"If you answer this one with 'yes', then you are probably a liar. Everyone lies sometime or another, no matter how small the lie. There is no question about that. So if you answer this one with 'yes', you probably have something to hide."
Is it so unlikely that someone would just take the question at face value and answer it honestly? I mean, you're *clearly* lying if you answer "no". Since your only other choice is "yes", and since it's the truthful answer, why make it over-complicated?
Actually, if he's lying when he says he always lies, it means that he doesn't always lie, which means that he might still *sometimes* lie. So there's no paradox here.
All of the naysayers here seem to be missing the coolest part about Spore, which is how other people's content gets incorporated into your game. I agree that the gameplay needs work, but this is the first game I've ever played where every time I play, there are new creatures, new spaceships, new things to see. Is that completely worthless to everyone else?
In answer to the question about how to rate blog essays, I suggest that we need to rate the raters. How do we do that? I think a system can be built into the threads of discussion in response to an essay. If people rate your comment highly, it increases your standing as a rater, and your ratings figure more strongly into the rating metric. But people can't just rate. They must also supply, in the form of a comment, their reasoning behind the rating, which opens their comment and rating to responding comments and ratings, and so on. If people read and understand the terms of comment submission so they know that the point of the site is to rate the quality of reasoning, not the flavor of ideology, the system should correct itself.
Then again, this system assumes that people will behave rationally, which is dubious, as any economist or divorce lawyer will tell you.
This reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode. A guy develops telepathy and hears the thoughts of another guy who sounds like he's planning a crime. It turns out the would-be criminal is just fantasizing.
Digital sampling causes information to be lost, which results in poorer sound quality than the source
Vinyl audio has less information content than CD audio. The frequency content is approximately the same between the two, but the dynamic range in vinyl recordings is less (about 75 dB v. 96 dB).
Although 44,100 samples sounds pretty impressive, whatever is in between those samples is lost in the final recording and can make a noticeable difference to the human hear (especially in fast-paced music).
Er, no. It's all about frequency content. Whether events in a musical piece occur at 10 Hz or 3 Hz, a sample rate in the multi-kilohertz range will have no problem picking them up. The signal in between the samples is perfectly reconstructable up to frequencies of half the sample rate.
This is the reason why vinyl is still around and (oddly enough) preferred by some audiophiles.
When audiophiles prefer vinyl it's because the sound is different, not because the fidelity is higher. There certainly are elements in the processing chain that could hurt CD audio -- such as the steep anti-aliasing filters needed to kill aliasing while preserving as much of the frequency range as possible -- but vinyl audio processing also has its drawbacks. Just say, "I like vinyl better," and leave it that. CD audio is not inherently inferior.
You conflate "going to the store to get a soda at a time when only a few others, if any, will be doing the same thing" with "going to the store to get a soda at the same time as everyone else". If everyone does the former, there's no problem. The problem only comes when everyone does the latter.
In other words, you take the example of "going to the store to get a soda", something any sensible person would agree is permissible, and then try to make the act categorically unethical by showing a particular case to be problematic. You ask, "What if everyone went to the store to get a soda?" and answer, "Everyone would go at the same time and cause utter chaos," but that isn't necessarily true as we've seen in our daily existence. Many, many people, as a matter of course, go to the store and buy a soda without causing the havoc you describe.
You might have a point but you need to choose a different example.
It would be wrong to do it if you knew everyone else were doing it at the same time, yes. But that's not what you're doing when you decide to go to the store and buy a soda. You go there with the knowledge that there won't be a gigantic surge of people, all trying to purchase Mountain Dew. And if you got to the store and indeed found such mayhem, you'd likely do the right thing and go home empty-handed.
So, a couple of 10 by 15 meter panels. That doesn't sound out of the question.
I wasn't arguing against the use of solar panels. I was correcting OP's arithmetic.
I forgot to include a treatment of the actual efficiency of the solar panels we know how to build. We can build 18% efficient panels, and we might have figured out how raise that efficiency to 50%, so the actual area would be between 300/.5 and 300/.18 (i.e. 600-1700) square meters.
Seriously, it's only 200 kW? That being the case, a few square meters of solar panel should do just fine, even at Mars like distances, you'd still be getting enough energy that it would be trivial ( something like 5 square meters would be sufficient at even Mars furthest distance of 2.5EE6 KM from the sun)
Yes, I know my figures aren't exact, but this is/., so I'm sure someone will come along and actually do the calculations.
From the article you linked, the Earth gets 1366 Watts per square meter. 200000/1366 = 146.4.
Near Mars, which gets about half of that flux, you need about 300 square meters.
Qosmio? What a stupid name. It totally drips with unnecessary marketing affectation. It's like they were trying to cram as much cheesy bullshit into one name as they possibly could.
Cosmo? Not quite. Cosmio? Hm, needs a little more bullshit. Qosmio! Yes, good job. That 'q' really ratchets up the puke factor. Well done.
"As a slightly more familiar example, a photon consists of a positron and an electron. Since it occurs reverseably, you could just as well consider their "annhilation" into a photon as a composition, and their creation as a decomposition."
Except that a photon of sufficient energy can also spontaneously "decompose" into a muon-antimuon or tau-antitau. So it really is inappropriate to liken pair production to decomposition.
'When astronomers make some new discovery about the cosmos do they tack on the end - "there that will show them astrologers up!"'
Astrologers aren't trying to force astrology into science classes. They don't have a Wedge Document that clearly outlines a plan to turn science into mysticism. They don't appear to have much interest in turning the U.S. into a theocracy.
Eh, who needs the 4th amendment? As long as I have the illusion of safety from those ter'rists, I'll sleep like a baby. Why would the government misuse this power? I mean, they're all a bunch of Christians, right?
For what it's worth, I am pro-choice but against late-term abortions (unless the mother's life is threatened)...by that time, you should have been able to figure out if you wanted the kid or not.
You're a fucking asshole buddy. I would kick your ass right now if you said that in front of me.
I agree with the GP. But maybe you can enlighten me. What's so bad about what the GP said?
From the article: "Our model shows that overreaction of a single driver can have enormous impact on the rest of the traffic, leading to massive delays."
This is a manifestation of Lehman's Corollary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics: "All it takes is a couple of idiots to ruin things for everyone else."
Sometimes it just isn't realistic. If too many people are trying to use a given highway at a given time, there simply isn't room for everyone to use the two-second rule. If you back off that far when traffic is really dense, you're just adding to the density behind you.
Here are some actual questions I've collected from Yahoo! Answers over time:
- What is the best way to hint to your parents that you are pregnant? - How do my mum and dad want to renew my wedding vow? - Do lesbian cheerleaders really exist? - How powerful does a telescope have to be to see the moon? - How can I master the art of Levitation? - Swimming at the waterslides and have to pee really bad... What to do?? - My BODY is my own ENEMY? WHAT would you do if YOU were IN my POSITION? - What kind of shampoo does Ozzy Osbourne use? - My nipples are wierd???!!? - Is it true if you put blood in someones food they will go crazy? - How many years, months, days, hours, minutes, and seconds are in 200300 if you divide it by 360? - Do female animals have G Spot? - Unfortunately, I have very little common sense. - Is there a way to make my nostrils bigger without surgery? - Do mice really explode??? - Automatic toilets scare me. Am I alone?
Slashdot Mirror
"If you answer this one with 'yes', then you are probably a liar. Everyone lies sometime or another, no matter how small the lie. There is no question about that. So if you answer this one with 'yes', you probably have something to hide."
Is it so unlikely that someone would just take the question at face value and answer it honestly? I mean, you're *clearly* lying if you answer "no". Since your only other choice is "yes", and since it's the truthful answer, why make it over-complicated?
Actually, if he's lying when he says he always lies, it means that he doesn't always lie, which means that he might still *sometimes* lie. So there's no paradox here.
It's wolves and sheep, but the parent is most certainly on topic: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." Stupid mods.
All of the naysayers here seem to be missing the coolest part about Spore, which is how other people's content gets incorporated into your game. I agree that the gameplay needs work, but this is the first game I've ever played where every time I play, there are new creatures, new spaceships, new things to see. Is that completely worthless to everyone else?
In answer to the question about how to rate blog essays, I suggest that we need to rate the raters. How do we do that? I think a system can be built into the threads of discussion in response to an essay. If people rate your comment highly, it increases your standing as a rater, and your ratings figure more strongly into the rating metric. But people can't just rate. They must also supply, in the form of a comment, their reasoning behind the rating, which opens their comment and rating to responding comments and ratings, and so on. If people read and understand the terms of comment submission so they know that the point of the site is to rate the quality of reasoning, not the flavor of ideology, the system should correct itself.
Then again, this system assumes that people will behave rationally, which is dubious, as any economist or divorce lawyer will tell you.
This reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode. A guy develops telepathy and hears the thoughts of another guy who sounds like he's planning a crime. It turns out the would-be criminal is just fantasizing.
Vinyl audio has less information content than CD audio. The frequency content is approximately the same between the two, but the dynamic range in vinyl recordings is less (about 75 dB v. 96 dB).
Er, no. It's all about frequency content. Whether events in a musical piece occur at 10 Hz or 3 Hz, a sample rate in the multi-kilohertz range will have no problem picking them up. The signal in between the samples is perfectly reconstructable up to frequencies of half the sample rate.
When audiophiles prefer vinyl it's because the sound is different, not because the fidelity is higher. There certainly are elements in the processing chain that could hurt CD audio -- such as the steep anti-aliasing filters needed to kill aliasing while preserving as much of the frequency range as possible -- but vinyl audio processing also has its drawbacks. Just say, "I like vinyl better," and leave it that. CD audio is not inherently inferior.
"...is there nothing that the Simpsons don't have an appropriate quote for?"
They don't have a quote for the case in which the Simpsons don't have an appropriate quote for something. Maybe that's because it never happens? Hm...
You conflate "going to the store to get a soda at a time when only a few others, if any, will be doing the same thing" with "going to the store to get a soda at the same time as everyone else". If everyone does the former, there's no problem. The problem only comes when everyone does the latter.
In other words, you take the example of "going to the store to get a soda", something any sensible person would agree is permissible, and then try to make the act categorically unethical by showing a particular case to be problematic. You ask, "What if everyone went to the store to get a soda?" and answer, "Everyone would go at the same time and cause utter chaos," but that isn't necessarily true as we've seen in our daily existence. Many, many people, as a matter of course, go to the store and buy a soda without causing the havoc you describe.
You might have a point but you need to choose a different example.
It would be wrong to do it if you knew everyone else were doing it at the same time, yes. But that's not what you're doing when you decide to go to the store and buy a soda. You go there with the knowledge that there won't be a gigantic surge of people, all trying to purchase Mountain Dew. And if you got to the store and indeed found such mayhem, you'd likely do the right thing and go home empty-handed.
I wasn't arguing against the use of solar panels. I was correcting OP's arithmetic.
I forgot to include a treatment of the actual efficiency of the solar panels we know how to build. We can build 18% efficient panels, and we might have figured out how raise that efficiency to 50%, so the actual area would be between 300/.5 and 300/.18 (i.e. 600-1700) square meters.
From the article you linked, the Earth gets 1366 Watts per square meter. 200000/1366 = 146.4.
Near Mars, which gets about half of that flux, you need about 300 square meters.
Qosmio? What a stupid name. It totally drips with unnecessary marketing affectation. It's like they were trying to cram as much cheesy bullshit into one name as they possibly could.
Cosmo? Not quite.
Cosmio? Hm, needs a little more bullshit.
Qosmio! Yes, good job. That 'q' really ratchets up the puke factor. Well done.
"As a slightly more familiar example, a photon consists of a positron and an electron. Since it occurs reverseably, you could just as well consider their "annhilation" into a photon as a composition, and their creation as a decomposition."
Except that a photon of sufficient energy can also spontaneously "decompose" into a muon-antimuon or tau-antitau. So it really is inappropriate to liken pair production to decomposition.
'When astronomers make some new discovery about the cosmos do they tack on the end - "there that will show them astrologers up!"'
Astrologers aren't trying to force astrology into science classes. They don't have a Wedge Document that clearly outlines a plan to turn science into mysticism. They don't appear to have much interest in turning the U.S. into a theocracy.
That's because creationism can explain *anything*. It's an unfalsifiable semantic blob.
"Octoroon" sounds like an eight-sided cookie.
Eh, who needs the 4th amendment? As long as I have the illusion of safety from those ter'rists, I'll sleep like a baby. Why would the government misuse this power? I mean, they're all a bunch of Christians, right?
Homer Simpson: Mmmmm, encheladus.
Whoever modded the parent offtopic needs to be metamodded into oblivion. Since when does Slashdot give mod points to people who don't know UNIX?
I agree with the GP. But maybe you can enlighten me. What's so bad about what the GP said?
Link in parent post goes to Minicity.
From the article: "Our model shows that overreaction of a single driver can have enormous impact on the rest of the traffic, leading to massive delays."
This is a manifestation of Lehman's Corollary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics: "All it takes is a couple of idiots to ruin things for everyone else."
Sometimes it just isn't realistic. If too many people are trying to use a given highway at a given time, there simply isn't room for everyone to use the two-second rule. If you back off that far when traffic is really dense, you're just adding to the density behind you.
Here are some actual questions I've collected from Yahoo! Answers over time:
- What is the best way to hint to your parents that you are pregnant?
- How do my mum and dad want to renew my wedding vow?
- Do lesbian cheerleaders really exist?
- How powerful does a telescope have to be to see the moon?
- How can I master the art of Levitation?
- Swimming at the waterslides and have to pee really bad... What to do??
- My BODY is my own ENEMY? WHAT would you do if YOU were IN my POSITION?
- What kind of shampoo does Ozzy Osbourne use?
- My nipples are wierd???!!?
- Is it true if you put blood in someones food they will go crazy?
- How many years, months, days, hours, minutes, and seconds are in 200300 if you divide it by 360?
- Do female animals have G Spot?
- Unfortunately, I have very little common sense.
- Is there a way to make my nostrils bigger without surgery?
- Do mice really explode???
- Automatic toilets scare me. Am I alone?