In general, there is a lot of very good wine from nearly any respectable wine-producing country in the world, now. You can get good deals and bad deals out of most of them. Import wines can have a fairly high markup, but name recognition is where all of the cost really comes from. Burgundy is expensive. Known Pacific Northwest Pinot Noir (equivalent to Burgundy) is also really expensive. A good Pinor Noir from a lesser-known region is dramatically cheaper. Even cheaper is if someone in a lesser-known region (even if that region is in France) makes wine from a different red grape that is not the well-known Pinot Noir.
I think "value for your money" starts at about the $8-$15 / bottle price range, at which point a competent wine store should be able to point you to a perfectly good bottle of wine in the style of [insert famous name here]. Around $20-$25 / bottle, your dollars are starting to buy substantially less quality.
No, "dry white" doesn't replace the term "Chablis". The phrase "dry white" is a categorical description that applies to Chablis as well as a number of other wines. The term that an Australian winemaker would most likely use to replace "Chablis" is "Chardonnay". Actually, as Australia follows New World naming conventions, I would distrust an Australian wine that labeled itself "Chablis" now. The "Chardonnay" term is certainly well-known internationally and is more in fitting with the naming conventions good Australian winemakers use. (The descriptive text should refer to the wine as "unoaked Chardonnay". You can include "in the style of Chablis" in the descriptive text. Bonus points if they cater to the people who know wine-labeling rules and put "100% Chardonnay" somewhere.)
If you happen to already know what a relatively little-used term like Auslese means, you should be able to pick up the alternate terms.
Many of those are very easy: for marsala, port, and sherry, they're the bottles that are in the "marsala", "port", and "sherry" sections in a liquor store. They're the bottles next to the real thing.
Wine or liquor stores that categorize by country or region are a bit more challenging for the wines, but things like port are always categorized by type in a store.
Simply untrue. U.S. wines have been following this convention for a long time now. While imported wine has been on the rise, the average consumer has happily bought Californian crap the whole time. (Thankfully, today's bad Californian wine is much better than that of 30 years ago.) In fact, two of the U.S.'s most popular wines are grape-labeled, not region-labeled.
Anyone who's more discerning than the average consumer hopefully has the presence of mind to either read the signs in the store or go to a wine store and ask someone.
It's certainly true, although not very common. I've done quite a bit of double-blind tasting. (Although, if you're comparing two vintages, nobody tells you what you're looking for, and you figure out what the difference actually is, that's pretty good.) For particularly strange years or for regions that have a lot of weather variability from year to year (France, but not California), it can be entirely possible to discern the difference between two vintages. It's often not even particularly difficult. It's just uncommon that people bother to compare two vintages side-by-side.
You're generalizing far too much. People are bad at determining whether or not a wine is "good" or if it is expensive from a double-blind test. (That's not surprising. There's a lot of enjoyable, inexpensive wine, and people distinctly favor wines that they *like* rather than ones that are expensive and highly rated if they lack that information.) They're also not particularly good at coming up with the subtle differences and fancy words that you find in reviews. But then, most wine people will tell you that the fancy words in the write-ups are a joke. People detect tastes in wines and, if they practice, can compare those flavors and aromas to other things they've experience before. Nobody picks the same descriptive words unless you restrict people to very basic descriptors: acidic, floral, fruity, hot, tannic, vegetal, etc.
However, the difference between one region and another with the same grape is very noticable. Maybe not between Napa and Sonoma or between one side of a hill in Napa and one side of a hill in Sonoma. But you can tell the difference in wines made in New York and California, for instance, or France and Australia. For that matter, you can objectively measure some of the differences -- depending on the region, the same grape will produce more sugar, less malic acid, more tannin, etc.
That's a New World wine thing. In general, New World winemakers are more about technique and the grape, and Old World winemakers are more about tradition and the land (terrior). Old World region labels like "Burgundy" require not only that grapes be grown in a particular area, but that the wine be made from a particular blend of grapes and in a particular way. New World region names are only region names.
Champagne, as an extreme example, is not very much about the grape variety at all. Champagne often uses a lot of grapes that you'd otherwise not make good wine from. The procedure, however, is key to good Champagne. The same is true of Sherry, Port, etc.
They mention both. It's right in the instructions on the beta site.
The reason you have to change your router settings is that either your system and network are old enough not to use UPnP or you've opted to turn it off, and NATing IPv4 routers are a common but asinine blight on the world of networking.
At any rate, with zero configuration, you'll get at least the download bandwidth that you would get if they hosted their own update servers, as they host seeds.
On top of pretty much requiring UPnP "trojan all-you-can-eat buffet" features to do anything useful
Or manually port forwarding, as described on the Beat site.
it will happily corrupt itself beyond repair if it ever times out or is interrupted for some other reason.
Nonsense, I've killed it or had it crash multiple times while in progress. Still works fine. That's why, as with any BitTorrent client, it re-hashes the pieces it has downloaded and throws out any corrupt ones when it starts.
as it didn't transfer more than maybe 1MB in the 20 or so attempts I made before sending some rather impolite feedback and uninstalling the POS
So, you didn't have UPnP or port forwarding set up, and it didn't work. That's not surprising.
The client is lacking any upstream limiting features
Any competent publisher that values its customers (so maybe all two of them)
You can't comment on whether Final Fantasy 14 discloses that it uses P2P, because you don't have a copy of FF14. You only have a copy of the beta. The fact that it uses P2P to download the beta client and updates is spelled out in the download and installation instructions that you clearly didn't read.
The password-required feature is logging in to your user account. Chrome uses the Windows encryption facility that piggybacks off of Windows user logins.
Right, this is only formal, seated exams. My undergrad classes mostly had formal exams, but none of my grad classes did. They were all take-home exams (except for the experimental class, which had an informal oral exam). Most of them were the cruel 24-hour take-home exam.
Equal probability isn't a default you can fall back on when you have no information. The correct answer is that you have no information, not that they have equal probability.
Science doesn't mention God. Hawking did, but he's just a scientist with a particular opinion.
Now, science does mention a lot of factual things that contradict what people who believe in God thought, and even factual things that contradict what people who believe in God claim that God said. That's up to the religious to deal with. Most scientists don't care what a person believes as long as they're not wrong.
The high points could be boiled down to something comprehensible and studied within a week or so.
But don't worry. Modern physics doesn't go by "reason" so much as mathematics and experimental observation. There's nothing particularly obvious or sane about relativity or quantum mechanics.
Actually, the New Testament (and earlier Jewish works) refer to Gehenna, which appears in modern Bibles as "Hell" and was a metaphor for the punishment of the wicked. Gehenna was named after a valley near Jerusalem that was used to dispose of refuse (and sometimes people) and was, actually, essentially always on fire.
As with Pascal's Wager, your theoretical god is not "as likely to exist" as a different god. It's unknown (and many would say unknowable) how likely either of them are. So, you're right in that both gods are in the same boat -- nobody knows how likely it is that either exists. It's incorrect to go from that to "they're equally likely to exist".
A more absurd version of the same thing has been claimed against the Large Hadron Collider -- because it either might or might not destroy the Earth and we have no information about which it is (not true, but I digress), then those two outcomes are equally probable... meaning the LHC has a 50% chance to destroy the Earth.
Imagine everyone was asked how often they came across a misconfigured network. One guy answered "about 80% of the time". Another guy answered "20% of the time." 73% of the respondents, when asked, gave an answer that was higher than "75% of the time".
Separately, respondents were asked what IT resource was easiest to exploit, and 76% of them said "network".
Since you generally compute mortality rate by averaging over a bunch of people who were alive at the beginning, mortality rate usually is undefined for the dead.
Slashdot Mirror
In general, there is a lot of very good wine from nearly any respectable wine-producing country in the world, now. You can get good deals and bad deals out of most of them. Import wines can have a fairly high markup, but name recognition is where all of the cost really comes from. Burgundy is expensive. Known Pacific Northwest Pinot Noir (equivalent to Burgundy) is also really expensive. A good Pinor Noir from a lesser-known region is dramatically cheaper. Even cheaper is if someone in a lesser-known region (even if that region is in France) makes wine from a different red grape that is not the well-known Pinot Noir.
I think "value for your money" starts at about the $8-$15 / bottle price range, at which point a competent wine store should be able to point you to a perfectly good bottle of wine in the style of [insert famous name here]. Around $20-$25 / bottle, your dollars are starting to buy substantially less quality.
No, "dry white" doesn't replace the term "Chablis". The phrase "dry white" is a categorical description that applies to Chablis as well as a number of other wines. The term that an Australian winemaker would most likely use to replace "Chablis" is "Chardonnay". Actually, as Australia follows New World naming conventions, I would distrust an Australian wine that labeled itself "Chablis" now. The "Chardonnay" term is certainly well-known internationally and is more in fitting with the naming conventions good Australian winemakers use. (The descriptive text should refer to the wine as "unoaked Chardonnay". You can include "in the style of Chablis" in the descriptive text. Bonus points if they cater to the people who know wine-labeling rules and put "100% Chardonnay" somewhere.)
If you happen to already know what a relatively little-used term like Auslese means, you should be able to pick up the alternate terms.
Many of those are very easy: for marsala, port, and sherry, they're the bottles that are in the "marsala", "port", and "sherry" sections in a liquor store. They're the bottles next to the real thing.
Wine or liquor stores that categorize by country or region are a bit more challenging for the wines, but things like port are always categorized by type in a store.
Simply untrue. U.S. wines have been following this convention for a long time now. While imported wine has been on the rise, the average consumer has happily bought Californian crap the whole time. (Thankfully, today's bad Californian wine is much better than that of 30 years ago.) In fact, two of the U.S.'s most popular wines are grape-labeled, not region-labeled.
Anyone who's more discerning than the average consumer hopefully has the presence of mind to either read the signs in the store or go to a wine store and ask someone.
It's certainly true, although not very common. I've done quite a bit of double-blind tasting. (Although, if you're comparing two vintages, nobody tells you what you're looking for, and you figure out what the difference actually is, that's pretty good.) For particularly strange years or for regions that have a lot of weather variability from year to year (France, but not California), it can be entirely possible to discern the difference between two vintages. It's often not even particularly difficult. It's just uncommon that people bother to compare two vintages side-by-side.
You're generalizing far too much. People are bad at determining whether or not a wine is "good" or if it is expensive from a double-blind test. (That's not surprising. There's a lot of enjoyable, inexpensive wine, and people distinctly favor wines that they *like* rather than ones that are expensive and highly rated if they lack that information.) They're also not particularly good at coming up with the subtle differences and fancy words that you find in reviews. But then, most wine people will tell you that the fancy words in the write-ups are a joke. People detect tastes in wines and, if they practice, can compare those flavors and aromas to other things they've experience before. Nobody picks the same descriptive words unless you restrict people to very basic descriptors: acidic, floral, fruity, hot, tannic, vegetal, etc.
However, the difference between one region and another with the same grape is very noticable. Maybe not between Napa and Sonoma or between one side of a hill in Napa and one side of a hill in Sonoma. But you can tell the difference in wines made in New York and California, for instance, or France and Australia. For that matter, you can objectively measure some of the differences -- depending on the region, the same grape will produce more sugar, less malic acid, more tannin, etc.
That's a New World wine thing. In general, New World winemakers are more about technique and the grape, and Old World winemakers are more about tradition and the land (terrior). Old World region labels like "Burgundy" require not only that grapes be grown in a particular area, but that the wine be made from a particular blend of grapes and in a particular way. New World region names are only region names.
Champagne, as an extreme example, is not very much about the grape variety at all. Champagne often uses a lot of grapes that you'd otherwise not make good wine from. The procedure, however, is key to good Champagne. The same is true of Sherry, Port, etc.
They mention both. It's right in the instructions on the beta site.
The reason you have to change your router settings is that either your system and network are old enough not to use UPnP or you've opted to turn it off, and NATing IPv4 routers are a common but asinine blight on the world of networking.
At any rate, with zero configuration, you'll get at least the download bandwidth that you would get if they hosted their own update servers, as they host seeds.
On top of pretty much requiring UPnP "trojan all-you-can-eat buffet" features to do anything useful
Or manually port forwarding, as described on the Beat site.
it will happily corrupt itself beyond repair if it ever times out or is interrupted for some other reason.
Nonsense, I've killed it or had it crash multiple times while in progress. Still works fine. That's why, as with any BitTorrent client, it re-hashes the pieces it has downloaded and throws out any corrupt ones when it starts.
as it didn't transfer more than maybe 1MB in the 20 or so attempts I made before sending some rather impolite feedback and uninstalling the POS
So, you didn't have UPnP or port forwarding set up, and it didn't work. That's not surprising.
The client is lacking any upstream limiting features
Any competent publisher that values its customers (so maybe all two of them)
So, in your opinion, rather than in practice.
You can't comment on whether Final Fantasy 14 discloses that it uses P2P, because you don't have a copy of FF14. You only have a copy of the beta. The fact that it uses P2P to download the beta client and updates is spelled out in the download and installation instructions that you clearly didn't read.
The password-required feature is logging in to your user account. Chrome uses the Windows encryption facility that piggybacks off of Windows user logins.
Right, this is only formal, seated exams. My undergrad classes mostly had formal exams, but none of my grad classes did. They were all take-home exams (except for the experimental class, which had an informal oral exam). Most of them were the cruel 24-hour take-home exam.
Equal probability isn't a default you can fall back on when you have no information. The correct answer is that you have no information, not that they have equal probability.
Science doesn't mention God. Hawking did, but he's just a scientist with a particular opinion.
Now, science does mention a lot of factual things that contradict what people who believe in God thought, and even factual things that contradict what people who believe in God claim that God said. That's up to the religious to deal with. Most scientists don't care what a person believes as long as they're not wrong.
The high points could be boiled down to something comprehensible and studied within a week or so.
But don't worry. Modern physics doesn't go by "reason" so much as mathematics and experimental observation. There's nothing particularly obvious or sane about relativity or quantum mechanics.
Actually, the New Testament (and earlier Jewish works) refer to Gehenna, which appears in modern Bibles as "Hell" and was a metaphor for the punishment of the wicked. Gehenna was named after a valley near Jerusalem that was used to dispose of refuse (and sometimes people) and was, actually, essentially always on fire.
As with Pascal's Wager, your theoretical god is not "as likely to exist" as a different god. It's unknown (and many would say unknowable) how likely either of them are. So, you're right in that both gods are in the same boat -- nobody knows how likely it is that either exists. It's incorrect to go from that to "they're equally likely to exist".
A more absurd version of the same thing has been claimed against the Large Hadron Collider -- because it either might or might not destroy the Earth and we have no information about which it is (not true, but I digress), then those two outcomes are equally probable... meaning the LHC has a 50% chance to destroy the Earth.
Oh, there's no shortage of reasons why "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54" is painfully bad.
No, but individuals have an estimated mortality rate that's determined using an ensemble of similar individuals.
Imagine everyone was asked how often they came across a misconfigured network. One guy answered "about 80% of the time". Another guy answered "20% of the time." 73% of the respondents, when asked, gave an answer that was higher than "75% of the time".
Separately, respondents were asked what IT resource was easiest to exploit, and 76% of them said "network".
Only if you average over an arbitrarily-selected large amount of time.
Too bad mortality rate is also a function of time and is not constant.
Since you generally compute mortality rate by averaging over a bunch of people who were alive at the beginning, mortality rate usually is undefined for the dead.
No, eventually your integrated mortality rate, which is your mortality probability, reaches 1.
They were probably restricting themselves to scientific evidence, not reasoning that someone made up because it sounded logical.
That's mortality probability. A mortality rate (like many rates) is per unit time.