Actually quite basic math there too. Why did solving this come with an award? I can point to several thousand problems in various books on my shelves that are orders of magnitude more difficult than that entire problem, all of which are commonly assigned as nothing more than homework problems. Hell, I just did it in Wolfram Alpha in 5 mins. The only really tricky part was the URL bit but EVERYONE does that these days so it's assumption #1. Old puzzle methodology is old. Come on Google, be original.
This is no surprise at all. I hope this inspires people to finally get on board with my initial proposal; I've been saying all along that travelers ought to be required to submit to vivisection.
My own specific branch of linguistics is tiny, it has a handful of experts. Several of them gave Wikipedia a try and then gave up on it pretty fast, as they felt that effecting any real beneficial change was impossible when you have cabals of non-expert editors.
Unfortunately, what you say is true. Wikipedia should only be trusted for things known by enough people. (What's "enough"? That's the question, isn't it...) I've heard the same information from every person I know that has truly expert knowledge on a long-tail subject. If the valuable knowledge you happen to possess isn't already known by enough people, it will almost certainly get reverted.
This is the nature of truly democratic knowledge sharing. This is the one area Britannica has it all over Wikipedia. For almost all practical purposes, though, only experts need that level of information, so Britannica for the masses doesn't make a lot of sense.
...and tryptophan puts us to sleep. So, isn't it upsetting the Order of Things when we eat the turkey and ~then~ the pie? Shouldn't it be the other way 'round?
But what does the Hobbit give to Humanity long term. What does the billion buy us.
Basic economics--it buys us an easier life. Anytime you buy something, it's presumably because you're trading that money for something worth more than the cash itself (and by extension, something worth more than anything else you can do with that money in that moment).
The kind of simplistic view of expenditure that this statement promotes would lead down the path of doing away with anything that's not "essential" because it costs too much. And a bunch of people would be out of work, eveyone in the nonessential industries, and then they wouldn't be able to buy things to fill their spare time. It would be like a hundred years ago, when most people worked ridiculous hours and spent the few spare hours they had drinking a pail of warm beer on their porch because there was nothing else to do.
Yes, you're right. The fact that this actually is a valid First Amendment argument doesn't matter because money is involved. The Founding Fathers clearly felt that most if not all of our inherent rights as free individuals are in direct conflict with making a living.
I'll post links to the various parts of the US's founding documents, primary texts, and the Founders' correspondence as soon as I dig it up. Hold your breath, I'm be right back...
omg omg omg... this is the most awesome summary in a long time. +1umg-hypocrisy +1funny +1umg-getting-theirs... To properly note all the +1's here would require a sigma and an index variable.
Personally, I looked at it as C64 making assumptions about the kind and quality of experiences that specifically the US government was giving to the victim.
I looked at it basically the same way. Except, in my statement, I recognized the fact that these assumptions enjoy no support whatsoever from the text.
...it's not like the US government has never performed racial profiling...
...which is all well and good if we're speaking about how the USG generally treats certain races of people. But we are not. We are speaking about a specific incident where generalizations don't apply.
You know who else makes broad generalizations without compelling evidence?:->
(Actually, even I acknowledge that I've now gone one step too far...especially with that snarky little smiley.)
Another problem is that the guy with the scanner is cherry-picking the more desirable items, and leaving the chaff.
That's true. I hadn't thought about it that way, but you're right; unlike this guy, when I shop I always buy the most worthless piece of garbage I can get my hands on. So: good point.
I couldn't agree more...doing stuff for money is humiliating. That's why I take the principled and ethical path and let others provide for all my needs. It just gets me when they can't provide the right kind of things in the amounts I require; apparently, a lot of people think it's easy to be the kind of upright that I am.
Yea, I can see that. I bet bookstore owners hate it when people hang around for long periods of time, poking through their stock. It's like, if you're going into that business it's completely reasonable to expect to not have to deal with all that.
I'm confused. I don't think I made any analogy. You trying to make what I said into an analogy is like a fish trying to make what I said into a bicycle; like some feminists, it doesn't make any sense.
Well, ok, it's just data, not software. But what ought we call the algorithm that nestles that data gently on the tip of a steel-toed boot and then forcefully plants that data squarely in your browser's brown-eye?
Actually, I hate hard keyboards. I used to begrudgingly require them on any smartphone I would consider buying because soft keyboards sucked so much.
That is, till I got my hands on a Vibrant. The Swype soft keyboard is an awesome experience and I can type far faster on it than any hard keyboard...with a little use I'm even approaching speeds I can type on a normal computer keyboard (not quite, but reasonably close for a mobile phone).
So Jobs was right—everyone ought to abandon the hard keyboard and it's fine to restrict all users to a soft one—oh wait except iPhone doesn't have the Swype keyboard OH WELL.
:->
Ok, even though up until now I've been a snarky little b!tch, allow me to say that I do see that Apple has a purpose. As long as there is competition and choice in the marketplace, I would prefer to see enough Apple fanbois and Jobs hangers-on to keep them going for the simple reason that: Jobs makes right decisions enough of the time to drive the market to interesting places. For instance, the first iPhone. Is there any doubt that the smartphone landscape would look like it now does if it wasn't for the first real entry based on a clean, minimalistic design? I didn't buy it myself because I didn't like it, but I liked the idea of it, and that was enough for a critical mass of people to kick the whole thing off.
Up to that point the only thing I could see getting kicked off was the front teeth of the head designer that pushed out the turd labeled Nokia N75, which I had the misfortune of being given at work. By the time I upgraded that phone, the prospect of using it for one more day made me want to Krazy glue my hands to the side of my head after tying my neck to a tree with a long piano wire, and then drive off at speed while making a crazy expression (just to add a bit of color to the situation for whoever finds me).
And that hasn't stopped—the Macbook Air, the iPad, even the iPhone 4 hi-res screen will hopefully mean that in a year no smartphone will be taken seriously unless it has a 300+ ppi screen. That would be awesome.
Banning shoppers seems like a thoughtless response from these store owners. What difference does it make to a store owner if the buyer is going to resell the item they just bought? If you don't like it, raise your price. Otherwise, either sell it to anyone or take it off the shelf. Are we soon going to have to endure interviews about what we plan to do with the item before we're allowed to buy it?
"How come you wouldn't sell to that guy?"
"Who, him? Because he was going to resell that book at a higher price!"
"Oh. But you're willing to sell it to me at the advertised price?"
"Yea, sure..."
"So you're making about 3% of your books off-limits to the only guy that wants to buy them. And if I don't buy those items, you're happy just being stuck with them on your shelves instead of having the money?"
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, social login won't last long when they realize most of their users can't ID most of the people in their "friend" list.
From TFA: "Will.i.am is one third of the popular music group, the Black Eyed Peas..."
It may have continued: "Fergie makes up one-half of the group, leaving Taboo and apl.de.ap, who together comprise just one-sixth of BEP."
I love it when we get a knowledgeable, well-informed write-up on the topic. :-)
This legislation is good enough, it's smart enough, and doggonnit, people like it!
Allow me to sum up: "NYT considers direction change: future is finding, reporting news, editors say."
Men have always been able to create insulin-producing cells from their testicles...usually, though, they arrive with a baby wrapped around them...
Actually quite basic math there too. Why did solving this come with an award? I can point to several thousand problems in various books on my shelves that are orders of magnitude more difficult than that entire problem, all of which are commonly assigned as nothing more than homework problems. Hell, I just did it in Wolfram Alpha in 5 mins. The only really tricky part was the URL bit but EVERYONE does that these days so it's assumption #1. Old puzzle methodology is old. Come on Google, be original.
...says the one who didn't win...
This is no surprise at all. I hope this inspires people to finally get on board with my initial proposal; I've been saying all along that travelers ought to be required to submit to vivisection.
Unfortunately, what you say is true. Wikipedia should only be trusted for things known by enough people. (What's "enough"? That's the question, isn't it...) I've heard the same information from every person I know that has truly expert knowledge on a long-tail subject. If the valuable knowledge you happen to possess isn't already known by enough people, it will almost certainly get reverted.
This is the nature of truly democratic knowledge sharing. This is the one area Britannica has it all over Wikipedia. For almost all practical purposes, though, only experts need that level of information, so Britannica for the masses doesn't make a lot of sense.
...and tryptophan puts us to sleep. So, isn't it upsetting the Order of Things when we eat the turkey and ~then~ the pie? Shouldn't it be the other way 'round?
but then ah foun a big ole soasuj in there an ah et that wit sum cream corn ah foun in ere too. Dam ah jes wish it waren't at no gunpoint tho.
But...without an expensive government bureaucracy, how are the people of Denver supposed to post this and other info online?
Basic economics--it buys us an easier life. Anytime you buy something, it's presumably because you're trading that money for something worth more than the cash itself (and by extension, something worth more than anything else you can do with that money in that moment).
The kind of simplistic view of expenditure that this statement promotes would lead down the path of doing away with anything that's not "essential" because it costs too much. And a bunch of people would be out of work, eveyone in the nonessential industries, and then they wouldn't be able to buy things to fill their spare time. It would be like a hundred years ago, when most people worked ridiculous hours and spent the few spare hours they had drinking a pail of warm beer on their porch because there was nothing else to do.
Yes, you're right. The fact that this actually is a valid First Amendment argument doesn't matter because money is involved. The Founding Fathers clearly felt that most if not all of our inherent rights as free individuals are in direct conflict with making a living.
I'll post links to the various parts of the US's founding documents, primary texts, and the Founders' correspondence as soon as I dig it up. Hold your breath, I'm be right back...
Wait...this is theoretical physics, right? Why are they trying to do experiments???
OH snap. :-)
Awesome! Now there's enough research in this field to get funding for that baby shaking study I've been wanting to do...
omg omg omg ... this is the most awesome summary in a long time. +1umg-hypocrisy +1funny +1umg-getting-theirs... To properly note all the +1's here would require a sigma and an index variable.
I looked at it basically the same way. Except, in my statement, I recognized the fact that these assumptions enjoy no support whatsoever from the text.
...which is all well and good if we're speaking about how the USG generally treats certain races of people. But we are not. We are speaking about a specific incident where generalizations don't apply.
You know who else makes broad generalizations without compelling evidence? :->
(Actually, even I acknowledge that I've now gone one step too far...especially with that snarky little smiley.)
That's true. I hadn't thought about it that way, but you're right; unlike this guy, when I shop I always buy the most worthless piece of garbage I can get my hands on. So: good point.
I couldn't agree more...doing stuff for money is humiliating. That's why I take the principled and ethical path and let others provide for all my needs. It just gets me when they can't provide the right kind of things in the amounts I require; apparently, a lot of people think it's easy to be the kind of upright that I am.
Yea, I can see that. I bet bookstore owners hate it when people hang around for long periods of time, poking through their stock. It's like, if you're going into that business it's completely reasonable to expect to not have to deal with all that.
I'm confused. I don't think I made any analogy. You trying to make what I said into an analogy is like a fish trying to make what I said into a bicycle; like some feminists, it doesn't make any sense.
Well, ok, it's just data, not software. But what ought we call the algorithm that nestles that data gently on the tip of a steel-toed boot and then forcefully plants that data squarely in your browser's brown-eye?
Actually, I hate hard keyboards. I used to begrudgingly require them on any smartphone I would consider buying because soft keyboards sucked so much.
That is, till I got my hands on a Vibrant. The Swype soft keyboard is an awesome experience and I can type far faster on it than any hard keyboard...with a little use I'm even approaching speeds I can type on a normal computer keyboard (not quite, but reasonably close for a mobile phone).
So Jobs was right—everyone ought to abandon the hard keyboard and it's fine to restrict all users to a soft one—oh wait except iPhone doesn't have the Swype keyboard OH WELL.
Ok, even though up until now I've been a snarky little b!tch, allow me to say that I do see that Apple has a purpose. As long as there is competition and choice in the marketplace, I would prefer to see enough Apple fanbois and Jobs hangers-on to keep them going for the simple reason that: Jobs makes right decisions enough of the time to drive the market to interesting places. For instance, the first iPhone. Is there any doubt that the smartphone landscape would look like it now does if it wasn't for the first real entry based on a clean, minimalistic design? I didn't buy it myself because I didn't like it, but I liked the idea of it, and that was enough for a critical mass of people to kick the whole thing off.
Up to that point the only thing I could see getting kicked off was the front teeth of the head designer that pushed out the turd labeled Nokia N75, which I had the misfortune of being given at work. By the time I upgraded that phone, the prospect of using it for one more day made me want to Krazy glue my hands to the side of my head after tying my neck to a tree with a long piano wire, and then drive off at speed while making a crazy expression (just to add a bit of color to the situation for whoever finds me).
And that hasn't stopped—the Macbook Air, the iPad, even the iPhone 4 hi-res screen will hopefully mean that in a year no smartphone will be taken seriously unless it has a 300+ ppi screen. That would be awesome.
Would the professor have been so kind to a student that didn't think to back up a semester's worth of work, much less 10 years' worth?
Banning shoppers seems like a thoughtless response from these store owners. What difference does it make to a store owner if the buyer is going to resell the item they just bought? If you don't like it, raise your price. Otherwise, either sell it to anyone or take it off the shelf. Are we soon going to have to endure interviews about what we plan to do with the item before we're allowed to buy it?
"How come you wouldn't sell to that guy?"
"Who, him? Because he was going to resell that book at a higher price!"
"Oh. But you're willing to sell it to me at the advertised price?"
"Yea, sure..."
"So you're making about 3% of your books off-limits to the only guy that wants to buy them. And if I don't buy those items, you're happy just being stuck with them on your shelves instead of having the money?"
"..."