/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4101885
>the correct answers are not available or published.
>but if you take the test enough, you can pretend you're smart
>even though smart people wouldn't waste their time.

>>3975916
You can't be more specific than the specificity in the question.

I'm sorry your aspergers does not let you see this.

>>3911857
Oh, my fuck.

You don't even realize that you were the one being told.

This is why the world is in ruins.

Look, google: http://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=aids+causes

Now, tell me, how many of those google hits are real and which are derp that you seem to be clueless about realizing in your 'search google for 30s' answer of a clap trap

>>3698373
No. You're confusing the GUI with the software.

The software bloats because of faster hardware. It may be doing more things, but it's peak efficiency was already located.

You may be able to run more and more software, but the hardware, the fundamental amount of intellectual resources capable of allowing these softwares to interact is limited.

In other words, I will repeat as I said before, there is a limit to the amount of historical meta-data you can use to keep the system functioning at peak efficiency for growth.

Due to the algorithmic interference of the base level of information, you're feeding off of meta-data that has been fed off of meta-data, etc.

This is an interference pattern. Each new point in your system is a super-position of not just the 'value' but the meta-value, which is what, at the time, we perceived to be it's value.

Economics reaches a carrying capacity as illustrated in these graphs, because ultimately the 'value' is a reconstruction of prior 'value' which is etc.. yo dawg.

If you don't get what this is, tomorrow I will tell you today I valued you based on what you expected me to value you tomorrow based on what today's value was expected to be tomorrow.

If you arn't seeing how the 'value' of a product is dependent on it's current valuation model, then you have essentially reached the economic carrying capacity.

>>3656913
>I don't understand the trolls on 4chan who are actually against X. Do you not have X? If you do not have X, isn't here also enough reason for you to support it, on the grounds that you (hopefully) recognize that lacking X is inferior. Are you just helplessly politically correct/liberal--even on an anonymous imageboard? Do you not see the benefits that X would produce for the future of humanity? Do you simply not care about the future of this species? If you don't care then why? Out of what interest? Misanthropicism? Because if you're a misanthrope, you should love X because it will "hurt" a ton of people (by the way, not being allowed to lack X isn't really something to feel sorry about; it's a privilege, not a right).


>There, now you trolls have an awesome template. Feel free to make X equal anything.

>>3251100
What could never be simulated is "What could never be simulated?"

Paradoxical isn't it.

>>3228618
You were reading multiple people's interpretation, reason, from the logic. The dissonance is in interpretation from multiple view points.

Surely, the meta-reason is self evident.

>>3214343
>too stupid to know the right answer
>asks another stupid question

Ignorance, how does it work?

>>3165756
>people actually thought there wasn't a higher power

>>3149891
real science?

>scary isnt it? Back to philosophy and atheism threads for you

>>3146612
one doesn't require you to be a nerd, and 2 allows normal xml parsers easy construction and manipulation without being a wizard.

are you a wizard?

>>3141316

>>2471743