Actually, one of the nice things about SSDs is that as capacity increases, reliability increases too. More cells means more options for wear levelling, means more life span.
You could argue that it cannot fail the test if there aren't women in the game at all.
You could, but I don't think you would be very successful. I would strongly suggest that the test as phrased above is this logical statement: containsTwoWomen ^ womenTalkAbout(x) ^ x =/= men
In order for your above argument to hold, it would have to be this: containsTwoWomen => (womenTalkAbout(x) ^ x =/= men)
Based on that, I'd suggest that it's impossible to pass this test if there aren't any women in the game at all. I also suspect that that's intentional to an extent - a book that contains only men, and the opinions of men is meant to be caste by this test as sexist. Similarly, I suspect a game containing a bunch of men doing manly things is meant to be caste as sexist.
It certainly though seems to be inapplicable to a wide range of games though, as many games are abstract beyond caring about human interactions. And even those that do care about humans often only contain a very few characters.
And with that rant over, I'll leave you lot to discuss... Is Bayonetta sexist? Sure, lots of boobs and bums there, but also a strong female lead just doing her thing.
So you are saying that the opinion that large SUVs shouldn't be allowed in cities is based on the physical characteristics relevant to their size, which is larger than standard passenger cars. These physical characteristics include their width compared to the road/lane, and their turning radius. Your argument apparently is that they cannot maneuver well enough to ensure the safety of other vehicles.
I brought up delivery vehicles, which are as large as or larger than SUVs. I pointed out that they maneuver adequately on city streets. Therefor SUVs should not be a problem, based on their physical characteristics.
Yes - a straw man. You're taking my argument that city streets full of large vehicles with large turning radiuses are less safe than ones with small vehicles with small turning radiuses, and trying to defeat it by saying "yes, but *some* of those are necessary.
By the same logic, we should all be allowed to drive 18 wheelers in cities, and according to you, doing so would cause no problems, because every so often an 18 wheeler needs to come into a city to restock an inner city supermarket.
On the contrary, both us all driving 18 wheelers, and us all driving large vehicles the size of delivery vans are both increasing the number of issues in a city, so no, I don't regard it as unreasonable for a city to impose dissinsentives for people to drive large vehicles within them. I also don't regard it as unreasonable for them to exempt people who are there actually doing a job (i.e. the actual real delivery vans).
I'm sorry. I thought your argument was about physical characteristics such as turning radius and vehicle width in relation to lane width. That the numbers show large vehicles have no place in cities.
Now it is simply large vehicles you don't like have no place in cities where you are driving your privately owned car.
Sorry, but I'm not following your point. You seem to be suggesting that I changed my stance, rather than simply pointing out your straw man.
Just because it's possible to have a few of them about, doesn't imply that it's reasonable to have the streets filled with them. Delivery vans are often made exceptions of because they perform a critical service that can't be performed any other way. SUVs on the other hand, in 99 out of 100 cases are just taking up a crap load of space, and reducing everyone else's visibility for no gain at all.
Why would I want this in my browser? What's not sufficient about the experience I get in the native apps? In what way is this better that I need a heavy weight piece of rendering technology sitting open, a GUI that's wrapped in my browser's window, and more latency between clicking things and stuff happening?
Cube of velocity actually, and cube of velocity times frontal area, times coefficient of drag. The frontal area of an 18 wheeler is much larger... That said, they're also long and slender, which I suspect means that their coefficient of drag is fairly low for their volume.
Does your totalitarian streak run in the family, or only in your social clique?
Totalitarianism would be "You can not drive SUVs and other monstrosities in cities", not "They have no place in cities", that's merely an opinion. One that can be reasonably backed up by citing road widths, corner radiuses turning circles, car widths etc.
Well, a mannad mission to mars is estimated to need roughly 800 Mg of equipment lifted into space, and then slung out onto a mars intercept orbit. The orbit required for this comet intercept is thankfully pretty similar (it needs only to get around mars to do a gravity assist back to earth, for a few more gravity assists to get out to jupiter). But a mission to mars would take only 2 years, this requires 10. That means 5 times as much food, and I'd bet a bunch more equipment. So lets conservatively guess at 1.6Gg of stuff that needs to be lifted into space.
Meanwhile, the launch mass for the robotic longer was a mere 100kg. So, even if you assume that you can scale the amount of fuel needed to get all the stuff up there linearly (which you can't), you're looking at 16000 times the cost, i.e. $1.6 trillion.
To me, it appears that the above poster underestimated quite a lot, not overestimated as you'd like to believe.
One of the other powers that actual adults have is the intelligence that one word has no more ability to injure us than any other, and allow people to swear all they like, because it does us no harm.
To a certain extent, that's meaningless. Those calories are bound up in a way that you can't use them--which is why they're waste). It may be that there are some usable calories in there if you went back and ingested them again, but obviously there are significantly diminishing returns.
Of course it's not meaningless. Those calories are energy. If I ingest 1800 calories, and burn 1400, but poop out 400, I will maintain my weight, despite not burning as many calories as I ingested. If I have gut bacteria that break down certain long chain sugars so that that I can now ingest them, I will instead only poop out 200, and start gaining weight, despite eating the same thing, and doing the same amount of exercise.
The point here is not really that the solution to my weight gain in that situation is either eat 200 calories less, or do 200 calories more work (or some combination of the above), it absolutely is.
Instead, it's that there's a large part of the world out there that will eat the exact same food, and do the exact same exercise, and maintain or loose weight, because their gut bacteria is not the same. These people (as the person at the root of this thread said) are very likely to sit there screaming that all these "fatties" are just gobbling up donuts, and that's why they're fat. Instead, some of them are actually doing more, and eating less already, but will still gain weight by doing that.
Basically, these studies don't change the correct approach to maintaining weight - but what they do do is highlight that people should be a bit more sensitive to each other, and stop assuming that anyone who gains weight is eating a lot, or exercising a little. There are more factors than those alone.
What does that have to do with the situation? That only applies in a closed system. These microbes (and many other factors) are making this not closed, and causing varying amounts of chemical potential energy to be leaked from the system depending on the genetic make up of the individual.
You realise that this is pretty much exactly the policy that most of the prosperous areas of Europe use, right? This is why US fuel costs about 2/5 of what UK/French/German fuel costs.
In UK, the gas taxes pay for the roads. In the USA, gas taxes cover less than half, with the rest coming out of general taxes. And the US has about four times the length of road per capita than the UK does. It is not that UK gas taxes are low, it is that US separates tax source from target to avoid discouraging driving. Remember, what's good for GM is good for America.
No, in the UK, the petrol taxes go into a large pool of money called the treasury, which is used to fund all the things the country does. This is true of pretty much all national taxes. The same is notably true of "Vehicle Excise Duty" (note, *not* road tax), which contrary to popular belief, does not give you more right to use a road than someone who hasn't paid VED, nor does it mean that you have "paid for the road".
I'd say quite a few casual programmers use Javascript, though many of them surely do their best to ignore its functional aspects.
Javascript is not a functional language. Lots of idiots like to claim it is because it has features like closures. Having closures does not make a functional language, instead, what makes a functional language is referential transparency. That's something that javascript doesn't have, or even attempt to have.
It's clear that there are more factors here that need to be normalised out. For example, they found that the category that "had" the most performance bugs was the procedural, static, unmanaged memory category, i.e. C, C++ etc, far outstripping languages like ruby. To me, it's clear that that is caused by people using these languages actually caring about performance, while people using languages who's implementations are many orders of magnitude slower, don't really file (or fix) bugs about perf.
When interviewers want you to solve a problem on the board, they don't want you to write the perfect solution up straight away. They want you to write something naïve, and then be able to point out all the problems with it, and iterate on it. They don't want to see the size of your ego at coming up with perfect software, they want to see how you think and work on a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, one of the nice things about SSDs is that as capacity increases, reliability increases too. More cells means more options for wear levelling, means more life span.
2) Break the first person's fingers that walk off with your tools
But how... they have your hammer!
Why are you adding explosives to the toolbox?
It doesn't help you not lose tools. It helps you blame someone when a tool goes missing.
Hah, if I could mod you insightful, I would, alas, no mod points.
The heat burns off from converting it into electrical energy to power the space craft. Having heat in a power generator is not a problem.
Why would you carry around the mass of the water - that's just going to make the car less efficient.
You could argue that it cannot fail the test if there aren't women in the game at all.
You could, but I don't think you would be very successful. I would strongly suggest that the test as phrased above is this logical statement:
containsTwoWomen ^ womenTalkAbout(x) ^ x =/= men
In order for your above argument to hold, it would have to be this:
containsTwoWomen => (womenTalkAbout(x) ^ x =/= men)
Based on that, I'd suggest that it's impossible to pass this test if there aren't any women in the game at all. I also suspect that that's intentional to an extent - a book that contains only men, and the opinions of men is meant to be caste by this test as sexist. Similarly, I suspect a game containing a bunch of men doing manly things is meant to be caste as sexist.
It certainly though seems to be inapplicable to a wide range of games though, as many games are abstract beyond caring about human interactions. And even those that do care about humans often only contain a very few characters.
And with that rant over, I'll leave you lot to discuss... Is Bayonetta sexist? Sure, lots of boobs and bums there, but also a strong female lead just doing her thing.
So you are saying that the opinion that large SUVs shouldn't be allowed in cities is based on the physical characteristics relevant to their size, which is larger than standard passenger cars. These physical characteristics include their width compared to the road/lane, and their turning radius. Your argument apparently is that they cannot maneuver well enough to ensure the safety of other vehicles.
I brought up delivery vehicles, which are as large as or larger than SUVs. I pointed out that they maneuver adequately on city streets. Therefor SUVs should not be a problem, based on their physical characteristics.
Yes - a straw man. You're taking my argument that city streets full of large vehicles with large turning radiuses are less safe than ones with small vehicles with small turning radiuses, and trying to defeat it by saying "yes, but *some* of those are necessary.
By the same logic, we should all be allowed to drive 18 wheelers in cities, and according to you, doing so would cause no problems, because every so often an 18 wheeler needs to come into a city to restock an inner city supermarket.
On the contrary, both us all driving 18 wheelers, and us all driving large vehicles the size of delivery vans are both increasing the number of issues in a city, so no, I don't regard it as unreasonable for a city to impose dissinsentives for people to drive large vehicles within them. I also don't regard it as unreasonable for them to exempt people who are there actually doing a job (i.e. the actual real delivery vans).
I'm sorry. I thought your argument was about physical characteristics such as turning radius and vehicle width in relation to lane width. That the numbers show large vehicles have no place in cities.
Now it is simply large vehicles you don't like have no place in cities where you are driving your privately owned car.
Sorry, but I'm not following your point. You seem to be suggesting that I changed my stance, rather than simply pointing out your straw man.
Just because it's possible to have a few of them about, doesn't imply that it's reasonable to have the streets filled with them. Delivery vans are often made exceptions of because they perform a critical service that can't be performed any other way. SUVs on the other hand, in 99 out of 100 cases are just taking up a crap load of space, and reducing everyone else's visibility for no gain at all.
Why would I want this in my browser? What's not sufficient about the experience I get in the native apps? In what way is this better that I need a heavy weight piece of rendering technology sitting open, a GUI that's wrapped in my browser's window, and more latency between clicking things and stuff happening?
Seriously... Why would you implement this?
Cube of velocity actually, and cube of velocity times frontal area, times coefficient of drag. The frontal area of an 18 wheeler is much larger... That said, they're also long and slender, which I suspect means that their coefficient of drag is fairly low for their volume.
Does your totalitarian streak run in the family, or only in your social clique?
Totalitarianism would be "You can not drive SUVs and other monstrosities in cities", not "They have no place in cities", that's merely an opinion. One that can be reasonably backed up by citing road widths, corner radiuses turning circles, car widths etc.
That's a strange assumption. Whence did it come?
Well, a mannad mission to mars is estimated to need roughly 800 Mg of equipment lifted into space, and then slung out onto a mars intercept orbit. The orbit required for this comet intercept is thankfully pretty similar (it needs only to get around mars to do a gravity assist back to earth, for a few more gravity assists to get out to jupiter). But a mission to mars would take only 2 years, this requires 10. That means 5 times as much food, and I'd bet a bunch more equipment. So lets conservatively guess at 1.6Gg of stuff that needs to be lifted into space.
Meanwhile, the launch mass for the robotic longer was a mere 100kg. So, even if you assume that you can scale the amount of fuel needed to get all the stuff up there linearly (which you can't), you're looking at 16000 times the cost, i.e. $1.6 trillion.
To me, it appears that the above poster underestimated quite a lot, not overestimated as you'd like to believe.
One of the other powers that actual adults have is the intelligence that one word has no more ability to injure us than any other, and allow people to swear all they like, because it does us no harm.
Yep, this is an intercooler, not AC.
To a certain extent, that's meaningless. Those calories are bound up in a way that you can't use them--which is why they're waste). It may be that there are some usable calories in there if you went back and ingested them again, but obviously there are significantly diminishing returns.
Of course it's not meaningless. Those calories are energy. If I ingest 1800 calories, and burn 1400, but poop out 400, I will maintain my weight, despite not burning as many calories as I ingested. If I have gut bacteria that break down certain long chain sugars so that that I can now ingest them, I will instead only poop out 200, and start gaining weight, despite eating the same thing, and doing the same amount of exercise.
The point here is not really that the solution to my weight gain in that situation is either eat 200 calories less, or do 200 calories more work (or some combination of the above), it absolutely is.
Instead, it's that there's a large part of the world out there that will eat the exact same food, and do the exact same exercise, and maintain or loose weight, because their gut bacteria is not the same. These people (as the person at the root of this thread said) are very likely to sit there screaming that all these "fatties" are just gobbling up donuts, and that's why they're fat. Instead, some of them are actually doing more, and eating less already, but will still gain weight by doing that.
Basically, these studies don't change the correct approach to maintaining weight - but what they do do is highlight that people should be a bit more sensitive to each other, and stop assuming that anyone who gains weight is eating a lot, or exercising a little. There are more factors than those alone.
What does that have to do with the situation? That only applies in a closed system. These microbes (and many other factors) are making this not closed, and causing varying amounts of chemical potential energy to be leaked from the system depending on the genetic make up of the individual.
You realise that this is pretty much exactly the policy that most of the prosperous areas of Europe use, right? This is why US fuel costs about 2/5 of what UK/French/German fuel costs.
In UK, the gas taxes pay for the roads. In the USA, gas taxes cover less than half, with the rest coming out of general taxes. And the US has about four times the length of road per capita than the UK does. It is not that UK gas taxes are low, it is that US separates tax source from target to avoid discouraging driving. Remember, what's good for GM is good for America.
No, in the UK, the petrol taxes go into a large pool of money called the treasury, which is used to fund all the things the country does. This is true of pretty much all national taxes. The same is notably true of "Vehicle Excise Duty" (note, *not* road tax), which contrary to popular belief, does not give you more right to use a road than someone who hasn't paid VED, nor does it mean that you have "paid for the road".
No one claimed it was free - we claimed it was 4 times cheaper than yours.
I'd say quite a few casual programmers use Javascript, though many of them surely do their best to ignore its functional aspects.
Javascript is not a functional language. Lots of idiots like to claim it is because it has features like closures. Having closures does not make a functional language, instead, what makes a functional language is referential transparency. That's something that javascript doesn't have, or even attempt to have.
It's clear that there are more factors here that need to be normalised out. For example, they found that the category that "had" the most performance bugs was the procedural, static, unmanaged memory category, i.e. C, C++ etc, far outstripping languages like ruby. To me, it's clear that that is caused by people using these languages actually caring about performance, while people using languages who's implementations are many orders of magnitude slower, don't really file (or fix) bugs about perf.
You apparently don't know how to interview well.
When interviewers want you to solve a problem on the board, they don't want you to write the perfect solution up straight away. They want you to write something naïve, and then be able to point out all the problems with it, and iterate on it. They don't want to see the size of your ego at coming up with perfect software, they want to see how you think and work on a problem.