Considering that stores are not normally very far away from where people live and a delivery truck will burn many many times more gas per mile I just do not see how (it is far more efficient to use small cars to deliver stuff to the door, as you are necessarily making a special drive with a huge load in the back).
"I don't always have a reason to go out driving. Usually my reason is to buy something." Yes, but if you did not have a reason to go out to buy stuff I bet you would not become a complete hermit and never drive again.
You already could, and if a society was willing to use bicycles then it would develop easy solutions to fitting a load of groceries on the back of a bike.
Yes it is possible to do gas efficient. One huge delivery every month to your door and you simply do not own a car or use taxies (at all regularly). But that is not going to happen, therefore any Amazon delivery you have got set up is absolutely just increasing gas usage (in 99.5% of all scenarios).
There is pretty much no way to do it right enough to cut down on gas delivery. Because you will always have some reason to go out driving and normally you would of picked up stuff at the same time, and instead you have huge gas guzzling delivery trucks making special tricks to your house.
... to block sexual content for their child they will also have to block scientific and atheistic websites as well, because they will be on the same backlists?
"It doesn't usually get very far in most people, due to decent nutrition and health care" So what you are saying is that Americans should be very afraid.
Except by innovation he likely means interface based more then concrete measurable stats. And when companies try to innovate interfaces it always seems to end bad for the customers.
It depends on the particular flavor of anarchism. Some are fine with the rule of the majority, everyone is equal and if over 50% of the people can agree on a law then it is just (this not technically different from democracy). But other definitively do not believe that the majority have any right to force their will on the minority or even one single person. Which makes laws very hard to make, because you need 100% agreement (and the laws that are created are not really laws, since if someone murdered someone else all they would have to do is change their murder law vote to against to make it legal again), and a criminal court system very very limited if not impossible (because the majority does not have any given right to judge anyone).
So anarchism can mean no laws. Taken to extremes it requires a very different civilization, taken less extremely you could call our current democracy (more or less) an anarchistic country,
But then there is a difference between not believing you have a right to do something and having the power and will to do it.
And I do not think I agree that it is necessarily socialist, the notion that everyone is equal is not a socialist idea, even the USA has that. In some ways it is inherently capitalist, It does not really lend itself to either.
So an anarchistic country could really take any shape or form and only requires the humanist view of equality (more or less, kind-of, maybe, I am not an expert).
I would not call what Bees do polygamy, And birds tend to stick to pair bonding to the best of my knowledge. Not that this is helping my case. But I think it is the only important guide, the government job is not to oppress differences or promote "normal" behavior. If Polygamy does not inherently hurt others outside of polygamy then it should not be for the government to decide.
"Pair bonding with women and underage boys is much less common than the other way 'round." I disagree. It has been suggested that it is in fact more common, no one can really say with any certainty. And the argument that, men more often then women prefer underage lovers, is not an argument that shows inherent male dominate. I am not sure what the statistics are, or how they would change if it were legalized, but look at Lolita (the classic book or film); Just because a male is in a relationship does not automatically make it a male dominated relationship.
Well I hardly see it being constructive to go looking for a singular example of a successful polygamist relationship. Our closest ancestors do it, and in fact most mammals do it. Therefore, I cannot see how it can be considered absolutely wrong or impossible to work. And I do not think it is fair to say it in inherently Patriarchy, Inherently it makes women more in demand and outnumber the man in the marriage where one man with many women is practiced. It would seem that in a democratic society it would inherently put women first in the home. And you cannot say that three women marrying is inherently Patriarchy. If we just outlawed men from marrying anyone, would that solve your issues with this?
"Regarding pair bonding with children, again, it's almost always patriarchal."??? Why would the boy be in charge of the adult woman? And of course patriarchal does not make sense in same sex relationships. I do not see how patriarchal has anything to do with this issue. The issues include: is sex inherently bad at some age, or is it always significantly similar to playing or masturbation. And consent.
Well the issue with other species is that they are away exploited. They are our slaves with worthless lives, they have no legal rights and are property. There are a few abuse laws that exist in most countries, but you cannot really talk about interspecies bonding in a legal sense, because they do not exist as thinking beings in the law. So keeping the law out of the discussion: Animals are concious beings that are able to make decisions and tell others what those are. Also all Mammals, at least (to the best of my knowledge), do not rely completely on rape to propagate the species. Therefore they all make the decision of who to mate with and then let him or her know that they want it. There is no reason that an animal cannot give consent (and there is no reason that an animal cannot be a friend or partner in life). And while I am sure we can both imagine exploitive relationships, there is no way to ever completely prevent them. And it is not like we ban intelligently people from marrying retarded people (or strong men from marrying the weaker females) because the one can take advantage of the other. Also imagine having a relationship with a tiger, it could kill you in an instant if it wanted to. Also on a similar note. Wild Dogs have been known to raise human children, to look after them. So there is no reason, beyond the shear bizarreness that both our cultures feel towards that idea, that interspecies partnerships between a human and another mammal could not raise a child together (if they can do it all by themselves, then adding a human into the mix can only help matters).
"They don't. You are free to love, live with and raise together (sic) anyone you wish"
Except, if it is more than a pair of people, interspecies, or outside of strict age limits.
And you use the exact same language as homophobes and have the same misguided believes. If anything I believe polygamy is more common in nature between animals, and I see no reason to believe that 2 adults living together has any more or less "stabilizing effect", whatever that means, than 3 or 4.
Also it is hard to judge if polygamy naturally just does not work out as well as "normal" marriage when it has been illegal for the entire history of the US.
Because science has already shown that the universe did not need a God to have evolutionist. The only place for God left outside of known science is like 1/9999999999999 of a second after the big bang and before, the rest we know has a scientific explanation (more or less, there are a few wholes).
You do have a point, being publicly pro-homosexual is more of less the same as being anti-anti-gay. And if a homosexual-bigot worked for them then he would have reasons to feel his workplace was hostile to him and his beliefs.
But their is a difference between says all couples of any gender pairing in our emply gets benefits and campaigning to make it so everywhere.
gay marriage and equality is all well and good but then that is not the only thing a corporation can campaign for. I think it would make a lot of sense for laws to prohibit corporations from taking sides in societies issues.
OK, I am not promoting the original commenter view, but then how about 3 or more mature adults who love each other? Why do corporations and governments have any say in who we love, live with, and raise together? The whole gay marriage issue seems like such a tiny specific issue to have a problem with. And the how they always bring love into it, always bugs me. Love has nothing to do with legal marriage or what homosexuals want. Homosexuals, in general, want one thing to legalise marriage and gay sex. They do not want to legalise pedo-love, bestiality, or polygamy.
Well, I think the problem goes deeper than that. I do not think you have to be a religious fanatic in the minority to have at least some qualms with evolution. In most religions a creator god is the major feature. And without that, what is even the point of a God? While science cannot ever really disprove a God, if evidence can win you over then science has already made one useless. And if God did not creator man, then what is he? Some powerful Alien who has been tampering with Earth's history (in none miraculous ways that do not show any hint of miraculous power) and demanding obedience?
And that false positives never happen. From my understanding, back during the cold war a weather satellite was mistaken for a launched nuke and a retaliatory strike was recommended.
"Scientific discoveries enrich everybody" Tell that to the Japanese. It did not take very long for a certain scientific discovery to cross borders and land right in their lap, "enriching" them.
A sudoku puzzle is not a password where you only know if you are correct if you get every single digit right. Every single digit can stand alone, and you can have 100% certainty that one particular node is right without having any of the others.
That is why it is times, and not exponential.
But I guess in the worst case scenario, using a bad algorithm it is exponential.
IT depends on if we are measuring the worst case scenario instead of the average and exactly how brute force our brute force algorithm is.
First off lets take "21-25" = 23 as a average number of nodes already complete. That leaves 81-23 = 58 left to find matches for. There are 10 possible numbers that will fit in a given node, but we are pretty much guaranteed to find everyone on average after 5 tries. So 5 * 58 = 290 Lets assume that most of the nodes have multiple solutions the first iteration through, even if we have to iterate through a reducing set of nodes and do not even keep track of the numbers that we have already crossed of as impossible in a given locative, we are talking a very small number in terms of a computer. So even on the slowest processor, and even if you are using hundreds of instructions to test one number in one location you will be done in a fraction of a second.
Slashdot Mirror
Well you very well might save money, but more gas would likely be used overall.
Considering that stores are not normally very far away from where people live and a delivery truck will burn many many times more gas per mile I just do not see how (it is far more efficient to use small cars to deliver stuff to the door, as you are necessarily making a special drive with a huge load in the back).
"I don't always have a reason to go out driving. Usually my reason is to buy something." Yes, but if you did not have a reason to go out to buy stuff I bet you would not become a complete hermit and never drive again.
You already could, and if a society was willing to use bicycles then it would develop easy solutions to fitting a load of groceries on the back of a bike.
Yes it is possible to do gas efficient. One huge delivery every month to your door and you simply do not own a car or use taxies (at all regularly). But that is not going to happen, therefore any Amazon delivery you have got set up is absolutely just increasing gas usage (in 99.5% of all scenarios).
Well they already need a huge inventory, it s not like they order from the manufacturers single items every time you click purchase online.
This just means more smaller warehouses. Spread all around.
There is pretty much no way to do it right enough to cut down on gas delivery.
Because you will always have some reason to go out driving and normally you would of picked up stuff at the same time, and instead you have huge gas guzzling delivery trucks making special tricks to your house.
... to block sexual content for their child they will also have to block scientific and atheistic websites as well, because they will be on the same backlists?
"It doesn't usually get very far in most people, due to decent nutrition and health care"
So what you are saying is that Americans should be very afraid.
Except by innovation he likely means interface based more then concrete measurable stats. And when companies try to innovate interfaces it always seems to end bad for the customers.
It depends on the particular flavor of anarchism. Some are fine with the rule of the majority, everyone is equal and if over 50% of the people can agree on a law then it is just (this not technically different from democracy). But other definitively do not believe that the majority have any right to force their will on the minority or even one single person. Which makes laws very hard to make, because you need 100% agreement (and the laws that are created are not really laws, since if someone murdered someone else all they would have to do is change their murder law vote to against to make it legal again), and a criminal court system very very limited if not impossible (because the majority does not have any given right to judge anyone).
So anarchism can mean no laws. Taken to extremes it requires a very different civilization, taken less extremely you could call our current democracy (more or less) an anarchistic country,
But then there is a difference between not believing you have a right to do something and having the power and will to do it.
And I do not think I agree that it is necessarily socialist, the notion that everyone is equal is not a socialist idea, even the USA has that. In some ways it is inherently capitalist, It does not really lend itself to either.
So an anarchistic country could really take any shape or form and only requires the humanist view of equality (more or less, kind-of, maybe, I am not an expert).
Ya, why didn't he "Google" that?
I would not call what Bees do polygamy, And birds tend to stick to pair bonding to the best of my knowledge. Not that this is helping my case. But I think it is the only important guide, the government job is not to oppress differences or promote "normal" behavior. If Polygamy does not inherently hurt others outside of polygamy then it should not be for the government to decide.
"Pair bonding with women and underage boys is much less common than the other way 'round." I disagree. It has been suggested that it is in fact more common, no one can really say with any certainty. And the argument that, men more often then women prefer underage lovers, is not an argument that shows inherent male dominate. I am not sure what the statistics are, or how they would change if it were legalized, but look at Lolita (the classic book or film); Just because a male is in a relationship does not automatically make it a male dominated relationship.
Well I hardly see it being constructive to go looking for a singular example of a successful polygamist relationship. Our closest ancestors do it, and in fact most mammals do it. Therefore, I cannot see how it can be considered absolutely wrong or impossible to work.
And I do not think it is fair to say it in inherently Patriarchy, Inherently it makes women more in demand and outnumber the man in the marriage where one man with many women is practiced. It would seem that in a democratic society it would inherently put women first in the home. And you cannot say that three women marrying is inherently Patriarchy. If we just outlawed men from marrying anyone, would that solve your issues with this?
"Regarding pair bonding with children, again, it's almost always patriarchal."??? Why would the boy be in charge of the adult woman? And of course patriarchal does not make sense in same sex relationships. I do not see how patriarchal has anything to do with this issue. The issues include: is sex inherently bad at some age, or is it always significantly similar to playing or masturbation. And consent.
Well the issue with other species is that they are away exploited. They are our slaves with worthless lives, they have no legal rights and are property. There are a few abuse laws that exist in most countries, but you cannot really talk about interspecies bonding in a legal sense, because they do not exist as thinking beings in the law. So keeping the law out of the discussion: Animals are concious beings that are able to make decisions and tell others what those are. Also all Mammals, at least (to the best of my knowledge), do not rely completely on rape to propagate the species. Therefore they all make the decision of who to mate with and then let him or her know that they want it. There is no reason that an animal cannot give consent (and there is no reason that an animal cannot be a friend or partner in life). And while I am sure we can both imagine exploitive relationships, there is no way to ever completely prevent them. And it is not like we ban intelligently people from marrying retarded people (or strong men from marrying the weaker females) because the one can take advantage of the other. Also imagine having a relationship with a tiger, it could kill you in an instant if it wanted to.
Also on a similar note. Wild Dogs have been known to raise human children, to look after them. So there is no reason, beyond the shear bizarreness that both our cultures feel towards that idea, that interspecies partnerships between a human and another mammal could not raise a child together (if they can do it all by themselves, then adding a human into the mix can only help matters).
"They don't. You are free to love, live with and raise together (sic) anyone you wish"
Except, if it is more than a pair of people, interspecies, or outside of strict age limits.
And you use the exact same language as homophobes and have the same misguided believes. If anything I believe polygamy is more common in nature between animals, and I see no reason to believe that 2 adults living together has any more or less "stabilizing effect", whatever that means, than 3 or 4.
Also it is hard to judge if polygamy naturally just does not work out as well as "normal" marriage when it has been illegal for the entire history of the US.
The part where that has anything to do with an international corporation?
Because science has already shown that the universe did not need a God to have evolutionist. The only place for God left outside of known science is like 1/9999999999999 of a second after the big bang and before, the rest we know has a scientific explanation (more or less, there are a few wholes).
But there is a difference between saying all couples, of any gender, pairing in our employ get benefits and campaigning to make it so everywhere.
You do have a point, being publicly pro-homosexual is more of less the same as being anti-anti-gay. And if a homosexual-bigot worked for them then he would have reasons to feel his workplace was hostile to him and his beliefs.
But their is a difference between says all couples of any gender pairing in our emply gets benefits and campaigning to make it so everywhere.
gay marriage and equality is all well and good but then that is not the only thing a corporation can campaign for. I think it would make a lot of sense for laws to prohibit corporations from taking sides in societies issues.
OK, I am not promoting the original commenter view, but then how about 3 or more mature adults who love each other?
Why do corporations and governments have any say in who we love, live with, and raise together?
The whole gay marriage issue seems like such a tiny specific issue to have a problem with.
And the how they always bring love into it, always bugs me. Love has nothing to do with legal marriage or what homosexuals want. Homosexuals, in general, want one thing to legalise marriage and gay sex. They do not want to legalise pedo-love, bestiality, or polygamy.
Well, I think the problem goes deeper than that. I do not think you have to be a religious fanatic in the minority to have at least some qualms with evolution. In most religions a creator god is the major feature. And without that, what is even the point of a God? While science cannot ever really disprove a God, if evidence can win you over then science has already made one useless. And if God did not creator man, then what is he? Some powerful Alien who has been tampering with Earth's history (in none miraculous ways that do not show any hint of miraculous power) and demanding obedience?
And that false positives never happen. From my understanding, back during the cold war a weather satellite was mistaken for a launched nuke and a retaliatory strike was recommended.
"Scientific discoveries enrich everybody"
Tell that to the Japanese. It did not take very long for a certain scientific discovery to cross borders and land right in their lap, "enriching" them.
Yes, but exponential is as wrong and overly simplistic as saying it is times.
It varies from exponential to times, depending on the algorithm and the sudoku.
A sudoku puzzle is not a password where you only know if you are correct if you get every single digit right.
Every single digit can stand alone, and you can have 100% certainty that one particular node is right without having any of the others.
That is why it is times, and not exponential.
But I guess in the worst case scenario, using a bad algorithm it is exponential.
IT depends on if we are measuring the worst case scenario instead of the average and exactly how brute force our brute force algorithm is.
What?
That makes very little sense.
First off lets take "21-25" = 23 as a average number of nodes already complete.
That leaves 81-23 = 58 left to find matches for.
There are 10 possible numbers that will fit in a given node, but we are pretty much guaranteed to find everyone on average after 5 tries.
So 5 * 58 = 290
Lets assume that most of the nodes have multiple solutions the first iteration through, even if we have to iterate through a reducing set of nodes and do not even keep track of the numbers that we have already crossed of as impossible in a given locative, we are talking a very small number in terms of a computer.
So even on the slowest processor, and even if you are using hundreds of instructions to test one number in one location you will be done in a fraction of a second.