Slashdot Mirror

The ' obligatory ' XKCD http://xkcd.com/763/

Thanks for posting that. I thought everyone had overlooked that step... 8-)

Lets do the math.

Snapping a photo, saving it off, uploading it, etc. Lets assume the person is really efficient, and figure 5 minutes per day, every day.

Thanks to xkcd, I already know that's six full days every five years. And not workdays, full 24 hour days! In other words, that's more than 26 hours of staff time each year for the lifetime of your restaurant. Since the job will require administrative access to the website, it'll need to be performed by someone with some responsibility, so lets figure $15.00/hr. Now you're right around $500 a year, and that's if it only takes five minutes a day.

So yes, it is too hard. Several daily manual steps that cost your business $500 each year, which could be eliminated with a one time investment in $100 of technology.

oblig. XKCD. Also obligatory explanatory note.

oblig. XKCD. Also obligatory explanatory note.

How many people would buy the "Kate" model just so they can say "Kate, make me a sammich"?

Unless you're logged in as root, you have to use sudo

The ' obligatory ' XKCD http://xkcd.com/763/

If I am to force myself to become interested in something that I naturally find boring, I am going to need better incentive than "but you can make friends with people you don't normally want to be friends with!"

obligatory xkcd.

Obligatory XKCD:
http://xkcd.com/1480/

Munroe has the right idea:

Hooray for snacks!

381

The Saturn V employed a total mass of 2970 tonnes to lift a mere 118 tonnes to LEO. But the actual raw energy needed to lift 118 tonnes to 200 km is E=mgh = 118,000 times 9.81 times 200,000 = 232 GJ, which is the quantity of energy contained in just 5.47 tonnes of gasoline. So the efficiency of the Saturn V was 0.184%, not because it was a "bad" rocket, but because it was a rocket.

If you just lift the payload to 200 km, it will immediately start falling back to the surface. The payload must also be accelerated to orbital speed, 8000 m/s, at which the 118 tonnes has a kinetic energy of 3776 GJ, so your "efficiency" is off by quite a bit.

That big rocket is mostly just to put the payload into orbit. Once in a low earth orbit, it doesn't take that much more to take it from there to a different orbit.

This xkcd is probably the best way to grasp the difficulties of 'getting into space".

https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/

http://xkcd.com/504/

Obligatory XKCD.

Mandatory: http://xkcd.com/1197

ob DONGS

Not that many of us actually use comments.... http://xkcd.com/1421/

Randall Munroe did, for one. Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/504/

relevant xkcd Some context

Notice that I very carefully said secure against a certain attack in my previous post. You are talking about something different to breaking the encryption technically: the xkcd attack, which any large organisation with weapons can apply, but not covertly and not without consequences if they try to apply it systematically against innocent people.

One solution is run-off voting

That is the way it works in Louisiana. It is generally considered to be the most corrupt and worst governed state in America.

Plenty of other countries also use run-off voting. There is no evidence that it leads to either better government, or a more satisfied electorate.

http://xkcd.com/661/

Disclaimer: I work in a cosmology department. What you've just written is total bullshit.

We make predictions, and they work. I could tear apart the nonsense you've written, but instead let me just point to the facts:

http://xkcd.com/54/

http://sci.esa.int/planck/5155...

http://www.astro.virginia.edu/...

I could go on an on posting pretty pictures and graphs matching data, but let me just say that we work incredibly hard to make predictions from our models, we test those predictions against observations and test many of our systems to over 5 sigma. To say that what we're doing is just guessing is frankly insulting to a lot of incredibly hard working people. We /predicted/ the CMB then observed it. We predicted the power spectrum then observed it. We predict the population densities of stars at certain redshifts, point telescopes and damned well count the things and find them to match. We predict galactic rotations, lensing effects, (integrated) Sachs-Wolfe effects and a hundred
other little things, and we damned well test them, lining up our models against observations. We certainly haven't got everything right yet - there's a lot of room for investigation as to what went on before inflation, say, or exactly what type of matter dark matter is (but before you say we know nothing about it, I suggest you educate yourself - we don't know what it comprises, but we have damned good bounds on certain properties like its ratio of pressure to density). We don't know why the cosmological constant takes the value it does, but a whole host of checks all come up with the same number.

So no, we don't have "Guesses". We have repeatedly tested hypotheses from which we observe consistent data and find heavy statistical significance. What you've done is insult a lot of incredibly hard working, very smart people who are very serious about their work.

Obligatory XKCD:
http://xkcd.com/927/

if your friends run off a cliff, do you follow them?

See the relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1170/

I have a separate computer that I use if I need to actively infect one.

Oh, so you're this guy.

As with many cosmological argument, that essay called "Imaginary Arguments" by TJ Radcliffe does not prove anything about a potential infinity of nested infinite universes. There is a key hedge there of "given what we currently know of physics". Much of physics (for example the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) is in essence a theory of what we could conceivably learn about the universe and beyond, not actual information on the universe and beyond. Likewise for saying we can see up to a certain distance of some billions of light years in space and time. That tells us essentially nothing about what is beyond those limits. We could, for example, be in an expanding bubble in a larger ocean of such bubbles -- but we could not tell using light-speed-limited electromagnetism. It would take, say, access to universe level bugs or debugger hooks to make an exploit that would let us travel beyond those electromagnetic limits in a human lifetime. :-)

This is where that essay goes off the rails, when i overgeneralizes the issue of what we can know with what might be out there: "Nor will it do to imagine alternative physics to fix all this up: insofar as the philosopher's argument is to have any claim on our attention at all, it must be based on what we know about the universe we actually live in, not some self-contradictory universe of a philosopher's imagination, where particles and computers behave in impossible ways."

That may be a useful sentiment by an observer about an observed box, but it is an overly limiting one when talking about things outside a box the observer appears to be in. At the very best, experimental physics can only tell us about the currently "observable" universe within a very small space-time bubble surrounding the current Earth.

So what if experiments are precise to many digits? When you are dealing with possible infinities and nested universes, anything is possible. It just does not matter how mind-bogglingly large the numbers are, or even if every universe can only simulate 0.5% of itself. The observable universe is already mind-boggling large. What are, say, a few trillion extra zeros tacked on to that regarding data storage needs or time needs for simulations to have billions of virtual turtles simulating nested universes some of the way down? :-)

Or in other words, from xkcd:
"A Bunch of Rocks"
http://xkcd.com/505/

Also, there are probably ways things could appear to be precise in some ways to a limited number of observers (like millions of Earth scientists), but not really being fully fleshed out. However, going down that rabbit hole involves many deep existential questions (like how can I know anything at all exists, or has existed, or will exist, how can I trust my memories, how many observers really exist, etc.) that most physicists may be better off ignoring, either career-wise or for mental health reasons. :-)
http://disciplined-minds.com/
"Upon publication of Disciplined Minds, the American Institute of Physics fired author Jeff Schmidt. He had been on the editorial staff of Physics Today magazine for 19 years. Following advice given in the book itself, Schmidt and free-expression advocates mounted a campaign that brought public judgment to bear on Schmidtâ(TM)s dismissal. Such justice is available to anyone not afraid to go public."

That said, such an essay might fairly criticize specific conclusions in "the simulation argument" itself, since much of that is indeed speculative related to "ancestor simulation" or best practices for living in one. But for anyone who has spent time using computer VMs, as well as the mathematics of infinities, the essay-as-is sounds fairly limited in its thinking.

Of course, even the notion of "infinity" has its controversies: :-)
"Dispute over Infinity Divides Mathematicians "

http://xkcd.com/1357/

Randal Monroe pretty much has this to say about the "freedom of speech" argument: "... but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express ."

I will never take an argument like yours seriously ever again. I will defend free speech, but I will not side with folks who use it to be jerks, which is what cyberbullying is.

delivering drugs to the stomach
aka, a pill

Beats the alternative delivery method (see the image AltText)

Excellent! Next up: ranking everyone on Facebook from best to worst!

Obligatory XKCD panel #3: http://xkcd.com/451/

Obligatory XKCD:

http://xkcd.com/250/

It was a UFO before it was identified.

...yes. Just like every time I hear a sound in the sky, it's a UFO until I look up and see that it's just another commercial jet.

BTW, here's your XKCD fortune: http://xkcd.com/169/

https://xkcd.com/54/

I see "correcthorsebatterystaple" isn't in there, I'm surprised.

http://xkcd.com/936/

Sadly, it doesn't look like it has a TrackPoint-style mouse -- something I've grown rather fond of (just to preempt the oblig replies: http://xkcd.com/243/).

Technically this is the FBI, so you should be pissed off at Comey, not Holder. Comey is officially Holder's subordinate at the DoJ, though I'm not sure how much the FBI chief really answers for.

And you won't have to wait so long for Holder's departure; he announced his resignation months ago and Obama already tapped his replacement.

it gets tiring pointing out the fallacy.

ObXKCD

Just literally think about it for a minute. Are you a fly? No! The adage obviously doesn't apply to you!

Anyway, in case you didn't know, Scientists have proved the adage wrong, so Linus is probably right this time. He's still a dick though.

http://xkcd.com/1216/

Obligatory XKCD - And this one might actually educate rather than amuse!

Now look at the last 12000 years - The last ice age completely ended 9500 years ago.

Every. Single. Time.

http://xkcd.com/870/

Oblig: You forgot the sudo

http://xkcd.com/220/

Unfortunately, when scientist and engineers say things like "science is never anything but a best guess", meaning to be modest about how humans can at best asymptotically approach the truths about reality, anti-science and religionists pounce and say "See? They admit they don't know for certain. WE know for certain, so WE have a better answer." Besides, it's a lot better than a "best guess", it's a carefully researched and analyzed best fit solution. Plus, XKCD. http://xkcd.com/54/

A best guess backed up by experiments designed to prove or falsify that guess. Anyone who says they know better than that had better have proof. And no, faith is not proof.

Unfortunately, when scientist and engineers say things like "science is never anything but a best guess", meaning to be modest about how humans can at best asymptotically approach the truths about reality, anti-science and religionists pounce and say "See? They admit they don't know for certain. WE know for certain, so WE have a better answer." Besides, it's a lot better than a "best guess", it's a carefully researched and analyzed best fit solution. Plus, XKCD. http://xkcd.com/54/

XKCD has this covered.

Can't believe no one else posted that yet.

I am generally fascinated though also terrified by this sort of thing based on the following thought pattern: https://xkcd.com/1163/

...just remember this XKCD: http://xkcd.com/932/

You're assuming they aren't using the same password for their Twitter account that they're using for the Nukes launch codes.

Oh... you think I'm kidding?
Seriously... it's a real concern:
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Besides the physical security thing involved with a nuclear missile silo

...just remember this XKCD: http://xkcd.com/932/

You're assuming they aren't using the same password for their Twitter account that they're using for the Nukes launch codes.

Oh... you think I'm kidding?
Seriously... it's a real concern:
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

...just remember this XKCD: http://xkcd.com/932/

Solving problems you didn't know you had. I know a lot of people that try to hold on to work. I am constantly trying to be rid of it. This is usually done by automation where possible, or solutions to fix an issue causing more work.

Though you do have to watch out for this from time to time:
http://xkcd.com/1319/

I also agree that "intelligence" is more than just that. I think I am a pretty smart guy, but it is probably other qualities that enhance that into something a bit more. It is one thing to be curious, but another to be driven to figure something out because it bugs you not to. Likewise if like being engaged and questioning, but do not want to look foolish, then there is a impetus to figure out as much of a subject as possible to be able to do so. I think much of it is also environmental, parents, siblings, culture, etc... I'm a pretty laid back guy for the most part, however when it comes to efficiency I may have a touch of the OCD in that regard. It sort of bugs me when I or others do something that isn't optimal? Even running errands, the route taken, the order of tasks, etc.. I can be pretty obsessive about, because why would you do it any other way? :) Even to the point of not doing something one day because I can batch it more effectively with other tasks on another day... Though I try now to be a little more relaxed about that sort of thing...