I counter your 'Tech inclined kids will find coding on their own' with:
(Drum roll please)
Parents should teach their children how to be good members of society, and it is not only not the place of schools to teach that, but it is explicitly overstepping their role to assume they have the right to teach children social values. Schools are for teaching facts and how to learn, not to shape hearts and minds (although they certainly think thats their job these days)..
Or do you think some random teacher is the best person to decide on the social values or your child? Think about it..
Cars? I have my doubts, that would probably be the Germans or Italians, depending on preference. Ships? Sorry, its the Koreans - throw in Phones, TVs, etc, etc while you are at it. Fashion? Well, you could perhaps argue Jeans, but for all the rest, look to Europe mostly. Tools? Been the Japanese for a long time. Heavy machinery? Again sorry, its the Japanese and/or Koreans.
You could probably claim Computer CPUs (but not cellphone..) thanks to Intel (although none of them are actually MADE in the US). Oh, and most certainly 'Laws to protect Corporations incumbent global profit positions through IP', the US certainly leads there.. Ah, sorry I have it, The US certainly leads in celebrity gossip and media frenzy as an industry!
Oh, and I think you will find pretty much ALL of them are built in China, you have confused 'assembled/packaged' and 'built' if you think America makes much of anything any more, unfortunately.
Let me know when you can prove that, Nobel have a prize for you;) That being the problem with randomness, it is borderline impossible to prove (and if you are unlucky, easier to disprove).
The associated problem in cryptography is trustable randomness;) The classic case of that is the RNG embedded in most Intel chips, where Intel refuse to give specific details, and no one would trust them anyway, so it is not used for anything really secure. That is not a problem with Intel specifically of course, it is a problem with trusting any 3rd party.
The main issue with a quantum noise based RNG is how do you verify it - just trust the vendor?;)
What she wants is for Google to, at THEIR cost, provide protection for HER content.
Remember, this is content that, due to copyright extension, will almost certainly NEVER enter the public domain which was originally part of the social contract that was copyright. The government agreed to provide legal protections for works, in return for those works entering the public domain after a reasonable time - a balanced agreement. That agreement has been continuously twisted by the copyright owners, who see it as the job of everyone else to protect their works, and they should keep the money and the works for ever (in effect).
So no, she is just pushing the cart another inch forward, bending the social contract even further, and trying to claim that it is Googles job to enforce HER copyrights - which it clearly is not. If she wants her works protected on youtube its easy, employ someone to find content that is in violation, employ lawyers to write up the required legal papers, and go for it. There is exactly nothing stopping her from doing this.
If she wants Google to do the work for her, then agree to Googles terms to provider her with this service.
What she is trying to do is the same as wanting a radio manufacturer to be legally responsible for checking that the local barbershop isnt 'performing her works without a commercial license' because they turn that radio on, at the radio makers cost. ie: laughable.
This is just another attempt at copyright extension people, and the public, who are being shafted already (thank you Disney, etal), should be rather angry at that. NO other industry has had such generous governmental and legal support for so long.
Or perhaps she would rather keep her works for herself, and we just revoke copyright, as she does not want to keep up her side of the contract? I thought not..
Heathrow is a pit.. But it is one hell of a lot better than LAX.. And anyway. You can fly in to cdg and take the tunnel.. And yes. Even the French are better than most American airports.. And that saying something.
The suppliers and consultants working for TSA pay for their campaigns.. You annoy then with letters or emails then vote however you want. Who so you think they will side with exactly? Welcome to democracy 2.0
Or, you know, the tiny possibility that he DID do something, but doesn't want to admit to doing something that makes him look a bit silly, and costs him money?
No, couldn't possibly be that, after all, as we know humans are infallible. the fact that Tesla (claim to) have logs showing exactly what did happen should be ignored, and this guys word counts for far more. After all, I do not know of a person anywhere who would bend the truth to protect themselves against the fallout of something foolish they did, to the cost of a faceless corporation.
As to liability, it is quite obviously himself as he owned and controlled the car at the time. For it to be the manufacturer then the burden of proof is on him to show why this car has done something that all the others are not, why their logs are wrong (or they are lying about them), etc, etc.
Yes, it is possibly a fault, but the burden of proof is most definitely correctly with him. It is not up to Tesla to prove there is NOT some rare fault in play here. They appear to have shows a pretty solid basis for it not being a fault.
Or, do you somehow want to put the blame on an inanimate object? Would it be fords fault if I parked a truck at the top of a hill, in neutral with the handbrake off, and walked away, and it rolled down and caused an accident? After all, the car will quite happily let me do that..
Sucks his nice shiny toy got damaged, but unless he can show a pretty solid reason it is not his fault, then, as the person in control of the car at the time, he is at fault.. (and yes, he is in control, because it is his responsibility to leave the vehicle safe when he departs).
I think the main problem here is that the powers that be, after spending a long long time growing fat and happy with the general addiction of the masses to mass media entertainment, are starting to get nervous about a slow transformation of that into consumer driven content and peoples acceptance of the messages there contained, which are not carefully filtered and cleaned by the powers that be.
There is risk here, you see, of alternative points of view.
The focus in this case should of course not be the streaming of this sad event, or finger pointing around that. It should be that a person was left in the situation where they could not reach out to other people for help, but instead did this. Now that is not something that can be easily changed - and rules, regulations, etc will not achieve it - there are always a few people that slip through cracks and end up in such a bad place internally that they will do something this bad - however we are not supposed to accept that. We are supposed to believe that if we follow the rules, and if we accept being controlled, monitored, then we will be SAFE from such things.
Events like this remind us that that is simply not true. No matter how much control we give up, no matter how many rules we accept, and no matter how closely we are watched 'for our own good', bad things will and do happen. People make mistakes and are fallible.
Hence, they do NOT want such things to be made public.
It certainly is, if you look at the graph in the article you will easily see that there wasnt a particularly high amount of renewable energy being generated - this price jump looks far more like someones pricing algorithm glitching than any actual market movement - there is little difference in the previous and subsequent pattern, and the price certainly did not jump there. I would make an educated guess looking at the graphs that someone had a shutdown delay on a system and that may have glitched the market a touch, causing a reaction in the algorithmic pricing models.
Yet another case of sensational headlines trying to sell a non-story.
The headline really should read 'German spot-price for energy collapses for no obvious reason, another algorithmic realtime pricing glitch?' or similar.
But you have to bait the clicks somehow apparently, so much for journalistic standards..
Read the article, the summary is a bald faced lie.
In fact, the total land area of the Solomons is growing relatively quickly, there are a few exceptions, which are basically old unstable low lying reefs that were washed away in a couple of major tropical cyclones, which is very normal. They are selectively reporting a very few examples where it is not..
Add to that a couple of islands where, due to human pollution the coral has experience die back (remember, many of these islands are natural growing coral, when it dies, they erode away..)
Its actually quite impressive that the total land area is growing..
Of course that doesn't suit certain political agendas, and doesn't generate free money (aid..), so....
So, you know that for a fact? It must be amazing to live in a country where all graft and bribery is openly and publicly reported so that you can come to such a conclusion.
Where I live, the fact that uber/lyft spent so much on trying to get a message to the public would be seen as interesting as it pretty much proves that they didnt either just bribe the officials, or buy votes (which, it seems, would have almost certainly allowed them to win with such a tiny turnout).
But no, you are worried that they took the legitimate part for democracy instead of the other path? Interesting.
So, what you are saying is that private jobs with any public risk should require recorded fingerprints, and perhaps other personal data also? I can imagine that extends to a goodly percentage of occupations..
I can only assume that right now all people working bus, taxi, aircraft, ferry, etc services in the US are fingerprinted? Also all doctors, nurses, teachers, etc? pretty high risks there. Better throw in all construction workers, and others in situations where equipment drops, etc could kill others. Must come in damn useful when you need to unlock their iphones;) in fact, we better make it mandatory for phone ownership....
I am sure thats just a tip of the iceberg, but think of the children!
Because, as we know, registered taxi drivers have never committed crimes against passengers, and this is not all part of a buggy-whip protectionist racket.
However, on the flip side, can we PLEASE stop calling these minicab services ride-sharing, and convince the rest of the world that minicab is the correct term, as used in the UK? That in itself would address 90% of the issues.
So.. What you are saying is the solution is for everyone to pay a major part of their income as health insurance tax so they don't directly see there large amount they are paying for MRI? Innovative.. But I don't quite see how hiding the cost makes them cheap.. Do you? Thought not.
I bet if people were using an app where everyone could list sources of 'local fresh organic produce! made available in your local area!' so you could walk down the street to get it, it would be being showered in millions in VC.
No, no you dont. They have in effect taken that land, it is now public land, if you think anything else then you are simply misguided. They may not own it in the sense that they could sell it, but they certainly control it and you have lost the right to control use of it (including more than just driving down it). It is no longer *your property*, so yes, they could happily license someone to carry out business there, on their easement.
Of course, and even more misguidedly, that in itself is a very unusual situation, and most certainly does not apply to most public roads. Most peoples section boundaries do not extend to the center of the road, they are in fact quite a distance back from the edge of the road. I am surprised that yours does not, however that is possible, if very very rare. This guy is just trying to claim control of *public* land, lets hope he gets what is coming to him for trying to control something that is not his.
So, I also assume when you purchase such items overseas you declare them to Australian tax authorities, and make sure you pay the required tarrifs, GST, etc on them? You do realise that those need to be paid in most situations, right?
Its a slightly different concern, however it also matters. How much local tax to you think Steam, Google, and Netflix pay on content accessed from the US?
You can, around 10-20mg/kg is the LD50 in most animals, however these will not be pure iodine pills.
Your take iodine to stop the body taking up radioactive iodine, which gets quite nasty due to its activity and retention. If your bodies iodine requirements are met already, the radioactive iodine will pass through you with little effect.
For the general population, iodine supplements are highly beneficial, primarily to the brain development and function. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency
This seems like a low risk, low cost, if somewhat paranoid precaution. Iodine is not exactly a difficult thing to source in bulk if/when needed, but hey, why not.
Actually no, as someone who has actually READ most of this stuff for several decades, there was a sudden and huge shift of both nominees and awards, specifically to 'minority rights' content, over more general interest stories, and to the EXCLUSION of general interest stories.
Should those books exist? Of course! Are they general interest enough to be winning Hugos? Almost certainly not.
Remember, it has never been a lack of other options, there was a very specific stuffing going on, and then a reaction by the general reading public to that. The people were trying to take control of the Hugos then got all prissy that their politically motivated work got blocked by the majority. Boo Hoo, its an award, I'm afraid the true majority IS right in this case.
The only unfortunate thing is that it took so long to notice/correct, and that a number of very worth books did get caught up in the fallout, both before and after.
But the claims of block voting for no award being bad are just laughable - they were a direct relation to an attempt to limit the nominees to a selected PC subset of options, to control the outcome.
As to trying to pull out the 'Right Wing' label for the majority of SciFi fans, that just STINKS of standard SJW label bashing - if they cannot win, they have to destroy. They have exactly zero respect for the actual Authors, SciFi in general, or the general public.
No, it is very different. A (christian) God REQUIRES belief, that is part of the rules - you are required to believe, or be punished. It is by definition not scientific to require belief in something that is by definition untestable (and most religions go a LONG way to make sure they are untestable)
This concept does not require belief in any way. It is also not testable, but it does not, as part of its form, require you to believe in it. So, it is not a testable scientific theory, but it can be allowable as science, and not as a belief system. Except of course for people who claim it is a scientific fact, which of course it is not (unless testable, and even then thats only one step).
So, no, sir, you are mostly wrong. It is perfectly valid to counterpoint it to most religions, as it is conceptually different.
Thats is, of course a stupid question, as you should be able to see from the responses.
Does that mean there is a creator? of course, in the same way you have a creator of a ham sandwich. Does that have any relation to the Creators (notice the capital C there..) that religions like to use as an excuse to control their victims? Why would there be any relation to such a thing?
To my knowledge, no mainstream religion has ever officially floated or supported such an idea, and I suspect most would be violently against it. That pretty much proves that IF it is true, then the entity in control is NOT a representation of their god. If their beliefs really were 'informed', then they would be able to tell us.
Hence, yes by the definition of the english language, it would mean there as a creator, but not a Creator.
I can only assume that you do not realise that all analogue computers are also 'granular'? Or do you think that energy states are not quantised, which is kind of the point of this whole discussion?
(and anyway they also suffer from other issues such as noise and dynamic range problems).
So, it makes connecting power marginally 'easier' if you happen to have a suitable 3 cell holder. And makes IO significantly more difficult? IO is generally the whole point of microcontrollers - he has included a nonstandard Wireless interface, and a couple of temperature sensors, so it appears to have perhaps one purpose, but is kind of overkill for that (an esp8266 would be far easier).
Slashdot Mirror
I counter your 'Tech inclined kids will find coding on their own' with:
(Drum roll please)
Parents should teach their children how to be good members of society, and it is not only not the place
of schools to teach that, but it is explicitly overstepping their role to assume they have the right to teach
children social values. Schools are for teaching facts and how to learn, not to shape hearts and
minds (although they certainly think thats their job these days)..
Or do you think some random teacher is the best person to decide on the social values or your child?
Think about it..
Just wondering.
Cars? I have my doubts, that would probably be the Germans or Italians, depending on preference.
Ships? Sorry, its the Koreans - throw in Phones, TVs, etc, etc while you are at it.
Fashion? Well, you could perhaps argue Jeans, but for all the rest, look to Europe mostly.
Tools? Been the Japanese for a long time.
Heavy machinery? Again sorry, its the Japanese and/or Koreans.
You could probably claim Computer CPUs (but not cellphone..) thanks to Intel (although none of them are actually MADE in the US).
Oh, and most certainly 'Laws to protect Corporations incumbent global profit positions through IP', the US certainly leads there..
Ah, sorry I have it, The US certainly leads in celebrity gossip and media frenzy as an industry!
Oh, and I think you will find pretty much ALL of them are built in China, you have confused 'assembled/packaged' and 'built' if you
think America makes much of anything any more, unfortunately.
Let me know when you can prove that, Nobel have a prize for you ;)
That being the problem with randomness, it is borderline impossible to prove (and if you are unlucky, easier to disprove).
The associated problem in cryptography is trustable randomness ;)
The classic case of that is the RNG embedded in most Intel chips, where Intel refuse to give
specific details, and no one would trust them anyway, so it is not used for anything really secure.
That is not a problem with Intel specifically of course, it is a problem with trusting any 3rd party.
The main issue with a quantum noise based RNG is how do you verify it - just trust the vendor? ;)
No.
What she wants is for Google to, at THEIR cost, provide protection for HER content.
Remember, this is content that, due to copyright extension, will almost certainly NEVER enter the public domain which was originally part of
the social contract that was copyright. The government agreed to provide legal protections for works, in return for those works
entering the public domain after a reasonable time - a balanced agreement. That agreement has been continuously twisted by the copyright
owners, who see it as the job of everyone else to protect their works, and they should keep the money and the works for ever (in effect).
So no, she is just pushing the cart another inch forward, bending the social contract even further, and trying to claim that it is Googles job
to enforce HER copyrights - which it clearly is not.
If she wants her works protected on youtube its easy, employ someone to find content that is in violation, employ lawyers to write up the
required legal papers, and go for it. There is exactly nothing stopping her from doing this.
If she wants Google to do the work for her, then agree to Googles terms to provider her with this service.
What she is trying to do is the same as wanting a radio manufacturer to be legally responsible for checking that the local barbershop
isnt 'performing her works without a commercial license' because they turn that radio on, at the radio makers cost. ie: laughable.
This is just another attempt at copyright extension people, and the public, who are being shafted already (thank you Disney, etal), should be
rather angry at that. NO other industry has had such generous governmental and legal support for so long.
Or perhaps she would rather keep her works for herself, and we just revoke copyright, as she does not want to keep up her side of the contract?
I thought not..
I fly through both quite regularly..
You are absolutely wrong.
Heathrow is a pit.. But it is one hell of a lot better than LAX.. And anyway. You can fly in to cdg and take the tunnel.. And yes. Even the French are better than most American airports.. And that saying something.
The suppliers and consultants working for TSA pay for their campaigns.. You annoy then with letters or emails then vote however you want.
Who so you think they will side with exactly?
Welcome to democracy 2.0
Or, you know, the tiny possibility that he DID do something, but doesn't want to admit to doing something that makes him look a bit silly, and costs him money?
No, couldn't possibly be that, after all, as we know humans are infallible. the fact that Tesla (claim to) have logs showing exactly what did happen
should be ignored, and this guys word counts for far more. After all, I do not know of a person anywhere who would bend the truth to protect
themselves against the fallout of something foolish they did, to the cost of a faceless corporation.
As to liability, it is quite obviously himself as he owned and controlled the car at the time. For it to be the manufacturer then the burden of proof
is on him to show why this car has done something that all the others are not, why their logs are wrong (or they are lying about them), etc, etc.
Yes, it is possibly a fault, but the burden of proof is most definitely correctly with him. It is not up to Tesla to prove there is NOT some rare fault
in play here. They appear to have shows a pretty solid basis for it not being a fault.
Or, do you somehow want to put the blame on an inanimate object?
Would it be fords fault if I parked a truck at the top of a hill, in neutral with the handbrake off, and walked away, and it rolled down and caused an
accident? After all, the car will quite happily let me do that..
Sucks his nice shiny toy got damaged, but unless he can show a pretty solid reason it is not his fault, then, as the person in control of the car
at the time, he is at fault.. (and yes, he is in control, because it is his responsibility to leave the vehicle safe when he departs).
I think the main problem here is that the powers that be, after spending a long long time growing fat and happy with the general addiction
of the masses to mass media entertainment, are starting to get nervous about a slow transformation of that into consumer driven content
and peoples acceptance of the messages there contained, which are not carefully filtered and cleaned by the powers that be.
There is risk here, you see, of alternative points of view.
The focus in this case should of course not be the streaming of this sad event, or finger pointing around that. It should be that a person
was left in the situation where they could not reach out to other people for help, but instead did this. Now that is not something that can
be easily changed - and rules, regulations, etc will not achieve it - there are always a few people that slip through cracks and end up in
such a bad place internally that they will do something this bad - however we are not supposed to accept that. We are supposed to believe that
if we follow the rules, and if we accept being controlled, monitored, then we will be SAFE from such things.
Events like this remind us that that is simply not true. No matter how much control we give up, no matter how many rules we accept, and
no matter how closely we are watched 'for our own good', bad things will and do happen. People make mistakes and are fallible.
Hence, they do NOT want such things to be made public.
It certainly is, if you look at the graph in the article you will easily see that there wasnt a particularly high amount of renewable energy being generated - this price
jump looks far more like someones pricing algorithm glitching than any actual market movement - there is little difference in the previous and subsequent pattern,
and the price certainly did not jump there. I would make an educated guess looking at the graphs that someone had a shutdown delay on a system and that may
have glitched the market a touch, causing a reaction in the algorithmic pricing models.
Yet another case of sensational headlines trying to sell a non-story.
The headline really should read 'German spot-price for energy collapses for no obvious reason, another algorithmic realtime pricing glitch?' or similar.
But you have to bait the clicks somehow apparently, so much for journalistic standards..
Not even that fortunately.
Read the article, the summary is a bald faced lie.
In fact, the total land area of the Solomons is growing relatively quickly, there are a few exceptions, which are
basically old unstable low lying reefs that were washed away in a couple of major tropical cyclones, which is
very normal. They are selectively reporting a very few examples where it is not..
Add to that a couple of islands where, due to human pollution the coral has experience die back (remember, many
of these islands are natural growing coral, when it dies, they erode away..)
Its actually quite impressive that the total land area is growing..
Of course that doesn't suit certain political agendas, and doesn't generate free money (aid..), so....
So, you know that for a fact?
It must be amazing to live in a country where all graft and bribery is openly and publicly reported so that you can come to such a conclusion.
Where I live, the fact that uber/lyft spent so much on trying to get a message to the public would be seen as interesting as it pretty much proves
that they didnt either just bribe the officials, or buy votes (which, it seems, would have almost certainly allowed them to win with such a
tiny turnout).
But no, you are worried that they took the legitimate part for democracy instead of the other path? Interesting.
So, what you are saying is that private jobs with any public risk should require recorded fingerprints, and perhaps other personal data also?
I can imagine that extends to a goodly percentage of occupations..
I can only assume that right now all people working bus, taxi, aircraft, ferry, etc services in the US are fingerprinted? ;) in fact, we better make it mandatory
Also all doctors, nurses, teachers, etc? pretty high risks there.
Better throw in all construction workers, and others in situations where equipment drops, etc could kill others.
Must come in damn useful when you need to unlock their iphones
for phone ownership....
I am sure thats just a tip of the iceberg, but think of the children!
Because, as we know, registered taxi drivers have never committed crimes against passengers, and this is not all part
of a buggy-whip protectionist racket.
However, on the flip side, can we PLEASE stop calling these minicab services ride-sharing, and convince the rest of the
world that minicab is the correct term, as used in the UK? That in itself would address 90% of the issues.
So.. What you are saying is the solution is for everyone to pay a major part of their income as health insurance tax so they don't directly see there large amount they are paying for MRI?
Innovative.. But I don't quite see how hiding the cost makes them cheap.. Do you?
Thought not.
So, you are convinced that yours is the lesser of two evils? Are you sure?
There appears to be a choice between someone who is conniving and self serving, and someone who is nasty and under handed.
Can you tell which is which?
Will be interesting to watch from a distance, but is there enough distance? hmmm..
This.
I bet if people were using an app where everyone could list sources of 'local fresh organic produce! made available in your local area!'
so you could walk down the street to get it, it would be being showered in millions in VC.
Sigh.
No, no you dont.
They have in effect taken that land, it is now public land, if you think anything else then you are simply misguided.
They may not own it in the sense that they could sell it, but they certainly control it and you have lost the right to
control use of it (including more than just driving down it).
It is no longer *your property*, so yes, they could happily license someone to carry out business there, on their
easement.
Of course, and even more misguidedly, that in itself is a very unusual situation, and most certainly does not apply to most
public roads. Most peoples section boundaries do not extend to the center of the road, they are in fact quite a distance
back from the edge of the road. I am surprised that yours does not, however that is possible, if very very rare.
This guy is just trying to claim control of *public* land, lets hope he gets what is coming to him for trying to control something
that is not his.
No, I would prefer to BE the drive of that device ;)
Great.
So, I also assume when you purchase such items overseas you declare them to Australian tax authorities, and make sure you pay the required tarrifs, GST, etc on them?
You do realise that those need to be paid in most situations, right?
Its a slightly different concern, however it also matters.
How much local tax to you think Steam, Google, and Netflix pay on content accessed from the US?
You can, around 10-20mg/kg is the LD50 in most animals, however these will not be pure iodine pills.
Your take iodine to stop the body taking up radioactive iodine, which gets quite nasty due to its activity and retention.
If your bodies iodine requirements are met already, the radioactive iodine will pass through you with little effect.
For the general population, iodine supplements are highly beneficial, primarily to the brain development and function.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency
This seems like a low risk, low cost, if somewhat paranoid precaution.
Iodine is not exactly a difficult thing to source in bulk if/when needed, but hey, why not.
You havn't studied much history have you..
Or perhaps you think the Chinese cultural revolution and Stalinist Russia were right wing?
The reason you are dead wrong of course is the neither left not right is the enemy. Totalitarianism is.. And that can be either..
And the world is rushing to become more totalitarian year by year at present.. In the name of making us safe from ourselves.
The opposite of totalitarian is freedom.. Just remember that.
Actually no, as someone who has actually READ most of this stuff for several decades, there was a sudden and huge shift of both nominees and awards, specifically to 'minority rights' content, over more general interest stories, and to the EXCLUSION of general interest stories.
Should those books exist? Of course!
Are they general interest enough to be winning Hugos? Almost certainly not.
Remember, it has never been a lack of other options, there was a very specific stuffing going on, and then a reaction by the general reading public to that.
The people were trying to take control of the Hugos then got all prissy that their politically motivated work got blocked by the majority.
Boo Hoo, its an award, I'm afraid the true majority IS right in this case.
The only unfortunate thing is that it took so long to notice/correct, and that a number of very worth books did get caught up in the fallout, both before and
after.
But the claims of block voting for no award being bad are just laughable - they were a direct relation to an attempt to limit the nominees to a selected PC subset of options, to control the outcome.
As to trying to pull out the 'Right Wing' label for the majority of SciFi fans, that just STINKS of standard SJW label bashing - if they cannot win, they have to destroy. They have exactly zero respect for the actual Authors, SciFi in general, or the general public.
No, it is very different.
A (christian) God REQUIRES belief, that is part of the rules - you are required to believe, or be punished. It is by definition not scientific to require
belief in something that is by definition untestable (and most religions go a LONG way to make sure they are untestable)
This concept does not require belief in any way. It is also not testable, but it does not, as part of its form, require you to believe in it.
So, it is not a testable scientific theory, but it can be allowable as science, and not as a belief system.
Except of course for people who claim it is a scientific fact, which of course it is not (unless testable, and even then thats only one step).
So, no, sir, you are mostly wrong. It is perfectly valid to counterpoint it to most religions, as it is conceptually different.
Thats is, of course a stupid question, as you should be able to see from the responses.
Does that mean there is a creator? of course, in the same way you have a creator of a ham sandwich.
Does that have any relation to the Creators (notice the capital C there..) that religions like to use as an
excuse to control their victims? Why would there be any relation to such a thing?
To my knowledge, no mainstream religion has ever officially floated or supported such an idea, and I suspect
most would be violently against it. That pretty much proves that IF it is true, then the entity in control is
NOT a representation of their god. If their beliefs really were 'informed', then they would be able to tell us.
Hence, yes by the definition of the english language, it would mean there as a creator, but not a Creator.
I can only assume that you do not realise that all analogue computers are also 'granular'?
Or do you think that energy states are not quantised, which is kind of the point of this whole discussion?
(and anyway they also suffer from other issues such as noise and dynamic range problems).
No? Try again.
So, it makes connecting power marginally 'easier' if you happen to have a suitable 3 cell holder.
And makes IO significantly more difficult?
IO is generally the whole point of microcontrollers - he has included a nonstandard Wireless interface, and a couple of temperature
sensors, so it appears to have perhaps one purpose, but is kind of overkill for that (an esp8266 would be far easier).
Progress!