Pretty sure that's not what I read. What I got out of it was that he doesn't even worry about the receipt anymore because he knows that if he wants to return something, they'll have the information on file. But hey, if you really enjoy jumping to conclusions so much, I might have a mat to sell you.
Just because she thinks some of her students aren't worth the time she spends on them doesn't mean she hates her job per se. She could feel that some of the students aren't great to be around and a joy to teach. It's just that those students aren't rant-worthy on a personal blog.
I don't know about that. This basically gives Microsoft a larger sample size to observe. Even if Google's results aren't as good as Bing's, they would be good enough more often than not, and thus Bing's algorithm could learn from them.
If I remember correctly, wasn't the DDoS of WikiLeaks done with a traditional malware controlled botnet, while the Anonymous DDoS's were done with an opt-in botnet? To me, it seems like that would make it easier to track down the members of Anonymous who participated than it would be to track down those who were controlling the anti-Wikileaks botnet.
I thought that rather than be "extra patriotic" he was trying to show a display of bipartisanship. Maybe that's just a deep-seated hope and really he's just a nutter, but seeing as he was being reasonably respectful, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Actually, everything I'm finding says that fuel efficiency is worse at lower speeds, peaking in the 40-60 mph range, then dropping again. This has a good explanation of the math. This has a simple chart that shows the average results. AFAIK these exact figures deal only in gasoline engines, but the logic should be applicable to diesel engines.
To summarize, with the engine on, at 0 mph, you are getting 0 miles to the gallon and all of the gas that you are using is being wasted. Also, the power needed to increase speed and maintain it by 1 mph increases dramatically as speed increases. (The difference in the amount of work needed to maintain speeds of 60 and 61 mph is far greater than the difference in the amount of work needed to maintain a speed of 2 to 3 mph) When these two are combined together. It turns out that, for gas engines anyway, peak fuel efficiency is between 40 and 60 mph, although if you're driving at any speed between 25 and 60 you probably wouldn't notice. After that, fuel efficiency drops dramatically.
Indeed I used to enter random birthdates on sites that sold my information. Now I've noticed more and more places use birthdate as a security question.
To be fair, he's not trying to get this published in a journal, just point out that Google is no longer streets ahead of everyone else. I think that is a fair assessment.
Anyone care to try to replicate the results? You could probably just use his list, or create a list of your own if you really want to. I'd do it myself but I'm supposed to be working.
I was disappointed when I got Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit and found out that it didn't support local multiplayer. I wouldn't have bought the game if I had known that. Yes, I could have checked, but given the fact that every Need for Speed game that I have bought in the past was multiplayer, it didn't even dawn on me that it might not be. Lesson learned. Perhaps, as more people realize this, video game manufacturers will lose sufficient sales to encourage them to put local multiplayer back in.
If by equally biased, you are talking about MSNBC, then sure. But if you're saying all the other news channels are equally biased than you are truly a special kind of person. CNN and the major network news organizations do have a bias. This is true. However none of them so heartily embrace one side of the aisle in their coverage as FOX News and MSNBC.
If what I've found on the internet is correct, because it is a 4-4 decision, it sets no precedent. Therefore this ruling is only in effect for this case. IANAL and I may be totally wrong, but that's the best information I have at this moment.
That said, wtf were the four that voted to uphold the decision thinking?
Yes, because, in a state that has such a large dependence on tourism based around nature, most bullets sold are primarily for the purpose of murder rather than hunting, wildlife management, or target shooting.
In 2009, there were 175 murders in Colorado. In 1981, the year with the greatest number of murders on record, there were 239. These are total counts for murder, they do not delineate gun murders from any other method. In 2008 approximately 41,000 pheasant roosters were harvested. That's just pheasants. I'm not even going to take the time to find out the bag totals of other animals/hunting seasons.
Nobody's "pretending" that the majority of bullets sold are for hunting.
There is no moral equivalence. Anyone who argues that selling bullets makes someone responsible for murder is an idiot. Selling a tool doesn't make you responsible for how the tool is used or misused, unless you had complicit knowledge of future illegal acts. Anyone can buy a steak knife, anyone can buy a car, heck, anyone can buy a bathtub and a blow dryer. The seller of these is no more responsible for any future murders committed with these "weapons," than the cashier at the local big box mart was for selling the Columbine murderers their bullets.
The millionaire movie maker trying to make his point was being an ass. The (likely) minimum wage cashier was only trying to make a living. Harassing someone to sell a few DVD's is disgusting.
My wife recently got a letter stating that she was in the pool for potential jurors this year. My first thought was "That's so cool." Her first words were "I wonder how I can get out of it." I was disappointed.
Indeed you are correct. It was a poor choice of words, with the phrase used as an expression of incredulity rather than using it for what it actually means. Will you ever forgive me?;)
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty sure that's not what I read. What I got out of it was that he doesn't even worry about the receipt anymore because he knows that if he wants to return something, they'll have the information on file. But hey, if you really enjoy jumping to conclusions so much, I might have a mat to sell you.
Disclaimer: I have not read the blog in question.
Just because she thinks some of her students aren't worth the time she spends on them doesn't mean she hates her job per se. She could feel that some of the students aren't great to be around and a joy to teach. It's just that those students aren't rant-worthy on a personal blog.
I don't know about that. This basically gives Microsoft a larger sample size to observe. Even if Google's results aren't as good as Bing's, they would be good enough more often than not, and thus Bing's algorithm could learn from them.
If I remember correctly, wasn't the DDoS of WikiLeaks done with a traditional malware controlled botnet, while the Anonymous DDoS's were done with an opt-in botnet? To me, it seems like that would make it easier to track down the members of Anonymous who participated than it would be to track down those who were controlling the anti-Wikileaks botnet.
revengeofthejedi.com port 9400
Ok, so I haven't played it in a few months, but I always seem to return.
The hyperlink green is hard to distinguish from the normal black making it difficult to tell where the link to the article is located.
I thought that rather than be "extra patriotic" he was trying to show a display of bipartisanship. Maybe that's just a deep-seated hope and really he's just a nutter, but seeing as he was being reasonably respectful, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Not if you agree to it in the service agreement they make you sign.
Actually, everything I'm finding says that fuel efficiency is worse at lower speeds, peaking in the 40-60 mph range, then dropping again. This has a good explanation of the math. This has a simple chart that shows the average results. AFAIK these exact figures deal only in gasoline engines, but the logic should be applicable to diesel engines.
To summarize, with the engine on, at 0 mph, you are getting 0 miles to the gallon and all of the gas that you are using is being wasted. Also, the power needed to increase speed and maintain it by 1 mph increases dramatically as speed increases. (The difference in the amount of work needed to maintain speeds of 60 and 61 mph is far greater than the difference in the amount of work needed to maintain a speed of 2 to 3 mph) When these two are combined together. It turns out that, for gas engines anyway, peak fuel efficiency is between 40 and 60 mph, although if you're driving at any speed between 25 and 60 you probably wouldn't notice. After that, fuel efficiency drops dramatically.
There are several custom mods that have RPG elements. Check out SC2mapster.com for a list.
Indeed I used to enter random birthdates on sites that sold my information. Now I've noticed more and more places use birthdate as a security question.
To be fair, he's not trying to get this published in a journal, just point out that Google is no longer streets ahead of everyone else. I think that is a fair assessment.
Anyone care to try to replicate the results? You could probably just use his list, or create a list of your own if you really want to. I'd do it myself but I'm supposed to be working.
This is interesting technology, but just screams "Solution looking for a problem."
Yes.
Apparently the Mythbusters also figured that out.
I was disappointed when I got Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit and found out that it didn't support local multiplayer. I wouldn't have bought the game if I had known that. Yes, I could have checked, but given the fact that every Need for Speed game that I have bought in the past was multiplayer, it didn't even dawn on me that it might not be. Lesson learned. Perhaps, as more people realize this, video game manufacturers will lose sufficient sales to encourage them to put local multiplayer back in.
If by equally biased, you are talking about MSNBC, then sure. But if you're saying all the other news channels are equally biased than you are truly a special kind of person. CNN and the major network news organizations do have a bias. This is true. However none of them so heartily embrace one side of the aisle in their coverage as FOX News and MSNBC.
If what I've found on the internet is correct, because it is a 4-4 decision, it sets no precedent. Therefore this ruling is only in effect for this case. IANAL and I may be totally wrong, but that's the best information I have at this moment.
That said, wtf were the four that voted to uphold the decision thinking?
Yes, because, in a state that has such a large dependence on tourism based around nature, most bullets sold are primarily for the purpose of murder rather than hunting, wildlife management, or target shooting.
In 2009, there were 175 murders in Colorado. In 1981, the year with the greatest number of murders on record, there were 239. These are total counts for murder, they do not delineate gun murders from any other method. In 2008 approximately 41,000 pheasant roosters were harvested. That's just pheasants. I'm not even going to take the time to find out the bag totals of other animals/hunting seasons.
Nobody's "pretending" that the majority of bullets sold are for hunting.
The point is that even though these tools are obviously not designed for killing other people, they can be, and have been, misused to do so.
Answer: The last digit of pi.
There is no moral equivalence. Anyone who argues that selling bullets makes someone responsible for murder is an idiot. Selling a tool doesn't make you responsible for how the tool is used or misused, unless you had complicit knowledge of future illegal acts. Anyone can buy a steak knife, anyone can buy a car, heck, anyone can buy a bathtub and a blow dryer. The seller of these is no more responsible for any future murders committed with these "weapons," than the cashier at the local big box mart was for selling the Columbine murderers their bullets.
The millionaire movie maker trying to make his point was being an ass. The (likely) minimum wage cashier was only trying to make a living. Harassing someone to sell a few DVD's is disgusting.
My wife recently got a letter stating that she was in the pool for potential jurors this year. My first thought was "That's so cool." Her first words were "I wonder how I can get out of it." I was disappointed.
Indeed you are correct. It was a poor choice of words, with the phrase used as an expression of incredulity rather than using it for what it actually means. Will you ever forgive me? ;)