Everyone knowing the weird is frequently going to happen somewhere should be the death of religions, which have long preyed on people's inability to judge how unlikely unexpected, to them, things are.
These fabrics are designed specifically to have good strain resistance under tension (which is how they'd be inflated in the near vaccum of space). It's hitting their design sweet spot.
Absoutely. Every hungry Brit knows that the polite way to lick the plate clean is to use the free bread rolls that you get with the meal to mop up any remaining sauce. Tongue never contacts plate.
Which implies the correct use if this device is to gaffer tape it to the *outside* of the wine glass.
Strange that you don't say that it translates more accurately to "overman", given the direct connection of the prefices.
What precise distinction were you trying to draw between "super-" and "supra-", in particular in the context of neologising by prefixing them to a word?
A vendetta by hoi polloi is democracy, which is what the USA claims to stand for. (But note - the masses may not be right, and in fact commonly aren't.)
A vendetta by an individual, or a small group, who has power is not comparable at all.
Exactly. It sounds just like the "beer" industry. Cheapen, and aim for the lowest common denominator in order to expand in the market. Once you're there, milk the suckers through crossbranding and cynical tie-ins.
However, there will be revoltions, people will object to the pablum every now and then.
Superman wasn't even novel coinage anyway. It's equivalent to Uebermensch, which was in German decades earlier, at least by the time of Nietzsche, who used it.
That looked more like a simulation lasting more than 200 times the rotation rate of an outer spiral arm of the final galaxy, not 50.
And why was there a constant stream of galaxies flinging themselves in our general direction? I thought the universe was expanding, so things should be thinning out?
> Assigning some numbering system to perceived localized concentrations in a random universe is sort of like throwing more money in a Vegas Slot Machine on the theory that some supposed law of averages suggests you are bound to start winning any minute now.
It's hard to tell if that's wrong, or just meaningless. It parses as English, but it doesn't seem to actually be countering the post to which you responded. I'll try to mimic you: "Claiming clumps in a random universe aren't rare is sort of like pouring custard into an empty tortoise shell." You see, it parses, but it contains two almost entirely unconnected things in the same sentence, with no logic inference or deductive process connecting them.
If you were to try to perform the transformation suggested - in 1D if you prefer, as that would let you use fruit-machine winnings as your source data you would see that you cannot create a more compact representation of the data. The grandparent post was one of the most lucid explanations of the concept I've seen in a long time, and it seems to have gone right over your head.
They're always CBR, rather than VBR/ABR. They're chock full of useless tags that I don't want in my files. They're named in a clumsy way that I dislike (I don't want the artist and the album title in the file name - I have a directory structure that performs that namespacing for me much more conveniently).
> That means at the TOP of the pedaling cycle, the cyclist now HAS leverage from a downward push on the pedal.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
At the *top* of the pedalling cycle there's exactly the same amount of leverage from a downward push as there would be from a normal crank at the top of its pedalling cycle. Namely zero.
Torque = force * perpendicular distance.
At the *top* , a downward force passes through the axis of rotation, so the perpendicular distance is zero. So torque is zero.
> This design shifts the deadspot from the normal 0 degree point at the top of the cycle to a point further down where momentum is presumably easier to deal with.
No, this design shapes the crank so that some of it trails the pedal. However, the shape of the crank is almost entirely irrelevant. Imagine creating a rigid triangle by filling in the missing side. Now imagine removing the two original sides from that triangle. Neither of those changes affects how the downward pressure on the pedal turns the crank shaft. (If you think otherwise, which of the two changes does what change.) The only way the shape change is not entirely irrelevant are ways which have a negative impact, as it has: a) greater length, therefore more flexibility, which is bad for several reasons b) greater mass, which is unnecessary, so bad.
"We'll not incorporate your fix, because it might introduce regressione elsewhere" is the biggest enemy of progress I've seen. I saw literally hundreds of bugs go "WONTFIX" because of that logic. I can understand some caution, but there was never the concept of prioritising and delaying. If they didn't want the fix now, then it just got binned forever. Meetings only wasted minutes a day. Logic like that could waste entire weeks in one blow.
You'd need to define "in the name of atheism" before that's properly answerable. I don't know of any specifically-atheist tracts that command the killing of others, which includes those which were an influence (at least by lip-service) on the regimes you mention. So I'd argue that those killings were not "in the name of atheism". Of course, altar-boy rape isn't in the bible either, so your point is a valid one.
However, the sub-text behind my previous post was that "the evidence for Jesus can be seen in" none of these things, not the good happenstances, nor the evil ones. Which gets me off the hook as your "if that was the case" does not apply. It was a rather deeply buried though, I do admit.
Something similar to (I should never have been told about the real challenge, so certainly shouldn't be passing it on!): "Given a text file, find the odd-lengthed word which has a vowel exactly in the middle of it which occurs most frequently. You may assume the only characters used are a-z and whitespace."
Anyone who's received an email from Nokia and examined the headers will know that Nokia use a Microsoft server in Amsterdam as their email gateway. So there's no hypocrisy, Nokia are prepared to have people snooping on their most secret communications too.
This may sound like a dumb question, but you've probably got a zillion certificates in your browser, including ones from Honest Achmed (who is at least more honest than Comodo), and possibly ones from your ISP - how do you know they aren't capable of decrypting your SSL traffic?
While happily employed, I darted off for an interview, clad in jeans and biker jacket. I was a little early, mostly as I was being rained upon heavily, and had seen enough of the town to judge whether it was a pleasant environment (it was). Which means my long hair was a bedraggled mess. As I was early, and the secretary was a bit inexperienced and didn't show me where I could hang my jacket, I just flung it into the corner of the room behind me. (And being a proper bikers jacket, it 'stood up'.) It was noticed immediately by the two people who were interviewing me, I could see them do a double take -- "WTF? he doesn't even hang his coat up".
Would I have been put in your bin?
(I mention that situation as I got *two* job offers from that single interview.)
(There was an other interview where I cycled to it (nearly an hour's ride, I'm an unfit bastard), so turned up a complete sweaty mess, but had a washbag and a suit in my rucksack, and did such a chango-presto in the loos that the receptionist didn't even recognise me when I emerged. So I'm not always a scruff in the interview itself.)
A lot of the "only hiring the best of the best" situations I've encountered and heard of, the companies were after turd-polishers. They knew they had a crap codebase, and needed a miracle.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone knowing the weird is frequently going to happen somewhere should be the death of religions, which have long preyed on people's inability to judge how unlikely unexpected, to them, things are.
That's simple. One probe goes in your ear, one probe goes in your mouth, and one probe goes up your bum.
Nope, not that way round.
I don't know about large things like that, but I do know that my favourite input device and medium is a pen on paper still.
These fabrics are designed specifically to have good strain resistance under tension (which is how they'd be inflated in the near vaccum of space). It's hitting their design sweet spot.
Absoutely. Every hungry Brit knows that the polite way to lick the plate clean is to use the free bread rolls that you get with the meal to mop up any remaining sauce. Tongue never contacts plate.
Which implies the correct use if this device is to gaffer tape it to the *outside* of the wine glass.
Now it'll be Orangutang Arm instead.
Strange that you don't say that it translates more accurately to "overman", given the direct connection of the prefices.
What precise distinction were you trying to draw between "super-" and "supra-", in particular in the context of neologising by prefixing them to a word?
A vendetta by hoi polloi is democracy, which is what the USA claims to stand for. (But note - the masses may not be right, and in fact commonly aren't.)
A vendetta by an individual, or a small group, who has power is not comparable at all.
Exactly. It sounds just like the "beer" industry. Cheapen, and aim for the lowest common denominator in order to expand in the market. Once you're there, milk the suckers through crossbranding and cynical tie-ins.
However, there will be revoltions, people will object to the pablum every now and then.
Superman wasn't even novel coinage anyway. It's equivalent to Uebermensch, which was in German decades earlier, at least by the time of Nietzsche, who used it.
That looked more like a simulation lasting more than 200 times the rotation rate of an outer spiral arm of the final galaxy, not 50.
And why was there a constant stream of galaxies flinging themselves in our general direction? I thought the universe was expanding, so things should be thinning out?
> Assigning some numbering system to perceived localized concentrations in a random universe is sort of like throwing more money in a Vegas Slot Machine on the theory that some supposed law of averages suggests you are bound to start winning any minute now.
It's hard to tell if that's wrong, or just meaningless. It parses as English, but it doesn't seem to actually be countering the post to which you responded. I'll try to mimic you:
"Claiming clumps in a random universe aren't rare is sort of like pouring custard into an empty tortoise shell."
You see, it parses, but it contains two almost entirely unconnected things in the same sentence, with no logic inference or deductive process connecting them.
If you were to try to perform the transformation suggested - in 1D if you prefer, as that would let you use fruit-machine winnings as your source data you would see that you cannot create a more compact representation of the data. The grandparent post was one of the most lucid explanations of the concept I've seen in a long time, and it seems to have gone right over your head.
Agreed.
They're always CBR, rather than VBR/ABR.
They're chock full of useless tags that I don't want in my files.
They're named in a clumsy way that I dislike (I don't want the artist and the album title in the file name - I have a directory structure that performs that namespacing for me much more conveniently).
=> I always create my own mp3s.
I hope you got a refund. Don't you have something like the UK's Sale of Goods Act with a "not fit for the intended purpose" clause?
> That means at the TOP of the pedaling cycle, the cyclist now HAS leverage from a downward push on the pedal.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
At the *top* of the pedalling cycle there's exactly the same amount of leverage from a downward push as there would be from a normal crank at the top of its pedalling cycle. Namely zero.
Torque = force * perpendicular distance.
At the *top* , a downward force passes through the axis of rotation, so the perpendicular distance is zero. So torque is zero.
> This design shifts the deadspot from the normal 0 degree point at the top of the cycle to a point further down where momentum is presumably easier to deal with.
No, this design shapes the crank so that some of it trails the pedal. However, the shape of the crank is almost entirely irrelevant. Imagine creating a rigid triangle by filling in the missing side. Now imagine removing the two original sides from that triangle. Neither of those changes affects how the downward pressure on the pedal turns the crank shaft. (If you think otherwise, which of the two changes does what change.) The only way the shape change is not entirely irrelevant are ways which have a negative impact, as it has:
a) greater length, therefore more flexibility, which is bad for several reasons
b) greater mass, which is unnecessary, so bad.
"We'll not incorporate your fix, because it might introduce regressione elsewhere" is the biggest enemy of progress I've seen. I saw literally hundreds of bugs go "WONTFIX" because of that logic. I can understand some caution, but there was never the concept of prioritising and delaying. If they didn't want the fix now, then it just got binned forever. Meetings only wasted minutes a day. Logic like that could waste entire weeks in one blow.
Hahah - this tale was from chit-chat with someone in the company. I have had an interview in a bar before though (and was offered, and took the job).
You'd need to define "in the name of atheism" before that's properly answerable. I don't know of any specifically-atheist tracts that command the killing of others, which includes those which were an influence (at least by lip-service) on the regimes you mention. So I'd argue that those killings were not "in the name of atheism". Of course, altar-boy rape isn't in the bible either, so your point is a valid one.
However, the sub-text behind my previous post was that "the evidence for Jesus can be seen in" none of these things, not the good happenstances, nor the evil ones. Which gets me off the hook as your "if that was the case" does not apply. It was a rather deeply buried though, I do admit.
Your so-called "real probability" is not what we real mathematicians call probability.
Something similar to (I should never have been told about the real challenge, so certainly shouldn't be passing it on!):
"Given a text file, find the odd-lengthed word which has a vowel exactly in the middle of it which occurs most frequently. You may assume the only characters used are a-z and whitespace."
I know that my eyes haven't been hacked.
...) server hasn't been hacked.
I don't know that nokia's (opera's, apple's, amazon's,
Anyone who's received an email from Nokia and examined the headers will know that Nokia use a Microsoft server in Amsterdam as their email gateway. So there's no hypocrisy, Nokia are prepared to have people snooping on their most secret communications too.
This may sound like a dumb question, but you've probably got a zillion certificates in your browser, including ones from Honest Achmed (who is at least more honest than Comodo), and possibly ones from your ISP - how do you know they aren't capable of decrypting your SSL traffic?
> or turn up ... scruffy = third stage bin
While happily employed, I darted off for an interview, clad in jeans and biker jacket. I was a little early, mostly as I was being rained upon heavily, and had seen enough of the town to judge whether it was a pleasant environment (it was). Which means my long hair was a bedraggled mess. As I was early, and the secretary was a bit inexperienced and didn't show me where I could hang my jacket, I just flung it into the corner of the room behind me. (And being a proper bikers jacket, it 'stood up'.) It was noticed immediately by the two people who were interviewing me, I could see them do a double take -- "WTF? he doesn't even hang his coat up".
Would I have been put in your bin?
(I mention that situation as I got *two* job offers from that single interview.)
(There was an other interview where I cycled to it (nearly an hour's ride, I'm an unfit bastard), so turned up a complete sweaty mess, but had a washbag and a suit in my rucksack, and did such a chango-presto in the loos that the receptionist didn't even recognise me when I emerged. So I'm not always a scruff in the interview itself.)
A lot of the "only hiring the best of the best" situations I've encountered and heard of, the companies were after turd-polishers. They knew they had a crap codebase, and needed a miracle.