Watch WWE RAW 3/6/2013 Online
Watch WWE RAW 6-3-2013 Online
Watch WWE RAW 3-6-2013 Online
Shhh! Stop giving away the secrets to my free energy perpetual motion machine! I usually just tell people it's "cold fusion" to make it sound more sciency and protect my real methods.
Actually, you should understand that A) coinreturn made the claim
As did you. I quoted your words. And at the time, you apparently felt interested enough to play, but now you really don't care.
If you insist on playing, I look at what AuMatar wrote, and I see no explicit conversion into a right-left argument other than the fact that he used the work lockstep which would implicitly criticise two conservative judges for voting together too often.
Yes, other than using derogatory language about two conservatives, AuMatar is completely innocent of trying to make this a left/right issue. Yep. You win. If you ignore what he said, he didn't say it. If we ignore what you said, then coinreturn was the only one saying it. Yep again. You win. What a good game player you are for someone who isn't playing. Care to play a nice game of chess?
If it had been Kagan who had voted with the majority, and AuMatar had noted that it was one of the few times Kagan hadn't voted in lockstep with Sotomeyer, would you be this angry?
Yes, if you get caught failing at the politics game, project your own feelings onto others and try to deflect the blame. What "angry"? I'm not angry. Why would I be? Your failure to succeed at the game of politicizing SCOTUS doesn't make me angry, just amused. Your abdication of the game after you lose is, well, still not anger-inducing. Amusing, perhaps.
Yes, we do have some confusion here.
It might have done if you hadn't shown yourself unaware of the existence of such thing as a "runtime library".
You appear to think I was saying that the C runtime (which is indeed almost always implemented as a library, though there are notable exceptions) was the C virtual machine. I didn't say that at all. The C virtual machine is, in a compiled implementation, implemented by the compiler and the runtime working together.
Now, so are you saying that the C object file includes a "virtual instruction" that is interpreted on the fly by the VM, or is it instead not usually compiled into a library call?
I am saying that the abstract machine presented to a C programmer includes a bunch of basic operations (you can think of them as virtual instructions if you like), presented as the abstract syntax of the language. It's up to the implementation as to how these basic operations are realised on a specific platform. Some of them may be translated into the native language of the target machine, some may be implemented by threaded code, and so on.
The programmer will not see this as a library call. It's often unavailable to the C programmer as a library call; those bits of the runtime often don't adhere to the ABI of the platform.
I think that the cause of the misunderstanding is that programming language theorists and compiler writers use the term "virtual machine" to mean something more general than people who don't work in that space. That's okay, but but it might get confusing if you need to read the original research.
That's strange, since the whole time I was in school, I was well below the threshold of what the government defines as poverty.
Well, that just shows the problem with trying to define "poverty" with the most simplistic way (annual income filed on a 1040-EZ). A billionaire who gives enough to charity to add up to $0 annual taxable income is not poor. A playboy frat kid coasting through college on daddy's money into a guaranteed high-dollar position at daddy's firm is not poor. While the simplistic "poverty line" definition is useful in some cases for generally-correct classification, there are certainly plenty of exceptional cases where the simplicity is obviously inadequate. If all "poor" people were just college students living the good life before (nearly guaranteed) placement into well-above-poverty positions, then I wouldn't be worried about "poverty" as a problem. Unfortunately, that's not the case --- and, regardless of the fine details in exactly where you draw the lines, being *actually* poor is a significantly sucky thing (that I don't think is alleviated by access to big flat panel TVs).
I believe in rewarding somebody who does something good. However I don't believe in rewarding anybody who hasn't done anything at all.
I also believe in rewarding folks who do good. But to go with that, it's vital to have systems where people have the *opportunity* to do things in the first place. Extremes of poverty suck most because they steal away that opportunity --- not absolutely; you can always find the few exceptions to prove the rule who rose out of poverty --- but it's a far more uphill battle, often requiring work and effort that would be "heroic" for middle-class just to stay above water. Poverty means you probably won't have good access to education, or even good nutrition (empty calories that make you fat are not a balanced diet for developing child minds); hence poor access to good jobs; even exclusion from the workforce. The same "human material" could be capable of so much more if given opportunity beyond poverty --- but instead, poverty becomes a self-reinforcing cycle of not being able to do anything at all, hence not getting rewarded, hence not being able to do anything at all.
We have real personal autonomy. Far more than we ever have.
Not if you're comparing a poor person today against a rich person of yesteryear (which seemed to be your contention above), unless you're using an especially circular definition of "autonomy" that means "has the biggest TV". Poor person on minimum wage: for at least 40 hours a week, someone else demands where you are, how you dress, what you do, what you say, when you go to the bathroom, even how you move ("your burger assembly time is dropping below 11.3 seconds! No dawdling!"). During the rest of your time, you can't do anything that would jeopardize your ability to serve your corporate masters --- not that you have much energy to do much after grueling days of manual labor. You live in a shitty, crime-ridden neighborhood (because that's all you can afford), one paycheck from being out on the street. You can't afford much travel (if any at all), you have no vacations, your food is cheap and terrible and dull (you can get fat, but not healthy and well-nourished). You call this "real personal autonomy" for the poor because they can choose from a large variety of TV programming. I'd call it a wage-slavery hellhole, with extremely limited options to get out (death, winning the lottery, death, crime, death), TV and car be damned.
But you come and tell me that cars are slave tools....I mean really?
Not entirely --- but the poorer you are, the more your car is a worker-subsidized way to get you to work rather than a self-empowering tool for leisurely road trips and exploration. When gas money is tight, you won't be hopping in the car to cruise 200 miles to visit Grandma or the beach over the weekend. You'll be spending the vast majority of the time (and cost) of operating the car to get you from your shitty slum neighborhood to work or stores, on your own dime. In this scenario, the introduction of the car helps employers at the expense of workers: they can hire from a wider area, not paying wages sufficient to support living in communities near the work site, while unloading all the expense (and an hour or two unpaid work time for commuting) onto the workers. So, just having a car doesn't make you spectacularly rich and free --- only to the extent that you also have the autonomy to use the car for your own ends (can afford the fuel, and the time off) is the technology working for rather than against you. For many people struggling to care for families against poverty, the fairy-tale mythology of car ownership has little to do with the reality.
I'm probably one of the most financially disciplined people you'll ever run across
Good for you. Pat on the head from someone else who's never carried debt. That also makes you (and I) lucky, in addition to disciplined, for never starting in or being forced into debt by external forces. When you start out poor, then have unexpected medical expenses, or want to keep your family off the streets for a short while after losing your job, even a "financially disciplined" person can end up in debt.
Anyway, the ability of a poor person to afford even a cheaper-than-$3k TV is, in my opinion, an exceedingly poor tradeoff for the life that a rich person had in the pre-TV era. Being rich --- never living in fear of being one paycheck or medical mishap away from losing your home; never being cowed into submission by an abusive employer who has you by the balls of threatened unemployment; ability to decide how you'll spend just about every minute of your own time; access to educational, recreational, travel opportunities; knowing your kids have a solid start and the best preparation to rise to their potential --- so many things make being a car-less, TV-less rich guy immensely preferable to today's "so well off" poor with a car and a TV.
Something tells me that you self identify as liberal, progressive, and tolerant. However your statements have already thrown out all except the first one.
I self identify more as left-anarchist, but specific labels are tricky things (rarely providing more illumination than confusion). You're right, I'm openly intolerant of people who want to increase inequality and wealth disparity, to dick over the poor for the benefit of the rich. I'm intolerant of people selling techno-fetishism and shiny baubles as a replacement for freedom.
there's also the cost, the time, the inconvenience, and the fact that being at home is far more comfortable
The original comparison you made was a rich person "back in the day" vs. a poor person today. A rich person isn't troubled by the cost; has plenty of time for their own leisure; and doesn't get tickets to the inconvenient/uncomfortable seats in the theater. Being chauffeured by carriage directly to your private box, with a meal and drinks waiting, doesn't sound like such a bad deal versus watching TV from home. Your reasons for not liking plays seem to primarily stem from not being rich (so you'd get stuck in the peons' line for crappy seats) --- yet you think ye-olde-richguy should be jealous of you (or, rather, someone even poorer than you).
Yes, you've got video games today --- a person from 100 years ago would probably be baffled why you like spending your time that way. You're likely to develop tastes for whatever you grow up with: so videogames versus plays/books/actually-going-out-and-doing-stuff isn't a "win" for technology, merely a "sideways" move from one person's accustomed tastes to anothers'. You don't have it "better" in your time than someone else had in theirs; you just prefer the things in your time, and they prefer the things in theirs. Some human desires, however, are more universal: and to be more free and autonomous and self-actualized (far more available to the rich in any era than the poor today) is not something I'd trade for a few extra inches of TV diagonal.
Consumers will never get anything here except screwed.
Except for what the consumers are already getting. First of all "BIG" data is only worthwhile in BIG chunks. Your 'chunk' of data isn't big enough, just a drop of water in the pail. It isn't really worth money.
But it is worth goods and services. Because that is what they have been offering you for your data. A lot of people claim you are the product not the consumer for Facebook. And yet Facebook is offering you a service, for you be their product. It might not be a service you like or care for, but many people do find a use for it. And they get it for "free," well paying for it with their data.
We came to ASUS' Computex booth to see the new 4K monitors, but it turns out the company had a lot of other (albeit slightly less exciting) models on display too. First up (starting with the stuff you can actually buy), the company is showing off a 15-inch USB-powered monitor -- a first for ASUS. In fact, the company has teased this guy before, but with a lower-res 1,366 x 768 display. Now, we're told a 1080p version is also on the way, with the 1,366 x 768 one coming in July for $159, and the full HD model shipping in August for around $209. Either way, you get a matte, anti-glare panel, and the whole thing weighs in at less than 800g (1.8 pounds). And, as is customary for monitors like this, it comes with a carrying case that doubles as a stand.
Moving on, we saw two touchscreen monitors (one 19.5 inches, the other 23.6), both of which have 1080p screens -- and some fairly thick bezels. The big differences, so far as we can tell, are that the bigger version has an HDMI panel and IPS, whereas the smaller guy makes do with a lowlier TN panel. No word on price, or even whether this will go on sale in the US, though an ASUS rep did confirm it'll reach select markets sometime in Q4. Wrapping up, ASUS also outed a tri-panel gaming setup, with three 27-inch, 1080p IPS displays. In particular, the company is touting the skinny bezels. Are they skinny enough not to distract gamers, though? Check out our hands-on photos and judge for yourself.
ASUS cannot get enough of Computex, and today its PC gaming arm is rolling out some high powered new kit. This is the Poseidon Formula 1, housing the apex of ROG's gaming hardware know-how and brandishing its new Poseidon GTX 700 series GPU. It pairs NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 700 graphics series with a hybrid cooling system, with ASUS' CoolTech combing blower and axial fans into one design, forcing air over the heatsink in multiple directions. Augmenting this is a liquid cooling that ROG promises can reduce operating temperatures by up to 31 degrees Celsius, likely ensuring some impressive overclocking feats. The system is built upon ROG's new Maximus VI motherboard that packes even more thermal cooling assistance and the company's SupremeFX audio card which will give gamers 120dB headphone output with a 600 Ohm headphone amplifier to improve volume and clarity. If you're looking for more technical specifics, check out the slide show below.
Gallery: ASUS ROG Poseidon GFX and Formula 1
I'm just surprised because a brushed motor, which I was assuming this was, acts as a feeble arc gap under normal operation; but presumably had to pass regulatory muster when first manufactured, as well as remaining efficient enough to keep the fridge running, within the power budget provided by a domestic breaker while also putting out enough RF noise to escape(usually sealed to keep the refrigerant in) coolant loop and disrupt the cell towers.
I would have expected one perturbed enough to be a regulatory issue to have popped a breaker, caught fire, or just stopped cooling beer before getting to that point.
Just a hint at how much RF you need - your cellphone (GSM) typically has a 1W transmitter. Usually, it operates at less than 250mW, and most will probably never ever exceed 500mW. That's all it takes to contact the tower.
Hell, hams have been able to hit their local repeaters with handhelds that rarely go above 5W, and most cell towers are lot closer. It doesn't take a lot of power to flood the receiver of the tower.
Anyhow, a 240V 13A socket provides over 3kW of power. The fridge motor really only needs under 1kW. A bad motor can easily drag in another 1kW and still not pop the breaker.
All one really needs to do is to enclose the motor in some fine mesh which shields the spark gap
And modern day ITU regulations prohibit operation of a spark gap transmitter because they are very wideband and interfere with lots of communications. This actually proved to be a problem when they wanted to resurrect the transmitters similar to the kind used on the Titanic - the required huge faraday cages to minimize interference.
I see the point, it just seems like the article makes it sound like his fridge isn't really malfunctioning; rather it's just really old and happens to blast out interference. It seems to be similar to older microwaves and cordless phones that can interfere with the 2.4Hrtz frequency.
liberals like giving other people's money to everyone, conservatives like giving other peoples money to their friends
I was more or less with this AC until the last sentence:
I can't imagine anything that must interest Page less than geopolitics.
**of course** one of the richest most powerful men in the world is interested in geopolitics. He makes decisions that are almost *above* traditional nation/state 'sphere of influence' type geopolitics.
One word: China
Because, you know, Google's business decisions there are the very definition of geopolitical decisions.
AC is a troll. Trollbots and paid commenters are **all over** anything with Schmidt or Cohen. I posted previously about Eric Schmidt and his harmful incompetence and it was a shtistorm.
Cohen is just as bad as Schmidt. He's one of those secretly trying to gather all the world's data into a supercomputer to spur the next step in human evolution or live forever or w/e and he doesn't care who gets in his way...
That or he's just willing to sell your privacy as a commodity...point is he's ethically compromised.
Seriously a substantial number of comments on these topics represent bots or paid commenters. Take heed!
It's probably my favourite movie. Unfortunately the definitive version doesn't exist. At least, the best version isn't the best it could have been, for they inexplicably changed one word in a key scene that completely changed the tone of that scene. The Final Cut is the best one to see. Even better if you could see my copy where I've replaced the audio data for that line with the data that contains the original line.
Married, twice (1); divorced, twice(2). If online dating results are as stable and satisfying as those IRL, forget it.
Maybe I should try another tack?...
5'8" Male. Geek. Grown children. Looking for a...
In slashdot? Aw shucks! Forget it! Probably I will get a dog posing as girl...
For the curious: married (1) five years and (2) eighteen years
G'day Mr. DeathElk, I welcome your suggestion. And if the Light Horse could scrape up the courage to charge Beersheba under Turkish guns, I think I'll be able to find the courage to try Vegemite as you suggest. Cheers!
Say that to Amazon. After they started using their own data, they disbanded their entire staff of experts for recommendations. The computer algorithms were giving three times more sales and costing a fraction of the price of the salaries of the experts.
Say that to Google. When they made their translate program, they didn't use experts but used web-pages to learn translation. Or the auto-completion of queries. Or even pagerank itself.
Unscientific sampling? Big data is about the opposite of sampling. Sampling is a subset of big data. Before, statistics was hypothesis testing but big data is about lots and lots of automated hypothesis testing. The mathematics and statistics is basically the same. Why can't data be assumed to be normally distributed? If you have big data, you can just plot the damn thing or measure how close to normal it is. You know what the cure for analyzing data that is not independent is, yes more data for more complex tests across groups.
In fact, big data has shown to be a better predictor than experts in many fields. See Amazon's voice, IBM Watson and google translate. The limitations of big data is the same as for the conventional hypothesis testing and probably it's being conducted by statistically illiterate CS people.
Very few Americans want anything like a police state.
Most Americans, hell, most people in the world, want most of the things that go into a police state. They all want someone else's email to be monitored, they want someone else stopped and searched because that person looks suspicious, they want the police and government bureaucrats all up in the other person's business. Oh, but they want freedom... for themselves... and the only way to maintain those freedoms is to keep everyone else closely monitored and controlled...
and the cognitive dissonance never kicks in. Welcome to planet Earth. Please enjoy your stay.
online dating has as much chance of long term success as picking up a drunk chick in a bar?
I really WANTED to like GRASS.
The underlying technology, however, is the essence of the game. It's what tells us how mario moves compared to sonic or y metroid cant crawl.
Well not really. Looking at just mario and sonic. What is really different between the two? Ignore the maps, and levels. The biggest difference is that sonic can speed up in certain scenarios. Other than a few other minor difference (super mario can swim, shoot fireballs, and fly in some games) you could achieve both games using the same engine. Yes, you might have to tweak some of the parameters. But it isn't the engine that sets the two apart, it is the game play and the artwork. Setting, graphics, and writing is definitely gameplay. The fact that mario can fly or swim isn't based on the engine. The fact that sonic can go fast, or explodes into rings when he dies, isn't based on the engine (well the engine has to support his speed)
Just look at the games that come from the same engine, and notice how different the game play is.
The two most likely options I see here:
This is a last grab at profiting from this before the old guard transfers it on or it eventually leaves Hollywoods grasp.
Or Ridley and his pals just want to revisit old nostalgic memories as much as we do. But for them thats more making the film, not watching it.
All good universes are full of separate self contained stories simultaneously happening. Some so loosely connected you may not even recognize the universe.
There is an opportunity here if the writers can work with this parallelism. And it even works in time scales. Depending on how well built the universe was.
Blade Runner was a great universe and was left simple and straightforward enough to not have horrible illogical inconsistencies throughout. There are lots of blank pages left in it that could be filled without muddying the waters.
But I honestly don't know. Just my hunches here.
Thanks for helping to correct an erroneous belief I had of Bernoulli's principle. Not that he was wrong or anything just that the way in which it was taught to me.
If you're looking at this "air compression" and the wing pushing the air down as your new understanding of Bernoulli's principle, then you're worse off than you were before.
Bernoulli's principle is that air that is moving perpendicular to a surface exerts less pressure on that surface than static air, and the faster it moves the less pressure it exerts. A wing with a positive angle of attack has air moving over the upper surface faster than the air moves over the lower surface. That means there is less air pressure on the upper surface than on the lower surface. The result is
As a reaction, the wing pulls down on the air over it. This PULLS the air down at the back end of the wing, and it is this pressure differential that creates wingtip vortices.
There is a small region near the ground where the compressibility of the air plays a large role, and this is called "ground effect." Once you are more than a wing-length or so above ground, Bernoulli takes over and compression of air isn't the cause of the lift.
If you want an example of the principle, take a strip of light paper, maybe 1 inch wide by 6 inches long. Blow over the top surface and the paper should rise. You may have to help it get close enough to the airstream for the laminar flow to attach, so hold the paper up to start with. THAT's Bernoulli's principle. There is no compressed air involved other than in your lungs. No air being pushed down. Just a low pressure zone on top of the paper due to the perpendicular velocity. If you want to completely rule out air moving under the paper, glue the end of the paper to the bottom side of a straw, on just enough of the straw to hold the paper. Blow through the straw. The only moving air will be over the top of the paper.
Had a okay day want to living up come to this site and get your laugh on wih plenty of silly pictures ( http://funnypictureswithcaptions.pw/)
but, but, but... I'm guessing you don't really go for the FOSS idea much do you (at least the F part of it).
You seem to be suggesting that people should are mainly responsible for themselves and should focus more on giving away their own stuff than somebody else's. I once read something about liberals being very generous with other people's money. Are you suggesting that is not an ideal we should strive for?
I dunno. From what I've observed, whenever people have ideas about doing cool stuff like with robots and home automation and whatnot, they find out about all the shit they have to learn (including the stuff that's not necessarily fun, but necessarily to do what's required). Since most people are only interested in the outcome rather than the journey, given most people have not that much free time anyway (and especially given the amount of failure it takes before something even moderately cool MAY eventuate after a lot of toil and effort)... eventually the person's enthusiasm quickly disappears and they go back to gaming - which provides instant reward for one's actions, even if it's superficial.
I may or may not be talking about myself here...
90% hidden job market
Yeah, I was watching an article where 1/100 houses in certain provinces of Canada are grow-ops. Pays quite well.
100% networking - Do you think the fall of RIM and Nortel is a coincidence???
You say this like its a bad thing
Racism - Oh, not open, not so obvious, but it is there, hidden in their "communities"...
hmm, what are the incarceration rates for blacks and other minorities in the USA when compared to those for whites? No, it's not because they commit more crimes, it's because they are incarcerated at higher rates. In a sense it's not racism, it's more classism as poor whites suffer almost as much as minorities. However, minorities are poor due to long-standing socioeconomic disadvantages.
Health Care? Really? Man, even Zimbabwe's health care is better and less expensive. Unless you happen to have a nice government job, paid with tax money, and covering EVERYTHING (something impossible to have in any private company), once you have anything more serious than flu, you will see the differences.
Utter bullshit. I've seen documentaries and sincere testimonials from people including here on slashdot noting how much better on average Canadian health care is than that in the US. The only ones better off in the US are those of us able to be sponsored into luxurious health care due to being wage slaves to a large corporate entity which needs degreed workers. The ones who complain about Canada's health care system are probably shills for the US health care industry, or the semi-rich in Canada who can't believe they have to stand in line behind the unwashed masses.
Public services? Again, don't make me laugh, do you know the only one big city in North America that DOES NOT have train/subway connection between its main airport and the downtown? (let me help you, Toronto)
You picked on the wrong person to come at with your fibs pal, you didn't read my nick? losfromla, LA, Los Angeles, get it stupid? Does LAX ring a bell with you Mr World Traveler?
Garbage collectors.....Do you know of any other country of the world where you need to be at least a senator or relative in order to land a garbage collector job!!!
perhaps their garbage collector jobs are like our Teamster jobs? $120K per year for a high school dropout with some 20 years experience at Teamster (ass scratching being the main skill developed).
Taxes......with one single stroke Canada manage to increase the inflation with 5%, by charging all the goods from 8 to 13%. Amazing. I just wonder why the interest did not jump with 5% too....
That's nothing and also amateurish. Our masters simply create more money, thus devaluing our existing and future earned dollars with most of us apparently not caring since it's nothing so obvious as a 50% increase in the tax rate. Too obvious, they need a "Federal Reserve" so they can do fancy stuff like our government.
Taxes....again.....if you happen to earn more than 70k the big axe will cut at least two legs or arms. In US it is about 250k. Wow, amazing, ain't so?
The only thing wrong with our tax rates in the US is that they don't take increasingly larger chunks of higher earning corporations and executives. My feeling is that anyone making over a million in wages, stock options, benefits, etc should be taxed at a 90% tax rate, maybe up to 95%. The problem you see is that we have a strong wealth redistribution system with our "capitalistic" economy, wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich.
The benefit of meeting online is that you're pretty much forced to talk, and talk, and talk. It's not like you can take them to a movie and then then make out in the back of the car - instead you'll have to show them that you're a likeable person they would like to spend more time with. On the other hand, the guy you ran into in the coffee-shop who ask you out to see a movie may be the biggest creep in modern history
Ya. Now if only there were a way to meet and talk and talk and talk with a person face-to-face, in-real-life, instead of *having* to go to a movie and then make out in the car...
TL:DR; Online dating works because you must talk and reveal yourself to the other before meeting.
IRL dating works because you must talk and reveal yourself to the other *during* the meeting.
As for me, I met my wife in 1985 (when I was 22 and she 41) when I helped her to set up her new home (after she separated from her second husband). After a few days, she offered to pay me for all my work and I suggested she take me out to dinner instead. We were together for 20.5 years before she died in 2006 of a brain tumor - just seven weeks after diagnosis. (I haven't dated anyone since.) Remember Sue...
"You stay here, Audrey -- this is between me and the vegetable!" -- Seymour, from _Little Shop Of Horrors_