Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

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

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

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

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.

Comment Re:iPage (Score 0) 115

wstaw wasn maszyn do centrum hostingowego z bardzo dobrym poaczeniem do PLIXa, albo wasne plixa, albo atm.

Co do zasad i reakcji - na pewno atwiej bdzie z nimi ustali zasady ni z jakim zagranicznym hostingiem, który moe panicznie zareagowa np. na danie jakiej polskiej partii politycznej.

Slashdot Top Deals

The fancy is indeed no other than a mode of memory emancipated from the order of space and time. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge