You're assuming that you start from nothing, or from pure energy. Creating dark matter could just mean converting ordinary matter in some way.
Converting hydrogen and oxygen into 1 tonne of water doesn't require E = 1000*c^2 (rocket engineers might tell you it actually gives you energy out), but you get 1000kg of water at the end.
No, I mean those who do use it, and are now having second thoughts about everything Google.
I think this has finally got the message through to many people (myself included), that Google will can anything. Reader wasn't exactly an experiment - it was almost 8 years old. Not really in sync with their push for us to rely more and more on the "cloud".
Maybe they've underestimated how many people really care?
Maybe it's a very unpopular decision within Google, and those employees can back up their complaints with this petition (I'm sure not everyone has access to Google usage statistics).
If someone rear-ends you, then that's their fault. 100% of the time.
What about an oil patch on the road, a sudden puncture, brake failure, a heart attack - is it still 100% their fault? Sometimes an accident can be nobody's fault.
What is true 100% of the time is that purposely not preventing an accident you could easily prevent, is definitely your fault.
Example: Some idiot overtakes where he shouldn't, doesn't see a car coming the other direction. Driver who's being overtaken DOES see the oncoming car, but chooses not to slow down to let the overtaking car back in to safety - because "it's the other guys own fault". Yes, the guy overtaking is an asshole for risking his and other people's lives, but the guy being overtaken is also an asshole, and in my opinion culpable, for not taking action to prevent another asshole (and innocent others) getting hurt/killed.
No. One of the two did it wrong. If they produce the exact same result, proc usage, runtime, AND effort to create, they'd be the same functions.
Besides, the infallible coder could just name off binary digits, all the while perfectly confident that it will work.
Did it wrong?? So a perfectly working function that took slightly more initial effort is wrong? Even though it might be easier for a non-infallible coder colleague to re-use or adapt? There, see - I've just added another metric - reusability - you could keep adding more metrics forever.
My point is that sometimes there is no perfect solution - there are trade-offs. You could argue that one day, eventually, maybe it could be decided that one or the other trade off was the better choice - but that conclusion will still be an opinion, based on a certain set of priorities. I don't see why two infallible beings couldn't have different priorities and opinions.
Two infallible people at the same time would have to agree on everything.
Is that really true?
How about two "infallible" coders who write the same function (let's say, in Perl) in two different ways - both of which produce the exact same result, processor usage, and runtime.
Could they not disagree on coding style yet remain infallible?
If you're a fan of a particular [insert sport here] team, you tend to be interested if a big change of leadership occurs in an opposing team.
If you're an atheist or just an enlightened citizen of the world, I reckon it's newsworthy when the leadership of a 1 billion-strong team is about to change.
Or get an Apple, they have drivers from XP forward.
They're not great though - my experience on a Macbook Pro with Windows 8:
Two-finger scrolling is so sensitive it's almost unusable.
Keyboard backlight always comes on at startup, have to hold the dim key down for 2-3 seconds to get rid of it, EVERY time you restart.
Screen backlight intensity is unreliable, especially after a restart. The max available intensity seems to vary.
These are known issues for a long time now, and there are even 3rd party drivers written to fix them (but they only work if you put Windows 8 into devel mode). It's almost like Apple wants your Windows experience on a Mac to be slightly imperfect...
Desktops won't go away, they'll just become a more niche product, and thus more expensive.
It could happen very quickly though, as it will act like a positive feedback loop - with prices going up, fewer home users / enthusiasts will buy them, thus they'll get even more expensive.....
Just like a lot of people I know that will not run alone in a park because somebody somewhere was victim of a crime and so they are afraid of doing so (without obviously realizing how low the probability that something like that would happen to them, much lower than the probability of them being run over by a car when they run along a road instead).
I agree with your post, but I think there can be a little bit more to it than probability - namely the feeling that you have control over a situation.
e.g. you might feel that it's much easier to avoid being hit by a car than surviving an attack from behind in the dark by a guy with a knife.
The difference between shooting a 30 round magazine and three 10 round magazines is about 4 seconds. With just a small amount of practice, anyone can reload in under 2 seconds.
Are you saying that doesn't make a difference then? Four seconds sounds like a very significant amount of time for a gunman to drop his defences - both for the possibility of people escaping, or attacking the attacker. Plus, who's to say he won't fumble the reload, especially if he feels someone is about to fight back?
By the way, when people speak out against high capacity magazines, perhaps they also include 10-round ones. Reduce magazine capacity to 6, make it harder to reload... your argument gets weaker again.
Yeah, that made it into F1 via the Brabham BT46 in the 70's, only to be quickly banned, probably for the very reason you mention above - possibility of death.
I did say level the field "at least a little bit," and it's inferred that it's in a financial sense.:)
Of course they're not trying to equalise everything - it's a team sport, not an individual one. No matter what people think, it is fair that some drivers have better cars than others. And people often forget that one of the developers of the car is the driver himself.
But reduce the financial gap between the back and the front of the grid, and you have a more reasonable barrier to entry, a chance for mid-level teams to make a dent on the bigger ones, and avoid the bigger teams spending each other into bankruptcy.
Thing about F1 though is the incredible g-forces, under turning and especially under braking. These are dependent on the extreme downforces that can only be generated at high speeds. So I wouldn't say that speed isn't important.
Rallying, 100% agree.
Touring cars I just can't get into, though I am certainly not blind to the appeal. For me, it seems too easy to get away with driving like an idiot, bumping other cars, out-braking yourself and taking the guy in front out - you just don't see the same disciplined racing as you see in open-wheel categories. (of course those guys can be idiots too, but they tend not to get away with it without damaging their own car, and so learn quickly).
Slashdot Mirror
There's no reason to assume the whole vehicle isn't mirrored.
Well there's at least one reason to assume that - mirroring all the parts would mean a hell of a lot less re-use between LHD and RHD cars.
Umm... 25kg of Aluminium, i.e. something you can easily lift with one arm - I think that might fit in the trunk.
You're assuming that you start from nothing, or from pure energy. Creating dark matter could just mean converting ordinary matter in some way.
Converting hydrogen and oxygen into 1 tonne of water doesn't require E = 1000*c^2 (rocket engineers might tell you it actually gives you energy out), but you get 1000kg of water at the end.
Looks like Slashdot has the same issue.
For example, this. No user authentication required at all.
Who needs a 14MP Camera with a ditzy little lense .. what's the point?
I love the new HTC One for that reason - they reduced the camera to 4MP to improve low-light performance. As it should be.
No, I mean those who do use it, and are now having second thoughts about everything Google.
I think this has finally got the message through to many people (myself included), that Google will can anything. Reader wasn't exactly an experiment - it was almost 8 years old. Not really in sync with their push for us to rely more and more on the "cloud".
Maybe they've underestimated how many people really care?
Maybe it's a very unpopular decision within Google, and those employees can back up their complaints with this petition (I'm sure not everyone has access to Google usage statistics).
Surely it's worth a try anyway.
If someone rear-ends you, then that's their fault. 100% of the time.
What about an oil patch on the road, a sudden puncture, brake failure, a heart attack - is it still 100% their fault? Sometimes an accident can be nobody's fault.
What is true 100% of the time is that purposely not preventing an accident you could easily prevent, is definitely your fault.
Example: Some idiot overtakes where he shouldn't, doesn't see a car coming the other direction. Driver who's being overtaken DOES see the oncoming car, but chooses not to slow down to let the overtaking car back in to safety - because "it's the other guys own fault". Yes, the guy overtaking is an asshole for risking his and other people's lives, but the guy being overtaken is also an asshole, and in my opinion culpable, for not taking action to prevent another asshole (and innocent others) getting hurt/killed.
How many of those surveyed believe humans never landed on the moon?
If other polls are to believed, there's more than likely some overlap between the two!
No. One of the two did it wrong. If they produce the exact same result, proc usage, runtime, AND effort to create, they'd be the same functions. Besides, the infallible coder could just name off binary digits, all the while perfectly confident that it will work.
Did it wrong?? So a perfectly working function that took slightly more initial effort is wrong? Even though it might be easier for a non-infallible coder colleague to re-use or adapt? There, see - I've just added another metric - reusability - you could keep adding more metrics forever.
My point is that sometimes there is no perfect solution - there are trade-offs. You could argue that one day, eventually, maybe it could be decided that one or the other trade off was the better choice - but that conclusion will still be an opinion, based on a certain set of priorities. I don't see why two infallible beings couldn't have different priorities and opinions.
Two infallible people at the same time would have to agree on everything.
Is that really true?
How about two "infallible" coders who write the same function (let's say, in Perl) in two different ways - both of which produce the exact same result, processor usage, and runtime.
Could they not disagree on coding style yet remain infallible?
If you're a fan of a particular [insert sport here] team, you tend to be interested if a big change of leadership occurs in an opposing team.
If you're an atheist or just an enlightened citizen of the world, I reckon it's newsworthy when the leadership of a 1 billion-strong team is about to change.
Or get an Apple, they have drivers from XP forward.
They're not great though - my experience on a Macbook Pro with Windows 8:
These are known issues for a long time now, and there are even 3rd party drivers written to fix them (but they only work if you put Windows 8 into devel mode). It's almost like Apple wants your Windows experience on a Mac to be slightly imperfect...
Desktops won't go away, they'll just become a more niche product, and thus more expensive.
It could happen very quickly though, as it will act like a positive feedback loop - with prices going up, fewer home users / enthusiasts will buy them, thus they'll get even more expensive.....
Just like a lot of people I know that will not run alone in a park because somebody somewhere was victim of a crime and so they are afraid of doing so (without obviously realizing how low the probability that something like that would happen to them, much lower than the probability of them being run over by a car when they run along a road instead).
I agree with your post, but I think there can be a little bit more to it than probability - namely the feeling that you have control over a situation.
e.g. you might feel that it's much easier to avoid being hit by a car than surviving an attack from behind in the dark by a guy with a knife.
What about lifeforms with lifespans of 1000's of years?
Their perception of time could be vastly different to ours - maybe a few hundred years travel time wouldn't be too bad for them?
Or dual boot.
Over a hundred people die from firearms every day in America. Roughly about 1/3 accidents, 1/3 suicides, and 1/3 deliberate homicides.
Well homicide is already illegal, so I'll leave that aside...
But ban accidents and suicide, and you'll immediately drop that number by 66%.
The difference between shooting a 30 round magazine and three 10 round magazines is about 4 seconds. With just a small amount of practice, anyone can reload in under 2 seconds.
Are you saying that doesn't make a difference then? Four seconds sounds like a very significant amount of time for a gunman to drop his defences - both for the possibility of people escaping, or attacking the attacker. Plus, who's to say he won't fumble the reload, especially if he feels someone is about to fight back?
By the way, when people speak out against high capacity magazines, perhaps they also include 10-round ones. Reduce magazine capacity to 6, make it harder to reload... your argument gets weaker again.
Cool, then I can afford a flight with Golden Spike!
Wow, I hope that's not true.
I, for one, have absolutely no interest in funding a passenger ride for one of my countrymen for no reason other than to tick off a box.
Of course, if there's a high chance of them not coming back, I might reconsider.
Yeah, that made it into F1 via the Brabham BT46 in the 70's, only to be quickly banned, probably for the very reason you mention above - possibility of death.
It is definitely worth coming back... I've been watching since 1991, and 2012 has been one of the best seasons I've seen, if not the best.
I did say level the field "at least a little bit," and it's inferred that it's in a financial sense. :)
Of course they're not trying to equalise everything - it's a team sport, not an individual one. No matter what people think, it is fair that some drivers have better cars than others. And people often forget that one of the developers of the car is the driver himself.
But reduce the financial gap between the back and the front of the grid, and you have a more reasonable barrier to entry, a chance for mid-level teams to make a dent on the bigger ones, and avoid the bigger teams spending each other into bankruptcy.
Thing about F1 though is the incredible g-forces, under turning and especially under braking. These are dependent on the extreme downforces that can only be generated at high speeds. So I wouldn't say that speed isn't important.
Rallying, 100% agree.
Touring cars I just can't get into, though I am certainly not blind to the appeal. For me, it seems too easy to get away with driving like an idiot, bumping other cars, out-braking yourself and taking the guy in front out - you just don't see the same disciplined racing as you see in open-wheel categories. (of course those guys can be idiots too, but they tend not to get away with it without damaging their own car, and so learn quickly).