Sat 30 January 2010 1:56 AM
Mess
"A comprehensive overview of the structure of Civilization II savegames and scenarios._
Thu 28 January 2010 6:29 PM
Microsoft Hatred
Let me add this to the list of things I hate about Microsoft Office Access 2007.
Of course, the error message you get ("Microsoft jet database engine could not find object 'MonkeyFuck.dbf'") doesn't give you any good info about what Access's problem is, but instead complains about being unable to find the file that you just used the standard windows open file dialog to point it to.
Of course, the error message you get ("Microsoft jet database engine could not find object 'MonkeyFuck.dbf'") doesn't give you any good info about what Access's problem is, but instead complains about being unable to find the file that you just used the standard windows open file dialog to point it to.
Thu 28 January 2010 4:04 AM
Backmasking (or Laser Brains)
Where do these Christians get their delusions from? Not only is there no evidence that backmasking is perceived by the brain (whether subliminally or otherwise), but most metal explicitly makes reference to Satan, sex, drugs, and violence in its Jesusly front-masked version. What is the point of backmasking except to irritate the squares?
Sat 23 January 2010 11:27 PM
Hand Shapes
Can someone who knows how to do math, explain this concept of hand shapes to me? Why are there only 16 hand shapes out of the 16,432 distinct hands (regardless of suit).
---
The 270,725 starting hands can be reduced for purposes of determining the probability of starting hands for Omaha—since suits have no relative value in poker, many of these hands are identical in value before the flop. The only factors determining the strength of a starting hand are the ranks of the cards and whether cards in the hand share the same suit. Of the 270,725 combinations, there are 16,432 distinct starting hands grouped into 16 shapes. Throughout this article, hand shape is indicated with the ranks denoted using uppercase letters and suits denoted using lower case letters. For example, the hand shape XaXbYaYc is any hand containing two pair (XX and YY) that share one suit (a), but not the other suits (b and c). The 16 hand shapes can be organized into the following five hand types based on the ranks of the cards.
Rank type Shapes Distinct hands Combos Probability Odds
XXXX: Four of a kind 1 13 13 0.0000480 20,824 : 1
XXXY: Three of a kind 2 312 2,496 0.00922 107 : 1
XXYY: Two pair 3 234 2,808 0.0104 95.4 : 1
XXYZ: One pair 5 5,148 82,368 0.304 2.29 : 1
XYZR: No pair 5 10,725 183,040 0.676 0.479 : 1
TOTAL 16 16,432 270,725
---
The 270,725 starting hands can be reduced for purposes of determining the probability of starting hands for Omaha—since suits have no relative value in poker, many of these hands are identical in value before the flop. The only factors determining the strength of a starting hand are the ranks of the cards and whether cards in the hand share the same suit. Of the 270,725 combinations, there are 16,432 distinct starting hands grouped into 16 shapes. Throughout this article, hand shape is indicated with the ranks denoted using uppercase letters and suits denoted using lower case letters. For example, the hand shape XaXbYaYc is any hand containing two pair (XX and YY) that share one suit (a), but not the other suits (b and c). The 16 hand shapes can be organized into the following five hand types based on the ranks of the cards.
Rank type Shapes Distinct hands Combos Probability Odds
XXXX: Four of a kind 1 13 13 0.0000480 20,824 : 1
XXXY: Three of a kind 2 312 2,496 0.00922 107 : 1
XXYY: Two pair 3 234 2,808 0.0104 95.4 : 1
XXYZ: One pair 5 5,148 82,368 0.304 2.29 : 1
XYZR: No pair 5 10,725 183,040 0.676 0.479 : 1
TOTAL 16 16,432 270,725
Sat 23 January 2010 2:26 AM
Macroevolution
This is an expansion to item #2 from my New Year's eve rant.
Many theists are fond of saying "yeah, but that's microevolution. that's just adaptation. there's no evidence for macroevolution - of one species turning into another."
Oh really? Well, in fact, there is. It's called the fossil record. Evolutionary sequences for hominids, whales, and horses are three that I, a lowly non-professional science fan, can think of off the top of my head. The fossil evidence clearly shows changes over time with one species transitioning into another. There is also the world famous Galapagos finches.
However, implicit in the statement that there's no macroevolution is the assumption that there is some sort of genetic wall between species which allows them to vary within certain defined boundaries but not to evolve and thereby cross those boundaries. Not only is there positive evidence of evolutionary sequences that show transitional species, but what we are now discovering as we sequence genomes and unravel the puzzles of molecular biology is a complete lack of evidence for this suggested inter-species wall.
1. Metabolism - there are 3 or 4 metabolic pathways which are shared by all of life (glycolysis, anaerobic respiration (fermentation), the Krebs cycle). Archaeans, bacteria, trees, mushrooms, and humans all break down glucose the same way. There's not even a wall separating the disparate domains of life, let alone species within those domains.
2. Cytochrome C - this protein is used widely by animals and plants and the amino acid sequences for widely disparate species are remarkably similar. Humans and chimps have the same amino acid sequence for cytochrome c and their sequence differs with that of rhesus monkeys by only one amino acid.
Many theists are fond of saying "yeah, but that's microevolution. that's just adaptation. there's no evidence for macroevolution - of one species turning into another."
Oh really? Well, in fact, there is. It's called the fossil record. Evolutionary sequences for hominids, whales, and horses are three that I, a lowly non-professional science fan, can think of off the top of my head. The fossil evidence clearly shows changes over time with one species transitioning into another. There is also the world famous Galapagos finches.
However, implicit in the statement that there's no macroevolution is the assumption that there is some sort of genetic wall between species which allows them to vary within certain defined boundaries but not to evolve and thereby cross those boundaries. Not only is there positive evidence of evolutionary sequences that show transitional species, but what we are now discovering as we sequence genomes and unravel the puzzles of molecular biology is a complete lack of evidence for this suggested inter-species wall.
1. Metabolism - there are 3 or 4 metabolic pathways which are shared by all of life (glycolysis, anaerobic respiration (fermentation), the Krebs cycle). Archaeans, bacteria, trees, mushrooms, and humans all break down glucose the same way. There's not even a wall separating the disparate domains of life, let alone species within those domains.
2. Cytochrome C - this protein is used widely by animals and plants and the amino acid sequences for widely disparate species are remarkably similar. Humans and chimps have the same amino acid sequence for cytochrome c and their sequence differs with that of rhesus monkeys by only one amino acid.
Fri 8 January 2010 10:58 PM
Sorrow
I can't figure out why theists weep when their loved ones die unless they: a) know subconsciously that all their religious nonsense is just that and the person is actually dead or b) actually hate the person they're weeping for because they are so selfish as to prefer to keep the person here in a miserable sin-filled world of suffering and pain instead of in a state of bliss with their Maker.
Sidebar
