Okay. Reading your comment, I just took issue with "assume" as it sounded like you were saying "it isn't required therefore it can't possibly ever happen."
Although I'm not quite sure how you mean we can "observe" the multiverse I wouldn't be surprised if there was some argument for that.
Discrete probability distribution is the best link I can find at the moment for something that has been in the first lesson of the section on probability in every math textbook I've ever seen.
But this is an article about quantum physics so I suppose I should just assume that everything we "know" about math is a lie and just get over it, huh.
Big fan of Starts with a Bang for many years, I must ask Ethan why cosmologists have ruled out the idea that our universe is the interior of a black hole. Neil deGrasse Tyson claims Einstein's equations can be interpreted to mean there is a different universe inside a black hole but he doesn't elaborate. If anyone else knows of a good reason as to why our universe can't be the interior of a black hole then I'd love to hear it.
Hyper Inflation lasted until the universe was about the size of a basketball.
It's statements like these that just scream out for an actual explanation. How can anyone possibly know that the size wasn't a bowling ball or a softball instead?
Although the answer seems to be "we'll bludgeon you in the face with math about 3 powers above what you understand until your eyes glaze over and you accept it." How much different is that than giving no explanation at all? Discuss:)
If he were the first poster, he wouldn't have had the thought to point out that he wasn't the first poster. Hence, if he still posted a comment, it wouldn't have had the same content and thus could not be considered to be *that* comment above.
Unless if he hallucinated that there was already a comment somehow when there wasn't, I suppose.
That you've never had any problem paying using cashless in the past is not an indication that you will never in the future. If they decide to freeze your accounts for some reason with no cash in the system anymore, you can't even get a cab.
One of the very, very few times I've ever seen on/. where I wouldn't call this off-topic. I'm mystified as to why anyone decided soccer/footballs should be compared to molecules in the first place.
That you're complaining about a single comic strip doing this seems at least as odd. (Female characters in xkcd don't have breasts either but you don't see me complaining.)
Programming a computer to lie and be evasive about its nature is easy, and many chatbots can already do that.
This sounds very dubious.
A) A computer can only lie if it has a sense of truth, can't it? Lying implies that you know what the truth is an purposely state the opposite. Mistakenly convening the wrong information is not lying.
B) Regurgitating responses that were pre-programmed to be incorrect does not fit my definition of "lying." Programming a computer to give an incorrect response is ordering it to do so, so you're telling it to lie, which it obediently does. What would be far more philosophically interesting was if you told it to lie and it *didn't.* Now THAT would be a good indication of intelligence (although it's a bit hairsplitting).
Slashdot Mirror
If you've gotta lie, lie big, bald-faced, and without shame.
Okay. Reading your comment, I just took issue with "assume" as it sounded like you were saying "it isn't required therefore it can't possibly ever happen."
Although I'm not quite sure how you mean we can "observe" the multiverse I wouldn't be surprised if there was some argument for that.
If they've already perjured themselves in court I don't see why they would have any qualms about fabricating evidence.
Godwin
Ah crap. Tripped up by nonobvious Internet sarcasm. Please disregard.
Not James Jeffrey Binney but William Binney I assume.
You think the President has to be a U.S. citizen but they're not going to care whether the guy who takes over if anything happens to him is?
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. And the NSA has amply demonstrated this fact to most everyone but coldfjord's satisfaction.
[citation needed]
Discrete probability distribution is the best link I can find at the moment for something that has been in the first lesson of the section on probability in every math textbook I've ever seen.
But this is an article about quantum physics so I suppose I should just assume that everything we "know" about math is a lie and just get over it, huh.
But it allows them.
our mathematics may likely be completely wrong and worthless.
Big fan of Starts with a Bang for many years, I must ask Ethan why cosmologists have ruled out the idea that our universe is the interior of a black hole. Neil deGrasse Tyson claims Einstein's equations can be interpreted to mean there is a different universe inside a black hole but he doesn't elaborate. If anyone else knows of a good reason as to why our universe can't be the interior of a black hole then I'd love to hear it.
Would that make any difference to us if it was?
Hyper Inflation lasted until the universe was about the size of a basketball.
It's statements like these that just scream out for an actual explanation. How can anyone possibly know that the size wasn't a bowling ball or a softball instead?
Although the answer seems to be "we'll bludgeon you in the face with math about 3 powers above what you understand until your eyes glaze over and you accept it." How much different is that than giving no explanation at all? Discuss :)
See, just because a thing is possible does not mean it will necessarily be actualized even given an infinite number of universes.
Isn't it a mathematical axiom that any event with a >0 probability of occurring, given infinite trials, has a likelihood 1 of occurring?
If he were the first poster, he wouldn't have had the thought to point out that he wasn't the first poster. Hence, if he still posted a comment, it wouldn't have had the same content and thus could not be considered to be *that* comment above.
Unless if he hallucinated that there was already a comment somehow when there wasn't, I suppose.
So I guess we should just roll over and accept our anally-inserted government everything trackers. Thanks for letting me know.
You might have paid a hooker with it, and then she bought cash
Come again? How do you "buy" cash with cash?
I live in an essentially horseless society, but I don't mind, and it's not really limiting my freedom -- I could get a horse if I wanted
So basically, you're saying the society isn't horseless at all. Alrighty then.
Next!
1. Purchaser pays you via credit card.
2. Purchaser receives good.
3. Purchaser calls credit company to revert the transaction.
4. No profit.
Or do CC companies actually call the seller to verify that stuff? Can't say I've ever tried it.
That you've never had any problem paying using cashless in the past is not an indication that you will never in the future. If they decide to freeze your accounts for some reason with no cash in the system anymore, you can't even get a cab.
One of the very, very few times I've ever seen on /. where I wouldn't call this off-topic. I'm mystified as to why anyone decided soccer/footballs should be compared to molecules in the first place.
"that bloke's sodding knackered"
That you're complaining about a single comic strip doing this seems at least as odd. (Female characters in xkcd don't have breasts either but you don't see me complaining.)
*what the truth is and purposely
*Mistakenly conveying the wrong
Blargh.
Programming a computer to lie and be evasive about its nature is easy, and many chatbots can already do that.
This sounds very dubious.
A) A computer can only lie if it has a sense of truth, can't it? Lying implies that you know what the truth is an purposely state the opposite. Mistakenly convening the wrong information is not lying.
B) Regurgitating responses that were pre-programmed to be incorrect does not fit my definition of "lying." Programming a computer to give an incorrect response is ordering it to do so, so you're telling it to lie, which it obediently does. What would be far more philosophically interesting was if you told it to lie and it *didn't.* Now THAT would be a good indication of intelligence (although it's a bit hairsplitting).
After using a thousand towels, the radioactivity in each one would be pretty damn low even if that were the case.
Which incident was this? The guy in the article lived another 11 years and died of other causes.
I'm aware of some WWII accidents but none spring to mind with that teeth description.