If you're going to go that route on calculations, you have to take into account the size of the user base. It's a very real possibility that 2% of a F2P game's user base comprises more individuals than 100% of that game's user base if it was a $2P game.
Try Empire:Total War (or any earlier entries from the series) for a strong focus on strategy -- you won't be sorry. The strategic map is a complete game in its own right, and the tactical battles in Total War games have been enjoyable since TW:Rome.
Everyone will have hot or cold runs over thousands of hands of poker - those matter only in the short term. The point is this: a strong player will lose less money with a losing hand (generally by folding earlier and not chasing expensive draws), extract more value from a winning hand (by keeping other players in the hand), and occasionally converting a losing hand to a winning hand (bluffing). Those factors have nothing to do with luck - luck only affects the cards, not the actions a player chooses to take reacting to those cards. The cards are merely a vehicle for the "real" game to take place, which is the act of deceiving of the rest of the table.
For illustrative purposes, consider this 2-player game, which serves as an abstract oversimplification of what happens at a poker table:
Roll (fair) 20-sided die.
If result is 1-19, you pay other player $10.
If result is 20, other player pays you $250.
It would be foolish to play only one roll of this game. Played out over 50,000 rolls, you should make a tidy profit because the hot & cold streaks will balance out.
To anyone browsing this thread who believes that poker is at its core a game of chance, Rary has just provided a very nice complete & concise explanation of how skill enters the game of poker. Read it as many times as you need to, and ignore any other posts on that topic. Does anyone know if there's a visual aid describing this anywhere on the 'net? That's the one thing that could enhance this post.
Every time you send a resume in somewhere, follow it up with a phone call, and ask whether the relevant person has received your resume.
This is fine, and may even increase the likelihood that you pass some initial filtering.
since you already have them on the phone, give them a thirty second spiel about why you would be good for the job
Please don't do this. Until the applicant field is down to 15 people or fewer, the last thing a hiring manager wants is to be stuck on the phone for even 30 seconds with an applicant eager to show their stuff. This is what your cover letter is for, or maybe a follow-up email. Entry level positions of any type most places will result in over a hundred applications, and nothing's more annoying than applicants who won't leave you alone, especially when there are many of them. This is not the impression you want to leave with someone who will be making a hiring decision.
A fine seems fairly reasonable to me. If that car IS stolen, someone has to pay for the police work to track it down (or more realistically, the tow to impound and processing when your car's stripped husk is found two weeks later in a Burger King parking lot). I've got no problem with my taxes being offset by fines issued to the people who are contributing to rising costs of enforcement.
Funny, mine does that exact same thing (shower off, within 30 seconds there's a cat on the toilet), except it was all his idea and I'M the one that learned that scratching him then means I'm left alone to dress.
I think the darker tone would be well-suited to the Knightfall storyline (Bane [believable villain] breaks Batman over his knee and his less-morally-upright trainee replaces him as Azrael). I'm not certain they could fit the whole thing into a single movie though.
Anyone with greater comic book knowledge care to comment?
Except that even paid 'legit' people would be guilty of trespassing once they ignored the property owner's verbal commands to vacate the premises. At that point (depending on local law) the property owner would very likely have the right to use water (or other force) to make the trespassers leave.
That, and I don't know how many takers a drug dealer would get when contacting everyday citizenry asking them to go make dodgy-looking transactions in front of a robot with a camera and then get rewarded with a spray of cold water.
In short, there are lower-cost, lower-difficulty solutions for anyone who really wants the robot gone.
"You'll never find yourself unable to do something you shouldn't be able to."
So a double negative isn't English? Preferable? No. English? Yes.
For what it's worth, I found this sentence incredibly difficult to parse as well. There are actually three negatives in there - never, unable, shouldn't. Two negatives cancel each other, so let's rewrite the sentence:
You'll [] find yourself []able to do something you shouldn't be able to.
You'll never find yourself []able to do something you should[] be able to.
You'll [] find yourself unable to do something you should[] be able to.
Mines will get improved for better killing capabability,
Mines are not designed to kill - they are designed to blow someone's legs off and leave them screaming on the battlefield. Psychological effects aside, this design choice is very economical. Killing a soldier takes one person out of a war. Maiming them takes not only the victim out, but also the one or two soldiers who carry them back, the supplies to transport them to medical facilities, a bed in the hospital, and the time of the medical staff treating them.
It's the intent to maim bit that caused mines to be banned (plus the fact that no one cleans them up after a conflict).
Bear in mind that no one really knows what the hell they are measuring with the thing.
As I understand it, it displays activity in specific regions of the brain. So while somebody is answering a question, you can watch for changes in activity. The most useful areas to watch would be the creative areas of the brain; someone answering questions purely from recall will be working a different region of brain than somebody building and maintaining a fictional story.
This is slightly more difficult to defeat than a lie detector. Lie detectors mainly measure stress (possibly modern ones use additional biometrics such as perspiration), so if you can consistently cause yourself stress (e.g., bite your tongue), everything you say will register as a 'lie', rendering the machine useless for its intended purpose (i.e., to differentiate truth from falsehood). To extend that to the fMRI, if you can keep your creative processing areas active when delivering answers, your lies will be indistinguishable from truths.
Causing the device to be unreliable is almost as good as masking a lie as truth.
Tucker Carlson's argument could also be considered a strawman. Which is the tactic where you basically say "hey look over there!" and hope everyone forgets the points brought up by your opponent.
A strawman is a deliberately weak argument supporting your opposition. The goal of this tactic is for your audience to easily knock it down (made of straw - get it?), thus coming to the conclusion on their own that your argument has more merit. It's a mildly psychologically manipulative tactic, in that people are less likely to change their minds about a conclusion that they came up with themselves than something they were told. You seem to be describing some sort of diversionary argument.
Why would you expect information about any loans stemming from your "Free Application for Federal Student Aid" to be kept secret from the government? If it concerns you that much, apply for only private loans - then they can only track you using your bank data and any secret programs you don't know about.
Frequently the disruptors are students that are being taught too far above or below their actual educational level. Bored kids who know the stuff already will act out in a disruptive manner, and frustrated kids who aren't getting it will do the same. It's very rare that a child is bound and determined not to learn through their entire school experience. If they are not engaged at the proper level, they will eventually come to view the system as a failure (and probably not be entirely wrong).
The issue isn't public vs. private schools - it's an ingrained dependence on the Carnegie school system which is designed to pump out factory workers. 'Grade levels' are a convenient (but artificial) way to sort students out by age, but all students are not capable of learning the same things at the same age.
A private school that recognizes this and teaches to appropriate educational standards could be wildly successful. Unfortunately, in public schools, advancing students is just as much a political issue between parents and the school ["Johnny's repeating the 10th grade? Expect a call from our lawyer."]. If one early step in education fails, then a student will be behind for the rest of their educational career. Why bother trying to teach the multiplication of fractions to a student who has not yet grasped the basics of multiplication, or fractions?
So in short, I agree with you that private schools may be the way forward, but for different reasons which I hope everyone will consider.
I'm not sure Oblivions citizens count as AI. They're pretty much scripted, with some very basic handling for interruptions. And as far as I can tell, most of their "work" consists of walking around and chatting with people:P
What you say may be true... but how does this not reflect real life fairly accurately?
Why not hark back to the 1990s and the golden age of internet growth?
Golden age of internet growth != Golden age of web design (geocities anyone?). But I agree with you that the design is not horribly broken - I can do everything I need to with the page, and that's more important than a glamorous appearance.
For instance...the fsking gov. of LA (pre-K) reinstated the helment law in LA that we'd worked so hard to get rid of. Sure I know very well that you should wear a helmet when on a motorcycle...but, it should be up to the grown adult whether they want to wear one or not. I've often not worn one, but, that was my choice and my risk.
Look at it this way - I couldn't care less if somebody wants to ride without a helmet; that's their decision, even if it is less safe. However, each time a helmetless motorcyclist smears themself all over a public road, the city is going to have to being in somebody clean it up, a section of road will be closed for an indefinite period due to fatality, and there will be an investigation of the wreck, among other things. This is paid for with local tax money, which I would definitely prefer went towards something else. It's also a heavy inconvenience for everyone else involved.
So bear in mind that while you can choose which risks to take and which not to, you can't ever shake the social responsibility for how your own actions will affect those around you. That's why helmet laws keep springing back up. If a sociopath wants to get a thrill, he can find a way to do it in a manner where I won't end up paying for it.
From my experience, the simplest route for this guy is to speak with an adjuster at the company providing insurance- not a salesperson or an actuary. No doubt an actuary could give him a very detailed description of it how it all ends up, but he just wants to know what saves a couple bucks. The adjuster will have the ability to run the numbers a variety of ways to see what trims off a few dollars.
Simple answer: anything you can do to make your business safer (in any way) will save money.
Some examples:Choose a location close to a fire station, limit your exterior signage, don't sell something that a kid might choke on, try to work from a newer building, use an alarm system, keep cracks under control on the sidewalk outside your location. Odds are good that if an action reduces the chances of a fire, theft, or lawsuit, then it will be reflected in your insurance costs.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going to go that route on calculations, you have to take into account the size of the user base. It's a very real possibility that 2% of a F2P game's user base comprises more individuals than 100% of that game's user base if it was a $2P game.
Try Empire:Total War (or any earlier entries from the series) for a strong focus on strategy -- you won't be sorry. The strategic map is a complete game in its own right, and the tactical battles in Total War games have been enjoyable since TW:Rome.
For illustrative purposes, consider this 2-player game, which serves as an abstract oversimplification of what happens at a poker table:
It would be foolish to play only one roll of this game. Played out over 50,000 rolls, you should make a tidy profit because the hot & cold streaks will balance out.
To anyone browsing this thread who believes that poker is at its core a game of chance, Rary has just provided a very nice complete & concise explanation of how skill enters the game of poker. Read it as many times as you need to, and ignore any other posts on that topic. Does anyone know if there's a visual aid describing this anywhere on the 'net? That's the one thing that could enhance this post.
The other way around (finding a technically innocent person guilty) may be distinguished as jury vilification.
This is fine, and may even increase the likelihood that you pass some initial filtering.
Please don't do this. Until the applicant field is down to 15 people or fewer, the last thing a hiring manager wants is to be stuck on the phone for even 30 seconds with an applicant eager to show their stuff. This is what your cover letter is for, or maybe a follow-up email. Entry level positions of any type most places will result in over a hundred applications, and nothing's more annoying than applicants who won't leave you alone, especially when there are many of them. This is not the impression you want to leave with someone who will be making a hiring decision.
A fine seems fairly reasonable to me. If that car IS stolen, someone has to pay for the police work to track it down (or more realistically, the tow to impound and processing when your car's stripped husk is found two weeks later in a Burger King parking lot). I've got no problem with my taxes being offset by fines issued to the people who are contributing to rising costs of enforcement.
Funny, mine does that exact same thing (shower off, within 30 seconds there's a cat on the toilet), except it was all his idea and I'M the one that learned that scratching him then means I'm left alone to dress.
Yes, I was certainly trained by a cat.
I think the darker tone would be well-suited to the Knightfall storyline (Bane [believable villain] breaks Batman over his knee and his less-morally-upright trainee replaces him as Azrael). I'm not certain they could fit the whole thing into a single movie though.
Anyone with greater comic book knowledge care to comment?
Except that even paid 'legit' people would be guilty of trespassing once they ignored the property owner's verbal commands to vacate the premises. At that point (depending on local law) the property owner would very likely have the right to use water (or other force) to make the trespassers leave.
That, and I don't know how many takers a drug dealer would get when contacting everyday citizenry asking them to go make dodgy-looking transactions in front of a robot with a camera and then get rewarded with a spray of cold water.
In short, there are lower-cost, lower-difficulty solutions for anyone who really wants the robot gone.
(+1 - Possibly too obscure, even for Slashdot)
Though an appearance by my screen-namesake would certainly give the movie a bit more of an edge. They could fight Nazis together!
"You'll never find yourself unable to do something you shouldn't be able to."
So a double negative isn't English? Preferable? No. English? Yes.
For what it's worth, I found this sentence incredibly difficult to parse as well. There are actually three negatives in there - never, unable, shouldn't. Two negatives cancel each other, so let's rewrite the sentence:
You'll [] find yourself []able to do something you shouldn't be able to.
You'll never find yourself []able to do something you should[] be able to.
You'll [] find yourself unable to do something you should[] be able to.
That makes perfect sense now!
Mines will get improved for better killing capabability,
Mines are not designed to kill - they are designed to blow someone's legs off and leave them screaming on the battlefield. Psychological effects aside, this design choice is very economical. Killing a soldier takes one person out of a war. Maiming them takes not only the victim out, but also the one or two soldiers who carry them back, the supplies to transport them to medical facilities, a bed in the hospital, and the time of the medical staff treating them.
It's the intent to maim bit that caused mines to be banned (plus the fact that no one cleans them up after a conflict).
Bear in mind that no one really knows what the hell they are measuring with the thing.
As I understand it, it displays activity in specific regions of the brain. So while somebody is answering a question, you can watch for changes in activity. The most useful areas to watch would be the creative areas of the brain; someone answering questions purely from recall will be working a different region of brain than somebody building and maintaining a fictional story.
This is slightly more difficult to defeat than a lie detector. Lie detectors mainly measure stress (possibly modern ones use additional biometrics such as perspiration), so if you can consistently cause yourself stress (e.g., bite your tongue), everything you say will register as a 'lie', rendering the machine useless for its intended purpose (i.e., to differentiate truth from falsehood). To extend that to the fMRI, if you can keep your creative processing areas active when delivering answers, your lies will be indistinguishable from truths.
Causing the device to be unreliable is almost as good as masking a lie as truth.
Why would you expect information about any loans stemming from your "Free Application for Federal Student Aid" to be kept secret from the government? If it concerns you that much, apply for only private loans - then they can only track you using your bank data and any secret programs you don't know about.
If I have a cartridge copy of Super Mario 64 and I want to play it on my wii, I dont want to have to pay $10-20 to buy it again.
I certainly hope you won't pay that much, especially considering that Nintendo has given a price range of ~US$4.50 to US$8.99.
Frequently the disruptors are students that are being taught too far above or below their actual educational level. Bored kids who know the stuff already will act out in a disruptive manner, and frustrated kids who aren't getting it will do the same. It's very rare that a child is bound and determined not to learn through their entire school experience. If they are not engaged at the proper level, they will eventually come to view the system as a failure (and probably not be entirely wrong).
The issue isn't public vs. private schools - it's an ingrained dependence on the Carnegie school system which is designed to pump out factory workers. 'Grade levels' are a convenient (but artificial) way to sort students out by age, but all students are not capable of learning the same things at the same age.
A private school that recognizes this and teaches to appropriate educational standards could be wildly successful. Unfortunately, in public schools, advancing students is just as much a political issue between parents and the school ["Johnny's repeating the 10th grade? Expect a call from our lawyer."]. If one early step in education fails, then a student will be behind for the rest of their educational career. Why bother trying to teach the multiplication of fractions to a student who has not yet grasped the basics of multiplication, or fractions?
So in short, I agree with you that private schools may be the way forward, but for different reasons which I hope everyone will consider.
* Counsel the murderers
* Jail the rapists
* Hang bad drivers
OK, you've got my vote. Which district are you running in?
I'm not sure Oblivions citizens count as AI. They're pretty much scripted, with some very basic handling for interruptions. And as far as I can tell, most of their "work" consists of walking around and chatting with people :P
What you say may be true... but how does this not reflect real life fairly accurately?
Why not hark back to the 1990s and the golden age of internet growth?
Golden age of internet growth != Golden age of web design (geocities anyone?). But I agree with you that the design is not horribly broken - I can do everything I need to with the page, and that's more important than a glamorous appearance.
For instance...the fsking gov. of LA (pre-K) reinstated the helment law in LA that we'd worked so hard to get rid of. Sure I know very well that you should wear a helmet when on a motorcycle...but, it should be up to the grown adult whether they want to wear one or not. I've often not worn one, but, that was my choice and my risk.
Look at it this way - I couldn't care less if somebody wants to ride without a helmet; that's their decision, even if it is less safe. However, each time a helmetless motorcyclist smears themself all over a public road, the city is going to have to being in somebody clean it up, a section of road will be closed for an indefinite period due to fatality, and there will be an investigation of the wreck, among other things. This is paid for with local tax money, which I would definitely prefer went towards something else. It's also a heavy inconvenience for everyone else involved.
So bear in mind that while you can choose which risks to take and which not to, you can't ever shake the social responsibility for how your own actions will affect those around you. That's why helmet laws keep springing back up. If a sociopath wants to get a thrill, he can find a way to do it in a manner where I won't end up paying for it.
If you don't know how to clear a single cookie, then clear all of them and it will be included.
Addendum: If you don't know how to clear all of your cookies, reformat your hard drive. It will be included.
From my experience, the simplest route for this guy is to speak with an adjuster at the company providing insurance- not a salesperson or an actuary. No doubt an actuary could give him a very detailed description of it how it all ends up, but he just wants to know what saves a couple bucks. The adjuster will have the ability to run the numbers a variety of ways to see what trims off a few dollars.
Simple answer: anything you can do to make your business safer (in any way) will save money.
Some examples:Choose a location close to a fire station, limit your exterior signage, don't sell something that a kid might choke on, try to work from a newer building, use an alarm system, keep cracks under control on the sidewalk outside your location. Odds are good that if an action reduces the chances of a fire, theft, or lawsuit, then it will be reflected in your insurance costs.
Rodents of Unusual Size? ...I don't believe they exist.