The article seems to be conflating the two. This game is probably more violent than any of the listed ones, but it's certainly a lot less graphic. Why is gore bad for children but gore-free violence ok? That's so backwards.
The latter is a lot harder to prove, especially if the defendant is being investigated for a different crime. These investment bankers probably have evidence for crimes far worse than mere insider trading.
Right idea, but you have the wrong time transformation. The 64 million year figure is probably in our frame of reference. The time is probably calculated by looking at the redshift of the light and applying some model for the universe's expansion. If we see the light reaching us today, that doesn't mean it exploded today. That's not what relativity says. It still happened long ago, but how long ago depends on how fast we are moving relative to the star. We can change how long ago the star exploded by changing our velocity. In fact, the Earth is always changing velocity as it circles the Sun, so the time since the supernova occurred is oscillating. Of course, we aren't changing the past, just how we calculate it. Nevertheless, it happened long ago.
It's easier to think of the universe as not starting from a single point, but rather a dense grid of points. As the universe expands, the points spread out, so the distance between everything increases. When we talk about expansion, we don't do so in terms of a speed of expansion but rather a rate of scaling. So, for galaxies that are twice as far away as other galaxies, the distance will grow twice as fast. If d(t) be the distance and tau the scale time, d(t) = d0*exp(t/tau). tau is also a function of time. We can't really define the universe at t=0, but only in the limit as t approaches 0.
Even at an early time, the universe was bigger than c*t. I don't have an explanation for the initial conditions of the universe. Hence, the observable universe was smaller than the universe. But the observable universe is constantly growing because light has more time to arrive from farther away.
Just imagine for a moment what elections would be like if we actually used the Schulze Method and you'll see how impractical it is. If you are a citizen, you want to be able to tune into the newscast and find out the final tabulation of votes. With approval voting, you might get something like, "Mr A wins by 132 votes. The final breakdown was Mr A 324, Ms B 192, Ms C 22, etc." With Schulze method, you have black box. You submit your vote, and after some serious crunching, the tabulators give you the winner. If you are lucky, the government will provide some multi gig file for download with the results. More likely, you'll just have to accept the winner on faith. Sounds like Ahmajinidad's would support this one.
Heh, it's not automatically obvious that "1/3 = 0.3..." To prove it, you need to show that "1/3 = sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n]" Not too hard to do, if you shift the summation by one digit. sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n] = {sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n]}*10/10 = {sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-(n-1)]}/10 = {sum n=0->infinity [3*10^-n]}/10 = ({sum n=0->infinity [3*10^-n]} - 3 + 3)/10 = ({sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n]} + 3)/10 equating the first and last expression 10*{sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n]} = {sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n]} + 3 9*{sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n]} = 3 {sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n]} = 3/9 = 1/3
A number is a very specific object which differs from its symbolic representation. For example, "one", 1/1, 3-2, 0x01, "uno", 0.9999... all refer to the same real number, even though the symbolic representation is different. (However, there is also a rational number and an integer with the same symbolic name.) To show that they are the same, we need a definition of equality. Ultimately, it's a matter of consistency and convention. We have developed a framework for real numbers that gives us rules for arithmetic. The difference between 1 and 0.999... can be stated as the limit as n->infinity of 0.0...{n times}...1. However, the real number system does not allow for a distinction between infinitesimal differences, so this must be regarded as equal to 0. This is simply a feature of the real number system, so you'll end up going in circles if you look too hard for some underlying proof. In the hyperreal number system, they are different.
Honeywell is a huge company. Part of what it does is defense. I used to work for Honeywell, for a classified project under a DoD contract. So, yes, it does defense.
Facebook has improved my life significantly. Looking at the revenue of $1.2 billion, that's $2.40/person/9 months. That's peanuts. I would totally pay for that. I think it's easily worth 100 bucks.
Facebook should sell a subscriber mode with no ads and a don't-sell-your-private-data-to-marketers option to users. Charge a few bucks a month. I'd be down.
Actually, that's how natural selection works. It's mostly random, but only after a bunch of generations, the law of averages kick in, and even a small benefit can gradually take over a population (or in this case, a small detriment can be eliminated). In the process, killing off other people with issue vaccine (allergy, immune system issue, etc) is also applying selection pressure to the population. Hey, nature is cruel, but that's how evolution works.
There are already passenger sensors in most new cars which trigger a check that the passenger seatbelt is connected. It should be simple to connect this decision to the function that prevents texting.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you want to set the value on people's lives equal to what the military does?
Then hactivist doesn't belong in there either., since activists are not motivated by malice.
The article seems to be conflating the two. This game is probably more violent than any of the listed ones, but it's certainly a lot less graphic. Why is gore bad for children but gore-free violence ok? That's so backwards.
couldn't they just change the authentication key?
The latter is a lot harder to prove, especially if the defendant is being investigated for a different crime. These investment bankers probably have evidence for crimes far worse than mere insider trading.
At least you can choose a distribution that doesn't have all sorts of security issues.
Right idea, but you have the wrong time transformation. The 64 million year figure is probably in our frame of reference. The time is probably calculated by looking at the redshift of the light and applying some model for the universe's expansion. If we see the light reaching us today, that doesn't mean it exploded today. That's not what relativity says. It still happened long ago, but how long ago depends on how fast we are moving relative to the star. We can change how long ago the star exploded by changing our velocity. In fact, the Earth is always changing velocity as it circles the Sun, so the time since the supernova occurred is oscillating. Of course, we aren't changing the past, just how we calculate it. Nevertheless, it happened long ago.
If criminals were only so clever
It's private if you aren't my friend and I only allow friends to see.
Not if space loops around when you try to reach the edge. In such a universe, there is no center. This is assumed to be the case.
It's easier to think of the universe as not starting from a single point, but rather a dense grid of points. As the universe expands, the points spread out, so the distance between everything increases. When we talk about expansion, we don't do so in terms of a speed of expansion but rather a rate of scaling. So, for galaxies that are twice as far away as other galaxies, the distance will grow twice as fast. If d(t) be the distance and tau the scale time, d(t) = d0*exp(t/tau). tau is also a function of time. We can't really define the universe at t=0, but only in the limit as t approaches 0.
Even at an early time, the universe was bigger than c*t. I don't have an explanation for the initial conditions of the universe. Hence, the observable universe was smaller than the universe. But the observable universe is constantly growing because light has more time to arrive from farther away.
Just imagine for a moment what elections would be like if we actually used the Schulze Method and you'll see how impractical it is. If you are a citizen, you want to be able to tune into the newscast and find out the final tabulation of votes. With approval voting, you might get something like, "Mr A wins by 132 votes. The final breakdown was Mr A 324, Ms B 192, Ms C 22, etc." With Schulze method, you have black box. You submit your vote, and after some serious crunching, the tabulators give you the winner. If you are lucky, the government will provide some multi gig file for download with the results. More likely, you'll just have to accept the winner on faith. Sounds like Ahmajinidad's would support this one.
Heh, it's not automatically obvious that "1/3 = 0.3..."
To prove it, you need to show that "1/3 = sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n]"
Not too hard to do, if you shift the summation by one digit.
sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n]
= {sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n]}*10/10
= {sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-(n-1)]}/10
= {sum n=0->infinity [3*10^-n]}/10
= ({sum n=0->infinity [3*10^-n]} - 3 + 3)/10
= ({sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n]} + 3)/10
equating the first and last expression
10*{sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n]} = {sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n]} + 3
9*{sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n]} = 3
{sum n=1->infinity [3*10^-n]} = 3/9 = 1/3
A number is a very specific object which differs from its symbolic representation. For example, "one", 1/1, 3-2, 0x01, "uno", 0.9999... all refer to the same real number, even though the symbolic representation is different. (However, there is also a rational number and an integer with the same symbolic name.) To show that they are the same, we need a definition of equality. Ultimately, it's a matter of consistency and convention. We have developed a framework for real numbers that gives us rules for arithmetic. The difference between 1 and 0.999... can be stated as the limit as n->infinity of 0.0...{n times}...1. However, the real number system does not allow for a distinction between infinitesimal differences, so this must be regarded as equal to 0. This is simply a feature of the real number system, so you'll end up going in circles if you look too hard for some underlying proof. In the hyperreal number system, they are different.
It's no more of a joke than the previous situation of blocking Iranian downloads with a significantly larger list of IPs.
Yeah, but they could already do that, with Google Earth, et al, being available for download in, say, United States.
Then you would have... TV!
even that visual warning system has been legislated away
It's legislated, but it isn't away by any means.
Just because they're Pavlonially excited doesn't mean they know all the nuances of why they're excited.
I feel the same way about humans.
Honeywell is a huge company. Part of what it does is defense. I used to work for Honeywell, for a classified project under a DoD contract. So, yes, it does defense.
Facebook has improved my life significantly. Looking at the revenue of $1.2 billion, that's $2.40/person/9 months. That's peanuts. I would totally pay for that. I think it's easily worth 100 bucks.
Facebook should sell a subscriber mode with no ads and a don't-sell-your-private-data-to-marketers option to users. Charge a few bucks a month. I'd be down.
Actually, that's how natural selection works. It's mostly random, but only after a bunch of generations, the law of averages kick in, and even a small benefit can gradually take over a population (or in this case, a small detriment can be eliminated). In the process, killing off other people with issue vaccine (allergy, immune system issue, etc) is also applying selection pressure to the population. Hey, nature is cruel, but that's how evolution works.
Nobody is disputing the legal right to make the edit. Nevertheless, it's still fraudulent to pass off an edit as the original.
There are already passenger sensors in most new cars which trigger a check that the passenger seatbelt is connected. It should be simple to connect this decision to the function that prevents texting.
1 in 5000? Do you realize how large a number that is?