> sometimes you just need to look at an actual book..
Are you suggesting that instead of asking a simple question, JonySuede should have visited a brick and mortar library/university and educated himself/herself in an unspecified field of study? Ok, "unspecified" could be reasonably guessed at - maybe aerodynamics, maybe roofing materials, maybe skydiving.
I'm not convinced that calling my rebuttal "equally weak" is "being fair", but I'm an open-minded guy. Please explain the algorithm of when it's more appropriate to look at an unspecified book than to ask a slashdot commenter what he meant.
1) Voltage is within the domain of Physics. 2) He did not make any claim about infinite acceleration. Straw man. 3) I've never heard of terminal velocity being expressed as "VMAX", and neither have the first ten pages of google results.
It's ok to just answer somebody's question without twisting their words and insulting them. I don't understand your hostility.
Well, if you think about it, that is "unfair". A criminal trial is a hardship which an innocent person does not deserve, albeit a far lesser hardship than being wrongfully punished.
Which is exactly what this is about. There was no preceding trial, there was no preceding conviction. There was only a punishment.
The state seems to hold that due process isn't required if they have some kind of appeals process. Hell, they're being generous letting anybody have the "privilege" of getting from point A to point B in the first place. To their thinking merely revoking a "privilege" shouldn't be a hardship for anyone. And if it is, c'est la vie.
Modern society was built by modern builders. They could have done their job fine without banks. To the extent banks are needed, it is only because they have rigged the system.
Fractional reserve banks are parasites. They leech wealth away from their customers, and when that's not enough, they leech it away from taxpayers, and when that's not enough, they leech it away from third world peasants (a group that, thanks to these banks, may well include most Americans within twenty years).
> Is mismanagement really that bad at NASA? From everybody I know who's ever worked with them.... yes.
One of my friends had a five man company that made some esoteric part. NASA liked it, thought they could use it on the ISS. They made a deal. Which included NASA sending two guys to observe those five guys, full time, for eight months. The widgeteers had an aggressive development schedule they had to meet, and they had to do it while being continuously audited by two empty-headed challengeatrons.
Another friend ran a machine shop, and he got a NASA deal and they paid for him to build a second story to house a huge water tank and pressure chamber for testing, then NASA walked away.
Except for a couple pockets of competence like JPL, I think NASA serves mainly as a pork barrel.
This Security-vs-Anonymity thing is a false dilemma contrived by a government that excels in both the theater of security and the blatantly unconstitutional decimation of privacy.
"Secure" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with authenticating a guest, it could just mean encrypting data traffic. Which would actually be great for porn.
Reusing, actually, which is better. But given that its new purpose is to make smoke, I'm not sure this is an environmentalist's dream application. Not all Green, sort of green and brown. Like avocado and bacon. Mmm, bacon.
Logical fallacy count: 1 ad hominem 2 straw man 1 non sequitur
I agree with your main point, that Physics trumps crackpot ideas.
But most breakthroughs in our understanding of Physics came from people who were initially dismissed as crackpots - in your words disbelievers, idiots, and fools.
I'd say "democracy" has turned into American Idol. Except that the contestants are just lip-syncing. And the songs are all top 40 hits from the eighties.
Theoretically politicians and voters could do something, but the masses (including us slashdotters) are just not informed enough and smart enough to orchestrate a cohesive revolution that would put the people in the driver's seat.
Instead we've let ourselves be split in half and distracted into fighting against each other over irrelevancies and table scraps while the real powers quietly loot us into bankruptcy.
Sir Isaac Newton wrote down algorithms, but that doesn't mean he invented them, nor that he was practicing gravity without a license.
These "algorithms" were created by some government legislature. Legalzoom translated those laws to software. If you want to sue them for re-packaging and translating, that's fine, but it makes no sense to accuse them of practicing law.
Slashdot Mirror
> sometimes you just need to look at an actual book..
Are you suggesting that instead of asking a simple question, JonySuede should have visited a brick and mortar library/university and educated himself/herself in an unspecified field of study? Ok, "unspecified" could be reasonably guessed at - maybe aerodynamics, maybe roofing materials, maybe skydiving.
I'm not convinced that calling my rebuttal "equally weak" is "being fair", but I'm an open-minded guy. Please explain the algorithm of when it's more appropriate to look at an unspecified book than to ask a slashdot commenter what he meant.
As rebuttals go, epic fail.
1) Voltage is within the domain of Physics.
2) He did not make any claim about infinite acceleration. Straw man.
3) I've never heard of terminal velocity being expressed as "VMAX", and neither have the first ten pages of google results.
It's ok to just answer somebody's question without twisting their words and insulting them. I don't understand your hostility.
> I'd be more concerned... that he has an ulterior motive
Why? If you come out ahead, what do you care if somebody else profits too?
Well, if you think about it, that is "unfair". A criminal trial is a hardship which an innocent person does not deserve, albeit a far lesser hardship than being wrongfully punished.
Which is exactly what this is about. There was no preceding trial, there was no preceding conviction. There was only a punishment.
The state seems to hold that due process isn't required if they have some kind of appeals process. Hell, they're being generous letting anybody have the "privilege" of getting from point A to point B in the first place. To their thinking merely revoking a "privilege" shouldn't be a hardship for anyone. And if it is, c'est la vie.
A MightyMartian once said "You can either debate what I say, or you can just imagine my statements and then respond to those."
Sage words.
For people of meager means it's more complicated than that, but borrowing from a commercial bank should definitely be avoided.
Pneumatic tubes.
Some say they suck, others say they blow. I just think they're a blast.
Modern society was built by modern builders. They could have done their job fine without banks. To the extent banks are needed, it is only because they have rigged the system.
Fractional reserve banks are parasites. They leech wealth away from their customers, and when that's not enough, they leech it away from taxpayers, and when that's not enough, they leech it away from third world peasants (a group that, thanks to these banks, may well include most Americans within twenty years).
> maybe something could get changed.
Yeah, for example, the employment status of those insiders.
> Is mismanagement really that bad at NASA?
From everybody I know who's ever worked with them.... yes.
One of my friends had a five man company that made some esoteric part. NASA liked it, thought they could use it on the ISS. They made a deal. Which included NASA sending two guys to observe those five guys, full time, for eight months. The widgeteers had an aggressive development schedule they had to meet, and they had to do it while being continuously audited by two empty-headed challengeatrons.
Another friend ran a machine shop, and he got a NASA deal and they paid for him to build a second story to house a huge water tank and pressure chamber for testing, then NASA walked away.
Except for a couple pockets of competence like JPL, I think NASA serves mainly as a pork barrel.
That's all well and good, but you forgot to account for solar activity, malfunctioning gravitrons, and the politicization of godless scientists.
Some kilts are longer than others, friend.
Woops, meant to post that to the parent comment. Sorry.
+5 funny
This Security-vs-Anonymity thing is a false dilemma contrived by a government that excels in both the theater of security and the blatantly unconstitutional decimation of privacy.
"Secure" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with authenticating a guest, it could just mean encrypting data traffic. Which would actually be great for porn.
This proposal is not for a military base, it's for what would become a marketplace.
Agreed. Something seems to actually be working. That this is out in the open and people are being caught and punished is all good.
Reusing, actually, which is better. But given that its new purpose is to make smoke, I'm not sure this is an environmentalist's dream application. Not all Green, sort of green and brown. Like avocado and bacon. Mmm, bacon.
Logical fallacy count:
1 ad hominem
2 straw man
1 non sequitur
I agree with your main point, that Physics trumps crackpot ideas.
But most breakthroughs in our understanding of Physics came from people who were initially dismissed as crackpots - in your words disbelievers, idiots, and fools.
> Yet somehow, people insist on disbelieving
> the equations and keep trying anyhow.
And thank god they do. Progress doesn't come from textbooks, it comes from trying.
I'd say "democracy" has turned into American Idol. Except that the contestants are just lip-syncing. And the songs are all top 40 hits from the eighties.
Theoretically politicians and voters could do something, but the masses (including us slashdotters) are just not informed enough and smart enough to orchestrate a cohesive revolution that would put the people in the driver's seat.
Instead we've let ourselves be split in half and distracted into fighting against each other over irrelevancies and table scraps while the real powers quietly loot us into bankruptcy.
> someone wrote the algorithms, didn't they?
Sir Isaac Newton wrote down algorithms, but that doesn't mean he invented them, nor that he was practicing gravity without a license.
These "algorithms" were created by some government legislature. Legalzoom translated those laws to software. If you want to sue them for re-packaging and translating, that's fine, but it makes no sense to accuse them of practicing law.
Who says they didn' OUCH! Hey!
And that's just the footprint...
I have to admit I didn't know. I thought he was going to post about "thought crime."
"Do you know what that means? This damn thing doesn't work!"