yes, but there is no trick to mapping to 4339 characters, it's simply the thing you will be doing if you want the most arbitrary bits transmitted. it's like a contest to paint a car: you have a fixed size car with a known surface area and the target of the contest is to paint the biggest surface. now you can either simply paint the whole surface and you will have won or you're gonna do some crazy pattern painting that totally misses the point. now tell me why did we just have this painting contest?
well now you're at least making some sense, but let me quote to you what you started with:
The really tragic fact about Greens, is that they're stupid. They simply don't understand that every choice is always a mixture of pros and cons, good effects and bad effects and side effects. Their mindset (based on the precautionary principle) is that if ANYTHING is negative about an option, they must file a lawsuit and get it banned.
but this is not at all what your problem is. you have not given a single piece of evidence that the greens don't know that every subject has multiple facets, that they just see something, anything and jump on it, no matter what else is connected to it. your problem is that the side they choose is sometimes just plain bonkers (and i will certainly agree with that on many occasions), which is what you just underlined in your answer.
your original sentence makes in so far not even any sense as it actually implies that they would at any point argue against any and all negative sides of a subject. but clearly that is not what they do. because if they were doing that, they would be arguing against themselves on many occasions. you think their priorities are wrong (like endangered species over new power sources) and that's it.
not one of your examples shows us that those greens are stupid and unable to see both side of a coin. you're simply stating what has happened and tell them off because they chose one of the two sides. it's discussion worthy which one of those sides should be chosen, but clearly you don't give a shit. you're just ranting for the hell of it, you could turn around each one of those points if they had not done so and the rant would still be the exact same. just as you tell the greens that they are idiots for doing what they do, you're an idiot for generalizing and being unable to argue the point you're supposed to make.
let me make this a little clearer: if they had not gotten the dams demolished, you could simply say that their eagerness to build renewable energy sources has in turn destroyed an ecosystem. but the greens stand for the protection of nature, noooo they're so stupid! and then they didn't vote for the clean air act because the pollution actually has a cooling effect counteracting global warming, my god, how could they be so stupid, they stand for clean air!
yes, all people are naive and everything has two sides. no, there is no simple answer and we have to carefully examine every decision we make and only then choose the side that is better for us. but your post is a simple illusion, it's a blueprint for a rant on anything and fully exchangeable. whoever voted this up should learn to think for themselves and stop jumping on every whiny populist speech.
oh my god, what a devastating trojan attack, it undoubtedly overshadows any and all trojans that have been before. clearly google must be evil since their applications could act as trojans, let's bring those suckers down!
it's not the same thing, your analogy is arguing against the use of an open wireless network that doesn't belong to you, not the cataloging of SSID and MAC. what they're doing is like writing down license plate numbers they find, just for networks. and just like you can park your car in a garage and hide it from sight, you can keep your router from broadcasting.
and how do you compare these uses to a non-treatment? are you just going to allow everybody to take it, not have any control group and do the best with the crippled data you got from that? studies aren't just here for fun, you will have a really hard time explaining to me how you're going to come up with proper data when you simply let everybody take the experimental treatment they want. and once you allow someone to just start experimental treatment who is going to join a study that only gives you a chance of actually receiving said treatment? no one, so you'll end up without studies and people just trying out whatever is out there, which could be anything since there is no approval process.
You should be able to take a risk on experimental treatment. You should be able to end your own life if it becomes too much.
this is a very problematic topic since if you allow everyone with cancer to initiate experimental treatment, where do you get the people for your studies from? everybody who would try to enter a study these days will then just go straight with the treatment, since it guarantees them that they will in fact get the real one. the possibilities of side effects stay the same so there is essentially no reason for anyone to enter a study. now that you don't have any patients for studies anymore, how are you going to test the treatment properly? how will you control all the factors? you simply can't, we'll just see what seems to be the best treatment, without having any clean data on its effectiveness and side effects.
that's neat, they should introduce this in other places as well. although it might also lead to people accelerating when they see that there's only a few seconds left, hm...
i doubt it is illegal to enter it when it's yellow, since there is something like a brake distance. the rule i know goes as follows: when it's green you drive. when it's yellow and you can still stop before entering the intersection, you stop, else you drive. when it's red you stop.
"The filter misunderstood the nature of The Punch, thought it was a games website and blocked it," he said.
"When we found out it was blocked, at the time, we too were mystified."
"It happened for reasons we don't understand... we know The Punch is not a games website."
they make it sound like the filter has some kind of advanced AI and just goes around blocking whatever it doesn't like. and if an error occurs it's the mystical algorithms behind the filter that are to blame. bad filter, bad!
i very much doubt the filtering decisions are automated, that would be a recipe for disaster.
you might want to read up on smart meters and studies associated with them. they can help reduce your energy usage (together with near real time feedback provided by the meter) and change the usage distribution. i don't think i have to tell you why it's a good thing, for you and our whole energy/climate situation, to decrease your overall usage. flattening down the distribution away from the peaks we see today will help stabilizing and securing the grid (and reduce costs for the utility). obviously that doesn't excuse security problems in the system and they have to be addressed immediately.
energy theft has been a rather big problem in some countries and was an easy thing to accomplish. go ask italy why enel introduced smart meters back in 2001, even though they still don't profit of any userfeedback or newer billing plans. the main goal of introducing smart meters from the point of utilities is exactly to reduce energy theft, you think they're introducing flaws on purpose because they want to loose money?
simply because the profit is higher if the girl plays, it's a waste of resources to have a second person do the shooting. i mean no one who pays for this is gonna care how strong their opponent is.
until the end of the 15th century the eidgenossenschaft was fighting the habsburg, throughout the 16th and 17th century there was religous civil war all over switzerland. at the end of the 18th century france essentially conquered switzerland and started the helvetic republic. the last fights on swiss territory were in 1847 and there is only democracy since the 19th century.
that italy had a strong cultural development during the rennaissance has nothing at all to do with war and bloodshed, it mostly has to do with social structures, immigration and patrones like the medici family.
very true, any petitions through direct democracy gets shot down most of the time, if they don't it's because they are emotionally rooted and irrational like the ban on minarets or anything concerning child molestation. there's a reason why most countries don't have direct democracy, maybe we will learn some day.
that's true, but i can assure you if it comes to a national vote we will not reject something like this, our current voter base is old and conservative.
So my question is this: For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?
people need to stop this, it is the easiest thing on the world to make a theory falsifiable, there are enough improbable events to make any theory science. poppers falsifiability argument is from the early twentieth century and it has been shown to be absolutely worthless for many decades now, people should read more philosophy around here.
how is horizontal gene transfer in any way lamarckian? it's still genes that are being transfered and genes don't change when you acquire new traits in your lifetime. this has absolutely nothing to do with lamarckism.
that's not how open beta works anymore, over the last few years many open betas only had a limited amount of places and you had to get a key from some site like fileplanet. there still are oldschool open betas but pretty much every kind of beta after the nda drops is nowadays called open, no matter how many restrictions there are, like preorder, third-party site subscription etc.
i still don't see your point. what you're saying is that it would be better if you knew exactly when the check would be cached, because then you'd be able to actually invest your money until then, but that isn't an argument against a long period of time between check writing and cashing. it's the same as saying it would be better to have money than not have money, it's a trivial observation but doesn't contribute anything since there is no genie that gives you money just because you wished for it.
the fact is that you don't pass up the chance to invest all the money you owe to someone if check cashing delay were possible, since if it isn't there would not be any money to invest at all. interest in a checking account triumphs no interest at all, it's competitiveness with interest in a savings, money market or cd account does not matter since it is not an option. and the only work you do for maintaining liquidity is keeping the cash in your account, which is no work at all.
you're not making any sense. those tens/hundred of thousands of dollars would not even be there in the first place if you wouldn't allow delayed check cashing, meaning the alternative of "interests or dividends on other uses of that money" doesn't exist since that money would now be owned by the payees.
let me start at the beginning once more: if your payees cash the check instantly you will loose the money as soon as you write the check and you're not able to do anything with it from that moment on. now the longer your payees do not cash the check after you wrote it, the longer the money sits in your account and gets you interest. it is trivial that you will not be able to move said money because it is reserved for the payee, but it is still generating interest on the bank, which it would not be doing if it were cashed instantly.
i agree that taunt should go and is the one thing enforcing the trinity, but scrappers really aren't the first alternative here. there are essentially two types of scrappers, one on one and ae dps, ae dps is squishy and draws alot of aggro because of dmg while one on one typically is tougher but with less aggro, neither of those give you much of any control over enemies. if you want to control enemies with scrappers you have two possibilites: gather a lot of scrappers so that there aren't many weak points in your group and everyone takes a part of the damage or use a scrapper with taunt aura and a tough skin (like kat/wp). the first is non functional in most groups, the second is again the tank concept.
the classes enabling different approaches are mostly controllers and defenders with cc, buffing and debuffing, which allows for very mixed groups that can survive on pure dps (with buffs/debuffs) or enemy control (with cc/debuffs) without having a central figure with ultimate control (aka tank)
Slashdot Mirror
yes, but there is no trick to mapping to 4339 characters, it's simply the thing you will be doing if you want the most arbitrary bits transmitted. it's like a contest to paint a car: you have a fixed size car with a known surface area and the target of the contest is to paint the biggest surface. now you can either simply paint the whole surface and you will have won or you're gonna do some crazy pattern painting that totally misses the point. now tell me why did we just have this painting contest?
you're absolutely right. the only reason this contest exists is to make twitter headlines, so let's bury it.
The really tragic fact about Greens, is that they're stupid. They simply don't understand that every choice is always a mixture of pros and cons, good effects and bad effects and side effects. Their mindset (based on the precautionary principle) is that if ANYTHING is negative about an option, they must file a lawsuit and get it banned.
but this is not at all what your problem is. you have not given a single piece of evidence that the greens don't know that every subject has multiple facets, that they just see something, anything and jump on it, no matter what else is connected to it. your problem is that the side they choose is sometimes just plain bonkers (and i will certainly agree with that on many occasions), which is what you just underlined in your answer.
your original sentence makes in so far not even any sense as it actually implies that they would at any point argue against any and all negative sides of a subject. but clearly that is not what they do. because if they were doing that, they would be arguing against themselves on many occasions. you think their priorities are wrong (like endangered species over new power sources) and that's it.
not one of your examples shows us that those greens are stupid and unable to see both side of a coin. you're simply stating what has happened and tell them off because they chose one of the two sides. it's discussion worthy which one of those sides should be chosen, but clearly you don't give a shit. you're just ranting for the hell of it, you could turn around each one of those points if they had not done so and the rant would still be the exact same. just as you tell the greens that they are idiots for doing what they do, you're an idiot for generalizing and being unable to argue the point you're supposed to make.
let me make this a little clearer: if they had not gotten the dams demolished, you could simply say that their eagerness to build renewable energy sources has in turn destroyed an ecosystem. but the greens stand for the protection of nature, noooo they're so stupid! and then they didn't vote for the clean air act because the pollution actually has a cooling effect counteracting global warming, my god, how could they be so stupid, they stand for clean air!
yes, all people are naive and everything has two sides. no, there is no simple answer and we have to carefully examine every decision we make and only then choose the side that is better for us. but your post is a simple illusion, it's a blueprint for a rant on anything and fully exchangeable. whoever voted this up should learn to think for themselves and stop jumping on every whiny populist speech.
oh my god, what a devastating trojan attack, it undoubtedly overshadows any and all trojans that have been before. clearly google must be evil since their applications could act as trojans, let's bring those suckers down!
it's not the same thing, your analogy is arguing against the use of an open wireless network that doesn't belong to you, not the cataloging of SSID and MAC. what they're doing is like writing down license plate numbers they find, just for networks. and just like you can park your car in a garage and hide it from sight, you can keep your router from broadcasting.
and how do you compare these uses to a non-treatment? are you just going to allow everybody to take it, not have any control group and do the best with the crippled data you got from that? studies aren't just here for fun, you will have a really hard time explaining to me how you're going to come up with proper data when you simply let everybody take the experimental treatment they want. and once you allow someone to just start experimental treatment who is going to join a study that only gives you a chance of actually receiving said treatment? no one, so you'll end up without studies and people just trying out whatever is out there, which could be anything since there is no approval process.
You should be able to take a risk on experimental treatment. You should be able to end your own life if it becomes too much.
this is a very problematic topic since if you allow everyone with cancer to initiate experimental treatment, where do you get the people for your studies from? everybody who would try to enter a study these days will then just go straight with the treatment, since it guarantees them that they will in fact get the real one. the possibilities of side effects stay the same so there is essentially no reason for anyone to enter a study. now that you don't have any patients for studies anymore, how are you going to test the treatment properly? how will you control all the factors? you simply can't, we'll just see what seems to be the best treatment, without having any clean data on its effectiveness and side effects.
... the new pringles? they look classy.
that's neat, they should introduce this in other places as well. although it might also lead to people accelerating when they see that there's only a few seconds left, hm...
i doubt it is illegal to enter it when it's yellow, since there is something like a brake distance. the rule i know goes as follows: when it's green you drive. when it's yellow and you can still stop before entering the intersection, you stop, else you drive. when it's red you stop.
ah yes, all those kids playing mmorpgs instead of screwing the hot cheerleaders. haven't we all been there?
"The filter misunderstood the nature of The Punch, thought it was a games website and blocked it," he said.
"When we found out it was blocked, at the time, we too were mystified."
"It happened for reasons we don't understand ... we know The Punch is not a games website."
they make it sound like the filter has some kind of advanced AI and just goes around blocking whatever it doesn't like. and if an error occurs it's the mystical algorithms behind the filter that are to blame. bad filter, bad!
i very much doubt the filtering decisions are automated, that would be a recipe for disaster.
that second picture makes her look really young, but on the show you can tell that she's 22.
you might want to read up on smart meters and studies associated with them. they can help reduce your energy usage (together with near real time feedback provided by the meter) and change the usage distribution. i don't think i have to tell you why it's a good thing, for you and our whole energy/climate situation, to decrease your overall usage. flattening down the distribution away from the peaks we see today will help stabilizing and securing the grid (and reduce costs for the utility). obviously that doesn't excuse security problems in the system and they have to be addressed immediately.
energy theft has been a rather big problem in some countries and was an easy thing to accomplish. go ask italy why enel introduced smart meters back in 2001, even though they still don't profit of any userfeedback or newer billing plans. the main goal of introducing smart meters from the point of utilities is exactly to reduce energy theft, you think they're introducing flaws on purpose because they want to loose money?
simply because the profit is higher if the girl plays, it's a waste of resources to have a second person do the shooting. i mean no one who pays for this is gonna care how strong their opponent is.
this quote needs to die, now.
until the end of the 15th century the eidgenossenschaft was fighting the habsburg, throughout the 16th and 17th century there was religous civil war all over switzerland. at the end of the 18th century france essentially conquered switzerland and started the helvetic republic. the last fights on swiss territory were in 1847 and there is only democracy since the 19th century.
that italy had a strong cultural development during the rennaissance has nothing at all to do with war and bloodshed, it mostly has to do with social structures, immigration and patrones like the medici family.
very true, any petitions through direct democracy gets shot down most of the time, if they don't it's because they are emotionally rooted and irrational like the ban on minarets or anything concerning child molestation. there's a reason why most countries don't have direct democracy, maybe we will learn some day.
that's true, but i can assure you if it comes to a national vote we will not reject something like this, our current voter base is old and conservative.
So my question is this: For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?
people need to stop this, it is the easiest thing on the world to make a theory falsifiable, there are enough improbable events to make any theory science. poppers falsifiability argument is from the early twentieth century and it has been shown to be absolutely worthless for many decades now, people should read more philosophy around here.
how is horizontal gene transfer in any way lamarckian? it's still genes that are being transfered and genes don't change when you acquire new traits in your lifetime. this has absolutely nothing to do with lamarckism.
that's not how open beta works anymore, over the last few years many open betas only had a limited amount of places and you had to get a key from some site like fileplanet. there still are oldschool open betas but pretty much every kind of beta after the nda drops is nowadays called open, no matter how many restrictions there are, like preorder, third-party site subscription etc.
i still don't see your point. what you're saying is that it would be better if you knew exactly when the check would be cached, because then you'd be able to actually invest your money until then, but that isn't an argument against a long period of time between check writing and cashing. it's the same as saying it would be better to have money than not have money, it's a trivial observation but doesn't contribute anything since there is no genie that gives you money just because you wished for it.
the fact is that you don't pass up the chance to invest all the money you owe to someone if check cashing delay were possible, since if it isn't there would not be any money to invest at all. interest in a checking account triumphs no interest at all, it's competitiveness with interest in a savings, money market or cd account does not matter since it is not an option. and the only work you do for maintaining liquidity is keeping the cash in your account, which is no work at all.
you're not making any sense. those tens/hundred of thousands of dollars would not even be there in the first place if you wouldn't allow delayed check cashing, meaning the alternative of "interests or dividends on other uses of that money" doesn't exist since that money would now be owned by the payees.
let me start at the beginning once more: if your payees cash the check instantly you will loose the money as soon as you write the check and you're not able to do anything with it from that moment on. now the longer your payees do not cash the check after you wrote it, the longer the money sits in your account and gets you interest. it is trivial that you will not be able to move said money because it is reserved for the payee, but it is still generating interest on the bank, which it would not be doing if it were cashed instantly.
i agree that taunt should go and is the one thing enforcing the trinity, but scrappers really aren't the first alternative here. there are essentially two types of scrappers, one on one and ae dps, ae dps is squishy and draws alot of aggro because of dmg while one on one typically is tougher but with less aggro, neither of those give you much of any control over enemies. if you want to control enemies with scrappers you have two possibilites: gather a lot of scrappers so that there aren't many weak points in your group and everyone takes a part of the damage or use a scrapper with taunt aura and a tough skin (like kat/wp). the first is non functional in most groups, the second is again the tank concept.
the classes enabling different approaches are mostly controllers and defenders with cc, buffing and debuffing, which allows for very mixed groups that can survive on pure dps (with buffs/debuffs) or enemy control (with cc/debuffs) without having a central figure with ultimate control (aka tank)