You may already be aware of it, but there is an on going project being worked on to retexture, model, and animate Deux Ex 1. The High Definition Texture Project. I haven't seen the latest stuff, but it's been going for years.
Every now and then we remove the bung from the bunghole in the barrel we keep ours in and pour some more gruel in. They seem appreciative: "Thank you sir! May I please have some more?", and it's alot cheaper than the alternatives.
I'm sure they did the equivalent of "thwacking it". But the "thwack" repair method seldom lasts long.
"Thwack it" is for things like the martian hoopties Spirit and Opportunity ("Hoopties" because they're WAY out of warrantee) that you can't send a mechanic to fix.
Or us rednecks with broken cars and even broker wallets; I fixed a heater hose with duct tape on a '74 LeMans, and it still held leak-free when I sold the old junker three years later. You don't fix Rolls Royces or Hubble Telescopes with duct tape!
For that, you use something high quality, like Gaffer Tape!
Arr matey, you can do all that on one card depending on the flag you fly.
Kidding aside, though my card doesn't support commercial roms, the one thing that has tempted me in getting one that can is having all the games I own on one 2 gig card.
As long as I can play my homebrew on it, I'm up for a hardware refresh. On the other hand, I have a feeling if this were actually true and not a rumor, I'd be stocking up on DS Lites right now.
Are you intentionally being stupid or just so ill informed that you shouldn't be commenting in the first place?
Noise IS signal, "No Signal" in this case simply means the receiver can't maintain a lock on the actual stream.
And every receiver I know of that puts out a black screen and a "No Signal" message when it can't get a lock also includes a function to actually put up on screen a signal meter showing in real time the relative strength of what it's receiving.
The difference between Russia during the Space Race and China now, is that we more than likely have something watching China hard enough that we'd know if there was a failed launch. After all, they have nukes and no one figures they'll be arriving by slowboat should China decide to use them.
All it takes is pissing of the Bar and a few judges, and you've lost what you made with 12 years of college.
Why exactly DO we need professional associations that one is compelled to be in? The AMA shows their true colors every so often too...
Or rather, it takes a complete and utter disregard for the rules and meaning of the law that he swore to uphold and a complete disrespect for the legal system bordering on psychotic.
They probably aren't as screwed as you think if their analog is watchable. The stations currently are mostly broadcasting digital at a tenth of the power they are licensed for to avoid interfering with the analog signals. Once the switchover occurs, they are suppose to go up to 100%. If you can pull in a watchable analog signal, then in theory you should be able to get the digital equivalent once that happens.
Yes, I got that you'd like to argue that the whole shebang is invalid because the medical example used assumed that the test was given indiscriminately rather than in a focused group where pre-filtering the sample group might make the incidence of the disease actually being present. I also get that you are at the point where you are grasping straws hard enough that you feel the need to toss in a few backhanded insults a wonderful attempt to simply intimidate your way to being correct.
However, you are still wrong. The reason pre-filtering is done on who receives testing by medical staffs is because unlike you they (or more likely the insurance companies authorizing the testing) understand these statistics and thus realize that in most cases a single test indicating a positive when the disease is 'rare' enough is a false positive and if the pre-filtering is stringent enough that the people tested are almost guaranteed to have the disease, then THAT is your test.
Congratulations, it takes a special person to be given the test answer, complete with the numbers backing it up, and still argue that it's wrong while simultaneously making the exact same argument and attempting to pass it off as their own.
The metaphor is retarded because it actually leads to idiots saying things like: so when a patient gets a positive for this test, odds are he/she doesn't have it. (once saw a professor reaching this conclusion).
Perhaps they say that, because it's true. Read the rest of the responses in the thread.
The point is, when the frequency of the event you are looking for is lower than the frequency of errors in your test, almost every "Hey! I got something" is going to be wrong.
Ah fuck it. Here is the cut and paste from Wikipedia:
The false positive paradox is a situation where the incidence of a condition is lower than the false positive rate of a test and therefore when the test shows that a condition exists, it is probable that the result is a false positive.
If there is a medical test that is accurate 99% of the time about a disease that occurs in 1 out of 10,000 people, then testing one million people would approximately yield the following results:
Healthy and test indicates no disease (true negative) 1,000,000 * (9999 / 10,000) *.99 = 989901 Healthy and test indicates disease (false positive) 1,000,000 * (9999 / 10,000) *.01 = 9999 Unhealthy and test indicates disease (true positive) 1,000,000 * (1 / 10,000) *.99 = 99 Unhealthy and test indicates no disease (false negative) 1,000,000 * (1 / 10,000) *.01 = 1
If a patient received a positive response from the test the odds are ~99.02% (9999/10098) that they are healthy and the test is incorrect even though the test is 99% accurate.
Actually Cory knows what he's talking about here, not that I always think he does, but you should read up on the actual phenomenon before you poopah it.
I copied Cory's words because he was the one that made it relevant to me in this specific topic of discussion, looking for terrorists using tests. But you can read a tad more about it on wikipedia and I'm sure a competent statistician can explain it over again for you.
The problem occurs when what you are looking for occurs less often than 'errors' in your test.
Out of the 10,000 people indicated as having the disease, only one did. If the purpose of the test is to find those with the disease, then it's wrong 9,999 times out of 10,000 when it reports someone has it.
Our lovely machine that is currently 78% accurate on 'mal-intent' (sic) detection is going to incorrectly tag 22 people out of every 100 as having mal-intent. With the gp's quoted figure of 200,000 people traveling through O'Hare every day, that means potentially 46,000 people a day incorrectly tagged as terrorists. Not one of them actually a terrorist, just someone caught as a false positive.
One airport. One day. 46,000 people whose lives have just been screwed over in some manner. And no guarantee that the one terrorist that might show up once every billion of people is going to be caught by the machine.
Paradox of the false positive Statisticians speak of something called the Paradox of the False Positive. Here's how that works: imagine that you've got a disease that strikes one in a million people, and a test for the disease that's 99% accurate. You administer the test to a million people, and it will be positive for around 10,000 of them - because for every hundred people, it will be wrong once (that's what 99% accurate means). Yet, statistically, we know that there's only one infected person in the entire sample. That means that your "99% accurate" test is wrong 9,999 times out of 10,000!
Terrorism is a lot less common than one in a million and automated "tests" for terrorism - data-mined conclusions drawn from transactions, Oyster cards, bank transfers, travel schedules, etc - are a lot less accurate than 99%. That means practically every person who is branded a terrorist by our data-mining efforts is innocent.
In other words, in the effort to find the terrorist needles in our haystacks, we're just making much bigger haystacks.
You don't get to understand the statistics of rare events by intuition. It's something that has to be learned, through formal and informal instruction. If there's one thing the government and our educational institutions could do to keep us safer, it's this: teach us how statistics works. They should drill it into us with the same vigor with which they approached convincing us that property values would rise forever, make it the subject of reality TV shows and infuse every corner of our news and politics with it. Without an adequate grasp of these concepts, no one can ever tell for sure if he or she is safe.
While I don't know of one that exists, I wouldn't mind a Gmail with a tad bit of Yahoo Mail's "Advanced" interface flavoring added where the messages could be drug around.
Steampowered (Valve's website for Steam) is blocked at work, but I'm 90% certain that you can purchase indivual games and gift them without having to buy a copy for yourself first. You just have to specify that at the start.
From google's cache of "https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?p_faqid=549"
What is a Steam gift purchase? When you purchase a game on Steam, we offer the option to "gift" the item to anyone you choose, whether or not the recipient is a current Steam user. The recipient will receive the gift as an attractive e-mail card with a personal message from you and instructions to redeem the game.
A Steam gift purchase is a one-time transfer--after the recipient has activated and installed the game, it is a non-refundable game in his or her Steam games collection. Also note that you may only gift new purchases--you may not transfer games you already own. That'd be like wrapping up and presenting the toaster you've used every morning for the past year.
How can I purchase Steam Gifts for a different Steam user? To give a gift to a friend or family member, locate the game you would like to gift on the Steam Storefront and then click the "purchase" button. As you are reviewing your order, you will see a notice that asks "Is this a gift?". Click the check box next to "Yes, it's a gift" and hit "next".
Slashdot Mirror
That's odd because several of my DVD's have unskipable startups that aren't FBI warnings and are trailers or those obnoxious minute long logo scenes.
Two words for you my friend:
And if the world went electric, I guarantee you that most people will start having one.
You may already be aware of it, but there is an on going project being worked on to retexture, model, and animate Deux Ex 1. The High Definition Texture Project. I haven't seen the latest stuff, but it's been going for years.
Every now and then we remove the bung from the bunghole in the barrel we keep ours in and pour some more gruel in. They seem appreciative: "Thank you sir! May I please have some more?", and it's alot cheaper than the alternatives.
My kingdom for a mod point.
Duct tape by any other name, is still so very sweet. As long as you aren't using it on ducts. Which ironicly, it's completely inappropriate for.
Haven't you ever watched Superman 4? We just dump all our excess nukes down a crater. Should be enough to get it started.
For that, you use something high quality, like Gaffer Tape!
You are replacing your MythTV box every year are you? Perhaps that's the problem.
Arr matey, you can do all that on one card depending on the flag you fly.
Kidding aside, though my card doesn't support commercial roms, the one thing that has tempted me in getting one that can is having all the games I own on one 2 gig card.
As long as I can play my homebrew on it, I'm up for a hardware refresh. On the other hand, I have a feeling if this were actually true and not a rumor, I'd be stocking up on DS Lites right now.
Are you intentionally being stupid or just so ill informed that you shouldn't be commenting in the first place?
Noise IS signal, "No Signal" in this case simply means the receiver can't maintain a lock on the actual stream.
And every receiver I know of that puts out a black screen and a "No Signal" message when it can't get a lock also includes a function to actually put up on screen a signal meter showing in real time the relative strength of what it's receiving.
The difference between Russia during the Space Race and China now, is that we more than likely have something watching China hard enough that we'd know if there was a failed launch. After all, they have nukes and no one figures they'll be arriving by slowboat should China decide to use them.
Or rather, it takes a complete and utter disregard for the rules and meaning of the law that he swore to uphold and a complete disrespect for the legal system bordering on psychotic.
How many states do you think let someone apply to the Bar if another state has this sort of ruling against the person.
They probably aren't as screwed as you think if their analog is watchable. The stations currently are mostly broadcasting digital at a tenth of the power they are licensed for to avoid interfering with the analog signals. Once the switchover occurs, they are suppose to go up to 100%. If you can pull in a watchable analog signal, then in theory you should be able to get the digital equivalent once that happens.
Yes, I got that you'd like to argue that the whole shebang is invalid because the medical example used assumed that the test was given indiscriminately rather than in a focused group where pre-filtering the sample group might make the incidence of the disease actually being present. I also get that you are at the point where you are grasping straws hard enough that you feel the need to toss in a few backhanded insults a wonderful attempt to simply intimidate your way to being correct.
However, you are still wrong. The reason pre-filtering is done on who receives testing by medical staffs is because unlike you they (or more likely the insurance companies authorizing the testing) understand these statistics and thus realize that in most cases a single test indicating a positive when the disease is 'rare' enough is a false positive and if the pre-filtering is stringent enough that the people tested are almost guaranteed to have the disease, then THAT is your test.
Congratulations, it takes a special person to be given the test answer, complete with the numbers backing it up, and still argue that it's wrong while simultaneously making the exact same argument and attempting to pass it off as their own.
Perhaps they say that, because it's true. Read the rest of the responses in the thread.
Please see this response.
The point is, when the frequency of the event you are looking for is lower than the frequency of errors in your test, almost every "Hey! I got something" is going to be wrong.
Ah fuck it. Here is the cut and paste from Wikipedia:
Actually Cory knows what he's talking about here, not that I always think he does, but you should read up on the actual phenomenon before you poopah it.
I copied Cory's words because he was the one that made it relevant to me in this specific topic of discussion, looking for terrorists using tests. But you can read a tad more about it on wikipedia and I'm sure a competent statistician can explain it over again for you.
The problem occurs when what you are looking for occurs less often than 'errors' in your test.
Out of the 10,000 people indicated as having the disease, only one did. If the purpose of the test is to find those with the disease, then it's wrong 9,999 times out of 10,000 when it reports someone has it.
Our lovely machine that is currently 78% accurate on 'mal-intent' (sic) detection is going to incorrectly tag 22 people out of every 100 as having mal-intent. With the gp's quoted figure of 200,000 people traveling through O'Hare every day, that means potentially 46,000 people a day incorrectly tagged as terrorists. Not one of them actually a terrorist, just someone caught as a false positive.
One airport. One day. 46,000 people whose lives have just been screwed over in some manner. And no guarantee that the one terrorist that might show up once every billion of people is going to be caught by the machine.
I've stolen this from Cory Doctorow
While I don't know of one that exists, I wouldn't mind a Gmail with a tad bit of Yahoo Mail's "Advanced" interface flavoring added where the messages could be drug around.
Steampowered (Valve's website for Steam) is blocked at work, but I'm 90% certain that you can purchase indivual games and gift them without having to buy a copy for yourself first. You just have to specify that at the start.
From google's cache of "https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?p_faqid=549"