p.s. To do this some anywhere near accurately you'd need to include the risks of winning smaller prizes, and the fact that you need to sum across each play (which I forgot, but would still add up to only a couple of dollars, I suspect).
Now, at the same time, in the very very remote chance you were to actually win a jackpot, your life would change. If you won even a million dollars -- let alone tens of millions -- you might be able to retire now (depending on how old you are), go buy a farm, do almost anything you want monitarily.
It is standard industrial practice to correct for this with risk factors.
Risk=probability*cost.
In this case the cost would be negative, as you 'risk' gaining cash. The possible jackpots are in the order of millions (-cost) but the probability of winning them is also of the 1/millions magnitude (this is from UK experience, but I doubt lotteries are significantly different anywhere, I found a site which claims to have worked it out).
As you can see, the order of magnitude guess of the adjustment for the jackpot-potential gives a few cents, maybe a few tenths of cents, which compared to the sums laid out is negligible. This gives you an idea of how much significance you should give the concept of winning the jackpot.
i.e. Certain to lose c. $5000 1*$5000=$5000 Might win jackpot 1/8*10^7 * -$1*10^6 =(approx) -$0.01
OpenDNS were talking about adding this as a pay-for service, which would be cheaper and easier than setting up a dedicated Linux box, which is the normal proposed solution to any problem posed to Slashdot.
Incidentally, the thread I linked has some other solutions posted in it.
Just using a firewall; nice idea. You'd have to keep on top of DNS lookups though.
The router I got from my ISP actually allows you to do this by default. It also lets you redirect to another page, which would allow an error message to be displayed. Can you think of a way to do this with kit available in normal routers?
Ah, another complaint about UAC from someone who doesn't seem to have been within ten feet of a Vista box.
I find I don't get UAC prompts any more often than I get the equivalent on OSX or Linux boxes. Most Vista sessions I don't get prompted for admin privileges at all.
Perhaps if you're getting them more than twice a session you've got a virus and the damned thing is just doing its job!
...soldiers have the numbers and the firepower on their side.
Firepower, yes. Numbers? No. You'd have to have some nutty situation like the entire PLA of China invading Luxembourg to have soldiers outnumber civilians.
It doesn't excuse the slaughter of unarmed civilians, but it does give a greater insight as to why guerilla forces who can blend in with unarmed civilians are so powerful and cause so much paranoia.
I have a vague suspicion that a robot would get fewer false positives; humans are paranoid and value their own skins highly. As long as we don't add those survival values to robots they might do better. However, that would depend on making them very cheap.
With the benefit of the book right in front of me I can confirm that what it describes is referred to as polygamy in the text, but is actually polygyny.
However, polygyny is a a subset of polygamy, and polyandry is rare enough that in demotic English polygamy almost always means polygyny.
How about changing the password before you dump her? Since it's the work of 30s or less.
I went one step beyond that. I have an ex who still knows the password to my MSN account, but who assumed that I'd change it so thinks she doesn't. Ultimately, I couldn't care less if she hacks the account, it will be pretty painfully obvious.
I meant I was agreeing with parent post, and that the quote was supporting it. I have no idea what you're talking about or what it had to do with what I said.
I'm sure those young girls who are murdered by the state because they were raped are submitting to this "by agreement".
Before you start going islamophobic on my ass, I should point out that I'm an Atheist of Irish Catholic descent, so direct your bile elsewhere. I thought it was an interesting quote of commentary from inside a polygamist culture, and is hardly an endorsement of Islam's attitude to women, if you actually read it.
[Co-wife] is a terrible word-my pen almost halts in writing it-woman's mortal enemy...How many hearts has it broken, how many minds has it confused and homes destroyed, how much evil brought and innocents sacrificed...a terrible word laden with savagery and selfishness...Bear in mind that as you amuse yourself with your new bride you cause another's despair to flow in tears...
Exactly. Even recognising the concept of reflection doesn't mean one can understand the concept of one's own reflection (after all, I'm *here*, so I couldn't be *there* too).
Have you mirror mark tested your dog? You have to think of ways to differentiate between recognition and self-recognition, i.e. can your dog tell that it's itself or does it just recognise a non-threatening, non-responsive playmate, or even just a flat object?
Dogs are very sensitive to smell as a part of identity, I'm not sure a mirror would 'work' for them anyway.
Because it's a refutation of Google's business model (cloud based, for want of a better way of phrasing it) compared to Microsoft's (locally based tech).
I remain sceptical, as it it would seem that Google would have to be less reliable than local kit in order to make it worth switching back, even before you take into account extra costs for doing it locally. (How much more do you want to spend to get an extra hour per quarter in reliability?)
Nevertheless, IANASA so I don't know the data behind this decision.
"University of London" is a loose federation and should be treated as such, not all colleges are equal. This story should have been reported as originating from Queen Mary's College, University of London.
UL contains world-class institutions such as UCL, Kings and LSE, but it also contains places like Heythrop College, essentially a seminary in all but name.
This is exactly the issue that made my alma mater leave last year. When evaluating the quality of research, "University of London" is not a useful label.
I can't see how it does. It's just part of the language. My language derived from a highly Christian western European culture and has all the oddities and turns of phrase that you'd expect. In the words of Samuel L. Jackson
English motherfucker! Do you speak it?
If I'd capitalised god (i.e. God) then that would be a different matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Further addendum:
Risk factors are just expectation values repackaged for MBAs and governments.
Here's the meaty version for scientists, engineers and mathmos. The relevant equation is the summation of the probability density(mass in the US?) function of the discrete random variable.
p.s. To do this some anywhere near accurately you'd need to include the risks of winning smaller prizes, and the fact that you need to sum across each play (which I forgot, but would still add up to only a couple of dollars, I suspect).
Now, at the same time, in the very very remote chance you were to actually win a jackpot, your life would change. If you won even a million dollars -- let alone tens of millions -- you might be able to retire now (depending on how old you are), go buy a farm, do almost anything you want monitarily.
It is standard industrial practice to correct for this with risk factors.
Risk=probability*cost.
In this case the cost would be negative, as you 'risk' gaining cash. The possible jackpots are in the order of millions (-cost) but the probability of winning them is also of the 1/millions magnitude (this is from UK experience, but I doubt lotteries are significantly different anywhere, I found a site which claims to have worked it out).
As you can see, the order of magnitude guess of the adjustment for the jackpot-potential gives a few cents, maybe a few tenths of cents, which compared to the sums laid out is negligible. This gives you an idea of how much significance you should give the concept of winning the jackpot.
i.e. Certain to lose c. $5000
1*$5000=$5000
Might win jackpot
1/8*10^7 * -$1*10^6 =(approx) -$0.01
Total losses weighted for jackpot=$5000.
I don't think a demand-side squeeze will occur until half the western world is in jail.
OpenDNS were talking about adding this as a pay-for service, which would be cheaper and easier than setting up a dedicated Linux box, which is the normal proposed solution to any problem posed to Slashdot.
Incidentally, the thread I linked has some other solutions posted in it.
Just using a firewall; nice idea. You'd have to keep on top of DNS lookups though.
The router I got from my ISP actually allows you to do this by default. It also lets you redirect to another page, which would allow an error message to be displayed. Can you think of a way to do this with kit available in normal routers?
Ah, another complaint about UAC from someone who doesn't seem to have been within ten feet of a Vista box.
I find I don't get UAC prompts any more often than I get the equivalent on OSX or Linux boxes. Most Vista sessions I don't get prompted for admin privileges at all.
Perhaps if you're getting them more than twice a session you've got a virus and the damned thing is just doing its job!
Worryingly, this has the sheen of truth.
...soldiers have the numbers and the firepower on their side.
Firepower, yes. Numbers? No. You'd have to have some nutty situation like the entire PLA of China invading Luxembourg to have soldiers outnumber civilians.
It doesn't excuse the slaughter of unarmed civilians, but it does give a greater insight as to why guerilla forces who can blend in with unarmed civilians are so powerful and cause so much paranoia.
I have a vague suspicion that a robot would get fewer false positives; humans are paranoid and value their own skins highly. As long as we don't add those survival values to robots they might do better. However, that would depend on making them very cheap.
With the benefit of the book right in front of me I can confirm that what it describes is referred to as polygamy in the text, but is actually polygyny.
However, polygyny is a a subset of polygamy, and polyandry is rare enough that in demotic English polygamy almost always means polygyny.
Nevertheless, your pedantry is acknowledged.
Here's a ker-razy idea;
How about changing the password before you dump her? Since it's the work of 30s or less.
I went one step beyond that. I have an ex who still knows the password to my MSN account, but who assumed that I'd change it so thinks she doesn't. Ultimately, I couldn't care less if she hacks the account, it will be pretty painfully obvious.
I meant I was agreeing with parent post, and that the quote was supporting it. I have no idea what you're talking about or what it had to do with what I said.
I'm sure those young girls who are murdered by the state because they were raped are submitting to this "by agreement".
Before you start going islamophobic on my ass, I should point out that I'm an Atheist of Irish Catholic descent, so direct your bile elsewhere. I thought it was an interesting quote of commentary from inside a polygamist culture, and is hardly an endorsement of Islam's attitude to women, if you actually read it.
[Co-wife] is a terrible word-my pen almost halts in writing it-woman's mortal enemy...How many hearts has it broken, how many minds has it confused and homes destroyed, how much evil brought and innocents sacrificed...a terrible word laden with savagery and selfishness...Bear in mind that as you amuse yourself with your new bride you cause another's despair to flow in tears...
Malak Hifni Nassef, as quoted in A Very Short Introduction to Islam, in the chapter on women, pp96.
This is by way of agreement, I thought it was one of the most harrowing descriptions of polygamy I've read, though I haven't read many.
Exactly. Even recognising the concept of reflection doesn't mean one can understand the concept of one's own reflection (after all, I'm *here*, so I couldn't be *there* too).
Have you mirror mark tested your dog? You have to think of ways to differentiate between recognition and self-recognition, i.e. can your dog tell that it's itself or does it just recognise a non-threatening, non-responsive playmate, or even just a flat object?
Dogs are very sensitive to smell as a part of identity, I'm not sure a mirror would 'work' for them anyway.
You could have one universe exploring a phase space of possible states with time, in which case this research is still relevant. (SciAm)
I think we all do. Let us join together in the harmony of spiritual beliefs.
I was saying that you were assuming that people were mispronouncing 'voila' when in fact they were giving a prayer of thanks...etc.
Because it's a refutation of Google's business model (cloud based, for want of a better way of phrasing it) compared to Microsoft's (locally based tech).
I remain sceptical, as it it would seem that Google would have to be less reliable than local kit in order to make it worth switching back, even before you take into account extra costs for doing it locally. (How much more do you want to spend to get an extra hour per quarter in reliability?)
Nevertheless, IANASA so I don't know the data behind this decision.
(Which is not to say that Mary's is bad, it's rather good, but the story should have reported as from Queen Mary's, not from UL)
"University of London" is a loose federation and should be treated as such, not all colleges are equal. This story should have been reported as originating from Queen Mary's College, University of London.
UL contains world-class institutions such as UCL, Kings and LSE, but it also contains places like Heythrop College, essentially a seminary in all but name.
This is exactly the issue that made my alma mater leave last year. When evaluating the quality of research, "University of London" is not a useful label.
This one post is the absolute answer to the question.
You're confused with a prayer of thanks for the sun not being too hot in Australia.
I can't see how it does. It's just part of the language. My language derived from a highly Christian western European culture and has all the oddities and turns of phrase that you'd expect. In the words of Samuel L. Jackson
English motherfucker! Do you speak it?
If I'd capitalised god (i.e. God) then that would be a different matter.