If you main way of viewing the world is as classifying people as less smart than you are then you are most likely being an asshole without realizing it and the level you have risen to is the highest level anyone could stand to let you rise to out of concern for the people you impact with your behavior. Also, I'm probably a lot smarter than you are based on the post you wrote, so you should really listen to me on this seeing as you are not as smart as me. Did that statement annoy you even just a little bit? If yes, think about how you might be annoying other people in the same way even if you aren't quite as blunt as that statement is.
Dexter killed a man for taking his childrens' picture and despite how he portrays himself to himself (and hence the viewer) he generally kills at the drop of a hat based on vague feelings about how people are, in his mind, guilty. House knows he's indispensable at his work so he takes every chance to be the biggest asshole he can be. These two are highly efficacious in what they do, but their quality as human beings is very low.
Wow, you'd prefer to see the internet destroyed rather than have the serfs enjoy it. That's either a mediocre attempt at trolling or a deeply sad level of misanthropy. I pity you either way.
You've got it backwards. That would be the absolutely best scenario the ISPs could ever in their wildest dreams imagine. They would all be selling a unique product and could charge for it as such. Right now they are all selling pretty much the same thing which there isn't much profit in. It's the difference between selling designer (=unique) handbags and plain plastic bags. The ISPs would love it all to be ungodly complicated because they can hire people to figure it all out, but their customers only have 5 minutes on a Wednesday to choose their ISP. You don't actually think that it would have to be so hard to figure out which mobile phone company would be the better deal, do you? It's complicated exactly to prevent you from figuring that out and this would be the same thing.
His mistake, if he indeed did what you said, is completely consistent with the way the NP versus P question is usually popularized. Your refutation clearly points out how the NP versus P question isn't actually relevant to actual computation by actual computers - it is a theoretical concern that is useful to know about when e.g. trying to come up with algorithms. However the question is often presented as though it is a practical concern and if that were true his methodology would be sound.
Yes, rail has advantages. If the cars can form convoys and drive autonomously they have all the same advantages as well as the advantages of cars such as being able to drive on all the roads that already exist and being able to drive on roads along with cars that do not support the system.
I agree that packing cars more tightly using rails increase traffic density. I just doubt that cars in close traffic have 10 car lengths between them, which is what would have to be the case to increase traffic density 10x by eliminating space between cars.
Trains won't carry 10x people if each person consumes the space that their car consumes as would be the case if cars were moved on rails with a driver inside each.
I see you like Hitler too. It isn't part of English as spoken by people who know what the hell they are saying, it's part of stupid-English, the anti-language spoken by stupid people. It's actually very nice of them to self-identify like that. I find it strange that people who would violently object to carrying around a sign saying "I'm stupid" will never the less express themselves in ways that amount to the same thing. Que quips about how I'm doing the same thing and about mistakes in what I just wrote.
I don't get your reference to The Mother Tongue. There is only one hit for "I could care less" in that book on Google Books (page 11), and it does not seem relevant to this other than in pointing out that some people do use "I could care less" to mean the opposite of what they are saying. I don't actually even know what you are saying "no" to. I'm not arguing against it being silly, I'm saying that it's more than merely silly.
It doesn't just sound silly, it's a crime against intelligence is what it is. I doubt it's a contraction like you say since "as if I could care less" is not something I've ever heard, while "I couldn't care less" is. It's just a bunch of people who don't know what they are saying that cut out the "not" because they don't understand how the sentence is supposed to work. That's like contracting "I don't like Hitler" to "I like Hitler". I guess by your reckoning it would be like contracting "as if I like Hitler" to "I like Hitler" which is just as stupid, but I still think it's the former.
Cars are compatible with the roads we have now, trains are not. Other cars not in this system can ride the roads made for the system, not so for rails.
An automated taxi can drive many people a day at the cost of producing a single vehicle. A car that sits on a parking spot 95% of the time is 95% wasted.
If someone still manages to go into the gap, the cars could play a message for the offender to get out and otherwise take a picture of the license plate and send it to the traffic police who will send the offender a fine. There would need to be a way for cars to signal that they are in a train.
People don't ride trains and buses everywhere because they like that in a car you can control the timing of your travel and you control who you go there with and when you take breaks or detours and so on. To support this you need roads. Then the roads are already there while other kinds of tracks are not already there. Putting tracks for trains everywhere would not even capture all the good points of cars and would not utilize the amount of road that has been already put down. Making cars able to form trains at will makes the car capture many of the good points of a train. The idea is not to replace trains, the idea is to improve cars.
You didn't understand the suggestion - companies would be unable to figure out that you are the same person from your card even if you go shop there every day. So pooling their info would be pointless for them. The card gives a different id every time it is queried. Only the issuer can tell that all those ids are for the same card. The issuer would be the government, and the idea would be that getting access to the card database requires a warrant the same way searching your property requires a warrant. Information of your purchases does not require talking to the government server, so the government would have no way to tell what you are doing with your card. You seem to believe that holding the government to something like that is impossible, and I suppose you could be correct. Though in that case we are all fucked anyway, since there is nothing to stop even private companies from tracking you right now in many ways that wouldn't be possible with such an id card system.
Slashdot Mirror
If you main way of viewing the world is as classifying people as less smart than you are then you are most likely being an asshole without realizing it and the level you have risen to is the highest level anyone could stand to let you rise to out of concern for the people you impact with your behavior. Also, I'm probably a lot smarter than you are based on the post you wrote, so you should really listen to me on this seeing as you are not as smart as me. Did that statement annoy you even just a little bit? If yes, think about how you might be annoying other people in the same way even if you aren't quite as blunt as that statement is.
At which point it will be apparent that something is up.
and then whine unceasingly when shows get canceled for lack of revenue from viewers
You are whining about whining, the mark of a true snob. Here's you membership card and welcome.
How impressively unrelated to the topic of you.
Dexter killed a man for taking his childrens' picture and despite how he portrays himself to himself (and hence the viewer) he generally kills at the drop of a hat based on vague feelings about how people are, in his mind, guilty. House knows he's indispensable at his work so he takes every chance to be the biggest asshole he can be. These two are highly efficacious in what they do, but their quality as human beings is very low.
I thought the Grinch was a fictional character but I guess not.
Wow, you'd prefer to see the internet destroyed rather than have the serfs enjoy it. That's either a mediocre attempt at trolling or a deeply sad level of misanthropy. I pity you either way.
You've got it backwards. That would be the absolutely best scenario the ISPs could ever in their wildest dreams imagine. They would all be selling a unique product and could charge for it as such. Right now they are all selling pretty much the same thing which there isn't much profit in. It's the difference between selling designer (=unique) handbags and plain plastic bags. The ISPs would love it all to be ungodly complicated because they can hire people to figure it all out, but their customers only have 5 minutes on a Wednesday to choose their ISP. You don't actually think that it would have to be so hard to figure out which mobile phone company would be the better deal, do you? It's complicated exactly to prevent you from figuring that out and this would be the same thing.
His mistake, if he indeed did what you said, is completely consistent with the way the NP versus P question is usually popularized. Your refutation clearly points out how the NP versus P question isn't actually relevant to actual computation by actual computers - it is a theoretical concern that is useful to know about when e.g. trying to come up with algorithms. However the question is often presented as though it is a practical concern and if that were true his methodology would be sound.
Yes, rail has advantages. If the cars can form convoys and drive autonomously they have all the same advantages as well as the advantages of cars such as being able to drive on all the roads that already exist and being able to drive on roads along with cars that do not support the system.
I'm sure you prefer wingdings, I'd just prefer to avoid such authors. You can keep whining about my whining if you wish. Carry on.
I agree that packing cars more tightly using rails increase traffic density. I just doubt that cars in close traffic have 10 car lengths between them, which is what would have to be the case to increase traffic density 10x by eliminating space between cars.
Trains won't carry 10x people if each person consumes the space that their car consumes as would be the case if cars were moved on rails with a driver inside each.
Quite right, and in that sentiment I would like to add that that is obviously precisely what is going on when people say "I could care less".
I see you like Hitler too. It isn't part of English as spoken by people who know what the hell they are saying, it's part of stupid-English, the anti-language spoken by stupid people. It's actually very nice of them to self-identify like that. I find it strange that people who would violently object to carrying around a sign saying "I'm stupid" will never the less express themselves in ways that amount to the same thing. Que quips about how I'm doing the same thing and about mistakes in what I just wrote.
I don't get your reference to The Mother Tongue. There is only one hit for "I could care less" in that book on Google Books (page 11), and it does not seem relevant to this other than in pointing out that some people do use "I could care less" to mean the opposite of what they are saying. I don't actually even know what you are saying "no" to. I'm not arguing against it being silly, I'm saying that it's more than merely silly.
I could care less about your question. In fact, I think it's very interesting. Thank you.
It doesn't just sound silly, it's a crime against intelligence is what it is. I doubt it's a contraction like you say since "as if I could care less" is not something I've ever heard, while "I couldn't care less" is. It's just a bunch of people who don't know what they are saying that cut out the "not" because they don't understand how the sentence is supposed to work. That's like contracting "I don't like Hitler" to "I like Hitler". I guess by your reckoning it would be like contracting "as if I like Hitler" to "I like Hitler" which is just as stupid, but I still think it's the former.
Cars are compatible with the roads we have now, trains are not. Other cars not in this system can ride the roads made for the system, not so for rails.
An automated taxi can drive many people a day at the cost of producing a single vehicle. A car that sits on a parking spot 95% of the time is 95% wasted.
If someone still manages to go into the gap, the cars could play a message for the offender to get out and otherwise take a picture of the license plate and send it to the traffic police who will send the offender a fine. There would need to be a way for cars to signal that they are in a train.
People don't ride trains and buses everywhere because they like that in a car you can control the timing of your travel and you control who you go there with and when you take breaks or detours and so on. To support this you need roads. Then the roads are already there while other kinds of tracks are not already there. Putting tracks for trains everywhere would not even capture all the good points of cars and would not utilize the amount of road that has been already put down. Making cars able to form trains at will makes the car capture many of the good points of a train. The idea is not to replace trains, the idea is to improve cars.
Yep, like the Wikileaks donors list that was leaked to Wikileaks even though it was supposed to be secret. Wikileaks published it.
I accept your apology.
You didn't understand the suggestion - companies would be unable to figure out that you are the same person from your card even if you go shop there every day. So pooling their info would be pointless for them. The card gives a different id every time it is queried. Only the issuer can tell that all those ids are for the same card. The issuer would be the government, and the idea would be that getting access to the card database requires a warrant the same way searching your property requires a warrant. Information of your purchases does not require talking to the government server, so the government would have no way to tell what you are doing with your card. You seem to believe that holding the government to something like that is impossible, and I suppose you could be correct. Though in that case we are all fucked anyway, since there is nothing to stop even private companies from tracking you right now in many ways that wouldn't be possible with such an id card system.