Yes, in much the same way that CDs provided an incentive for the RIAA to drop their prices. Reality dictates that what is printed on the box may differ from the contents inside.
Yes, but what if the camera malfunctions? Then you need a camera to watch that camera. But what if that one malfunctions? Then you need another camera to watch that one. And so on.
Does the Google vehicle travel by default in the left lane or the right lane? On a many lane road, ambulances will use whatever lane is clear, so pulling over may not be an issue. This behavior includes roads with only one lane both ways (welcome to Pennsylvania, where double yellow does not mean no-passing; sadly, I find myself increasingly supporting this, as the insanity of our roads seems to promote a 'liberal' interpretation of traffic laws). I swear our traffic engineers are the kids who flunked out of art school, not because they couldn't draw a straight line, but because even the artistic community found some of their works 'too bold.'
Still, it's better than New Jersey and their jug handles (*shudder*); only state I've encountered where clairvoyance is needed during driving. Though I think I like their cops more...
The idealistic purpose of a central planning committee is to acquire information through various sources, filter out the disinformation / errors intrinsic from this data, analyze it, then come to some sort of "better than a coin toss" guess of where resources and efforts should be directed. Unfortunately, it is founded on two critical assumptions: 1.) that the people comprising the central planning committee are capable of analyzing and understanding the information they encounter in a meaningful way, and 2.) that their decisions will remain relevant by the time they are implemented. In a society that focuses on accumulation of capital, the most capable will likely not be found on any committee, but hard at work in their own fields where they can do the most good and acquire the most capital. What more, information is a time-sensitive resource: in the majority of cases regarding, but not limited to, technological development, by the time a decision is made to embrace a new technology, the industry as a whole has already moved on to something better: hence, they will always be recommending last year's technology, and seen as backwards, if not irrelevant.
The functional purpose of a central planning committee is to continue the process that resulted in its initial creation -> to steal power from the many, and deliver it to a few. It has no power of its own, save that of the denial of freedom of choice usurped from the many that it holds in its sway; hence, in order to grow, it must deny more and more choice to as many people as possible.
"As with anything else that is so complicated, society should be allowed to evolve. The laws should emerge from reality, not from a committee of bureaucrats." -> of this, we are of agreement. The laws that man should not violate, are ones that he cannot violate. Everything else, in terms of laws, is the work of lesser beings, pretending to be more than they are. Every king, every lawmaker, believes himself to be a god, handing down laws for the masses from on high, and demanding that they be followed, or punishment (by their hand or their lackeys) will be delivered.
Taking things from a contrary standpoint, would a "perfect Creator" allow for imperfection in his / her design? I think not. Someone who can design the laws of the universe has no need to constantly watch and punish human beings that violate his / her laws: they are intrinsic to his / her design, and absolute. But then, "perfection" is in the eye of the beholder, so what may be imperfect to me might be perfect to you.
Why, exactly, would the police be pulling over autonomous vehicles?
Their current excuses, for human drivers, are 15% of the time because that vehicle is a danger to others' well-being, 85% for revenue generation purposes masquerading as danger to others' well-being. With a robot driver, there is no "I smelled weed" probable cause, nor "I saw the vehicle swerve" style excuse. Cities / states will have to kiss one of their major revenue generators good-bye.
And if I knew that the Polish government would always speed up passing something into law whenever some group of "cyber-terrorists" started randomly attacking Polish websites, I'd craft a bill of my own, then pay some people to attack some websites when it came up for a vote.
The thought process here -> 1.) I pay to introduce a bill to their legislature, 2.) I stage some random attacks in protest of my introduced bill, 3.) the Polish government screams "Oh no, zee terrorists want us not to pass the 'All Poles must dress in women's clothing and dance funny jigs bill. We must pass it to show them our resolution!" 4.) I get to see a bunch of Poles dress in women's clothing and dance funny jigs.
Agreed. Teach them how to build a machine (shouldn't take more than an afternoon), explain what the various components are as you do it, then some operating system fundamentals (try not to make it breath-takingly boring).
If they manage that, offer an afternoon / after school class to help them pick up programming. For kids to get interested in doing programming, you have to make it cool / have some early gains. I don't know of too many fourth graders who would sit through a 6 month class detailing linear transforms and data structures, all to create a handful of image filters that come standard in Photoshop.
If the prosecution does not have enough evidence to successfully charge and convince a jury of your crimes, he does not get to play "double or nothing" / engage in a "fishing trip" to find more evidence at the cost of the defendant at some later point in the courtroom.
A single litmus test here can be applied -> does the communication of the pass-phrase used in the encryption of his hard drive use his mouth (oral) or his hands (written)? Could the evidence obtained therein be considered a detriment to his defense? Then yes, it follows, through logic, that it qualifies as testifying / incriminating himself.
Personally, I wouldn't let anyone near my hard drives, under threat of violence or otherwise. The number of trade secrets, pending patent applications, and private software I employ would be destroyed by a LEO / Agent getting anywhere near it -> that's my bread and butter they'd be f*cking with there. I don't care if you're a Supreme Court Justice or the Commander in Chief of an overpowered military, I'd take a bullet (multiple bullets, actually) to keep my livelihood afloat. And yes, viewing a trade secret destroys it, and no amount of "economic compensation" from some pathetic shill for the state with a misplaced sense of justice will EVER fix that. I can say this with confidence, as anyone who has been tracking the various eminent domain cases over these past few years has a distinct understanding that "market price" in government parlance means "fire-sale price" so far as the rest of the world is concerned.
It's up there with swiping a hard drive with the Coca-Cola trade secret on the hard drive: I don't care how important it is to your sense of investigation, or how much you will gladly lie to the judge about how it doesn't violate this or that / our forensic software doesn't let us see that kind of stuff / we're "professionals" and would never tell / leak any of that data to someone else (which, given today's press + camera phones, has proven you're anything but), once you cross that line, I will dedicate the rest of my existence to tearing you apart.
But then, we're reliant on the current set of judges, for whom computers (with one or two notable exceptions) are something of a mystery, and probably have never created / stored anything of value on them. It's the common joke about why cellphones have keyboards, but don't allow you to print anything -> because nothing you will ever do on them will ever be worth printing.
And a smarter company would be using this to their advantage.
They have a chance to destroy their competition by offering something to their customers that their competition is taking away. And yet, they go for the money shakedown...
I wonder if AT&T ever remembers what it was like to actually like to try and compete with others. Instead, they'll rest on their laurels, relying on their political contributions to keep them afloat if / when someone better comes along. How Ma Bell's offspring have grown, and how little they've learned!
Free lesson -> if your competitors are busy cutting a feature that has their customers up in arms, feel free to lure them away by offering the service they actually want. It's how you grow your customer base, and it doesn't require paying someone to get you more customers (you just need to make sure you keep upgrading your towers / keep your data transit costs low, but then, you should be doing that already...). This way, you can take your competitor's stuff without running afoul any of those nasty laws.
Indeed. Once your customer pays $650, it would be in the interest of the gym to switch someone over to the yearly plan.
Sure, it limits the immediate short-term source of revenue, but the good-will it generates may be sufficient to lure in more people (long-term). Since it's unlikely that all but the wealthiest / most insane individuals would continue to patronize a gym that charged them such a large amount over the short-term, in much the same way that cellphone companies lose customers may hitting them with sudden / extreme cellphone bills, it's in their best interest to continue the relationship.
"Even a dead mammoth, put in a commerical freezer, would take several hours to freeze to such a state." -> So would a human being. Ask me how I know.;-)
"The cold would have had to have been sufficient to kill said mammoth quite quickly. Mammoth species had evolved pretty clever biology to prevent such an outcome. (Mutant hemoglobin, thick blubber layer, excessive secretion of sebum and thick, wooly body hair, just to name a few.) Humans, by comparison, are simply "ready to freeze" meat popsicles." -> Indeed. However, just as four-wheel drive vehicle does not grant immunity from the effects of ice / snow on the road, neither do the Woolly Mammoth's evolved advantages. 99% of the time, I'm sure, it's not an issue; but that 1% of the time...well, if you were a large mammal whose instincts were not tuned to detect that kind of danger (temperature drops a little too low, etc.), it's possible for it to creep up on you.
In all the animals I know, the effects of hypothermia is a b*tch. And even for Arctic-based animals, there is something known as "too cold."
Indeed. The general idea, in so far as I can divine, is that that particular privilege was granted to Congressmen so that a Governor (or anyone with state-granted authority to impede) could not prevent a Congressman from participating / voting for a particular piece of legislation that they have a difference of opinion on.
If a Senator from NY wants to outlaw radishes, and the Governor does not, the Governor cannot think of a way to lockup or otherwise stop the Senator from traveling to Congress, and voicing his desire to ban radishes. Me thinks in olden times, at the beginning of the Union, the people involved didn't think that the then Governors of the colonies were above applying a little pressure to their new Congressmen to "see things their way, for the good of the Union." People in power rarely like to share power, even if it's in their own best interest.
In today's terms, the design is to prevent someone from issuing a Congressman a speeding ticket, and requiring them to spend a night in jail while an important vote is on the floor of one of the houses. Anything short of a Capital crime shall not impede them, if I remember correctly.
Agreed. The kind of thinking that went into flying several airplanes into several buildings, and dong it successfully, does not, in my humble opinion, lend itself to trying the exact same tactic twice after they've upgraded their defenses and are actively looking for those kinds of people. And yet, our government seems to believe that they will try it again...
Indeed. If someone really wants to destroy an airplane laden with passengers, or more generally, perform an act of "terrorism," there is no way to prevent someone from eventually carrying it out. The human mind is capable of planning an unknown number of possibilities to achieve whatever it determines its ends might be. No computer, with no known algorithm, can keep up with the human mind and its ability to imagine / design / calculate here.
Indeed. I prefer to walk into an airport which doesn't look like it's a third world country in the middle of a civil dispute (guys with SMGs wandering around in plain sight).
The TSA is unlikely to be disbanded before the economy improves, if at all. Putting that many people out of work (it is a jobs program) is probably seen as politically untenable.
I long for the days when buying votes from the public cost the politician(s) in question money, not the taxpayer.
Actually, I see it as a double-tap. While I am not sure to the voting schedule for PIPA / SOPA, one possibility is that they were waiting for this bill to pass into law before arresting these guys. It's a province of US law that you can't be charged under laws that were not passed at the time of the crime; hence, if they charged them earlier, and stopped the infringement, there'd be no chance later to nail them under the new law. As long as they were infringing the day the new law went into effect, they could be charged under it; which I imagine would add some teeth to the charges.
It appears, in plain language, to have been a setup of epic proportions. The people involved didn't just want to arrest these guys, but to put them away for life -> to send a message to all other "infringers," the same way the mafia sends you a message by Fedexing your favorite dog's head to your home in a box. The tactics displayed here are of pure evil. When they realized they weren't going to get their coup de grace legislation, they moved in to salvage what they could.
I do think it's pretty interesting that the entertainment industry has delusions of f*cking over the technology industry, which the passing of that bill would have done. It's a pity that the major companies will probably not punish them as they should. MS & friends are too busy chasing the illusory pie in the sky, trying to get enough of a percentage of that content revenue to justify the cost, while diverting their attention from more profitable sectors. On the other hand, Google is apparently wide awake, and aware that any future legislation that even remotely looks like SOPA / PIPA would be extremely bad for their business model.
The issue with using nukes, as pointed out by yourself earlier, is that for rocky types of asteroids, they can break apart in a great number of pieces which will not burn up in atmosphere. However, for solid types, it may be possible to use a nuclear weapon to alter the trajectory of an oncoming asteroid; the point here is that the asteroid would absorb the vast majority of the energy, and not break apart; or if it does, it will be into several manageable pieces. Hence the importance of finding a threat early on, and making a decent plan.
"Last I checked, the law of gravity worked the same no matter what you are made of. A hammer made out of feathers is just as heavy as a hammer made out of the same mass of metal." -> Well, sort of. Gravity isn't 9.8 m / s^2 everywhere in the universe, but I'm sure you knew that; but then, you seem on a quest to troll, as opposed to learn, so feel free to misinterpret my former statement.
"And it falls at the same rate." -> Yes...and remind me, what does Gravity have to do with an Asteroid a fair ways away from the Earth? In this context (of using nuclear weapons to redirect an oncoming asteroid's trajectory, in case you forgot), I mean.
"Nuking asteroids is stupidity." -> It's considered a viable option by a number of scientists.
"No, I do not think you understand what the fuck you are talking about at all." -> I can understand why you feel that way. Math is hard, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. Taking the hardest possible course to achieve the lifestyle we currently enjoy.
But yes, I am looking forward to this.
And part of me is curious how long they can keep this up.
At some point, it's going to degenerate into a clusterf*ck that going to burn out their customer base. Tick tock.
Lack of hats?
Hmm. Last I heard, the content companies were attempting to renegotiate that pricing, so they could charge higher rates for new songs.
Yes, in much the same way that CDs provided an incentive for the RIAA to drop their prices. Reality dictates that what is printed on the box may differ from the contents inside.
Yes, but what if the camera malfunctions? Then you need a camera to watch that camera. But what if that one malfunctions? Then you need another camera to watch that one. And so on.
Waste of money, waste of time.
Does the Google vehicle travel by default in the left lane or the right lane? On a many lane road, ambulances will use whatever lane is clear, so pulling over may not be an issue. This behavior includes roads with only one lane both ways (welcome to Pennsylvania, where double yellow does not mean no-passing; sadly, I find myself increasingly supporting this, as the insanity of our roads seems to promote a 'liberal' interpretation of traffic laws). I swear our traffic engineers are the kids who flunked out of art school, not because they couldn't draw a straight line, but because even the artistic community found some of their works 'too bold.'
Still, it's better than New Jersey and their jug handles (*shudder*); only state I've encountered where clairvoyance is needed during driving. Though I think I like their cops more...
Of course it doesn't. Power serves only itself.
The idealistic purpose of a central planning committee is to acquire information through various sources, filter out the disinformation / errors intrinsic from this data, analyze it, then come to some sort of "better than a coin toss" guess of where resources and efforts should be directed. Unfortunately, it is founded on two critical assumptions: 1.) that the people comprising the central planning committee are capable of analyzing and understanding the information they encounter in a meaningful way, and 2.) that their decisions will remain relevant by the time they are implemented. In a society that focuses on accumulation of capital, the most capable will likely not be found on any committee, but hard at work in their own fields where they can do the most good and acquire the most capital. What more, information is a time-sensitive resource: in the majority of cases regarding, but not limited to, technological development, by the time a decision is made to embrace a new technology, the industry as a whole has already moved on to something better: hence, they will always be recommending last year's technology, and seen as backwards, if not irrelevant.
The functional purpose of a central planning committee is to continue the process that resulted in its initial creation -> to steal power from the many, and deliver it to a few. It has no power of its own, save that of the denial of freedom of choice usurped from the many that it holds in its sway; hence, in order to grow, it must deny more and more choice to as many people as possible.
"As with anything else that is so complicated, society should be allowed to evolve. The laws should emerge from reality, not from a committee of bureaucrats." -> of this, we are of agreement. The laws that man should not violate, are ones that he cannot violate. Everything else, in terms of laws, is the work of lesser beings, pretending to be more than they are. Every king, every lawmaker, believes himself to be a god, handing down laws for the masses from on high, and demanding that they be followed, or punishment (by their hand or their lackeys) will be delivered.
Taking things from a contrary standpoint, would a "perfect Creator" allow for imperfection in his / her design? I think not. Someone who can design the laws of the universe has no need to constantly watch and punish human beings that violate his / her laws: they are intrinsic to his / her design, and absolute. But then, "perfection" is in the eye of the beholder, so what may be imperfect to me might be perfect to you.
Why, exactly, would the police be pulling over autonomous vehicles?
Their current excuses, for human drivers, are 15% of the time because that vehicle is a danger to others' well-being, 85% for revenue generation purposes masquerading as danger to others' well-being. With a robot driver, there is no "I smelled weed" probable cause, nor "I saw the vehicle swerve" style excuse. Cities / states will have to kiss one of their major revenue generators good-bye.
And if I knew that the Polish government would always speed up passing something into law whenever some group of "cyber-terrorists" started randomly attacking Polish websites, I'd craft a bill of my own, then pay some people to attack some websites when it came up for a vote.
The thought process here -> 1.) I pay to introduce a bill to their legislature, 2.) I stage some random attacks in protest of my introduced bill, 3.) the Polish government screams "Oh no, zee terrorists want us not to pass the 'All Poles must dress in women's clothing and dance funny jigs bill. We must pass it to show them our resolution!" 4.) I get to see a bunch of Poles dress in women's clothing and dance funny jigs.
Agreed. Teach them how to build a machine (shouldn't take more than an afternoon), explain what the various components are as you do it, then some operating system fundamentals (try not to make it breath-takingly boring).
If they manage that, offer an afternoon / after school class to help them pick up programming. For kids to get interested in doing programming, you have to make it cool / have some early gains. I don't know of too many fourth graders who would sit through a 6 month class detailing linear transforms and data structures, all to create a handful of image filters that come standard in Photoshop.
If the prosecution does not have enough evidence to successfully charge and convince a jury of your crimes, he does not get to play "double or nothing" / engage in a "fishing trip" to find more evidence at the cost of the defendant at some later point in the courtroom.
A single litmus test here can be applied -> does the communication of the pass-phrase used in the encryption of his hard drive use his mouth (oral) or his hands (written)? Could the evidence obtained therein be considered a detriment to his defense? Then yes, it follows, through logic, that it qualifies as testifying / incriminating himself.
Personally, I wouldn't let anyone near my hard drives, under threat of violence or otherwise. The number of trade secrets, pending patent applications, and private software I employ would be destroyed by a LEO / Agent getting anywhere near it -> that's my bread and butter they'd be f*cking with there. I don't care if you're a Supreme Court Justice or the Commander in Chief of an overpowered military, I'd take a bullet (multiple bullets, actually) to keep my livelihood afloat. And yes, viewing a trade secret destroys it, and no amount of "economic compensation" from some pathetic shill for the state with a misplaced sense of justice will EVER fix that. I can say this with confidence, as anyone who has been tracking the various eminent domain cases over these past few years has a distinct understanding that "market price" in government parlance means "fire-sale price" so far as the rest of the world is concerned.
It's up there with swiping a hard drive with the Coca-Cola trade secret on the hard drive: I don't care how important it is to your sense of investigation, or how much you will gladly lie to the judge about how it doesn't violate this or that / our forensic software doesn't let us see that kind of stuff / we're "professionals" and would never tell / leak any of that data to someone else (which, given today's press + camera phones, has proven you're anything but), once you cross that line, I will dedicate the rest of my existence to tearing you apart.
But then, we're reliant on the current set of judges, for whom computers (with one or two notable exceptions) are something of a mystery, and probably have never created / stored anything of value on them. It's the common joke about why cellphones have keyboards, but don't allow you to print anything -> because nothing you will ever do on them will ever be worth printing.
And a smarter company would be using this to their advantage.
They have a chance to destroy their competition by offering something to their customers that their competition is taking away. And yet, they go for the money shakedown...
I wonder if AT&T ever remembers what it was like to actually like to try and compete with others. Instead, they'll rest on their laurels, relying on their political contributions to keep them afloat if / when someone better comes along. How Ma Bell's offspring have grown, and how little they've learned!
Free lesson -> if your competitors are busy cutting a feature that has their customers up in arms, feel free to lure them away by offering the service they actually want. It's how you grow your customer base, and it doesn't require paying someone to get you more customers (you just need to make sure you keep upgrading your towers / keep your data transit costs low, but then, you should be doing that already...). This way, you can take your competitor's stuff without running afoul any of those nasty laws.
Indeed. Once your customer pays $650, it would be in the interest of the gym to switch someone over to the yearly plan.
Sure, it limits the immediate short-term source of revenue, but the good-will it generates may be sufficient to lure in more people (long-term). Since it's unlikely that all but the wealthiest / most insane individuals would continue to patronize a gym that charged them such a large amount over the short-term, in much the same way that cellphone companies lose customers may hitting them with sudden / extreme cellphone bills, it's in their best interest to continue the relationship.
Every other Friday, when the Buddha / Kali / Jesus / Vlad are busy. Boy, they sure know how to throw a party. ^_^
"Even a dead mammoth, put in a commerical freezer, would take several hours to freeze to such a state." -> So would a human being. Ask me how I know. ;-)
"The cold would have had to have been sufficient to kill said mammoth quite quickly. Mammoth species had evolved pretty clever biology to prevent such an outcome. (Mutant hemoglobin, thick blubber layer, excessive secretion of sebum and thick, wooly body hair, just to name a few.) Humans, by comparison, are simply "ready to freeze" meat popsicles." -> Indeed. However, just as four-wheel drive vehicle does not grant immunity from the effects of ice / snow on the road, neither do the Woolly Mammoth's evolved advantages. 99% of the time, I'm sure, it's not an issue; but that 1% of the time...well, if you were a large mammal whose instincts were not tuned to detect that kind of danger (temperature drops a little too low, etc.), it's possible for it to creep up on you.
In all the animals I know, the effects of hypothermia is a b*tch. And even for Arctic-based animals, there is something known as "too cold."
Indeed. However, it's not uncommon among current day animals for them to freeze to death while performing some activity. Freezes them solid.
The same could be said for human beings, one of whom I had the experience of preparing for an autopsy.
Did it happen to look like this? http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs17/f/2007/138/7/a/Brotherhood_of_NOD_wallpaper_by_NeoApocalypse.jpg
Indeed. The general idea, in so far as I can divine, is that that particular privilege was granted to Congressmen so that a Governor (or anyone with state-granted authority to impede) could not prevent a Congressman from participating / voting for a particular piece of legislation that they have a difference of opinion on.
If a Senator from NY wants to outlaw radishes, and the Governor does not, the Governor cannot think of a way to lockup or otherwise stop the Senator from traveling to Congress, and voicing his desire to ban radishes. Me thinks in olden times, at the beginning of the Union, the people involved didn't think that the then Governors of the colonies were above applying a little pressure to their new Congressmen to "see things their way, for the good of the Union." People in power rarely like to share power, even if it's in their own best interest.
In today's terms, the design is to prevent someone from issuing a Congressman a speeding ticket, and requiring them to spend a night in jail while an important vote is on the floor of one of the houses. Anything short of a Capital crime shall not impede them, if I remember correctly.
Agreed. The kind of thinking that went into flying several airplanes into several buildings, and dong it successfully, does not, in my humble opinion, lend itself to trying the exact same tactic twice after they've upgraded their defenses and are actively looking for those kinds of people. And yet, our government seems to believe that they will try it again...
Indeed. If someone really wants to destroy an airplane laden with passengers, or more generally, perform an act of "terrorism," there is no way to prevent someone from eventually carrying it out. The human mind is capable of planning an unknown number of possibilities to achieve whatever it determines its ends might be. No computer, with no known algorithm, can keep up with the human mind and its ability to imagine / design / calculate here.
Indeed. I prefer to walk into an airport which doesn't look like it's a third world country in the middle of a civil dispute (guys with SMGs wandering around in plain sight).
The TSA is unlikely to be disbanded before the economy improves, if at all. Putting that many people out of work (it is a jobs program) is probably seen as politically untenable.
I long for the days when buying votes from the public cost the politician(s) in question money, not the taxpayer.
Actually, I see it as a double-tap. While I am not sure to the voting schedule for PIPA / SOPA, one possibility is that they were waiting for this bill to pass into law before arresting these guys. It's a province of US law that you can't be charged under laws that were not passed at the time of the crime; hence, if they charged them earlier, and stopped the infringement, there'd be no chance later to nail them under the new law. As long as they were infringing the day the new law went into effect, they could be charged under it; which I imagine would add some teeth to the charges.
It appears, in plain language, to have been a setup of epic proportions. The people involved didn't just want to arrest these guys, but to put them away for life -> to send a message to all other "infringers," the same way the mafia sends you a message by Fedexing your favorite dog's head to your home in a box. The tactics displayed here are of pure evil. When they realized they weren't going to get their coup de grace legislation, they moved in to salvage what they could.
I do think it's pretty interesting that the entertainment industry has delusions of f*cking over the technology industry, which the passing of that bill would have done. It's a pity that the major companies will probably not punish them as they should. MS & friends are too busy chasing the illusory pie in the sky, trying to get enough of a percentage of that content revenue to justify the cost, while diverting their attention from more profitable sectors. On the other hand, Google is apparently wide awake, and aware that any future legislation that even remotely looks like SOPA / PIPA would be extremely bad for their business model.
And that's not a refutation of what I've said.
The issue with using nukes, as pointed out by yourself earlier, is that for rocky types of asteroids, they can break apart in a great number of pieces which will not burn up in atmosphere. However, for solid types, it may be possible to use a nuclear weapon to alter the trajectory of an oncoming asteroid; the point here is that the asteroid would absorb the vast majority of the energy, and not break apart; or if it does, it will be into several manageable pieces. Hence the importance of finding a threat early on, and making a decent plan.
"Last I checked, the law of gravity worked the same no matter what you are made of. A hammer made out of feathers is just as heavy as a hammer made out of the same mass of metal." -> Well, sort of. Gravity isn't 9.8 m / s^2 everywhere in the universe, but I'm sure you knew that; but then, you seem on a quest to troll, as opposed to learn, so feel free to misinterpret my former statement.
"And it falls at the same rate." -> Yes...and remind me, what does Gravity have to do with an Asteroid a fair ways away from the Earth? In this context (of using nuclear weapons to redirect an oncoming asteroid's trajectory, in case you forgot), I mean.
"Nuking asteroids is stupidity." -> It's considered a viable option by a number of scientists.
"No, I do not think you understand what the fuck you are talking about at all." -> I can understand why you feel that way. Math is hard, isn't it?
"This isn't a cartoon." -> Scooby-dooby-do!
I believe we're done here.