Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Don't fight it (Score 4, Insightful) 720

by Kvasio (#48487829) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Making a 'Wife Friendly' Gaming PC?

Just after getting married it probably the last "major new setting of rules".

If the PPer want's to stand strong for something that is important in his life, this is the right moment. After all, that's exactly what his spouse is trying to do - kick gaming from her view. The living case of "I'll format him when we get married".
If he is ok with that - he should listen to the first poster.
If he's not - he should set some rules / code of conduct with her. For example this may consist of:
1) week days and annual days (eg. their anniversary) without gaming
2) things that should be done before around home he could begin gaming
3) no interrupting him every 2 minutes where there is no major fire
4) "magic escape word" for both - for emergency, where she REALLY needs him / where he REALLY needs half an hour resetting his brain
5) ....

Comment: Re:sibling fairness (Score 3, Informative) 167

by Kvasio (#48329947) Attached to: New Website Offers Provably Fair Solutions To Everyday Problems

the algorith is old one, I remember it from Hugo Steinhaus's math book.
It works for any number of parties and goods.

Say we have 4 brothers who have to divide the heritage: home, car and bicycle

Step 1: each brother provides his valuation, e.g.
Adam home $200,000 car $10,000 bike $100 - total value $210,100 thus his "fair part" is $52,525
Brad home $150,000 car $3,000 bike $120 - total value $153,120 thus his "fair part" is $38,280
Caleb home $180,000 car $11,000 bike $80 - total value $191,080 thus his "fair part" is $47,770
Damon home $50,000 car $3,000 bike $60 - total value $53,060 thus his "fair part" is $13,265

Step 2
whoever "bid" the highest for given good, gets it, at his own valuation.
Adam gets home (valued by him $200,000), which is $147,475 more, than his "fair part", so has to pay $147,475 to the pool
Brad gets bike (valued by him at $120), which is $38,160 less, than he believes he should get
Caleb gets cat (valued by him at $11,000) which is $36,770 less than his definition of a fair part.
Damon gets no item, which is $13,265 lower, than he had hoped to get

Step 3
Adam should pay $147,475 to the pool.
Brad gets $38,160 from the pool
Caleb gets $36,770 from the pool
Damon gets $13,265 from the pool

Now every brother got exactly what he valued as a 1/4th of total items value.

And we've still got $59,280 in pool to share. Which may:
- be split equally - each brother gets $14,820 "bonus"
- be split proportionaly - each brother gets part of that $59k split by weights of their total valuation sum (in our example - each would bet 39.04% more than he expected)
- be stolen by the court/the man splitting goods ;-)

Hugo Steinhaus also mentioned that this procedure may be altered to minimise cash flows (items go to person with lowerst valuation, but results in everyone getting less than expected) or to consider not equal shares in total goods.

Comment: Re:no dimocrats (Score 1) 551

by Kvasio (#48299623) Attached to: In this year's US mid-term elections ...

It's sort of like having a guy in the Senate who has "Anarchy" listed as his affiliation; if he was really an Anarchist, he wouldn't believe in being anyone's Senator.

come on, in European parliament we have bunch of people who contest the reasons for EU existence. Does not stop them from taking their salaries from EU.

If it's not in the computer, it doesn't exist.

Working...