In Canada I have never registered in my life to vote: I am either automatically registered via my tax form, or they find me at home through other means (drivers license).
Why is it so hard to vote in the States? Is this by design, a la the poll tax, or is this just the way everyone wants it?
It just seems really crazy that you can't just automatically enrol all tax payers, welfare recipients etc. to be registered.
Randomness is not a human construct, I am not sure where you are getting this idea from. There are certain events that are PROVABLY unpredictable, e.g. radioactive decay and certain quantum effects. To say that we don't know enough is disengenuous: based on our current models of time and space quantum effects HAVE to be random. If you want to throw out the accepted model of physics you better have a better explanation than we don't know enough yet.
Not everything has a pattern either, try finding the pattern of a.zip file and I have a perpetual motion machine I would like to sell you.
Toronto has weather equivalent to New York or Boston, i.e. it gets really hot in the summer - not Florida hot, but frequently in the high 80's or 90's, or in other words, uncomfortable without AC.
It gets cold in winter, yes, but we are not talking about winter.
Canada's NORTH might be equivalent to Siberia, but the south, where 90% of the poplation lives, would be equivalnet to Korea, or Japan using your map.
Certain languages ARE phonetic, see Turkish: every letter has a unique sound that doesn't change with the context. It makes teaching and learning the language very easy since you know how to pronounce a work just by reading it. There are also no grammatical exceptions, making it basically a perfect language.;)
Also some words in English DO become phonetic over time: e.g. draught vs. draft
Interesting points, but the great-grandparent post was ASSUMING you could build a card X that can render to the point that you can't tell the difference between it and reality, and then it asked is there any point where you can't get any better. The answer of course is no, but this is assuming such a card could be built which is likely not possible (with today's technology) so the argument is philosophical not really technical.
My point was/is that as an INDIVIDUAL you no longer have to keep upgrading your card - what the hell is the point of buying a card that does the same as the one you have, yet is 1/2 the price - you ALREADY have it. MANUFACTURERS will continue to refine their processes, but you will no longer be compelled to buy them (you said you would be), so you are just wrong, and I am not in contradiction.
Once video cards get as good as reality then you are done, end of story. Then it only becomes a matter of who can make them the cheapest/smallest/most efficient.
It's like an argument I had when I was younger: can you be colder than absolute zero? NO.
So, tend to vote for people who cut my taxes, unless there is something they stand for that is more important to me than my wallet.
You should vote for people who SPEND less, not who tax less. It's like saying that you would rather give someone your credit card than money, but what amount they spend on the card doesn't matter.
You will have to pay that debt off eventually, or your children will, not matter what you may think.
The problem is most people seem to understand the concept of the money being 'theirs' when the government returns a rebate cheque, or it when it takes their taxes. They don't seem to appreciate it though when the government takes out a loan on their behalf and and spend it anyways.
You, your son and your grandparents each now owe over $20,000 EACH for this deficit over-spending. George has added a few thousand himself god bless him. If you like your taxes where they are then write your representative to cut programs a hell of a lot more than they are.
There has been a lot of talk of tax and spend liberals, I think a lot worse is the recent revealing of the _don't_ tax but spend anyways conservatives.
... while Canadian programmers are nearby, speak English with nearly American accents, have a similar culture and legal system, and get paid 40% less than U.S. programmers. Might be time to think about moving North, eh?"
The nitpicking grows tiresome, but that is not a LANDER it is a PROBE. The term lander refers to the ship that the astronauts used to land on the moon.;)
You are correct that this is evidence against my point though.
Life in the UPPER atmosphere is still an open question, though research continues.
It is safe to say that the VAST majority of rock on this planet does not have bacteria, think of structures such as the Canadian shield etc. which PREDATE life.
I think your lander point is totally false -when did they examine landers that had been there for YEARS? Astronauts have never returned to any lunar landing sights so how would they know? In any event the landers were protected from the heat of take-off inside the launch vehicle and they never went through reentry.
1. There are places on earth where there is no bacterial life: try the upper atmosphere and farthest reaches of antarctica at the moment (both places as cold as Mars).
2. A human being has trouble surviving a re-entry inside a spaceship covered with heat-resistant tiles, do you really think a bacterium sitting on a rock that is heated up to a few thousand degrees has a chance in hell of surviving the trip?
3. Not all rocks of Earth origin contain bacteria, again those in the middle of antartica do not.
4. The rocks found in antartica DID NOT have fossilized bacteria. What they did have were crytalized structures that scientists figured could plausibly have been created by life. As for the famous picture: those structures are MUCH smaller than bacteria and scientists were careful not to say they were fossils.
The approach you should take is common-sense:
If I can kill all the bacteria in water by simply boiling it for a few minutes at ~100 celcius, do you honestly think it could survive on a rock that has is flung off the earth at escape velocity through the atmosphere, across the freezing vacuum of space and then plumetting through the martian atmosphere and then crashing to the ground?
Ah yes, the latest Conservative echo-chamber diatribe: The New York Times is negatively impartial to Bush and is becoming irrelavant as more and more Americans switch to honest news sources like the New York Post and Washington Times.
Listen troglodyte we aren't falling for your conservative talking points. The Times is an important news source that has a balanced slant when it comes to reporting the news. It slams Clinton, it Slams Bush, and it Slams Kerry depending on which reporter is writing the column.
America is not a conservative country, nor is a liberal one, it has MANY viewpoints and falls somewhere in the middle, as does the Times.
This past weekend I went to my friend's housewarming where he showed off hi new HD projector that was projecting onto a beige wall (the screen hadn't arrived yet). DVDs looked _OKAY_ on the new system, but you couldn't compare them with the quality of the HD demo he showed us.
As screens become larger and cheaper higher resolution will become more and more important. I have already sworn off buying any more DVDs until the HD format comes out because I will be getting the same type of setup.
Slashdot Mirror
In Canada I have never registered in my life to vote: I am either automatically registered via my tax form, or they find me at home through other means (drivers license).
Why is it so hard to vote in the States? Is this by design, a la the poll tax, or is this just the way everyone wants it?
It just seems really crazy that you can't just automatically enrol all tax payers, welfare recipients etc. to be registered.
Can someone honestly explain this?
Randomness is not a human construct, I am not sure where you are getting this idea from. There are certain events that are PROVABLY unpredictable, e.g. radioactive decay and certain quantum effects. To say that we don't know enough is disengenuous: based on our current models of time and space quantum effects HAVE to be random. If you want to throw out the accepted model of physics you better have a better explanation than we don't know enough yet.
.zip file and I have a perpetual motion machine I would like to sell you.
Not everything has a pattern either, try finding the pattern of a
Depends whether you are doing an honours or not. ;)
I also meant when you do the actual analysis of P, NP and NP-Complete etc., not when you FIRST look at the these two classes.
Is this what slashdot has come to: P vs. NP arguments/explanations?
:|
If I was a subscriber I would be bitter with what is happening to this site, as it is I am just saddened.
he suffers from Parkinson's disease, diabetes and lung fibrosis as well as recently diagnosed Alzheimer's disease.
:P
I think he spent a little too much time next to the reactor core.
No, it can't. Ever.
Only one possible exception to that rule,...
That, my friend, is an argument going off the rails.
You my friend, are an idiot.
Toronto has weather equivalent to New York or Boston, i.e. it gets really hot in the summer - not Florida hot, but frequently in the high 80's or 90's, or in other words, uncomfortable without AC.
It gets cold in winter, yes, but we are not talking about winter.
Canada's NORTH might be equivalent to Siberia, but the south, where 90% of the poplation lives, would be equivalnet to Korea, or Japan using your map.
Certain languages ARE phonetic, see Turkish: every letter has a unique sound that doesn't change with the context. It makes teaching and learning the language very easy since you know how to pronounce a work just by reading it. There are also no grammatical exceptions, making it basically a perfect language. ;)
Also some words in English DO become phonetic over time:
e.g. draught vs. draft
Interesting points, but the great-grandparent post was ASSUMING you could build a card X that can render to the point that you can't tell the difference between it and reality, and then it asked is there any point where you can't get any better. The answer of course is no, but this is assuming such a card could be built which is likely not possible (with today's technology) so the argument is philosophical not really technical.
My point was/is that as an INDIVIDUAL you no longer have to keep upgrading your card - what the hell is the point of buying a card that does the same as the one you have, yet is 1/2 the price - you ALREADY have it. MANUFACTURERS will continue to refine their processes, but you will no longer be compelled to buy them (you said you would be), so you are just wrong, and I am not in contradiction.
Who modded this up?
The correct answer was already given: NO.
Once video cards get as good as reality then you are done, end of story. Then it only becomes a matter of who can make them the cheapest/smallest/most efficient.
It's like an argument I had when I was younger: can you be colder than absolute zero? NO.
Why is this insightful? The grandparent DID say they got them, just that it took 18 months.
So, tend to vote for people who cut my taxes, unless there is something they stand for that is more important to me than my wallet.
You should vote for people who SPEND less, not who tax less. It's like saying that you would rather give someone your credit card than money, but what amount they spend on the card doesn't matter.
You will have to pay that debt off eventually, or your children will, not matter what you may think.
The problem is most people seem to understand the concept of the money being 'theirs' when the government returns a rebate cheque, or it when it takes their taxes. They don't seem to appreciate it though when the government takes out a loan on their behalf and and spend it anyways.
You, your son and your grandparents each now owe over $20,000 EACH for this deficit over-spending. George has added a few thousand himself god bless him. If you like your taxes where they are then write your representative to cut programs a hell of a lot more than they are.
There has been a lot of talk of tax and spend liberals, I think a lot worse is the recent revealing of the _don't_ tax but spend anyways conservatives.
In order to pay for Bush's deficits over the past 4 years, NASA would have to have its budget COMPLETELY taken away for about the next 50 years.
So enjoy those tax rebate cheques folks, the money had to come from somewhere.
Cognitive dissonance is the need to rationalize or otherwise explain away information that contradicts information they already believe
That's not the definition of cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive Dissonance is the mental state created by the contradiction. It is not the resulting need to remove the contradiction.
If my Nortel phone can't tell that it is plugged into a Motorola VOIP modem rather than a plug in the wall, how does a TIVO know?
Is this really a problem or simply conjecture?
... while Canadian programmers are nearby, speak English with nearly American accents, have a similar culture and legal system, and get paid 40% less than U.S. programmers. Might be time to think about moving North, eh?"
I think it might be time to move South!
The nitpicking grows tiresome, but that is not a LANDER it is a PROBE. The term lander refers to the ship that the astronauts used to land on the moon. ;)
You are correct that this is evidence against my point though.
Counterpoints:
Life in the UPPER atmosphere is still an open question, though research continues.
It is safe to say that the VAST majority of rock on this planet does not have bacteria, think of structures such as the Canadian shield etc. which PREDATE life.
I think your lander point is totally false -when did they examine landers that had been there for YEARS? Astronauts have never returned to any lunar landing sights so how would they know? In any event the landers were protected from the heat of take-off inside the launch vehicle and they never went through reentry.
Oceanic vent-dwelling bateria require massive pressure to survive at those temperatures.
A few deflating points:
1. There are places on earth where there is no bacterial life: try the upper atmosphere and farthest reaches of antarctica at the moment (both places as cold as Mars).
2. A human being has trouble surviving a re-entry inside a spaceship covered with heat-resistant tiles, do you really think a bacterium sitting on a rock that is heated up to a few thousand degrees has a chance in hell of surviving the trip?
3. Not all rocks of Earth origin contain bacteria, again those in the middle of antartica do not.
4. The rocks found in antartica DID NOT have fossilized bacteria. What they did have were crytalized structures that scientists figured could plausibly have been created by life. As for the famous picture: those structures are MUCH smaller than bacteria and scientists were careful not to say they were fossils.
The approach you should take is common-sense:
If I can kill all the bacteria in water by simply boiling it for a few minutes at ~100 celcius, do you honestly think it could survive on a rock that has is flung off the earth at escape velocity through the atmosphere, across the freezing vacuum of space and then plumetting through the martian atmosphere and then crashing to the ground?
Ah yes, the latest Conservative echo-chamber diatribe: The New York Times is negatively impartial to Bush and is becoming irrelavant as more and more Americans switch to honest news sources like the New York Post and Washington Times.
Listen troglodyte we aren't falling for your conservative talking points. The Times is an important news source that has a balanced slant when it comes to reporting the news. It slams Clinton, it Slams Bush, and it Slams Kerry depending on which reporter is writing the column.
America is not a conservative country, nor is a liberal one, it has MANY viewpoints and falls somewhere in the middle, as does the Times.
Its not that high.
This past weekend I went to my friend's housewarming where he showed off hi new HD projector that was projecting onto a beige wall (the screen hadn't arrived yet). DVDs looked _OKAY_ on the new system, but you couldn't compare them with the quality of the HD demo he showed us.
As screens become larger and cheaper higher resolution will become more and more important. I have already sworn off buying any more DVDs until the HD format comes out because I will be getting the same type of setup.
The proper question may be who is coming out the basement.