So how do you plan to view something without making a copy? You are making a copy from the server to your home disk, your home disk to ram, ram to your brain, or possibly all of the above and more.
Situation 1) Player is playing well above his known strength. Then the broadcast is turned off. Then he begins playing at his expected strength.
Situation 2) Player is playing at his expected strength. Then the broadcast is turned on. Then he begins playing well above his expected strength.
Do both of these situations suggest the same probability of cheating? No. Situation 2 is far more likely to be a cheater.
The outcome of situation 1 is expected even if the player isn't cheating, so the change of broadcast isn't as suggestive. The outcome of situation 2 is highly unexpected, so it would actually serve an indication of cheating.
If it he was really playing stronger moves than expected, but wasn't cheating, then wouldn't you expect him eventually start playing moves at his expected strength?
It's like saying "ah, you did unexpected thing X, but then stopped doing unexpected thing X when we did Y". It's hard to say that Y prevented X because you should have expected X to stop anyway.
Ok so you are working on a team and deleting code. Here are some basic rules to follow. 1) Don't delete your boss's code. Just change all the function calls to go around it. If he asks you about it, say that someone else changed it. 2) Don't cuss out the guy who's code you are deleting until after you are done. You might have to ask him why he did certain things (unexpected library behavior etc). 3) Make sure the code you add to replace the old code is longer than what you deleted. That way, you can tell your boss that you added 'x' lines of code to the project. 4) Don't waste time unit testing your new code. Obviously if you have to replace the old code, then you are a better programmer than the last one. If the last programmer's code passed unit tests, and you are better, then obviously yours would pass unit tests too. Any politeness the other programmer shows to you after you delete his code is not to be trusted. The code we write is pride to us, and deleting someone else's code is like seeing your coworkers girlfriend naked in the shower. Sure, it's not really your fault and you didn't really do anything bad. But expect some negative passive aggressive behavior in response.
Here in the US we recognize the corporations are collections of people. Citizens United recognized that if congress cannot restrict the rights of a person, then it can't restrict the rights of a collection of people either. And btw, thank god they did that. This is why the Supreme Court is immune to the mob mentality of elections.
Also, unless we actually move to a fixed currency, in 30 years a candy bar will cost around $35 due do inflation, but maybe a bit less as technology might find better ways of making candy bars, or maybe a bit more if regulations make it more burdensome to make them.
Perhaps you mean to 'inflate' away our debt? With enough inflation a child would have a trillion dollars in their piggy bank, and it would be worthless. Deflation makes held debt more valuable.
Yes people holding cash will see an increase in spending power. However, people who invest will see the same offset to their investment. If a person sitting on cash in the bank made a 5% improvement in a year, then an investor would see 5% over what his investment would make in a non-inflationary or deflationary environment. A person working an hourly job would get a 5% raise in spending power just by virtue of living through a year.
I don't argue for a gold standard, but a fixed currency would grow our economy better than the back-room handouts that the federal reserve gives out. The only really decent argument I've heard for printing money is the possibility of doing so to offset taxes, by printing money instead of collecting it. Otherwise, it's just counterfeit by proxy.
I'm a human and I can't tell whether a swatch of color is burgundy or maroon. There's no way a robot could do better at such a subjective, human specialized task.
if color == #9E0508 output burgundy if color == #691F01 output maroon
I tend to be fairly libertarian (prosperity by liberty), but I have failed to hear a good way even most libertarian philosophies avoid "government enforced monopolies". Some resources are limited, like the spectrum for cell phone communications, or mines, or oil reserves. The problem of avoiding monopolies is much harder than libertarian philosophies address, and I'm not saying this to discourage libertarian principles. It's a problem with socialist principles as well. Libertarian philosophy certainly avoid some kinds of monopolies, but resource based ones are very difficult to work out.
Wait until your kid learns that he can make the computer do his math homework for him (by writing programs to solve the problems). Then your kid will really start programming.
Anyway, programmers are a dime a dozen. But someone who is good at mathematics is very rare. If he is already excelling in mathematics, then he has a future in any form of engineering and the real sciences.
As for your original question...you could consider getting him a TI-83 and let him go with TI-basic. Or get a programming kit for that. Or put a compiler on your computer. Back in the day we had QBasic, I guess the modern attempt at that is python.
Most importantly: listen to what he says he wants to learn. The best thing to teach him is whatever he wants to learn. If he just wants to learn math, then a good puzzle book for mathematics is great. (Not sudoku or crosswords, but actual mathematical/logic puzzle books targeted for kids is what I'm suggesting).
Your free will isn't as all-powerful as you think it is. There are a great many people spending billions of dollars every year on cutting edge science to control your purchasing decisions, and you don't stand a snowflake's chance in hell against them. Only as a group can we fight back.
"Control" - That is what the Government of New York is trying to do. "Influence" - That is what advertisers do.
Voting 3rd party also greatly influences the positions of the 2 main parties who don't want to lose to each other. If you lose an election by 5%, but a 3rd party got 5% of the vote, it's very likely that taking up the 3rd party position will help the next time around.
Sorry, no. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is generally accepted as a limitation of free speech. It's a crime, and it should be a crime.
I disagree. Yelling "fire" in a theater is (and should be) perfectly legal if you are an actor, and it's part of the play. Discussing fire in a theater is legal.
What is illegal is negligent intent to cause physical injury. This can occur by shouting fire and other ways. Just because a legislature is not allowed to restrict action A does not mean that every correlating action B must also be legal.
For example, a hypothetical right to the "freedom of bicycling" could exist. That doesn't mean congress can't make it illegal to murder someone just because it's possible to run over them with a bicycle. In the same way, congress would wrongly be in violation of the freedom of speech to make any discussion of "fire" illegal in a theater, but they can certainly make negligent intent to cause harm illegal, which may or may not occur when discussion of "fire" is used in a theater.
I also prefer when people use the word conservative to mean "favoring the status quo" as it originally meant, instead of trying to signify some sort of political philosophy that is too vague to be meaningful.
While the constitution grants the power to congress to create patents, the real reason that it patents were put into the constitution was to take the power of IP away from states. State governments can't implement IP law. Knowledge doesn't disappear when it crosses state lines, so one state patenting an invention is a good as nothing as far as market protection in another state. The creators of the Constitution then took power away from the State Governments and allowed it only for the Federal Government.
For the same reason, the Federal Government can't actually implement a patent system. If you patent something in the US, another country can just start producing that product and ignore US law. Patents require a worldwide agreement and law enforcement, which is itself one of the reasons that patents should never have been created.
The drugs that pharma produce have to be tested to be allowed to market, so having patents is redundant anyway. Passing the required testing takes many years, which itself provides a duration of market monopoly to any copycat company. And if a second company isn't a copycat, but happened to begin research on the drug during the testing phase, then any patent would render that research a loss.
Okinawa has some issues with American bases (mainly the USMC and noise concerns), but Japan as a whole doesn't want the bases to go anywhere. Japan gets to benefit from a strong military while spending very little on their own. Between PRC, DPRK, and all the other volatility in the region, pretty much everyone wants the public good only the US is willing to pay to provide.
Of course "Japan as a whole" doesn't want the bases to go anywhere. The majority of the US presence in "Japan" is actually on the islands of Okinawa. Ten Percent of the land in Okinawa is US military bases. Understand what that means. TEN PERCENT of an island nation is taken up by a foreign military power, and islands aren't known for having a lot of spare land.
Mainland Japan won't help Okinawa because 1) They'd have to acknowledge responsibility for allowing things to get this far out of hand in the first place 2) They have to move the bases to mainland Japan instead of dumping their problem onto some poor island nation.
Okinawa has wanted the American bases gone or reduced for a long time. Mainland Japan doesn't give a shit about Okinawa. But because Okinawa legally became a province of Japan after WWII, people say "Japan doesn't mind the US military presence." Well, nice, that's an accurate statement. But the people of Okinawa who have to put up with our military certainly do mind.
Slashdot Mirror
So how do you plan to view something without making a copy? You are making a copy from the server to your home disk, your home disk to ram, ram to your brain, or possibly all of the above and more.
Consider 2 different situations...
Situation 1) Player is playing well above his known strength. Then the broadcast is turned off. Then he begins playing at his expected strength.
Situation 2) Player is playing at his expected strength. Then the broadcast is turned on. Then he begins playing well above his expected strength.
Do both of these situations suggest the same probability of cheating? No. Situation 2 is far more likely to be a cheater.
The outcome of situation 1 is expected even if the player isn't cheating, so the change of broadcast isn't as suggestive. The outcome of situation 2 is highly unexpected, so it would actually serve an indication of cheating.
If it he was really playing stronger moves than expected, but wasn't cheating, then wouldn't you expect him eventually start playing moves at his expected strength?
It's like saying "ah, you did unexpected thing X, but then stopped doing unexpected thing X when we did Y". It's hard to say that Y prevented X because you should have expected X to stop anyway.
And we're all gonna have to use square guns, because Apple will patent the rounded off ones.
Ok so you are working on a team and deleting code. Here are some basic rules to follow.
1) Don't delete your boss's code. Just change all the function calls to go around it. If he asks you about it, say that someone else changed it.
2) Don't cuss out the guy who's code you are deleting until after you are done. You might have to ask him why he did certain things (unexpected library behavior etc).
3) Make sure the code you add to replace the old code is longer than what you deleted. That way, you can tell your boss that you added 'x' lines of code to the project.
4) Don't waste time unit testing your new code. Obviously if you have to replace the old code, then you are a better programmer than the last one. If the last programmer's code passed unit tests, and you are better, then obviously yours would pass unit tests too.
Any politeness the other programmer shows to you after you delete his code is not to be trusted. The code we write is pride to us, and deleting someone else's code is like seeing your coworkers girlfriend naked in the shower. Sure, it's not really your fault and you didn't really do anything bad. But expect some negative passive aggressive behavior in response.
Shouldn't have been running bit-torrent while daddy was playing CoD. Who doesn't wanna have someone thrown in jail for lagging their connection?
Here in the US we recognize the corporations are collections of people. Citizens United recognized that if congress cannot restrict the rights of a person, then it can't restrict the rights of a collection of people either. And btw, thank god they did that. This is why the Supreme Court is immune to the mob mentality of elections.
So first you say that there are absolutely no absolutes except mathematics.
Then you say that mathematics doesn't apply to the real world.
Then you say that engineers can't comprehend this lack of relation between mathematics and the real world.
Personally, I'm on the engineers' side of this. I think it isn't the engineers who lack comprehension.
Also, unless we actually move to a fixed currency, in 30 years a candy bar will cost around $35 due do inflation, but maybe a bit less as technology might find better ways of making candy bars, or maybe a bit more if regulations make it more burdensome to make them.
Perhaps you mean to 'inflate' away our debt? With enough inflation a child would have a trillion dollars in their piggy bank, and it would be worthless. Deflation makes held debt more valuable.
Yes people holding cash will see an increase in spending power. However, people who invest will see the same offset to their investment. If a person sitting on cash in the bank made a 5% improvement in a year, then an investor would see 5% over what his investment would make in a non-inflationary or deflationary environment. A person working an hourly job would get a 5% raise in spending power just by virtue of living through a year.
I don't argue for a gold standard, but a fixed currency would grow our economy better than the back-room handouts that the federal reserve gives out. The only really decent argument I've heard for printing money is the possibility of doing so to offset taxes, by printing money instead of collecting it. Otherwise, it's just counterfeit by proxy.
No I haven't. Is that a good thing?
Have you ever used gentoo? It's pretty good at stopping you from installing anything. Anything at all.
I'm a human and I can't tell whether a swatch of color is burgundy or maroon. There's no way a robot could do better at such a subjective, human specialized task.
if color == #9E0508 output burgundy
if color == #691F01 output maroon
Pretty sure computers have you beat.
I frequently program computers to accomplish tasks that I cannot do myself. That's kind of the point of their existence.
I tend to be fairly libertarian (prosperity by liberty), but I have failed to hear a good way even most libertarian philosophies avoid "government enforced monopolies". Some resources are limited, like the spectrum for cell phone communications, or mines, or oil reserves. The problem of avoiding monopolies is much harder than libertarian philosophies address, and I'm not saying this to discourage libertarian principles. It's a problem with socialist principles as well. Libertarian philosophy certainly avoid some kinds of monopolies, but resource based ones are very difficult to work out.
The constitution doesn't just limit the governments powers, it enumerates them.
Wait until your kid learns that he can make the computer do his math homework for him (by writing programs to solve the problems). Then your kid will really start programming.
Anyway, programmers are a dime a dozen. But someone who is good at mathematics is very rare. If he is already excelling in mathematics, then he has a future in any form of engineering and the real sciences.
As for your original question...you could consider getting him a TI-83 and let him go with TI-basic. Or get a programming kit for that. Or put a compiler on your computer. Back in the day we had QBasic, I guess the modern attempt at that is python.
Most importantly: listen to what he says he wants to learn. The best thing to teach him is whatever he wants to learn. If he just wants to learn math, then a good puzzle book for mathematics is great. (Not sudoku or crosswords, but actual mathematical/logic puzzle books targeted for kids is what I'm suggesting).
Your free will isn't as all-powerful as you think it is. There are a great many people spending billions of dollars every year on cutting edge science to control your purchasing decisions, and you don't stand a snowflake's chance in hell against them. Only as a group can we fight back.
"Control" - That is what the Government of New York is trying to do.
"Influence" - That is what advertisers do.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
Voting 3rd party also greatly influences the positions of the 2 main parties who don't want to lose to each other. If you lose an election by 5%, but a 3rd party got 5% of the vote, it's very likely that taking up the 3rd party position will help the next time around.
Sorry, no. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is generally accepted as a limitation of free speech. It's a crime, and it should be a crime.
I disagree. Yelling "fire" in a theater is (and should be) perfectly legal if you are an actor, and it's part of the play. Discussing fire in a theater is legal.
What is illegal is negligent intent to cause physical injury. This can occur by shouting fire and other ways. Just because a legislature is not allowed to restrict action A does not mean that every correlating action B must also be legal.
For example, a hypothetical right to the "freedom of bicycling" could exist. That doesn't mean congress can't make it illegal to murder someone just because it's possible to run over them with a bicycle. In the same way, congress would wrongly be in violation of the freedom of speech to make any discussion of "fire" illegal in a theater, but they can certainly make negligent intent to cause harm illegal, which may or may not occur when discussion of "fire" is used in a theater.
I also prefer when people use the word conservative to mean "favoring the status quo" as it originally meant, instead of trying to signify some sort of political philosophy that is too vague to be meaningful.
While the constitution grants the power to congress to create patents, the real reason that it patents were put into the constitution was to take the power of IP away from states. State governments can't implement IP law. Knowledge doesn't disappear when it crosses state lines, so one state patenting an invention is a good as nothing as far as market protection in another state. The creators of the Constitution then took power away from the State Governments and allowed it only for the Federal Government.
For the same reason, the Federal Government can't actually implement a patent system. If you patent something in the US, another country can just start producing that product and ignore US law. Patents require a worldwide agreement and law enforcement, which is itself one of the reasons that patents should never have been created.
The drugs that pharma produce have to be tested to be allowed to market, so having patents is redundant anyway. Passing the required testing takes many years, which itself provides a duration of market monopoly to any copycat company. And if a second company isn't a copycat, but happened to begin research on the drug during the testing phase, then any patent would render that research a loss.
Okinawa has some issues with American bases (mainly the USMC and noise concerns), but Japan as a whole doesn't want the bases to go anywhere. Japan gets to benefit from a strong military while spending very little on their own. Between PRC, DPRK, and all the other volatility in the region, pretty much everyone wants the public good only the US is willing to pay to provide.
Of course "Japan as a whole" doesn't want the bases to go anywhere. The majority of the US presence in "Japan" is actually on the islands of Okinawa. Ten Percent of the land in Okinawa is US military bases. Understand what that means. TEN PERCENT of an island nation is taken up by a foreign military power, and islands aren't known for having a lot of spare land.
Mainland Japan won't help Okinawa because
1) They'd have to acknowledge responsibility for allowing things to get this far out of hand in the first place
2) They have to move the bases to mainland Japan instead of dumping their problem onto some poor island nation.
Okinawa has wanted the American bases gone or reduced for a long time. Mainland Japan doesn't give a shit about Okinawa. But because Okinawa legally became a province of Japan after WWII, people say "Japan doesn't mind the US military presence." Well, nice, that's an accurate statement. But the people of Okinawa who have to put up with our military certainly do mind.