If I'm sure I'm right about something it is because I've already listened to other people's opinions. So I'm not going to listen to them again after I'm sure. Question 11 should be thrown out.
And there is usually more than two sides to an issue, so question 12 is bogus and should be thrown out as well.
The bottom of the article says
If they are, and if these experiments succeed, however, it most definitely will not be because MythBusters had anything to do with "officially" determining the contagiousness of a yawn - not with a correlation coefficient of.045835.
The interesting thing about Godwin's Law is that I'm pretty sure that as a discussion thread increasing, the probability that ANY statement will be uttered would approach 1. So it would be vacuously true.
Am I correct in assuming that you are implying that if everyone should have been armed and this tragedy would not have happened?
Further, it seems as if you are implying that we should all be armed and we will suddenly more safe. The problem with the argument (on either side really) is that we really have no way of knowing what would happen if the general populace were completely armed. Would more people that react in anger go grab their guns? Or would more people be able to defend themselves? Would more accidental shootings occur?
Personally I would not own a gun. I do not trust myself, even if I were well trained. I truly believe that repealing the second amendment (don't ask me about the logistics of it, it would take a lot of people smarter than I to work out) would be the best thing for the country.
However, I am a strong believer of the constitution so as long as the second amendment is in the constitution I would fight to the death to defend it.
If on page 7 you continue to read the "finer scale features" you will see that there are other deviations, in particular you will see that the mean shifted from.05 to (.5 + epsilon_mu).
Upon reading the abstract you can quickly see that there were small deviations (7 sigma). While at the same time their pseudorandom source yielded no mean shift.
Essentially it appears as if there is something very small going on here, which should be tested and either confirmed or denied by future research.
I think of it as "something is better than nothing."
After EQ I realized that I wanted more from my MMORPGs. However, the only reason I don't play WoW or anything else is because I don't have the time.
If I did have time I'd be playing WoW I'm sure. That doesn't mean an innovative company couldn't come along and gain market share.
In fact if someone manages to change the way magic works so that it's so stale and change the camp/loot or instances issues then I'd probably play and just get less sleep in a day.
But it's one step from issuing that 1 card to requiring that you have it and present it for upon demand.
As long as there isn't a single card, there's no chance that the government will require everyone to have a medi-care card and to present it upon demand by the police.
I disagree. I don't think that a government movement to require everyone to present ID on demand would at all be hindered by not having a national ID. If they want to make everyone show proof of ID, they could just as easily say that you must present some state or federal ID on demand by the police.
I don't see how it ends up being one step like you say.
"This American Life" is the one that I have been dying for. I even wrote some scripts to convert the audio of the shows to mp3s so I could listen to them, but I'd prefer them to do all the work for me.
One of the best Profs I've ever had was a staunch conservative that believed strongly in everything I opposed. Politically that is.
Because he was so passionate about his beliefs, he was also passionate about teaching. I think the passion just bleeds over. Perhaps he could have been passionate about anything and it would have bled over into teaching, but I know his politics for him.
I am now a college instructor and try to keep that passion for teaching any way I can.
Could someone explain to me what the benifit of more cores is vs. hyperthreading?
I was under the impression that it much more like a multi-CPU machine. So wouldn't the use of the cores primarily be an OS thing anyhow? So as long as the OS is taking advantage of it, why not just keep adding them?
Many have said it so far, that most of the arguments against, especially those about fairness of the hunt, are pretty much moot.
But it is clear by the reaction here that many seem to have a problem with this. I count myself among them. Maybe I'm partially against hunting already and this just seems to push laziness to the next level. Or maybe this creates a level of detachment from the action of killing that disturbs my subconscious.
But I'm curious if anyone, those for or against, can give me a good explanation why so many people seem to feel there is something wrong about shooting animals from your computer? I just can't put my finger on exactly what about it bothers me.
Proofs where no one understands the proof are of little use. Yes they allow you to work with the statement that was proven, but you don't garner anything from the proof itself.
Many nice and elegant proofs are just that because they are not only aesthetically pleasing, they also give their readers insight into other problems.
As Erdos used to say, they come straight from the SF's book. (if you don't know what that means, go read about him)
I was diappointed in Evercrack because every magic class was the same within their class. Everyone knew exactly how a cleric should be played or how a wizard or enchanter should be played. There was no room for uniqueness.
I played Gemstone, and even though it was a MUD it had a better general game design than any graphics game I've seen.
It would be nice if they could make magic so customizable and unique that the programmers didn't know the limits or all the possibilities.
At my university one of the profs there is hooked on this theorem. There are around 400 known proofs to it, and around 60 of them are attributed to the University of North Florida because of Dr. Tong! You gotta love that.
You know, I read a lot of these posts, and had to agree with most people that in general we choose good video quality over sound.
But when I think about it, back in my Evercrack days, what I remember most are the sounds of the gnolls in Blackburrow. I may one day forget what they look like, but I don't think I'll ever forget their howl.
A point that was clear in the article but wasn't mentioned here was that the table never claimed to be a republican registration table, and in fact when question the people at the never refused to speak to the lady. It was all very fishy.
This actually happened in my hometown (Jacksonville) at my university (UNF). *shivers*
It was reported in the folio weekly. Unfortunately they don't have an online version.
An interesting note in the story was the lady that discovered it and went to the Democratic Party headquarters in town was a republican. Who would have guessed?
Re:No recounts in districts with touchscreen votin
on
How To Lose An Election
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
That is true, however they have no jurisdiction since it is the state supervisor of elections and the republican majority that is precluding the use of a paper trail of touchscreen voting machines.
Slashdot Mirror
If I'm sure I'm right about something it is because I've already listened to other people's opinions. So I'm not going to listen to them again after I'm sure. Question 11 should be thrown out. And there is usually more than two sides to an issue, so question 12 is bogus and should be thrown out as well.
I knew I should be doing my math work outside! Now I just need to wheel a chalkboard out there.
If they are, and if these experiments succeed, however, it most definitely will not be because MythBusters had anything to do with "officially" determining the contagiousness of a yawn - not with a correlation coefficient of
Straight from the researchers' mouth.
The interesting thing about Godwin's Law is that I'm pretty sure that as a discussion thread increasing, the probability that ANY statement will be uttered would approach 1. So it would be vacuously true.
Am I correct in assuming that you are implying that if everyone should have been armed and this tragedy would not have happened? Further, it seems as if you are implying that we should all be armed and we will suddenly more safe. The problem with the argument (on either side really) is that we really have no way of knowing what would happen if the general populace were completely armed. Would more people that react in anger go grab their guns? Or would more people be able to defend themselves? Would more accidental shootings occur? Personally I would not own a gun. I do not trust myself, even if I were well trained. I truly believe that repealing the second amendment (don't ask me about the logistics of it, it would take a lot of people smarter than I to work out) would be the best thing for the country. However, I am a strong believer of the constitution so as long as the second amendment is in the constitution I would fight to the death to defend it.
If on page 7 you continue to read the "finer scale features" you will see that there are other deviations, in particular you will see that the mean shifted from .05 to (.5 + epsilon_mu).
Upon reading the abstract you can quickly see that there were small deviations (7 sigma). While at the same time their pseudorandom source yielded no mean shift.
Essentially it appears as if there is something very small going on here, which should be tested and either confirmed or denied by future research.
I could see how the shoulder bag could seem strange, but my friend's wife has one and they use it to take their ipod to the beach, works great.
I think of it as "something is better than nothing."
After EQ I realized that I wanted more from my MMORPGs. However, the only reason I don't play WoW or anything else is because I don't have the time.
If I did have time I'd be playing WoW I'm sure. That doesn't mean an innovative company couldn't come along and gain market share.
In fact if someone manages to change the way magic works so that it's so stale and change the camp/loot or instances issues then I'd probably play and just get less sleep in a day.
But it's one step from issuing that 1 card to requiring that you have it and present it for upon demand.
As long as there isn't a single card, there's no chance that the government will require everyone to have a medi-care card and to present it upon demand by the police.
I disagree. I don't think that a government movement to require everyone to present ID on demand would at all be hindered by not having a national ID. If they want to make everyone show proof of ID, they could just as easily say that you must present some state or federal ID on demand by the police.
I don't see how it ends up being one step like you say.
"This American Life" is the one that I have been dying for. I even wrote some scripts to convert the audio of the shows to mp3s so I could listen to them, but I'd prefer them to do all the work for me.
I disagree. As a teacher you are supposed to try to teach everyone in class, not fail those wanting to use different note taking methods.
Also, some subjects require fact regurgitation.
One of the best Profs I've ever had was a staunch conservative that believed strongly in everything I opposed. Politically that is.
Because he was so passionate about his beliefs, he was also passionate about teaching. I think the passion just bleeds over. Perhaps he could have been passionate about anything and it would have bled over into teaching, but I know his politics for him.
I am now a college instructor and try to keep that passion for teaching any way I can.
Ok did anyone else read that as CUBA search easy as Google? Seriously confused for a moment.
Could someone explain to me what the benifit of more cores is vs. hyperthreading?
I was under the impression that it much more like a multi-CPU machine. So wouldn't the use of the cores primarily be an OS thing anyhow? So as long as the OS is taking advantage of it, why not just keep adding them?
Again, I'm not sure of the differences.
Many have said it so far, that most of the arguments against, especially those about fairness of the hunt, are pretty much moot.
But it is clear by the reaction here that many seem to have a problem with this. I count myself among them. Maybe I'm partially against hunting already and this just seems to push laziness to the next level. Or maybe this creates a level of detachment from the action of killing that disturbs my subconscious.
But I'm curious if anyone, those for or against, can give me a good explanation why so many people seem to feel there is something wrong about shooting animals from your computer? I just can't put my finger on exactly what about it bothers me.
Proofs where no one understands the proof are of little use. Yes they allow you to work with the statement that was proven, but you don't garner anything from the proof itself.
Many nice and elegant proofs are just that because they are not only aesthetically pleasing, they also give their readers insight into other problems.
As Erdos used to say, they come straight from the SF's book. (if you don't know what that means, go read about him)
I totally agree.
I was diappointed in Evercrack because every magic class was the same within their class. Everyone knew exactly how a cleric should be played or how a wizard or enchanter should be played. There was no room for uniqueness.
I played Gemstone, and even though it was a MUD it had a better general game design than any graphics game I've seen. It would be nice if they could make magic so customizable and unique that the programmers didn't know the limits or all the possibilities.
Did we see this article (by the same author from the Washington Post) in a /. post a couple of days ago?
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/2 0/2240209&tid=191&tid=14
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4176616
How about: Re[Zetafunction] = 1/2.
Prove it and get a million dollars!
I has all sorts of links to the gamma function (factorials), and primes. Good stuff galore.
At my university one of the profs there is hooked on this theorem. There are around 400 known proofs to it, and around 60 of them are attributed to the University of North Florida because of Dr. Tong! You gotta love that.
You know, I read a lot of these posts, and had to agree with most people that in general we choose good video quality over sound.
But when I think about it, back in my Evercrack days, what I remember most are the sounds of the gnolls in Blackburrow. I may one day forget what they look like, but I don't think I'll ever forget their howl.
A point that was clear in the article but wasn't mentioned here was that the table never claimed to be a republican registration table, and in fact when question the people at the never refused to speak to the lady. It was all very fishy.
This actually happened in my hometown (Jacksonville) at my university (UNF). *shivers*
It was reported in the folio weekly. Unfortunately they don't have an online version.
An interesting note in the story was the lady that discovered it and went to the Democratic Party headquarters in town was a republican. Who would have guessed?
That is true, however they have no jurisdiction since it is the state supervisor of elections and the republican majority that is precluding the use of a paper trail of touchscreen voting machines.