@boomzilla said:
Pedantic dickweeds will want [b]to[/b] point out that there [b]is a missing word in this sentance[/b].
FTFY
@boomzilla said:
Pedantic dickweeds will want [b]to[/b] point out that there [b]is a missing word in this sentance[/b].
FTFY
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:The problem, as commonly stated, uses three doors.Suppose you're on a web forum, and you're given the choice of three threads: behind one thread is an idiot; behind the others, trolls. You pick a thread, say No. 1, and the moderator, who knows who's behind the threads, opens another thread, say No. 3, which has a troll. He then says to you, "Do you want to reply in thread No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
That really depends on whether you prefer arguing with idiots or trolls (assuming you can tell the difference and there is actually a difference to tell).
@TDWTF123 said:
Hint: what differentiates these three doors from the fire-exit, or Monty Hall's dressing room door, for example?
The fact that the problem description strongly implies (I would say "says" but you would argue that it doesn't say that and then I would have to argue that any other interpretation wouldn't be considered a "fair" game in the context of a game show and then the argument would shift into whether game shows actually are "fair" and, while that might be more amusing than the current discussion, it would be a whole other bag of WTF) that those three doors have a 1 in 3 chance of having a car behind them and you only get the option of picking one of those three anyway.
@El_Heffe said:
@Ben L. said:
What letter grade would you assign to NaN%?NaL (Not a Letter)?At least the divide by zero didn't crash the whole system.
@El_Heffe said:
@serguey123 said:
I though that this was what this thread was about, what is the new subject then?http://social.macys.com/parade/?cm_mmc=VanityUrl--parade--n-_-n#/lineup/bands/remove
@TDWTF123 said:
Hint: what differentiates these three doors from the fire-exit, or Monty Hall's dressing room door, for example?
The fact that the problem description strongly implies (I would say "says" but you would argue that it doesn't say that and then I would have to argue that any other interpretation wouldn't be considered a "fair" game in the context of a game show and then the argument would shift into whether game shows actually are "fair" and, while that might be more amusing than the current discussion, it would be a whole other bag of WTF) that those three doors have a 1 in 3 chance of having a car behind them and you only get the option of picking one of those three anyway.
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:The problem, as commonly stated, uses three doors.Suppose you're on a web forum, and you're given the choice of three threads: behind one thread is an idiot; behind the others, trolls. You pick a thread, say No. 1, and the moderator, who knows who's behind the threads, opens another thread, say No. 3, which has a troll. He then says to you, "Do you want to reply in thread No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
That really depends on whether you prefer arguing with idiots or trolls (assuming you can tell the difference and there is actually a difference to tell).
@TDWTF123 said:
Filed under: Where's Ronald? He's not this dumb.
@da Doctah said:
@Anonymouse said:
Can't be. APL alphabetics are always in uppercase italics.@Ben L. said:
゚ω゚ノ= /`m´)ノ ~┻━┻ //´∇`/ ['']; o=(゚ー゚) ==3; c=(゚Θ゚) =(゚ー゚)-(゚ー゚); (゚Д゚) =(゚Θ゚)= (o^^o)/ (o^^o);(゚Д゚)={゚Θ゚: '' ,゚ω゚ノ : ((゚ω゚ノ==3) +'') [゚Θ゚]Looks like APL to me
@Ben L. said:
Outcomes for mitigation and disaster for care applications care health system networks managing planning primary medical events aspects services from of practitioners prototype and database the project health is build to health focus to ranging everyday development patented this context managing and remote response of robot provision within solutions a care has comprising.
@PJH said:
@Hmmmm said:but then fucked it up again by overriding << & >>Hmm? My C++ is a bit rusty these days, but what are you talking about?
FTFM
@Maciejasjmj said:
Filed under: if c++ did one thing right it's std::cout [b]but then fucked it up again by overriding << and >>[/b]
@Anonymouse said:
Lossy compression is exactly the issue here. Remember that, loosely speaking, "lossy" compression is defined as a process which reduces the amount of data used to represent the "original" in a way which is non-reversible - i.e. you can't reconstruct the original from the compressed data as opposed to lossless which allows you to reconstruct the original down to the last bit.
So most common lossy image compression algorithms achieve a higher compression rate (as compared to lossless ones) by sacrificing image quality. However, the algorithm in question, JBIG2, basically simply replaces parts (pixel block) of the image which are "similar enough" to each other with a single instance of the block, thus saving space by only having to encode the block itself once. This allows it (under ideal circumstances) to maintain a fairly high image quality; however that is a trade-off that is paid for by incurring a loss in the - well, let's call it the "fidelity" of the image instead of the quality.
Exactly. So, TRWTF is anyone that uses JBIG2 for any purpose without testing the compressor to determine if it maintains the required fidelity. I would include the standards bodies and Adobe in this "anyone" for ratifying it as two official standards and including it in PDF without making the limitations very clear. If the original authors were not aware of this sort of "corruption" then they have no business designing compression algorithms.
As to where the buck would stop if anyone tried to claim losses due to this, I expect it would stop with the person who clicked the scan button. I can't believe that someone like Xerox, in the duplicating business for many years, doesn't guard itself very well against any loss or damage to customers caused by inaccurate duplication.