Smoking may well be beneficial to a small number of people. Particularly for certain kinds of pain management, I would expect nicotine to be an effective stimulant. However, you'd almost certainly be safer with a nicotine patch, and the rest of us around you would definitely be better off.
Here's a hint: all of these people have a secret CIA employment record in common. This medal is the only way such lifelong undercover agents can be publicly recognized for their heroic efforts against our country's enemies. Notice how all of them spent significant amounts of time travelling all over the world.
Actually, most of the bans were built on the premise that the smoke was a health hazard to bystanders (especially employees). Having a genuinely health safe cigarette would reduce the bans to being about the bad odors, and would probably get them overturned in most of the places they have been established. Thankfully, however, even these 'safe' cigarrettes still pose a nice substantial health risk to bystanders, so this will have pretty much no impact.
Child support is the child's right to receive support from his/her parents. So unless the child is of legal age to sign away their rights to support (unlikely at birth), any such contract can't really legally protect you.
A more likely contract, offered at at least a few places i've worked with, works more like insurance: if a claim for child support is made against you (the sperm donor) then the clinic will pay it off for you. The clinic then has contracts to further pass this risk on to their insurance carrier.
Ah, but thanks to the magic of the internet, these tasks could be done by someone in a country where they would actually be earning a good hourly wage. In the world of free trade it's a race to the bottom!
Indeed, the same does not apply to patents. You are not allowed to go out and sell your parody of someone else's clever ASIC for example.
Re:To the rag that is the Wash. Times: Let them sc
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
I'm pretty sure he must have meant the Post was little better than a tabloid. Of the two papers, I'd trust information from the Times long before the Post.
A hurricane is a big wind storm. This is a wind power generating platform. Hurricane == no more need for nuclear power this year. Suddenly, everyone wants a hurricane to come to their town.
I think there are a couple of issues preventing this:
1) What does the API for this look like from the application perspective? 2) Top of the line (read: pricey) FPGAs are mostly in the 500mhz range right now, which is in the same range as a GPU. So unless a GPU doesn't solve the problem, why would you need this? GPUs have a design that solves #1.
If it gets really cold out you'd have to be concerned about your hydrogen condensing relatively quickly into a set of speakers, and you don't want to cram those through your car engine.
You've paid for the game. Most people cannot return opened games for a refund. They also change their terms during updates, with no possibility of recovering your initial purchase or your monthly fees.
Hmm, not satisfied with my other effort to express my point. Let me try again.
There are limits to what you can do on the client side of a game. Ultimately, unless you are able to somehow prevent the user from having a robot type on the keyboard and push the mouse around, you are going to have a hard time making client side robotic play impossible. This leaves you with a couple of possibilities:
1) Discourage robotic play with as much client side tech as you can. Unfortunately, this creates hassles for your legitimate users. 2) Design your game so that robotic play is very difficult or ineffective compared to human play. The downside here is that you may miss something and wind up favoring robotic play without knowing it. 3) Encourage robotic play, and give everyone access to robotic tools if they want them. The main downside here is making sure robots don't interfere with human play.
Every solution has its problems. My game is mainly in 2, with a little bit of 3. WOW could easily do a much better job with #2, rather than going further and further down path #1. For MMOGs in general, #2 is where your efforts will pay off in the satisfaction of your normal user base.
It's an issue of design. There are, for purposes of this discussion, two primary classes of games:
1) random (WOW) 2) non-random (chess)
I chose to make a game in the non-random class, ala chess. Any such game with computable outcomes is vulnerable to being played by a robot. I could easily make it random and thus not vulnerable to this particular class of attack, but since I do research in AI that isn't my interest. In fact, i've made a substantial effort in design to make the game easy for a robot to play, but difficult for a robot to play better than a human, but again, this is just my interest. It would be trivial to change the game to make it impossible for a robot to play better than a human(all I would do would be to move the computation of new tiles to the server, and use a secure RNG for their generation). That would move my game into class 1, which isn't my research interest, but which is much easier to make immune to robot play.
You are cooerced to agree not to cheat. You cheat anyway, thus modelling resistance against coercion for others. That's one of the strongest moral actions you can take in this life.
No, what I described is not impossible. I certainly understand: any client can be hacked (barring Trusted Computing). The point is, you can make your gameplay immune to client tampering. As an example, supposing that Diablo2 server had been completely secure (in other words, no dup bugs), then what cheats would remain for Diablo 2? Only client side robots for collecting exp/loot. Those can be defeated by appropriate game design that does not reward repetitive play.
Slashdot Mirror
Anecdotes don't make for strong statistics.
d a55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&bac kto=issue,5,10;journal,57,79;linkingpublicationres ults,1:100150,1. 00000542-199805000-00001.htm;jsessionid=DulLk2jICr 21YEWNWncR3KAVuVUI511gQGn56CR2brpxYvhd46WX!4796555 35!-949856144!9001!-1c t/110504879/ABSTRACT
t =firefox-a&q=scholar%3A+smoking+cancer+risk&btnG=S earch
A small sampling of the more popular studies:
http://www.springerlink.com/(dt10aj3uaf0uc555jygu
http://www.anesthesiology.org/pt/re/anes/abstract
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstra
And be sure to look at:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&clien
Smoking may well be beneficial to a small number of people. Particularly for certain kinds of pain management, I would expect nicotine to be an effective stimulant. However, you'd almost certainly be safer with a nicotine patch, and the rest of us around you would definitely be better off.
Here's a hint: all of these people have a secret CIA employment record in common. This medal is the only way such lifelong undercover agents can be publicly recognized for their heroic efforts against our country's enemies. Notice how all of them spent significant amounts of time travelling all over the world.
Actually, most of the bans were built on the premise that the smoke was a health hazard to bystanders (especially employees). Having a genuinely health safe cigarette would reduce the bans to being about the bad odors, and would probably get them overturned in most of the places they have been established. Thankfully, however, even these 'safe' cigarrettes still pose a nice substantial health risk to bystanders, so this will have pretty much no impact.
Only:0 63:@@@L&summ2=m& :-)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00
(referred to committee, congress never actually declared the war on terror).
On the other hand, the war on drugs is taking lives at a greater rate here in the US than the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts put together.
I'm pretty sure it is peace time. If you check the records, I'm pretty sure you'll find we have no unresolved declarations of war.
Child support is the child's right to receive support from his/her parents. So unless the child is of legal age to sign away their rights to support (unlikely at birth), any such contract can't really legally protect you.
A more likely contract, offered at at least a few places i've worked with, works more like insurance: if a claim for child support is made against you (the sperm donor) then the clinic will pay it off for you. The clinic then has contracts to further pass this risk on to their insurance carrier.
Ah, but thanks to the magic of the internet, these tasks could be done by someone in a country where they would actually be earning a good hourly wage. In the world of free trade it's a race to the bottom!
Imagine, not having to worry about more than one such crappy story about a rip-van-winkle waiting to get into MIT in the course for the next 17 years!
Indeed, the same does not apply to patents. You are not allowed to go out and sell your parody of someone else's clever ASIC for example.
I'm pretty sure he must have meant the Post was little better than a tabloid. Of the two papers, I'd trust information from the Times long before the Post.
I think in the context of poo resonance, where you said molecules, crystals, and beams maybe you meant molecules, Krystals, and beans.
A hurricane is a big wind storm. This is a wind power generating platform. Hurricane == no more need for nuclear power this year. Suddenly, everyone wants a hurricane to come to their town.
I think there are a couple of issues preventing this:
1) What does the API for this look like from the application perspective?
2) Top of the line (read: pricey) FPGAs are mostly in the 500mhz range right now, which is in the same range as a GPU. So unless a GPU doesn't solve the problem, why would you need this? GPUs have a design that solves #1.
If it gets really cold out you'd have to be concerned about your hydrogen condensing relatively quickly into a set of speakers, and you don't want to cram those through your car engine.
Why does your 2.4 AMD run faster than a 3.0 Intel? Because of the specs! That's why specs are so important!
You still can't represent all of R in finite hardware. There will always be a largest element you can represent, and that element is the bound above.
Umm, you just concluded that the subset is bounded while arguing that the values in the subset are not bounded.
You've paid for the game. Most people cannot return opened games for a refund. They also change their terms during updates, with no possibility of recovering your initial purchase or your monthly fees.
Hmm, not satisfied with my other effort to express my point. Let me try again.
There are limits to what you can do on the client side of a game. Ultimately, unless you are able to somehow prevent the user from having a robot type on the keyboard and push the mouse around, you are going to have a hard time making client side robotic play impossible. This leaves you with a couple of possibilities:
1) Discourage robotic play with as much client side tech as you can. Unfortunately, this creates hassles for your legitimate users.
2) Design your game so that robotic play is very difficult or ineffective compared to human play. The downside here is that you may miss something and wind up favoring robotic play without knowing it.
3) Encourage robotic play, and give everyone access to robotic tools if they want them. The main downside here is making sure robots don't interfere with human play.
Every solution has its problems. My game is mainly in 2, with a little bit of 3. WOW could easily do a much better job with #2, rather than going further and further down path #1. For MMOGs in general, #2 is where your efforts will pay off in the satisfaction of your normal user base.
It's an issue of design. There are, for purposes of this discussion, two primary classes of games:
1) random (WOW)
2) non-random (chess)
I chose to make a game in the non-random class, ala chess. Any such game with computable outcomes is vulnerable to being played by a robot. I could easily make it random and thus not vulnerable to this particular class of attack, but since I do research in AI that isn't my interest. In fact, i've made a substantial effort in design to make the game easy for a robot to play, but difficult for a robot to play better than a human, but again, this is just my interest. It would be trivial to change the game to make it impossible for a robot to play better than a human(all I would do would be to move the computation of new tiles to the server, and use a secure RNG for their generation). That would move my game into class 1, which isn't my research interest, but which is much easier to make immune to robot play.
Coercion involves threat of deprivation of life, liberty, or property. In this case it is the threat of deprivation of property in question.
No shirt no shoes no service requires you to agree to the appropriate terms before you hand over your money.
You are cooerced to agree not to cheat. You cheat anyway, thus modelling resistance against coercion for others. That's one of the strongest moral actions you can take in this life.
No, what I described is not impossible. I certainly understand: any client can be hacked (barring Trusted Computing). The point is, you can make your gameplay immune to client tampering. As an example, supposing that Diablo2 server had been completely secure (in other words, no dup bugs), then what cheats would remain for Diablo 2? Only client side robots for collecting exp/loot. Those can be defeated by appropriate game design that does not reward repetitive play.