 | | Re: Judge Kotelly Admits Error, Will Create New Ruling with Judge Jackson
|
|
(...) I know what day it is, read what I wrote at the bottom of the post :-) -Tim (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Judge Kotelly Admits Error, Will Create New Ruling with Judge Jackson
|
|
(...) What day is it? (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Judge Kotelly Admits Error, Will Create New Ruling with Judge Jackson
|
|
Just read this.... wow. (URL) from the page above) April 1, 2003 BROADCAST TRANSCRIPT: "U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who oversaw the settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice, issued a formal statement to the (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | serious vulnerability present. all doomed. over.
|
|
This was funny, coming from a well respected moderated vulnerability list :) FUT to off-topic.debate, if you want to talk about the contents :) ----- Forwarded message from "Security Experts, Liability Limited" <throwaway@dione.ids.pl> ----- (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On a scale of 0 to 10?
|
|
(...) I don't see an easy way to do this. I tried substituting x=e^B Then I get a polynomial of degree 5. Only the positive roots lead to real values of B. (since e^any real number > 0) This is solvable, but very difficult to do by hand, especially (...) (22 years ago, 28-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Geek Hierarchy
|
|
(...) Hey, where are the toy-collecting geeks on this thing? I feel so underrepresented! :) Hilarious. -jeremiah- (22 years ago, 27-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Geek Hierarchy
|
|
Posted without further comment... (URL) (22 years ago, 27-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Retina scanner?
|
|
You do realise that that 'retina' scanner on CLSOTW is actually just photographing the cornea, not the retina, don't you? Jason Railton (22 years ago, 26-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On a scale of 0 to 10?
|
|
(...) aHA! Much oblige! I now get (approx): s = 5.39 * e^(2.625q) - 0.39 Whew. Of course, now here's a totally different question. In order to get that point, I cheated. I couldn't solve: e^(B/4) + e^(-B) = 2 using algebra, but using other means, I (...) (22 years ago, 26-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On a scale of 0 to 10?
|
|
Hi all. The reason the equation is unsolvable is because B is an unneeded constant. Why? A*e^(q+B)=A*(e^q)*(e^B) It is impossible to distinquish between A & e^B. What you need to solve is an equation of the form s=A*exp(B*q) + C This is the form of (...) (22 years ago, 26-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On a scale of 0 to 10?
|
|
(...) Oh yeah! (...) Oh... yeah. (...) Hm. Double checked the math-- it appears solid [1], which would mean that there's no viable solution for: s = Ae^(q + B) + C for coordinates (-1,0), (0,5), (0.25,10). Darn. Hm. I guess that also means that any (...) (22 years ago, 26-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On a scale of 0 to 10?
|
|
(...) *snip* (...) summed exponents like that can be re-written in this way: e^B * e^.25 + e^B * e^-1 = 2e^B (e^.25 + e^-1) * e^B = 2e^B Uh oh. Divide both sides by e^B and we've got (e^.25 + e^-1) = 2 1.652 = 2 Which ain't right. I think your math (...) (22 years ago, 26-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On a scale of 0 to 10?
|
|
(...) Thought about that... If necessary I guess, but I'm pretty sure there's a way to do it. I think what I need is: s = Ae^(q + B) + C And at the moment, I've solved: C = -Ae^(B - 1) A = 10 / (e^(B + .25) - e^(B - 1)) And I'm scratching my head (...) (22 years ago, 26-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On a scale of 0 to 10?
|
|
(...) How about a double-linear solution? from -1 to 0, translate linearly from 0 to 5. From 0 to .25, translate linearly from 5 to 10. You won't have a single equation, but that seems to accomplish what you want, right? Adrian (22 years ago, 26-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | On a scale of 0 to 10?
|
|
I've got a function that represents a quality rating, based on 2 parameters, which are on a scale of 0 to 1: (d-k)*k => quality (q) Notice that this yields a sort of wacky result, insofar as the quality can vary between -1 and 0.25, not -1 and 1 or (...) (22 years ago, 26-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Website move
|
|
(...) The domain name is the fully qualified host name. If you need DNS to look it up, it's a domain name - the "host" in the RFC. That's what it's a "Domain Name Service" :) Anything after the / is part of the path, as defined in the HTTP RFC (...) (22 years ago, 26-Mar-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) ROFL. I'm sorry, I can't reply in kind. My brain is too fogged. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) you mean $puctuation++ > ! $puctuation ? $goodness++ : $goodness-- ; ? (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: connect four
|
|
(...) This interested me for a while-- I wrote a recursive program once that would look X ply into the game, though because I never stored state information, it took ridiculously exponentially longer with each value of X. Something like 6 ply was (...) (22 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Access Help
|
|
James & All, (...) Yes, I have a total query, where it is running a sum of all the data from a date range (say 1/1/02 to 12/31/02 or whatever). The value I am trying to evaluate is a calculated sum of various percentages of our recovery numbers, in (...) (22 years ago, 7-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
