Um... No. "Rotating infinitely" just creates a circle from the square whose diameter is the distance between opposite corners of the square. In either case, the square will fit through when the circle is of greater diameter than that distance. Unless you're using some kind of fake relativistic effect that happens at infinite speed.
Your threat-mentality defines your intellect more than any rebutal I could post here.
Don't make me kick your ass, buddy.
Also, if you're going to call someone dumb, try not to misspell "rebuttal" while you're doing it.
When someone says a square can't fit into a circle, I spin the square infinitely and expand the circle slightly (until it fits). I know that's a horrible example, but it works. Granted, I may have changed the rules, but what Genius doesn't?
You do understand that just the circle expansion would have done it, right? Maybe you did, since you acknowledged that it's a horrible example.
Personally, when someone asks me to fit a square peg in a round hole, I just punch them until they stop. Granted, I may have changed the rules, but what Genius doesn't?
Oooooooh! BURN! Hahahaha, he got you, paulm! You're TOTALLY jealous of guys who can go onto semi-anonymous message boards and tell other people that they're smart, and you KNOW it, bitch!
Dude, I know. I'm an "inventor" genius, too. Also, I'm funny and attractive and girls like to have sex with me. I pretty much rock. It's just that I freeze up when it comes to being a genius or funny or attractive or having sex under pressure, so other people don't see those things, which is why I have to tell people how great I am instead of just letting them see it.
It's not language evolution unless you're reversing the meaning of "could" and "couldn't." Using it that way is in direct conflict with every other use of the word, which makes it just plain wrong.
However saying "I could care less" as a shortened form of "I could care less, but I'd have to try really hard," as I'm pretty sure was the original usage, is acceptable but risks a misunderstanding.
... Yeah. 384 is... much better. Instead of "http://www.mapperator.com/maps/scripts/map.cgi? lat=75.1234836&long=21.112145", which we can all agree is hideous, you can have "http://www.mapperator.com/maps/scripts/map.cgi? coord=384", which contains beauty that I am not poet enough to describe.
Of course it would win a court case. Why would someone convert latitude and longitude into base-30 integers with implied arbitrary precision? There's no reason to ever do that. Microsoft actually invented this one, because nobody else would want to. And they patented it to prevent interoperability. That's a problem. The patent itself, though, would stand up fine.
They should really stick to just patenting things that someone else might want to do at some point. That said, anyone who actually read the patent would have to be squinting pretty hard to be upset with either MS or the patent guys about this one. I normally like me some MS bashing, but this one's pushing it.
Your "guy who usually doesn't know what he's talking about but doesn't know enough to know he doesn't know what he's talking about complains about 'opinion' suppression" (Whine) style post has been accepted.
Today's statistics:
Karma-whore: 377 Genuinely thoughtful post: 104 Troll: 305 Whine: 27 Rejected due to not fitting into the above categories: 2055
Please note that your vague reference to the article nearly got your post rejected. Try to be more like the other people in your category in the future.
Thank you for your effort. Without dedicated individuals like you phoning in your bitter, fill-in-the-blanks-esque posts, Slashdot wouldn't be what it is today.
And you've gone entirely off-topic. I'm now curious if you post this with every article with a couple of words changed, but I'm too lazy to check. Where the universe's rules came from is irrelevent to whether or not a reasonably good approximation of intelligence can be made from a computer. And by the way, the grasp you have on the things you do not know is likely not very tight. Unless you have a degree in physics, I don't even trust you to know what the rules are, let alone to guess at where they came from.
Having only a basic grasp of anything beyond Newtonian physics, myself, I'm personally fine with the idea that God is those rules, but I'm open to men wiser than me explaining why it's simpler than that. I would hope the same is true for you.
Again, though, grossly off-topic. And he was both careful and right, so he needn't worry about the killing.
Your argument is semantic. We're just going to accept as a given that the cells that generally move around with us are "us", and the things those cells do are "us doing stuff." Because those are useful definitions. Whether we define them that way or we define them as clumps of the universe's randomness, the same thing is happening.
The AI part seems independent of the other chunk. Your problem looks to be with humans designing anything, so we'll substitute TV for AI, and your post looks something like this:
"If evolution is true, then the things that we call "order" and "television" are just a higher function of chaos (the inevitable byproduct of randomness). On an even higher level, there is no reason to believe that we are actually designing anything, we are merely exciting our neurons (if they exist) into believing we have perceived that we are performing an action (which in this case is mental, which brings us back to the alleged neurons) that we call designing. If evolution is true, then television will happen regardless of what we do, and we have no reason to believe that we have anything to do with it whatsoever, or could influence it in any way at all if we did."
And so we're back to semantics, because I don't give a crap how the TV got there, I just care that it shows me naked girls after midnight on Saturdays. If AI can do that when the universe gets around to making one of its clumps build it, then I'm fine with it, too.
Don't worry. Your cell phone will cook, clean, and drive, and it will be free with a 2-year contract. Sadly they'll give you 10,000 cooking minutes per month but only 15 driving minutes. The wireless companies will lobby to outlaw new flying cars that would cut down your drive time and cost them money in overage charges.
I'm not a Democrat, and I was referring to the Republican inability to grasp more than one layer of consequence. Also, by definition, terrorists target civilians. The word you're looking for is "insurgent." But even if you had said what you meant to say, you'd still be wrong.
When it becomes feasible, robot fighters do let governments go to war more easily, but it will virtually guarantee that a counterstrike by the enemy will be against civilians instead of the pointless hunks of metal. Explaining this to Republicans will be nearly impossible.
Because he's a politician. The issue is unpopular with the majority, so he'd lose bigger if he didn't sign it and no good would have come from it. Myself, I would have told Congress to shove it, but that's why I'll never be elected to any office. Plus I'm grossly unqualified, and I don't have the time to star in a bunch of action movies.
I don't know Bill. I don't know if he would have signed it if a veto would have served a purpose, but the fact that he did sign it contains no information and can't be used for anything other than to say he didn't take a stand for it. Which, again, pisses me off, but it's a different issue.
Obviously more than half the democrats in the Senate voted for the damn thing, so I just wish we could stick to that embarrassing nugget instead of pulling Clinton's entirely ambiguous (unless it's in his biography that he wanted to sign it, in which case... oops) actions into it.
The liberal wing, in general, does not support the war on drugs. The Democratic Party, which most liberals end up voting for, goes along with it to keep moderates on their side.
But who cares. I'm replying because I'm so freaking sick of hearing about the Defense of Marriage Act being signed by Clinton. He signed the damn thing because when Congress passed it they already had more than 80% in favor of it in both the House and Senate, which is way more than enough to override a veto. If you want the argument, you can validly go for all the Democrats in Congress that voted for it, but shut up about Clinton.
Yes. That must be it. A game that makes its money based on people continuing to play is trying to fix the huge problems that are making people walk away because a comic strip on the internet was mad at them.
That's a great idea. Then once you get the enemy to trust that the plants will tell them where the mines are, you swap out a batch of reactive plants with non-reactive plants and when they go strolling through recklesslly, blammo.
I would hope the power source would be external, and I'm not sure you really need upgrades with electrodes stuck in your brain. But making sure that stuff works is the kind of thing I thought they should be working on, so I don't have to keep my head shaved and covered in conductive gel all the time.
Very neat, of course, but what good is it if I have to put on a fruity hat? Work on making it cheaply implantable without risking a lifetime of vegetable-ness, please.
Slashdot Mirror
Um... No. "Rotating infinitely" just creates a circle from the square whose diameter is the distance between opposite corners of the square. In either case, the square will fit through when the circle is of greater diameter than that distance. Unless you're using some kind of fake relativistic effect that happens at infinite speed.
Your threat-mentality defines your intellect more than any rebutal I could post here.
Don't make me kick your ass, buddy.
Also, if you're going to call someone dumb, try not to misspell "rebuttal" while you're doing it.
When someone says a square can't fit into a circle, I spin the square infinitely and expand the circle slightly (until it fits). I know that's a horrible example, but it works. Granted, I may have changed the rules, but what Genius doesn't?
You do understand that just the circle expansion would have done it, right? Maybe you did, since you acknowledged that it's a horrible example.
Personally, when someone asks me to fit a square peg in a round hole, I just punch them until they stop. Granted, I may have changed the rules, but what Genius doesn't?
Oooooooh! BURN! Hahahaha, he got you, paulm! You're TOTALLY jealous of guys who can go onto semi-anonymous message boards and tell other people that they're smart, and you KNOW it, bitch!
Dude, I know. I'm an "inventor" genius, too. Also, I'm funny and attractive and girls like to have sex with me. I pretty much rock. It's just that I freeze up when it comes to being a genius or funny or attractive or having sex under pressure, so other people don't see those things, which is why I have to tell people how great I am instead of just letting them see it.
It's not language evolution unless you're reversing the meaning of "could" and "couldn't." Using it that way is in direct conflict with every other use of the word, which makes it just plain wrong.
However saying "I could care less" as a shortened form of "I could care less, but I'd have to try really hard," as I'm pretty sure was the original usage, is acceptable but risks a misunderstanding.
It's not converting a number to another base. There's prior art for that from the BC. There's more to it. Read the patent.
... Yeah. 384 is... much better. Instead of "http://www.mapperator.com/maps/scripts/map.cgi? lat=75.1234836&long=21.112145", which we can all agree is hideous, you can have "http://www.mapperator.com/maps/scripts/map.cgi? coord=384", which contains beauty that I am not poet enough to describe.
Of course it would win a court case. Why would someone convert latitude and longitude into base-30 integers with implied arbitrary precision? There's no reason to ever do that. Microsoft actually invented this one, because nobody else would want to. And they patented it to prevent interoperability. That's a problem. The patent itself, though, would stand up fine.
They should really stick to just patenting things that someone else might want to do at some point. That said, anyone who actually read the patent would have to be squinting pretty hard to be upset with either MS or the patent guys about this one. I normally like me some MS bashing, but this one's pushing it.
Your "guy who usually doesn't know what he's talking about but doesn't know enough to know he doesn't know what he's talking about complains about 'opinion' suppression" (Whine) style post has been accepted.
Today's statistics:
Karma-whore: 377
Genuinely thoughtful post: 104
Troll: 305
Whine: 27
Rejected due to not fitting into the above categories: 2055
Please note that your vague reference to the article nearly got your post rejected. Try to be more like the other people in your category in the future.
Thank you for your effort. Without dedicated individuals like you phoning in your bitter, fill-in-the-blanks-esque posts, Slashdot wouldn't be what it is today.
Thank you.
-The Slashdot Mechanism
Argh...can't we have ANY physical space not filled with advertising?
--
Get a Free Zen Micro Mp3 Player! [zens4free.com]
I can't tell if you're funny or not.
And you've gone entirely off-topic. I'm now curious if you post this with every article with a couple of words changed, but I'm too lazy to check. Where the universe's rules came from is irrelevent to whether or not a reasonably good approximation of intelligence can be made from a computer. And by the way, the grasp you have on the things you do not know is likely not very tight. Unless you have a degree in physics, I don't even trust you to know what the rules are, let alone to guess at where they came from.
Having only a basic grasp of anything beyond Newtonian physics, myself, I'm personally fine with the idea that God is those rules, but I'm open to men wiser than me explaining why it's simpler than that. I would hope the same is true for you.
Again, though, grossly off-topic. And he was both careful and right, so he needn't worry about the killing.
Your argument is semantic. We're just going to accept as a given that the cells that generally move around with us are "us", and the things those cells do are "us doing stuff." Because those are useful definitions. Whether we define them that way or we define them as clumps of the universe's randomness, the same thing is happening.
The AI part seems independent of the other chunk. Your problem looks to be with humans designing anything, so we'll substitute TV for AI, and your post looks something like this:
"If evolution is true, then the things that we call "order" and "television" are just a higher function of chaos (the inevitable byproduct of randomness). On an even higher level, there is no reason to believe that we are actually designing anything, we are merely exciting our neurons (if they exist) into believing we have perceived that we are performing an action (which in this case is mental, which brings us back to the alleged neurons) that we call designing. If evolution is true, then television will happen regardless of what we do, and we have no reason to believe that we have anything to do with it whatsoever, or could influence it in any way at all if we did."
And so we're back to semantics, because I don't give a crap how the TV got there, I just care that it shows me naked girls after midnight on Saturdays. If AI can do that when the universe gets around to making one of its clumps build it, then I'm fine with it, too.
This distinction is important because we will learn to telecopy objects and telecopy live organisms before we learn to teleport them.
Helloooooo, lawsuit.
-.+AA
Don't worry. Your cell phone will cook, clean, and drive, and it will be free with a 2-year contract. Sadly they'll give you 10,000 cooking minutes per month but only 15 driving minutes. The wireless companies will lobby to outlaw new flying cars that would cut down your drive time and cost them money in overage charges.
I'm not a Democrat, and I was referring to the Republican inability to grasp more than one layer of consequence. Also, by definition, terrorists target civilians. The word you're looking for is "insurgent." But even if you had said what you meant to say, you'd still be wrong.
When it becomes feasible, robot fighters do let governments go to war more easily, but it will virtually guarantee that a counterstrike by the enemy will be against civilians instead of the pointless hunks of metal. Explaining this to Republicans will be nearly impossible.
Things were going okay. Sometimes nothing is the thing to do.
Because he's a politician. The issue is unpopular with the majority, so he'd lose bigger if he didn't sign it and no good would have come from it. Myself, I would have told Congress to shove it, but that's why I'll never be elected to any office. Plus I'm grossly unqualified, and I don't have the time to star in a bunch of action movies.
I don't know Bill. I don't know if he would have signed it if a veto would have served a purpose, but the fact that he did sign it contains no information and can't be used for anything other than to say he didn't take a stand for it. Which, again, pisses me off, but it's a different issue.
Obviously more than half the democrats in the Senate voted for the damn thing, so I just wish we could stick to that embarrassing nugget instead of pulling Clinton's entirely ambiguous (unless it's in his biography that he wanted to sign it, in which case... oops) actions into it.
The liberal wing, in general, does not support the war on drugs. The Democratic Party, which most liberals end up voting for, goes along with it to keep moderates on their side.
But who cares. I'm replying because I'm so freaking sick of hearing about the Defense of Marriage Act being signed by Clinton. He signed the damn thing because when Congress passed it they already had more than 80% in favor of it in both the House and Senate, which is way more than enough to override a veto. If you want the argument, you can validly go for all the Democrats in Congress that voted for it, but shut up about Clinton.
Yes. That must be it. A game that makes its money based on people continuing to play is trying to fix the huge problems that are making people walk away because a comic strip on the internet was mad at them.
William of Ockham would punch you, sir or madam.
That's a great idea. Then once you get the enemy to trust that the plants will tell them where the mines are, you swap out a batch of reactive plants with non-reactive plants and when they go strolling through recklesslly, blammo.
I would hope the power source would be external, and I'm not sure you really need upgrades with electrodes stuck in your brain. But making sure that stuff works is the kind of thing I thought they should be working on, so I don't have to keep my head shaved and covered in conductive gel all the time.
I guess that'd be neat, but why wouldn't you just push the buttons on the remote?
Very neat, of course, but what good is it if I have to put on a fruity hat? Work on making it cheaply implantable without risking a lifetime of vegetable-ness, please.