the survey by the online consumer insurance site Car insurance.com also showed that 75% of respondents think they could drive a car better than a computer. Another 64% said computers were not capable of the same quality of decision-making as human drivers.
Emphasis mine.
Uhmmm... *ANOTHER* 64%???? So people above and beyond the 75% that was just mentioned previously? Wouldn't that make... oh... 139%?
Or do you mean 64% of those remaining?
If the latter, one is compelled to wonder what the reason for the remaining 36% not wanting to hand over their driving to a robot was.
Or do you mean 64% of all respondents (which doesn't make sense in context)? But that would mean that nearly half of people who don't even trust a computer to drive would still hand over the driving to a robot that they believe could kill them, just to get lower insurance rates. That's an interesting notion as well.
Actually, you don't strictly need sequence points to determine the order of events, sometimes they can be guaranteed simply by the defined order of operations, even if they result in side effects.
Consider the statement x = a[i++] + b[i++].. This should be equivalent to temp = a[i++], temp = temp + b[i++], x = temp, because the the order in which the + operator evaluates its operands is determined by the standard. Even without sequencing points.
But the initial example, where one passes in an argument to a function that is also being modified more than once technically isn't defined by the standard at all since the standard makes no guarantee about the order of evaluation of function arguments.
Nonetheless, one will still find that in practice, most C compilers will always evaluate the last argument first to a function first (including its side effects), as long as the compiler is configured to utilize the C calling convention for construction of stack frames (cdecl, in many compilers). If configured differently, it can, of course, have different behaviour.
.... that the value of bitcoin right now is high enough that the only way to have enough of it that it could make a big financial difference is by spending money that you probably can't afford to lose... and there's hardly a guarantee of a positive return, while if you only spend as much as you can actually afford to really lose, you aren't going to ever make very much.
The time to buy bitcoin as a money-making venture for all but the people who are wealthy enough to not need to use it in the first place is past.
A roughly earth-sided rocky world, sitting well within the star's "goldilocks zone" throughout its orbit, and spectrographically identified to contain both oxygen and water.
Although even if we find one... what are we going to do about it? It's not like we can even send a probe that far which has a likely chance of reaching it before it experiences mechanical failure.
Assuming typical C calling convention.... "No, I got first post" will be printed, where a will be 1 and b will be 0 in the call to FirstPost. This is because generally, final arguments are evaluated and pushed onto the stack before earlier ones.
Although typically, the standard may say this behavior is undefined, in practice, almost all modern C compilers will produce the output I've described here.
Well, that's the comment that started it all... although I was referring more to the rant-ons that followed by successive AC's (which may or may not have been the same AC who posted the first remark).. They became progressively more verbally abusive and even somewhat bigoted, particularly against Americans, culminating in what might have qualified as a legitimate threat against myself if the AC actually had any means with which to carry out what was implied by his or her aggressive posturing (and I'm not even American).
A 10 year old is hardly a grad student.... also, a grad student receives something in exchange from the university for their work... their masters degree or doctorate.
A) your OCR programs are not both sentient and sapient.
B) unless you are suggesting that this kid was Jesus, his dad didn't actually give him the data to look through (which in this case, would be the sky),
... as they would be any new moon. Sure, the sun and moon aren't precisely aligned in the sky, but they are still in the same general direction. Would the precise angle make *THAT* much of a difference in height?
China does it and they are, roughly speaking, as wide as the mainland US.
Sure... if you consider over a thousand km difference to be "about the same". The *average* width of the continental US is about 4800 km, while China at its widest is about 3100 km.
Just get rid of that whole shifting times twice a year completely and stick to just one time for a given location.
I'd suggest just keeping DST for the whole year, but that is carries more logistical problems for people in more northern locales than keeping the "standard time" throughout the year.
Again... not asking whether he's guilty or not. It's already known that he is guilty of speeding *SOMEWHERE*... the question to ask him is simply "did you speed in state X"? If not, then that means he went faster elsewhere... eventually, there will not be enough states that he has not yet denied speeding in for him to continue to plausibly deny speeding there.
The plea of "guilty" vs "non guilty" is completely irrellevant, and take his word for whether he sped or not in a given state only for as long as the mathematics of doing so means that it was still physically plausible within the speed limits that the car is capable of.
They would need to know exactly who those people are... if they are doing so only privately, they would have no way to know who to sue.
Patent infringement for entirely noncommercial purposes is not criminal, after all... civilly actionable, yes, but they still have to know who to actually sue. It differs significantly from copyright infringement in this matter, which is illegal even in noncommercial matters unless the allowances for fair use can be shown to apply (in which case it's not copyright infringement in the first place).
Actually, the mathematics does. If he didn't speed in any given state, it is mathematically provable that he had an even higher average velocity in other states. Which precise ones is entirely irrelevant until it is reduced to a small enough subset that he can no longer plausibly continue to deny speeding in any given one of them (that is, the subset of remaining states is small enough that it would be have been physically impossible to have accomplished the feat in the time that he did if the number of states in which he claims to have not sped were any larger).
I don't have to prove what he's lying about when there aren't enough states left that he hasn't disputed for him to continue to deny that he sped in them... if he was, presumably, telling the truth when he disputed any of the other states, then further denail automatically means he was lying.
Of course, I think that the whole thing should be done under oath, and penalty of perjury... so that there are actual real consequences for lying in the first place, which would probably carry a bigger penalty than just paying the darn speeding tickets and being done with it. The guy made it into the Guiness record books... some people spend millions trying to do that. What's a couple thousand dollars in speeding fines?
1) In such states,it might be reasonable to assume that he simply travelled the highest speed the vehicle was capable of, which might make up a lot of the time if he were to claim to be going the speed limit everywhere else, but would it make up all of it? If so, then there's no reason to charge him at all. I don't know if that's the case, however.
2) I'm not suggesting he prove that he didn't speed... his claim that he didn't speed in a particular state should certainly be enough, but if is claiming that he didn't speed in a state then he is also capable of saying which state it was that he didn't speed in. This isn't asking him to incriminate himself of the charge of speeding in that state, it's asking him to dispute the charge in the first place, and he wouldn't even need to do anything at all to prove it other than say that he didn't speed there. The fact that doing so may incriminate him further in other states is a natural consequence of the way time, distance, and velocity are all related to each other mathematically, and not purely a direct result of his admission. Bending what we understand as the laws of time and space, for example, would make his journey possible without breaking any state laws whatsoever. What incriminates him in spite of this, however, is the fact that this cannot actually be accomplished technologically by any known means. If he's going to maintain that he did so, however... then the speeding charges might be irrelevant, although he may need serious psychiatric help.
3) Of course... but as I said, he could be charged with speeding in every state that we was not willing to deny speeding in... and if he denies speeding in too many of them that he would not have been able to make up the difference in those remaining, then you know, beyond any shadow of a doubt that he's been lying about not speeding somewhere, and you start right back at the beginning.
Actually, you don't know what laws he broke at all. You can calculate that he broke at least one law
So you charge him with speeding in all of them based on average velocity necessary to accomplish the trip in the time taken, and leave him perfectly free to dispute each state charge individually, although doing so may impact the remaining speeding charges... which again, he is also free to dispute for as long as he can continue to do so without being provably lying (mathematically) about at least one of his denials.
The "implication" that he sped in states is not an issue... it is an already known fact that he sped in several already. What is not known is exactly which ones. Personally, I'd suggest that he should pay a fine for speeding in all of them... and that he is perfectly free to contest each charge individually, although doing so will increase the charges in the others, since that would mean that he was driving even faster in them.
We're talking here about somebody who genuinely did break the law here. The fact that they don't know exactly where the law was really broken is a technicality that doesn't change the fact that the law was still broken. Saying which places he broke the law in isn't incriminating himself of breaking the law any further than he already has done by claiming to have cross the entire USA in a time that requires him to have been speeding excessively already.
Ask him... under legal consequences for lying. He can't deny all of them.
Any states that he claims to be uncertain of, take the average speed he would need to be going in all of those states to have achieved the time that he did, and fine him in those.
So you ask him how fast he was going and where... if he claims to not know, then you take an average (98kph) and fine him in all of them. If he claims that he wasn't speeding in some states, then ask him in which states that he knows he was not speeding. You then determine the average speed he would need to travel in the remaining states, and fine him in the remainder of the states.
Basically, any admission that he makes to claiming to have not sped in any one state increases the fine that he would necessarily have to pay in others that he went through in which he cannot deny he was speeding without denying that he broke the record in the first place.
Can't the person be cited for speeding since they specifically have an upper bound on how much time it took the person to travel a known distance?
It would seem that if he is going to claim that he really did this, he necessarily needs to admit to speeding, and the amount should be based on the average amount he would have needed to go over the speed limit to have travelled that distance in the specified time.
Of course, if he says that he didn't really do this, and is just bragging about something he didn't really do, then he can't really claim to have broken a record either...
Or do speeding tickets not work that way in the USA, and they must be either clocked specifically by radar or paced manually with a police vehicle, instead of using clocks at start and end points?
In my experience, 90% of what goes on in meetings actually involves discussing what the people in that meeting are really going to be doing over the next week or so.
Now of course, some people might think that stuff like that doesn't really matter and they can just ignore it and go and text people on their cell phone, but after the meeting when they have no idea what they heck they were expected to be doing because they weren't actually paying any attention, they're just going to look like incompetent tards... dead weight that the company might be better off firing and hiring somebody who will actually pay attention when they are being paid to.
Slashdot Mirror
Emphasis mine.
Uhmmm... *ANOTHER* 64%???? So people above and beyond the 75% that was just mentioned previously? Wouldn't that make... oh... 139%?
Or do you mean 64% of those remaining?
If the latter, one is compelled to wonder what the reason for the remaining 36% not wanting to hand over their driving to a robot was.
Or do you mean 64% of all respondents (which doesn't make sense in context)? But that would mean that nearly half of people who don't even trust a computer to drive would still hand over the driving to a robot that they believe could kill them, just to get lower insurance rates. That's an interesting notion as well.
Because in no small number of jurisdictions, it's required by law, if you own a vehicle and it is actually being used on public roads.
Actually, you don't strictly need sequence points to determine the order of events, sometimes they can be guaranteed simply by the defined order of operations, even if they result in side effects.
Consider the statement x = a[i++] + b[i++].. This should be equivalent to temp = a[i++], temp = temp + b[i++], x = temp, because the the order in which the + operator evaluates its operands is determined by the standard. Even without sequencing points.
But the initial example, where one passes in an argument to a function that is also being modified more than once technically isn't defined by the standard at all since the standard makes no guarantee about the order of evaluation of function arguments.
Nonetheless, one will still find that in practice, most C compilers will always evaluate the last argument first to a function first (including its side effects), as long as the compiler is configured to utilize the C calling convention for construction of stack frames (cdecl, in many compilers). If configured differently, it can, of course, have different behaviour.
The time to buy bitcoin as a money-making venture for all but the people who are wealthy enough to not need to use it in the first place is past.
A roughly earth-sided rocky world, sitting well within the star's "goldilocks zone" throughout its orbit, and spectrographically identified to contain both oxygen and water.
Although even if we find one... what are we going to do about it? It's not like we can even send a probe that far which has a likely chance of reaching it before it experiences mechanical failure.
Assuming typical C calling convention.... "No, I got first post" will be printed, where a will be 1 and b will be 0 in the call to FirstPost. This is because generally, final arguments are evaluated and pushed onto the stack before earlier ones.
Although typically, the standard may say this behavior is undefined, in practice, almost all modern C compilers will produce the output I've described here.
Well, that's the comment that started it all... although I was referring more to the rant-ons that followed by successive AC's (which may or may not have been the same AC who posted the first remark).. They became progressively more verbally abusive and even somewhat bigoted, particularly against Americans, culminating in what might have qualified as a legitimate threat against myself if the AC actually had any means with which to carry out what was implied by his or her aggressive posturing (and I'm not even American).
I was trying to make a joke.
I evidently failed.
A 10 year old is hardly a grad student.... also, a grad student receives something in exchange from the university for their work... their masters degree or doctorate.
Sure, but...
A) your OCR programs are not both sentient and sapient.
B) unless you are suggesting that this kid was Jesus, his dad didn't actually give him the data to look through (which in this case, would be the sky),
Carefull... or you might get a rant-on from an AC who's never heard of the show.
Sure... if we had ways to actually distribute that power to where it was needed at no cost.
When you transmit power over a distance, you end up losing part of it, and the further you are transmitting it, the more that you lose.
Invent a room temperature superconductor first... then we'll talk.
... as they would be any new moon. Sure, the sun and moon aren't precisely aligned in the sky, but they are still in the same general direction. Would the precise angle make *THAT* much of a difference in height?
I guess astronomers were tired of 10 year old kids repeatedly discovering supernovas before they did.
Sure... if you consider over a thousand km difference to be "about the same". The *average* width of the continental US is about 4800 km, while China at its widest is about 3100 km.
Just get rid of that whole shifting times twice a year completely and stick to just one time for a given location.
I'd suggest just keeping DST for the whole year, but that is carries more logistical problems for people in more northern locales than keeping the "standard time" throughout the year.
The plea of "guilty" vs "non guilty" is completely irrellevant, and take his word for whether he sped or not in a given state only for as long as the mathematics of doing so means that it was still physically plausible within the speed limits that the car is capable of.
They would need to know exactly who those people are... if they are doing so only privately, they would have no way to know who to sue.
Patent infringement for entirely noncommercial purposes is not criminal, after all... civilly actionable, yes, but they still have to know who to actually sue. It differs significantly from copyright infringement in this matter, which is illegal even in noncommercial matters unless the allowances for fair use can be shown to apply (in which case it's not copyright infringement in the first place).
Actually, the mathematics does. If he didn't speed in any given state, it is mathematically provable that he had an even higher average velocity in other states. Which precise ones is entirely irrelevant until it is reduced to a small enough subset that he can no longer plausibly continue to deny speeding in any given one of them (that is, the subset of remaining states is small enough that it would be have been physically impossible to have accomplished the feat in the time that he did if the number of states in which he claims to have not sped were any larger).
I don't have to prove what he's lying about when there aren't enough states left that he hasn't disputed for him to continue to deny that he sped in them... if he was, presumably, telling the truth when he disputed any of the other states, then further denail automatically means he was lying.
Of course, I think that the whole thing should be done under oath, and penalty of perjury... so that there are actual real consequences for lying in the first place, which would probably carry a bigger penalty than just paying the darn speeding tickets and being done with it. The guy made it into the Guiness record books... some people spend millions trying to do that. What's a couple thousand dollars in speeding fines?
1) In such states,it might be reasonable to assume that he simply travelled the highest speed the vehicle was capable of, which might make up a lot of the time if he were to claim to be going the speed limit everywhere else, but would it make up all of it? If so, then there's no reason to charge him at all. I don't know if that's the case, however.
2) I'm not suggesting he prove that he didn't speed... his claim that he didn't speed in a particular state should certainly be enough, but if is claiming that he didn't speed in a state then he is also capable of saying which state it was that he didn't speed in. This isn't asking him to incriminate himself of the charge of speeding in that state, it's asking him to dispute the charge in the first place, and he wouldn't even need to do anything at all to prove it other than say that he didn't speed there. The fact that doing so may incriminate him further in other states is a natural consequence of the way time, distance, and velocity are all related to each other mathematically, and not purely a direct result of his admission. Bending what we understand as the laws of time and space, for example, would make his journey possible without breaking any state laws whatsoever. What incriminates him in spite of this, however, is the fact that this cannot actually be accomplished technologically by any known means. If he's going to maintain that he did so, however... then the speeding charges might be irrelevant, although he may need serious psychiatric help.
3) Of course... but as I said, he could be charged with speeding in every state that we was not willing to deny speeding in... and if he denies speeding in too many of them that he would not have been able to make up the difference in those remaining, then you know, beyond any shadow of a doubt that he's been lying about not speeding somewhere, and you start right back at the beginning.
So you charge him with speeding in all of them based on average velocity necessary to accomplish the trip in the time taken, and leave him perfectly free to dispute each state charge individually, although doing so may impact the remaining speeding charges... which again, he is also free to dispute for as long as he can continue to do so without being provably lying (mathematically) about at least one of his denials.
The "implication" that he sped in states is not an issue... it is an already known fact that he sped in several already. What is not known is exactly which ones. Personally, I'd suggest that he should pay a fine for speeding in all of them... and that he is perfectly free to contest each charge individually, although doing so will increase the charges in the others, since that would mean that he was driving even faster in them.
We're talking here about somebody who genuinely did break the law here. The fact that they don't know exactly where the law was really broken is a technicality that doesn't change the fact that the law was still broken. Saying which places he broke the law in isn't incriminating himself of breaking the law any further than he already has done by claiming to have cross the entire USA in a time that requires him to have been speeding excessively already.
Ask him... under legal consequences for lying. He can't deny all of them.
Any states that he claims to be uncertain of, take the average speed he would need to be going in all of those states to have achieved the time that he did, and fine him in those.
Done.
So you ask him how fast he was going and where... if he claims to not know, then you take an average (98kph) and fine him in all of them. If he claims that he wasn't speeding in some states, then ask him in which states that he knows he was not speeding. You then determine the average speed he would need to travel in the remaining states, and fine him in the remainder of the states.
Basically, any admission that he makes to claiming to have not sped in any one state increases the fine that he would necessarily have to pay in others that he went through in which he cannot deny he was speeding without denying that he broke the record in the first place.
Can't the person be cited for speeding since they specifically have an upper bound on how much time it took the person to travel a known distance? It would seem that if he is going to claim that he really did this, he necessarily needs to admit to speeding, and the amount should be based on the average amount he would have needed to go over the speed limit to have travelled that distance in the specified time. Of course, if he says that he didn't really do this, and is just bragging about something he didn't really do, then he can't really claim to have broken a record either... Or do speeding tickets not work that way in the USA, and they must be either clocked specifically by radar or paced manually with a police vehicle, instead of using clocks at start and end points?
In my experience, 90% of what goes on in meetings actually involves discussing what the people in that meeting are really going to be doing over the next week or so.
Now of course, some people might think that stuff like that doesn't really matter and they can just ignore it and go and text people on their cell phone, but after the meeting when they have no idea what they heck they were expected to be doing because they weren't actually paying any attention, they're just going to look like incompetent tards... dead weight that the company might be better off firing and hiring somebody who will actually pay attention when they are being paid to.