Comment Re: A man walks into a bar... (Score 1) 161
How about:
A boson walks into a bar and says "Bud Light for everyone!" And all the fermions leave.
Okay, that's all. I'll leave it alone now.
How about:
A boson walks into a bar and says "Bud Light for everyone!" And all the fermions leave.
Okay, that's all. I'll leave it alone now.
if you truly study relativity, and i mean read Einstein's essays and not just the summary on wikipedia...you realize the linear view of time is just the way our electro-chemical computers (brains) process information. but in relativity, an atomic clock up in an airplane experiences time an a slightly different rate than you on the ground. since it is further from the earth.
This has nothing to do with whether the clocks are electro-chemical or atomic. It has to do with reference frames.
Two clocks in the same reference frame will experience the same proper time, no matter what they're made of.
Two clocks in different reference frames will not experience the same proper time. The frames can be different due to relative motion or due to different local strengths of a gravitational field.
mostly Congress, bu[t] in practical terms lobbyists have a lot of influence on the precise wording that makes it into the law
FTFY
Again to AC: I like your improvement, though,
No, I meant fermions.
I thought of adding something like: "The bartender says to the second fermion, 'We don't serve your kind here!'", but it seems to have more punch the way it is.
Two fermions walk into a bar. One says "I'll have a beer." The other says "I'll have what he's having."
It would have been good form to cite your source.
Who is to say whether [the boldface] tags will survive. And what's the point, anyway? Why not just quote the text and use your own words to express your view?
This is Slashdot, not a peer-reviewed journal. I used "FTFY" and boldface inserts for rhetorical emphasis, but I made it clear that I'm friendly to the OP's original points. If the bold-tags don't survive duplication, then that's the fault of future citers.
Here's to the thing finally being over.
Ah, wishful thinking. Will it ever be over?
Peace.
So there are no counters, no safeguards of any kind?
Of course there are, but they're far more easily defeated if they're electronic than if they're paper.
when you compare the ideal (non-realistic) paper with the worst electronic systems, you'll find paper win every time. The ideal of each leaves electronic in the lead.
Bullshit. The worst paper system always wins over the best electronic system for one simple reason: macroscopic evidence of voter intent.
But nobody will ever take me up on that challenge, and will only presume the worst possible electronic systems.
That makes me think that all the people that hate electronic hate it for other reasons, but don't want to reveal them.
You think too much of yourself. Nobody can be bothered arguing with you. Except for some of us on this thread who are trying to perform a public service by refuting your e-voting fanboyisms.
Thanks very much for that. Obviously I was confusing the two.
After reading your post, I vaguely recall hearing long ago that there was a difference between well-temperament and equal-temperament. But that's no excuse for my confusion now.
The theory is sound. The theory [of] electronic voting is that it's "better" than paper. But the reality for both is different.
The reality is that paper is better than electronic, and always will be.
You raised the issue of ballot-box stuffing. AC pointed out that a paper system can be observed by candidate surrogates. How do you "observe" ballot-box stuffing if the system is electronic? The answer is simple: you can't.
By eliminating unnecessary components, you eliminate computer election fraud. If there are no thumb drives, then you don't have to worry about computer election fraud. If there are no touch screens, you don't have to worry about computer election fraud. If there are no computers, you don't have to worry about computer election fraud.
FTFY. But I'm just making a point. I do agree with your original statements.
It's actually correct both ways. Wrong has a noun form which this wrong is specifically his.
Nobody says "which means your wrong" in that context with that implied meaning. Try it verbally and see what people think it means. Even with your torturous implied insertion ("which means [this is] your wrong") it still fails. It sounds like a moral judgement, not a claim of inaccuracy.
Face it, you're just back-pedaling.
Potentially esoteric definitions for words make English very pliable.
That comes in handy when you're doubling down on the derp, doesn't it?
which says your wrong.
If you're going to tell someone off (in bold-face, no less) then you'd best do it using correct grammar.
Any guy who goes shirtless in a public place is gay.
Beaches are public places. And zomg, Russia has beaches.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
