Is it just me, or does all this math wrangling seem like what Geocentric scientists were doing to properly figure out the path of stars in our night sky to align with their theory?
They're a country, they're a political entity that has borders that are recognized by other countries. The countries you listed were still countries, and they too would fit into my argument. You had multiple strong cultural or political identities that were unwilling or unable to interact civilly with each other. The result is always a break up, usually preceded by a civil war.
Language doesn't dictate that such things like that would happen, but it usually doesn't help. India may be an example of a country with multiple languages (hundreds if not thousands of sub dialects) and the ability to stay intact. But India has mandated a national language. They also have a strong cultural identity.
The United States does not have these things. We have an amorphous cultural identity based on intangible political and philosophical beliefs. We don't have a national language; and a part of our national identity comes from the notion that established institutions and norms are always up to being uprooted and replaced. You can't make the kind of structural redesign that our founding fathers intended when the populace is unable, or unwilling, to adequately communicate their ideas with each other.
(The whole point of the Nolan Chart was to prove that libertarianism is distinct and doesn't fit into the neat boxes of American political discourse. The Nolan chart is a worldview that tries to prove libertarians exist, and aren't just meaningless shadows of the major political coalitions.)
I think you're replying to me, so I'll just say, that's what my point was.
To a certain extent no it's not. But if a country becomes too fractured, it can no longer function as a country serving all its people. Iraq is kind of an example of this. Tensions between Sunni/Shia/Kurds has led to an inability of the Iraqi government to adequately hold these groups together. And has allowed for the severe persecution of minorities, like the Yazidis.
Heterogeneous societies require a certain level of national unity to competently function.
The problem is English speakers speaking another language have a whole slew to choose from. Some more helpful than others, but much of that has to do with likelihood of having to use the other language. I should've learned Spanish instead of French in high school, because I'm more likely to come into contact with that language. But someone in say England, might want to learn French over Spanish due to proximity to France. And someone from New Zealand might want to learn Maori.
Cherokee wasn't the only Native American language (ignoring that it's actually a form of Iroquois to boot) on the continent... while funny, XKCD is not some arbiter of righteous thought. While the other AC is certainly extreme in his opinion, the notion that citizens should all speak at least one language in common is a necessary part of democracy and free enlightened society. If people can't communicate than the transference of ideas is hampered. Further, lack of communication and ability to socialize with groups of people leads to a less intermixed society. The results of that are pretty obvious; discrimination, lack of national unity, lack of empathy, etc. Further, people from groups who can not communicate with the broader spectrum of a nation's society are left out of the national dialogue, their concerns and ideas may not be considered when debating national policy. Another possibility, and in some ways a worse one, is that they're voice as it were is appropriated by another person or group to further their own agenda.
But casting in Ada is not flexible or automatic for a reason. The code is meant to be highly reliable and hard to make simple mistakes with. It was meant for ballistic missiles, rockets, etc.
No, I think it was the goal of Ada which was supposed to replace COBOL and Fortran for the DOD. It also was the only language (at the time) that met the Steelman language requirements.
There are tools that will remove all reasonable white space when you are packaging the code for distribution though. So I can't see that as a concern either way.
The Big Bang theory is a credible assumption at this point. It's been vetted and in fact part of it is a scientific law (Hubble's Law). If the assumption must be false to prove your new theory you must therefore prove the assumption false. You have this same issue with Einstein's General Relativity and the notion that nothing is faster than the speed of light. Some scientists and one of those super colliders thought they found a particle that had traveled faster than the speed of light. Scientific community got all surprised and after further scrutiny found that the measurement was erroneous or inaccurate.
As for doubting religious scientists' theories, if you're doubting them because they happen to coincide with their religious belief, then I'm sorry you are wrong. It's not logically valid. If you doubt it because their data or calculations are sparse or inadequate then fine. But that applies to all scientists. A non-religious scientist can use crap data to seemingly prove their point as well, see the vaccines cause autism guy.
Please excuse the accusation, but it seems to me, that getting all bent out of shape because the scientist was religious is at the very least showing serious bias on your part and potentially to some level bigotry.
By granting formalized exemptions and exceptions you start to tear away the logical legal blocks that make the law legitimate. When the exceptions and exemptions become unmaintainable or too confusing the law would require a redesign essentially. Poking holes in the law leads to eventually the dissolution of the law and a replacement law put in place, hopefully one that is more agreeable.
It should receive the same level of scrutiny befitting any scientist. Georges LeMaitre had PhDs from Cambridge and MIT. Him being a Catholic priest (ie a "religionist") is only relevant because AC and apparently you, think that some how being religious and being a scientist are somehow mutually exclusive. Further what level of scrutiny is appropriate? Einstein was initially skeptical of his findings but was able to be convinced. Hubble came two years later and corroborated LeMaitre's findings (although at the time Hubble was credited with the BB theory). Is there some higher level of scrutiny required beyond what should be a community norm? If Einstein said the Earth was flat, would that require less scrutiny than if LeMaitre said it?
"What's the difference between a duck's legs?" I fail to see how that is a meaningless question. Maybe the duck is injured with one leg broken. So the difference is that one leg is functional while the other is not.
The question is only meaningless without context. The same as the question by the OP. But we have context for the question, and in this context the question is not meaningless. Maybe you view the answer as pointless, but the question is not meaningless.
I'm, somewhat clumsily, saying that comparing a US State to Sweden is more analogous than some random or arbitrary area. I think the questions you want answered would help tell you why Sweden may or may not have better internet connectivity versus say California.
I'm not sure how Sweden handles things precisely with regards to internet (and other utilities as well). The way I see this is, the EU is kind of like the US Federal government in some respects, particularly with things we're talking about here. They set some EU wide standards for various things etc. I'm not sure if the EU has an analogous entity like the FCC in the US. But if it does, I'm sure Sweden needs to abide by whatever regulations the EU sets. And then of course Sweden itself handles the utility bits itself. Much like the States in the US handle that actual implementation of utilities. Those states may delegate down or allow smaller municipalities to handle their own utilities, etc.
So while yes, Comcast, or whoever may spend time working an area equal to Sweden, etc; if they're working with two separate political entities, work they could do in Washington may not be possible in Oregon and vice versa.
Ultimately, the point I myself am trying to get across is that asking why Sweden can do it but not the USA, is kind of a irrelevant question. It's like trying to fit a round peg into an octagon shaped hole. Yeah you an look at Sweden and say, well maybe the US should be doing that, but you can't just copy whatever Sweden is doing. Because the result will more than likely not be the same; and it may be worse.
Is the Pacific Northwest a political entity? No. WA and OR have different laws and regulations right? Different taxing schemes? Yes. Different utility management as well I assume too.
The most I expect from car makers, or really any engineers for this stuff, is to recognize they're going to lose. So, with that in mind, design their cars to lose gracefully, or more importantly, safely. When I hear that cars can be turned off remotely, etc (think OnStar). I'd say their failing that. I don't need some intelligent hackers turning off my car while I'm running from them and jacking me while I try to figure out why my car isn't working anymore.
Man, I'd love to hear about this magical cable that can be used for multiple distances without having to make/buy more cable. It'd save a ton of money when a move from my apartment to my house. Because you know those 6 foot cables I bought would be able to go 20 ft now.
If an area is less dense, then more wire/cable/fiber must be fanned out to reach those people. And then maintenance of that wire is more costly when it is more distributed. In a general sense, more network hubs/nodes need to be created/maintained, etc; because those nodes are not servicing as many people.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just me, or does all this math wrangling seem like what Geocentric scientists were doing to properly figure out the path of stars in our night sky to align with their theory?
They're a country, they're a political entity that has borders that are recognized by other countries. The countries you listed were still countries, and they too would fit into my argument. You had multiple strong cultural or political identities that were unwilling or unable to interact civilly with each other. The result is always a break up, usually preceded by a civil war.
Language doesn't dictate that such things like that would happen, but it usually doesn't help. India may be an example of a country with multiple languages (hundreds if not thousands of sub dialects) and the ability to stay intact. But India has mandated a national language. They also have a strong cultural identity.
The United States does not have these things. We have an amorphous cultural identity based on intangible political and philosophical beliefs. We don't have a national language; and a part of our national identity comes from the notion that established institutions and norms are always up to being uprooted and replaced. You can't make the kind of structural redesign that our founding fathers intended when the populace is unable, or unwilling, to adequately communicate their ideas with each other.
(The whole point of the Nolan Chart was to prove that libertarianism is distinct and doesn't fit into the neat boxes of American political discourse. The Nolan chart is a worldview that tries to prove libertarians exist, and aren't just meaningless shadows of the major political coalitions.)
I think you're replying to me, so I'll just say, that's what my point was.
Libertarianism is on the negative Y quadrants.
Facism
Communism -------|--------- Capitalism
Anarchism
To a certain extent no it's not. But if a country becomes too fractured, it can no longer function as a country serving all its people. Iraq is kind of an example of this. Tensions between Sunni/Shia/Kurds has led to an inability of the Iraqi government to adequately hold these groups together. And has allowed for the severe persecution of minorities, like the Yazidis.
Heterogeneous societies require a certain level of national unity to competently function.
The problem is English speakers speaking another language have a whole slew to choose from. Some more helpful than others, but much of that has to do with likelihood of having to use the other language. I should've learned Spanish instead of French in high school, because I'm more likely to come into contact with that language. But someone in say England, might want to learn French over Spanish due to proximity to France. And someone from New Zealand might want to learn Maori.
Cherokee wasn't the only Native American language (ignoring that it's actually a form of Iroquois to boot) on the continent... while funny, XKCD is not some arbiter of righteous thought. While the other AC is certainly extreme in his opinion, the notion that citizens should all speak at least one language in common is a necessary part of democracy and free enlightened society. If people can't communicate than the transference of ideas is hampered. Further, lack of communication and ability to socialize with groups of people leads to a less intermixed society. The results of that are pretty obvious; discrimination, lack of national unity, lack of empathy, etc. Further, people from groups who can not communicate with the broader spectrum of a nation's society are left out of the national dialogue, their concerns and ideas may not be considered when debating national policy. Another possibility, and in some ways a worse one, is that they're voice as it were is appropriated by another person or group to further their own agenda.
But casting in Ada is not flexible or automatic for a reason. The code is meant to be highly reliable and hard to make simple mistakes with. It was meant for ballistic missiles, rockets, etc.
No, I think it was the goal of Ada which was supposed to replace COBOL and Fortran for the DOD. It also was the only language (at the time) that met the Steelman language requirements.
There are tools that will remove all reasonable white space when you are packaging the code for distribution though. So I can't see that as a concern either way.
That's for method and class access control though...
The Big Bang theory is a credible assumption at this point. It's been vetted and in fact part of it is a scientific law (Hubble's Law). If the assumption must be false to prove your new theory you must therefore prove the assumption false. You have this same issue with Einstein's General Relativity and the notion that nothing is faster than the speed of light. Some scientists and one of those super colliders thought they found a particle that had traveled faster than the speed of light. Scientific community got all surprised and after further scrutiny found that the measurement was erroneous or inaccurate.
As for doubting religious scientists' theories, if you're doubting them because they happen to coincide with their religious belief, then I'm sorry you are wrong. It's not logically valid. If you doubt it because their data or calculations are sparse or inadequate then fine. But that applies to all scientists. A non-religious scientist can use crap data to seemingly prove their point as well, see the vaccines cause autism guy.
Please excuse the accusation, but it seems to me, that getting all bent out of shape because the scientist was religious is at the very least showing serious bias on your part and potentially to some level bigotry.
By granting formalized exemptions and exceptions you start to tear away the logical legal blocks that make the law legitimate. When the exceptions and exemptions become unmaintainable or too confusing the law would require a redesign essentially. Poking holes in the law leads to eventually the dissolution of the law and a replacement law put in place, hopefully one that is more agreeable.
I think that's right, most squatter's rights mandate that the squatter must be properly maintaining the property.
It should receive the same level of scrutiny befitting any scientist. Georges LeMaitre had PhDs from Cambridge and MIT. Him being a Catholic priest (ie a "religionist") is only relevant because AC and apparently you, think that some how being religious and being a scientist are somehow mutually exclusive. Further what level of scrutiny is appropriate? Einstein was initially skeptical of his findings but was able to be convinced. Hubble came two years later and corroborated LeMaitre's findings (although at the time Hubble was credited with the BB theory). Is there some higher level of scrutiny required beyond what should be a community norm? If Einstein said the Earth was flat, would that require less scrutiny than if LeMaitre said it?
"What's the difference between a duck's legs?"
I fail to see how that is a meaningless question. Maybe the duck is injured with one leg broken. So the difference is that one leg is functional while the other is not.
The question is only meaningless without context. The same as the question by the OP. But we have context for the question, and in this context the question is not meaningless. Maybe you view the answer as pointless, but the question is not meaningless.
You know a "religionist" came up with the Big Bang Theory right?
I'm, somewhat clumsily, saying that comparing a US State to Sweden is more analogous than some random or arbitrary area. I think the questions you want answered would help tell you why Sweden may or may not have better internet connectivity versus say California.
I'm not sure how Sweden handles things precisely with regards to internet (and other utilities as well). The way I see this is, the EU is kind of like the US Federal government in some respects, particularly with things we're talking about here. They set some EU wide standards for various things etc. I'm not sure if the EU has an analogous entity like the FCC in the US. But if it does, I'm sure Sweden needs to abide by whatever regulations the EU sets. And then of course Sweden itself handles the utility bits itself. Much like the States in the US handle that actual implementation of utilities. Those states may delegate down or allow smaller municipalities to handle their own utilities, etc.
So while yes, Comcast, or whoever may spend time working an area equal to Sweden, etc; if they're working with two separate political entities, work they could do in Washington may not be possible in Oregon and vice versa.
Ultimately, the point I myself am trying to get across is that asking why Sweden can do it but not the USA, is kind of a irrelevant question. It's like trying to fit a round peg into an octagon shaped hole. Yeah you an look at Sweden and say, well maybe the US should be doing that, but you can't just copy whatever Sweden is doing. Because the result will more than likely not be the same; and it may be worse.
Is the Pacific Northwest a political entity? No. WA and OR have different laws and regulations right? Different taxing schemes? Yes. Different utility management as well I assume too.
The most I expect from car makers, or really any engineers for this stuff, is to recognize they're going to lose. So, with that in mind, design their cars to lose gracefully, or more importantly, safely. When I hear that cars can be turned off remotely, etc (think OnStar). I'd say their failing that. I don't need some intelligent hackers turning off my car while I'm running from them and jacking me while I try to figure out why my car isn't working anymore.
Do you need your calculator hooked up to the network of networks to function properly though?
So you've just got California. Do you have an answer?
Man, I'd love to hear about this magical cable that can be used for multiple distances without having to make/buy more cable. It'd save a ton of money when a move from my apartment to my house. Because you know those 6 foot cables I bought would be able to go 20 ft now.
Part, part, part, part, part, part, part, part, part, part, part, part, part, part, part.....
It can't be repeated enough apparently.
If an area is less dense, then more wire/cable/fiber must be fanned out to reach those people. And then maintenance of that wire is more costly when it is more distributed. In a general sense, more network hubs/nodes need to be created/maintained, etc; because those nodes are not servicing as many people.