As far as quantums, you could say that they are the eigenvalues for the different eigenfunctions or eigenvectors in quantum mechanics.
Saying eigen's without any further information is meaningless. Whats in the matrix? Are we talking some form of Jacobian or Hessian? Something else? Without the further information, you might as well replace "eigenvalues" with "some arbitrary scalers"
Those farms near you are now worthless. Who's going to pay for that?
The owners of the land, silly. That would mainly be Big Agriculture. Giant conglomerates that often also own the associated food processing industry.
What about creating the new infrastructure required to farm these new areas?
You mean like irrigation? Pave a road or two? We are constantly developing that sort of infrastructure already. No new expenses next year? Great.
What happens when various cities become uninhabitable / less inhabitable because of local climatic changes.
Like New York? Miami? The earth could burn up and dry out and still people would live in those places, because cities already are an artificial environment. Even rising oceans wont make cities go away. There might be some rough patches with some flooding, but even New Orleans is still on the coast, below sea level, and heavily populated. Cities just arent going anywhere.
What happens when your country can no longer feed itself, but the neighbours have new farmland? Conflict is the normal resolution to these issues.
Most of the world already can't feed itself, and yet you are here telling us that one of the dire consequences of climate change is that most of the world wont be able to feed itself? You are describing the present, not the future.
In general humanity gave up being nomads several millennia ago. We can't just follow the herds any more.
We "gave up" being nomads because we can produce artificial environments. The majority of the western world lives on a giant carpet of pavement, and brings in resources from as far away as the opposite side of the planet to make that happen. We gladly accepted the consequences of non-local resource needs a very long time ago.
This is an already solved problem, and proof of that solution are all the metropolises that we have erected. We wont have to follow the herds because we don't have to follow the herds. If Americans can pay China to produce gadgets for them, then the "distance problem" obviously has become a trivial afterthought. Stop pretending that its a problem, OK? Its intellectually dishonest at best.. blatantly willful ignorance at worst.
It is because he has heard this counter argument before..
The problem, of course, is that he believes in his hate for whatever so he didnt bother to learn anything about things that confirm that hate. Such as in this case, where he is blindly trying to use a confirmation from another scenario in this obviously wrong way. The lack of knowledge he has is overshadowed by his lack of understanding. His beliefs are empty of any critical thought on his part.
Obama has not deficit spent at twice the rate of GWB, but, instead, has slowed deficit spending.
The problem is you then put up a chart that shows the exact opposite. You are right. It is most informative. Its informative about your ability to understand charts.
My guess is that you saw some bullshit facebook picture being shared by circle-jerks that claimed that Obama reduced deficit spending (perhaps the fraud that compared 8 year debt derivatives of Bush to 2 year debt derivatives of Obama as if they were on an equal scale), but you couldnt even find the bullshit graph to link to that actually made the bullshit claim look true. So here you are showing us an actual graph not knowing that actual graphs tell us the opposite story to the one you were selling, that you got from a caption on a graph you didnt even understand written by the DNC.
This is rich. In the US we don't have investigative journalism anymore
Wikileaks was neither investigative nor journalism. It was a data dump of sensitive information. Anyone that doesnt know the difference, such as apparently yourself, can offer no opinion that would be worth consuming on the subject. You are already too far gone to have any real grasp of reality.
If you weren't suggesting we get rid of marriage entirely, what ARE you suggesting?
I said exactly what I am suggesting. I take great care is not saying things that I do not mean. I also take great care in making sure that what I meant is clearly established. The only way to fuck this up on your end is if you do not understand these simple premises of communication.
Apparently you think Homosexuals want to get married because of their respect for the institution of marriage, and not for all the legal advantages that go with that institution. Apparently you are completely unaware that there are any advantages at all? Nah.. you cant be that ignorant.. right? Clearly the problem is that you do not understand the simple premises of communication.
We created a group of elite people with special rights, and now homosexuals also want the opportunity to join the elite group that has special rights. There is nothing at all about "equal rights" in their demands for same sex marriage. They want to join the unequal rights club.
"redefinition of marriage" - I think you mean equal rights for all.
Equal rights for all?
How about all single people get the same artificial advantages as married people, eh? No?
You don't know what equal rights actually means. First you set up an unfair situation where some people get special treatment. Then you go on about how some other people dont get the same treatment.
Meanwhile why not just let all people have the same treatment? No? Yeah.. thought so.. empty words from you.
More specifically, the Democrats are owned by the Media industry, the Insurance industry, and the Banks.
Whereas the Republicans are owned by the Oil industry, the Military industry, and the Banks.
The fact that the Banks own the Media, Insurance, Oil, and Military should not dissuade you into thinking that there arent stark differences.
You know, I wanted to say something flippant, but it occurs to me that as people copyright songs...
This should have occurred to you before your first post. Seriously. Why post at all if you didnt even take a brief moment to think about what you were saying? Hell, not only didnt you think about it before you typed it.. you had a chance to preview it and still didnt think about it.
The world cannot awaken if its content continues to be blathering unthinking crap spewing from the maws of people that want to hear themselves more than they want to know what they are talking about.
Exactly this. It is clearly possible to write software that handles all possible inputs in a well defined manner. As a trivial example, consider the simple case of image processing where an image is defined as an array of 8-bit R, G, and B values. All possible inputs are "valid by definition"and because of that its no surprise that the vast majority of image processors never crash while "processing" no matter what the data is.
It isnt until you get into things like JPEG decoding, where suddenly all inputs are not "valid by definition," that you start finding lots of critical bugs (not just wrong output values) in image processing software. It is certainly non-trivial to verify algorithms that consume data that might be invalid, but its still possible. It is this non-trivialness that is the problem. It takes more effort to handle the invalid inputs correctly than it does the valid ones.
For example buffer overflow or SQL injections: most run of the mill developers don't know enough to write code that prevents them, know what causes it etc.
As far as buffer overflows and the similar, I have written plenty of functions that could access random memory if the function is passed bad data. However, the functions arent supposed to be passed bad data and when implemented originally, it was impossible for them to be called with bad data. The problem doesnt appear until the functions are used in an unintended way.
For instance, function F1(...) produces data D1 from data set D0, function F2(...) produces an array of pointers D2 into D0 that are derived from D1. Function F3(...) blindly uses those pointers but it can be proved correct.
Then someone comes along and instead of producing D1 via F1(...), decided to throw unconstrained D666 data at it. Now suddenly F3(...) is accessing random memory even though the whole system was once provably correct, and no changes to the consumer F3(...) or the producer F2(...) were made.
One might say that such things are fragile design, but suppose the whole point of F2(...) was an optimization that allowed the program to run in an acceptable time interval which otherwise was not possible. Surely we arent declaring that optimizations are to be avoided at any cost. The problem is that D1 was not produced by F1(...).. nothing more, nothing less.
I think their excuse is that 360's are still selling very well. Over 70 million units sold and its still growing at a decent rate. As of June they had a consecutive 1.5 years as the #1 selling console. Not bad considering that both the PS3 and Wii came out after the 360.
MS is actually really good about that stuff in my experience.
Of course. The cost of doing it any other way is too great. Imagine if the folks at that reactivation call center had to actually know something...
The way it is, anyone that can read and speak the target language can do the job. Any other way and now you need trained people, and people responsible for monitoring job quality. Performance revues, and so on. It all becomes a lot more expensive very quickly.
Like the lock on your front door, the purpose of activation is to keep honest people honest. The odds are very good that your front doors lock is easily pick-able, even though unpick-able locks were available at the time the lock was installed. This is because a pick-able lock serves just as well as an unpick-able one at doing it job, which is only to keep honest people honest.
Indeed. I ported Win7 OEM from an aging 2-core Athlon64 to a 6-core PhenomII system. The only hardware that did not change was the video card. CPU, Motherboard, PSU, HD's, RAM, etc.. etc all replaced. Re-activation was a simple phone call that landed in what I suspect to be India.
Simple: the population of people requiring healthcare treatment at any given moment, even at 0 population growth, is always going to be much smaller then the population who are able-bodied and working.
This is true until a historic population boom just happens to begin hitting retirement age.
Social Security (in the US) is not a scam, incidentally
When your population "pyramid" looks like a snake that swallowed a large animal recently, assumptions like yours become invalid. The oldest boomers are just now hitting retirement age. Thats assuming that you arent considering folks over the retirement age "able-bodied." If you decide that people must work until they die, well thats another matter entirely. Is that what you have decided?
In 20 years, there will be only 2 tax payers for every 1 social security recipient. If that were true with todays benefits ($1000+/mo for $50K/year wage earner retiring at 62) on todays dollars, it would require taking in $500+ per tax payer per month just to cover social security outlays.
Now you can say that there is money in the social security fund to offset this, but that money isnt actually there is it? That money was spent by the boomer generation, and in its place is an unpaid IOU, an IOU that will need to be repaid by those same 2 tax payers that are not of the boomer generation.
Thats $6000 per year per tax payer just to maintain social security. That doesnt even cover medicare, the education system, roads, military, etc.. etc.. We are talking about a serious burden here, but you seem to think that its not a problem.
Not a single one of your examples are in the same arena as GMO. Not one. Apples contained cyanide before humans existed. Same with every one of your other examples.
So what you are saying is that the actual importance of the information is not at all relevant?
Some sort of religious crusade, then? You hate GMO so lets single out GMO?
Good, if they want to sell that kind of service do not call it internet service.
Thanks to the FCC, it doesnt matter what they call it. They can't sell it at all.
Do you understand this? The FCC has outlawed that kind of service, even if its called "extremely limited email-only service." That service is now illegal.
Thanks for being an ignorant dipshit that doesnt know what the fuck Net Neutrality means.
Isn't this exactly what anybody with a $420 a month car lease does
Sure, but thats an extremely high lease. People lease vehicles because both the down payment and monthly payments are less than they would be if actually purchasing the vehicle. The money "saved" is a portion of the remaining market value of the vehicle, that you don't own at the end of the lease.
Computers are different because they have almost no remaining market value after 5 years, especially if they are not serviceable. So a "leased" computer must have monthly payments equal to or greater than the payments you would be making through regular financing of the purchase price.
The upshot is that with the car you are making a trade-off when choosing a lease over purchasing, while with a computer there is no advantage to "leasing" at all.. so its not a trade-off.. its just a loss.
Why would you think net neutrality would restrict any of those things?
..perhaps because the FCC passed Net Neutrality rules that do restrict those things. Perhaps you yourself are actually unaware of what Net Neutrality means in the legal sense, as implemented by the Obama administration? Perhaps you are so in love with the term Net Neutrality that you didnt bother to find out what the FCC was shoving up your ass?
An ISP may not restrict access based on content. That means, quite specifically, that an ISP may not offer an email-only or http-only service. These kinds of services are now illegal because of Net Neutrality.
An ISP also may not pass along the savings associated with its deals with various entities to customers that take advantage of the efficiencies associated. For instance, your ISP may want Netflix to set up servers on their backbone in order to reduce their primary peering costs. However they may not charge users of Netflix less than users of Hulu, because the FCC fucked you right in the ass but you are too ignorant to know it.
Income taxes bypass consumption. Listen to any liberal on the subject and they will tell you that things like sales taxes and tarrifs are regressive, while income taxes are not.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as quantums, you could say that they are the eigenvalues for the different eigenfunctions or eigenvectors in quantum mechanics.
Saying eigen's without any further information is meaningless. Whats in the matrix? Are we talking some form of Jacobian or Hessian? Something else? Without the further information, you might as well replace "eigenvalues" with "some arbitrary scalers"
Those farms near you are now worthless. Who's going to pay for that?
The owners of the land, silly. That would mainly be Big Agriculture. Giant conglomerates that often also own the associated food processing industry.
What about creating the new infrastructure required to farm these new areas?
You mean like irrigation? Pave a road or two? We are constantly developing that sort of infrastructure already. No new expenses next year? Great.
What happens when various cities become uninhabitable / less inhabitable because of local climatic changes.
Like New York? Miami? The earth could burn up and dry out and still people would live in those places, because cities already are an artificial environment. Even rising oceans wont make cities go away. There might be some rough patches with some flooding, but even New Orleans is still on the coast, below sea level, and heavily populated. Cities just arent going anywhere.
What happens when your country can no longer feed itself, but the neighbours have new farmland? Conflict is the normal resolution to these issues.
Most of the world already can't feed itself, and yet you are here telling us that one of the dire consequences of climate change is that most of the world wont be able to feed itself? You are describing the present, not the future.
In general humanity gave up being nomads several millennia ago. We can't just follow the herds any more.
We "gave up" being nomads because we can produce artificial environments. The majority of the western world lives on a giant carpet of pavement, and brings in resources from as far away as the opposite side of the planet to make that happen. We gladly accepted the consequences of non-local resource needs a very long time ago.
This is an already solved problem, and proof of that solution are all the metropolises that we have erected. We wont have to follow the herds because we don't have to follow the herds. If Americans can pay China to produce gadgets for them, then the "distance problem" obviously has become a trivial afterthought. Stop pretending that its a problem, OK? Its intellectually dishonest at best.. blatantly willful ignorance at worst.
You should be able to extract energy from any temperature gradient, be it from a local hot-spot or a local cold-spot.
Beats the hell out of me.. I'm still trying to figure out how GDP could ever be less than any expenditures. That guys +5 now.... amazing.
It is because he has heard this counter argument before..
The problem, of course, is that he believes in his hate for whatever so he didnt bother to learn anything about things that confirm that hate. Such as in this case, where he is blindly trying to use a confirmation from another scenario in this obviously wrong way. The lack of knowledge he has is overshadowed by his lack of understanding. His beliefs are empty of any critical thought on his part.
Obama has not deficit spent at twice the rate of GWB, but, instead, has slowed deficit spending.
The problem is you then put up a chart that shows the exact opposite. You are right. It is most informative. Its informative about your ability to understand charts.
My guess is that you saw some bullshit facebook picture being shared by circle-jerks that claimed that Obama reduced deficit spending (perhaps the fraud that compared 8 year debt derivatives of Bush to 2 year debt derivatives of Obama as if they were on an equal scale), but you couldnt even find the bullshit graph to link to that actually made the bullshit claim look true. So here you are showing us an actual graph not knowing that actual graphs tell us the opposite story to the one you were selling, that you got from a caption on a graph you didnt even understand written by the DNC.
This is rich. In the US we don't have investigative journalism anymore
Wikileaks was neither investigative nor journalism. It was a data dump of sensitive information. Anyone that doesnt know the difference, such as apparently yourself, can offer no opinion that would be worth consuming on the subject. You are already too far gone to have any real grasp of reality.
If you weren't suggesting we get rid of marriage entirely, what ARE you suggesting?
I said exactly what I am suggesting. I take great care is not saying things that I do not mean. I also take great care in making sure that what I meant is clearly established. The only way to fuck this up on your end is if you do not understand these simple premises of communication.
Apparently you think Homosexuals want to get married because of their respect for the institution of marriage, and not for all the legal advantages that go with that institution. Apparently you are completely unaware that there are any advantages at all? Nah.. you cant be that ignorant.. right? Clearly the problem is that you do not understand the simple premises of communication.
Homosexuals want to get married because it is the only way to secure these advantages.
We created a group of elite people with special rights, and now homosexuals also want the opportunity to join the elite group that has special rights. There is nothing at all about "equal rights" in their demands for same sex marriage. They want to join the unequal rights club.
What's your suggestion? All I see is you think we should get rid of marriage entirely.
You are seeing things that arent there. Thats part of the problem with your generation. You make things up.
Why not let all people have the same advantages? Seriously.. why not? Whats wrong with that, and what does that have to do with ending marriage?
"redefinition of marriage" - I think you mean equal rights for all.
Equal rights for all?
How about all single people get the same artificial advantages as married people, eh? No?
You don't know what equal rights actually means. First you set up an unfair situation where some people get special treatment. Then you go on about how some other people dont get the same treatment.
Meanwhile why not just let all people have the same treatment? No? Yeah.. thought so.. empty words from you.
Because they're owned by the RIAA.
More specifically, the Democrats are owned by the Media industry, the Insurance industry, and the Banks.
Whereas the Republicans are owned by the Oil industry, the Military industry, and the Banks.
The fact that the Banks own the Media, Insurance, Oil, and Military should not dissuade you into thinking that there arent stark differences.
You know, I wanted to say something flippant, but it occurs to me that as people copyright songs...
This should have occurred to you before your first post. Seriously. Why post at all if you didnt even take a brief moment to think about what you were saying? Hell, not only didnt you think about it before you typed it.. you had a chance to preview it and still didnt think about it.
The world cannot awaken if its content continues to be blathering unthinking crap spewing from the maws of people that want to hear themselves more than they want to know what they are talking about.
Also, I can just pay cash and there's no record of who made the transaction at a retailer.
Sure, as long as you dont count that facial recognition software hooked up to the cameras covering the register...
Exactly this. It is clearly possible to write software that handles all possible inputs in a well defined manner. As a trivial example, consider the simple case of image processing where an image is defined as an array of 8-bit R, G, and B values. All possible inputs are "valid by definition"and because of that its no surprise that the vast majority of image processors never crash while "processing" no matter what the data is.
It isnt until you get into things like JPEG decoding, where suddenly all inputs are not "valid by definition," that you start finding lots of critical bugs (not just wrong output values) in image processing software. It is certainly non-trivial to verify algorithms that consume data that might be invalid, but its still possible. It is this non-trivialness that is the problem. It takes more effort to handle the invalid inputs correctly than it does the valid ones.
For example buffer overflow or SQL injections: most run of the mill developers don't know enough to write code that prevents them, know what causes it etc.
As far as buffer overflows and the similar, I have written plenty of functions that could access random memory if the function is passed bad data. However, the functions arent supposed to be passed bad data and when implemented originally, it was impossible for them to be called with bad data. The problem doesnt appear until the functions are used in an unintended way.
.. nothing more, nothing less.
For instance, function F1(...) produces data D1 from data set D0, function F2(...) produces an array of pointers D2 into D0 that are derived from D1. Function F3(...) blindly uses those pointers but it can be proved correct.
Then someone comes along and instead of producing D1 via F1(...), decided to throw unconstrained D666 data at it. Now suddenly F3(...) is accessing random memory even though the whole system was once provably correct, and no changes to the consumer F3(...) or the producer F2(...) were made.
One might say that such things are fragile design, but suppose the whole point of F2(...) was an optimization that allowed the program to run in an acceptable time interval which otherwise was not possible. Surely we arent declaring that optimizations are to be avoided at any cost. The problem is that D1 was not produced by F1(...)
Define illegal.
no idea what MS's excuse is.
I think their excuse is that 360's are still selling very well. Over 70 million units sold and its still growing at a decent rate. As of June they had a consecutive 1.5 years as the #1 selling console. Not bad considering that both the PS3 and Wii came out after the 360.
Thats a pretty good excuse, isnt it?
MS is actually really good about that stuff in my experience.
Of course. The cost of doing it any other way is too great. Imagine if the folks at that reactivation call center had to actually know something...
The way it is, anyone that can read and speak the target language can do the job. Any other way and now you need trained people, and people responsible for monitoring job quality. Performance revues, and so on. It all becomes a lot more expensive very quickly.
Like the lock on your front door, the purpose of activation is to keep honest people honest. The odds are very good that your front doors lock is easily pick-able, even though unpick-able locks were available at the time the lock was installed. This is because a pick-able lock serves just as well as an unpick-able one at doing it job, which is only to keep honest people honest.
Indeed. I ported Win7 OEM from an aging 2-core Athlon64 to a 6-core PhenomII system. The only hardware that did not change was the video card. CPU, Motherboard, PSU, HD's, RAM, etc.. etc all replaced. Re-activation was a simple phone call that landed in what I suspect to be India.
Simple: the population of people requiring healthcare treatment at any given moment, even at 0 population growth, is always going to be much smaller then the population who are able-bodied and working.
This is true until a historic population boom just happens to begin hitting retirement age.
Social Security (in the US) is not a scam, incidentally
When your population "pyramid" looks like a snake that swallowed a large animal recently, assumptions like yours become invalid. The oldest boomers are just now hitting retirement age. Thats assuming that you arent considering folks over the retirement age "able-bodied." If you decide that people must work until they die, well thats another matter entirely. Is that what you have decided?
In 20 years, there will be only 2 tax payers for every 1 social security recipient. If that were true with todays benefits ($1000+/mo for $50K/year wage earner retiring at 62) on todays dollars, it would require taking in $500+ per tax payer per month just to cover social security outlays.
Now you can say that there is money in the social security fund to offset this, but that money isnt actually there is it? That money was spent by the boomer generation, and in its place is an unpaid IOU, an IOU that will need to be repaid by those same 2 tax payers that are not of the boomer generation.
Thats $6000 per year per tax payer just to maintain social security. That doesnt even cover medicare, the education system, roads, military, etc.. etc.. We are talking about a serious burden here, but you seem to think that its not a problem.
Not a single one of your examples are in the same arena as GMO. Not one. Apples contained cyanide before humans existed. Same with every one of your other examples.
So what you are saying is that the actual importance of the information is not at all relevant?
Some sort of religious crusade, then? You hate GMO so lets single out GMO?
Good, if they want to sell that kind of service do not call it internet service.
Thanks to the FCC, it doesnt matter what they call it. They can't sell it at all.
Do you understand this? The FCC has outlawed that kind of service, even if its called "extremely limited email-only service." That service is now illegal.
Thanks for being an ignorant dipshit that doesnt know what the fuck Net Neutrality means.
Isn't this exactly what anybody with a $420 a month car lease does
Sure, but thats an extremely high lease. People lease vehicles because both the down payment and monthly payments are less than they would be if actually purchasing the vehicle. The money "saved" is a portion of the remaining market value of the vehicle, that you don't own at the end of the lease.
Computers are different because they have almost no remaining market value after 5 years, especially if they are not serviceable. So a "leased" computer must have monthly payments equal to or greater than the payments you would be making through regular financing of the purchase price.
The upshot is that with the car you are making a trade-off when choosing a lease over purchasing, while with a computer there is no advantage to "leasing" at all.. so its not a trade-off.. its just a loss.
Why would you think net neutrality would restrict any of those things?
An ISP may not restrict access based on content. That means, quite specifically, that an ISP may not offer an email-only or http-only service. These kinds of services are now illegal because of Net Neutrality.
An ISP also may not pass along the savings associated with its deals with various entities to customers that take advantage of the efficiencies associated. For instance, your ISP may want Netflix to set up servers on their backbone in order to reduce their primary peering costs. However they may not charge users of Netflix less than users of Hulu, because the FCC fucked you right in the ass but you are too ignorant to know it.
Consumers ultimately pay all taxes.
Income taxes bypass consumption. Listen to any liberal on the subject and they will tell you that things like sales taxes and tarrifs are regressive, while income taxes are not.