it is already on the Internet
From one of your links:
Police were alerted to the buried vehicle following an incident at Alimontiâ(TM)s property on March 31 in which a tenant, Michael Salsman, 34, allegedly beat his wife, Alacea Dyer Salsman, 23, and attempted to stab her with a butcher knife.
You wouldn't want to work for an employer who thinks a 37 year old is the same person as the one who has a 39 year old tech career.
As for insecure, why would using your real name mean you're insecure?
Jesus didn't say it directly, but his name is on the book.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:16
1) And you believe that when Paul wrote that, he believed that the entire letter he was writing to Timothy was scripture?
2) So you believe everything written in the Bible was said by Jesus? Including stuff like the "Dear Theophilus" sentence, and similar (e.g. Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ). If you do, I think you really need to think more about things.
3) Which leads to the next point: note that even Paul said _inspired_ by God. He didn't say written by God. He could have said all scripture is written by God. he didn't, so ask yourself why. There's a difference between stuff that's inspired, and stuff that's written. Do think about the difference carefully. Some stuff in the Bible is likely directly from God. But other stuff is inspired.
Christian teaching and teachers even today could be inspired by God. Since we are his body, some of it could indeed be from him too. But since we are his still extremely imperfect body (poor Jesus to have such a terrible body), much of it is not from him. At best we're like a body prone to epileptic fits, and at worst...
Actually it makes some sense to pay to educate other people's "crotch fruit", assuming:
1) they get good education
2) they are going to be voters
128k of memory is definitely not enough, but maybe 128MB might be enough to run this: http://pogostick.net/~pnh/ntpasswd/
The other option of course is to take the hard drive out and attach it to a computer - but I don't know what adapter you'd need for a laptop that old.
Sorry I was rude in the previous replies. I should improve :).
You seem to be replying to the wrong post.
Same as before is easier since you just compare with the immediate memory - can use the "did stuff change" "circuits" in your brain.
But when the task advanced to "is this face the same as the one you saw _two_ people ago" I found it quite challenging for some reason.
That's a variation on the n-back test. And probably tougher since it involves faces (which are more complex) and assuming the number of different faces you might get is big. It's more to do with "working memory" than math.
The cognitive.net site has some n-back tests too which you can try - some are simpler. It takes a while for your brain to rewire itself so it can remember "2 ago". Then you'll probably find that just because you can do "2 ago" at 100% doesn't mean you can do "3 items ago" easily. There seem to be some people who have managed to get up to 9!
Uh, you claimed: "Then why not believe what he says. He gives his genology all the way back to Adam in Genesis."
And so I said: "Where in the Bible did he say that?"
Just because something is written in the gospels doesn't mean that Jesus said it. The gospels were not written by Jesus. Two of the gospels weren't even written by the Apostles.
See Luke 1:1-4: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1&version=NIV
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
So Luke's genealogy might not have be from Jesus at all, but from Luke's investigation. Similar thing could have happened with Matthew's version.
You claim the genealogy was from Jesus, but you provide no evidence for it.
If you think the whole bible is to be taken literally then you should actually read Jesus' parables some time. And actually try to understand them. You should take effort to read the Bible better than the way you've read my posts.
As for Dawkins he's delusional - he claims stuff like "atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind". I'm sure you can find atheists with nonhealthy or nonindependent minds.
Seems like 24 hours was not enough for you to read my post, look up the meaning of maternal line and paternal line, and actually answer my question.
That is exactly what creation vs evolution is about. God vs No God. There is no need to believe in God if you believe God did nothing. It's all 1 big package.
Why would evolution mean that God did nothing? If God really achieves what he planned from the beginning, then evolution is part of God's ultimate trick shot.
You missed the point.
The other problem with the ribbon is it's harder to walk someone through it over the phone. You may have to resort to keyboard shortcuts - hopefully there's a keyboard shortcut for what that person wants to do.
FWIW, I've actually proposed a "phone support" interface: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/29001/
Reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k
Note: apparently this video was made by some people in Microsoft. So those bunch might actually have a clue when it comes to taste... But wouldn't that make their work rather painful for them?
Maybe the crappy people moved to their UI division.
So will Office 2020 keyboard shortcuts be Emacs style or vi?
I think the problem is overhyped. If you're an online site and some hacker already has the hashes and salts of user passwords to bruteforce, you're typically already so pwned it doesn't matter if you are using SHA2048 or whatever.
;).
For the same reason it doesn't matter that much even if I use 8 character passwords for noncritical online sites. I'd be flattered if the attackers are going to DDoS the site just to crack my password via the site's login page! If the site is famous enough I might even have enough warning to switch to a longer password when the DDoS attack hits the news
Whereas if they are bruteforcing my password offline - it means the site has already been compromised. And they are likely to be able to access the rest of my data in that site, possibly do actions using my account and perhaps with a bit more effort get the plaintext of my password the next time I log in.
So use different passwords for different sites, don't use passwords that are too short or obvious that they can be bruteforced online, but don't sweat making them super long unless its important or you're paranoid- since the site is more likely to get pwned before they bruteforce it online.
Getting pwned or compromised isn't a rare thing. I've signed up for different stuff using unique email addresses, and I've noticed spam coming to a few of those addresses. Maybe one day I'll have to create new slashdot/facebook/etc accounts when my current ones get pwned. Big deal.
For "offline" stuff like GPG, truecrypt, yes please do use strong and long passphrases.
And those who bother to sign up. You don't have to sign up for some games but in my short time there I got a fair number of "sign up" prompts.
Whereas this site doesn't require you to sign up: http://cognitivefun.net/
It's not completely chaotic- Google has the data. There are lots of google users that buy/sell in the stock market. And they do use Google to look up stuff. With the google ads "everywhere", Google knows what sites and pages they are reading, and can predict what they might buy or sell.
My guess is Google is choosing to not take advantage of the info they have in that way, otherwise those users might stop using Google.
Yeah, I had to debug and fix some stuff too. If the module is not too crap, fixing it is usually still faster than writing it from scratch in Lisp. Add in the OK modules that perl has and lisp doesn't and it still could be faster.
Even so many of the modules are written by programmers who are better than I am. That's how I improve the code quality of my program - most of the code is written by better programmers :).
Lisp does have Cliki: http://www.cliki.net/index
But compare the documentation of the average module.
Think of starting up a universe simulation on a computer. Those in the simulation experience time according to the simulation. Those outside the simulation can pause the simulation, or even restart it, and those in the simulation wouldn't know. The creation of a simulation can still occur even in the absence of simulation time.
Of course, this does not mean that our universe is a simulation or works like that. This is just to show how it can be possible for something to occur even if there's no time.