The advantage basic strategy gives over the house's simple strategy is more than offset by the house rules: Paying 1.5:1 for blackjack, for example. Without that rule you'd get the normal 2:1 for winning the hand, unless the house also had blackjack. The player always playing first is also an advantage for the house, as a situation where the cards would lead to both player and house going bust only ever results in a win for the house (the house wins by default before having to play).
At best, what this teaches us is to include a "wiper" system for at least part of the panels so that we can maintain at least a minimal section of solar panel to generate energy for the essential gear and would give us the ability to keep the rover alive long enough to let the wind that exists on the plant to "clean" the other panels in the time after a storm.
The problem is that the dust storms are blocking the light before it hits the panels, not just covering the panels with dust. I doubt they'll know how much dust has accumulated on the panels as a result of this storm till it's over.
I'm guessing this "test" used emails that looked like spam.
And this is what we call 'false positives' since it obviously was NOT spam. Typically you should have much less than 1 in 1000 of those for legitimate mail if your spam filtering is to be any good. If M$'s spam filtering takes out so many messages it really really sucks big time. So, even from M$ i can not believe this is true. Something else must be happening...
How do you know it obviously wasn't spam? It's only obvious to you because you know the intent of the sender. You know the intent of the sender because, after the fact and via a different medium, the sender published what their intent was. Expecting a spam filter to divine the intent of a sender from anything other than the content of email messages is pretty unreasonable. Given the article doesn't give details of the messages, they may well have been the kind of garbage frequently used to pad spams. Shit, the content could have been copied from penis enlargement websites for all we know.
I checked my headers. Most had multiple servers. In every case I could find, there were one or more at the sending end, one or more at my domain host and one or more at my ISP. I wouldn't consider any of those to be '3rd party'. I couldn't find any other intermediaries after looking at a couple of dozen, though admittedly that's hardly an exhaustive search. Check the MX records for most any domain and you'll see that, unless their servers go down, the email server that receives the mail belongs to the recipient or their ISP. There certainly aren't multiple 3rd party hops in the same way as there are with IP or NNTP.
People are not born with the knowledge and insight to select good governments, that stuff had to be learnt. When the education system and media are to a significant extent controlled by people whose primary interest is achieving and maintaining power for their own ends is it really surprising when the people make poor choices?
Perhaps the mailing list in question consisted of those who responded to one of his previous spamming campaign for a similar niche. In TFA he mentioned repeat customers for meds; I guess the addresses of those who previously responded to spam must be the most valuable of all. You know that spam works on them and you know what they're into.
I don't think it's a flaw to assume that people have reasons for wanting whatever it is they want.
I think it is a flaw to think that people know what those reasons are. We are, much more than we like to believe or admit, driven by fairly primitive instincts. Check out the studies showing the relative importance of politicians facial features and their policies for one example. If your primitive monkey brain says something is good (taking a drug, hiring the better-looking but less-qualified job applicant, being anonymous...) you will have a desire to do it, but your rational brain may not know why.
The vast majority of so called "child porn" consists of pictures taken by teens of either themselves or their partners. Pictures take consensually. Pictures taken by minors, not creepy old people.
What is the source for that assertion?
If you want to crack down on rape, go ahead, but stop suppressing the free speech rights of young people!
Children are (rightly) considered to be unable to make informed choices due to their lack of knowledge and experience about the world and are thus not considered to be fully responsible for their actions. I'm sure you'd agree that's true of a 5 year old and also agree that a (mentally competent) 30 year old should be held responsible for their actions. Rights without responsibility would be a recipe for disaster, so those with limited responsibility get limited rights. Feel free to debate where the line between child and adult should be, but there really does need to be a line. If you think that line is set too high, don't forget that the people drawing that line all have first-hand experience of being teenagers; they know how much they thought they knew and how little they really knew about life back then.
Bell's theorem states that "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." In other words, no underlying mechanism could possibly produce the same results as quantum mechanics.
Let me guess: the interest rates are very low in the UK right now?
Interest rates are low and have been for a decade or so, which is part of it. The other factors are effectively zero tax for the super-rich and City (of London, ie big finance) bonuses driving up property prices in London, which has a knock-on effect in the rest of the country; and a general shortage of housing. Last I looked, the average age of a first-time buyer is now in their 30s and average house prices are more than 6 times the average annual salary. When the crash comes, it will be bad. But not for me, because I'll finally be able to afford to buy a house!
Not just 'rebranded', but in the UK at least they offer different tariffs too. And not all Virgin businesses are just middlemen: Virgin Megastores, Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Trains - they are real businesses with real assets.
I don't think "look at how bendy our wings are" will create much of a positive image in the minds of passengers. I'm sure the fact that it would take forces which are impossible in actual flight would be lost on a great many people. They'd just see a bendy plane and I'm guessing most people don't think of bendy planes as a good thing.
And then you have guys like the one released a few years ago after multiple years in jail for a rape he didn't commit, who then murdered a woman after being released. Some of the innocent aren't *that* innocent.
What, exactly, do you mean by that? That they should have been locked up for a potential future crime? That they were obviously bad, so even if they didn't do that crime they must have done some other crime? Wow.
You were not being rational, you were jumping to conclusions based on your preconceived notions. You have no idea why he mentioned the kinds of games he plays with his kids, you just see that he's capable of making a distinction between kinds of violence and decide he must therefore be a wife beater. That is not rational. Had you even considered that his discussing violent games might have been in response to his playing violent games being mentioned in the complaint against him? Evidently not. Your failing to consider any possibility for his discussing violent games other than his being guilty is not being rational; for a potential juror, it's terrifyingly irrational. I too think you are a fucking idiot, not only for jumping to a conclusion (a conclusion which, in a real jury, could be life destroying) based on something so trivial it's hard to even consider it circumstantial evidence, but also for claiming that you are rational in doing so.
Of course you can break everything into circumstantial evidence, until you realize that he had been in jail during the murder. OOPS! The Prosecutor neglected to actually look that up, I suppose.
Finding or presenting that evidence is not the prosecutor's job, it's the defence attorney's job. Any good defence attorney should have called the DA, told them the accused was in prison at the time and the DA would have confirmed that was true and dropped the case (then given some shit to $law_enforcement_agency for wasting their time).
I couldn't be arsed to read more than a couple of pages of the article with its silly format, but what's so surprising about finding traces of your SO's blood, or in washing your car?
There's nothing unusual about washing your car. But only the area around the front passenger seat was washed and that seat is missing. Removing seats is suspiciously thorough cleaning, dontcha think?
I'm assuming you don't set this up 'in a parking lot' but under some sort of cover/tarp/tent, even painting it white, putting it outside in the northern california sun, can't be very efficient as far as cooling is concerned.
I suspect this is a lot like worrying about aerodynamic drag on a 100 ton locomotive. Yes, it exists, but it's negligible compared to the other load you have to deal with.
I suspected the solar heat load was relatively small, but I decided to run a (very) rough estimate to get a better idea of the magnitudes involved.
It's a 20 foot container, so it's 6.1 x 2.4 x 2.6 m (l,w,h). The largest aspect it can place to the sun is probably the aspect seen when looking down at about 45 degrees at the long side and roof, an area of (2.4^2 + 2.6^2)^-2 * 6.1 = 22 m^2. At peak insolation of 1kW / m^2 that's 22kW hitting it from the sun. Assuming an albedo of 0.7 for the white finish, 22 * 0.3 = 6.6 kW will be absorbed by the container.
Ignoring the ancillary systems and allowing a conservative 100W for each of the 252 1-U servers, we get a figure of around 25 kW of heat generated by the kit inside.
So it looks like solar effects aren't negligible, but at worst it looks like the sun would be contributing something like 20% of the heat load. Interestingly, Stanford's choice of white paint looks to be saving them over 10 kW of solar heating in the midday sun. Black paint in the sun isn't a very bright idea, Sun.
Insofar as the IQ test is concerned, I was under the impression that IQs were measured in 10s, as in you could get a score of 100 or 110 but not 103. Correct?
Incorrect. 10 is about 2/3rds of a standard deviation in most IQ tests, which is an extremely coarse increment. My (supervised test) IQ ended in a 5; the American Mensa entry requirements also have single-digit precision.
Slashdot Mirror
The advantage basic strategy gives over the house's simple strategy is more than offset by the house rules: Paying 1.5:1 for blackjack, for example. Without that rule you'd get the normal 2:1 for winning the hand, unless the house also had blackjack. The player always playing first is also an advantage for the house, as a situation where the cards would lead to both player and house going bust only ever results in a win for the house (the house wins by default before having to play).
The problem is that the dust storms are blocking the light before it hits the panels, not just covering the panels with dust. I doubt they'll know how much dust has accumulated on the panels as a result of this storm till it's over.
How do you know it obviously wasn't spam? It's only obvious to you because you know the intent of the sender. You know the intent of the sender because, after the fact and via a different medium, the sender published what their intent was. Expecting a spam filter to divine the intent of a sender from anything other than the content of email messages is pretty unreasonable. Given the article doesn't give details of the messages, they may well have been the kind of garbage frequently used to pad spams. Shit, the content could have been copied from penis enlargement websites for all we know.
I checked my headers. Most had multiple servers. In every case I could find, there were one or more at the sending end, one or more at my domain host and one or more at my ISP. I wouldn't consider any of those to be '3rd party'. I couldn't find any other intermediaries after looking at a couple of dozen, though admittedly that's hardly an exhaustive search. Check the MX records for most any domain and you'll see that, unless their servers go down, the email server that receives the mail belongs to the recipient or their ISP. There certainly aren't multiple 3rd party hops in the same way as there are with IP or NNTP.
People are not born with the knowledge and insight to select good governments, that stuff had to be learnt. When the education system and media are to a significant extent controlled by people whose primary interest is achieving and maintaining power for their own ends is it really surprising when the people make poor choices?
Perhaps the mailing list in question consisted of those who responded to one of his previous spamming campaign for a similar niche. In TFA he mentioned repeat customers for meds; I guess the addresses of those who previously responded to spam must be the most valuable of all. You know that spam works on them and you know what they're into.
I think it is a flaw to think that people know what those reasons are. We are, much more than we like to believe or admit, driven by fairly primitive instincts. Check out the studies showing the relative importance of politicians facial features and their policies for one example. If your primitive monkey brain says something is good (taking a drug, hiring the better-looking but less-qualified job applicant, being anonymous...) you will have a desire to do it, but your rational brain may not know why.
What is the source for that assertion?
Children are (rightly) considered to be unable to make informed choices due to their lack of knowledge and experience about the world and are thus not considered to be fully responsible for their actions. I'm sure you'd agree that's true of a 5 year old and also agree that a (mentally competent) 30 year old should be held responsible for their actions. Rights without responsibility would be a recipe for disaster, so those with limited responsibility get limited rights. Feel free to debate where the line between child and adult should be, but there really does need to be a line. If you think that line is set too high, don't forget that the people drawing that line all have first-hand experience of being teenagers; they know how much they thought they knew and how little they really knew about life back then.
A parachute relies on air pressure to inflate, a hypercone maintains its own shape.
Hopefully those Mings would be merciful.
Except for non-local hidden variable theories.
Interest rates are low and have been for a decade or so, which is part of it. The other factors are effectively zero tax for the super-rich and City (of London, ie big finance) bonuses driving up property prices in London, which has a knock-on effect in the rest of the country; and a general shortage of housing. Last I looked, the average age of a first-time buyer is now in their 30s and average house prices are more than 6 times the average annual salary. When the crash comes, it will be bad. But not for me, because I'll finally be able to afford to buy a house!
Holy shit, the Rot-13 in the first post was easier to read. And I don't have a Rot-13 [de|en]coder on this machine.
Not just 'rebranded', but in the UK at least they offer different tariffs too. And not all Virgin businesses are just middlemen: Virgin Megastores, Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Trains - they are real businesses with real assets.
The Soviet regime may have been evil, but that doesn't mean socialism is evil any more than Pinochet's being evil means capitalism is evil.
I don't think "look at how bendy our wings are" will create much of a positive image in the minds of passengers. I'm sure the fact that it would take forces which are impossible in actual flight would be lost on a great many people. They'd just see a bendy plane and I'm guessing most people don't think of bendy planes as a good thing.
What, exactly, do you mean by that? That they should have been locked up for a potential future crime? That they were obviously bad, so even if they didn't do that crime they must have done some other crime? Wow.
You were not being rational, you were jumping to conclusions based on your preconceived notions. You have no idea why he mentioned the kinds of games he plays with his kids, you just see that he's capable of making a distinction between kinds of violence and decide he must therefore be a wife beater. That is not rational. Had you even considered that his discussing violent games might have been in response to his playing violent games being mentioned in the complaint against him? Evidently not. Your failing to consider any possibility for his discussing violent games other than his being guilty is not being rational; for a potential juror, it's terrifyingly irrational. I too think you are a fucking idiot, not only for jumping to a conclusion (a conclusion which, in a real jury, could be life destroying) based on something so trivial it's hard to even consider it circumstantial evidence, but also for claiming that you are rational in doing so.
I think you're erroneously conflating rude and strange with 'dodgy', assuming by 'dodgy' you mean dangerous, criminal etc.
Finding or presenting that evidence is not the prosecutor's job, it's the defence attorney's job. Any good defence attorney should have called the DA, told them the accused was in prison at the time and the DA would have confirmed that was true and dropped the case (then given some shit to $law_enforcement_agency for wasting their time).
There's nothing unusual about washing your car. But only the area around the front passenger seat was washed and that seat is missing. Removing seats is suspiciously thorough cleaning, dontcha think?
I suspected the solar heat load was relatively small, but I decided to run a (very) rough estimate to get a better idea of the magnitudes involved.
It's a 20 foot container, so it's 6.1 x 2.4 x 2.6 m (l,w,h). The largest aspect it can place to the sun is probably the aspect seen when looking down at about 45 degrees at the long side and roof, an area of (2.4^2 + 2.6^2)^-2 * 6.1 = 22 m^2. At peak insolation of 1kW / m^2 that's 22kW hitting it from the sun. Assuming an albedo of 0.7 for the white finish, 22 * 0.3 = 6.6 kW will be absorbed by the container.
Ignoring the ancillary systems and allowing a conservative 100W for each of the 252 1-U servers, we get a figure of around 25 kW of heat generated by the kit inside.
So it looks like solar effects aren't negligible, but at worst it looks like the sun would be contributing something like 20% of the heat load. Interestingly, Stanford's choice of white paint looks to be saving them over 10 kW of solar heating in the midday sun. Black paint in the sun isn't a very bright idea, Sun.
Why skip to the article if you're not going to read that either? From TFA:
I thought the term came from the width of the frequency band you require to carry that much information; it's not an analogy. Wikipedia agrees.
Incorrect. 10 is about 2/3rds of a standard deviation in most IQ tests, which is an extremely coarse increment. My (supervised test) IQ ended in a 5; the American Mensa entry requirements also have single-digit precision.