Something being 'technically able' to do something does not make it something else. Plane can fly. So can bird. Thus a bird must be a plane!
If you could take credit for inventing the bird, and if it was able to be used as transportation, then I would have no problem with you claiming you invented an aircraft by inventing the bird.
More relevant, plane can roll on runway, but they are not designed for continuous rolling. It simply is not designed to go on roads. If you want to transport a large number of people on a road, you use a bus, not an airplane. The fact that an airplane could technically carry a lot of people on a road does not make it a road vehicle--just like the fact that driving a hovercraft on a road does not make the hovercraft a car.
Maybe you haven't realized this yet, but the point of what I am saying is that this is a semantic debate. You can arbitrarily define a car to be whatever you want. You could say that a car is a vehicle with 4 wheels a steering wheel and without a truck bed, and claim that no one has ever been able to make a car with a truck bed, because if anyone ever did, that would make it a truck
We have things that can fly. We just don't call the flying cars. They can and do go on roads, it's just inconvenient so we normally only take them on roads designed for airplanes. The technical challenges have been met. The reason you don't see airplanes that can drive on city streets is because the sacrifices made to the automotive and aviation characteristics of such a vehicle make it more practical to just have 2 vehicles that specialize at their own job, but these vehicles do in fact exist.
You could say we've never invented a machine that could be a washing machine and a dryer. But we have invented both washing machines and dryers. All we would need to do is bolt a washing machine to a dryer, and bingo we have the worlds first machine that can do both, but it is double the size, and much more convenient as 2 separate machines.
How is it obvious which cd burning software (or any software) works and which doesn't? Furthermore, maybe you are young, but there was a time when burning a CD had a very low chance of success. Even now, there are many different optical disc types: CDR CDRW DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R DVD+RDL BDR. There are many different optical disc file systems: ISO9660, joliet, UDF (6 versions), etc. With USB sticks, it's just flash memory.
However you magically acquired the ability to innately know which CD burning software is good, maybe you should save yourself a bunch of time, money, and inconvenience and work on acquiring that skill for bootable USB stick software.
But those 'roads' are not shared between aircraft and cars (notwithstanding service vehicle).
When was the last time you drove on a runway or taxiway to get to work? How often do you see an aircraft on the highway?
There is actually only a legal prohibition for cars to drive on most runways. They are technically able to do it. So the "invention" required to enable this is merely a legal one. I promise you that we have land-cars that are capable of driving on aircraft runways.
You can sent me pictures of aircraft that had to land on roads for emergencies, but that does not make them cars.
Cars are not allowed in bike lanes. When will we invent motorized bicycles that can go in bike lanes? (And I am not talking about motorcycles that sometimes go in the bike lanes briefly for right turns.)
There is an even simpler explanation for deja vu. In a normal circumstance, when when you see something familiar, your brain notices it and you consciously confirm that it is familiar it is indeed familiar. What if your brain miscategorizes something as familiar and this doesn't make sense. Like you go to a city you've never been to before, and the familiarity module of your brain misfires and says "This seems familiar", but your analytical module decides that you couldn't have seen this before because you've never been to this city. Bam. Deja vu.
The thing is, whether the familiarity module of your brain is misfiring or actually detecting something actually familiar (maybe you saw a picture of this place), that's not information that is accessible to you from subjective experience.
So what if the bugs are bad. All I am saying is that we won't notice the bugs even if they did exist. Let's say the simulation is riddled with bugs. It crashes every 20 billion years. This is the 100 trillionth time running the simulation and the creator still can't figure out how to fix it. We don't care. As far as we are concerned, everything seems fine, because when things aren't fine, we don't exist to have an opinion on how things seem, or we have been restarted without any knowledge of past simulation runs.
You download a linux.iso, create a bootable usb, and boot from that. Yeah there is some software that doesn't work right. So don't use that software. There is also cd burning software that doesn't work right either. That's not a knock against CDs. Don't use that software either.
For example if gravity failed to work on tuesdays at 10am for chocolate teapots I doubt we would have much luck coming up with a consistent set of fundamental laws which explained that.
It sounds like you already did.
For the start-over idea you have now just completely ruined the whole argument made in favour of this being a simulation. What are the odds that we are in the one run of the simulation that has been bug-free rather than the presumably billions of of runs where there have been bugs?
Maybe the creator never intended for there to be anti-matter, and our universe doesn't work as intended because of matter/anti-matter interactions. How would we know that's a bug. That's just how our universe works.
If you are making a movie, are the bad things that happen int he movie mistakes? No, conflict is what makes it suspenseful. A movie without suspense is boring.
You've been watching the matrix. Our senses have no idea what's real. Our senses never even noticed relativity or quantum mechanics. We had to figure out that out using science. What is real to our senses is whatever just they are used to. And what they are used to often isn't even correct. If we are in a simulation, there is no reason to think we will ever have any empirical evidence of it.
Cars do fly. The first flying car was made 17 years after the first car. And the first space car was made 58 years after that. For whatever reason, the stewards of the English language decided to call these things aircraft and spacecraft rather than flying cars and space cars.
Even if there are bugs, you can just stop the simulation, fix the bugs and start it over. Furthermore, even if there were bugs, that's for the creator of the simulation to notice and fix, not the simulated apes per-occupied with voting for Hillary or Trump.
I don't think the problem is the hardware. I think it is software. I have used numerous different bootable usb applications under both windows and various flavors of linux. Some work and some don't (not sure why). But I have almost always been able to get computers that claim to boot form usb to work unless they were made at the dawn of usb booting. Also similar to CDs there can be errors in the data. cheap USB drives, especially old ones can be pretty unreliable, but the same is true of old CDRs.
There was definitely a time when USB boot was much more unreliable than booting from an optical drive. I think we are passed that time by about 10 years.
A CD requires that you have a computer than can burn a CD image. You could use that same computer to make a bootable USB drive from that same CD image. CDs really are no longer required to install an OS. It took a long time, but we did arrive some time ago. The number of working computers that can not boot off a USB are probably less than the number of computers without an optical drive at this point.
Hell, it's also easier to find a random USB drive than a writable CD/DVD. They might even be cheaper.
I think it's not ok to "use people". But it's ok to leverage assets. Assets can be things like "full time employee equivalents" which is an abstract unit that can mean 1 person working 40 hours a week, or 2 people working 20 hours per week,etc on a particular task.
Trump doesn't know shit. He is just making it up as he goes along. He has one trick. Rile up angry white racists, and have no shame. I don't think even he realized how successful this idiotically simple strategy would be. I don't think the leaders in the Republican party realized just how many assholes were in their own party until now. The other republican candidates seemed to share the delusion that their party was not about racism, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny, jingoism, etc, but it turns out they were wrong. That's exactly who they cultivated, and who they are.
It's completely fucking scary, but at least it's out in the open now. Trump is by far the must unfavorable presidential candidate in US history. Unfortunately the democrats seem unable to nominate a candidate that is better than the 2nd most unfavorable presidential candidate in US history.
Regardless of who wins this election, the loser will be American society as a whole. Whoops. Luckily the damage a bad president can do alone is limited to making good laws harder to pass and bad laws easier to pass, preventing the nominations of good supreme court justices, and starting shit with other countries.
Any conservative movement in America basically has a choice between representing conservative minorities or white racists. For most of recent history the choice made by the republican party has been pretty clear (i.e. white racists). It seems like recently more reasonable people in the party tried to get the party to switch seeing that conservative minorities were probably going to be a more powerful demographic than white racists. But that didn't seem to go so well this election.
The republican party is like a guy open to finding a new girlfriend, but while trying to ask a new girl (conservative minorities) for her number, his crazy current girlfriend (white racists led by Trump) shows up and makes a big embarrassing scene. Now the republican party looks pretty dumb in front of the new girl (and everyone else), so their only option is to go grovelling back to the current girl. Maybe they can try to ditch their crazy girlfriend again in the future, but for now she's the only viable option. The only other option is to just be single (not support Trump), and take a guaranteed loss this election cycle. But it seems the party would rather have a crazy girlfriend than no girlfriend, and just hope that the damage to the party will be minimal.
Slashdot Mirror
Something being 'technically able' to do something does not make it something else. Plane can fly. So can bird. Thus a bird must be a plane!
If you could take credit for inventing the bird, and if it was able to be used as transportation, then I would have no problem with you claiming you invented an aircraft by inventing the bird.
More relevant, plane can roll on runway, but they are not designed for continuous rolling. It simply is not designed to go on roads. If you want to transport a large number of people on a road, you use a bus, not an airplane. The fact that an airplane could technically carry a lot of people on a road does not make it a road vehicle--just like the fact that driving a hovercraft on a road does not make the hovercraft a car.
Maybe you haven't realized this yet, but the point of what I am saying is that this is a semantic debate. You can arbitrarily define a car to be whatever you want. You could say that a car is a vehicle with 4 wheels a steering wheel and without a truck bed, and claim that no one has ever been able to make a car with a truck bed, because if anyone ever did, that would make it a truck
We have things that can fly. We just don't call the flying cars. They can and do go on roads, it's just inconvenient so we normally only take them on roads designed for airplanes. The technical challenges have been met. The reason you don't see airplanes that can drive on city streets is because the sacrifices made to the automotive and aviation characteristics of such a vehicle make it more practical to just have 2 vehicles that specialize at their own job, but these vehicles do in fact exist.
You could say we've never invented a machine that could be a washing machine and a dryer. But we have invented both washing machines and dryers. All we would need to do is bolt a washing machine to a dryer, and bingo we have the worlds first machine that can do both, but it is double the size, and much more convenient as 2 separate machines.
How is it obvious which cd burning software (or any software) works and which doesn't? Furthermore, maybe you are young, but there was a time when burning a CD had a very low chance of success. Even now, there are many different optical disc types: CDR CDRW DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R DVD+RDL BDR. There are many different optical disc file systems: ISO9660, joliet, UDF (6 versions), etc. With USB sticks, it's just flash memory.
However you magically acquired the ability to innately know which CD burning software is good, maybe you should save yourself a bunch of time, money, and inconvenience and work on acquiring that skill for bootable USB stick software.
But those 'roads' are not shared between aircraft and cars (notwithstanding service vehicle).
When was the last time you drove on a runway or taxiway to get to work? How often do you see an aircraft on the highway?
There is actually only a legal prohibition for cars to drive on most runways. They are technically able to do it. So the "invention" required to enable this is merely a legal one. I promise you that we have land-cars that are capable of driving on aircraft runways.
You can sent me pictures of aircraft that had to land on roads for emergencies, but that does not make them cars.
Cars are not allowed in bike lanes. When will we invent motorized bicycles that can go in bike lanes? (And I am not talking about motorcycles that sometimes go in the bike lanes briefly for right turns.)
There is an even simpler explanation for deja vu. In a normal circumstance, when when you see something familiar, your brain notices it and you consciously confirm that it is familiar it is indeed familiar. What if your brain miscategorizes something as familiar and this doesn't make sense. Like you go to a city you've never been to before, and the familiarity module of your brain misfires and says "This seems familiar", but your analytical module decides that you couldn't have seen this before because you've never been to this city. Bam. Deja vu.
The thing is, whether the familiarity module of your brain is misfiring or actually detecting something actually familiar (maybe you saw a picture of this place), that's not information that is accessible to you from subjective experience.
So what if the bugs are bad. All I am saying is that we won't notice the bugs even if they did exist. Let's say the simulation is riddled with bugs. It crashes every 20 billion years. This is the 100 trillionth time running the simulation and the creator still can't figure out how to fix it. We don't care. As far as we are concerned, everything seems fine, because when things aren't fine, we don't exist to have an opinion on how things seem, or we have been restarted without any knowledge of past simulation runs.
You download a linux.iso, create a bootable usb, and boot from that. Yeah there is some software that doesn't work right. So don't use that software. There is also cd burning software that doesn't work right either. That's not a knock against CDs. Don't use that software either.
For example if gravity failed to work on tuesdays at 10am for chocolate teapots I doubt we would have much luck coming up with a consistent set of fundamental laws which explained that.
It sounds like you already did.
For the start-over idea you have now just completely ruined the whole argument made in favour of this being a simulation. What are the odds that we are in the one run of the simulation that has been bug-free rather than the presumably billions of of runs where there have been bugs?
Maybe the creator never intended for there to be anti-matter, and our universe doesn't work as intended because of matter/anti-matter interactions. How would we know that's a bug. That's just how our universe works.
If you are making a movie, are the bad things that happen int he movie mistakes? No, conflict is what makes it suspenseful. A movie without suspense is boring.
You've been watching the matrix. Our senses have no idea what's real. Our senses never even noticed relativity or quantum mechanics. We had to figure out that out using science. What is real to our senses is whatever just they are used to. And what they are used to often isn't even correct. If we are in a simulation, there is no reason to think we will ever have any empirical evidence of it.
Other people do. I drive my land-ship to work everyday.
They have their own roads called runways and taxi ways.
Good God , this is slashdot and we're still burning USBs to CD?!?!
I don't even know what "burning a USB to CD" means.
Cars do fly. The first flying car was made 17 years after the first car. And the first space car was made 58 years after that. For whatever reason, the stewards of the English language decided to call these things aircraft and spacecraft rather than flying cars and space cars.
How dare you claim to be original for calling one of Elon Musk's ideas unoriginal.
Even if there are bugs, you can just stop the simulation, fix the bugs and start it over. Furthermore, even if there were bugs, that's for the creator of the simulation to notice and fix, not the simulated apes per-occupied with voting for Hillary or Trump.
I don't think the problem is the hardware. I think it is software. I have used numerous different bootable usb applications under both windows and various flavors of linux. Some work and some don't (not sure why). But I have almost always been able to get computers that claim to boot form usb to work unless they were made at the dawn of usb booting. Also similar to CDs there can be errors in the data. cheap USB drives, especially old ones can be pretty unreliable, but the same is true of old CDRs.
There was definitely a time when USB boot was much more unreliable than booting from an optical drive. I think we are passed that time by about 10 years.
A CD requires that you have a computer than can burn a CD image. You could use that same computer to make a bootable USB drive from that same CD image. CDs really are no longer required to install an OS. It took a long time, but we did arrive some time ago. The number of working computers that can not boot off a USB are probably less than the number of computers without an optical drive at this point.
Hell, it's also easier to find a random USB drive than a writable CD/DVD. They might even be cheaper.
Yeah they like guns, Jesus, and being assholes. That makes them conservative right?
"Embiggen" is a perfectly cromulent word.
I think it's not ok to "use people". But it's ok to leverage assets. Assets can be things like "full time employee equivalents" which is an abstract unit that can mean 1 person working 40 hours a week, or 2 people working 20 hours per week,etc on a particular task.
Are you leveraging crack?
That would be a cool indian name "Mouth that speaks without saying anything".
What the hell is a "thumbnail"? Speak English!
Trump doesn't know shit. He is just making it up as he goes along. He has one trick. Rile up angry white racists, and have no shame. I don't think even he realized how successful this idiotically simple strategy would be. I don't think the leaders in the Republican party realized just how many assholes were in their own party until now. The other republican candidates seemed to share the delusion that their party was not about racism, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny, jingoism, etc, but it turns out they were wrong. That's exactly who they cultivated, and who they are.
It's completely fucking scary, but at least it's out in the open now. Trump is by far the must unfavorable presidential candidate in US history. Unfortunately the democrats seem unable to nominate a candidate that is better than the 2nd most unfavorable presidential candidate in US history.
Regardless of who wins this election, the loser will be American society as a whole. Whoops. Luckily the damage a bad president can do alone is limited to making good laws harder to pass and bad laws easier to pass, preventing the nominations of good supreme court justices, and starting shit with other countries.
Any conservative movement in America basically has a choice between representing conservative minorities or white racists. For most of recent history the choice made by the republican party has been pretty clear (i.e. white racists). It seems like recently more reasonable people in the party tried to get the party to switch seeing that conservative minorities were probably going to be a more powerful demographic than white racists. But that didn't seem to go so well this election.
The republican party is like a guy open to finding a new girlfriend, but while trying to ask a new girl (conservative minorities) for her number, his crazy current girlfriend (white racists led by Trump) shows up and makes a big embarrassing scene. Now the republican party looks pretty dumb in front of the new girl (and everyone else), so their only option is to go grovelling back to the current girl. Maybe they can try to ditch their crazy girlfriend again in the future, but for now she's the only viable option. The only other option is to just be single (not support Trump), and take a guaranteed loss this election cycle. But it seems the party would rather have a crazy girlfriend than no girlfriend, and just hope that the damage to the party will be minimal.
I'm sure excited to see this shit show play out.