I'd warrant, then, that the kid's probably had as much exposure to the Old Testament as he has to Halo 3. Personally, I'm not in favour of banning either, but if anything...
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
Quite. Because as we all know from watching Wild West movies, when two people try to draw their guns at once, it can only end in a stalemate.
WRONG. One slice of a good sharp knife across the external carotid artery is all it takes for a very swift death by knife. Equally, one good full swing bash to the head with a 20 pound sledge hammer is equally deadly. It takes nothing more than a tiny bit of knowledge
ALSO. One swift run over 100m in less than 9.69 seconds is all it takes to be the new sprint world record holder. Armed with this new knowledge, what are you waiting for?
You're not comparing algorithms. You're simply stating that the algorithm for self-driving road cars would be easier than the algorithm for self-driving flying cars, without providing a basis for that assertion. Then when I point out what the problems are with your assumptions, you simply repeat your assertion without addressing those problems.
Keeping in mind that in the air your road can be 1,000 feet wide and only one way, I mean, at that point you make the machines do whatever you want.
There's an old joke that when a physicist is asked how to make a race horse go faster, he replies "First, assume that the horse is a perfect sphere..."
You seem to have no consideration for scalability, no appreciation of weather conditions, no cognisance of cities, no comprehension of determinism, etc.
Is it really that much easier to fire up the Microsoft Tag app and get your camera at the right position and angle than to fire up the TinyURL app and type 6 alphanumeric characters? Plus you can store the latter in your auditory loop for a short time.
Just because you prefix a description a task with "all you have to do", it doesn't make that task straightforward. A couple of examples:
"All you have to do is exceed the speed of light to travel through time." "All you have to do is get everyone to be excellent to one another to achieve world peace."
Explain to me, then, what you mean by "follow rules defined for the purpose to regulate the air traffic of cars" if those rules don't imply the extremely non-trivial task of making sure nobody crashes into anything.
So what about MPG improvements, pluggable electric cars, telecommuting, etc?
What about them? These improvements are not happening nearly as fast as our economy needs them to.
Sure, on the same scale that solar energy isn't renewable because we can't refuel the Sun.
Stuff and nonsense. How long can a breeder reactor run with no new fuel input? Longer than a non-breeder reactor, sure, but not indefinitely. Now imagine that breeder reactors supply all of mankind's ever-increasing energy requirements. How long before we reach peak uranium, or peak thorium? Whereas for how long is the Sun going to burn?
The point is that even with scarce resources, life is not a zero-sum game. A large part of technological progress is in learning how to do more with less.
Of course. But another characteristic of life you may have noticed is "survival of the fittest". So advice like "get the job you want for the pay you want or stay in school" is absurd.
I agree. I'm a Python fan but "use a proper text editor" is passing the buck big-style. Guido should have just mandated the use of spaces rather than tabs: everything renders spaces the same.
I notice you're largely concentrating your argument around sand rather than, say, oil. And needless to say, breeder reactors are not perpetual motion machines.
Assembly is highly structured, yet I'd like to see you write a CMS in it.
C is highly structured (no pun intended) yet I'd like to see you write a CMS in it.
I think we're using the word "structured" to mean different things. The so-called Structured Programming languages of Dijkstra's era tried to get people away from the JMPs of assembly language, and object-oriented programming is more structured still.
What do you mean by structured?
I'm really surprised that I am contradicting someone with a 4-digit UID.
Let's get our terminology straight, and see if we still disagree:)
By all means devote yourself to finding the secret how to turn sand into any other natural resources. Even if you were to succeed, you'd still soon find out the difference between "abundant" and "infinite".
I was indeed alluding to hovercraft. Hovercraft are great for places without roads (like the surface of water!) but they have their own issues, such as handling and fuel economy. If you want to get a few metres above ground, you're looking at a helicopter really, which is even worse. Paramotoring is all well and good when you're the only person doing it in the immediate area, but you'd be a slave to the weather.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd warrant, then, that the kid's probably had as much exposure to the Old Testament as he has to Halo 3. Personally, I'm not in favour of banning either, but if anything...
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
Quite. Because as we all know from watching Wild West movies, when two people try to draw their guns at once, it can only end in a stalemate.
WRONG. One slice of a good sharp knife across the external carotid artery is all it takes for a very swift death by knife. Equally, one good full swing bash to the head with a 20 pound sledge hammer is equally deadly. It takes nothing more than a tiny bit of knowledge
ALSO. One swift run over 100m in less than 9.69 seconds is all it takes to be the new sprint world record holder. Armed with this new knowledge, what are you waiting for?
I'd bet my life on it.
I'm looking forward to trying some, as I always hated the taste of coal.
You're not comparing algorithms. You're simply stating that the algorithm for self-driving road cars would be easier than the algorithm for self-driving flying cars, without providing a basis for that assertion. Then when I point out what the problems are with your assumptions, you simply repeat your assertion without addressing those problems.
That is an entirely circular argument, and one predicated on proof by assertion.
Furthermore, he didn't steal 4 million people's credit card details. I rather think a scumbag would have done just that.
Keeping in mind that in the air your road can be 1,000 feet wide and only one way, I mean, at that point you make the machines do whatever you want.
There's an old joke that when a physicist is asked how to make a race horse go faster, he replies "First, assume that the horse is a perfect sphere..."
You seem to have no consideration for scalability, no appreciation of weather conditions, no cognisance of cities, no comprehension of determinism, etc.
These Tags are just a GUID or something like it.
Is it really that much easier to fire up the Microsoft Tag app and get your camera at the right position and angle than to fire up the TinyURL app and type 6 alphanumeric characters? Plus you can store the latter in your auditory loop for a short time.
Just because you prefix a description a task with "all you have to do", it doesn't make that task straightforward. A couple of examples:
"All you have to do is exceed the speed of light to travel through time."
"All you have to do is get everyone to be excellent to one another to achieve world peace."
Explain to me, then, what you mean by "follow rules defined for the purpose to regulate the air traffic of cars" if those rules don't imply the extremely non-trivial task of making sure nobody crashes into anything.
In a car, you need to worry about obstacles, the road, people, other drivers, road rules.
Whereas with a flying car, who cares about obstacles, people, other drivers, and rules?
</sarcasm>
2 spaces, 3 spaces, look all very similar. but one tab is one tab.
On your machine, one tab might be 8 spaces. But on someone else's, it might be 2 or 3.
So what about MPG improvements, pluggable electric cars, telecommuting, etc?
What about them? These improvements are not happening nearly as fast as our economy needs them to.
Sure, on the same scale that solar energy isn't renewable because we can't refuel the Sun.
Stuff and nonsense. How long can a breeder reactor run with no new fuel input? Longer than a non-breeder reactor, sure, but not indefinitely. Now imagine that breeder reactors supply all of mankind's ever-increasing energy requirements. How long before we reach peak uranium, or peak thorium? Whereas for how long is the Sun going to burn?
The point is that even with scarce resources, life is not a zero-sum game. A large part of technological progress is in learning how to do more with less.
Of course. But another characteristic of life you may have noticed is "survival of the fittest". So advice like "get the job you want for the pay you want or stay in school" is absurd.
That is really quite impressive. But I have a real dog, and you should see it bound over rubble ;)
I agree. I'm a Python fan but "use a proper text editor" is passing the buck big-style. Guido should have just mandated the use of spaces rather than tabs: everything renders spaces the same.
Why should print have special status as an operator? cout doesn't.
Wake me when you've got a robot that can walk decently, let alone fly like a bat.
I notice you're largely concentrating your argument around sand rather than, say, oil. And needless to say, breeder reactors are not perpetual motion machines.
Assembly is highly structured, yet I'd like to see you write a CMS in it.
C is highly structured (no pun intended) yet I'd like to see you write a CMS in it.
I think we're using the word "structured" to mean different things. The so-called Structured Programming languages of Dijkstra's era tried to get people away from the JMPs of assembly language, and object-oriented programming is more structured still.
What do you mean by structured?
I'm really surprised that I am contradicting someone with a 4-digit UID.
Let's get our terminology straight, and see if we still disagree :)
It costs a minimum of $50,000 with overheads to employ a white collar worker. $250 for a three year bulk license for Office is a rounding error.
I think you need to stop using 8-bit floating point numbers.
By all means devote yourself to finding the secret how to turn sand into any other natural resources. Even if you were to succeed, you'd still soon find out the difference between "abundant" and "infinite".
I was indeed alluding to hovercraft. Hovercraft are great for places without roads (like the surface of water!) but they have their own issues, such as handling and fuel economy. If you want to get a few metres above ground, you're looking at a helicopter really, which is even worse. Paramotoring is all well and good when you're the only person doing it in the immediate area, but you'd be a slave to the weather.
Hmm, I think you might have posted to the wrong forum. There are no smug assholes here on Slashdot.
You think Google got rich by giving their customers unlimited quota?