So when it comes down to it IQ is just something morons brag about
So why did you use an either made up or inflated IQ number?
With the now normal standard deviation of 16, an IQ of 172 would be 4.5 standard deviation which is around to 1 in a million which would be impossible to calibrate the test for and therefore outside the range of any serious IQ test.
Of course your number could have been measured using a non-standard standard deviation*, or even without a normal distribution (like all silly numbers you see over 200 are linear instead of normal distributions), but then it is not really what people except as an IQ number.
* A standard deviations of 24 used to be common in some places, and would put 172 at a more normal 3 standard deviations or 1/1000, this is where many test cut off, which would give you a result ending in a +, indicating you were outside test calibration. Still 1/1000 is "only" an IQ of 148+ using the normal standard deviation.
In the testing centers at a lot of universities, the proctors know how to erase the ti-85 before you enter the testing center. Or they can loan you one to use for the test.
If you need a calculator at university. You are doing it wrong!
It is called interlace. Many TV show especially soaps, music videos and sports broadcasts are sent interlaced with 50-60 unique updates per second. The reason the technology of the hobbit has been compared to soap opera is that 48fps makes it almost as smooth as a soap opera, and thereby gives unfortunate associations.
The Macbook Pro is priced based on the value Apple believes it provides,
Bullshit. Well at least wrongly worded.
Most high end electronics and all fashion products are priced on "what people are willing to pay". Companies have no reason to set the price lower than that, and setting it higher would ruin the bottom line. In practice though, what people are willing to pay is more of a slope than a single point, but it still has an optimum companies tries to aim for.
Actually people seems to manage to do the exact same amount of work if you modify the working hours in the 35-45 hours/week range. Essentially everyone works more efficiently at 35 hours, at least on average.
Btw there are even more options. For something truely exception worthy you can also throw a POSIX signal, and let the signal handler either handle it and resume the process/thread, or give up and terminate the process/thread.
In other ways it is more like an exception in that you can ignore it and thereby pass it to functions higher on the stack as long as you do not set a new error yourself.
The local councils don't "profit" from parking charges, the money from charges and permits goes into the funding pool to help pay for everything the council does like street sweeping etc.
The problem in many places or at least Copenhagen were I used to live, is that the city will reduce the number of legal parking places, and increase parking costs and tickets, so instead of using the money to expand the service for those they tax, they use the money to destroy the service for those they taxed, for the purpose of "earning" more tax.
It did help bring down the local income taxes though and make the city a very handy surplus, last I checked the parking related revenue was more than 25% of the total revenue of the central Copenhagen munincipality. I still consider it overall bad and blatently wrong.
You are reading too much into this. It is about a single website having to delete your information. There are already existing laws preventing them from sharing the data. If you have made the information public already, then it is public, but a lot of private information provided to companies are not public.
They never produced enough of the dollars coins plus the cowardly Americans never did have the balls to phase out the dollar bill while introducing the coins.
In the end all the dollar coins ended up at collectors.
Another way of saying it: They never even tried. They never even tried three times.
I wouldn't get a Surface Pro with its stylus (!!!!) and no keyboard.
That is some odd statements. While the old resistive touchscreens sucked and almost required a hard stylus, a stylus does a have its usages even when they aren't required, and I seriously doubt these touchscreens are resistive, so they will be as good as any other modern touchscreens, in fact slightly better because they will support a stylus (the modern capacitive touchscreens normally doesn't work a stylus).
Second, this is the weirds part. This Surface is a keyboard-less as my desktop computer which I also bought without one. Surprising how much typing I can do on this "keyboardless" machine, by buying an "optional" keyboard for it.
I use ext2 for/boot and/tmp. On boot for compat and because it is rarely written to, on/tmp because it is faster and/tmp doesn't need to be able to recover after a crash.
Not if it doesn't access the swapped memory. The idea was to swap the bloat of the OS to disk, since you are unlikely to use all of the OS features in every game, so some are just uselessly wasting memory when they could be swapped out for no performance loss.
Your average slashdotter would be all up in arms if a corporate entity wanted to remove its data (application, media file etc.)
I don't know about the average, but I would all up in apps over that they consider anything that I own theirs. If it truly was theirs I wouldn't care, but frankly why would I EVER store data belonging to a corporate entity other than my employer?
It was a problem in COBOL and some databases. If you had no COBOL you would usually be fine. Many banks however have very old code, and they needed to have this problem fixed in 2000, and they got it fixed. Checking for Y2K problems was checking for COBOL code and particular patterns of programming and database-design where 2 chars were used for years.
What Microsoft did in the past is even more heinous and used already ratified statements in ways contrary to the specifications, requiring IE comment hacks so other browsers don't see corrections needed to get IE to display properly.
Actually some of the early and major differences started because Microsoft was the first to implement certain standards (CSS1, IE4 days), but Netscape being bigger at the time implemented the standard differently, and had W3C clarify the standard effectively making the original Microsoft implementation incorrect (the NS shenanigans is why width and height in CSS now specifies the content size and not the border-box which would be more useful)
Later things reversed and MS really did what you accuse them of, but this stuff goes back longer, and with the bad guy changing more times than you think.
Neither far-right nor far-left nations have ever had much free speech. Liberal can be left or right. Conservative can be left or right. For instance, Soviet Russia was far left and very conservative.
I think you have your left/right axis poorly defined. You are probably right in whatever definition of left/right you use, but here is the cue-card we normally use:
Pre-socialism: Left -> right == liberal -> conservative Post-socialism US: Left -> right == socialist/liberal -> conservative. (with both extreme socialism and extreme liberalism considered far left) Post-socialism Europe: Left -> right == socialist -> conservative/liberal (with both extreme conservatism and extreme liberalism considered far right)
It is an example of free speech, not an example of free speech being restricted.
Understand this: Free speech is not a just a law. It is an ideal. Because of the circular point you just made, we can not outlaw private restrictions to speech, but that does not mean they are morally right. Legal censorship (private) can be as bad as illegal censorship (public) depending on the size of the entity enforcing it, but regardless of their legality they are both something I am personally against.
That is part of the problem, if a theory is so general it can not be falsified it is not science. Which is why SUSY physicists have made a set of parameters and experiments to be able to test it. It is those experiments that have been failing. It doesn't strictly disprove it, but it makes it less interesting science..
But it sounds like this is only a problem for some variants of supersymmetry:
Yes and no. You can always change the theory to adapt, but if you continue to do that, at some point it stops being science, see http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html . SoSY has been counterproven by several different experiments now, they are slowly but steadily running out of all the nice versions, and they have never had any positive confirmation. All it relied on was that it could be nice model if it was true.
Slashdot Mirror
So why did you use an either made up or inflated IQ number?
With the now normal standard deviation of 16, an IQ of 172 would be 4.5 standard deviation which is around to 1 in a million which would be impossible to calibrate the test for and therefore outside the range of any serious IQ test.
Of course your number could have been measured using a non-standard standard deviation*, or even without a normal distribution (like all silly numbers you see over 200 are linear instead of normal distributions), but then it is not really what people except as an IQ number.
* A standard deviations of 24 used to be common in some places, and would put 172 at a more normal 3 standard deviations or 1/1000, this is where many test cut off, which would give you a result ending in a +, indicating you were outside test calibration. Still 1/1000 is "only" an IQ of 148+ using the normal standard deviation.
If you need a calculator at university. You are doing it wrong!
fu2
It is called interlace. Many TV show especially soaps, music videos and sports broadcasts are sent interlaced with 50-60 unique updates per second. The reason the technology of the hobbit has been compared to soap opera is that 48fps makes it almost as smooth as a soap opera, and thereby gives unfortunate associations.
All personal at battle stations: Fire the matter beam!!
*poke*
Bullshit. Well at least wrongly worded.
Most high end electronics and all fashion products are priced on "what people are willing to pay". Companies have no reason to set the price lower than that, and setting it higher would ruin the bottom line. In practice though, what people are willing to pay is more of a slope than a single point, but it still has an optimum companies tries to aim for.
Actually people seems to manage to do the exact same amount of work if you modify the working hours in the 35-45 hours/week range. Essentially everyone works more efficiently at 35 hours, at least on average.
Btw there are even more options. For something truely exception worthy you can also throw a POSIX signal, and let the signal handler either handle it and resume the process/thread, or give up and terminate the process/thread.
In other ways it is more like an exception in that you can ignore it and thereby pass it to functions higher on the stack as long as you do not set a new error yourself.
The problem in many places or at least Copenhagen were I used to live, is that the city will reduce the number of legal parking places, and increase parking costs and tickets, so instead of using the money to expand the service for those they tax, they use the money to destroy the service for those they taxed, for the purpose of "earning" more tax.
It did help bring down the local income taxes though and make the city a very handy surplus, last I checked the parking related revenue was more than 25% of the total revenue of the central Copenhagen munincipality. I still consider it overall bad and blatently wrong.
You are reading too much into this. It is about a single website having to delete your information. There are already existing laws preventing them from sharing the data. If you have made the information public already, then it is public, but a lot of private information provided to companies are not public.
We don't, we just ignore them.
You should always listen to what people have to say, but if it is stupid, you ignore it.
They never produced enough of the dollars coins plus the cowardly Americans never did have the balls to phase out the dollar bill while introducing the coins.
In the end all the dollar coins ended up at collectors.
Another way of saying it: They never even tried. They never even tried three times.
That is some odd statements. While the old resistive touchscreens sucked and almost required a hard stylus, a stylus does a have its usages even when they aren't required, and I seriously doubt these touchscreens are resistive, so they will be as good as any other modern touchscreens, in fact slightly better because they will support a stylus (the modern capacitive touchscreens normally doesn't work a stylus).
Second, this is the weirds part. This Surface is a keyboard-less as my desktop computer which I also bought without one. Surprising how much typing I can do on this "keyboardless" machine, by buying an "optional" keyboard for it.
I use ext2 for /boot and /tmp. On boot for compat and because it is rarely written to, on /tmp because it is faster and /tmp doesn't need to be able to recover after a crash.
Win8 is 6.2. I guess because the server version didn't get their own version this time (Win2003 was NT 5.2).
Not if it doesn't access the swapped memory. The idea was to swap the bloat of the OS to disk, since you are unlikely to use all of the OS features in every game, so some are just uselessly wasting memory when they could be swapped out for no performance loss.
Be careful what you wish for, they can have that arranged.
I don't know about the average, but I would all up in apps over that they consider anything that I own theirs. If it truly was theirs I wouldn't care, but frankly why would I EVER store data belonging to a corporate entity other than my employer?
It was a problem in COBOL and some databases. If you had no COBOL you would usually be fine. Many banks however have very old code, and they needed to have this problem fixed in 2000, and they got it fixed. Checking for Y2K problems was checking for COBOL code and particular patterns of programming and database-design where 2 chars were used for years.
Actually some of the early and major differences started because Microsoft was the first to implement certain standards (CSS1, IE4 days), but Netscape being bigger at the time implemented the standard differently, and had W3C clarify the standard effectively making the original Microsoft implementation incorrect (the NS shenanigans is why width and height in CSS now specifies the content size and not the border-box which would be more useful)
Later things reversed and MS really did what you accuse them of, but this stuff goes back longer, and with the bad guy changing more times than you think.
I think you have your left/right axis poorly defined. You are probably right in whatever definition of left/right you use, but here is the cue-card we normally use:
Pre-socialism: Left -> right == liberal -> conservative
Post-socialism US: Left -> right == socialist/liberal -> conservative. (with both extreme socialism and extreme liberalism considered far left)
Post-socialism Europe: Left -> right == socialist -> conservative/liberal (with both extreme conservatism and extreme liberalism considered far right)
Understand this: Free speech is not a just a law. It is an ideal. Because of the circular point you just made, we can not outlaw private restrictions to speech, but that does not mean they are morally right. Legal censorship (private) can be as bad as illegal censorship (public) depending on the size of the entity enforcing it, but regardless of their legality they are both something I am personally against.
That is part of the problem, if a theory is so general it can not be falsified it is not science. Which is why SUSY physicists have made a set of parameters and experiments to be able to test it. It is those experiments that have been failing. It doesn't strictly disprove it, but it makes it less interesting science..
Yes and no. You can always change the theory to adapt, but if you continue to do that, at some point it stops being science, see http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html . SoSY has been counterproven by several different experiments now, they are slowly but steadily running out of all the nice versions, and they have never had any positive confirmation. All it relied on was that it could be nice model if it was true.