That's a fairly common assumption, but I'm also not sure that one is actually true, depending on how you define substance abuse. In terms of legality, there are lots of otherwise perfectly normal people who use illegal drugs and don't really suffer any ill effects. Again, IIRC, the rate of illegal drug use among the rich is higher than among the poor, probably because the poor can't afford it.
Defining substance abuse more reasonably, in terms of dependence or use that causes negative effects, alcoholism is very common in all socioeconomic classes, and prescription drug abuse is extremely widespread among the wealthier classes.
You can certainly become a heroin addict and end up in an alley somewhere, but that seems to be a relatively rare outcome. Much more common is to get drunk regularly and beat your family, or become addicted to prescription painkillers.
It wouldn't be difficult at all to require that any valid algorithm must be provably correct. The halting problem in particular is trivially easy to deal with. As another poster suggested, simply require that any algorithm run in X time otherwise it is considered invalid.
I'm not sure that's actually correct. Poor people get caught more often, but IIRC there's research showing that the rich are more likely to break the law. Also, the rich have more resources so their crimes have the potential to have a much bigger impact.
There were too proposals for EM drives, one by an Englishman and one by an American. The English one is (reported to be) quite a bit more efficient. NASA tested the American one first (surprise) and the Chinese evidently elected to test the English one. The Chinese also cranked the power up.
You need to attend some management seminars or something. Here's my effort:
"Upon reentry the first stage enjoyed a propulsive challenge. Our team leveraged this opportunity to widen the already commanding lead enjoyed by our best-in-class rentry vehicle. We look forward to offering our partners even more amazing solutions in the immediate future!"
This is a discussion site not the New York Times. It's perfectly acceptable to post a rumor or unverified claim. It's good that they identified it as such... usually the Slashdot editor just clicks publish on whatever swill caught his eye in the submissions.
I imagine if you don't bow to the pressure from the nudes, say because they're not actually of you, they send the usual goon around to encourage you to pay. But sending a picture to your mom is much lower effort. If it convinces a few people to pay up it's worth it.
The word "car" originally referred to any kind of horse drawn vehicle. Motor cars were ones that didn't need the horse. The important features of a "flying car" are that it is a personal transportation vehicle that Joe Everyman can afford, and can pilot. An automobile is all of those things. A helicopter is none of them.
It looks like we are getting close to the point where any idiot will be able to fly, because the aircraft will fly itself. The price points are also starting to get towards the point where mass production might bring them down to affordability. When that happens, we'll have flying cars. Maybe we'll keep roads around for long haul trucking or something.
Actually, the land sailers are a lot of fun. They work even better (where better means goes faster and is more likely to kill you) because wheels provide less friction in the direction you want to go and more in the direction you don't.
Planes that drive on highways? When did "flying car" come to mean a plane that drives on a highway? The prototypical Jetson's flying car doesn't do anything like that.
Slashdot has filled up with unimaginative luddites. Flying cars will use the loads of helipads and short runways that will be built everywhere.
Our current problem is that we took all the carbon nature put in the ground and released it back into the atmosphere. So finding ways to put it back in the ground kind of makes sense.
You can't just plant trees, you have to harvest them when they're grown up and sequester them. Otherwise you'll just run out of land. People don't really like the idea of cutting down forests and burying or sinking the wood into the ocean.
We'd have a nice little carbon sequestration economy going if we made it illegal to recycle paper or wood products.
Realy? Roundabouts were phased out of many locations in the US because drivers weren't skilled enough to use them. Intersections are easier to navigate because everything moves slower. They're also more inefficient because everything moves slower. Apparently your local planners are either desperate or think that local drivers have become more competent.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a fairly common assumption, but I'm also not sure that one is actually true, depending on how you define substance abuse. In terms of legality, there are lots of otherwise perfectly normal people who use illegal drugs and don't really suffer any ill effects. Again, IIRC, the rate of illegal drug use among the rich is higher than among the poor, probably because the poor can't afford it.
Defining substance abuse more reasonably, in terms of dependence or use that causes negative effects, alcoholism is very common in all socioeconomic classes, and prescription drug abuse is extremely widespread among the wealthier classes.
You can certainly become a heroin addict and end up in an alley somewhere, but that seems to be a relatively rare outcome. Much more common is to get drunk regularly and beat your family, or become addicted to prescription painkillers.
It wouldn't be difficult at all to require that any valid algorithm must be provably correct. The halting problem in particular is trivially easy to deal with. As another poster suggested, simply require that any algorithm run in X time otherwise it is considered invalid.
But, but but, the American dream! The poor immigrant who reaches American shores and makes good!
I'm not sure that's actually correct. Poor people get caught more often, but IIRC there's research showing that the rich are more likely to break the law. Also, the rich have more resources so their crimes have the potential to have a much bigger impact.
"with generality" Key words.
The halting problem says it is impossible to prove [blah blah] for every program.
It's quite possible to prove whatever you like about many, many programs. It might be quite difficult for non-trivial ones though.
Yeah right. Try stealing a significant supply of any particular currency and watch what happens to it's value.
There were too proposals for EM drives, one by an Englishman and one by an American. The English one is (reported to be) quite a bit more efficient. NASA tested the American one first (surprise) and the Chinese evidently elected to test the English one. The Chinese also cranked the power up.
I think he means "exponentially" in the common vernacular, where it's a synonym for "really fast."
You're correct, solar sail thrust follows the inverse square law, i.e. it drops of quadratically.
You need to attend some management seminars or something. Here's my effort:
"Upon reentry the first stage enjoyed a propulsive challenge. Our team leveraged this opportunity to widen the already commanding lead enjoyed by our best-in-class rentry vehicle. We look forward to offering our partners even more amazing solutions in the immediate future!"
This is a discussion site not the New York Times. It's perfectly acceptable to post a rumor or unverified claim. It's good that they identified it as such... usually the Slashdot editor just clicks publish on whatever swill caught his eye in the submissions.
Sure. I have a friend who lives in a high rise with no thirteenth floor.
Kids are stupid. Most adults too.
I imagine if you don't bow to the pressure from the nudes, say because they're not actually of you, they send the usual goon around to encourage you to pay. But sending a picture to your mom is much lower effort. If it convinces a few people to pay up it's worth it.
American universities can easily get to $20k/semester.
One in ten thousand is a lot of erroneous diagnoses when you're doing web search scraping.
Yeah, except that a lot of people don't bother doing that. Particularly physicians.
The word "car" originally referred to any kind of horse drawn vehicle. Motor cars were ones that didn't need the horse. The important features of a "flying car" are that it is a personal transportation vehicle that Joe Everyman can afford, and can pilot. An automobile is all of those things. A helicopter is none of them.
It looks like we are getting close to the point where any idiot will be able to fly, because the aircraft will fly itself. The price points are also starting to get towards the point where mass production might bring them down to affordability. When that happens, we'll have flying cars. Maybe we'll keep roads around for long haul trucking or something.
Lucky for you. People who use Windows have lots of problems they have to pay other people to fix.
Actually, the land sailers are a lot of fun. They work even better (where better means goes faster and is more likely to kill you) because wheels provide less friction in the direction you want to go and more in the direction you don't.
Planes that drive on highways? When did "flying car" come to mean a plane that drives on a highway? The prototypical Jetson's flying car doesn't do anything like that.
Slashdot has filled up with unimaginative luddites. Flying cars will use the loads of helipads and short runways that will be built everywhere.
Easy enough. Just avoid their OS, it gets you two for one. Or do VS binaries run on other OSes now?
"Historians use the term "Dark Ages" for times about which we have not written history." - angel'0'sphere
You're contradicting yourself again. As usual. If I'd noticed the username earlier I wouldn't have bothered replying.
Our current problem is that we took all the carbon nature put in the ground and released it back into the atmosphere. So finding ways to put it back in the ground kind of makes sense.
You can't just plant trees, you have to harvest them when they're grown up and sequester them. Otherwise you'll just run out of land. People don't really like the idea of cutting down forests and burying or sinking the wood into the ocean.
We'd have a nice little carbon sequestration economy going if we made it illegal to recycle paper or wood products.
Funny, people have adapted sailboats to work on roads. Or off them even.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There was a blog about someone who converted a small keelboat into a sailing RV and sailed it around Iceland (on the highway) too.
Realy? Roundabouts were phased out of many locations in the US because drivers weren't skilled enough to use them. Intersections are easier to navigate because everything moves slower. They're also more inefficient because everything moves slower. Apparently your local planners are either desperate or think that local drivers have become more competent.