Warrior General Games

Originally posted by issacar
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/07/24/hackers-reveal-nasty-new-car-attacks-with-me-behind-the-wheel-video/

I guess the new hipster thing to do will be to buy an old cour with as little computers in it to avoid being hacked killed....

Fuck that, I'm buying a moped.

cour coar car

Originally posted by issacar
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/07/24/hackers-reveal-nasty-new-car-attacks-with-me-behind-the-wheel-video/

I guess the new hipster thing to do will be to buy an old cour with as little computers in it to avoid being hacked killed....

i dont know if thats a hip thing to do.ive avoided cars with all the high tech shit for years because of how simple they are.never liked onstar and the like anyways.way too big brotherish for my taste.

Yeah and electrical problems in cars are costy as fuck too...

Hey quick basic question. I put it in the HW thread too but I am very impatient so Im lining up double-coverage. Preface: I have been drinking a small bit (two regular beers over 2 hours) so I may be missing something here but I am pretty sure I'm not.

When something asks you to rank a series of numbers in scientific notation by magnitude, and not in least to greatest order, an exponent of -6 magnitude would be greater than an exponent of +3 magnitude right?

It was my understanding throughout my mathematical career that magnitude takes into account the number, regardless of positivity or negativity. I was told through our 'infallible' (very, very fallible. our professor corrects something weekly) online homework service that I got the following question wrong:

Rank these values according to magnitude: 2.1×10^5, 5.9 × 10^4, 4.5×10^-2, 9.0×10^-6, 8.1×10^-6

I ranked them (ignoring exponents to save time) 9.0, 8.1, 2.1, 5.9, 4.5

To my understanding, I did that correctly, and magnitude is magnitude and not 'from greatest to least'. Just want to make sure before I send off an email.

I don't understand how magnitude is calculated, but why is 2.1 higher then 5.9 and 4.5? Or is it a typo? hehehe

Originally posted by issacar
I don't understand how magnitude is calculated, but why is 2.1 higher then 5.9 and 4.5? Or is it a typo? hehehe

Magnitude is usually calculated by how large or small a number is, regardless of the sign in front of it. Like -5 has a bigger magnitude than +2. 2.1 is higher than the others because of the exponents. 2.1 with exponents is 210,000 where 5.9 with exponents is 59,000

and are the exponents always the same? If not, how do you know which ones they are?

Originally posted by issacar
and are the exponents always the same? If not, how do you know which ones they are?

How do you mean?

oh no I get it now. I was over thinking hte exponents part.

So my answer was correct right? Their answer literally just has it in least to greatest form.

erm... I'm going over my calculs

How could a negative exponents be bigger then a positive exponents? If that logic is the proper one, then you are right with your order.

Originally posted by issacar
erm... I'm going over my calculs

Aha the odd thing is this isn't even my calc class. It's chem. Its their semesterly (I know theres an actual word for that) first assignment to weed out the people who haven't been in the previous class. Im just irked that now I can only get a 99.8 instead of 100.

Originally posted by issacar
How could a negative exponents be bigger then a positive exponents? If that logic is the proper one, then you are right with your order.

That's where I'm at. I'm gunna send them the email now. I will be damned if I don't get a 100% on something this early in the year.