Razer mice have been a huge letdown in quality for me. I used to have the first edition Diamondback which served me well for about 4 years until the material started to disintegrate too much for my taste (but 4 years is a very good lifetime for a 40 euros mouse). I thought I'd give Razer another chance and bought the Imperator (2nd rev). Felt really good to handle, laser was good. But the switches they used are total shit and double clicking occured after not even a year. Went to Steelseries (Sensei Raw) and am happy with it so far.
You need to be more specific with what you mean with "register" or "rates".
Hit detection in CS:S is impossible to be influenced by what mouse you're using, because it is entirely done on serverside.
If by "rates" you mean polling rates, you used to have to do some nasty hacks to get Windows to change it. I think drivers now support setting it directly. Note that very high polling rates like 1000Hz may result in a considerable increase in CPU load (OTOH the improved responsiveness you get from that (instead of the default 125Hz (usually)) might be worth it). Generally your display and the graphics pipeline will introduce the most amount of visual lag, not your mouse ("input lag", which then translates to delayed visuals).
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Does anyone know how to reverse this formula to find x? y = ax+b (mod M)
I was told x = a-1(y-b) (mod M) but it’s not working…
Without any further constraints there is no reverse function for (a*x + b) mod M.
E.g. let M = 10, a = 1, b = 0, then 10 mod 10 = 0 and 20 mod 10 = 0 and 30 mod 10 = 0 a.s.o., so given y = 0, there's no single (but multiple) x for which the equation holds contradicting the definition of a "function".
Edit: If you restrict x suitably (and have gcd(a, M) = 1 (just refer to FractalFusion and the site he linked for this...)), it is possible. See Masterjun's post below.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Now I'm even more confused. According to Wikipedia, the Riemann series theorem states that if you have a conditionally convergent infinite series, you can rearrange its terms to get a new series that converges to something else, or even diverges. This raises two questions:
1) So?
2) How does that help to prove the equation?
My mistake. I punched something into Google ("kleiner Umordnungssatz", "small theorem of rearrangement") and took the first result thinking it would be a different name for the same thing. The "kleiner Umordnungssatz" says that you can freely rearrange summands of an absolutely convergent series. I'm honestly not even sure anymore that that theorem applies here at all, so forget about what I wrote. I edited my original post accordingly.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
I believe User maintenance log is bugged, won't advance past page 1, unless that is meant to happen idk.
http://tasvideos.org/UserMaintenanceLog.html?begin=51
Is the †meant to be there too?
I apologize if this has already been reported.
Definitely broken, but I don't see your mojibake (check your character set for that page, should be UTF-8, yours is very likely Windows-1252):
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
I can't submit my movie, because my account disconnects automatically. Why this happen?
What do you mean with "account disconnecting"? Do you get logged out automatically? If so, you should check whether your browser accepts/retains cookies or doesn't clean them up periodically.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
I don't understand that step at all.
(Also, since you didn't specify any limit in your proof, wouldn't it make the equality hold for all x, not just for |x|<1?)
It's a bit informally written down.
x * S = x + 2x^2 + 3x^3 + 4x^4 + ... is indeed valid for any x.
(1 - x) * S = S - x * S ("= 1 + 2x + 3x^2 + 4x^3 + ... - (x + 2x^2 + 3x^3 + 4x^4 + ... )") = 1 + 2x - x + 3x^2 - 2x^2 ... = 1 + x + x^2 + ... (for this step to be valid you'd need to prove that you may reorder the summands like that (because that's not always possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_series_theorem))
(1 - x) * S = 1 + x + x^2 + x^3 + ... = 1 / (1 - x) is a form of geometric series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series#Formula with a = 1 in this case) and converges for |x| < 1 (i.e. in this step you need to have |x| be < 1).
To get S, divide by (1 - x) /= 0: S = 1 / (1 - x)^2
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Hmmm, who explained to them where the doors lead, was it the same person he said "Show me your door" to? Obviously asking that causes the truth teller to point to his own door, and the liar to point to the other; identifying both who is being honest and which is the safe door. Therefore, if upon asking this you find that he points away, that means you're currently speaking to the liar. And if this is the source of your original rules for the riddle, then clearly they're not true. That means the 2 doors are not Liar/Truth, but either guarded by Liar/Liar, or Truth/Truth. As we've already established the current one is lying, then that would imply both are, and that no door leads to safety.
You deduct that if the one who told Joey the rules is the liar (he points away from his door), then it is not necessarily so, that each of the two guards has a unique door. If so, then both would not have shown to the same door in the first place (both lie about their door and both doors are different) creating a paradox. However if both are indeed liars, then the door they point away from is the only assigned door. If we are allowed to scrap the idea that each guard has a unique door though, that could have meant that one door was unassigned all along, and thus both could have told the truth from the very beginning (doesn't tell us anything about where each door leads still).
Edit: Is it a given that in the original set of rules the truthteller guards the safe door and the liar the unsafe one?
EditEdit: Read Scepheo's post. Nevermind the question...
Edit 2: Granted, if a liar told the rules then potentially no axiom actually holds and thus we can't deduce anything...
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
I remember a 3D game, forgot if PS1 or PS2, I just remember that there was a beach and there was a cave..
It might be possible it's Jak and Daxter but I'm not sure :/
Any ideas?
Ratchet and Clank? Robot on Wheels (not PS)?
What genre are we looking for? What activities were there?
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Hey all,
I was recently trying to pull the list of all the videos that were in the Moons tier, and I ran into the same issue on two different browsers (Firefox and Chrome)
I've uploaded some screenshots of the issue to imgur
http://imgur.com/AS9ca58,GhxDWPw,Zbp8YA4#0
You'll notice that at the bottom of each image, it outputs the error, but the second memory value changes between tries.
That's an (internally) known issue (kind of). It only used to happen in certain cases when handling a large amount of videos, but this is more prominent and urgent. We'll try to get this fixed.
Edit: At the moment the best workaround is to play with the filter settings a bit.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
I'm afraid that's not possible. However Tangent certainly won't cut you.
Also, voted no. Sorry Spikestuff.
"The word tangent comes from the Latin tangere, to touch." -- sincerely, Masterjun
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Ilari said -p could be problematic to run site wide. However, we can certainly automatically run it on new torrents as they're uploaded.
If you guys deem it safe and no problems, I can add a full sweep of existing torrents with -u, and cause all new torrents uploaded to be ran through -u -p.
I believe Ilari meant, that the private marker can only be set at creation time (that is, you need the actual file to be torrented be present). Otherwise I don't see a problem with the -u option or your program for that matter. When in doubt, I suggest a backup be made first though.
As a side-note I should add, that as of now at least rtorrent and KTorrent don't seem support webseeds at all. Deluge downloads from web seeds and recent versions (I tested 1.3.11) also download from https webseeds.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
How can I easily down sample a video file so it is around 480p from 1080p source?
I would like a simple to use Application. Preferably with a GUI.
The files are MKV format.
M = 486000000
F = 60
k = 1
N = 525
b = 1
numerator = M / ((k * N + b) * floor(floor( M / F) / N))
video = last.TimecodeFPS("timecodes.txt", fpsnum=numerator, fpsden=1)
audio = WavSource("dspdump0.wav")+WavSource("dspdump1.wav").ResampleAudio(32000)+WavSource("dspdump2.wav")
AudioDub(audio, last)
No matter how I change b, it all sounds totally wrong, it even starts several seconds too late right in the very beginning (so no split error, and even if there is, there's 17 extra frames, not a bunch of seconds).
Apart from rounding errors that might occur (should be very minor/nonexistent, unless AVISynth truncates fpsnum to an integer in TimecodeFPS()), yes, this is how it should work.
The framerate shouldn't affect a/v sync, because timecodes of each frame are read from timecodes.txt and are duplicated/dropped according to the fps given (i.e. each frame that is mapped to a timecode should have the (approximately) correct timing anyway, even if not every one of them is displayed in the final result (e.g. if you choose a low fps, such that 1/fps > the time between two adjacent timecodes))).
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Is the †meant to be there too? I apologize if this has already been reported.
