I was a member of that guild (The Ravens of Fate) and we were not evil. We all had played the game since pre-alpha 1, several members of the Origin dev team (Pall, Ares, Grimli etc) were members of our guild or played with us regularly. One of our members (Mental4) also ran the primere fansite of the time (ultima.scorched.com)
In this particular instance, they set a no_kill flag for LB, but he logged off. When he logged back on the flag was reset, and the dev in charge of the event (Grimli if I recall correctly) forget to turn it on again.
LB was killed by a single blast of a fire (wand or scroll, I don't remember) not some really large amount of HP. other than the no_kill flag LB was actually a pretty weak char.
Further, killing of LB was a goal in pretty much EVERY incarnation of Ultima, including cool events that happened if you did so, so it should have been no suprise that it happened in UO.
apple already said they make almost no money on the songs (like 1c) it all goes to the label. iTunes is purely a loss-leader for the iPod.
Thats why its a bad model, unless they plan on getting people to upgrade every few years. Eventually everyone who wants an iPod will have one, but they will want to keep buying music. So all the profits will go away, but the losses stick around.
uh. no selling at volume while selling at a loss, just increases your losses, unless you have a pretty strong correlation with some non-loss item.
For example, once the world market for iPods is saturated, the iTunes model will fail, because there is nothing left to balance out the loss from the music.
On the other hand, with the xBox, there will always be new market for new games, so the xbox can be sold until xbox is saturated. Once the market for xbox is saturated, MS profits will actually rise, because they are getting the game profit, without the box loss.
Of course in both of these models, obsolecense might set in before saturation is reached, but then the cycle just begins again.
Not true. MS sells Xbox at a loss, because they are using it as a loss leader for the games.
Apple sells iTunes at a near loss, as a loss leader for iPod.
iTunes is now 99c/song. If more supply enters the market (MS) that price will drop. It may drop to the point that people are selling at a loss. Just because MS can afford to sell at a loss doesn't make it a crime.
If the market price is such that you sell at a loss at that price, that is fine.
Its only a crime if the market price is higher than your price, and you are selling at a loss in an effort to crap out your competition.
well, except you are forgetting somehting. at any moment in time, there are raindrops suspended in the air. and you run into them. So you have less rain hit you from the top, but you have more rain hit you in the chest and face as you move forward into them.
Uh, we bounce lasers from earth to the moon, all day long, every day. They are measuring the distance to the moon, using the speed of light. It doesn't diverge any practical distance at all.
Yeah, I know that the centripital force (remember, there is no such thing as centrifigal force) is what gives the mirror its shape, I was just saying that the lower gravity will magnify that effect. Therefore you will have to spin slower, and the slower spin speed could lead to jerkiness.
Of course the reply below pointed out they could gear it down which should help things immensly.
I still think keeping it lubricated up in space is going to be a bitch tho.
That is a good advantage for the moon, however I think the gravity, temp, and pressure changes would outweigh that one advantage. Especially for a technology that we have no experience with in space.
What is usually used for these devices on earth? Mercury? Is mercury going to be a liquid when put into a 0 pressure (which would encourage evaporation), really REALLY cold enviroment (which would encourage freezing)? (Remember, he said this would be put into a shadow of a crater. Im thining that means approaching absolute 0 (not absolute 0, approaching it. Certainly several hundred degrees below 0)
I don't think a spinning liquid mirror would work as well on the moon as it does on earth, considering the 1/6 gravity and the no athmosphere.
1) you have to use some material that is still liquid at extremely low temperature, AND very low pressure.
2) the low gravity is going to magnify the effect of centripital force on the liquid. You will have to spin it very slowly to keep it from sloshing off.
3) spinning slowly means jerky in most cases
4) If its not jerky, it means lots of lube
5) lots of lube, and moving parts in general means maintenance, and maintenance from the earth to the moon is going to be pretty expensive.
I think Optical to start with would probalby work better. Or more likely even, radio telescopes. Visible light telescopes are really just for cool pictures, most of the real science is happening with radio scopes.
I think it could be relevant. Lets say you were doing a study comparing IQ to race, or region of the country, or exposure to certain chemicals or something.
When you draw the sample of say people who were exposed to mercury as children, the mean and median would not neccissarily be the same (assuming mercury had some effect on IQ) - This would imply that the mean and median of the entire population of people that were exposed to mecury as children would not be the same.
While the mean and median for the population of everyone could be the same, because it is a gaussian distribution, my original comment (great great grandparent?) was disagreeing with someone's statement that mean and median IQ are by definition the same.
The only way to do this would be to arbitrarily weight certain ranges of raw scores in order to get a fit. You would have to change the arbitrary adjustments every time your sample was different in order to retain this relationship.
If this is true, IQ scores have no relevance, because you are redefining the standard for each different sample.
While I could see haivng a periodic adjustment of the IQ standard so that the mean and median were the same for some "average" sample group, certainly any GIVEN sample would not have that work out.
You can not define something to be the mean and the median.
It could happen to be the mean and median, and you could say 15 points is 1SD (but that would mean a given IQ score is not comparable to the same score from a different time)
Having one person like einstein in your sample would scew the mean, but not the median.
There is no way to "define" IQ in such a way that a situation like that makes the mean and median different.
You could make up some new type of statistics I suppose, but that would be stupid.
--
Note, I am not saying the mean and median IQ aren't the same. Im just saying if they ARE the same, it has more to do with the way intelligence is distributed among the populace, and not with the way IQ was defined.
The funnier part about AC/DC is that in addition to being an electrical term, it was slang for being bisexual at the time, and the band had to keep denying they were a gay band (like queen!)
web applications use this kind of thing quite often, for error messages, dialog boxes, alerts, etc.
These things have logic behind them, database lookups etc, and the pop up might be conditional (only at a certain time, only if an error etc) and therefore the action needs to be kicked off via code.
Also, you might want to do other actions at the same time as you are opening a window, even if it is something like a link click (submit a form, refresh the page, do some JS validation logic etc)
All these require the ability to pop open an window, and manipulate how that window is displayed.
Hey bartender, gimmie another beer! Put it on my tab!
Re:Idiocy - bluetooth just taking off
on
Is Bluetooth Dead?
·
· Score: 1
except the UK is all on one standard, so they share towers, and we have 5 towers in each area that has coverage so that all the different standards work.
How do you figure? If it runs every time i log in, and can do what other apps can do (connect to the net, just like my email and browser and chat etc) then how is that any different?
The only thing that is better is that if a different user logs into my machine, they aren't infected. But like I said, for a single user box (99.9% of the boxes out there) its the same.
um, so the machine itself isn't infected, just my account. But nothing stops the virus from installing itself into my account specific startup code/config files, and then it is running every time i log in. If I am the only one on this machine, then that is the same if the whole machine is infected.
Once that code is running, it can hook up to the internet and spam those virus laden packets all it wants, just like any other app can connect to the internet.
On a single user machine, infecting my account is the same as infecting the entire box.
actually, unless they can show it was for lacivious purposes, thats not true (IE, there are many artistic nudes that dont count as porn, including pictures of children and babies) For example, Ann Gedes has taken many nude pictures of babies, and sold them in the millions. Also, the kid on the cover of the suntan lotion (forget the brand) isn't illegal.
Additionally, its the taking of, or selling, or purchasing those photos that is illegal, not possesion.
For example, there are pictures that exist that today would be classified as child porn, but that were taken before the child porn laws were enacted. Its legal to own one of those photos (probalby in a magazine), but not to sell or buy them anymore.
And I know this because I was a law student, not because I am a child porn fiend.
Every company I have worked for that handles this at all succesffuly has a custom dbg app written that tracks information about each request, who requested it, priority, who is working it, status, worklogs etc.
The problem is people continue to make requests outside of the system, change scope mid project etc.
You can solve some of that by saying "Everything is one big step" in the tracking system, and then solving scope change via XP-like processes or something, but you project management types usually don't like that answer
Also, in larger shops you have to worry about resource management alot, and delays to the current project affecting the time lines of other projects, thats the kind of thing you really need people to handle, but the database can keep track of whatever decision was made.
It is legal to own any picture. Its selling the picture that may or may not be legal.
Recently, the heirs of the sister of Grant Wood tried to take photographs of photographs of paintings by grant wood, and sell them in a book, but they got shot down by the museum that owns the paintings (The owner of the original of a painting owns the copyrights, not the painter) (However the painter is free to paint a duplicate)
Anyway, courts said that doing that is still a derived work, and not very derived, and might even be considered part of the normal "book making" process, since thats how you do enlargements and things prior to the digital resizing.
So in any case, looking in a mirror or whatnot does not help you.
Slashdot Mirror
I was a member of that guild (The Ravens of Fate) and we were not evil. We all had played the game since pre-alpha 1, several members of the Origin dev team (Pall, Ares, Grimli etc) were members of our guild or played with us regularly. One of our members (Mental4) also ran the primere fansite of the time (ultima.scorched.com)
In this particular instance, they set a no_kill flag for LB, but he logged off. When he logged back on the flag was reset, and the dev in charge of the event (Grimli if I recall correctly) forget to turn it on again.
LB was killed by a single blast of a fire (wand or scroll, I don't remember) not some really large amount of HP. other than the no_kill flag LB was actually a pretty weak char.
Further, killing of LB was a goal in pretty much EVERY incarnation of Ultima, including cool events that happened if you did so, so it should have been no suprise that it happened in UO.
apple already said they make almost no money on the songs (like 1c) it all goes to the label. iTunes is purely a loss-leader for the iPod.
Thats why its a bad model, unless they plan on getting people to upgrade every few years. Eventually everyone who wants an iPod will have one, but they will want to keep buying music. So all the profits will go away, but the losses stick around.
uh. no selling at volume while selling at a loss, just increases your losses, unless you have a pretty strong correlation with some non-loss item.
For example, once the world market for iPods is saturated, the iTunes model will fail, because there is nothing left to balance out the loss from the music.
On the other hand, with the xBox, there will always be new market for new games, so the xbox can be sold until xbox is saturated. Once the market for xbox is saturated, MS profits will actually rise, because they are getting the game profit, without the box loss.
Of course in both of these models, obsolecense might set in before saturation is reached, but then the cycle just begins again.
Not true. MS sells Xbox at a loss, because they are using it as a loss leader for the games.
Apple sells iTunes at a near loss, as a loss leader for iPod.
iTunes is now 99c/song. If more supply enters the market (MS) that price will drop. It may drop to the point that people are selling at a loss. Just because MS can afford to sell at a loss doesn't make it a crime.
If the market price is such that you sell at a loss at that price, that is fine.
Its only a crime if the market price is higher than your price, and you are selling at a loss in an effort to crap out your competition.
well, except you are forgetting somehting. at any moment in time, there are raindrops suspended in the air. and you run into them. So you have less rain hit you from the top, but you have more rain hit you in the chest and face as you move forward into them.
Uh, we bounce lasers from earth to the moon, all day long, every day. They are measuring the distance to the moon, using the speed of light. It doesn't diverge any practical distance at all.
Read here
We are hitting a reflectr 46cm^2 thats A LOT less than a mile deviation. the 46cm is just for things like vibration, and aiming issues.
BTW, this laster tells us the moon is drifting away from the earth, at 3.8cm per year!
Why would .Net apps have to wait for longhorn. My company is doing everything in .Net just fine on XP with no issues.
GUI apps, and ASP.net
BTW, Thanks for the info on the breakdown of what wavelength is getting used.
Yeah, I know that the centripital force (remember, there is no such thing as centrifigal force) is what gives the mirror its shape, I was just saying that the lower gravity will magnify that effect. Therefore you will have to spin slower, and the slower spin speed could lead to jerkiness.
Of course the reply below pointed out they could gear it down which should help things immensly.
I still think keeping it lubricated up in space is going to be a bitch tho.
That is a good advantage for the moon, however
I think the gravity, temp, and pressure changes would outweigh that one advantage. Especially for a technology that we have no experience with in space.
What is usually used for these devices on earth? Mercury? Is mercury going to be a liquid when put into a 0 pressure (which would encourage evaporation), really REALLY cold enviroment (which would encourage freezing)? (Remember, he said this would be put into a shadow of a crater. Im thining that means approaching absolute 0 (not absolute 0, approaching it. Certainly several hundred degrees below 0)
I don't think a spinning liquid mirror would work as well on the moon as it does on earth, considering the 1/6 gravity and the no athmosphere.
1) you have to use some material that is still liquid at extremely low temperature, AND very low pressure.
2) the low gravity is going to magnify the effect of centripital force on the liquid. You will have to spin it very slowly to keep it from sloshing off.
3) spinning slowly means jerky in most cases
4) If its not jerky, it means lots of lube
5) lots of lube, and moving parts in general means maintenance, and maintenance from the earth to the moon is going to be pretty expensive.
I think Optical to start with would probalby work better. Or more likely even, radio telescopes. Visible light telescopes are really just for cool pictures, most of the real science is happening with radio scopes.
Um the graphite is already "frozen" because it is in its solid state.
Its not liquid or gas is it?
I think it could be relevant. Lets say you were doing a study comparing IQ to race, or region of the country, or exposure to certain chemicals or something.
When you draw the sample of say people who were exposed to mercury as children, the mean and median would not neccissarily be the same (assuming mercury had some effect on IQ) - This would imply that the mean and median of the entire population of people that were exposed to mecury as children would not be the same.
While the mean and median for the population of everyone could be the same, because it is a gaussian distribution, my original comment (great great grandparent?) was disagreeing with someone's statement that mean and median IQ are by definition the same.
The only way to do this would be to arbitrarily weight certain ranges of raw scores in order to get a fit. You would have to change the arbitrary adjustments every time your sample was different in order to retain this relationship.
If this is true, IQ scores have no relevance, because you are redefining the standard for each different sample.
While I could see haivng a periodic adjustment of the IQ standard so that the mean and median were the same for some "average" sample group, certainly any GIVEN sample would not have that work out.
You can not define something to be the mean and the median.
It could happen to be the mean and median, and you could say 15 points is 1SD (but that would mean a given IQ score is not comparable to the same score from a different time)
Having one person like einstein in your sample would scew the mean, but not the median.
There is no way to "define" IQ in such a way that a situation like that makes the mean and median different.
You could make up some new type of statistics I suppose, but that would be stupid.
--
Note, I am not saying the mean and median IQ aren't the same. Im just saying if they ARE the same, it has more to do with the way intelligence is distributed among the populace, and not with the way IQ was defined.
The funnier part about AC/DC is that in addition to being an electrical term, it was slang for being bisexual at the time, and the band had to keep denying they were a gay band (like queen!)
You just said that credit for every computer program should go to the person who invented the language, or wrote the compiler.
web applications use this kind of thing quite often, for error messages, dialog boxes, alerts, etc.
These things have logic behind them, database lookups etc, and the pop up might be conditional (only at a certain time, only if an error etc) and therefore the action needs to be kicked off via code.
Also, you might want to do other actions at the same time as you are opening a window, even if it is something like a link click (submit a form, refresh the page, do some JS validation logic etc)
All these require the ability to pop open an window, and manipulate how that window is displayed.
Hey bartender, gimmie another beer! Put it on my tab!
except the UK is all on one standard, so they share towers, and we have 5 towers in each area that has coverage so that all the different standards work.
How do you figure? If it runs every time i log in, and can do what other apps can do (connect to the net, just like my email and browser and chat etc) then how is that any different?
The only thing that is better is that if a different user logs into my machine, they aren't infected. But like I said, for a single user box (99.9% of the boxes out there) its the same.
um, so the machine itself isn't infected, just my account. But nothing stops the virus from installing itself into my account specific startup code/config files, and then it is running every time i log in. If I am the only one on this machine, then that is the same if the whole machine is infected.
Once that code is running, it can hook up to the internet and spam those virus laden packets all it wants, just like any other app can connect to the internet.
On a single user machine, infecting my account is the same as infecting the entire box.
actually, unless they can show it was for lacivious purposes, thats not true (IE, there are many artistic nudes that dont count as porn, including pictures of children and babies)
For example, Ann Gedes has taken many nude pictures of babies, and sold them in the millions. Also, the kid on the cover of the suntan lotion (forget the brand) isn't illegal.
Additionally, its the taking of, or selling, or purchasing those photos that is illegal, not possesion.
For example, there are pictures that exist that today would be classified as child porn, but that were taken before the child porn laws were enacted. Its legal to own one of those photos (probalby in a magazine), but not to sell or buy them anymore.
And I know this because I was a law student, not because I am a child porn fiend.
Every company I have worked for that handles this at all succesffuly has a custom dbg app written that tracks information about each request, who requested it, priority, who is working it, status, worklogs etc.
The problem is people continue to make requests outside of the system, change scope mid project etc.
You can solve some of that by saying "Everything is one big step" in the tracking system, and then solving scope change via XP-like processes or something, but you project management types usually don't like that answer
Also, in larger shops you have to worry about resource management alot, and delays to the current project affecting the time lines of other projects, thats the kind of thing you really need people to handle, but the database can keep track of whatever decision was made.
It is legal to own any picture. Its selling the picture that may or may not be legal.
Recently, the heirs of the sister of Grant Wood tried to take photographs of photographs of paintings by grant wood, and sell them in a book, but they got shot down by the museum that owns the paintings (The owner of the original of a painting owns the copyrights, not the painter) (However the painter is free to paint a duplicate)
Anyway, courts said that doing that is still a derived work, and not very derived, and might even be considered part of the normal "book making" process, since thats how you do enlargements and things prior to the digital resizing.
So in any case, looking in a mirror or whatnot does not help you.