Of course it is nonsense... because an orrery doesn't compute anything in the first place.
Which is obvious false since this orrery computes the position of planets. We know the computation it does.
A geometric compass can be used to draw a circle with much less effort than what might otherwise be required, but that does not make the compass any kind of tool that computes how to draw a circle.
An orrery is not a geometric compass. A key difference is that the planets have positions not just a circular arc.
An orrery can be used to tell the position of the celestial bodies that it models, but it definitely does not compute them in any sense of word.
Which is blatantly false. "Telling the position" is the obvious computation that you refuse to call a computation.
. Continually asserting that it is a computer will not make it one.
Back at you. Continually labeling a computation as a "telling" doesn't make it not a computation.
What's really annoying about your clueless drivel is that this machine as its functioning is described here is clearly a standard analogue computer. Semantics games like calling it an "orrery" or its computations a "telling" and then insisting as a result of the changed labels, then it no longer counts as a computer are just stupid. One can play the same dull semantics games with a general purpose computer to the same pointless outcome.
I suggested only that a simulation does not necessarily involve computation.
I never suggested that either. I merely pointed out that a simulation is a computation.
An orrery *simulates* the motion of the celestial bodies it deals with, but it does not compute their positions any more than a compass "computes" which way is north.
Which is nonsense since it does compute the position of the celestial bodies in a way that a compass doesn't emulate.
The rotation of a space station is not a computation.
Still is irrelevant. The trait isn't the computation. The rotating space station is the simulation not the rotation, and thus, it is the computation.
There are plenty of other simulatiions that are not computations... military training exercises, simulation of medical emergencies when training health personel, and many many others.
Feel free to tell us about these. And I'll explain how you're wrong.
But let me outline how I'll do that. One could do a very involved computation of a fire fighting department's dynamics and traits in order to determine how responsive they would be to a new sort of fire danger. Or they could run a drill simulating a scenario of the new fire danger. Because the activity replaces the role of a computation, it becomes a computation. This will work on all your examples.
My point is that a simulation does not inherently indicate computation is occurring. An orrery simulates certain celestial body movements, but does not compute anything. Any computations are left to the user of the orrery.
And my point is that you are wrong here. I suggest you look at my earlier post on the demonstration of existence of a quantum machine more efficient than classical Turing machines by showing the existence of a quantum system which was hard to compute by classical means.
Most general purpose computers are clocks too. So that argument doesn't fly either.
It's also highly misleading because most people reading or watching aren't going to think "clock" or "adding" machine when they hear the term computer.
They're going to think of a Turing machine.
Oh dear. A technical term is highly misleading to the clueless. I'm not seeing the reason to care.
and any actual computations to be performed from that is left up to the operator of the orrery.
Another obvious rebuttal here comes when you consider the question of how much much "actual" computation is left after you use the orrery. For example, if the device does a "simulation" that just happens to reduce the additonal computation effort that an operator needs from O(N) to O(1), then it's a computer no matter what you think.
As a real world example of simulation as computation, we have that one of the earliest demonstrations of the existence of quantum computers was a quantum system which could only be poorly approximated by a classical Turing machine.
Since the system could trivially simulate itself in real time, it demonstrated that there were computations (here, the simulation which you keep insisting is not a computation) which could be done by quantum phenomena far faster than the classical Turing machine.
No, it is not. Computation can be used to create a simulation, but a simulation is not inherently a computation. For example, you can simulate gravity in space by using a rotating space station, but the rotation is not in any way a simulation.
This is obvious wrong since a simulation computes the state of the system it is simulating as it simulates it.
As to your example, it's not even remotely relevant. There's no reason that I should care that you are comparing apples and oranges. Who cares that a trait is not a simulation?
It merely simulates the motion of certain celestial objects, and any actual computations to be performed from that is left up to the operator of the orrery.
5 weeks vacation is default in Sweden and it's not the government that pays but the company... See it as part of the salary.. Also having good breaks actually increases productivity..
Except when it doesn't. The approach is fundamentally broken. I want five or more weeks of vacation, so I use my government to force my employer to give it to me. If I really were that valuable in the first place, then why didn't my employer offer that in the first place.
Read this article and you may learn something...
Or listen to that five year old explain why they deserve that candy. You might learn something about human rationalization.
No, inflation doesn't work that way. Margin doesn't actually change since costs inflate like income. Depreciation has nothing to do with margin either.
Finally, we're speaking of cash, not some durable asset, for which inflation shortens its effective lifespan. The more inflation, the lower the future value of the cash.
You see "reactionary ideology" is a term of art. It means: "monarchist".
Strangely enough, no, it doesn't despite the obvious regal bearing of the term. It just means a belief system which is mostly in reaction to some stimulus, here, overbearing governments which are trending towards police states.
You pick date that best eliminates any confounding factors, factoring in data that is confounded by things like the EU referendum in the UK, or the recession which effected different countries in distinctly different ways tells us nothing about the impact of increased holidays.
Your two year sample doesn't do that.
Right, but not Norway, I wasn't using the UK as a an example of productivity per-capita, we know the UK has a productivity problem unrelated to amount of leave because we're also less productive that European countries like Germany that have way more leave and work way less hours than us too. Again, you're mixing and matching stats to try and falsely make a point.
Norway has unusually high productivity because of the size of its oil and hydroelectric generation per capita. It's a different sort of cherry picking you do here. Sure, if the entire world could be massive oil producers with huge hydro reserves exporting to some immense buyer, then we could all enjoy the level of productivity of Norway.
The point remains that there are plenty of examples of countries who have higher productivity and more leave and lower working hours than countries who have less leave and longer working hours proving the point that there is absolutely no demonstrable link between the two.
Then by all means show this. One country with an unusual level of natural resources doesn't qualify as "plenty of examples" though.
I guess you just have sour grapes that you're stuck in an environment where you get worked senseless and have no free time to yourself and rather than fight that to get better conditions that would have absolutely no negative cost for you or your country you insecurely try and justify it as somehow in your benefit when it's very obviously not. It seems clear you wont accept the reality and change your opinion though, so all I can really say is good luck throwing away hours of your life for a company that doesn't care about you for no practical benefit if you really think that's somehow a good thing.
No, what annoys me are the Pollyannas who just assert stuff without considering even in the slightest the drawbacks of their schemes. If all you consider are the benefits, then anything looks wonderful.
So you don't view high costs, unemployment, and export of valuable industry to other countries as problems? Consequences happen whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.
This, btw, is why libertarianism always fail under a democracy. You don't win many elections following libertarian principles. You can't promise free shit. You can't pretend to like or care about other people's interests just get their votes. Can't con people to vote against their own interests, etc.
You wouldn't be talking about it, if that were true. Libertarianism is fundamentally a reactionary ideology. Without abuses of power and such to rail against, it would be invisible.
Yes, that's absolutely true if you cherry pick one single month of data.
I call your attention to a previous remark you made two posts up:
Except Britain suffers none of those things because it's the world's 5th largest economy, and the fastest growing developed economy in the world over the last two years.
Cherry picking two years of data isn't any better.
Again, there is absolutely zero evidence that longer working hours result in higher productivity. Giving people decent amounts of leave can clearly do just as well for a nation as working them stupid. Hmm, working them stupid, that would explain a lot.
Aside from the fact that the US is more productive per capita than the UK is.
Where are those cash reserves going to come from, if you're in a low margin business? Even if Apple choose to keep its current, alleged cash reserves, inflation will evaporate most of that in a hundred years.
If I'm a cave man who figured out how to make fire, and the guy from the cave next watches and figures out my technique, I have not lost anything.
You lost any technological advantage you had from fire over that other caveman. If they're a member of your tribe, you'll probably come out ahead due to cooperation between you two. But if he's a member of a rival tribe, then you may die as a result.
I quite like having more than 10 days holiday a year.
Who doesn't like having a free lunch? The problem is that other people pay for your holidays through higher costs, unemployment, and transfer of business to other countries.
A multinational research station where everyone keeps things for themselves?
Both the US and the USSR do keep some things to themselves such as military technologies that have been repurposed to support the ISS (communication systems in particular). Also, it's hard to attract commercial interest in the ISS as a research platform, if they have to worry about ongoing Chinese espionage on the ISS itself.
The obvious rebuttal is that power generation is a low margin business. Nintendo and Nokia both transitioned from low margin businesses to high margin businesses. That's why you remember them and their "quaint" origins.
It would have to be integrated with a lot more than just electricity service in order to become a high margin business that Apple could transition to without becoming greatly diminished in the process.
Prepper ideology and gun ownership just make it easier for the government to go about it's business of trashing the constitution. First, you have already identified who you are, and they can generate a list with you name on it in milliseconds. They know because of metadata: where and when you use your credit card, your phone records, license plate scanners, etc. Second, thinking that your gun will save you means that you are wasting time solving the wrong problem. It's a legal, law enforcement, information, and telecommunications threat, so sitting around counting your bullets and cleaning you gun means that you are a non-combatant.
What's up with all the idiotic bashing of these groups? Just because you might be slightly smarter than a prepper doesn't mean that it's going to take a lot of computer time to identify you.
You want to do something? Don't use software that requires signing a EULA. Tell your congress critter not to support the TPP. Join the EFF and the ACLU, use encryption and run Linux. That's where the conflict is occurring. Although it's a big stroke for your ego to assume that Manly Men with Guns Will Save the Day, that's just the fantasy of a little boy thinking he is Iron Man. The end of constitutional government is a bureaucratic conflict involving business and government, not a reenactment of the Revolutionary War.
Unless, it's not, of course. That's always the problem with assertions. They can be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it is nonsense... because an orrery doesn't compute anything in the first place.
Which is obvious false since this orrery computes the position of planets. We know the computation it does.
A geometric compass can be used to draw a circle with much less effort than what might otherwise be required, but that does not make the compass any kind of tool that computes how to draw a circle.
An orrery is not a geometric compass. A key difference is that the planets have positions not just a circular arc.
An orrery can be used to tell the position of the celestial bodies that it models, but it definitely does not compute them in any sense of word.
Which is blatantly false. "Telling the position" is the obvious computation that you refuse to call a computation.
. Continually asserting that it is a computer will not make it one.
Back at you. Continually labeling a computation as a "telling" doesn't make it not a computation.
What's really annoying about your clueless drivel is that this machine as its functioning is described here is clearly a standard analogue computer. Semantics games like calling it an "orrery" or its computations a "telling" and then insisting as a result of the changed labels, then it no longer counts as a computer are just stupid. One can play the same dull semantics games with a general purpose computer to the same pointless outcome.
I suggested only that a simulation does not necessarily involve computation.
I never suggested that either. I merely pointed out that a simulation is a computation.
An orrery *simulates* the motion of the celestial bodies it deals with, but it does not compute their positions any more than a compass "computes" which way is north.
Which is nonsense since it does compute the position of the celestial bodies in a way that a compass doesn't emulate.
The rotation of a space station is not a computation.
Still is irrelevant. The trait isn't the computation. The rotating space station is the simulation not the rotation, and thus, it is the computation.
There are plenty of other simulatiions that are not computations... military training exercises, simulation of medical emergencies when training health personel, and many many others.
Feel free to tell us about these. And I'll explain how you're wrong.
But let me outline how I'll do that. One could do a very involved computation of a fire fighting department's dynamics and traits in order to determine how responsive they would be to a new sort of fire danger. Or they could run a drill simulating a scenario of the new fire danger. Because the activity replaces the role of a computation, it becomes a computation. This will work on all your examples.
My point is that a simulation does not inherently indicate computation is occurring. An orrery simulates certain celestial body movements, but does not compute anything. Any computations are left to the user of the orrery.
And my point is that you are wrong here. I suggest you look at my earlier post on the demonstration of existence of a quantum machine more efficient than classical Turing machines by showing the existence of a quantum system which was hard to compute by classical means.
No. It's a clock.
Most general purpose computers are clocks too. So that argument doesn't fly either.
It's also highly misleading because most people reading or watching aren't going to think "clock" or "adding" machine when they hear the term computer.
They're going to think of a Turing machine.
Oh dear. A technical term is highly misleading to the clueless. I'm not seeing the reason to care.
and any actual computations to be performed from that is left up to the operator of the orrery.
Another obvious rebuttal here comes when you consider the question of how much much "actual" computation is left after you use the orrery. For example, if the device does a "simulation" that just happens to reduce the additonal computation effort that an operator needs from O(N) to O(1), then it's a computer no matter what you think.
As a real world example of simulation as computation, we have that one of the earliest demonstrations of the existence of quantum computers was a quantum system which could only be poorly approximated by a classical Turing machine.
Since the system could trivially simulate itself in real time, it demonstrated that there were computations (here, the simulation which you keep insisting is not a computation) which could be done by quantum phenomena far faster than the classical Turing machine.
No, it is not. Computation can be used to create a simulation, but a simulation is not inherently a computation. For example, you can simulate gravity in space by using a rotating space station, but the rotation is not in any way a simulation.
This is obvious wrong since a simulation computes the state of the system it is simulating as it simulates it.
As to your example, it's not even remotely relevant. There's no reason that I should care that you are comparing apples and oranges. Who cares that a trait is not a simulation?
It merely simulates the motion of certain celestial objects, and any actual computations to be performed from that is left up to the operator of the orrery.
A simulation is a computation.
Who's saying it's a free lunch??
I am.
5 weeks vacation is default in Sweden and it's not the government that pays but the company... See it as part of the salary.. Also having good breaks actually increases productivity..
Except when it doesn't. The approach is fundamentally broken. I want five or more weeks of vacation, so I use my government to force my employer to give it to me. If I really were that valuable in the first place, then why didn't my employer offer that in the first place.
Read this article and you may learn something...
Or listen to that five year old explain why they deserve that candy. You might learn something about human rationalization.
Well, you do have a good point. We'll just tighten that language up. I think "reactive ideology" means what I intended.
No, inflation doesn't work that way. Margin doesn't actually change since costs inflate like income. Depreciation has nothing to do with margin either.
Finally, we're speaking of cash, not some durable asset, for which inflation shortens its effective lifespan. The more inflation, the lower the future value of the cash.
You see "reactionary ideology" is a term of art. It means: "monarchist".
Strangely enough, no, it doesn't despite the obvious regal bearing of the term. It just means a belief system which is mostly in reaction to some stimulus, here, overbearing governments which are trending towards police states.
You pick date that best eliminates any confounding factors, factoring in data that is confounded by things like the EU referendum in the UK, or the recession which effected different countries in distinctly different ways tells us nothing about the impact of increased holidays.
Your two year sample doesn't do that.
Right, but not Norway, I wasn't using the UK as a an example of productivity per-capita, we know the UK has a productivity problem unrelated to amount of leave because we're also less productive that European countries like Germany that have way more leave and work way less hours than us too. Again, you're mixing and matching stats to try and falsely make a point.
Norway has unusually high productivity because of the size of its oil and hydroelectric generation per capita. It's a different sort of cherry picking you do here. Sure, if the entire world could be massive oil producers with huge hydro reserves exporting to some immense buyer, then we could all enjoy the level of productivity of Norway.
The point remains that there are plenty of examples of countries who have higher productivity and more leave and lower working hours than countries who have less leave and longer working hours proving the point that there is absolutely no demonstrable link between the two.
Then by all means show this. One country with an unusual level of natural resources doesn't qualify as "plenty of examples" though.
I guess you just have sour grapes that you're stuck in an environment where you get worked senseless and have no free time to yourself and rather than fight that to get better conditions that would have absolutely no negative cost for you or your country you insecurely try and justify it as somehow in your benefit when it's very obviously not. It seems clear you wont accept the reality and change your opinion though, so all I can really say is good luck throwing away hours of your life for a company that doesn't care about you for no practical benefit if you really think that's somehow a good thing.
No, what annoys me are the Pollyannas who just assert stuff without considering even in the slightest the drawbacks of their schemes. If all you consider are the benefits, then anything looks wonderful.
This, btw, is why libertarianism always fail under a democracy. You don't win many elections following libertarian principles. You can't promise free shit. You can't pretend to like or care about other people's interests just get their votes. Can't con people to vote against their own interests, etc.
You wouldn't be talking about it, if that were true. Libertarianism is fundamentally a reactionary ideology. Without abuses of power and such to rail against, it would be invisible.
Yes, that's absolutely true if you cherry pick one single month of data.
I call your attention to a previous remark you made two posts up:
Except Britain suffers none of those things because it's the world's 5th largest economy, and the fastest growing developed economy in the world over the last two years.
Cherry picking two years of data isn't any better.
Again, there is absolutely zero evidence that longer working hours result in higher productivity. Giving people decent amounts of leave can clearly do just as well for a nation as working them stupid. Hmm, working them stupid, that would explain a lot.
Aside from the fact that the US is more productive per capita than the UK is.
Where are those cash reserves going to come from, if you're in a low margin business? Even if Apple choose to keep its current, alleged cash reserves, inflation will evaporate most of that in a hundred years.
If I'm a cave man who figured out how to make fire, and the guy from the cave next watches and figures out my technique, I have not lost anything.
You lost any technological advantage you had from fire over that other caveman. If they're a member of your tribe, you'll probably come out ahead due to cooperation between you two. But if he's a member of a rival tribe, then you may die as a result.
I quite like having more than 10 days holiday a year.
Who doesn't like having a free lunch? The problem is that other people pay for your holidays through higher costs, unemployment, and transfer of business to other countries.
What's the city? I've heard of this sort of thing in California, for example.
Yeah I didn't want to do the research to find a company that matched exactly.
We'd all forget it anyway.
A multinational research station where everyone keeps things for themselves?
Both the US and the USSR do keep some things to themselves such as military technologies that have been repurposed to support the ISS (communication systems in particular). Also, it's hard to attract commercial interest in the ISS as a research platform, if they have to worry about ongoing Chinese espionage on the ISS itself.
Do you mean a multinational research station that China is excluded from for no particular reason?
The obvious rebuttal is the well-known Chinese government penchant for stealing technology. That's the particular reason.
The obvious rebuttal is that power generation is a low margin business. Nintendo and Nokia both transitioned from low margin businesses to high margin businesses. That's why you remember them and their "quaint" origins.
It would have to be integrated with a lot more than just electricity service in order to become a high margin business that Apple could transition to without becoming greatly diminished in the process.
Prepper ideology and gun ownership just make it easier for the government to go about it's business of trashing the constitution. First, you have already identified who you are, and they can generate a list with you name on it in milliseconds. They know because of metadata: where and when you use your credit card, your phone records, license plate scanners, etc. Second, thinking that your gun will save you means that you are wasting time solving the wrong problem. It's a legal, law enforcement, information, and telecommunications threat, so sitting around counting your bullets and cleaning you gun means that you are a non-combatant.
What's up with all the idiotic bashing of these groups? Just because you might be slightly smarter than a prepper doesn't mean that it's going to take a lot of computer time to identify you.
You want to do something? Don't use software that requires signing a EULA. Tell your congress critter not to support the TPP. Join the EFF and the ACLU, use encryption and run Linux. That's where the conflict is occurring. Although it's a big stroke for your ego to assume that Manly Men with Guns Will Save the Day, that's just the fantasy of a little boy thinking he is Iron Man. The end of constitutional government is a bureaucratic conflict involving business and government, not a reenactment of the Revolutionary War.
Unless, it's not, of course. That's always the problem with assertions. They can be wrong.
You think young kids make a clear distinction between a machine that understands them and responds to them in a human voice, and an actual human?
Yes, and I don't think this is relevant.