HN user
The game clock is one of the more common rules that tends to warp gameplay in this way, with teams that are ahead trying to avoid play and run out the clock rather than continue to engage in the contest. The other team, meanwhile, resorts to increasingly desperate tactics like pulling the goalie, intentionally committing fouls, or laterals and trying for the onside kick.
I don't know if your situation allows you to run off Local Cache, but that made a big difference for us in terms of stability with regard to Azure storage resets.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/app-service/app-servi...
The "best and brightest" visa is the O-1. The H-1B visa is a "specialty occupation" visa, defined roughly as an occupation that requires a Bachelor's degree in a particular field of study.
Agreed; having something like this tied to your GPS would be a great service. It would also be useful to quickly know the time the spot becomes illegal again.
I can imagine, too, this would be incredibly useful if self-driving cars ever become a reality (or in helping them become a reality). After one drops you off at the show downtown, it could then check for nearby parking. But maybe this is dreaming too far down the road...
Does any know whether "Chrome" signifies the browser or the OS? Everyone here seems to assume the browser, but my first thought was that it referred to the new OS since I was reading just yesterday that you will be able to read the NY Times offline on there. Also, when I opened the link in Opera it asked me if I wanted to let the site store 10mb of data, which I assumed related to that feature.
The bill is HR 2200. It passed the House on 6/4/09 by a vote of 397-25. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02200:@@@R
I was under the impression that last June (2009) the House voted 310-118 to add an amendment (the Chaffetz amendment) to a bill to ban the scanners as a primary means of screening, but that the Senate never voted on the bill. It seems to me that such a bill would have popular support - supposedly it was backed by both the ACLU and the NRA - but maybe I am understanding the politics wrong.
What percentage of apps are spam? If it is a rather large percentage, it seems like Apple has an incentive to keep them around so that they can advertise they have x thousands of apps. But maybe it is not that large.
Probably the least sophisticated way is to buy shares in an inverse ETF. There are a couple bear market ETFs that target Chinese indexes (FXP and CZI). (I'm not endorsing anything here; please understand whatever you invest in before doing so.)
Nobody has the right to assemble on someone else's private property. Moreover, even with public property, the right to peacefully assemble seems to be not without restraint. For instance, the courts have upheld laws creating "buffer zones" for abortion clinic protests. Likewise, a lot of cities require you to get a permit for demonstration purposes.
Except that "how well they'll stack up" with Apple isn't measured in profit; it's measured in sales or market share. While the Xbox might not yet be net profitable, it does have enough market share to claim that it stacks up with its competition. I'm not saying the Courier will be competitive, but I hardly think you can, a priori, write Microsoft off in this market.
Presumably the goal isn't reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but maintaining global temperatures, in which case possible solutions do pull in many different directions...
But anyway, that misses the point. The wager isn't cost-benefit analysis where probabilities and expected values are certain; it's decision making in the absence of compelling evidence. What you have essentially done is respond to the multiple claimants problem by saying, "But any form of belief in the Christian God pulls in more or less the same direction." In the uncertainty that the wager confronts, however, "reducing CO2 emissions" and "increasing CO2 emissions" have the same expected value - that is, they are equal claimants. Hence my point that the multiple claimants problem is equally devastating when the wager is applied to global warming.
The most devastating problem to Pascal's wager, in my opinion, is the many claimants problem - the idea being, "Which god?" The one whose favorite number is 1? 2? 3? etc... I think the same problem will ultimately be devastating to any attempt to apply it to global warming. Which solution? We only have finite resources. Do we build a giant solar shade or do we implement a cap-and-trade solution? There are perhaps an infinite number of possible solutions, each a claimant upon our wager.
Being as my desktop at home still runs Windows 2000, I used to assume this was the case as well. But the OS/browser stats on w3schools, at least, show only 1% usage of W2K as compared to 14% IE6 usage, which, if my math is right, seems to mean that a large number of IE6 users are on XP.
But determining what is "significant" is editorializing...
I agree with you, but I think Aristotle's conception of man as a political animal all the more perceives contradiction in the quote, "I want to be human again. Even if that means isolating myself from the rest of you humans." Whereas we perhaps are inclined to see socializing as something good in its own right, Aristotle taught that the community of the city/polis has a higher aim: to fulfill the higher goal of man, to make men nobler, to make them more human.
For Aristotle, to be more virtuous was to be more human. Many virtues - patience, forgiveness, generosity, thankfulness, love, courage - are either best achieved, or only achieved, in community. Hence he reasoned that a full humanity requires a community, that therefore "man is a political animal".
I'm curious about what you mean by "recent". Aristotle considered man by nature a "political animal". Genesis states that "It is not good for man to be alone." To whom do you credit the idea that man is a "social animal"?
Are these major vendors considered culpable as well? I read the NY Times article and didn't see anything about that. It seems to me, though, that behavior like this could be stopped a lot earlier if those taking what are essentially bribes were held accountable as well.
I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention to refer to your summary as vapid; and I certainly see now how you read it that way. I would ammend my post to add "makes it to be" to the end of the last sentence. I meant that your summary represents the "finding" as completely vapid.
I do trust that the detail from the article you point out, that "the survey used deliberately avoided wording that suggested 'illegal' downloading", is true. (Though, I'd still be grateful if you wanted to provide a link to the original.) What I find to be off base is the logic of your interpretation ("In other words..."), which makes their finding out to be a mere tautology. If what you say in the first paragraph is true (which I believe it to be), I don't think what you said in the second paragraph follows from that for the reason I gave above.
It's not as bad as you make it sound. There is no way for your "shocking fact" to be true, since definitionally people who have never downloaded anything have never paid to download anything either (people that pay for a download and for some reason never complete it notwithstanding). The ratio, therefore, would really be undefined, rather than 10:1.
The real inference, given what you say about the original article, is that people who obtain music online, whether by means of purchase or not, are ten times more likely to obtain music by means of purchase than those who never obtain music online. Certainly not as perhaps interesting a finding as the title, but neither as vapid as your summary.
Your comparison of depopulation to "overpopulation in an already overpopulated world" is hardly just. Really you are comparing population decline with population growth, but with the latter in a very particular context in which it is known to be harmful. In contrast, nobody is concerned about population growth among polar bears (but many seem concerned about their potential depopulation).
Regardless, the concern of the article isn't even whether or not depopulation is bad; in fact it states: "In the modern era, population decline itself need not be a cause for acute economic alarm." Rather the concern is that Russia's depopulation is fueled by increases in illness and mortality. Just my personal opinion, but death and disease are bad things. The article claims that, furthermore, they are bad things for economic growth over the long term.
Agreed. A statement like "The truth is, no color actually exists outside of our brain's perception of it." flies in the face of the materialism that is so popular these days. It sounds, rather, a great deal like George Berkeley's idealism: Esse est percipi.
The research was done by Pew and was cooberated by similar surveys conducted by Gallup and Fox News. While I couldn't find anything on Pew's site, I'm sure all three work with the de facto 95% confidence level.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1107/polling-evolution-creationi...
I wonder if this could set up a new model for the Internet, one that would in some ways mirror cable TV. Most sites would still allow any ISP access since they don't have enough demand to have any bartering leverage with the ISPs (and even some that do like Amazon are interested in having as wide a base as possible). Sites like the NY Times, however, might be able to negotiate with the ISPs to license their content. This essentially gives them to ability to negotiate site membership at a much larger scale (and hopefully at a reduced per person rate). On the surface I agree that this does seem bad for consumer choice; however, if it meant the difference between having an NY Times and not having one, it could perhaps be argued otherwise. Of course, this model depends upon consumers having a choice of ISP in the first place.
The BG vs GB thing is difficult to understand. But easier to understand is that 50% of two child familes are mixed gender, while 50% are same gender. With 40 families having two children, 20 will have a boy and a girl, and 20 will have either two boys or two girls. Of the same gender familes, 50% (10) will be boy/boy and 50% (10) will be girl/girl. If you learn that a particular family has a daughter, then you know that family isn't one of the 10 families with two boys. This leaves 30 families, 20 of which (or 2/3) have one boy.
Likewise, for some reason the Monty Hall problem is hard to understand in three door form. But if you change the problem to 100 doors, and explain that Monty's assistant closes 98 bad doors, it's easier (at least for me) to see that the original guess had a 1/100 chance of being right, while the other door is 99/100 likely to be the right one.
And in particular with probability. It's amazing how difficult it is for people to fake random data.
If you ask half a class to actually perform and record 100 coin flips and half to fake the data, it's almost trivial to guess which is which either by looking for a string of 5-6 heads or tails in a row (which humans almost never have), or by calculating the percentage flips following a heads that are tails (which should be ~50%, but for humans tends to be much higher).
It seems likely that the information wasn't already public knowledge or the stock's price would have dropped in advance of the public statement. We've seen this year how fickle the markets can be to public "knowledge" such as when United declared bankruptcy or when Steve Jobs had a heart attack.
There are two assumptions you're making that may be invalid:
1) That the 100 stocks are picked at random
2) That studied (non-random) investments beat out index (random) investments
Even mutual funds are managed and carefully studied by financial institutions. And Warren Buffet, at least, seems to think that the S&P will outpeform the majority of hedge funds over a long period.
Several things about the tab interface bother me: - Double clicking on the tab bar to open a new tab just resizes the window because it's actually the title bar - There is no window menu icon in the top left, so double clicking there doesn't close the browser - Closing all tabs closes the application
It's certainly fast, though, and probably will supplant FireFox as my gmail browser. The tab switching animation is slick too. Definitely looking forward to how this develops. Seems more like a web application browser and less like a web page browser, which is obviously something Google needs to seriously attack Microsoft's desktop monopolies.
I'm amazed, too, how certain words I have "over-learned" to type. For instance, it's almost impossible for me to type the word "create" without adding a 'd' to the end unless I make a concious effort to avoid it. I also typed "amazing" in my first sentence before quickly backing out the "ing" (freudian slip of my ego?).
I wonder how this over-learning might be related to reading behavior. I'm sure we've all seen those sentences where the author transposes the middle characters of each word while leaving the first and last characters the same; the sentence is suprisingly not difficult to read. Maybe in the same way our brain has a "good-enough" pattern matching behavior while reading, it quickly recognizes the pattern of the word we're typing and says, "I know this one, I'll take it from here."