And that's the problem -- analytics can only suggest cheating; they can't prove it. Unless the participants are willing to admit they were cheating, the threshold for discipline will never be met. And if your scruples are low enough to cheat, they should likewise be low enough to lie. You could say that if two neighboring tests are identical then one of them was almost certainly cheating, but if both deny it then you can't really punish both of them. It comes down to resisting interrogation.
I'm not trying to condone cheating here, just stating what seems obvious.
Yes and no. If it's a targeted attack against your specific account, then it makes sense to run through a set of likely possibilities (increment/decrement the digits in the password), but if the attacker just want to access accounts en masse, such as to send Twitter spam, then they likely won't bother if the login doesn't work on the first attempt.
Atheism is not based on evidence or reason; it's based on belief. Agnosticism is the only rational position.
If I say I'm thinking of a shape, but I won't tell you what it is or answer any questions, the logical choice is just to ignore me. Whether I'm actually thinking of a shape or not is irrelevant. Atheism is like saying I'm not thinking of a shape -- it's getting involved in a meaningless argument.
Eh.. it's not about making you a slave; it's about justifying their existence. People will rationalize their own purpose even when it's inefficient or ineffective.
The part about getting people to do what you tell them is just a convenient side-effect.
Maybe you're thinking of 20 degrees Celsius? 20F is about -6C.
At any rate, turning off the engine is not a particularly good idea. Most engine wear occurs at startup when the oil is too cold to lubricate properly. The whole point of warming up the engine is to warm up the *oil* to reach its ideal viscosity. You're not getting as much wear on a newer engines with better machining than a 30+ yr old car, but you're still getting far more at cold temps than at operational temps.
Second, idling uses very little fuel in the first place. Most cars consume around 0.2 Gallons Per Hour at idle, so if you idle for 30 minutes on a trip home (which is hopefully rather generous), you've saved 1/10th of a gallon. That's at the cost of inability to run climate control (certainly the compressor in an A/C which is belt-driven anyway), higher battery wear, and higher engine wear necessitating more frequent oil changes. If you idle for a total of 5 hours per tank (again, this should be an *extremely* generous estimate), you've saved 1 gallon, or ~50 gallons per year assuming you fill up once a week (I'm usually around once every other week), so around $150-$200/yr. Yes, this translates to large savings for all the cars on the road, but savings in one area (fuel consumption) comes at a costs in other, equally or more expensive areas (premature parts/engine failure, more frequent oil changes, etc). Replacing a starter used to be pretty damn simple -- I've done it in parking lots on older cars when the teeth wore out -- but these days it's a royal pain in the ass, and you'll easily eat up any savings, especially if you're paying a mechanic. And your starter will wear out many times faster if you're stopping and starting the engine throughout your trip. It seems like, at best, this will be trading 6 of one for a half dozen of the other -- the costs will negate the benefits -- and at worst, it could result in a substantial increase in energy consumption (recycling old parts) which outweighs the fuel savings. In short, this sounds like a feel-good measure some politician dreamed up.
It's hard to define, which is why computers aren't very good at it. Nonetheless, we can generally see physical characteristics of ourselves in both our parents and our offspring. If "your child" doesn't look like you, there's a good chance you've been cuckolded.
The image of Santa as a plump man was popularized by "A Visit From St. Nicholas ('Twas the Night Before Christmas)" in 1823:
He had a broad face, and a little round belly That shook when he laugh'd, like a bowl full of jelly: He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf, And I laugh'd when I saw him in spite of myself;
And the modern icon is generally credited to Thomas Nast, circa 1880, upon which Haddon Sundblom based his Coca-Cola ads a full 50 years later. At most, Sundblom popularized the red suit, but he was quite an artist in his own right, so calling it a "character created by Coca Cola's marketing division" is both giving their "marketing department" too much credit, as well as doing a disservice to Sundblom. It's more accurate to say that Coca-Cola's advertising used to consist of actual art.
There's a difference between overthrowing a totalitarian government by force and being too lazy/apathetic to actively participate in a democratic government (and/or too narcissistic to abide by the decisions of your fellow citizens). If you're talking and nobody's listening, there's a good chance you're either talking crazy, or else you're too asocial to form any sort of consensus. In either case the problem isn't everyone else, it's you.
We've always told our kids to look both ways AND listen when crossing. They're pretty good about it most of the time, but kids are prone to distraction and excitation.
One day they were playing at a friend's house when an SUV came barreling down the (residential) street and ran over their friend's dog without even attempting to slow down, and without stopping after the fact. The guy must have been either drunk, highly distracted, or both, but as unfortunate as it was, they certainly learned a healthy fear of the street after that incident.
In case there's any confusion, yes, I'm suggesting we start using dogs for live training exercises.
Well, yeah, but it's as good as any science channel that's ever been on TV, which was my point. It's 100% either documentaries (of varying quality) or science-related series. And yeah, it's introductory, but pretty much everything on television is introductory. A particular show might go into a little more detail, but they're not going to go into the mathematics behind string theory or anything because that would narrow its audience from those who are interested in science to those who are actual scientists (more or less).
The Science Channel sticks to its theme, but it's about the only one. It's also relatively young at 11 years old. Soon it will experience teenage angst, lash out against the people who created and cared for it all these years, and seek acceptance from anyone who shows the slightest signs of interest.
Not that I feel anything of value was lost here, but did you really hold out hope after they changed the name of the network to SyFy?? That's sadder than battered woman syndrome. Seriously, you can leave your abuser. You don't even need to find a shelter -- just change the channel.
Hold on, just hold on. Are you saying there are nerd cops? Nerd cops?!? Have you considered the possibility that you're some sort of robot sent from the future? If you're not sure, do you have a habit of consciously altering your appearance just by thinking about it, or melting into tiled vinyl flooring?
The difference is that in prison, trusting the wrong person can kill you. At best, trusting the wrong person at the place you work is likely to have a minimal impact, not to mention it's very hard to work in an environment where you trust no one, and no one trusts you. It goes against human nature, and people will naturally form bonds, *especially* when they're working together toward a common goal.
But aside from that, the circular logic of trusting people not to trust each other is flawless.
How do we know the defendant didn't update the Wiki pages related to the changes in the case to spin the definitions to his advantage?
Exactly, which is why I said we should find a middle ground.
That approved reference material is called "evidence" and "testimony".
Evidence and testimony are not objective, and objectivity is what the system needs, particularly for something like this where there's a question about the definition of a particular term or phrase. A person's life or liberty shouldn't hinge on whether or not his lawyer remembered that not everyone knows the meaning of some obscure term (or some other ridiculous oversight that never quite manages to qualify as malpractice). I think we can all agree on that. From there, it's just a question of how to fix it in the most fair way possible.
I've had no trouble with Amazon; what you describe sounds more like eBay.
I had a book not arrive from Amazon -- wasn't in the box with the other books. I called Amazon, and they shipped out a replacement, no questions asked. The book arrived the next day... then the replacement arrived two days later. Apparently the original books were shipped in separate shipments, but there was no record of that anywhere. I called them back and told them what happened, and they just told me to keep both copies, so I gave it to a friend.
Slashdot Mirror
They already have those in Vietnam.
Speaking of history repeating itself...I'm buying gold while it still has a way to go before it peaks!
Interesting... I'm doing the same with history.
And that's the problem -- analytics can only suggest cheating; they can't prove it. Unless the participants are willing to admit they were cheating, the threshold for discipline will never be met. And if your scruples are low enough to cheat, they should likewise be low enough to lie. You could say that if two neighboring tests are identical then one of them was almost certainly cheating, but if both deny it then you can't really punish both of them. It comes down to resisting interrogation.
I'm not trying to condone cheating here, just stating what seems obvious.
Yes and no. If it's a targeted attack against your specific account, then it makes sense to run through a set of likely possibilities (increment/decrement the digits in the password), but if the attacker just want to access accounts en masse, such as to send Twitter spam, then they likely won't bother if the login doesn't work on the first attempt.
Atheism is not based on evidence or reason; it's based on belief. Agnosticism is the only rational position.
If I say I'm thinking of a shape, but I won't tell you what it is or answer any questions, the logical choice is just to ignore me. Whether I'm actually thinking of a shape or not is irrelevant. Atheism is like saying I'm not thinking of a shape -- it's getting involved in a meaningless argument.
high delirious effects.
I suspect you meant deleterious, although delirious works too in this context.
Eh.. it's not about making you a slave; it's about justifying their existence. People will rationalize their own purpose even when it's inefficient or ineffective.
The part about getting people to do what you tell them is just a convenient side-effect.
Maybe you're thinking of 20 degrees Celsius? 20F is about -6C.
At any rate, turning off the engine is not a particularly good idea. Most engine wear occurs at startup when the oil is too cold to lubricate properly. The whole point of warming up the engine is to warm up the *oil* to reach its ideal viscosity. You're not getting as much wear on a newer engines with better machining than a 30+ yr old car, but you're still getting far more at cold temps than at operational temps.
Second, idling uses very little fuel in the first place. Most cars consume around 0.2 Gallons Per Hour at idle, so if you idle for 30 minutes on a trip home (which is hopefully rather generous), you've saved 1/10th of a gallon. That's at the cost of inability to run climate control (certainly the compressor in an A/C which is belt-driven anyway), higher battery wear, and higher engine wear necessitating more frequent oil changes. If you idle for a total of 5 hours per tank (again, this should be an *extremely* generous estimate), you've saved 1 gallon, or ~50 gallons per year assuming you fill up once a week (I'm usually around once every other week), so around $150-$200/yr. Yes, this translates to large savings for all the cars on the road, but savings in one area (fuel consumption) comes at a costs in other, equally or more expensive areas (premature parts/engine failure, more frequent oil changes, etc). Replacing a starter used to be pretty damn simple -- I've done it in parking lots on older cars when the teeth wore out -- but these days it's a royal pain in the ass, and you'll easily eat up any savings, especially if you're paying a mechanic. And your starter will wear out many times faster if you're stopping and starting the engine throughout your trip. It seems like, at best, this will be trading 6 of one for a half dozen of the other -- the costs will negate the benefits -- and at worst, it could result in a substantial increase in energy consumption (recycling old parts) which outweighs the fuel savings. In short, this sounds like a feel-good measure some politician dreamed up.
Reading at +3 is a double-edged sword.
It's hard to define, which is why computers aren't very good at it. Nonetheless, we can generally see physical characteristics of ourselves in both our parents and our offspring. If "your child" doesn't look like you, there's a good chance you've been cuckolded.
The image of Santa as a plump man was popularized by "A Visit From St. Nicholas ('Twas the Night Before Christmas)" in 1823:
He had a broad face, and a little round belly
That shook when he laugh'd, like a bowl full of jelly:
He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,
And I laugh'd when I saw him in spite of myself;
And the modern icon is generally credited to Thomas Nast, circa 1880, upon which Haddon Sundblom based his Coca-Cola ads a full 50 years later. At most, Sundblom popularized the red suit, but he was quite an artist in his own right, so calling it a "character created by Coca Cola's marketing division" is both giving their "marketing department" too much credit, as well as doing a disservice to Sundblom. It's more accurate to say that Coca-Cola's advertising used to consist of actual art.
The ability to identify similar faces is important for survival -- the survival of your genes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/pets/8151924/Dogs-are-smarter-than-cats.html
Same way I always do; with advice on their technique.
"Here's a tip: massage the balls more."
There's a difference between overthrowing a totalitarian government by force and being too lazy/apathetic to actively participate in a democratic government (and/or too narcissistic to abide by the decisions of your fellow citizens). If you're talking and nobody's listening, there's a good chance you're either talking crazy, or else you're too asocial to form any sort of consensus. In either case the problem isn't everyone else, it's you.
We've always told our kids to look both ways AND listen when crossing. They're pretty good about it most of the time, but kids are prone to distraction and excitation.
One day they were playing at a friend's house when an SUV came barreling down the (residential) street and ran over their friend's dog without even attempting to slow down, and without stopping after the fact. The guy must have been either drunk, highly distracted, or both, but as unfortunate as it was, they certainly learned a healthy fear of the street after that incident.
In case there's any confusion, yes, I'm suggesting we start using dogs for live training exercises.
Two thoughts:
1) Sounding one's horn before and during reversing is already the law in some places.
2) I'm pretty sure silent cars don't present more of a danger to a deaf person than any other car.
Ha.. yeah, blacks are just like packets.
You're either very stupid for even making that comparison, especially in jest, or else quite the dick. I hope for the former, but fear for the latter.
Well, yeah, but it's as good as any science channel that's ever been on TV, which was my point. It's 100% either documentaries (of varying quality) or science-related series. And yeah, it's introductory, but pretty much everything on television is introductory. A particular show might go into a little more detail, but they're not going to go into the mathematics behind string theory or anything because that would narrow its audience from those who are interested in science to those who are actual scientists (more or less).
The Science Channel sticks to its theme, but it's about the only one. It's also relatively young at 11 years old. Soon it will experience teenage angst, lash out against the people who created and cared for it all these years, and seek acceptance from anyone who shows the slightest signs of interest.
Not that I feel anything of value was lost here, but did you really hold out hope after they changed the name of the network to SyFy?? That's sadder than battered woman syndrome. Seriously, you can leave your abuser. You don't even need to find a shelter -- just change the channel.
Hold on, just hold on. Are you saying there are nerd cops? Nerd cops?!? Have you considered the possibility that you're some sort of robot sent from the future? If you're not sure, do you have a habit of consciously altering your appearance just by thinking about it, or melting into tiled vinyl flooring?
If so, then stay here. I'll be back.
The difference is that in prison, trusting the wrong person can kill you. At best, trusting the wrong person at the place you work is likely to have a minimal impact, not to mention it's very hard to work in an environment where you trust no one, and no one trusts you. It goes against human nature, and people will naturally form bonds, *especially* when they're working together toward a common goal.
But aside from that, the circular logic of trusting people not to trust each other is flawless.
How do we know the defendant didn't update the Wiki pages related to the changes in the case to spin the definitions to his advantage?
Exactly, which is why I said we should find a middle ground.
That approved reference material is called "evidence" and "testimony".
Evidence and testimony are not objective, and objectivity is what the system needs, particularly for something like this where there's a question about the definition of a particular term or phrase. A person's life or liberty shouldn't hinge on whether or not his lawyer remembered that not everyone knows the meaning of some obscure term (or some other ridiculous oversight that never quite manages to qualify as malpractice). I think we can all agree on that. From there, it's just a question of how to fix it in the most fair way possible.
I've had no trouble with Amazon; what you describe sounds more like eBay.
I had a book not arrive from Amazon -- wasn't in the box with the other books. I called Amazon, and they shipped out a replacement, no questions asked. The book arrived the next day... then the replacement arrived two days later. Apparently the original books were shipped in separate shipments, but there was no record of that anywhere. I called them back and told them what happened, and they just told me to keep both copies, so I gave it to a friend.