Actually, if you are particularly evil, and you happen to know that the person you're cheating off of hasn't used any kind of repository, just introduce some tricky bugs that keep the program from running properly.
The kind of bugs that you'd fix if you wanted the program to look like your own.
That way you get your okay grade, and the guy you cheated off of gets booted for cheating off of you. After all - if you are willing to steal their work, why not kill their career as well?
I do not modify my semi-auto rifles to full auto, as regardless of whether I think that should be my right, it's a serious felony where I live, and I choose to not take that risk.
Yes... because my cell phone is very a dangerous weapon and a threat to those around me, especially if I modify it beyond what the law allows.
I don't know the argument for outlawing fully automatic rifles in your state, but I'm pretty sure the argument is one of public safety rather than economic.
Nor do I modify my car such that it won't pass relevant smog tests
Again, public safety and environmental concerns weigh in here. The reason they have pollution standards is to reduce the damage to the health of the people around you.
Comparing a polluting device or a weapon to that of a fucking cellphone is downright ridiculous.
Well, since I live in a socialist country, I obviously hate you for your freedoms, but don't you worry! Your politicians are hard at work at solving that by removing all your freedoms.
You think that's bad? Here's something to think about. It is illegal to import goods into the USA that have been manufactured by prison labour. Not just for sale, but also things that you might have on you during your vacation. Oh, and this goes for interstate as well.
But the US uses prison labour to manufacture various things. Are license plates still made in prisons? If so, that does seem to go against this particular law every single time you cross a state border. How about all the circuit boards that IBM and Compaq have or used to have made by prison labour?
Even if you could get all of the people on board to make a statement about acceptable risk then in the off chance of a crash the survivors would sue
Screw the survivers. The plane crashes into an apartment block. The obvious conclusion from the NTSB is that the crash caused by the volcanic ash breaking the engine, plugging the pitot tubes, taking out all electrical systems and making the cockpit windows opaque.
I'm sure the jury in any kind of lawsuit resulting from this crash will agree that the fact that the passengers signed a waiver means that everything was fine.
One of Denmark's leading national news papers, Politiken, has a really fun review of Settlers 7: Don't buy this outstanding game! (Danish article Translated article) Even rated the game 5 out of 6 but the DRM 1 out of 6
(and this is assuming it breaks off before you impact the ground)Well... there's IS a pretty good chance that it will at least break off WHEN you impact on the ground.
Actually makes me curious. What is the cost of the average email? I don't mean storage etc., just the cost to transmit it, and here just ignore sunk costs for equipment.
Or put it another way - how many emails can you send per Wh? Back in 2003, Berkley said it was about 59 kB.
I think it's fairly safe to say that most email is sent locally. I.e. there is a lot more email being sent a dozens of km than thousands of km. For the sake of argument, let's say they are sent 75 km on average.
So... what is the energy cost in sending a 59 kB message 75 km? It's bound to be very low. Probably on the scale of 1 joule or something like that, which is 0.000'277... watt hours.
Once we have that number, we can multiply it with the daily number of spam messages. In 2007 that was 100 billion.
So, if my estimate of 1 joule/message is correct, then we're looking at 27.77... MWh daily. Since this is mostly born by companies who get bulk discount, we can probably figure along the lines of 0.10 Euro/kWh, so we're not even looking at huge costs in energy at 2,777.78 Euro a day.
To be honest, I was expecting a MUCH higher cost. Unless the energy needed is off by three+ orders of magnitude, it's not that bad. I suspect people drop more money than that daily all across the world.
I know that there are countries in Europe that have lower VAT rates for computers, as opposed to game consoles.
I can't speak for other countries (I live in Sweden and spent 31 years in Denmark), but we have a minimum of 15% VAT in the EU, but each country can pick one or two groups of merchandise that gets a lower tax.
The VAT isn't the issue though - import tariffs do. And the import tariff is the same for laptops and game consoles - namely 0%. Granted, you need to pay the VAT for the item as well, but that doesn't affect the 'regular computer vs game console' argument.
Speed before the encounter was 15.083 +- 0.019 km/s, and afterwards it was 14.208 +- 0.005 km/s. This is the slowest one on the list, and it would travel 12,600 km in 15 minutes. Even at half that speed, there is no way you can observe anything at 6,000 km distance, unless it's straight up, in which case it's not glowing any more and thus impossible to see.
According to the Wikipedia entry on the SR-71, the canopy would top 300C, but then goes on to say this:
In addition, at Mach 3.2 cruise the external heat rise due to the compression of air on the vehicle creating a surface heat well above 500 F (260 C)[34] and would even heat up the inside of the windshield to 250 F (120 C) and cooling of the crew members was vital
But at what temperatures will a rock meteor start melting, let alone burn? Lava is typically 700 to 1,200 C, but that's still not burning up. The tiles on the space shuttle hits about 1,300 C, and they're not burning up - they're just causing the air to burn. Though I suspect it's actually a matter of the air being super heated into plasma, as the space shuttle and other re-entry vehicles are cut off from radio traffic while they're 'burning' through the atmosphere. That makes no sense if it's a fire, but makes perfect sense with plasma.
However, I am certainly willing to accept that I am in the wrong about the temperatures, but I haven't seen anything that would indicate that it is possible for a meteor to stay in the Earth's atmosphere for 15 minutes without it being on the ground.
I'm pretty sure Palin believes the sky is a carpet painted by God. Seriously... space station? How will they make it stay up there, nail it to the carpet?
Yes, that is sort of my point. I'm extremely sceptical that it is possible to see any meteor for 15 minutes, unless it has landed and you're staring at it.
It's entry speed is a minimum of 11 km/s. Obviously it will slow down, but what is the longest possible route it can take through the atmosphere? I.e. we know the height of the atmosphere that matters (as far as I remember, they don't start burning until they're below 90 km).
And even if completely unrealistic, we'd also need it to pretty much skim the surface (i.e. 0 km) for it to have the longest trail.
Essentially this gives us a triangle with a opposite of 6,371 km, hypotenuse of 6,461 km. This gives us an adjacent of sqrt(6,461^2 - 6,371^2) = 1,074 km.
Now, this is the longest possible distance it can travel through the atmosphere from straight overhead until it leaves the atmosphere. A realistic height is say... 25 km. Now we're looking at sqrt(6,461^2 - 6,396^2) = 914 km.
Again, the lower limit of speed is way above Mach 1. It won't be burning at Mach 1. It's not even burning at Mach 3, as the SR71 doesn't do that, at at Mach 3 you're covering 918 km in 15 minutes, which is longer than the distance traveled. Granted, I haven't included the added distance from being pulled into a temporary orbit, because... well, I haven't a clue how to. And this is an overhead to atmospheric exit distance, not a path that would leave an observer to believe that it isn't moving. To cover that distance, you'd need to at a minimum be pulled into low earth orbit, which requires a speed of 7.7 km/s, and at that speed we're covering the unrealistic 1,074 km in 139 seconds. And since we don't have any kind of engine on the meteor, it'd have to end up at that speed, making the average speed even higher and the time in atmosphere even shorter.
This is why I'm very sceptical about the claim, that you could see a non-moving meteor for 15 minutes. It's quite simply going to be burned up, out of the atmosphere or in the ground after 15 minutes.
But you can still do nothing but lose just because you're getting crap cards - or win just because you keep getting awesome cards.
You can also lose because you think your opponent has better cards than you/makes bets that are unprofitable to pay off, and win because you make your opponent think you have the best hand/make bets that are unprofitable for him/her to pay off.
That is where skill comes in. If you just deal out the hands and ignore what happens during the hand (i.e. dealing out the entire hand), sure - luck is a factor, but that evens out over a long session.
But making your opponent lay down the best hand, when you can't beat anything - that requires skill. Skill in knowing when to make that bluff, knowing what opponent you can do it against, reading your opponent. And getting paid off when your opponent does similar things also requires skill.
Suppose we are playing Texas Hold'em. Are you really willing to pay off a bet on a board of [Ah, 3h, 6h, 2h, 9d] if you don't have any hearts in your hand (let's say Ad, 7c)? If we're just playing heads up, we know there is a 35% chance that your opponent has a heart in his hand. If the pot is 100 cents, what size bet is it reasonable to pay off? You can only beat any pair smaller than an ace. There are straights (4,5) and flush (any heart) options out there, as well as some slightly questionable two pairs.
Figuring out what price is acceptable for a long term profit requires math skills. And you also need skill to figure out, if you can make a bet that will win you the pot, even if you don't have anything. Suppose you were dealt Tc, 8s in the same situation. It is unlikely that you will win by showdown, as more than 50% of the hands that are possible to be dealt are better than yours. In other words, you can only win the pot by making your opponent lay down his hand.
What kind of bet, if any, would make sense? Should you just muck your cards? Or should you call, because your opponent could have a busted straight draw, like 4,7 (no heart)? You can beat 4,7. Can you make your opponent lay down KQ? KT? TJ? Can you make him lay down AK? After all, if you make a bet, you can make it look like you made the straight or the flush, in which case his pair of aces aren't any good.
Doing the right thing once - luck. Doing it constantly - skill. Yes, you need luck, because you can't just bluff all the time. You are going to get called once in a while, and then you need your cards to hold up. You also need to do the calling from time to time, and you need the cards to be on your side for that.
But there is actually a fairly simple way to demonstrate that skill plays a role. Simply line up some of the best cash game players in the world against people who haven't played the game before. Give them a massive stack of chips (5,000 big blinds should be good), and have them play a huge amount of hands. Let's go with heads-up, 10 pros against 10 new players. 5,000 hands in each match-up. And let's cap the pot sizes to lower the variance/luck factor. Say 100 BB per player. That way you can lose 40 massive pots and still have plenty of play, as you can only lose 10% of your chip-stack.
That'd give us a sample size of 50,000 hands. We can't merely compare the number of hands won - that doesn't really tell the story. You can win 80% of the hands and still come out the loser. But number of hands won, chip stacks, average number of chips won per pot, number of times the worst hand has made the best hand fold etc.
This kind of setup should give a much better picture of the level of skill involved. And to avoid having the rookies throw the game, let's bring in the people who say it's entirely a game of luck for a similar line-up as well. Now we have a sample size of 100,000 hands total. Motivation is a factor as well, but I suspect telling the pros that if they lose, poker will be banned, no exceptions, will be quite a motivator. And let's pay off the non-pros as well... a prize of say... 100 US$ for every BB you're ahead after the 5,000 hands.
Now, I doubt it'll end up with the pros having all the money. But I'd be surprised if it was anything lower than 60/40 in their favour.
15 minutes is a looooong time. For how long would you be able to make out a jet air-liner?
Since the meteor was making multiple sonic booms (realistically that's really bits breaking off and making their own booms), we're looking at a minimum of mach 1. That means it'll cover an absolute minimum distance of 306 km from the time it was first seen as standing still until it disappeared. Now, obviously the object needs to be at a fair distance already, for that to be the case. It can't start overhead, as that will mean it's moving.
Also, 306 km is a HUGE distance. The smallest detail we can make out are about 1 arc minute. At 306 km that is 89 meters. Granted, it's glowing/burning, so that should help, but how much? 10 fold? Would you be able to make out a 9 meter fireball at 300 km?
And I'm rather curious to know, just how far a meteor would actually travel during those 15 minutes.
It may well be that 'excited delirium' is the cause of death. What I want to know though, is just how many people have been diagnosed with 'excited delirium' outside of a mortuary? And what is the percentage of sufferers of 'excited delirium' who haven't been tasered? Something like this:
In the year 2008, 600 people were diagnosed with excited delirium. 450 died from it, and of those 125 people were tasered. The remaining 325 deaths occurred in police custody. Of the 150 survivors 149 were in the custody of the police at the time of the incident, and the last victim was getting the shit beat out of him by six people in a back alley.
All numbers pulled out of my ass.
But somehow I doubt we'll see any kind of statistics like this.
Also, I'm curious to know what kind of commonalities there are between the sufferers of excited delirium. Obviously it's some kind of disease or illness, so what kind of medications can you take to fight it? Are there any preventative measures, like diet? Or is the trick simply to avoid getting tasered or beaten up by the police?
Possibly. But like I said, I have neither an iPhone or a webserver, so I can't tell you what differences there are in the requests presented to a server.
My point was that the post I was replying to was inferring that browsers can use JavaScript... and if Webkit is the only app that can do that, then it is incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'll find it's less about the size of the missile and more about the yield of the warhead.
One of the advantages to 10+ Mton nuclear warheads, is that you don't need to be very precise
Well, NASA has referred to the shuttle's flight profile as a flying brick.
That pretty much says it all.
Actually, if you are particularly evil, and you happen to know that the person you're cheating off of hasn't used any kind of repository, just introduce some tricky bugs that keep the program from running properly.
The kind of bugs that you'd fix if you wanted the program to look like your own.
That way you get your okay grade, and the guy you cheated off of gets booted for cheating off of you. After all - if you are willing to steal their work, why not kill their career as well?
Yes ... because my cell phone is very a dangerous weapon and a threat to those around me, especially if I modify it beyond what the law allows.
I don't know the argument for outlawing fully automatic rifles in your state, but I'm pretty sure the argument is one of public safety rather than economic.
Again, public safety and environmental concerns weigh in here. The reason they have pollution standards is to reduce the damage to the health of the people around you.
Comparing a polluting device or a weapon to that of a fucking cellphone is downright ridiculous.
Well, since I live in a socialist country, I obviously hate you for your freedoms, but don't you worry! Your politicians are hard at work at solving that by removing all your freedoms.
You think that's bad? Here's something to think about. It is illegal to import goods into the USA that have been manufactured by prison labour. Not just for sale, but also things that you might have on you during your vacation. Oh, and this goes for interstate as well.
But the US uses prison labour to manufacture various things. Are license plates still made in prisons? If so, that does seem to go against this particular law every single time you cross a state border. How about all the circuit boards that IBM and Compaq have or used to have made by prison labour?
Screw the survivers. The plane crashes into an apartment block. The obvious conclusion from the NTSB is that the crash caused by the volcanic ash breaking the engine, plugging the pitot tubes, taking out all electrical systems and making the cockpit windows opaque.
I'm sure the jury in any kind of lawsuit resulting from this crash will agree that the fact that the passengers signed a waiver means that everything was fine.
One of Denmark's leading national news papers, Politiken, has a really fun review of Settlers 7:
Don't buy this outstanding game! (Danish article Translated article)
Even rated the game 5 out of 6 but the DRM 1 out of 6
And then they followed it up with one entitled " New Copy Protection Punishes The Law Abiding " (Machine translated article)
Well, yeah, but Sweden is a socialist country, and socialism's baaad, mmmmkay!
Actually makes me curious. What is the cost of the average email? I don't mean storage etc., just the cost to transmit it, and here just ignore sunk costs for equipment.
Or put it another way - how many emails can you send per Wh? Back in 2003, Berkley said it was about 59 kB.
I think it's fairly safe to say that most email is sent locally. I.e. there is a lot more email being sent a dozens of km than thousands of km. For the sake of argument, let's say they are sent 75 km on average.
So ... what is the energy cost in sending a 59 kB message 75 km? It's bound to be very low. Probably on the scale of 1 joule or something like that, which is 0.000'277... watt hours.
Once we have that number, we can multiply it with the daily number of spam messages. In 2007 that was 100 billion.
So, if my estimate of 1 joule/message is correct, then we're looking at 27.77... MWh daily. Since this is mostly born by companies who get bulk discount, we can probably figure along the lines of 0.10 Euro/kWh, so we're not even looking at huge costs in energy at 2,777.78 Euro a day.
To be honest, I was expecting a MUCH higher cost. Unless the energy needed is off by three+ orders of magnitude, it's not that bad. I suspect people drop more money than that daily all across the world.
I can't speak for other countries (I live in Sweden and spent 31 years in Denmark), but we have a minimum of 15% VAT in the EU, but each country can pick one or two groups of merchandise that gets a lower tax.
The VAT isn't the issue though - import tariffs do. And the import tariff is the same for laptops and game consoles - namely 0%. Granted, you need to pay the VAT for the item as well, but that doesn't affect the 'regular computer vs game console' argument.
Just to expand it a bit, I just stumbled across this link:
The Great Daylight 1972 Fireball.
One of four scientifically observed Earth grazing fireballs.
Speed before the encounter was 15.083 +- 0.019 km/s, and afterwards it was 14.208 +- 0.005 km/s. This is the slowest one on the list, and it would travel 12,600 km in 15 minutes. Even at half that speed, there is no way you can observe anything at 6,000 km distance, unless it's straight up, in which case it's not glowing any more and thus impossible to see.
According to the Wikipedia entry on the SR-71, the canopy would top 300C, but then goes on to say this:
But at what temperatures will a rock meteor start melting, let alone burn? Lava is typically 700 to 1,200 C, but that's still not burning up. The tiles on the space shuttle hits about 1,300 C, and they're not burning up - they're just causing the air to burn. Though I suspect it's actually a matter of the air being super heated into plasma, as the space shuttle and other re-entry vehicles are cut off from radio traffic while they're 'burning' through the atmosphere. That makes no sense if it's a fire, but makes perfect sense with plasma.
However, I am certainly willing to accept that I am in the wrong about the temperatures, but I haven't seen anything that would indicate that it is possible for a meteor to stay in the Earth's atmosphere for 15 minutes without it being on the ground.
Those aren't women. They're just men dressed up as women. The hint is in the term. Lady-BOY
Women have erections?!?
I really want to know where you grew up, so I can avoid women from there!
Another thing ... where is the substantiating claims in that article? It's just some guy claiming it.
There are no links to any other reports, no pictures to substantiate the claim, nothing.
In other news, people in Iowa have seen purple flying pigs carrying off an SUV.
I'm pretty sure Palin believes the sky is a carpet painted by God. Seriously ... space station? How will they make it stay up there, nail it to the carpet?
Yes, that is sort of my point. I'm extremely sceptical that it is possible to see any meteor for 15 minutes, unless it has landed and you're staring at it.
It's entry speed is a minimum of 11 km/s. Obviously it will slow down, but what is the longest possible route it can take through the atmosphere? I.e. we know the height of the atmosphere that matters (as far as I remember, they don't start burning until they're below 90 km).
And even if completely unrealistic, we'd also need it to pretty much skim the surface (i.e. 0 km) for it to have the longest trail.
Essentially this gives us a triangle with a opposite of 6,371 km, hypotenuse of 6,461 km. This gives us an adjacent of sqrt(6,461^2 - 6,371^2) = 1,074 km.
Now, this is the longest possible distance it can travel through the atmosphere from straight overhead until it leaves the atmosphere. A realistic height is say ... 25 km. Now we're looking at sqrt(6,461^2 - 6,396^2) = 914 km.
Again, the lower limit of speed is way above Mach 1. It won't be burning at Mach 1. It's not even burning at Mach 3, as the SR71 doesn't do that, at at Mach 3 you're covering 918 km in 15 minutes, which is longer than the distance traveled. Granted, I haven't included the added distance from being pulled into a temporary orbit, because ... well, I haven't a clue how to. And this is an overhead to atmospheric exit distance, not a path that would leave an observer to believe that it isn't moving. To cover that distance, you'd need to at a minimum be pulled into low earth orbit, which requires a speed of 7.7 km/s, and at that speed we're covering the unrealistic 1,074 km in 139 seconds. And since we don't have any kind of engine on the meteor, it'd have to end up at that speed, making the average speed even higher and the time in atmosphere even shorter.
This is why I'm very sceptical about the claim, that you could see a non-moving meteor for 15 minutes. It's quite simply going to be burned up, out of the atmosphere or in the ground after 15 minutes.
You can also lose because you think your opponent has better cards than you/makes bets that are unprofitable to pay off, and win because you make your opponent think you have the best hand/make bets that are unprofitable for him/her to pay off.
That is where skill comes in. If you just deal out the hands and ignore what happens during the hand (i.e. dealing out the entire hand), sure - luck is a factor, but that evens out over a long session.
But making your opponent lay down the best hand, when you can't beat anything - that requires skill. Skill in knowing when to make that bluff, knowing what opponent you can do it against, reading your opponent. And getting paid off when your opponent does similar things also requires skill.
Suppose we are playing Texas Hold'em. Are you really willing to pay off a bet on a board of [Ah, 3h, 6h, 2h, 9d] if you don't have any hearts in your hand (let's say Ad, 7c)? If we're just playing heads up, we know there is a 35% chance that your opponent has a heart in his hand. If the pot is 100 cents, what size bet is it reasonable to pay off? You can only beat any pair smaller than an ace. There are straights (4,5) and flush (any heart) options out there, as well as some slightly questionable two pairs.
Figuring out what price is acceptable for a long term profit requires math skills. And you also need skill to figure out, if you can make a bet that will win you the pot, even if you don't have anything. Suppose you were dealt Tc, 8s in the same situation. It is unlikely that you will win by showdown, as more than 50% of the hands that are possible to be dealt are better than yours. In other words, you can only win the pot by making your opponent lay down his hand.
What kind of bet, if any, would make sense? Should you just muck your cards? Or should you call, because your opponent could have a busted straight draw, like 4,7 (no heart)? You can beat 4,7. Can you make your opponent lay down KQ? KT? TJ? Can you make him lay down AK? After all, if you make a bet, you can make it look like you made the straight or the flush, in which case his pair of aces aren't any good.
Doing the right thing once - luck. Doing it constantly - skill. Yes, you need luck, because you can't just bluff all the time. You are going to get called once in a while, and then you need your cards to hold up. You also need to do the calling from time to time, and you need the cards to be on your side for that.
But there is actually a fairly simple way to demonstrate that skill plays a role. Simply line up some of the best cash game players in the world against people who haven't played the game before. Give them a massive stack of chips (5,000 big blinds should be good), and have them play a huge amount of hands. Let's go with heads-up, 10 pros against 10 new players. 5,000 hands in each match-up. And let's cap the pot sizes to lower the variance/luck factor. Say 100 BB per player. That way you can lose 40 massive pots and still have plenty of play, as you can only lose 10% of your chip-stack.
That'd give us a sample size of 50,000 hands. We can't merely compare the number of hands won - that doesn't really tell the story. You can win 80% of the hands and still come out the loser. But number of hands won, chip stacks, average number of chips won per pot, number of times the worst hand has made the best hand fold etc.
This kind of setup should give a much better picture of the level of skill involved. And to avoid having the rookies throw the game, let's bring in the people who say it's entirely a game of luck for a similar line-up as well. Now we have a sample size of 100,000 hands total. Motivation is a factor as well, but I suspect telling the pros that if they lose, poker will be banned, no exceptions, will be quite a motivator. And let's pay off the non-pros as well ... a prize of say ... 100 US$ for every BB you're ahead after the 5,000 hands.
Now, I doubt it'll end up with the pros having all the money. But I'd be surprised if it was anything lower than 60/40 in their favour.
15 minutes is a looooong time. For how long would you be able to make out a jet air-liner?
Since the meteor was making multiple sonic booms (realistically that's really bits breaking off and making their own booms), we're looking at a minimum of mach 1. That means it'll cover an absolute minimum distance of 306 km from the time it was first seen as standing still until it disappeared. Now, obviously the object needs to be at a fair distance already, for that to be the case. It can't start overhead, as that will mean it's moving.
And how far can you really see?
Also, 306 km is a HUGE distance. The smallest detail we can make out are about 1 arc minute. At 306 km that is 89 meters. Granted, it's glowing/burning, so that should help, but how much? 10 fold? Would you be able to make out a 9 meter fireball at 300 km?
And I'm rather curious to know, just how far a meteor would actually travel during those 15 minutes.
Well, far as I can tell (and I've love to be corrected) Intel's drivers aren't for the SSD itself but for the chipset.
That means that if you're using a non-Intel system, you'd be stuck with Microsoft's drivers anyway, and not see the performance posted in the review.
It may well be that 'excited delirium' is the cause of death. What I want to know though, is just how many people have been diagnosed with 'excited delirium' outside of a mortuary? And what is the percentage of sufferers of 'excited delirium' who haven't been tasered? Something like this:
All numbers pulled out of my ass.
But somehow I doubt we'll see any kind of statistics like this.
Also, I'm curious to know what kind of commonalities there are between the sufferers of excited delirium. Obviously it's some kind of disease or illness, so what kind of medications can you take to fight it? Are there any preventative measures, like diet? Or is the trick simply to avoid getting tasered or beaten up by the police?
Possibly. But like I said, I have neither an iPhone or a webserver, so I can't tell you what differences there are in the requests presented to a server.
That wasn't my point.
My point was that the post I was replying to was inferring that browsers can use JavaScript ... and if Webkit is the only app that can do that, then it is incorrect.