To me, this says more about sample size (or lack thereof) in these stats.
Considering I was ranked the 48th smartest person in the world, and the second smartest in Canada, as much as I'd like to think that's true, I have to agree their sample size is minuscule.
As for the validity of the IQ test, it had two nearly identical Bible questions (which book comes after Genesis). Is such simple factual knowledge even relevant to IQ?
You forgot to add the weight of the truck to your calculation, which was 7000 lbs. (yes, it was diesel). So extending your formula, it should have taken 1387 gals of fuel for the full load, and 971 gals empty.
Therefore, by your reasoning, I should have gotten about 2.1 mpg driving with a full load, and about 3.1 mpg empty. Very strange that the truck's fuel efficiency readout and my manual calculation both came to just above 16 mpg, both ways.
Either phantom silent refueling vehicles were filling me up and I didn't see it, or there is a considerable gap between your calculations and empirical reality.
In theory, I suppose it would have to have *some* effect. But I'd like to see anyone show any measurable difference in fuel economy between a fat person and a skinny person driving, or for that matter, one person vs. two people in a car.
Just as a point of reference, I drove across the US a few years back, both ways, in my truck. On the way out I had about 3,000 lbs. of cargo in the bed; on the way back it was empty. I tracked my mileage for the entire trip and found *no* discernible difference in fuel economy between having the extra 3,000 lbs of cargo and not. So if I couldn't see a measurable difference in fuel economy with an extra ton and a half of payload over 3,000 miles, the difference in fuel economy for a person even 150 lbs. overweight and even in the smallest economy car is probably not even statistically measurable.
Actually, I posted the source of that upthread...it is called Hanlon's Razor, and WP mentions nothing about it being attributed to Napoleon.
And as others point out, the operative phrase is "adequately"...if you don't have some skepticism about the depths of incompetence, then you allow "playing stupid" to become the perfect cover for malice.
Unfortunately, "strategic incompetence" seems to be an increasing plausible ploy, being that so many people these days seem to invoke Hanlon's Razor as if it were an immutable law of physics.
IMHO, the "Bush is an idiot" meme has gone a long way towards providing "stupidity" cover for a lot of actual malice.
Seriously, how can you invent that scenario based upon the parent's comment? He did say "a parent that follows their dream (responsibly)"; how did that turn into musicians who by some unstated logic seemingly must become drug addicts? Would it be better if they were employed at work-a-day drudgery and became drug addicts instead?
I have another question...with the significant differences between VB6 and VB.Net, shouldn't some distinction be made? In fact, the "(Visual) Basic" heading leads me to think that all versions of Basic might be included.
I always find programming language popularity statistics to be dubious at best.
If you actually read my post instead of hopping on the first train to Judgementville, you'd see that I said that the speeding ticket was legitimate. It was the additional yellow light ticket that I said was excessive. And my only real point was a response to the claim that anyone who gets a yellow light ticket is lying, stupid, or was "gunning it when they clearly have time to stop", none of which I was doing.
And before you say that by exceeding the intersection speed limit (but not the general road speed limit) that I *was* "gunning it", look up "gun" (verb) in the dictionary: "to cause (an engine, vehicle, aircraft, etc.) to increase in speed very quickly by increasing the supply of fuel."
You're OK in every state and provincial jurisdiction in North America where I've bothered to look up the laws (most of Canada, chunks of the US). People who say they are getting pulled over for "running a yellow" are either a) actually running a red and are either stupid or lying, or b) gunning it when they clearly have time to stop.
Well, I got a ticket in BC (Vancouver Island) specifically for running a yellow light. I was driving an F-350 Diesel (7000 lb. vehicle) on a road with a 110 km/h (@ 70 mph) limit which I was obeying, the road was slightly wet and I would have had to stop pretty hard to make it, and there was no one in or remotely near the intersection. I did not gun it but merely maintained my speed, and was entirely through the intersection before the light turned red. Our dutiful RCMP pulled me over and gave me a ticket for speeding (legitimate since it is posted to slow to 90 km/h through the intersection) plus a ticket for going through a yellow light (stated as such on the ticket).
I'm not one to whine over such things, but it was close to $500 between the tickets and insurance surcharges (that wouldn't have been imposed without the yellow light ticket), which I felt was rather excessive considering the circumstances.
Maybe I'm the rare exception, but actual yellow light tickets *do* happen.
Who says that the people with secrets will even try to encode them in the background noise?
Maybe they will use the foreground noise --
I couldn't read TFA as Google translation was hung, but I question the summary's definition of steganography as hiding data in the "background noise".
If you read wikipedia's steganography entry, you'll see no mention of background/foreground noise in the definition. My understanding is that steganography generally alters the lowest order bits in a audio/video/image files so that pixels/samples are indistinguishably altered. Trivial example with RGB values...you will probably not notice the difference between #FFFFFF and #FEFEFE or #FFFEFF, so if you simply overwrite the lowest bit of each R, G and B value with the data you wish to hide, you can store 3 bits per RGB pixel without visibly changing the appearance of the image. At least in this instance, background/foreground noise is not part of the equation.
The only reason it might make sense to focus on background noise is if they are only looking to embed a message in the actual analog audio signal; for instance, clicks and pops sequenced in such a way as to be decipherable as data. That seems to me like a pretty narrow avenue to focus on, and I wonder if anyone is even known to use such a method these days.
"Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith."
"I think God put you here to test my faith, dude. You believe that?"
"Uh huh."
Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God might be fuckin' with our heads? Anyone have trouble sleeping restfully with that thought in their heads? God's running around, burying fossils: "Huh huh ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha HA. I'm a prankster god. I am killing me. Ho ho ho ho."
You know, you die, you go to St. Peter, "Did you you believe in dinosaurs?"
"Well, you know, there was fossils everywhere."
"What are you, an idiot? God was FUCKING with you! Giant flying lizards? You moron! That's one of God's easiest jokes!"
"It seemed so plausible! Aieeeeeeeee!" Bound for the lake of fire. . . .
However, as someone who's never illegally downloaded or uploaded music or movies or software over the Internet, this case really has no bearing on me personally.
Right...and the War on Terror has no bearing on you unless you're a terrorist, and the War on Drugs has no bearing on you unless you're a drug addict. Not to get all Godwin, but holy Niemöller!!
Slashdot Mirror
IOW, you, for one, welcome our new judge-bribing overlord?
+5: Godwin...well done!!
"Hello, Hammer!! Back again, huh?"
Look at the bright side...at least you have free GTMO health care now.
Doesn't the FCC have an equal time rule? They shouldn't be able to do this unless they they also open up a chunk of the spectrum only for porn.
As long as it's an imaginary ten cents...
I thought I had heard of Lala before.
Sure enough, Lala started as a physical CD trading website. I remember reading about this and wondered what I was missing about their business model.
Judging from this, I don't think they knew either.
Considering I was ranked the 48th smartest person in the world, and the second smartest in Canada, as much as I'd like to think that's true, I have to agree their sample size is minuscule.
As for the validity of the IQ test, it had two nearly identical Bible questions (which book comes after Genesis). Is such simple factual knowledge even relevant to IQ?
I just wish that they had passed a version of this in Virginia first...after all, who wouldn't vote for the VA GINA?
You forgot to add the weight of the truck to your calculation, which was 7000 lbs. (yes, it was diesel). So extending your formula, it should have taken 1387 gals of fuel for the full load, and 971 gals empty.
Therefore, by your reasoning, I should have gotten about 2.1 mpg driving with a full load, and about 3.1 mpg empty. Very strange that the truck's fuel efficiency readout and my manual calculation both came to just above 16 mpg, both ways.
Either phantom silent refueling vehicles were filling me up and I didn't see it, or there is a considerable gap between your calculations and empirical reality.
In theory, I suppose it would have to have *some* effect. But I'd like to see anyone show any measurable difference in fuel economy between a fat person and a skinny person driving, or for that matter, one person vs. two people in a car.
Just as a point of reference, I drove across the US a few years back, both ways, in my truck. On the way out I had about 3,000 lbs. of cargo in the bed; on the way back it was empty. I tracked my mileage for the entire trip and found *no* discernible difference in fuel economy between having the extra 3,000 lbs of cargo and not. So if I couldn't see a measurable difference in fuel economy with an extra ton and a half of payload over 3,000 miles, the difference in fuel economy for a person even 150 lbs. overweight and even in the smallest economy car is probably not even statistically measurable.
When I was learning mainframe, I had an instructor who said he never heard a stupid question from a student except one: "How do you spell IEFBR14?"
"Wrote a song about it. Like to hear it? Here it goes!"
Every OS Sucks
I'm holding out for Bass Clarinet Hero and Theramin Hero.
Actually, I posted the source of that upthread...it is called Hanlon's Razor, and WP mentions nothing about it being attributed to Napoleon.
And as others point out, the operative phrase is "adequately"...if you don't have some skepticism about the depths of incompetence, then you allow "playing stupid" to become the perfect cover for malice.
Unfortunately, "strategic incompetence" seems to be an increasing plausible ploy, being that so many people these days seem to invoke Hanlon's Razor as if it were an immutable law of physics.
IMHO, the "Bush is an idiot" meme has gone a long way towards providing "stupidity" cover for a lot of actual malice.
Wow! Project much?
Seriously, how can you invent that scenario based upon the parent's comment? He did say "a parent that follows their dream (responsibly)"; how did that turn into musicians who by some unstated logic seemingly must become drug addicts? Would it be better if they were employed at work-a-day drudgery and became drug addicts instead?
I have another question...with the significant differences between VB6 and VB.Net, shouldn't some distinction be made? In fact, the "(Visual) Basic" heading leads me to think that all versions of Basic might be included.
I always find programming language popularity statistics to be dubious at best.
If you actually read my post instead of hopping on the first train to Judgementville, you'd see that I said that the speeding ticket was legitimate. It was the additional yellow light ticket that I said was excessive. And my only real point was a response to the claim that anyone who gets a yellow light ticket is lying, stupid, or was "gunning it when they clearly have time to stop", none of which I was doing.
And before you say that by exceeding the intersection speed limit (but not the general road speed limit) that I *was* "gunning it", look up "gun" (verb) in the dictionary: "to cause (an engine, vehicle, aircraft, etc.) to increase in speed very quickly by increasing the supply of fuel."
Well, I got a ticket in BC (Vancouver Island) specifically for running a yellow light. I was driving an F-350 Diesel (7000 lb. vehicle) on a road with a 110 km/h (@ 70 mph) limit which I was obeying, the road was slightly wet and I would have had to stop pretty hard to make it, and there was no one in or remotely near the intersection. I did not gun it but merely maintained my speed, and was entirely through the intersection before the light turned red. Our dutiful RCMP pulled me over and gave me a ticket for speeding (legitimate since it is posted to slow to 90 km/h through the intersection) plus a ticket for going through a yellow light (stated as such on the ticket).
I'm not one to whine over such things, but it was close to $500 between the tickets and insurance surcharges (that wouldn't have been imposed without the yellow light ticket), which I felt was rather excessive considering the circumstances. Maybe I'm the rare exception, but actual yellow light tickets *do* happen.
Mod +1 - NAGLAP (Not As Google-Lazy As Parent)
Totally off-topic, but if you are going to quote Captain Beefheart in your sig, you ought get the quote right:
"A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast 'n bulbous, got me?"
I couldn't read TFA as Google translation was hung, but I question the summary's definition of steganography as hiding data in the "background noise".
If you read wikipedia's steganography entry, you'll see no mention of background/foreground noise in the definition. My understanding is that steganography generally alters the lowest order bits in a audio/video/image files so that pixels/samples are indistinguishably altered. Trivial example with RGB values...you will probably not notice the difference between #FFFFFF and #FEFEFE or #FFFEFF, so if you simply overwrite the lowest bit of each R, G and B value with the data you wish to hide, you can store 3 bits per RGB pixel without visibly changing the appearance of the image. At least in this instance, background/foreground noise is not part of the equation.
The only reason it might make sense to focus on background noise is if they are only looking to embed a message in the actual analog audio signal; for instance, clicks and pops sequenced in such a way as to be decipherable as data. That seems to me like a pretty narrow avenue to focus on, and I wonder if anyone is even known to use such a method these days.
"Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith."
"I think God put you here to test my faith, dude. You believe that?"
"Uh huh."
Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God might be fuckin' with our heads? Anyone have trouble sleeping restfully with that thought in their heads? God's running around, burying fossils: "Huh huh ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha HA. I'm a prankster god. I am killing me. Ho ho ho ho."
You know, you die, you go to St. Peter, "Did you you believe in dinosaurs?"
"Well, you know, there was fossils everywhere."
"What are you, an idiot? God was FUCKING with you! Giant flying lizards? You moron! That's one of God's easiest jokes!"
"It seemed so plausible! Aieeeeeeeee!" Bound for the lake of fire. . . .
---quoth the prophet Bill Hicks
Right...and the War on Terror has no bearing on you unless you're a terrorist, and the War on Drugs has no bearing on you unless you're a drug addict. Not to get all Godwin, but holy Niemöller!!