You lack imagination. If a crop is contaminated the cost of cleaning it could very well be beyond the farmer's means. Therefore, he'd have to just accept that he's got a contaminated crop.
Of course, all of this is rooted in the fantasy that there is such a thing as a small farmer anymore, rather than agricorporations being sued by other agricorporations.
There's nothing wrong with the Navier-Stokes equations, except that they're unsolvable. From a theoretic standpoint however, they're perfectly accurate. Unless you want to claim that mass, momentum, and/or energy are not conserved--because that's all the Navier-Stokes Equations are. Each one of the Navier-Stokes equations is a particular representation of the corresponding conservation law. Except for relativistic systems, or systems where quantum effects become relevant, the equations are perfectly accurate, and perfectly unsolvable (analytically, that is). Even in those systems, it's not Navier-Stokes that breaks down, but the Equation of State for the fluid that is necessary to form a complete system of equations. ALL of the problems we have solving Navier-Stokes computationally come down to grid size (which is just a computational resource problem), and EOS.
Chaos means that the system is deterministic but not predictable. Which is no different from saying that you have a superposition of probablistic outcomes where the actual outcome is only knowable by observing the system.
This is not even wrong. You've confused quantum systems and chaotic systems.
Moreover, there are plenty of alternative ways to model chaotic systems. Most of them are less useful than brute-force computation or models for engineering purposes (except as a way of identifying the general types of solutions you should expect). For mathematical theory (which may, or may not yield future engineering benefits) they're useful.
Actually the scientists asked FDR to develop the atomic weapon. It was not the US government's idea. Granted, they only brought it up because they were afraid Germany would get there first, but still--it was the scientists' idea.
Your post rests on the fallacy that a government is a coherent entity, rather than a set of competing factions with various goals, and a handful of nutjobs for good measure. Unless you meant to imply that there is no such thing as a genuinely stable government.
Besides, history is important. The people studying it don't expect to make money with it anyway. They study out of genuine interest, and they serve to keep history alive. Without the historians, the politicos will have complete control to rewrite it to say whatever it is they want.
That's a feature, not a bug, of cutting history majors. At least, as far as the Chinese government is concerned.
Yes, they're related by a factor of PI. And 60,000 kilometers is 1.5 times around the planet at the equator. They'd have to circle the entire Pacific (A San Francisco to Anchorage to Vladivostok to Taiwain to Perth to Tasmania to New Zealand to Easter Island to Tierra del Fuego to the Galapagos to Baja to San Francisco kind of route) more than twice to get anywhere near that.
Why should the system change? Drivers are required to carry insurance--why change it? Drivers of self-driving cars have to carry insurance for any liability, same as drivers driving themselves. The insurance companies will love this (because self-driving cars will have far fewer accidents). The auto companies won't have to deal with it at all. Leave the companies liable for widespread faults, not individual accidents (exactly as it is now--you can't sue Ford just because your brakes were bad, but it 2,000 cars have bad brakes then Ford gets sued). Again, the insurance companies will be more than happy to cover the liability--which will be lower than will be lower than with driver-operated vehicles. Everybody wins.
Did you actually read Brave New World? It was just as much reliant on fascist enforcement of thought crime laws as 1984. It was somewhat less sinister (Mustafa Mond seemed like a downright nice guy, all things considered), but the means involved were not terribly different.
So you're the fuckwad at HP that got rid of recovery disks in favor of recovery partitions on hard drives that have a 20% failure rate in the first year. Fuck you.
Yes, that is true. It's also a moronic point. Any laptop that doesn't have USB boot has an optical or floppy drive (if it's THAT old). Since we're talking about new laptops that are not including optical drives, all of which can boot from USB, your post is irrelevant gibberish.
Some of us prefer to go by the factual, scientific definitions of things instead of the make-believe magical fairy unicorn definitions that other people who don't understand the science and facts decide to call truth
And some of us aren't so egotistical as to actually believe the fantasy that the one set of arbitrary categories we happen to be emotionally invested in is "true" or "real."
ALL categorization is arbitrary. Categorization is a tool, and can be used in whatever way a person damn well pleases. Just because YOU happen to find one use less useful, does NOT make it worse. Worse for your purposes, perhaps, but not necessarily for anyone else's.
See also: stenography. A more effective means would be the least significant bit of each pixel of a high resolution wallpaper image. Plenty of data that can be hidden in there without being noticed.
where they'll find some kinky and embarrassing (but not illegal) stuff to keep them busy. At worst they'll think you're a secret crossdressing BDSM fetishist or whatever
I recommend BDSM furry granny porn. Just so they don't try to claim the 30-something girl in the porn is 17 and falsely charge you with child porn possession just for kicks (it's happened).
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, but you're not as likely to get them to build artificial mountains (made out of the pile bones of the workers who died building them) in your memory.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he has Parkinson's.
You think anyone who's opinion is politically relevant gives a fuck about that?
You lack imagination. If a crop is contaminated the cost of cleaning it could very well be beyond the farmer's means. Therefore, he'd have to just accept that he's got a contaminated crop.
Of course, all of this is rooted in the fantasy that there is such a thing as a small farmer anymore, rather than agricorporations being sued by other agricorporations.
6-fold != a factor of 6.
Fold a sheet of paper six times. How many sectors are there? (Hint: Not six)
There's nothing wrong with the Navier-Stokes equations, except that they're unsolvable. From a theoretic standpoint however, they're perfectly accurate. Unless you want to claim that mass, momentum, and/or energy are not conserved--because that's all the Navier-Stokes Equations are. Each one of the Navier-Stokes equations is a particular representation of the corresponding conservation law. Except for relativistic systems, or systems where quantum effects become relevant, the equations are perfectly accurate, and perfectly unsolvable (analytically, that is). Even in those systems, it's not Navier-Stokes that breaks down, but the Equation of State for the fluid that is necessary to form a complete system of equations. ALL of the problems we have solving Navier-Stokes computationally come down to grid size (which is just a computational resource problem), and EOS.
Chaos means that the system is deterministic but not predictable. Which is no different from saying that you have a superposition of probablistic outcomes where the actual outcome is only knowable by observing the system.
This is not even wrong. You've confused quantum systems and chaotic systems.
Moreover, there are plenty of alternative ways to model chaotic systems. Most of them are less useful than brute-force computation or models for engineering purposes (except as a way of identifying the general types of solutions you should expect). For mathematical theory (which may, or may not yield future engineering benefits) they're useful.
That history repeats itself. Baptists and Bootleggers opposed the repeal of Prohibition too.
Actually the scientists asked FDR to develop the atomic weapon. It was not the US government's idea. Granted, they only brought it up because they were afraid Germany would get there first, but still--it was the scientists' idea.
Your post rests on the fallacy that a government is a coherent entity, rather than a set of competing factions with various goals, and a handful of nutjobs for good measure. Unless you meant to imply that there is no such thing as a genuinely stable government.
Besides, history is important. The people studying it don't expect to make money with it anyway. They study out of genuine interest, and they serve to keep history alive. Without the historians, the politicos will have complete control to rewrite it to say whatever it is they want.
That's a feature, not a bug, of cutting history majors. At least, as far as the Chinese government is concerned.
We get it, you're a moron who doesn't understand the actual history of prohibition, bootlegging, and smuggling. Go back to your kindergarten class.
General welfare has NEVER been used as a reason to expand the scope of the federal government. Id est, you're full of shit.
Yes, they're related by a factor of PI. And 60,000 kilometers is 1.5 times around the planet at the equator. They'd have to circle the entire Pacific (A San Francisco to Anchorage to Vladivostok to Taiwain to Perth to Tasmania to New Zealand to Easter Island to Tierra del Fuego to the Galapagos to Baja to San Francisco kind of route) more than twice to get anywhere near that.
Why should the system change? Drivers are required to carry insurance--why change it? Drivers of self-driving cars have to carry insurance for any liability, same as drivers driving themselves. The insurance companies will love this (because self-driving cars will have far fewer accidents). The auto companies won't have to deal with it at all. Leave the companies liable for widespread faults, not individual accidents (exactly as it is now--you can't sue Ford just because your brakes were bad, but it 2,000 cars have bad brakes then Ford gets sued). Again, the insurance companies will be more than happy to cover the liability--which will be lower than will be lower than with driver-operated vehicles. Everybody wins.
Can I get sourdough?
Sure I do. That doesn't make getting rid of recovery disks for recovery partitions a sound decision.
Did you actually read Brave New World? It was just as much reliant on fascist enforcement of thought crime laws as 1984. It was somewhat less sinister (Mustafa Mond seemed like a downright nice guy, all things considered), but the means involved were not terribly different.
You're not REALLY this stupid in person, are you?
$dd if=/dev/cdrom of=idontknowshitaboutcomputers.iso
$cp
Remove flash drive, insert into new, optical drive-less computer.
Jerk off to goat porn.
Rinse and Repeat.
So you're the fuckwad at HP that got rid of recovery disks in favor of recovery partitions on hard drives that have a 20% failure rate in the first year. Fuck you.
Yes, that is true. It's also a moronic point. Any laptop that doesn't have USB boot has an optical or floppy drive (if it's THAT old). Since we're talking about new laptops that are not including optical drives, all of which can boot from USB, your post is irrelevant gibberish.
Some of us prefer to go by the factual, scientific definitions of things instead of the make-believe magical fairy unicorn definitions that other people who don't understand the science and facts decide to call truth
And some of us aren't so egotistical as to actually believe the fantasy that the one set of arbitrary categories we happen to be emotionally invested in is "true" or "real."
ALL categorization is arbitrary. Categorization is a tool, and can be used in whatever way a person damn well pleases. Just because YOU happen to find one use less useful, does NOT make it worse. Worse for your purposes, perhaps, but not necessarily for anyone else's.
Although, upgrades would be a major pain.
I don't think you'd feel anything at all, actually.
Identity theft. Laptops are quite stealable, and I have a lot of financial/confidential client data on mine.
You could retort: Well, what's wrong with Law Enforcement seeing it then?
Answer: Not much, but anything they can crack the crooks can crack better.
See also: stenography. A more effective means would be the least significant bit of each pixel of a high resolution wallpaper image. Plenty of data that can be hidden in there without being noticed.
where they'll find some kinky and embarrassing (but not illegal) stuff to keep them busy. At worst they'll think you're a secret crossdressing BDSM fetishist or whatever
I recommend BDSM furry granny porn. Just so they don't try to claim the 30-something girl in the porn is 17 and falsely charge you with child porn possession just for kicks (it's happened).
Yeah, but you're not as likely to get them to build artificial mountains (made out of the pile bones of the workers who died building them) in your memory.