There still would have been an earthquake if they didn't drill, it just would happen later when enough energy has built up, so the earthquake would be even larger. The energy builds up because the continental plates move against each other and some parts get stuck.
In my work as a programmer, I often have to fill in huge gaps left by the designers, and the designers usually only get the best ideas after they have seen what the engine can do.
Also, the specification of the average designer is so vague in terms of programming, e.g. "I want the program to be smarter than the user" that it is worthless.
Because of this any fulltime designer is usually in the top 5% of his craft, while a fulltime programmer still can be useful if he isn't in the top 5%.
Reveal as less information as possible and only proceed to reveal more valuable information once they have revealed valuable information.
Basically, say "Hi" first and then proceed to get a good two-way conversation going.
Re:Well the games at the beginning ..
on
Vintage Games
·
· Score: 1
Actually I once wrote a fast Life simulator where you plug in all kinds of parameters/limits to get all kinds of Life and also crystal growth.
Well the games at the beginning ..
on
Vintage Games
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well the computer games I played at the beginning were: Empire, which started the Civilization path Sentinel, which started nothing I know of Populous, which started the concept of "god perspective games" for me There were other games but these were too.. unique, odd and incentiveless to start something.
Well, for example, I on the other hand am using launch4j to wrap a java app into an executable.
It didn't work as expected, but thanks to the source being open I could replace a central java file with a debug version, which helped me understand what was going wrong so far that I could work around the problem.
I didn't spend the time to really fix the problem, although I think it would be easy to, but I could have if it became a problem to me due to it being GPL'ed. One additional nice property of GPL is that it forces the software to stay open source.
I think it is actually too much prison time for intangible damage, but that he should instead be forced for ten years to spend his extra income on some organisation that works against botnets or helps people out of them. Say 250,000x40$ to fix every one of them and he owes like 10 million to society.
They probably will only allow as peers people with 10k+ edits. In other words, people who have no life besides wikipedia. I infer this from how they selected people who may vote on wikipedia issues.
I already knew this.. And you don't need to be a scientist, since you don't need to do the math, you just need to know that the earth rotates and moves around the sun, and so to end up in the same spot would severly restrict your choice of jump time deltas.
It is pretty stupid to increase government spending on one hand to boost the economy, while cutting expenses elsewhere that could help the economy as well. I'd rather have a space program than saving every shitty bank with more money than the entire bank is worth.
It might be more sensible to whitelist people who voluntarily have undergone a test lately for not having aids.
Blacklists always have to be kept up to date and the chip could be removed, and also it wouldn't be very popular to have one that tags you as a black sheep.
If we put ourselves to it, we could run some cool simulations of small-scale versions of some of these multiverses, thereby connecting them with our reality.
Multiverses do exist, not in the sense of existing in this universe, but existing in a mathematical way, as formula the complexity of which we can never fully grasp.
Maybe we underestimate the difficulty of crossing 5-20 lightyears every trip.
I mean, we don't even dare to start a trip to Mars yet; and our first trip to mars isn't even planned to be for settling it or even a permanent base like we maintian on the poles, it is just for a quick visit. We need autonomic factories and mines before we can even think about settling.
No, I'm not accounting for refuting papers being refuted. Which kind of refutes my argument.
Actually following your idea, one could see it another way: According to the article, 2/3 don't get refuted(if 1/3 is refuted). Of the remaining 1/3, again 1/3 of the refutations is refuted, but only 2/3 of these are not refuted in the next cycle. And presumably it goes on like this. This leaves us with: 2/3 + 2/27 + 2/243.. = 2/3 * (1+1/9+1/81..) = 2/3 + (1/9 / (8/9)) = 2/3 + 1/8 = 19/24 = about 79%
But lets follow the other model proposed by Jorgensen, then let x = number of true papers, y= number of refuted papers, and dp be the number of completely new papers, then leaving any sanity checks aside (A)dx = -1/3 x + dp + 1/3 y (B)dy = 1/3 x - 1/3 y
Which for dp = 0 is in equilibrum for x=y (50:50). Now I'll just do a leap of faith and assume that the system will actually decay towards the equilibrum, then always 50%+p with p depending on dp:dx will be papers considered to be true.
This actually means that the 1/3rd mentioned in the study mentioned by slashdot is a sensible lower number bound or worst case, since a paper should have at least a 50% chance to fulfill a "random" yes or no statement.
Correct is that two thirds eventually will be refuted(like my first post is refuted)
1/3 + 2/9 + 4/27 = 1/3 *(1 + 2/3 + 4/9 +..) = 1/3 * (2/3 / (1-2/3)) = 1/3 * 2 = 2/3 = 66.67%
Slashdot Mirror
You are all missing the point:
There still would have been an earthquake if they didn't drill, it just would happen later when enough energy has built up, so the earthquake would be even larger. The energy builds up because the continental plates move against each other and some parts get stuck.
This is what you can get for free at at the moment:
http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=134
In my work as a programmer, I often have to fill in huge gaps left by the designers, and the designers usually only get the best ideas after they have seen what the engine can do.
Also, the specification of the average designer is so vague in terms of programming, e.g. "I want the program to be smarter than the user" that it is worthless.
Because of this any fulltime designer is usually in the top 5% of his craft, while a fulltime programmer still can be useful if he isn't in the top 5%.
Reveal as less information as possible and only proceed to reveal more valuable information once they have revealed valuable information.
Basically, say "Hi" first and then proceed to get a good two-way conversation going.
Actually I once wrote a fast Life simulator where you plug in all kinds of parameters/limits to get all kinds of Life and also crystal growth.
Well the computer games I played at the beginning were: .. unique, odd and incentiveless to start something.
Empire, which started the Civilization path
Sentinel, which started nothing I know of
Populous, which started the concept of "god perspective games" for me
There were other games but these were too
Currently converts: :-P
1km/h in parsecs per fortnight
just as google
That NoScript does it shows up in or neaer the changelog that you get shown when you upgrade version.
So this isn't really news to me.
Well, for example, I on the other hand am using launch4j to wrap a java app into an executable.
It didn't work as expected, but thanks to the source being open I could replace a central java file with a debug version, which helped me understand what was going wrong so far that I could work around the problem.
I didn't spend the time to really fix the problem, although I think it would be easy to, but I could have if it became a problem to me due to it being GPL'ed. One additional nice property of GPL is that it forces the software to stay open source.
Seems they don't know how to layout it for firefox ..
MUST.. not.. RESET.. everyones PASSWORD for.. THEIR.. EID..
I guess if you identified yourself as "strait" that would be grounds for termination also?
I think it is actually too much prison time for intangible damage, but that he should instead be forced for ten years to spend his extra income on some organisation that works against botnets or helps people out of them. Say 250,000x40$ to fix every one of them and he owes like 10 million to society.
They probably will only allow as peers people with 10k+ edits.
In other words, people who have no life besides wikipedia.
I infer this from how they selected people who may vote on wikipedia issues.
I already knew this ..
And you don't need to be a scientist, since you don't need to do the math, you just need to know that the earth rotates and moves around the sun, and so to end up in the same spot would severly restrict your choice of jump time deltas.
Well it appears it doesn't work in the range of visible light at all:
http://www.ee.byu.edu/photonics/fwnomograph.phtml
Might work with microwaves though
I didn't even know that TR existed before I read the news that it was about to close.
I think that is a marketing error. Or maybe they never did trust their own game.
If you use the ANTAGonizer patch and maybe before that, hitting M in the planet management screen will automate planet management.
Also, if you place a certain file into the base directory of it, the entire game will play itself.
The idea is obvious what is hard is to do it for a specific game.
For example, in Master Orion 2 you could choose to automate ship battles, although the automation sucked.
I gave up having two partitions on my USB stick because some version of windows would just show one of them.
It is pretty stupid to increase government spending on one hand to boost the economy, while cutting expenses elsewhere that could help the economy as well. I'd rather have a space program than saving every shitty bank with more money than the entire bank is worth.
It might be more sensible to whitelist people who voluntarily have undergone a test lately for not having aids.
Blacklists always have to be kept up to date and the chip could be removed, and also it wouldn't be very popular to have one that tags you as a black sheep.
Think of the multiverse like this:
If we put ourselves to it, we could run some cool simulations of small-scale versions of some of these multiverses, thereby connecting them with our reality.
Multiverses do exist, not in the sense of existing in this universe, but existing in a mathematical way, as formula the complexity of which we can never fully grasp.
Maybe we underestimate the difficulty of crossing 5-20 lightyears every trip.
I mean, we don't even dare to start a trip to Mars yet; and our first trip to mars isn't even planned to be for settling it or even a permanent base like we maintian on the poles, it is just for a quick visit. We need autonomic factories and mines before we can even think about settling.
No, I'm not accounting for refuting papers being refuted.
Which kind of refutes my argument.
Actually following your idea, one could see it another way: According to the article, .. = 2/3 * (1+1/9+1/81 ..) = 2/3 + (1/9 / (8/9)) = 2/3 + 1/8 = 19/24 = about 79%
2/3 don't get refuted(if 1/3 is refuted). Of the remaining 1/3, again 1/3 of the refutations is refuted, but only 2/3 of these are not refuted in the next cycle. And presumably it goes on like this. This leaves us with:
2/3 + 2/27 + 2/243
But lets follow the other model proposed by Jorgensen, then let x = number of true papers, y= number of refuted papers, and dp be the number of completely new papers, then leaving any sanity checks aside
(A)dx = -1/3 x + dp + 1/3 y
(B)dy = 1/3 x - 1/3 y
Which for dp = 0 is in equilibrum for x=y (50:50). Now I'll just do a leap of faith and assume that the system will actually decay towards the equilibrum, then always 50%+p with p depending on dp:dx will be papers considered to be true.
This actually means that the 1/3rd mentioned in the study mentioned by slashdot is a sensible lower number bound or worst case, since a paper should have at least a 50% chance to fulfill a "random" yes or no statement.
.. because they are called quarks and gluons.
Correct is that two thirds eventually will be refuted(like my first post is refuted) 1/3 + 2/9 + 4/27 = 1/3 *(1 + 2/3 + 4/9 + ..) = 1/3 * (2/3 / (1-2/3)) = 1/3 * 2 = 2/3 = 66.67%