Arguments:
assumptions: dict, for keys see spec #54
Returns:
How much money you will make
"""
# BUG 91423: was sometimes giving poor results
# workaround fix is to ignore assumptions.
return "Millions and millions"
But if they made two endings and and a way of picking which one to use somewhere in the middle of the movie then it is no longer art, but a "mere" game?
Or does it take two branches? three branches? forty branches? Before it becomes a "game" and hence not art.
Except part of the reasons for gun control is to reduce "crimes of passion" where the husband shoots the wife instead of punching her. And have an extra things to charge the criminal with is useful - means you don't have to wait for them to shoot the gun.
Of course in the US, that's all irrelevant anyway. It could be 100% true that gun control would make life better for everyone and it would still be unconstitutional in the US. Of course the constitution is amendable, but good luck with that.
Whereas when I taught, every single one of the 600+ student's submissions were hand marked for style (as well as machine marked for "gives the right answers to the hidden tests").
Of course style was pretty damn simple - use a loop instead of copy pasting the same line 20 times, actually use functions and not one large main(), use sane variable names. Could probably have been mostly covered with some lint variant, though feedback from a person marking is useful in itself.
It'll be even better when PETA finds out about this.
Put cow in tiny box which is sloped so they keep walking up hill, shove food in its face, hook the belt they are turning while walking up hill to a generator which in turn powers the milking machine that is hooked to the cow's udders.
They milk themselves, while being put on a forced march.
That should generate entertainment in the form of PETA ravings.
The cows around your parts must be completely different than the lazy fucks around here.
Sure they take a step now and then when their mouth can't reach anything edible anymore, but I wouldn't really call it "walking".
Just ask an Intelligent Designer, they'll explain that cows are so lazy they only bothered walking part way up the hill when the flood came and hence were fossilized in the middle instead of at the top, like the less lazy people.
It's a public forum, responses that aren't exactly to the questioners situation are no Off Topic. They are why a public forum is better than asking people for private answers.
Just because you read a tone doesn't mean the tone was there let alone intended to be there.
The don't sell consoles with that feature anymore, so it has nothing to do with subsidies and so on - removing said feature on old already bought machines doesn't change that.
Maybe it costs money to support the Other OS feature and not break it with future updates, but that also has nothing to do with subsidizing the price.
Because only answers solely for the original poster should be accepted. Answers to help other people from having the same problem in the future should be avoided.
In fact why do we bother posting to a public web site, just email your answers to the poster.
He who wins the most money is the winner. It has a really simple score keeping system, with clear winners and losers
Of course the most skilled player doesn't always win - there is a large element of chance. So determining who won is not the same as determining who is most skilled. However, because there's a large amount of luck (and it is a large amount, I'm certainly not claiming the best player always wins) doesn't mean there is no skill at all.
And folding when you would have won is "losing" that hand (folding anytime but preflop with no antes/blinds is), but it is not "losing" in trying to determine who has the most skill. There are plenty of situations where folding the winning hand is the *correct* play and not doing so would be an indication of having less "skill".
For example, you are pretty sure from the way the player has played in the past that there's a 30% chance you have the best hand and a 70% chance you don't and the other player just made a pot sized bet and assuming he's all-in (or you only have that exact number of chips left yourself) then folding is the correct play even if it happened to be that 30% of the time. You aren't measuring against "what would you do if you could see their cards".
Of course there is no way to test and falsify, there's too much guess work involved. You don't actually know what the percentages for your opponents holding is, you are working off just the information you have seen in the past. You didn't see every hand, and he could have decided to completely change his way of playing 2 minutes ago.
But I don't think the existance of a (large) chance component changes that the skill involved is still "traditional".
The issue with poker is that the chance component is huge, and overwhelms the skill in lots of cases. Plus a lot of the skill involved looks like luck.
The guy who hits a set on the flop or makes a flush on the river or jams pre-flop with nothing and doesn't get called looks like he got lucky, but there's skill (knowledge really, but I think the terms are the same in this context, chess skill is all knowledge for example) in determining that the returns beat the odds and hence there's a positive expectation
It's usually pretty simple to have some of you pay deposited in a different account, or an automatic transfer setup after you get paid.
Though I did screw up my taxes this year, they refunded me $1000. Usually I owe them about $5000 (which I've been earning interest for a year). I overcompensated for getting close to being hit with a penalty last time...
There's more to poker than "reading", it has multiple levels of skills.
If two people are playing and neither of them knows how to play at all it'll be pure chance, whomever gets the best cards will win.
If one of them know some pretty simple probability (either book knowledge or just from experience of seeing what happens), they'll have an edge.
If one knows basic probability, and the other knows conditional probability they'll have an edge.
If one knows conditional probability but the other also knows game theory, they'll have an edge.
Then there's the reading you mention, which operated in parallel. Though I would argue that simple things like observing (and remembering) betting patterns are significantly more useful than observing biological cues.
So only boring as shit activities count as games of skill to you then? No point doing them if one player is always going to win.
Basketball, baseball, football, cricket, tennis, golf, darts, chess, wrestling, boxing, go, bridge, poker, backgammon, street fighter 2, modern warfare 2, counter strike, and so and so on. None of these are games of skill? After all it's uncommon for baseball series to be won 4-0, etc. Extremely unlikely for a pitcher to get a strike every pitch or a batter to get a hit every pitch.
It reports that 24% of sex offenders were convicted of a new crime within 3 years, while 48% of non-sex offenders were. So non-sex offenders reoffend more often than sex offenders. And child molesters in particular have a reconviction rate of 20%.
Of course that's for any crime, for sex crimes in particular 3.5% of the child molesters were convicted for a new sex crime (not necessarily aginst a child) - which is the same rate as the generic sex offender category.
The exact same thing can't happen in reality - all it takes is 1 cent to loop around the debt cycle 10000 times and it is all cleared out.
And no that isn't what happens with a gold standard, a money supply that doesn't expand at the same rate as the economy results in price deflation. If it doesn't shrink at the same rate you have price inflation.
Now some people think deflation is the end of the world and results in economic investment plummeting and a self perpetuating cycle of doom, but that's unrelated to a chain of debt.
Slashdot Mirror
def getPerformance(self, assumptions):
"""Return performance estimates.
Arguments:
assumptions: dict, for keys see spec #54
Returns:
How much money you will make
"""
# BUG 91423: was sometimes giving poor results
# workaround fix is to ignore assumptions.
return "Millions and millions"
But if they made two endings and and a way of picking which one to use somewhere in the middle of the movie then it is no longer art, but a "mere" game?
Or does it take two branches? three branches? forty branches? Before it becomes a "game" and hence not art.
Except part of the reasons for gun control is to reduce "crimes of passion" where the husband shoots the wife instead of punching her. And have an extra things to charge the criminal with is useful - means you don't have to wait for them to shoot the gun.
Of course in the US, that's all irrelevant anyway. It could be 100% true that gun control would make life better for everyone and it would still be unconstitutional in the US. Of course the constitution is amendable, but good luck with that.
Whereas when I taught, every single one of the 600+ student's submissions were hand marked for style (as well as machine marked for "gives the right answers to the hidden tests").
Of course style was pretty damn simple - use a loop instead of copy pasting the same line 20 times, actually use functions and not one large main(), use sane variable names. Could probably have been mostly covered with some lint variant, though feedback from a person marking is useful in itself.
Clearly those cows were trying to catch and eat you.
Their evil murderous instincts overcome their lazy instincts occasionally.
Almost as bad as rabbits.
It'll be even better when PETA finds out about this.
Put cow in tiny box which is sloped so they keep walking up hill, shove food in its face, hook the belt they are turning while walking up hill to a generator which in turn powers the milking machine that is hooked to the cow's udders.
They milk themselves, while being put on a forced march.
That should generate entertainment in the form of PETA ravings.
The cows around your parts must be completely different than the lazy fucks around here.
Sure they take a step now and then when their mouth can't reach anything edible anymore, but I wouldn't really call it "walking".
Just ask an Intelligent Designer, they'll explain that cows are so lazy they only bothered walking part way up the hill when the flood came and hence were fossilized in the middle instead of at the top, like the less lazy people.
It's a public forum, responses that aren't exactly to the questioners situation are no Off Topic. They are why a public forum is better than asking people for private answers.
Just because you read a tone doesn't mean the tone was there let alone intended to be there.
The don't sell consoles with that feature anymore, so it has nothing to do with subsidies and so on - removing said feature on old already bought machines doesn't change that.
Maybe it costs money to support the Other OS feature and not break it with future updates, but that also has nothing to do with subsidizing the price.
Because only answers solely for the original poster should be accepted. Answers to help other people from having the same problem in the future should be avoided.
In fact why do we bother posting to a public web site, just email your answers to the poster.
He who wins the most money is the winner. It has a really simple score keeping system, with clear winners and losers
Of course the most skilled player doesn't always win - there is a large element of chance. So determining who won is not the same as determining who is most skilled. However, because there's a large amount of luck (and it is a large amount, I'm certainly not claiming the best player always wins) doesn't mean there is no skill at all.
And folding when you would have won is "losing" that hand (folding anytime but preflop with no antes/blinds is), but it is not "losing" in trying to determine who has the most skill. There are plenty of situations where folding the winning hand is the *correct* play and not doing so would be an indication of having less "skill".
For example, you are pretty sure from the way the player has played in the past that there's a 30% chance you have the best hand and a 70% chance you don't and the other player just made a pot sized bet and assuming he's all-in (or you only have that exact number of chips left yourself) then folding is the correct play even if it happened to be that 30% of the time. You aren't measuring against "what would you do if you could see their cards".
Of course there is no way to test and falsify, there's too much guess work involved. You don't actually know what the percentages for your opponents holding is, you are working off just the information you have seen in the past. You didn't see every hand, and he could have decided to completely change his way of playing 2 minutes ago.
But I don't think the existance of a (large) chance component changes that the skill involved is still "traditional".
The issue with poker is that the chance component is huge, and overwhelms the skill in lots of cases. Plus a lot of the skill involved looks like luck.
The guy who hits a set on the flop or makes a flush on the river or jams pre-flop with nothing and doesn't get called looks like he got lucky, but there's skill (knowledge really, but I think the terms are the same in this context, chess skill is all knowledge for example) in determining that the returns beat the odds and hence there's a positive expectation
It's usually pretty simple to have some of you pay deposited in a different account, or an automatic transfer setup after you get paid.
Though I did screw up my taxes this year, they refunded me $1000. Usually I owe them about $5000 (which I've been earning interest for a year). I overcompensated for getting close to being hit with a penalty last time...
There's more to poker than "reading", it has multiple levels of skills.
If two people are playing and neither of them knows how to play at all it'll be pure chance, whomever gets the best cards will win.
If one of them know some pretty simple probability (either book knowledge or just from experience of seeing what happens), they'll have an edge.
If one knows basic probability, and the other knows conditional probability they'll have an edge.
If one knows conditional probability but the other also knows game theory, they'll have an edge.
Then there's the reading you mention, which operated in parallel. Though I would argue that simple things like observing (and remembering) betting patterns are significantly more useful than observing biological cues.
I mean, there are even people who manage to gain statistical edge in rock-paper-scissors tournaments.
They are skilled at cheating, and turning those papers into rocks after the opponents scissors is revealed.
So only boring as shit activities count as games of skill to you then? No point doing them if one player is always going to win.
Basketball, baseball, football, cricket, tennis, golf, darts, chess, wrestling, boxing, go, bridge, poker, backgammon, street fighter 2, modern warfare 2, counter strike, and so and so on. None of these are games of skill? After all it's uncommon for baseball series to be won 4-0, etc. Extremely unlikely for a pitcher to get a strike every pitch or a batter to get a hit every pitch.
Millions of people who would have never heard what Singh said now have.
Singh has lost more than them, but the BCA would have been better off doing nothing.
I realize interest rates are low at the moment, but you really feel the need to loan the government money at 0%?
Your money management skills are so bad that you can't put some money in saving account instead of spending it?
I have no need to reward children.
If the goal is to get them to read more books and paying them money is the most cost effective approach then why would you not do that?
The reason for wanting them to read more books is completely irrelevant to the method used to make it happen.
Can you back up your claim or are you just making it up?
The post you are replying to links to some stats that possibly contradict it after all, and you provided no evidence.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism also seems to contradict your claims.
It reports that 24% of sex offenders were convicted of a new crime within 3 years, while 48% of non-sex offenders were. So non-sex offenders reoffend more often than sex offenders. And child molesters in particular have a reconviction rate of 20%.
Of course that's for any crime, for sex crimes in particular 3.5% of the child molesters were convicted for a new sex crime (not necessarily aginst a child) - which is the same rate as the generic sex offender category.
I don't know who Lebron is.
I know what basketball is.
I'm not making shit up.
I'm pretty sure I'm not a borderline retard.
Typically "sport" is reserved for things that require physical prowess of some form.
Things that don't are typically called "games".
So tennis is a sport, while chess is a game. Doesn't matter that there are in fact spectators for both that are interested in the outcome.
Did they not learn that reporters are supposed to report the news not be the news. Damn celebrity culture!
You should try reading children books, might help to improve your comprehension of simple stories.
The exact same thing can't happen in reality - all it takes is 1 cent to loop around the debt cycle 10000 times and it is all cleared out.
And no that isn't what happens with a gold standard, a money supply that doesn't expand at the same rate as the economy results in price deflation. If it doesn't shrink at the same rate you have price inflation.
Now some people think deflation is the end of the world and results in economic investment plummeting and a self perpetuating cycle of doom, but that's unrelated to a chain of debt.
Because unlike all the other sections being discussed in an online format, the Your Rights section isn't allowed to be printed out and read offline.