Good news, the people making this particular unit are completely incompetent. I know I'd rather the thing not aim right and miss somebody than to be pinpoint at miles...
So you'd rather the soldiers miss the people they're actually shooting at, and hit random shit (like, say, other people) nearby? I, for one, am glad you're not working there anymore.
What gives you the impression that they were actually insurgents? I haven't watched the video yet but the OP gives the impression they may well have been innocent worshippers.
Considering the quality of the video, automatically assuming this was a mosque is... questionable. Yeah, it doesn't look like a heavily fortified building, but the major characteristic of both Afghanistan & Iraq is that the guys trying to kill the American & British troops don't look look any different from the guys who are about to join the local (pro-West) military, and they both hang out in the same places.
Considering that it seemed they were there as close-air support, I'd feel pretty confident saying that some ground-pounders in the area were shot at from that building, or chased some enemies into it. If they ran into a building (even a mosque) with innocent people in it, then some innocent people are going to die, either way.
So if we had a large enough rocket to move one of the planets in this object, moving it would apply a direct force to something on the other side of the object?
No, wait, it wouldn't... which means it's going to fail that definition. Not that I'm saying that's the definition of a "single item". Just saying that, intuitively, the definition should include the requirement of physical interconnection - otherwise solar systems count as a single items, instead of a bunch of items in orbit around other items.
I've still got to ask - where are these nanobots getting their energy source from? Even by extracting energy from what they're breaking down, I doubt they could be able to replicate much faster than some of the more successful bacteria.
I think part of the definition of "single item" has to include the difference between a big sheet of glass and a big pile of shards. It's chemically and physically connected - if I grab the edge of the sheet, and lift, the whole thing moves, as a single unit, unless I'm pulling hard enough to break it. But if I grab the top shard in a pile, no matter how gently I pull, it's not moving the bottom shard.
I might actually consider playing a Fallout-based MMORPG... if the crew from the original game, or the sequel, were involved. But did you ever see Fallout : Brotherhood of Steel? Ick.
And in a geek-intense environment like this one, I think I can say that it's difficult to beat the end product of a long-term evolutionary algorithm, which itself is an arguably good model of what the world around us acts like, and you all will understand.
To preface : Futurists are, in general, a little too optimistic for me. But I thought that a lot of their ideas about development were based on evolution, just a tad faster. Self-modifying programs that had 'children' which compete against each other to complete a task, the slower ones being removed, a new 'children' of the fastest going another round. Essentially (weak) AI evolution - but with a generation of days, or hours, rather than decades.
Will the same thing work with a strong AI? I don't know, mainly because they still haven't figured out a good way to make one... much less the dozens at a time to try out this artifical evolutionary process.
Usually the build with a different compiler won't be exactly the same as the build of the compiler by itself. If you're writing a new compiler, to, say, produce smaller binaries, then it shouldn't be the same. But compiling it with itself, and then compiling itself with the self-compiled version, should produce identical binaries.
Police force you to prove that you own your car and have it registered everytime you get stopped, even when you've committed no crime (i.e. DUI/DWI roadblocks). I don't know what country you're from, but I'm here in Memphis, TN, USA, and I've had to prove that I own my car at least three times in the past year.
\You have to prove it's registered, licensed, and inspected, true - but that's more saftey & tax oriented. Mostly the taxes - if states didn't collect money through tag fees, they'd raise the gasoline tax even more. And considered the amount of gasoline I use in my non-auto vehicles, I prefer it the way they have it.
But as far as ownership... unless the car's been reported stolen, "It's my cousin's car" is a totally legitimate answer to why it's not registered in your name.
But I usually prefer mine a bit bigger than 9.109 3826(16) × 10^ -31 kg.
To continue the trend of linking to Wikipedia to support one's arguement, I'm going to point out that by claiming a mother and child count as particles that can be entangled, you've jumped right into magical thinking.
Well, it does depend on the person. One of my boys from college will literally start whining like a puppy if he goes out with a group, and then don't all take the shots he buys. Which gets to be a problem, since he tends to drink a lot...
One of the radio telescopes that recieved the original broadcast from the Apollo 11 was in Australia. They made the original tape, copied it, and shipped it to Goddard. The Aussies then recorded later missions over the copies... and now Goddard can't find the originals.
Just a little side note. Using intelligent, and intelligible, sentences add a lot to your "take me seriously" score. And it's spelled "kooks". Not "cooks". The latter makes tasty food. (Or, sometimes, just food.) The former, well... you're apparently pretty well acquainted with them, already.
Hmmm. So a couple minutes of painful suffocation, followed by unconsciousness, or a few hours of some unpleasant emotions, and then slowly passing out when the 02 in the suit runs out, and the CO2 starts building up...
Bleah. I would like to go for option #3. I don't know what that is, but there's got to be one...
Yeah, looking at that again, I think I oversimplified. I wasn't going into the fact that the amount your speed goes up doesn't make up for the longer distance you have to travel, so you actually fall behind... Or the fact that it's going to add to or subtract the eccentricity of your orbit, depending on whether you're pushing up or down at the apogee or perigee....
But it's been about five years since I took that class, and I didn't really want to go see if I could search my textbooks out of the attic...
Slashdot Mirror
I would kinda assume from the context of the story that the friend was doing the witnessing, not the firecracker-in-the-mouth. Ing.
would like to table the motion to change our national anthem to "America : Fuck Yeah!".
And the American Revolution was just about taxes. And World War 2 was just about getting out of the Great Depression.
Man, some of you people amaze me.
So you'd rather the soldiers miss the people they're actually shooting at, and hit random shit (like, say, other people) nearby? I, for one, am glad you're not working there anymore.
Considering the quality of the video, automatically assuming this was a mosque is... questionable. Yeah, it doesn't look like a heavily fortified building, but the major characteristic of both Afghanistan & Iraq is that the guys trying to kill the American & British troops don't look look any different from the guys who are about to join the local (pro-West) military, and they both hang out in the same places.
Considering that it seemed they were there as close-air support, I'd feel pretty confident saying that some ground-pounders in the area were shot at from that building, or chased some enemies into it. If they ran into a building (even a mosque) with innocent people in it, then some innocent people are going to die, either way.
My name is ad hominem, and I'd like to welcome you to the club. Here's your freakin' membership card.
We killed all our gods a long, long time ago, and all our heroes labor in obscurity.
No, wait, it wouldn't... which means it's going to fail that definition. Not that I'm saying that's the definition of a "single item". Just saying that, intuitively, the definition should include the requirement of physical interconnection - otherwise solar systems count as a single items, instead of a bunch of items in orbit around other items.
I've still got to ask - where are these nanobots getting their energy source from? Even by extracting energy from what they're breaking down, I doubt they could be able to replicate much faster than some of the more successful bacteria.
I think part of the definition of "single item" has to include the difference between a big sheet of glass and a big pile of shards. It's chemically and physically connected - if I grab the edge of the sheet, and lift, the whole thing moves, as a single unit, unless I'm pulling hard enough to break it. But if I grab the top shard in a pile, no matter how gently I pull, it's not moving the bottom shard.
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions gone awry, then where does the road of evil intentions lead to?
if a quote in funny in the context of a movie, it must be funny everywhere else you can use it, neh?
I might actually consider playing a Fallout-based MMORPG... if the crew from the original game, or the sequel, were involved. But did you ever see Fallout : Brotherhood of Steel? Ick.
Well, more clever, anyway.
To preface : Futurists are, in general, a little too optimistic for me. But I thought that a lot of their ideas about development were based on evolution, just a tad faster. Self-modifying programs that had 'children' which compete against each other to complete a task, the slower ones being removed, a new 'children' of the fastest going another round. Essentially (weak) AI evolution - but with a generation of days, or hours, rather than decades.
Will the same thing work with a strong AI? I don't know, mainly because they still haven't figured out a good way to make one... much less the dozens at a time to try out this artifical evolutionary process.
Usually the build with a different compiler won't be exactly the same as the build of the compiler by itself. If you're writing a new compiler, to, say, produce smaller binaries, then it shouldn't be the same. But compiling it with itself, and then compiling itself with the self-compiled version, should produce identical binaries.
\You have to prove it's registered, licensed, and inspected, true - but that's more saftey & tax oriented. Mostly the taxes - if states didn't collect money through tag fees, they'd raise the gasoline tax even more. And considered the amount of gasoline I use in my non-auto vehicles, I prefer it the way they have it.
But as far as ownership... unless the car's been reported stolen, "It's my cousin's car" is a totally legitimate answer to why it's not registered in your name.
To continue the trend of linking to Wikipedia to support one's arguement, I'm going to point out that by claiming a mother and child count as particles that can be entangled, you've jumped right into magical thinking.
Which means, yes, you do fail it.
Well, it does depend on the person. One of my boys from college will literally start whining like a puppy if he goes out with a group, and then don't all take the shots he buys. Which gets to be a problem, since he tends to drink a lot...
One of the radio telescopes that recieved the original broadcast from the Apollo 11 was in Australia. They made the original tape, copied it, and shipped it to Goddard. The Aussies then recorded later missions over the copies... and now Goddard can't find the originals.
Just a little side note. Using intelligent, and intelligible, sentences add a lot to your "take me seriously" score. And it's spelled "kooks". Not "cooks". The latter makes tasty food. (Or, sometimes, just food.) The former, well... you're apparently pretty well acquainted with them, already.
Once in a while?
I guess conspiracy theories are the new religion of the overly book-intelligent, under social-developed, eh?
Mumble mumble mumble...
Bleah. I would like to go for option #3. I don't know what that is, but there's got to be one...
But it's been about five years since I took that class, and I didn't really want to go see if I could search my textbooks out of the attic...