Humor has nothing to do with the incorrect definition of the number of dimensions of an object.
Which is why I mentioned your pedantry.
Let me draw you a diagram _________________
That is a two dimensional non-solid object since is has a height, one pixel, and a width, more than one pixel.
In fact, since it's drawn with electrons, it's got depth too. Actually, since it's drawn as pixels on your screen, which by now are probably discrete LED components, it's much more than that.
It's a signal which causes a series of diodes to emit a color which your eyes perceive as a straight black line -- in reality, it's none of those things either.
Look, you can be as pedantic, reductionist, and anal retentive about this as you like.. it's not contributing anything to this.
For purpose of explaining this and discussing it, they defined a plane in terms of this sheet of atoms with this particular layout.
That's it. There's no mathematical chicanery going on, and everybody knows it's not, strictly speaking, either a plane or a 2D structure. But it's got some characteristics of a plane, and, for purposes of discussion, is being treated as a 2D structure.
Because, if they had to say this 3-atom thick sheet of interlocking atoms which demonstrates some characteristics of planarity, and allow us to connect them together while maintaining the same type of planarity it would get awfully tedious.
In reality, it's probably not much different than LEGO.
Seriously, get over it. It's almost impossible to discuss this kind of thing without it turning into a tongue twister unless you come up with some form of metaphor.
The rest of this... it's purely bullshit and pedantry by anal retentive people who need to demonstrate they remember something from math class.
Yes, excellent, from a mathematical perspective it's not 2D. But, for purposes of discussion of these material properties, they're calling it a plane.
You would think that scientists would be more accurate with their articulation of complex concepts.
Well, apparently they've defined a plane to be 3 atoms thick, and have grossly understimated the collective anal retentiveness of the people reading the article.
Dude, seriously, it's a dumbed down metaphor written for a press release.
From the parts of the paper which are available without subscription:
The junctions, grown by lateral heteroepitaxy using physical vapour transport7, are visible in an optical microscope and show enhanced photoluminescence. Atomically resolved transmission electron microscopy reveals that their structure is an undistorted honeycomb lattice in which substitution of one transition metal by another occurs across the interface.
I'm quite sure they're not idiots who really think this is a freakin' 2D plane.
TFA isn't the actual scientific paper, it's the press release intended for the public.
Now, unclench a little, you're gonna hurt yourself.:-P
While your pedantry skills are excellent, and your mathematical skills are pretty good... I think you need to have your humor unit recalibrated, you seem to be a little out of phase.
I am perfectly aware of the fact that it isn't really a line on a plane in a strict mathematical sense... heck, I even referenced the thickness of the ink and the fact that the paper has a surface.
Let me draw you a diagram _________________;-)
Now, what is the depth (stated in microns / femptofortnight) of the above line?
After about 15 minutes of this I couldn't take it anymore and I looked at the girl and said "Go ahead and punch this guy in the nose, and then ask him whether he still wonders whether you're a figment of your imagination."
LOL... how do you know it actually happened, and you didn't just imagine it?
Which is precisely the problem with these kinds of postulates, they're completely unknowable, and pretty much stand on their own absurdity.
Because, I could have just imagined typing this, for instance. In which case I'm imagining me imagining you imagining what you did on the bus with the guy I'm imagining you imagining, when I should be trying to imagine the college girl.
And then it just becomes stupid, or, at least, I imagine it does.:-P
Metaphysics has to stop somewhere, otherwise it becomes drivel, which as far as I recall, most metaphysics is.
IF this is a simulated world, there is no reason to assume the rules in the simulation are the same as the ones of the world in which the simulation is running.
You know (and I mean no disrespect here), some of these topics become completely indistinguishable from college nights with way too many bong hits.
Sometimes these things become quite meta.
But what if the simulation is running inside of a simulation? You'd be all like "woah" and shit. And if that was inside of a simulation... I think it would become Horton Hears a Who.
For sufficiently small values of 3 dimensions, it effectively becomes 2 dimensions.;-)
So, when you draw a line on paper, it's a line on a plane, even though the ink has some depth to it and the paper has a surface which isn't completely flat under a microscope.
Can someone explain this to me with a car analogy?
Imagine your car is exactly as tall as your trailer hitch and your trailer, and once connected it's indistinguishable where your car ends and the trailer begins.
So, are you saying that the data is "encrypted" in such a way as to be readable by anything which is running as your user?
Because, basically that would mean that it's not really encrypted in any meaningful way, because you inherently trust every single process to access your passwords.
Quite frankly, that sounds pretty dumb, because it means you explicitly make this available to every single process. So, Adobe could read your passwords if you read a PDF?
That's pretty weak if I understand what you said. And precisely why I don't trust applications to remember my passwords.
I'm a big fan of google right now, but let's see how long "don't be evil" lasts once Larry and Sergey have moved on, and MBA brain damage is calling the shots.
Some of us would argue they gave up on "don't be evil" quite some time ago.
I don't disagree, however, that a future Google will be even more evil.
Out of curiosity, have you ever heard Pakistan actually mentioned in conversation without it being a negative reference, anyway?
Oddly enough, I've known many people from Pakistan over the years.
They're all nice, normal people, with jobs and families and lives. Not a single one has blown themselves up or anything.
Out of curiosity, have you ever heard America referenced in conversation without it being a negative reference? The best thing I've heard is they have lots of guns and shoot one another quite often. Maybe I've never heard it used any way other than negatively for a reason; maybe every time they were brought up, it was to make a complaint.
FIRST you want a bloomin' car that can actually drive itself, and THEN you want one that can not only understand speech, but SLURRED SPEECH from a drunk that may not make any sense at all?!?
Hell yes I do.:-P
Okay, car, I wan' go home... but firs' I wan' go to the drive thru... and swing by Joan's housh... where's my friggin' burger? No, why are we here? This is Joan's housh, I wan' go home dammit!!
Then grasshopper, you will have an autonomous car worth owning, and one hell of an AI.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Editors can't spell (or read), that gross poop eating guy, Time Cube guy, Cowboy Neil, dupes.
I'm sure there's plenty more.
I, for one, welcome our new meme-studying overlords.
Which is why I mentioned your pedantry.
In fact, since it's drawn with electrons, it's got depth too. Actually, since it's drawn as pixels on your screen, which by now are probably discrete LED components, it's much more than that.
It's a signal which causes a series of diodes to emit a color which your eyes perceive as a straight black line -- in reality, it's none of those things either.
Look, you can be as pedantic, reductionist, and anal retentive about this as you like .. it's not contributing anything to this.
For purpose of explaining this and discussing it, they defined a plane in terms of this sheet of atoms with this particular layout.
That's it. There's no mathematical chicanery going on, and everybody knows it's not, strictly speaking, either a plane or a 2D structure. But it's got some characteristics of a plane, and, for purposes of discussion, is being treated as a 2D structure.
Because, if they had to say this 3-atom thick sheet of interlocking atoms which demonstrates some characteristics of planarity, and allow us to connect them together while maintaining the same type of planarity it would get awfully tedious.
In reality, it's probably not much different than LEGO.
Seriously, get over it. It's almost impossible to discuss this kind of thing without it turning into a tongue twister unless you come up with some form of metaphor.
The rest of this ... it's purely bullshit and pedantry by anal retentive people who need to demonstrate they remember something from math class.
Yes, excellent, from a mathematical perspective it's not 2D. But, for purposes of discussion of these material properties, they're calling it a plane.
Well, apparently they've defined a plane to be 3 atoms thick, and have grossly understimated the collective anal retentiveness of the people reading the article.
Dude, seriously, it's a dumbed down metaphor written for a press release.
From the parts of the paper which are available without subscription:
I'm quite sure they're not idiots who really think this is a freakin' 2D plane.
TFA isn't the actual scientific paper, it's the press release intended for the public.
Now, unclench a little, you're gonna hurt yourself. :-P
While your pedantry skills are excellent, and your mathematical skills are pretty good ... I think you need to have your humor unit recalibrated, you seem to be a little out of phase.
I am perfectly aware of the fact that it isn't really a line on a plane in a strict mathematical sense ... heck, I even referenced the thickness of the ink and the fact that the paper has a surface.
Let me draw you a diagram _________________ ;-)
Now, what is the depth (stated in microns / femptofortnight) of the above line?
LOL ... how do you know it actually happened, and you didn't just imagine it?
Which is precisely the problem with these kinds of postulates, they're completely unknowable, and pretty much stand on their own absurdity.
Because, I could have just imagined typing this, for instance. In which case I'm imagining me imagining you imagining what you did on the bus with the guy I'm imagining you imagining, when I should be trying to imagine the college girl.
And then it just becomes stupid, or, at least, I imagine it does. :-P
Metaphysics has to stop somewhere, otherwise it becomes drivel, which as far as I recall, most metaphysics is.
You know (and I mean no disrespect here), some of these topics become completely indistinguishable from college nights with way too many bong hits.
Sometimes these things become quite meta.
But what if the simulation is running inside of a simulation? You'd be all like "woah" and shit. And if that was inside of a simulation ... I think it would become Horton Hears a Who.
Yo, Dawg, I hear you like simulations ...
For sufficiently small values of 3 dimensions, it effectively becomes 2 dimensions. ;-)
So, when you draw a line on paper, it's a line on a plane, even though the ink has some depth to it and the paper has a surface which isn't completely flat under a microscope.
Or, something like that.
Imagine your car is exactly as tall as your trailer hitch and your trailer, and once connected it's indistinguishable where your car ends and the trailer begins.
And, once again, Martin demonstrates his learned discourse and debating skills.
Are you really this much of an asshole, or is it just on Slashdot?
Oh, and since I never actually said anything about criminal law or free speech, as usual, I'll treat what you say as gibberish.
Have you ever spoken with someone outside the US? Or just in the echo chamber of "we're Murica, we're #1"?
That's OK, I'm not from the UK, and I don't you overly credible either.
So, are you saying that the data is "encrypted" in such a way as to be readable by anything which is running as your user?
Because, basically that would mean that it's not really encrypted in any meaningful way, because you inherently trust every single process to access your passwords.
Quite frankly, that sounds pretty dumb, because it means you explicitly make this available to every single process. So, Adobe could read your passwords if you read a PDF?
That's pretty weak if I understand what you said. And precisely why I don't trust applications to remember my passwords.
No, you're quite free to continue to be an asshole if it pleases you. I don't give a damn if you do. Just own it if you offend the wrong person.
I don't believe in the right to not be offended. I also don't believe that someone won't respond to you in a way you might not like.
The question was: why is it offensive? You'll note I said nothing at all about censorship.
Do you still screw your mother?
You seem to think yourself quite clever, I'm sorry to disappoint you.
Some of us would argue they gave up on "don't be evil" quite some time ago.
I don't disagree, however, that a future Google will be even more evil.
Oddly enough, I've known many people from Pakistan over the years.
They're all nice, normal people, with jobs and families and lives. Not a single one has blown themselves up or anything.
Out of curiosity, have you ever heard America referenced in conversation without it being a negative reference? The best thing I've heard is they have lots of guns and shoot one another quite often. Maybe I've never heard it used any way other than negatively for a reason; maybe every time they were brought up, it was to make a complaint.
See what I did there?
Comcast: Mwuhahahaha ... no data caps(*), bitches.
(*) You can buy all the data you want like suckers, and we'll keep getting away with crap like this once we're the only game in town.
LOL .... lumpy? Why am I suddenly hearing "timey wimey" and a Cup O Soup metaphor from the Doctor?
But, thanks for putting more context to this ... because my initial response was "really? We're taking that seriously now?"
LOL ... go fuck yourself, asshole.
Oh, wait, was that an offensive term? My bad.
Oh, I don't know, how about we ask some Pakistanis how they feel about it instead of Australians?
Just because someone doesn't think their use of the term is offensive, it doesn't mean that it isn't.
The people who use the term about other people are the last people you ask if it is an offensive term.
Like the N-word, if you're not in the group, it's not a term you get to use and say "oh, it's just a word, it's not offensive".
I'm sure we'd all love to know ... but the quality of the HP consumer products has been in decline for years now.
Their printers used to be absolutely awesome, now I rank them as right around the cheap Kodak printers you buy.
They're simply not a go-to brand any more.
Because, as far as I've ever heard it, it's only ever used as a pejorative term, and definitely not as an endearing shortening of the word.
I have never heard it as anything but derogatory.
It's offensive, because that's how it's used.
I've been noticing this for several years now ... what the hell is up with URLs at HP?
It's like they've designed their website so nobody could ever actually find anything.
I mean "http://h30434.www3.hp.com/" is one of the most strangely formed URLs I've seen, what is it, the virtual host or something?
Hell yes I do. :-P
Okay, car, I wan' go home ... but firs' I wan' go to the drive thru ... and swing by Joan's housh ... where's my friggin' burger? No, why are we here? This is Joan's housh, I wan' go home dammit!!
Then grasshopper, you will have an autonomous car worth owning, and one hell of an AI. ;-)
You know, I totally get that as far as they're concerned, fuck it, it's a paycheque.
That doesn't mean I think they're any less douchebags for it, nor do I think they're unaware of what they're doing.
It's sleazeball work, but it's probably as intellectually and morally honest as some MBAs I've known, possibly even more.
But, I'll still tell them to go fuck themselves.