The instructor _could_ provide cosine and logarithm tables to the students but it's just easier to allow them the use of a basic scientific calculator.
Or to allow an answer of the form 10sin(5/7). Why do you think it necessary to test that they can enter that into a calculator?
Let's try an experiment since you seem too thick to understand this. Here is my encrypted message: zxc I'll give you a hint that the clear text is an English word, and the one-time pad used to encrypt it used only letters (so we're talking modulo 26 addition here). This means that there are 17,576 one time pads I could have used.
You're right that the vast majority of those one-time pads can be eliminated, because they give garbage decrypted text. Among these would be: abc, ujc, asd, qwe Applying these one-time pads to the cipher text is left as an excersize to the reader.
However, there is a large subset of the 17,576 possible one-time pads that produce readable clear text, among them: fpy, rwi, yco which respectively decrypt the cipher text to: the, hat, bum
Can you tell which was the real clear text? No you can't. And for longer messages you can't tell between 'Bill ate the cat' and 'Bill fed the cat.' from a cipher text of 'era and qwe omn' because there is a possible one-time pad for each.
You also can't get the time-dependent changes in the Moon's orbit either (increasing distance/period). You have to at least have a rotating earth, even in General Relativity.
You're just flat out wrong about double negatives. Double negatives in English did not negate each other until the 1700s when people like Samuel Johnson made that rule up out of thin fucking air.
Going back through Shakespeare, Chaucer, and the Old English period repeated negatives are used as intensifiers. This 'double negatives cancel each other out like negative numbers being multiplied' is a fabrication of the 18th century. Chaucer wasn't breaking any rules with his multiple negations.
Moreover, there are a number of languages where multiple negations still function in the same way they did in Old, Middle, and Rennaisance English (including some dialects of Modern English).
A lot of English spelling is based upon the false belief by ~1500s scholars that English evolved from Greek, so they tried to push greek-style spelling on everyone (prescriptive grammar).
This is maybe 1/3 right. English spelling (of actual English words) is generally based on Middle English pronunciations, and has nothing to do with Greek.
Stupid scholars. To me "cof" makes a hell more sense than "cough". And "swimmed" is more logical than "swam" or "swum".
Before the 1300s cough was pronounced more or less phonetically. Before the 1100s, the swim-swam-swum pattern was the standard conjugation. So you've got this entirely bass-ackwards. Swim-swam-swum is Old English, much older than the -ed ending. Similarly it used to be climb-clamb-clumb, but that form fell out of usage in favor of the -ed ending. However, it had nothing to do with being more logical.
So, your entire argument boils down to this: Thanks to the sanitation implications of high density settlements, we need fire (and by extension technology) to survive?
Never mind that those high density settlements were only ever possible because of technology?
Even with those links, the inability to drink the water has nothing to do with humans, and everything to do with sanitation in dense settlements--which would collapse anyway without technology. The OPs point was that humans can survive without technology--not that we can maintain our current technology dependent lifestyles without technology.
No we don't. At least, not as a species. Just because I can't drink the water in Mexico without getting horribly sick doesn't mean that 'homo sapiens' broadly construed as a species can't. Exhibit A being the indigenous population that survives just fine drinking the water there.
It's not so much that you're the center, as much as that you've expanded to fill all the available space, so it doesn't make sense to talk about your position in the basement. You are the basement.
Ok, you are retarded, not just absent-minded. Thanks for clarifying.
Owning the business makes no difference, they still aren't depositing 100% of what you pay them into their personal accounts (unless they are REALLY stupid and have mixed personal and business accounts).
The publisher is in the clear, but if classified info is in there the author can go straight off to prison. The issue here is that the DoD erroneously okayed the first edition on that issue.
myself wonder at the wisdom of having a jury at all, if the jurors are going to be selected on the basis of education and social class.
Do you even know what the word 'peer' meant in the late 1700s? Haven't you ever heard of a 'peerage'?
It means same social class. Nobles could only be tried by a jury of nobles, commoners by a jury of commoners. The concept is inherited from English common law.
Uh, you do understand the difference between what the customer pays, and what the laborer gets, right? You may pay your masseuse $90/hr, but she does not make $90/hr. Likewise, you may pay $1,000.hr, but the doctor doesn't make that.
Slashdot Mirror
No, good example, you're just an asshole who thinks using ignorance to control the populace is a good thing.
Yes, let's make up more silly claims that even the marketing whack-jobs didn't dare put in the press release....
Don't you get your /. username revoked for posting this kind of shit?
That's a cube, not a table.
You know, they do have names:...T-800 (don't think it had a name?).
So, what you're saying is, they do-don't have names?
But then who would pay the /. editors for the link?
I'll take that bet, seeing as it was a state government involved, and not the feds.
But, the real problem is that physics without story problems greatly reduces the amount of complexity and difficulty that's available.
No, no it doesn't. Only someone who never read Newton's Principia could think this.
The instructor _could_ provide cosine and logarithm tables to the students but it's just easier to allow them the use of a basic scientific calculator.
Or to allow an answer of the form 10sin(5/7). Why do you think it necessary to test that they can enter that into a calculator?
*Boggle*
Really?
Let's try an experiment since you seem too thick to understand this. Here is my encrypted message:
zxc
I'll give you a hint that the clear text is an English word, and the one-time pad used to encrypt it used only letters (so we're talking modulo 26 addition here). This means that there are 17,576 one time pads I could have used.
You're right that the vast majority of those one-time pads can be eliminated, because they give garbage decrypted text. Among these would be:
abc, ujc, asd, qwe
Applying these one-time pads to the cipher text is left as an excersize to the reader.
However, there is a large subset of the 17,576 possible one-time pads that produce readable clear text, among them:
fpy, rwi, yco
which respectively decrypt the cipher text to:
the, hat, bum
Can you tell which was the real clear text? No you can't. And for longer messages you can't tell between 'Bill ate the cat' and 'Bill fed the cat.' from a cipher text of 'era and qwe omn' because there is a possible one-time pad for each.
It's the Great Firewall of China and the Great Barrier Router of Australia.
Get your jokes right.
You also can't get the time-dependent changes in the Moon's orbit either (increasing distance/period). You have to at least have a rotating earth, even in General Relativity.
You still can't get the coriolis effect, or the earth's magnetic field that way.
You're just flat out wrong about double negatives. Double negatives in English did not negate each other until the 1700s when people like Samuel Johnson made that rule up out of thin fucking air.
Going back through Shakespeare, Chaucer, and the Old English period repeated negatives are used as intensifiers. This 'double negatives cancel each other out like negative numbers being multiplied' is a fabrication of the 18th century. Chaucer wasn't breaking any rules with his multiple negations.
Moreover, there are a number of languages where multiple negations still function in the same way they did in Old, Middle, and Rennaisance English (including some dialects of Modern English).
A lot of English spelling is based upon the false belief by ~1500s scholars that English evolved from Greek, so they tried to push greek-style spelling on everyone (prescriptive grammar).
This is maybe 1/3 right. English spelling (of actual English words) is generally based on Middle English pronunciations, and has nothing to do with Greek.
Stupid scholars. To me "cof" makes a hell more sense than "cough". And "swimmed" is more logical than "swam" or "swum".
Before the 1300s cough was pronounced more or less phonetically. Before the 1100s, the swim-swam-swum pattern was the standard conjugation. So you've got this entirely bass-ackwards. Swim-swam-swum is Old English, much older than the -ed ending. Similarly it used to be climb-clamb-clumb, but that form fell out of usage in favor of the -ed ending. However, it had nothing to do with being more logical.
So, your entire argument boils down to this: Thanks to the sanitation implications of high density settlements, we need fire (and by extension technology) to survive?
Never mind that those high density settlements were only ever possible because of technology?
Even with those links, the inability to drink the water has nothing to do with humans, and everything to do with sanitation in dense settlements--which would collapse anyway without technology. The OPs point was that humans can survive without technology--not that we can maintain our current technology dependent lifestyles without technology.
No we don't. At least, not as a species. Just because I can't drink the water in Mexico without getting horribly sick doesn't mean that 'homo sapiens' broadly construed as a species can't. Exhibit A being the indigenous population that survives just fine drinking the water there.
No you don't, because the earth is a non-inertial frame.
Yes, no one need ever bother knowing something not directly related to their job, what would be the point of that?
It's not so much that you're the center, as much as that you've expanded to fill all the available space, so it doesn't make sense to talk about your position in the basement. You are the basement.
Ok, you are retarded, not just absent-minded. Thanks for clarifying.
Owning the business makes no difference, they still aren't depositing 100% of what you pay them into their personal accounts (unless they are REALLY stupid and have mixed personal and business accounts).
The publisher is in the clear, but if classified info is in there the author can go straight off to prison. The issue here is that the DoD erroneously okayed the first edition on that issue.
Neither are government employees. You've confused 'should be' with 'is'.
myself wonder at the wisdom of having a jury at all, if the jurors are going to be selected on the basis of education and social class.
Do you even know what the word 'peer' meant in the late 1700s? Haven't you ever heard of a 'peerage'?
It means same social class. Nobles could only be tried by a jury of nobles, commoners by a jury of commoners. The concept is inherited from English common law.
Uh, you do understand the difference between what the customer pays, and what the laborer gets, right? You may pay your masseuse $90/hr, but she does not make $90/hr. Likewise, you may pay $1,000.hr, but the doctor doesn't make that.
What part of appendectomy did you not understand?
Or do you like arguing by non-sequitur?
The GP clearly stated that there are some tasks you need the fully trained doctor for. Your post contributed nothing.