Oh, I don't know. Taco Bell is based on the Mexican Kitchen (I say this very loosely). Compared to other kitchens, the Mexican kitchen itself (or by the "authentic" restaurants I go to) is very limited one with the same limited variations the article talks about, and one I would get tired of really quickly if that's all I could eat.
Being able to tie things together easily and having limited ingredients is not a great analogy, imo.
Poor people currently pay either no taxes at all or very low taxes as proportion of their income. Bottom half pays no income tax at all: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0 [yahoo.com] How does calling for less taxes overall in your opinion translate to "wanting to keep poor people as the only ones who pay taxes"? It doesn't make any sense at all.
This is bullshit. Tell that to the person who pays FICA off his first dollar, 7.5%. Or if you're self-employed, 15%.
Yeah, it nets them Social Security 20, 30, 40 years down the road but little use now. And then add in state and local taxes.
Donations do not work well like this. They work well for massive fundraising, but as for a steady income? Forget about it. The product (the new story) is consumed and forgotten about. When I ran my own forum for my own niche interest, if I needed to upgrade something, I put out the word, and I would say only 1 or 2 users stepped up and gave 90+% of the donation money, and the others either gave nothing or cheaped out the other 10%. As the site got bigger (more followers), one would think it got better but it actually got worse, it was as if everyone thought "There is so many people here, someone else will probably donate what's needed." And these were all for expenses running the site (didn't even cover that, but it was a hobby so okay). For a paying job, no way, everyone needs a painless way to give, and the guy working shouldn't be begging for income.
That is why advertising is attractive, because everyone, in essence, is paying toward something. But that too has been subverted (and really, with pop-ups, rightly so). Also the problem with advertising is that as it becomes ever more ubiquitous but the amount of advertisers paying for adverts stay roughly the same, the value of each individual advertistisement will be driven down. More and more people playing for the same size pie and all that. Also, something will eventually have to be bought down the line, be it a coffee or a car, to make it pay. You can't run the whole world on adverts, subsidizing people's cars or houses (as some on/. apparently assume imo going by some posts). The amount spent on advertising gets tacked right back onto the product (obvious is you ever compared to Walmart brands to the brand names) so the freebies really aren't free.
What is really needed is a viable micropayment system. Not a paypal you log into, but something where you click a button and can give 3 cents or whatever the price of admission is. Amounts you really don't thing about. $5 max or something on an account to be spent so fraud wouldn't be too attractive.
If I were free to choose Comcast or Cox or Time or Cablevision or GoogleTV or Verizon or ATTT or..... it wouldn't matter if they chose to block websites. I could just change companies the same way I change grocery stores. Companies would quickly realize that censoring the net is a sure way to lose customers, and stop doing it.
Or they can be barred from selling "internet service" because they aren't selling the internet, but AOLnet, Comcastnet or whatever the company is, and selling it as internet would be as fraudulent as selling phone service that randomly block service (or worse, only connects you to a limited set of numbers).
Just like milk producers can't decide to water down their milk by 50% and still label it "milk", ISPs shouldn't be doing this. I paid for internet service, not a subset. The bandwidth is mine, not theirs, to dictate. No double dipping, no complaining, end of story.
The free market only works with educated consumers. Educated consumers rely on a reliable points of reference to make decisions. Just as soda bottler can't decide to change the meanings of gallon, quart, liter, etc. from accepted norms, in order to bamboozle customers and eke out greater margins, an ISP shouldn't mess with the accepted meaning/perception of internet to play their profit games.
Some libertarians think it's okay to allow this, but it would be similiar as viewing it as okay for mechanics to sell an "oil change" but then surprise the customer who complains there is no fresh oil in his car, to respond "Yeah, I changed your oil with that of another car's. If you wanted fresh oil, you should have paid the $10 fresh oil surcharge."
That is clearly fraud on behalf of the mechanic, for subverting a definition, even though it may be in the fine print. Same case with ISPs.
There doesn't even need to a net neutrality law, just a definition of internet to abide by, and that ISPs cannot label themselves as such or sell internet if they don't abide with it, otherwise slap on good old false advertising aka fraud charges.
And double dipping is just plain theft, selling their client's bandwidth on the other end.
Mac 7 and 8 weren't that hot either. I remember the bomb way to vividly. It made of the Windows Systems of the day seem stable and we're talking about Win 95/98. And to people using NT back then, Mac must have been a really bad joke.
I never used 9, so I can't guess how it was worse than the crap 7/8 already was, other than being even longer in the tooth in it's day.
I don't know if it would be a revolution for the user, but I'm thinking Apple should start developing iOS in some sort of vector graphics system instead of bitmaps, now that they are pushing display close to or beyond what the human eye is capable of discerning. I know the fonts are like this already IIRC, but I mean the icons and everything. And then port it back to regular OS X.
That way they wouldn't be stuck rehashing everything to look right when simply releasing iOS to a new category of product (ie iPhone to iPad, and then next year iPad gets a retina display???) but also because it would leapfrog Windows in a department that would take Windows years to catch up.
Displays really haven't pushing the resolution as they should have been the last few years and it seems in part due that "HD" displays on computers now forces the user to correct the theme themselves or be faced with unbearably small text and the like.
I can hardly with for my 5760x3840 21" monitors.
You didn't even have to purchase it that early
on
Apple's Long Road To $300
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Steve Jobs came back in 1997 and it had a small surge that was crushed in the dot com boom. Up to early 2004, you could acquire shares reasonably close to the 1997 price, it fluctated 1.5-2x, sometimes 3x, but after early 2004 it skyrocketed.
1997-2004 is when they had all those color iMacs and gaudy design (remember those awful clamshell notebooks?) befoe the industrial design. It returned to profitabilty, to be sure, and laid a lot of other groundwork, like 2001 was the release of OS X, to be sure.
And that same year (2001) iPod was released. Think about that. For almost 3 years after iPod's release, you could still have bought Apple at a bargain basement price. It took a long time for Wall Street to shed the malaise it had with Apple after the late 80s and early/mid-90s decline.
I didn't know links to pirated material had to be removed. Google taking down these links, even if required by law, worries me about an "official" internet coming soon.
will be on the Android/iPhone/whatever. It won't be a dedicated device imo. Especially as these color screens (if non e-ink) need to be charged daily/weekly instead of yearly.
And yes, I know about TI's being more desirable for school for perceived lack of cheating. But many users are past school where that is necessary. Although many math teachers I know are switching to open book tests because they figure if they ask indepth questions, you'd have to know the material and not merely regurgitate it to pass, and also because working in the real world is open book.
I'd also like the government to adopt (for everyone) a law that states that the advertised price is the price. Not tack on a million different taxes and surcharges (most of many are optional for the phone companies to charge) to it where it goes from the advertised $79.99 a month to 105.49 or whatever. Don't tell me the companies can't achieve it - all the gas pumps here can and it's pretty much standard in Europe.
Now, I don't care if the companies itemize the taxes to explain why the price is where it's at. But this crap happens too often (occupancy tax in hotels) that it's all a scam on an unsuspecting consumer and an educated one can't tell exactly what he'll pay, they just pad the advertised amount in their head with an extra 20%, maybe more.
And if you're all about the free market, having reliable price points is one of the keys for real competition.
Anytime you deal with people, any societal superstructure such as a country, will have downsides and upsides. Europe has never respected freedom of speech to the level the US does, otoh, they are better in healthcare and the like, imo.
As with anything, it depends what you want in life. Some days, I'd like to move to Antarctica.
I think you're too worried. With superpowers, I might be narcissistic but at the same time people generally only care about opinions of their peers. Conquering the world would be like owning one of those ant colonies you observe from the side via glass. Or going into Karate class with a bunch of 5 year olds and kicking butt -- a regular human adult can do that today but how many bother? With time, a real superman would shrug and find a more exciting place and head for an alien planet. People want a challenge.
It would go from Super Man to Apathy Man. Either that, or they become a tyrannical dictator satisfying his urges with sex and bloodshed. But even that would get boring if they can get off-planet, unlike the Saddam Husseins of the world.
And it might be heroic for a person to reject powers, but the entire story of humanity has been the search of greater and greater power to be the top of the food chain. Via more and more advanced weaponry since the club and spear, and now expanded abilities like medicine. Superpowers is nothing more than this search taken to an extreme and getting it quick and dirty. It may be that in 1000 years, a human possessing some of superman's capabilities (albeit aided with machinery) is a commonplace thing.
Patent trolls exist because we went from owning implementations to owning ideas. What if Thomas Edison went through 10,000 different materials for filaments just to find the right one and then ran against some patent troll who said "Give me $$$, I own the idea of a filament!!!" Most ideas aren't very useful when run up against initial reality, it's the work done to overcome those obstacles that is useful.
The patent office tries to act almost like a branch of zoology, except instead of classifying and categorizing animals, they do it with ideas. And they just aren't very good at it and the government never will be with centralized planning of this sort. IMO, the more advanced society gets, the more obvious the 18th/19th century character of the patent office becomes and that it's not sustainable. It may be like keeping the booster rockets attached to the shuttle of society, long after it cease helping us get off the ground.
All the political spin I've seen has been, "more evidence that Obama is like Carter." So are you saying Bush is like Carter too? Interesting......I suppose you could make a case.
No, I seen this issue multiple times today (/. not being the first at this story, by far) and it's used to paint a mostly "Republicans bad, Democrats good" picture.
I think Carter was a good man, advanced on some issues for his time, naive on foreign policy, that was handed a shit-fest when he came into the white house, did a lot of thankless but necessary domestic work, and gets a lot of blame for things beyond his control and doing. He also did some things with bad consequences but not the amount people attribute to him.
Obama is too early to tell, but on some days I'm tempted to call this Bush's 3rd term -- with Healthcare being analogous to Bush's Medicare Part D payoff to the drug/healthcare industry and the two wars still going on.
You don't have the right to keep your safe locked if there's a warrant for it to be opened. You don't have a right to not provide your fingerprints or DNA if that evidence is appropriate to the case and a warrant is issued.
What if the act of opening the safe incriminates you, not the actual contents? You may have to hand over the safe, but I don't believe there is anything in the law that says you have to actually open it.
An electric that went 100 miles or so, and later a hybrid that has the same batteries but when it ran down, a tiny gasoline motor would kick in recharging them. It's the exact same principle as diesel-electric trains that has been around since the 30s. The plus side is you can still have power (electric DC motors are potent) but you don't need a huge gasoline engine whose size is only used to 100% effect at hard acceleration (and wasting gas otherwise) and instead gear towards the lowest possible gasoline motor (smaller is much more mpg friendly) whose maximum output will roughly match the average depletion of the batteries during normal driving. Maybe a tiny fraction more.
Hell, even the really advanced big motored cars are trying to save gas by turning of cylinders (some Mercedes and Cadillacs, maybe others), why not bypass all that mechanical complexity and go with a tried and true system that worked the last 70 years for big ass trains?
Jay Leno testing the all electric Aptera just to prove it's not 100% vaporware: http://vimeo.com/5285448
It doesn't need to be aptera only, but I think the only thing holding up the system are the weenies that think it's better to reach Utopia first (no gas instead of, say 100+ mpg) forgetting their little envirobiles will be made of plenty of lightweight plastic (petroleum).
I mean, if you really have a hard on for an electric car but need range from time to time, the only other real solution is to buy some electric car and rent a gas car when you need it.
I like George Carlin's confusion feeling pride based on nationality and not what you, as an individual, did. The less you did as an individual, the more you have to delve finding security and reassurance in what you are. If WW2 taught anything, imo, it was individualism over collectivism in terms of judging others.
Perhaps is comes from the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 is a fiction, because there no two '1's in the universe.
The pet store may count 2 bunnies among it's inventory. But an Indian Restaurant would look at the same two bunnies and count only one. The other bunny is under weight or too old. The Zoologist counts two separate species. The artist only likes the blue bunny.
2 Dollar bills. A bank teller counts two. A collector seperates the rare, valuable and the common one made last year.
No matter what you look at, you have a list of properties, and when it satisfies the tolerances of those parameters, it's classified. Except every problem set demands different properties to observe, even of what the lay man would call the same items, and to dispense with others that are considered unimportant to that specific problem. Even atoms can be broken down to different isotopes. And if our tech advances, we'll probably get some more properties to make it finer and finer grained.
Subatomic particles, supposedly immune from this due to being the basic elements (no properties besides themselves as far as I understand) probably have another level below them, and then another, and another. Even if they don't, 1 !=1 in the end because any two particle don't share the same location. A basic value.
And that's all humans have in the end. Approximations based on observations of items sharing some but not all properties with each other tending to act a certain way but never with absolute certainly. Maybe close to it, but never 100% imo. And it all starts with 1 + 1 = 2 simplification our abstraction prone brains conjure to make sense of the world.
I'm certainly not waiting on a theory of everything.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I don't know. Taco Bell is based on the Mexican Kitchen (I say this very loosely). Compared to other kitchens, the Mexican kitchen itself (or by the "authentic" restaurants I go to) is very limited one with the same limited variations the article talks about, and one I would get tired of really quickly if that's all I could eat.
Being able to tie things together easily and having limited ingredients is not a great analogy, imo.
This is bullshit. Tell that to the person who pays FICA off his first dollar, 7.5%. Or if you're self-employed, 15%.
Yeah, it nets them Social Security 20, 30, 40 years down the road but little use now. And then add in state and local taxes.
Donations do not work well like this. They work well for massive fundraising, but as for a steady income? Forget about it. The product (the new story) is consumed and forgotten about. When I ran my own forum for my own niche interest, if I needed to upgrade something, I put out the word, and I would say only 1 or 2 users stepped up and gave 90+% of the donation money, and the others either gave nothing or cheaped out the other 10%. As the site got bigger (more followers), one would think it got better but it actually got worse, it was as if everyone thought "There is so many people here, someone else will probably donate what's needed." And these were all for expenses running the site (didn't even cover that, but it was a hobby so okay). For a paying job, no way, everyone needs a painless way to give, and the guy working shouldn't be begging for income.
That is why advertising is attractive, because everyone, in essence, is paying toward something. But that too has been subverted (and really, with pop-ups, rightly so). Also the problem with advertising is that as it becomes ever more ubiquitous but the amount of advertisers paying for adverts stay roughly the same, the value of each individual advertistisement will be driven down. More and more people playing for the same size pie and all that. Also, something will eventually have to be bought down the line, be it a coffee or a car, to make it pay. You can't run the whole world on adverts, subsidizing people's cars or houses (as some on /. apparently assume imo going by some posts). The amount spent on advertising gets tacked right back onto the product (obvious is you ever compared to Walmart brands to the brand names) so the freebies really aren't free.
What is really needed is a viable micropayment system. Not a paypal you log into, but something where you click a button and can give 3 cents or whatever the price of admission is. Amounts you really don't thing about. $5 max or something on an account to be spent so fraud wouldn't be too attractive.
Or they can be barred from selling "internet service" because they aren't selling the internet, but AOLnet, Comcastnet or whatever the company is, and selling it as internet would be as fraudulent as selling phone service that randomly block service (or worse, only connects you to a limited set of numbers).
Just like milk producers can't decide to water down their milk by 50% and still label it "milk", ISPs shouldn't be doing this. I paid for internet service, not a subset. The bandwidth is mine, not theirs, to dictate. No double dipping, no complaining, end of story.
The free market only works with educated consumers. Educated consumers rely on a reliable points of reference to make decisions. Just as soda bottler can't decide to change the meanings of gallon, quart, liter, etc. from accepted norms, in order to bamboozle customers and eke out greater margins, an ISP shouldn't mess with the accepted meaning/perception of internet to play their profit games.
Some libertarians think it's okay to allow this, but it would be similiar as viewing it as okay for mechanics to sell an "oil change" but then surprise the customer who complains there is no fresh oil in his car, to respond "Yeah, I changed your oil with that of another car's. If you wanted fresh oil, you should have paid the $10 fresh oil surcharge."
That is clearly fraud on behalf of the mechanic, for subverting a definition, even though it may be in the fine print. Same case with ISPs.
There doesn't even need to a net neutrality law, just a definition of internet to abide by, and that ISPs cannot label themselves as such or sell internet if they don't abide with it, otherwise slap on good old false advertising aka fraud charges.
And double dipping is just plain theft, selling their client's bandwidth on the other end.
Mac 7 and 8 weren't that hot either. I remember the bomb way to vividly. It made of the Windows Systems of the day seem stable and we're talking about Win 95/98. And to people using NT back then, Mac must have been a really bad joke.
I never used 9, so I can't guess how it was worse than the crap 7/8 already was, other than being even longer in the tooth in it's day.
I don't know if it would be a revolution for the user, but I'm thinking Apple should start developing iOS in some sort of vector graphics system instead of bitmaps, now that they are pushing display close to or beyond what the human eye is capable of discerning. I know the fonts are like this already IIRC, but I mean the icons and everything. And then port it back to regular OS X.
That way they wouldn't be stuck rehashing everything to look right when simply releasing iOS to a new category of product (ie iPhone to iPad, and then next year iPad gets a retina display???) but also because it would leapfrog Windows in a department that would take Windows years to catch up.
Displays really haven't pushing the resolution as they should have been the last few years and it seems in part due that "HD" displays on computers now forces the user to correct the theme themselves or be faced with unbearably small text and the like.
I can hardly with for my 5760x3840 21" monitors.
Steve Jobs came back in 1997 and it had a small surge that was crushed in the dot com boom. Up to early 2004, you could acquire shares reasonably close to the 1997 price, it fluctated 1.5-2x, sometimes 3x, but after early 2004 it skyrocketed.
1997-2004 is when they had all those color iMacs and gaudy design (remember those awful clamshell notebooks?) befoe the industrial design. It returned to profitabilty, to be sure, and laid a lot of other groundwork, like 2001 was the release of OS X, to be sure.
And that same year (2001) iPod was released. Think about that. For almost 3 years after iPod's release, you could still have bought Apple at a bargain basement price. It took a long time for Wall Street to shed the malaise it had with Apple after the late 80s and early/mid-90s decline.
I didn't know links to pirated material had to be removed. Google taking down these links, even if required by law, worries me about an "official" internet coming soon.
will be on the Android/iPhone/whatever. It won't be a dedicated device imo. Especially as these color screens (if non e-ink) need to be charged daily/weekly instead of yearly.
And yes, I know about TI's being more desirable for school for perceived lack of cheating. But many users are past school where that is necessary. Although many math teachers I know are switching to open book tests because they figure if they ask indepth questions, you'd have to know the material and not merely regurgitate it to pass, and also because working in the real world is open book.
I'd also like the government to adopt (for everyone) a law that states that the advertised price is the price. Not tack on a million different taxes and surcharges (most of many are optional for the phone companies to charge) to it where it goes from the advertised $79.99 a month to 105.49 or whatever. Don't tell me the companies can't achieve it - all the gas pumps here can and it's pretty much standard in Europe.
Now, I don't care if the companies itemize the taxes to explain why the price is where it's at. But this crap happens too often (occupancy tax in hotels) that it's all a scam on an unsuspecting consumer and an educated one can't tell exactly what he'll pay, they just pad the advertised amount in their head with an extra 20%, maybe more.
And if you're all about the free market, having reliable price points is one of the keys for real competition.
Anytime you deal with people, any societal superstructure such as a country, will have downsides and upsides. Europe has never respected freedom of speech to the level the US does, otoh, they are better in healthcare and the like, imo.
As with anything, it depends what you want in life. Some days, I'd like to move to Antarctica.
I think you're too worried. With superpowers, I might be narcissistic but at the same time people generally only care about opinions of their peers. Conquering the world would be like owning one of those ant colonies you observe from the side via glass. Or going into Karate class with a bunch of 5 year olds and kicking butt -- a regular human adult can do that today but how many bother? With time, a real superman would shrug and find a more exciting place and head for an alien planet. People want a challenge.
It would go from Super Man to Apathy Man. Either that, or they become a tyrannical dictator satisfying his urges with sex and bloodshed. But even that would get boring if they can get off-planet, unlike the Saddam Husseins of the world.
And it might be heroic for a person to reject powers, but the entire story of humanity has been the search of greater and greater power to be the top of the food chain. Via more and more advanced weaponry since the club and spear, and now expanded abilities like medicine. Superpowers is nothing more than this search taken to an extreme and getting it quick and dirty. It may be that in 1000 years, a human possessing some of superman's capabilities (albeit aided with machinery) is a commonplace thing.
Patent trolls exist because we went from owning implementations to owning ideas. What if Thomas Edison went through 10,000 different materials for filaments just to find the right one and then ran against some patent troll who said "Give me $$$, I own the idea of a filament!!!" Most ideas aren't very useful when run up against initial reality, it's the work done to overcome those obstacles that is useful.
The patent office tries to act almost like a branch of zoology, except instead of classifying and categorizing animals, they do it with ideas. And they just aren't very good at it and the government never will be with centralized planning of this sort. IMO, the more advanced society gets, the more obvious the 18th/19th century character of the patent office becomes and that it's not sustainable. It may be like keeping the booster rockets attached to the shuttle of society, long after it cease helping us get off the ground.
No, I seen this issue multiple times today (/. not being the first at this story, by far) and it's used to paint a mostly "Republicans bad, Democrats good" picture.
I think Carter was a good man, advanced on some issues for his time, naive on foreign policy, that was handed a shit-fest when he came into the white house, did a lot of thankless but necessary domestic work, and gets a lot of blame for things beyond his control and doing. He also did some things with bad consequences but not the amount people attribute to him.
Obama is too early to tell, but on some days I'm tempted to call this Bush's 3rd term -- with Healthcare being analogous to Bush's Medicare Part D payoff to the drug/healthcare industry and the two wars still going on.
He removed solar thermal panels, probably much less efficient than the evacuated tubes used today, when the roof was being repaired in 1986:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2DF113BF937A1575BC0A960948260
They were not reinstalled because of cost effectiveness issue. I also heard maintenance was a pain. They were donated to a university, IIRC.
Bush also had solar panels installed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/technology/how-it-works-from-a-white-house-roof-solar-power-proclaims-gains.html
Many places are spinning this story politically no doubt.
BTW, I think solar thermal and more insulation is a great, cost effective thing. PV, otoh, not so much yet.
Ever put a powerful flashlight against your fingertips?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#Plausible_deniability
Your parent is probably talking about Britain, where this took place, not the USA.
What if the act of opening the safe incriminates you, not the actual contents? You may have to hand over the safe, but I don't believe there is anything in the law that says you have to actually open it.
The answer, of course, would have been an Aptera 2h.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_2_Series
An electric that went 100 miles or so, and later a hybrid that has the same batteries but when it ran down, a tiny gasoline motor would kick in recharging them. It's the exact same principle as diesel-electric trains that has been around since the 30s. The plus side is you can still have power (electric DC motors are potent) but you don't need a huge gasoline engine whose size is only used to 100% effect at hard acceleration (and wasting gas otherwise) and instead gear towards the lowest possible gasoline motor (smaller is much more mpg friendly) whose maximum output will roughly match the average depletion of the batteries during normal driving. Maybe a tiny fraction more.
Hell, even the really advanced big motored cars are trying to save gas by turning of cylinders (some Mercedes and Cadillacs, maybe others), why not bypass all that mechanical complexity and go with a tried and true system that worked the last 70 years for big ass trains?
Jay Leno testing the all electric Aptera just to prove it's not 100% vaporware:
http://vimeo.com/5285448
It doesn't need to be aptera only, but I think the only thing holding up the system are the weenies that think it's better to reach Utopia first (no gas instead of, say 100+ mpg) forgetting their little envirobiles will be made of plenty of lightweight plastic (petroleum).
I mean, if you really have a hard on for an electric car but need range from time to time, the only other real solution is to buy some electric car and rent a gas car when you need it.
Were you involved in running them or supporting them in some way?
If not, why have a response like you have stake in it? Both are historical fact. It doesn't hurt to learn about either.
I like George Carlin's confusion feeling pride based on nationality and not what you, as an individual, did. The less you did as an individual, the more you have to delve finding security and reassurance in what you are. If WW2 taught anything, imo, it was individualism over collectivism in terms of judging others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw0MripVxss
I would caution against talking about kitty porn jokingly.
Computer Science.
Lots of math, thanks.
Perhaps is comes from the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 is a fiction, because there no two '1's in the universe.
The pet store may count 2 bunnies among it's inventory. But an Indian Restaurant would look at the same two bunnies and count only one. The other bunny is under weight or too old. The Zoologist counts two separate species. The artist only likes the blue bunny.
2 Dollar bills. A bank teller counts two. A collector seperates the rare, valuable and the common one made last year.
No matter what you look at, you have a list of properties, and when it satisfies the tolerances of those parameters, it's classified. Except every problem set demands different properties to observe, even of what the lay man would call the same items, and to dispense with others that are considered unimportant to that specific problem. Even atoms can be broken down to different isotopes. And if our tech advances, we'll probably get some more properties to make it finer and finer grained.
Subatomic particles, supposedly immune from this due to being the basic elements (no properties besides themselves as far as I understand) probably have another level below them, and then another, and another. Even if they don't, 1 !=1 in the end because any two particle don't share the same location. A basic value.
And that's all humans have in the end. Approximations based on observations of items sharing some but not all properties with each other tending to act a certain way but never with absolute certainly. Maybe close to it, but never 100% imo. And it all starts with 1 + 1 = 2 simplification our abstraction prone brains conjure to make sense of the world.
I'm certainly not waiting on a theory of everything.