Submit a story about boycotting beta, so that we all know when it should be done. Seriously. People who can see the firehose would bubble it up towards selection. (Unless, like me, they can't see the firehose, or do anything if they can see it.)
At the moment, with no javascript, and only select cookies, I'm managing to stay classic, but I'm prepared to boycott/. to make a stand.
Can we resurrect Bruce Perens' Technocrat as a home for the old-school nerds?
I skip-read that page, missing the "0 bytes" clue. When I got to the first benchmark, I just thought "wait a second, that's just plain old javascript DOM control?!??!".
My appreciation of the humour, and the serious payload, peaked higher because I hadn't seen the earlier clue.
I'm not sure one even needs a fossil record of so-called speciation when ring species not only show that speciation does occur, but also show that the concept of species and speciation isn't one that you should get particularly hung up upon, as it's a very fuzzy-edged concept.
I remember when "here's incontravertable proof that organisms evolve traits/organs/capabilities specific to their environment" became no longer an example of "evolution" to the creationidiots; they retreated, regrouped, and then demanded "now show me one *species* turning into another *species*" as proof. Quite why we didn't reply "sure - but only after you show me this thing you call 'god', I don't know".
There's even less reason to get hung up about in-between-steps between species when the bizarre unbelievable traits of midpoints in the fossil record have been spotted on creatures alive today. E.g. a fish that prefers being on dry land to being in water. Everything that was "unbelievable" about the past probably exists somewhere today.
Do you have standards/laws regarding "weights and measurements"? Do you have laws that permit selling different amounts of matter to people in different locations, yet claiming the same transaction has occured? What are the permitted units those "weights" may be measured/presented in? Does the w/w concentration of your drug suddently become a NaN when you take it into outer space?
You need to open your eyes more - weight meaning mass is *everywhere*. That's mostly because it always has beem and there's never been any reason for it to go away.
After living here for about a week I pointed out to my g/f that every single tram driver I noticed was female. Nearly 4 years later, I've still not seen a single male. I don't believe I've seen any other sector with so great an imbalance. I have no experience of kindergarten teachers, but I know the little-people in their high-viz walk past my window in pairs a couple of times a week, and occasionally one of the normal-sized people accompanying them will be male. I also have no experience of cosmetic counters save to hold my breath before enterring the department store, and to run as quickly as possible to the staircases at the back, with highly focussed tunnel vision.
> Weight and mass are patently *not* the same thing. In zero g, you have no weight
Nonsense. Read my links. In space, you weigh 80kg, just like you do on earth. Weight and mass have meant the same thing for far longer than any modern distinction, and nowadays the vast majority still do not draw that distinction. Weight means mass. Sorry, but it does. No matter what number of quotes using weight to mean force can counter an argument that weight means mass. The fact that you think otherwise implies that you think that the existence of black sheep denies the existence of white sheep, as it's precisely the same illogic.
I'm pretty much sure I entirely agree with you, but I've not heard the term "monocausal" used in this context - do you mean something like "(claiming to be a) silver bullet"?
No. BMI is designed for naive people two hundred years ago who just want a number, no matter how meaningless it is.
Weight does not and should not scale with the square of height unless you imagine that taller people are taller and wider, but not thicker. It's not a cubic relation either in reality, but there would have been more logic supporting that than square, even if it's a no better fit to common-sense results wise.
Everything to do with exponent-2 BMI should just be totally ignored. It's total bullshit. It says no more, and plenty less, than a whole range of other measures that aren't bullshit. It should have been thrown into the toxic waste bin of stupid medical superstitions that's of no use to anyone decades ago.
We do some work in the field, in governmental contexts. We've come up with phrase "policy-based evidence-making" for such bogostats.
What's your BMI using a 2.5 exponent, as proposed here? http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html (And no, sorry, I'm not volunteering mine on either scale, given where on the bell-curve I sit. (yes, the flat bit.))
Kilograms have been weight since forever. This is because weight does mean mass. The words were both coined before there was any distinction between the concepts.
Citation needed? How about *standards bodies*? http://fatphil.org/weight.html
Not one of those jobs has *anything* to do with the cosmetics,/per se/. Understanding business, understanding markets, and understanding finance, yes, understanding how to maximise the subfrenular lipid infraction properties of colloidal phthyloketones to make (fore)skins look younger - nope.
One of the turning points for Nokia was when they started having ex-cosmetics industry board members on their board. They were lacking an understanding of the comms business, and the comms market, and certainly knew nothing about the technology itself. They may have known enough about finance to understand that they were still rolling in it, and would only be dismissed by an even more generous golden handshake, but that's about all.
OK, let's put that to the test. I may or may not have just infringed the copyright on something.
Please tell me what method you or the combined effort of all copyright owners in the world could use to decide which of the two situations has occured.
If you can't distinguish between the two, then there is no difference between the two.
5 times significantly at last count. Always in the favour of content producers, never back in the direction of what was considered perfectly acceptable by all parties in when the concept of intellectual property was first concretised.
The fossil record informs us that there were times in the past that had as many different species as we have now. The tree of life does not only broaden over time, it gets hacked back mercilessly in extinction events too.
I took a photo, there was a bird. I took another photo, there was no bird. Your logic would lead to the conclusion that birds don't move, as we haven't seen it in motion.
It's still active. It still gives Finns, and those who work there, much more privacy than US/UK workers. Sure, they used to have more, but it could be a lot worse.
I'm familiar with his name, but wouldn't say "legend" was appropriate. Google for ``"Quisquater attack"'', and you should find some of the cryprographic attacks he's known for.
Presumably my most recent NDA would prevent me from mentioning if I've been reminded of/Lex Nokia/ other times recently, were it to be the case that those reminders were while I was within there workplace. I walked out of that job after only a couple of months...
And if we did, there would have been another slide with a little arrow pointing to Dice and saying "this is where we remove SSL". With a smiley, of course.
The only time I've been to (or even seen at all, to be honest) one of the big US games was a RedSox match at Fenway Park, and we were accompanied by what I can only now term a "stats nerd". He was utterly normal in every other way, but once inside the stadium, about 80% of what came out of his mouth contained a decimal number between 0 and 1. When we made him aware of this, he claimed that he's barely into the stats, some take it a lot more seriously than him. Scary.
Who do you think was behind the joint coke/pepsi add at halloween? It was the same picture (a pepsi can wearing a coke cloak), but the two companies had different slogans. Do you think that idea was pepsi's and coke's, or an ad agency exec trying to be brave (and thereby get his hands into two honeypots)? The latter seems more likely.
Boggling permitted: """ Which of the following would be brighter, in terms of the amount of energy delivered to your retina:
1. A supernova, seen from as far away as the Sun is from the Earth, or
2. The detonation of a hydrogen bomb pressed against your eyeball?
Applying the physicist rule of thumb suggests that the supernova is brighter. And indeed, it is... by nine orders of magnitude. """ http://what-if.xkcd.com/73/
Slashdot Mirror
Submit a story about boycotting beta, so that we all know when it should be done. Seriously. People who can see the firehose would bubble it up towards selection. (Unless, like me, they can't see the firehose, or do anything if they can see it.)
/. to make a stand.
At the moment, with no javascript, and only select cookies, I'm managing to stay classic, but I'm prepared to boycott
Can we resurrect Bruce Perens' Technocrat as a home for the old-school nerds?
I skip-read that page, missing the "0 bytes" clue. When I got to the first benchmark, I just thought "wait a second, that's just plain old javascript DOM control?!??!".
My appreciation of the humour, and the serious payload, peaked higher because I hadn't seen the earlier clue.
Thank you!
I'm not sure one even needs a fossil record of so-called speciation when ring species not only show that speciation does occur, but also show that the concept of species and speciation isn't one that you should get particularly hung up upon, as it's a very fuzzy-edged concept.
I remember when "here's incontravertable proof that organisms evolve traits/organs/capabilities specific to their environment" became no longer an example of "evolution" to the creationidiots; they retreated, regrouped, and then demanded "now show me one *species* turning into another *species*" as proof. Quite why we didn't reply "sure - but only after you show me this thing you call 'god', I don't know".
There's even less reason to get hung up about in-between-steps between species when the bizarre unbelievable traits of midpoints in the fossil record have been spotted on creatures alive today. E.g. a fish that prefers being on dry land to being in water. Everything that was "unbelievable" about the past probably exists somewhere today.
Do you have standards/laws regarding "weights and measurements"?
Do you have laws that permit selling different amounts of matter to people in different locations, yet claiming the same transaction has occured? What are the permitted units those "weights" may be measured/presented in? Does the w/w concentration of your drug suddently become a NaN when you take it into outer space?
You need to open your eyes more - weight meaning mass is *everywhere*. That's mostly because it always has beem and there's never been any reason for it to go away.
After living here for about a week I pointed out to my g/f that every single tram driver I noticed was female. Nearly 4 years later, I've still not seen a single male. I don't believe I've seen any other sector with so great an imbalance. I have no experience of kindergarten teachers, but I know the little-people in their high-viz walk past my window in pairs a couple of times a week, and occasionally one of the normal-sized people accompanying them will be male. I also have no experience of cosmetic counters save to hold my breath before enterring the department store, and to run as quickly as possible to the staircases at the back, with highly focussed tunnel vision.
> Weight and mass are patently *not* the same thing. In zero g, you have no weight
Nonsense. Read my links. In space, you weigh 80kg, just like you do on earth. Weight and mass have meant the same thing for far longer than any modern distinction, and nowadays the vast majority still do not draw that distinction. Weight means mass. Sorry, but it does. No matter what number of quotes using weight to mean force can counter an argument that weight means mass. The fact that you think otherwise implies that you think that the existence of black sheep denies the existence of white sheep, as it's precisely the same illogic.
I'm pretty much sure I entirely agree with you, but I've not heard the term "monocausal" used in this context - do you mean something like "(claiming to be a) silver bullet"?
No. BMI is designed for naive people two hundred years ago who just want a number, no matter how meaningless it is.
Weight does not and should not scale with the square of height unless you imagine that taller people are taller and wider, but not thicker. It's not a cubic relation either in reality, but there would have been more logic supporting that than square, even if it's a no better fit to common-sense results wise.
Everything to do with exponent-2 BMI should just be totally ignored. It's total bullshit. It says no more, and plenty less, than a whole range of other measures that aren't bullshit. It should have been thrown into the toxic waste bin of stupid medical superstitions that's of no use to anyone decades ago.
We do some work in the field, in governmental contexts. We've come up with phrase "policy-based evidence-making" for such bogostats.
What's your BMI using a 2.5 exponent, as proposed here?
http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
(And no, sorry, I'm not volunteering mine on either scale, given where on the bell-curve I sit. (yes, the flat bit.))
Stop repeating that tired new bullshit.
Kilograms have been weight since forever. This is because weight does mean mass. The words were both coined before there was any distinction between the concepts.
Citation needed? How about *standards bodies*? http://fatphil.org/weight.html
Not one of those jobs has *anything* to do with the cosmetics, /per se/. Understanding business, understanding markets, and understanding finance, yes, understanding how to maximise the subfrenular lipid infraction properties of colloidal phthyloketones to make (fore)skins look younger - nope.
One of the turning points for Nokia was when they started having ex-cosmetics industry board members on their board. They were lacking an understanding of the comms business, and the comms market, and certainly knew nothing about the technology itself. They may have known enough about finance to understand that they were still rolling in it, and would only be dismissed by an even more generous golden handshake, but that's about all.
Just leaving this here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_63IJryJhFs
OK, let's put that to the test. I may or may not have just infringed the copyright on something.
Please tell me what method you or the combined effort of all copyright owners in the world could use to decide which of the two situations has occured.
If you can't distinguish between the two, then there is no difference between the two.
> Did someone alter the deal?
5 times significantly at last count. Always in the favour of content producers, never back in the direction of what was considered perfectly acceptable by all parties in when the concept of intellectual property was first concretised.
Burgess Shale? Lots of species there.
The fossil record informs us that there were times in the past that had as many different species as we have now. The tree of life does not only broaden over time, it gets hacked back mercilessly in extinction events too.
Or to punctuated equilibria.
I took a photo, there was a bird. I took another photo, there was no bird. Your logic would lead to the conclusion that birds don't move, as we haven't seen it in motion.
It's still active. It still gives Finns, and those who work there, much more privacy than US/UK workers. Sure, they used to have more, but it could be a lot worse.
Where are you comparing to?
I want to factor the number 15. Gimme something running Shor...
I'm familiar with his name, but wouldn't say "legend" was appropriate.
Google for ``"Quisquater attack"'', and you should find some of the cryprographic attacks he's known for.
I am reminded of /Lex Nokia/.
/Lex Nokia/ other times recently, were it to be the case that those reminders were while I was within there workplace. I walked out of that job after only a couple of months...
Presumably my most recent NDA would prevent me from mentioning if I've been reminded of
And this shows why "cryptography expert" and "security expert" should not be confused.
And if we did, there would have been another slide with a little arrow pointing to Dice and saying "this is where we remove SSL". With a smiley, of course.
So that scrapie can jump to another species...
The only time I've been to (or even seen at all, to be honest) one of the big US games was a RedSox match at Fenway Park, and we were accompanied by what I can only now term a "stats nerd". He was utterly normal in every other way, but once inside the stadium, about 80% of what came out of his mouth contained a decimal number between 0 and 1. When we made him aware of this, he claimed that he's barely into the stats, some take it a lot more seriously than him. Scary.
Who do you think was behind the joint coke/pepsi add at halloween? It was the same picture (a pepsi can wearing a coke cloak), but the two companies had different slogans. Do you think that idea was pepsi's and coke's, or an ad agency exec trying to be brave (and thereby get his hands into two honeypots)? The latter seems more likely.
Boggling permitted:
... by nine orders of magnitude.
"""
Which of the following would be brighter, in terms of the amount of energy delivered to your retina:
1. A supernova, seen from as far away as the Sun is from the Earth, or
2. The detonation of a hydrogen bomb pressed against your eyeball?
Applying the physicist rule of thumb suggests that the supernova is brighter. And indeed, it is
"""
http://what-if.xkcd.com/73/