If NFL football is this predictable, it's just further proof how idiotic and worthless the sport really is.
They should pick the winner of each game based on nothing more than the coin toss, that would be fair for everybody:)
Or, they could use the prediction algorithms to rebalance the teams until the confidence of predicting the winner is low.
Or, they could use the prediction algorithms to rebalance the teams until a team from a large (profitable) market is likely to win, but not by enough to make it boring.
But why on earth would anyone want to put up their family photos for the whole world to see in the first place?
So your extended family can see it without a lot of hassle.
Here's a better question: why not put it up for the whole wide world? Let's say you're the 1 in 1,000,000 that winds up on a billboard in Hungary. Who cares? If anything it's kind of cool. You were never going to get paid for your photos, and now you still aren't. Big deal.
I didn't know they have a different playbook every week. What do they actually do with them? If the 5,000 pages is copies for half a dozen coaches, that's almost 1000 pages each, which I can't imagine they're flipping through between plays. Or is it 50 pages for each of 100 players and coaches? But that doesn't make sense, I can't imagine they're memorizing 50 pages of plays per game.
Your hypothetical isn't specific enough to say. There are times when letting everybody do what they want (I'll even man up and call it "freedom") leads to a worse outcome for everybody, including the people making the destructive choice, and they know it, but feel compelled to pull the trigger first because they figure if they don't, somebody else will. In that case taking away choices prevents everybody getting trapped in a downward spiral.
I'm not saying that's the case across the board with globalization, though, it's way too big an issue to have one answer.
And yet what is driving our fear of inferiority? Largely, global standardized test scores. "USA is #42 in blah blah." Well, those who think low standardized test scores are the problem are likely to feel that higher standardized test scores are the solution.
The thing you can keep slicing more finely is area, by reducing transmitting power. In a sparse area, a cell tower might cover up to a 20 mile radius - about 1,200 square miles. The link I posted says they can go down to 200 m radius - about 0.05 square miles - 1/24,000 the area. Each cell site can handle around the same number of handsets either way, so you can support vastly more callers with denser infrastructure.
No matter how you slice it, there is only so much bandwidth to go around.
The whole point is how finely you can slice it. You must have thought by "transcievers" I meant handsets, but I was referring to the infrastructure. And yes, that does make it possible to support more handsets in a given area.
Well, they could put up more transceivers (either closer-spaced or with more directional gain) so each phone is transmitting less power and using up a smaller zone of the bandwidth. Apparently "picocells" and "femtocells" have ranges as small as 200m.
I'm really curious what's the density of cell transceivers in places like Times Square or Cowboys Stadium but I couldn't find it.
To make it work, you have to give a different email address to every website, every friend, every family member, so you could cut any of them off individually.
I used separate throw-away (though functional) addresses for each website, but a single "real" one for all friends and family. Eventually, a friend's hotmail account was compromised, his address list scanned, and my "real" address was open to spam forevermore.
Wow, that's a reversal, the idea that an environment is too hostile for a robot so we should send in a child. Normally we assume the opposite (worth a watch).
In this case, the pathogenic environment of high school is so hostile to this particlar student that it would actually kill him in short order (immunodeficient). Second, able-bodied students have the same problem. Third, the robot has a $1,200 / year maintenance contract. Fourth, you could always add some accessories.
I think it's a pity because I really like Craigslist - I like their attitude of keeping a clean, functional page, not clogging it with all kinds of links and ads all over.
And yet the *users* of craigslist are the typical dreck, and they're destroying the site. Last time I emailed about a laptop that looked like a good deal, I got a response that "gosh, it just sold to a nice couple, but I originally got it at this great auction site xyz.com for even less!" Between all the scammers, and those who are simply too lazy to answer their email or taken down a listing after something has sold, it's hardly worth it for anything smaller than several hundred dollars.
Ebay is sort of the opposite (hyper-monitizing, expensive to use, cluttered pages, sometimes heavy-handed paypal policing) - but at least auctions end at a specific time, and if you buy at a fixed price, the item actually exists and does show up at your door (IME, YMMV). Maybe Craig Newmark is just too nice a guy.
I really wonder if people here (and also Google or Twitter) will remain so supportive if the end result turns out to vaguely (!!) resemble the Iranian Revolution from 3 decades ago...
Maybe facilitating dialogue will prevent it from turning out like the Iranian Revolution 3 decades ago.
In chaos, whoever manages to organize has the upper hand. In the absence of civil discourse, people will hunker down in the security of clans and/or religions, which are rooted in strong, pre-existing social networks. To get a secular democratic state, you need an open press of some sort.
The summary is also misleading in that "backing away" implies they're becoming less likely to teach evolution than in the past. In fact the article does address this, and it's the opposite of what the summary implies:
"The data Berkman and Plutzer gathered didn't show trends over time. But Berkman says one bright spot is that standards are being imposed in more school systems. Since many of these standards include evolution, younger teachers are more likely to hew to them"
If true, a more accurate summary would be, "Teachers Embrace Evolution in the Class."
The copyright clause gives Congress the right to prosecute copiers NOT to punish people for hacking into their own purchased property like cars, TVs, or whatever, and discovering the secret to their operation
Whose interpretation are you referring to? "Securing to authors exclusive rights of their writings" could reasonably be interpreted as warranting action against means to circumvent those rights, especially if the means in question don't have significant non-infringing uses.
In this case, perhaps Sony should not win, since Geohot's work does have non-infringing uses, and especially since Sony originally allowed OtherOS and then banned it. But I also don't think Sony's claims are particularly un-Constitutional or non-Constitutional, since the tie to copyright is evident.
No, the answer is, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" I.e., copyright. I'm sure Sony will argue Geohot's work enables people to circumvent their copyrights - which it clearly does, although I wouldn't claim that was his primary motivation.
There's nothing wrong with Lego paying somebody only this amount for this job.
There's nothing wrong with the winner for taking the job if he couldn't find anything better, or if it's his dream so he doesn't care about money.
What does worry me is that the situation exists at all - somebody graduates with an engineering degree and failed to find a job in his field, despite trying to do so. On the one hand, we are hearing every day how China will crush us because they are graduating technically skilled people in far greater numbers than we are. On the other hand, we have people obtaining years of expensive, specialized training in engineering, trying to find jobs in the field, and cannot.
Is this just temporary, or has our ship sailed?
Smashing the status quo is a big roll of the dice, maybe for the better, maybe not. An interesting thing about this unrest, based on the BBC coverage, is that is no organized opposition movement:
There are deep frustrations in Egyptian society, our Cairo correspondent says, yet Egyptians are almost as disillusioned with the opposition as they are with the government; even the Muslim Brotherhood, the banned Islamist movement, seems rudderless.
While one opposition leader, Mohamed ElBaradei, called on Egyptians to take part in these protests, the Muslim Brotherhood has been more ambivalent.
Our correspondent adds that Egypt is widely seen to have lost power, status and prestige in the three decades of President Mubarak's rule.
So this revolt, if successful, would create a leaderless state. That seems very risky.
A compromised server could store the packages unchanged but modify them on the way out.
The critical piece as I see it is the distribution of the checksums. If package maintainers and end users agree on the checksums (and neither of their systems is initially compromised), then everything should be fine. Or am I overlooking something?
If the top 10% fled the country, they'd simply be replaced by the next 10%, which would make about as much, and pay about as much tax as the old 10%.
Maybe a little less, since the second 10% are presumably not quite as meritorious as the first 10%. But to assume the GDP would fall by 75% simply because the top 10% currently take 75% of it is false. It's like saying Microsoft Office has 95% of the market, so everybody would have to go without Word Processors if Bill Gates had never been born.
Slashdot Mirror
The risk of death for open heart surgery is approximately 1/50. And you don't even get a refund!
They should pick the winner of each game based on nothing more than the coin toss, that would be fair for everybody :)
Or, they could use the prediction algorithms to rebalance the teams until the confidence of predicting the winner is low.
Or, they could use the prediction algorithms to rebalance the teams until a team from a large (profitable) market is likely to win, but not by enough to make it boring.
So your extended family can see it without a lot of hassle.
Here's a better question: why not put it up for the whole wide world? Let's say you're the 1 in 1,000,000 that winds up on a billboard in Hungary. Who cares? If anything it's kind of cool. You were never going to get paid for your photos, and now you still aren't. Big deal.
It isn't world peace, but I could imagine paying $10 for a 5 minute ride on it.
Compared to a jet ski, not jolting along the chop would be nice.
I didn't know they have a different playbook every week. What do they actually do with them? If the 5,000 pages is copies for half a dozen coaches, that's almost 1000 pages each, which I can't imagine they're flipping through between plays. Or is it 50 pages for each of 100 players and coaches? But that doesn't make sense, I can't imagine they're memorizing 50 pages of plays per game.
I'm not saying that's the case across the board with globalization, though, it's way too big an issue to have one answer.
And yet what is driving our fear of inferiority? Largely, global standardized test scores. "USA is #42 in blah blah." Well, those who think low standardized test scores are the problem are likely to feel that higher standardized test scores are the solution.
The thing you can keep slicing more finely is area, by reducing transmitting power. In a sparse area, a cell tower might cover up to a 20 mile radius - about 1,200 square miles. The link I posted says they can go down to 200 m radius - about 0.05 square miles - 1/24,000 the area. Each cell site can handle around the same number of handsets either way, so you can support vastly more callers with denser infrastructure.
The whole point is how finely you can slice it. You must have thought by "transcievers" I meant handsets, but I was referring to the infrastructure. And yes, that does make it possible to support more handsets in a given area.
I'm really curious what's the density of cell transceivers in places like Times Square or Cowboys Stadium but I couldn't find it.
I used separate throw-away (though functional) addresses for each website, but a single "real" one for all friends and family. Eventually, a friend's hotmail account was compromised, his address list scanned, and my "real" address was open to spam forevermore.
I'm sure he meant he doesn't want town officials wasting their time on the job policing the facebook pages of their subordinates.
I bet if you made a pie chart of all energy used for heating homes vs. snow melters on an annual basis, the snow melters would look quite small.
In this case, the pathogenic environment of high school is so hostile to this particlar student that it would actually kill him in short order (immunodeficient). Second, able-bodied students have the same problem. Third, the robot has a $1,200 / year maintenance contract. Fourth, you could always add some accessories.
And yet the *users* of craigslist are the typical dreck, and they're destroying the site. Last time I emailed about a laptop that looked like a good deal, I got a response that "gosh, it just sold to a nice couple, but I originally got it at this great auction site xyz.com for even less!" Between all the scammers, and those who are simply too lazy to answer their email or taken down a listing after something has sold, it's hardly worth it for anything smaller than several hundred dollars.
Ebay is sort of the opposite (hyper-monitizing, expensive to use, cluttered pages, sometimes heavy-handed paypal policing) - but at least auctions end at a specific time, and if you buy at a fixed price, the item actually exists and does show up at your door (IME, YMMV). Maybe Craig Newmark is just too nice a guy.
Very, very little of what now makes the Internet valuable to people existed at that time.
Maybe facilitating dialogue will prevent it from turning out like the Iranian Revolution 3 decades ago.
In chaos, whoever manages to organize has the upper hand. In the absence of civil discourse, people will hunker down in the security of clans and/or religions, which are rooted in strong, pre-existing social networks. To get a secular democratic state, you need an open press of some sort.
If true, a more accurate summary would be, "Teachers Embrace Evolution in the Class."
Whose interpretation are you referring to? "Securing to authors exclusive rights of their writings" could reasonably be interpreted as warranting action against means to circumvent those rights, especially if the means in question don't have significant non-infringing uses.
In this case, perhaps Sony should not win, since Geohot's work does have non-infringing uses, and especially since Sony originally allowed OtherOS and then banned it. But I also don't think Sony's claims are particularly un-Constitutional or non-Constitutional, since the tie to copyright is evident.
No, the answer is, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" I.e., copyright. I'm sure Sony will argue Geohot's work enables people to circumvent their copyrights - which it clearly does, although I wouldn't claim that was his primary motivation.
There's nothing wrong with the winner for taking the job if he couldn't find anything better, or if it's his dream so he doesn't care about money.
What does worry me is that the situation exists at all - somebody graduates with an engineering degree and failed to find a job in his field, despite trying to do so. On the one hand, we are hearing every day how China will crush us because they are graduating technically skilled people in far greater numbers than we are. On the other hand, we have people obtaining years of expensive, specialized training in engineering, trying to find jobs in the field, and cannot. Is this just temporary, or has our ship sailed?
Preferably ones willing to work for $37.5K.
So this revolt, if successful, would create a leaderless state. That seems very risky.
The critical piece as I see it is the distribution of the checksums. If package maintainers and end users agree on the checksums (and neither of their systems is initially compromised), then everything should be fine. Or am I overlooking something?
Maybe a little less, since the second 10% are presumably not quite as meritorious as the first 10%. But to assume the GDP would fall by 75% simply because the top 10% currently take 75% of it is false. It's like saying Microsoft Office has 95% of the market, so everybody would have to go without Word Processors if Bill Gates had never been born.