They didn't show any such thing. Church, Turing and Godel 'merely' showed that no (complex enough) system can prove all things that are true in the system. This has no relevance to the qualities of a simulation.
I think in this particular case Trump was completely consistent and the far right is not. If abortions are illegal, than those that instigate illegal acts should be punished. It's as simple as that. Women that proceed to get an abortion are victims? Of what exactly? Victims of sex? But what if it was consensual? Victims of not taking precautions? They were there, right?
As the far-right also claim that abortion is murder, they're double hypocrites. The women in question are asking others to perform murder on their behalf. That makes the women extra guilty, not less so. Imagine people hiring a hitman. Are these people victims too?
Nope, doesn't compute. The only thing that I can come up with to understand the position of the far-right is that they consider pregnant women to not be able to make choices, sub-human. In this particular case, Trump, while trying to pander to his current base, made the mistake of being logical. His base is not. Hence he needed to retract.
No, I'm saying that there are engineering solutions for many problems, and that this particular problem might not the hardest one we tried to solve, and maybe not even the most expensive one. In Dutch conditions, it could be done with 11th century technology, and they got better at it. Giving up before doing an actual analysis of the art of the possible is the sure way to drown.
The Dutch claimed land from lakes and swamp. That land is often below the level of the rivers and water does bubble up. An intricate system of small waterways to collect this water is used. The Dutch have been pumping out water continuously since the 11th century. If they stop pumping, the land disappears.
If an adversary has 3000+ warheads, they can simply explode all of them on their own territory. The following nuclear winter will take out the rest of the planet. You don't need missiles for a MAD defense. Just blow yourself up when attacked. Mutually assured destruction, guarenteed.
I think that Trump's agenda is to become President of the US and then take it from there. I don't think his plans are worth the disk they're stored on.
Proven track record doesn't say everything. If there are thousands of advisors that all give random advice, there will be some that will do much better than others. Following those will still give you random advice.
To paraphrase Dijkstra, would you consider "strong swimming", i.e., swim like a fish, to be a requirement for understanding how to navigate an artifact under water? And is a submarine merely a "weak swimmer", even though it outperforms all known types of fish in speed?
Given that IQ is normally distributed with a mean at 100 and a standard deviation of 15, the probability of a score falling at 100 points (IQ is discrete), corresponds to the probability of falling between 99.5 and 100.5 on the continuous distribution. This probability is 2.7% -- so you were not far off with your 4%.
That's because he used the N-word while white. If you're black you can say 'nigger' all you want, but when you're white you can't. American English has become a racist language.
You might have missed the implication that the purpose of a falsifiable theory is that you can forget about it once it is, indeed, falsified. Astrology is a fine scientific theory that has been shown to be wrong. Many more reputable scientific theories have gone that way.
Yes to this. Direct democracy doesn't work. However, bribed representatives doesn't work either. The US needs a reform of their representative democracy, as it has been hacked.
> It tells me that "some" people are ignorant and racists
Half of people are below average intelligence.
*shakes head*
Median. Half of people are below median intelligence.
*shakes head a bit more*
Average. Half of the people are below average intelligence. Due to the law of large numbers and the construction that intelligence has finite variance, intelligence is normally distributed. Therefore the statement holds for the three most used averages: Mode, Median and (arithmetic) Mean.
Ever heard of a country called the Netherlands? Size of Maryland, population 17 million, one of the densest in the world? Also happens to be consistently it the top-3 of agricultural exporters in the world, and most of that stuff is grown in the middle of the densest part of that country. Feeding 17 million people, with enough to spare to feed half of Germany.
If I can comment from another continent. The "left" in the US seems to be a diverse field of right wing, centrist and left wing politicians that disagree about a great many things. The "right" in the US is off the charts. Absolutely crazy, beyond redemption. The Reps need to die and give room for the Dems to split into right and left.
So "freedom of speech" means "freedom of speech"? I don't see a definition in the article you quoted, just a blanket statement that it cannot abridge the thing that it fails to define. This has lead in the US to endless confusion: is yelling "fire in a theatre" freedom of speech? Is money speech? Honestly, it is much clearer what is protected in the German version. You might not like it as it might sound too constrained, but at the very least it is a definition, not an empty phrase.
Well, an announced non-attack would be the perfect time to do a real attack. We're going to pretend we're attacking you, so don't worry if we accidentally enter your airspace.
So if the dude brought shoes to school, both the school and the police would be perfectly justified to detain him to assess if that was a hoax bomb or not.
Why the hell would the police need to be involved to figure out if a kid was looking for trouble?
I think you're confused about the meaning of agnostic and atheist, as these are answers to different questions. The agnostic answers "no" to the question "do you know God exists?". The atheist answers "no" to the question "do you believe in God?". In many cases, the agnostic answer automatically leads to the atheist position (why would you believe in God if you have no knowledge of her?)
The problem with this approach is that it gives no incentive to healthy people to get insured. With voluntary insurance, you will only get insurance when you're sick, and prices will skyrocket. Private insurance found their own way to force people into insurance, and that's called pre-existing conditions. You'd better get insured while you're healthy, because you will not be covered if you suddenly get sick. The only way healthcare can financially work is if healthy people pay for the sick.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, 'Incompetent Design' strikes me as a more accurate fill-in for ID.
They didn't show any such thing. Church, Turing and Godel 'merely' showed that no (complex enough) system can prove all things that are true in the system. This has no relevance to the qualities of a simulation.
Discrete does not imply deterministic.
I think in this particular case Trump was completely consistent and the far right is not. If abortions are illegal, than those that instigate illegal acts should be punished. It's as simple as that. Women that proceed to get an abortion are victims? Of what exactly? Victims of sex? But what if it was consensual? Victims of not taking precautions? They were there, right?
As the far-right also claim that abortion is murder, they're double hypocrites. The women in question are asking others to perform murder on their behalf. That makes the women extra guilty, not less so. Imagine people hiring a hitman. Are these people victims too?
Nope, doesn't compute. The only thing that I can come up with to understand the position of the far-right is that they consider pregnant women to not be able to make choices, sub-human. In this particular case, Trump, while trying to pander to his current base, made the mistake of being logical. His base is not. Hence he needed to retract.
How do you sell insurance if you can't deny pre-existing conditions for at least the first year?
Simple, make (basic) insurance mandatory.
Had that same thought, but then realized that indeed, it doesn't violate net neutrality. Net neutrality is about throttling, this is about billing.
No, I'm saying that there are engineering solutions for many problems, and that this particular problem might not the hardest one we tried to solve, and maybe not even the most expensive one. In Dutch conditions, it could be done with 11th century technology, and they got better at it. Giving up before doing an actual analysis of the art of the possible is the sure way to drown.
The Dutch claimed land from lakes and swamp. That land is often below the level of the rivers and water does bubble up. An intricate system of small waterways to collect this water is used. The Dutch have been pumping out water continuously since the 11th century. If they stop pumping, the land disappears.
If an adversary has 3000+ warheads, they can simply explode all of them on their own territory. The following nuclear winter will take out the rest of the planet. You don't need missiles for a MAD defense. Just blow yourself up when attacked. Mutually assured destruction, guarenteed.
I think that Trump's agenda is to become President of the US and then take it from there. I don't think his plans are worth the disk they're stored on.
Proven track record doesn't say everything. If there are thousands of advisors that all give random advice, there will be some that will do much better than others. Following those will still give you random advice.
To paraphrase Dijkstra, would you consider "strong swimming", i.e., swim like a fish, to be a requirement for understanding how to navigate an artifact under water? And is a submarine merely a "weak swimmer", even though it outperforms all known types of fish in speed?
Given that IQ is normally distributed with a mean at 100 and a standard deviation of 15, the probability of a score falling at 100 points (IQ is discrete), corresponds to the probability of falling between 99.5 and 100.5 on the continuous distribution. This probability is 2.7% -- so you were not far off with your 4%.
That's because he used the N-word while white. If you're black you can say 'nigger' all you want, but when you're white you can't. American English has become a racist language.
The millionaires are the one percent, so from the money you give, only 1% will go to millionaires. The rest goes to people who can actually use it.
You might have missed the implication that the purpose of a falsifiable theory is that you can forget about it once it is, indeed, falsified. Astrology is a fine scientific theory that has been shown to be wrong. Many more reputable scientific theories have gone that way.
Yes to this. Direct democracy doesn't work. However, bribed representatives doesn't work either. The US needs a reform of their representative democracy, as it has been hacked.
> It tells me that "some" people are ignorant and racists
Half of people are below average intelligence.
*shakes head* Median. Half of people are below median intelligence.
*shakes head a bit more* Average. Half of the people are below average intelligence. Due to the law of large numbers and the construction that intelligence has finite variance, intelligence is normally distributed. Therefore the statement holds for the three most used averages: Mode, Median and (arithmetic) Mean.
Ever heard of a country called the Netherlands? Size of Maryland, population 17 million, one of the densest in the world? Also happens to be consistently it the top-3 of agricultural exporters in the world, and most of that stuff is grown in the middle of the densest part of that country. Feeding 17 million people, with enough to spare to feed half of Germany.
If I can comment from another continent. The "left" in the US seems to be a diverse field of right wing, centrist and left wing politicians that disagree about a great many things. The "right" in the US is off the charts. Absolutely crazy, beyond redemption. The Reps need to die and give room for the Dems to split into right and left.
So "freedom of speech" means "freedom of speech"? I don't see a definition in the article you quoted, just a blanket statement that it cannot abridge the thing that it fails to define. This has lead in the US to endless confusion: is yelling "fire in a theatre" freedom of speech? Is money speech? Honestly, it is much clearer what is protected in the German version. You might not like it as it might sound too constrained, but at the very least it is a definition, not an empty phrase.
Well, an announced non-attack would be the perfect time to do a real attack. We're going to pretend we're attacking you, so don't worry if we accidentally enter your airspace.
Why the hell would the police need to be involved to figure out if a kid was looking for trouble?
I think you're confused about the meaning of agnostic and atheist, as these are answers to different questions. The agnostic answers "no" to the question "do you know God exists?". The atheist answers "no" to the question "do you believe in God?". In many cases, the agnostic answer automatically leads to the atheist position (why would you believe in God if you have no knowledge of her?)
The problem with this approach is that it gives no incentive to healthy people to get insured. With voluntary insurance, you will only get insurance when you're sick, and prices will skyrocket. Private insurance found their own way to force people into insurance, and that's called pre-existing conditions. You'd better get insured while you're healthy, because you will not be covered if you suddenly get sick. The only way healthcare can financially work is if healthy people pay for the sick.