I had hoped it'd resolve nicely as it did in Perl, since 2.54 ends with a "4," but unfortunately the factors of 254 are 2 and 127 and 127 had to go be prime on me. Bleah.
Such is the nature of prime factorization. You didn't seem to mind the 2, though.
But if someone in Mexico says, "It's 22 degrees outside," I have no idea what that means to me. I have to sit down, do the math (and I still haven't found a quick way to do 9/5 or 5/9) before I'm even sure if I need a jacket or not.
I've found the following rhyme helpful:
30 degrees is hot
20 degrees is nice
10 degrees is cold
0 degrees is ice
In Fahrenheit, that's 86 (hot), 68 (nice), 50 (cold), and of course 32 (ice).
This also has something to do with how horror movies can scare you simply by making real people appear to move in uncanny ways. Some of my favorite examples are the shaky-headed demons in Jacob's Ladder. Even something as simple as filming the scene backwards can be surprisingly effective (e.g., Samara in The Ring). And although I haven't seen it, I understand the "spider walk" in the re-release of The Exorcist is also pretty creepy.
The principle is the same. It's almost human, but not quite. Very unsettling.
Consider Alias, the new title based on the TV show. It's a reasonably fun action-and-puzzle game, where you maneuver Sydney Bristow through a series of spy missions. But whenever the camera zooms in on her face, you're staring at a Jennifer Garner death mask.
And that differs from the real Jennifer Garner, how?
Actually, the barrier to a viable third party has nothing to do with the number of people voting (or not voting). The problem is the winner-take-all, no-runoff system. In this system, only the two biggest parties matter -- no one else has a reasonable chance of winning. A vote for a candidate who can't win is perceived as a wasted vote -- or worse, a spoiler. Most people want their votes to matter, so they tend to go with whichever of the two big party candidates is the closest match, instead of voting according to their conscience.
This behavior can't be changed simply by increasing voter turnout (which is itself not a trivial undertaking). The only way to fix it is with electoral reforms, such as instant runoff voting (IRV).
The professor later threatened to sue me for "libel, slander and defamation" because of the "publication of our confidential and private e-mail conversations", even though there was no disclaimer or even an assumption of privacy.
Libel, slander, and defamation? No. Maybe if you made false, damaging statements on the same webpage, but not for merely publishing the contents of the e-mails.
However, there is a tort known as "public disclosure of private facts." And he might have had a case here, if the e-mails contained embarrassing or damaging information that was not of "public concern."
There is also, in some states, a "false light" tort which applies if the information you publish is true, but you deliberately use it to create a false or misleading impression.
I honestly have never understood people who claim to have seen a film 5, 10, 20, 50 times.
Well, it depends on the movie. I never understood why anyone would watch something like Something's Gotta Give even once.
But a movie like The Godfather, or Rashomon, or The Seventh Seal? That's altogether different. There's more to a good movie than the plot. Some people just don't know what to look for.
You probably have some kind of art hanging somewhere in your home. Why would you look at it more than once?
Do you throw photographs away after looking at them once? Why take photos in the first place?
Then we can all live on permanent vacation while the robots do all the nasty working.
Think it through. "Permanent vacation" is better known as "unemployment," in a capitalist economy. How are you going to pay for the fruits of the robots' labor if you yourself are not contributing anything to society?
(Yes, you WILL still have to pay for things, or else you're not talking about capitalism any more.)
No, of course it's not perfectly frictionless, but it's "frictionless enough," you might say, to test the concept. Anyone who's taken more than a little bit of physics has probably done an experiment using "frictionless" air pucks at some point in time; this is nothing unusual.
A much bigger shortcoming is that this is 2-d instead of 3-d. But then, a ride in the Vomit Comet doesn't come cheap.
Interesting to play, or interesting to learn from? The problem is keeping the game engaging and unpredictable, without losing sight of the fact that the real history behind it only happened one particular way. These goals seem to be at odds with one another.
If the player can "alter history" while playing the game, they run the risk of learning things "wrong." But if they can't deviate from the historical facts, the game would be very dull.
The fact that nitrogen oxides occur in nature is irrelevant -- so do lots of nasty things, including methane, sulfur dioxide, fluorine, and CO2. That doesn't mean that *any amount* of them is still okay.
The environmental impact of nitrogen oxides goes beyond smog.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for biodiesel. Read upwards in the thread if you want the full context. I was replying to a +5 Insightful comment which sought to dismiss any concerns about harmful chemicals by saying that there is a "closed loop" in the CO2 cycle. My point was simply that there is more to biodiesel emissions than CO2, which is rather pointless to deny.
Burning the oil creates more than just CO2. Nitrogen oxide emissions from biodiesel fuels are particularly bad -- not only worse than gasoline, but also worse than petroleum diesel.
Overall, biodiesel is much, much cleaner than gasoline or petroleum diesel, but the grandparent is correct. It still creates chemicals harmful for the environment.
So how is that not the easy way out? Do you think it's *hard* to accept $12.75 million?
Am I surprised that they took the money? No. Would I have taken it myself? Hell yeah. But I am still left with a strong sense that Microsoft got off too easy (again), and it disappoints me.
As for "taking the easy way out", do you really think a tiny company like Opera stands a chance in hell of getting Microsoft convicted of anything? Microsoft has billions of dollars. Opera has a few million. Microsoft would just drag this out and make Opera go bankrupt. Not to mention the fact that Opera is a Norwegian company.
First of all, civil cases do not result in a "conviction."
Secondly, it seems unlikely that a settlement this large would be paid unless the payer believed that Opera's case had merit.
Thirdly, you're a fine one to talk about misguided conclusions, because I never said that Opera necessarily should have sued Microsoft -- they could have simply *not* taken the $12.75 million, and continued to enjoy the freedom to speak freely about the incident (not to mention freedom from any other conditions which might have been attached to that money).
How can Microsoft deny anything, when the facts speak for themselves?
You are talking out both sides of your mouth. If "the facts speak for themselves," then please explain to me how you believe Microsoft could successfully contest them in court. You can't have it both ways.
Opera has accused Microsoft of deliberately breaking interoperability between its MSN Web portal and various versions of the Opera browser--charges that the software giant has repeatedly denied.
And now they can go on denying it forever. $12.75 million settlement == hush money.
Thanks for taking the easy way out, Opera. Maybe I'll give Mozilla a try.
The film was produced by American Zoetrope Studios, then co-owned by Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola
The film was also such a bomb that it came close to destroying American Zoetrope financially.
THX 1138 was not only ahead of its time in sound effects, but also in the themes which it portrayes, such as the loss of individuals for the good of the group, the self-corruption of the human spirit, racism in science fiction, and yes, even channel-surfing
Um, yeah. Those were all brand new concepts in 1971.
About a year ago, I read an article in a Wiccan magazine which recommended a similar approach -- only they were completely serious about it. They even suggested using reiki (mystical "energy healing") on your computer to keep it working properly.
Asonov warned that his work was almost entirely based on the evidence from his experiments and that he has little or no theoretical information to back up his theories.
It depends on what the scanner is being used for. If it is being used to allow only certain specific people IN, then no, crying doesn't "beat" the scanner. False negatives will not let unauthorized people in.
But if it is being used to keep certain specific people OUT, that's a different story. False negatives would be a real problem in that scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
Advantages of the Sparrow over a bike:
- Potentially faster (depending on traffic conditions)
- More comfortable
- You can plug your phone and laptop into it (although why you would do this while you're driving is beyond me)
Advantages of a bike over the Sparrow:- No waiting for batteries to charge
- No searching for a place to charge batteries away from home
- No need to waste energy by pushing an extra 0.65 tons around
- 1-2 orders of magnitude cheaper to buy
- Lower operating cost
- Great for your health
- Easier to park/store
- Easier to maintain
- Can go places the Sparrow can't (e.g., bike trails)
- No toxic waste from lead batteries
- Quieter
- Does not contribute to power plant emissions
- Range limited only by the time and endurance of the operator (40 miles in a day is easily within the reach of a regular bike commuter)
- Parts and labor for repairs can be found locally
That's just a start. I didn't mention safety because there are too many variables, so it's not clear which has the advantage.I'd rather drive a Sparrow than a car, but the bike still beats them both.
30 degrees is hot
20 degrees is nice
10 degrees is cold
0 degrees is ice
In Fahrenheit, that's 86 (hot), 68 (nice), 50 (cold), and of course 32 (ice).
The principle is the same. It's almost human, but not quite. Very unsettling.
This behavior can't be changed simply by increasing voter turnout (which is itself not a trivial undertaking). The only way to fix it is with electoral reforms, such as instant runoff voting (IRV).
However, there is a tort known as "public disclosure of private facts." And he might have had a case here, if the e-mails contained embarrassing or damaging information that was not of "public concern."
There is also, in some states, a "false light" tort which applies if the information you publish is true, but you deliberately use it to create a false or misleading impression.
It works either way.
But a movie like The Godfather, or Rashomon, or The Seventh Seal? That's altogether different. There's more to a good movie than the plot. Some people just don't know what to look for.
You probably have some kind of art hanging somewhere in your home. Why would you look at it more than once?
Do you throw photographs away after looking at them once? Why take photos in the first place?
Thanks to a combination of telecommuting, online banking, and NetGrocer, I never have to worry about muggers again.
(Or melanoma... Or spy satellites... Or STDs.)
(Yes, you WILL still have to pay for things, or else you're not talking about capitalism any more.)
A much bigger shortcoming is that this is 2-d instead of 3-d. But then, a ride in the Vomit Comet doesn't come cheap.
If the player can "alter history" while playing the game, they run the risk of learning things "wrong." But if they can't deviate from the historical facts, the game would be very dull.
The environmental impact of nitrogen oxides goes beyond smog.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for biodiesel. Read upwards in the thread if you want the full context. I was replying to a +5 Insightful comment which sought to dismiss any concerns about harmful chemicals by saying that there is a "closed loop" in the CO2 cycle. My point was simply that there is more to biodiesel emissions than CO2, which is rather pointless to deny.
Overall, biodiesel is much, much cleaner than gasoline or petroleum diesel, but the grandparent is correct. It still creates chemicals harmful for the environment.
Am I surprised that they took the money? No. Would I have taken it myself? Hell yeah. But I am still left with a strong sense that Microsoft got off too easy (again), and it disappoints me.
Secondly, it seems unlikely that a settlement this large would be paid unless the payer believed that Opera's case had merit.
Thirdly, you're a fine one to talk about misguided conclusions, because I never said that Opera necessarily should have sued Microsoft -- they could have simply *not* taken the $12.75 million, and continued to enjoy the freedom to speak freely about the incident (not to mention freedom from any other conditions which might have been attached to that money).
You are talking out both sides of your mouth. If "the facts speak for themselves," then please explain to me how you believe Microsoft could successfully contest them in court. You can't have it both ways.Thanks for taking the easy way out, Opera. Maybe I'll give Mozilla a try.
The film was also such a bomb that it came close to destroying American Zoetrope financially.
Um, yeah. Those were all brand new concepts in 1971.
About a year ago, I read an article in a Wiccan magazine which recommended a similar approach -- only they were completely serious about it. They even suggested using reiki (mystical "energy healing") on your computer to keep it working properly.
But if it is being used to keep certain specific people OUT, that's a different story. False negatives would be a real problem in that scenario.