it had just been raining cats and dogs (cat only variant)

This is a variant of Phil Spector's 'Wall of sound'

You asked Ulysses a question and he answered it. Stale humour, he did not find it funny. Curiousity sated.

You escalated from there.

Perhaps offended was the wrong word, but you seem driven to prove that non feminists, particularly the male variant, seem to be colourblind to Schuler's humour, it's something they can't possibly find funny because their attitude or lack of understanding blocks out the spectrum where the funny wavelength is in this particular comedic light source. Basically any other reason than a good old fashioned, totally subjective "I didn't find that funny".

This is Texas Hold 'em, and it's only ever played with one deck. The entire point of texas hold 'em is that a good player can calculate the statistical probability of what he has versus what the other players have, because they can all see the community cards.

If you introduce a second deck, it would completely mess up all those statistics. It's possible there are multiple deck variants of poker, but this certainly isn't one of them.

Tournament poker is always played with one deck at a time.

Guys, this ain't so hard...
You're a racist when you assign more or less value as a human being to people of a certain race (ethnical group) than you assign to yourself because of their ethnicity. There's a difference between saying "Stalin is less worth than M.L. King" (personal opinion) and "white people are worth less than blacks". The latter would be racism.
Prejudice is when you have opinions about people before knowing the facts about them.
Walking up to Mike Tyson and saying "You must have a giant cock because all black men are giants" is a prejudice that may be racist but it assigns positive values. Sure, it's offensive, like telling asian people they must be great at math, but somewhat forgivable. You're an ignorant cunt, yeah, but at least you said something flattering. You racist.
Walking up to Mike and telling him "All black men are criminals" is not only prejudice but also racist. Why? Because calling somebody a criminal is a negative judgement. A generalized negative prejudice towards an ethnic group is a racist way of thinking. Mike was convicted for raping his girlfriend. He is a criminal. Not all black men are Tyson. And if they were, I'd prefer the science variant. You're plain wrong.
Now saying "I bet all black people like listening to R'nB music" is just prejudice. There's no judgement here. Right? Unless you consider "he listens to R'n'B" an insult. How about "all polish people love ice cream"? Did you just imply polish people are all fat?
The difference between prejudice and racist prejudice lies entirely in subtext and context. It's not what you say, it's what you mean.
Prejudice is a tightrope made of blurry lines spanning over a pit of outrage. That's why politicians should not walk that way.
Being aware of differences between race, ethnic groups and talking about is simply being hones and probably not giving a shit about political correctness. We ARE different. That's the interesting part.
What we sadly forget is this: to focus on what we have in common. But somebody already said that way more eloquent than I ever could:
"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us,
do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.

My family owns and operates a farm, wheat and corn, in Kansas. We use Roundup herbicides sometimes.

Specifically, there is a GMO variant of field corn called "Roundup Ready" where the corn is genetically resistant to the herbicide. Plant a field of that corn, then after it emerges but well before harvesting (obviously) spray it with Roundup, diluted to an appropriate level. All of the pest plants in the field die. The corn looks a little wilted / harried for a few days after spraying, but bounces back and grows out just fine.

We use that specific kind (Roundup Ready) about 1 year out of every 4 or 5, only when pest plants are starting to become an issue. They'd love to sell it to farmers every year, but most only rotate it in when necessary, just like us, and use a small amount of normal seed (not GMO, just some of the normal corn we harvest) held in reserve from previous year(s) in the other years.

Before Roundup (and other major herbicides and pesticides), pest plants could be a major problem. From what my family says, corn can cross-pollinate or do some kind of hybridization with other crops like milo or sorghum or something, which results in a sterile cane-stalk plant like corn that produces no actual grain. Back 20+ years ago, that was a fairly major problem ... but it is very easily controlled nowadays with herbicides, and Roundup in particular.

Pure, concentrated Roundup is pretty nasty stuff. Then again, farmers still use or have used a lot of much nastier stuff during normal farm operations, like Malathion being sprinkled into grain bins to kill off insects and other small pests. I wouldn't want to chug down a glass full of any of that crap, BUT on the other hand I think we're way better as the human race off WITH all these things being used to control what can be or have been significantly damaging pests than how things would be WITHOUT them. Not to mention that all of these things are used in very very trace amounts compared to the actual amount of food produced itself, and usually a *really* long time before it becomes food. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to detect any of them in the parts-per-multi-multi-billion scale by them time we eat them.


...That being said, the dude walked right in to this one. If his message was "this stuff is 100% safe and beneficial if used properly", I'd actually 100% agree with him. But when he's trying to oversell it by saying that it is perfectly safe to drink a glass of it ... of course somebody is going to call his bluff. Duh.

Sure, but with the latest Chromebook Pixel being USB-C, Google hinted that the next Nexus would also be USB-C.

USB-C is pretty cool, actually, so it doesn't bother me that much (already been from proprietary->mini USB->micro USB as far as chargers go anyway, plus custom variants of MHL ports). I'm looking forward to this all being standardised and approve of Apple going for a non-Apple proprietary port for once.

Your PDF source:
- I cannot find the list of 'climate models' constantly referred to, without a clear identification of what models he's referring to, any argument relating to those models is completely besides the point. How can i fact check that? This should be VERY clearly covered early on, it's the most basic of introduction to your work.
- Top of page 3, unscientific jab at a previous scientist's contribution. Can we stick to scientific arguments please?
- What, no uncertainties? Am i in pre-school? How do i know he hasn't taken the top uncertainty of every model and the bottom uncertainty of every real measurement? These graphs are absolute dog shit.
- Figure 3 - no decent scientist would put an arrow pointing to "subsequent reality" in contrast to the models. That arrow points to the lowest point of a highly variant series of data points, and statistically speaking is fucking worthless (technical term). Plot a trend of the data, this is basic stuff.
- Figure 4 - see previous point, by eye the trend of the data would sit nicely near the conservative estimate made in 1990. If i could see the uncertainties (see previous point) i would know how reasonable this lower estimate was. Without it, i only have the arrow pointing to the lowest point of a highly variant series of data points, which distractingly exaggerates the difference.
- Figure 5 - again referencing "all climate models" which are not specified. Even if i assume this person is telling the truth, how can i check it?

Now i'm going to single this one out, because i'm particularly annoyed by this:

- Figure 6 - DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A KEY TO SHOW WHAT THE COLOURS MEAN - there is no explanation whatsoever, merely a talk of hotspots and how there isn't one...... and furthermore the source of what he calls the 'real data' links to nothing, and unless i'm mistaken, he blames the scarcity of the source on the government.

Trance.......... you are not applying the correct critical review process. This is absolute hogwash, and is totally unprofessional, and i am not surprised it is not published - i checked for you, btw.

What is the description even talking about? Beat off means the same thing in both variants of the language... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS_yzpYhvyc

Somehow, I see a remake of "Survivorman: Australia Outback" with the roasted Witchety bug being augmented by all the roasted emu Les Stroud can eat...using some variant of this technique

Since the CPU's were different (z80 based vs 6502 based) you can't really just compare speed by comparing clock rates... and it also doesn't take into account the PAL vs NTSC variants of the NES/Famicon.

I just read the specs on this machine over at Wikipedia. Pretty impressive. Range 400km with 7 passengers (though the one in this video seems to be a crop service variant).

compression is fascinating. i used to work for a mobile phone OS company where i modified the language variant compiler to compress files based on a premade dictionary of words which were common over the whole software - it cut down the ROM size by many megabytes (which was a big deal back then). You could cut the amount of traffic on the internet by having a dictonary of common cats stored in the image decoder.

You are thinking about QAM, Quadrature Amplitude Modulation. Thats an interesting question because QAM essentially produces the same results that the prof talks about in this video. By using interesting ways to change the beat and phase of a single carrier, one can represent a whole array of numbers greater than just a 1 or a zero with a single pulse, case in point.

In QAM, lets just use the easy example of QAM, QPSK (4QAM), where there are 4 possible binary positions for any given 'carrier' signal at a known frequency.

By shifting both phase and amplitude, you can get a 0, 1, 2 or 3, where each position represents a power of 2, up to a total value of 16 unique numbers.

Rather than just a 0 or a 1, you can have 0 through to 15. However doing this requires both a timeslot, and a known carrier window.

The fastest the QAM transmitter can encode onto a carrier is limited by the nyquist rate, that is, less than half the frequency which the receiver can sample at its fastest rate (on the remote end). As you increase the speed of the encoding, you also increase the error rate, and introduce more noise into the base carrier signal, in turn, reducing your effective available bandwidth.

So it then becomes a balancing act, do I want to encode faster, or do I want to increase my constellation density? The obvious answer is the one we went with, increase in constellation density.

There are much more dense variants, I think the highest ive heard of was 1024 QAM, where a single carrier of 8MHz wide could represent 1024 bits (1,050,625 unique values for a given 'pulse' within a carrier).

I actually had a lot more typed out here, but the maths that goes into this gets very ugly, and you have to account for noise products that are introduced as you increase both your transmission speed, and your receiver sensitivty, thus lowering your SNR, reducing your effective bandwidth for a given QAM scheme.

So rather than bore you with the details, the Shannon Hartley theorem is the hard wired physical limitation.

Think of it as an asymptote, that QAM is one method of trying to milk the available space of.

You can send encoded pulses very fast, but you are limited by nyquist, and your receivers ability to determine noise from signal.

The faster you encode, the more noise, the less effective bandwidth....and so begins the ritule of increasing constellation density, and receivers that can decode them....etc....

There is also the aspect of having carriers too close to one another that you must consider. If you do not have enough of a dead band between your receivers cut off for top end, and the NEXT carrier alongs cutoff for deadband at its LOW end, you can induce what is known as a heterodyne. These are nasty, especially so when talking about fibre, as the wavelengths used can cause a WIDE BAND noise product that results in your effective RF noise floor to jump SUBSTANTIALLY, destroying your entire network in the process.

So not only can you not have a contiguous RF bandwidth of carriers, one directly after another...if you try and get them close, you end up ruining everyones day.

I am sure there will be newer more fancy ways to fill that spectrum with useable numbers, but I seriously doubt they will ever go faster than the limit I proposed earlier (unless they can get better SNR, again that was just a stab in the dark).

It gives you a good idea of how it works though.

If you want to read more on this, I suggest checking wikipedia for the following;

Shannon Hartley theorem.
Nyquist Rate
Quadrature Phase Shift Key
Quadrature Amplitude Modulation
Fibre Optic Communication Wavelengths
Stimulated Brillouin Scattering
Ebrium Doped Fibre Amplifiers