Patents require not only an idea, but an implementation. It used to be that you had to actually give them a piece of machinery, but more recently you submit a detailed account of the hardware that you actually built.
So presumably, this company actually built a piece of hardware with a 4 Mhz step.
There are many colleges and businesses who are interested in knowing if you can write a boring, non-eccentric essay. A computerized test for this is exactly what they want.
The main problem with this is that if you give things enough energy, you can overcome gravity forever. The gravity decreases with the square of the distance.
As a quick example, remember your infinite sums:
1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+..... (suppose the above infinite sum is the total gravity applied over eternity)
vs
3 (suppose this is the initial energy imparted to some mass)
Which wins, the finite value, 3, or the infinite sum?
(The infinite sum == 2 if you don't have a mathbook handy).
Re:In the land of empty tanks
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1
Please run down the bikers you see doing this, they're giving the rest of us a bad name.
The US is permitted to borrow so much because they continue to be able to pay out the interest.
The US will be continued to allow to borrow so long as people believe that the government can repay those loans in the long term. During the Clinton administration, there was hope that we might actually pay down the debt in 15-20 years.
If the debt reaches a level where the US cannot make an interest payment, there will be serious repercussions in the world economy. A depression worse than any previous is a likely outcome of that situation. Hopefully we'll be smart enough to raise taxes and cut spending before that happens.
The point I'm making is that perhaps at some point the argument becomes sufficiently convincing that it no longer matters.
IE if you are utterly convinced that the being in question can do anything, for sufficiently great values of anything, maybe that is no different from god.
Example:
Suppose you met a being who could take you outside of our universe, show you the large collection of neat universes he has made, and demonstrate the heaven he created for our particular universe. If you've reached that level of potence, does the difference between that level of potence and omnipotence matter for the purposes of acceptance that the being in question is the god to which some human religion might refer?
I understand that the proof is impossible. The question is at what point does reasonable doubt expire?
Well, surely you can agree that in the worst case you have many people with obvious problems (difficulty speaking, tics, poor grooming habits, eye contact issues, inappropriate affect issues) making difficult to credit claims about UFOs.
The best case is more a matter of opinion. I've never seen a report by anyone I find remotely credible about UFOs. Apparently, if you're not trolling, you have. But then, based on the way you responded to my post, I have to assume you're either trolling, or simply too easily convinced.
On the other hand, one can also see the ease with which islam transcends those same boundaries, and has in fact attracted far more followers. So perhaps they have the one true religion.
Just because god knows (omniscience) how he did something (perhaps via omnipotence) doesn't mean its possible to explain it to your mushy earthling brain.
I mean... if the only explanation god could give that would have meaning to you was: I'm omnipotent, I can cause anything to happen. Where would you be in the argument then?
Alternatively, if you accept omnipotence as an acceptable answer, and acknowledge that this being is omniscient and omnipotent, then perhaps he has met the requirement of being god, I mean really, what more do you have to be than omniscient and omnipotent to be god?
On the contrary, I think that most people can easily see that a good moral man can also be schizophrenic with ideations. I have actually met good moral people who thought they were the son of god (or even were god).
Slashdot Mirror
Patents require not only an idea, but an implementation. It used to be that you had to actually give them a piece of machinery, but more recently you submit a detailed account of the hardware that you actually built.
So presumably, this company actually built a piece of hardware with a 4 Mhz step.
java.lang.Math.random() is painfully ununiform, at least in 1.4 it is biased all sorts of interesting ways.
If Neo had only taken both pills, the overdose might have spared us the sequels.
Yes, our (corporate america's) goal is to churn out as many identical producer/consumer drones as possible.
There are many colleges and businesses who are interested in knowing if you can write a boring, non-eccentric essay. A computerized test for this is exactly what they want.
Better specify a gaussian random generator. Otherwise you'll get a uniform distribution (unless you use java).
It's not actually multiple Indians. It's just one guy. He answers all the phone calls. That's why the wait times are sometimes really long.
Trust me, he's working hard for his $0.90/hour.
I don't know about the original ideas issue. Just input the set of all previously expressed ideas, and compare against the list.
The main problem with this is that if you give things enough energy, you can overcome gravity forever. The gravity decreases with the square of the distance.
As a quick example, remember your infinite sums:
1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+.....
(suppose the above infinite sum is the total gravity applied over eternity)
vs
3
(suppose this is the initial energy imparted to some mass)
Which wins, the finite value, 3, or the infinite sum?
(The infinite sum == 2 if you don't have a mathbook handy).
Please run down the bikers you see doing this, they're giving the rest of us a bad name.
Java is slow is less of an assumption, and more of an experience.
Swing renders slowly.
[] is slow too, and non-trivial apps don't see much benefit from the hoisting JIT changes.
Loading the VM is a huge overhead for small applications.
The US is permitted to borrow so much because they continue to be able to pay out the interest.
The US will be continued to allow to borrow so long as people believe that the government can repay those loans in the long term. During the Clinton administration, there was hope that we might actually pay down the debt in 15-20 years.
If the debt reaches a level where the US cannot make an interest payment, there will be serious repercussions in the world economy. A depression worse than any previous is a likely outcome of that situation. Hopefully we'll be smart enough to raise taxes and cut spending before that happens.
The point I'm making is that perhaps at some point the argument becomes sufficiently convincing that it no longer matters.
IE if you are utterly convinced that the being in question can do anything, for sufficiently great values of anything, maybe that is no different from god.
Example:
Suppose you met a being who could take you outside of our universe, show you the large collection of neat universes he has made, and demonstrate the heaven he created for our particular universe. If you've reached that level of potence, does the difference between that level of potence and omnipotence matter for the purposes of acceptance that the being in question is the god to which some human religion might refer?
I understand that the proof is impossible. The question is at what point does reasonable doubt expire?
I'm only claiming that the 10 commandments are entirely relevant to a young child's life, contrary to the parent of my post.
If your parents taught you basically the same things, then apparently they thought they were relevant to your life also.
Personally I have no interest in what religion anyone belongs to. I just have fun arguing the facts.
Well, surely you can agree that in the worst case you have many people with obvious problems (difficulty speaking, tics, poor grooming habits, eye contact issues, inappropriate affect issues) making difficult to credit claims about UFOs.
The best case is more a matter of opinion. I've never seen a report by anyone I find remotely credible about UFOs. Apparently, if you're not trolling, you have. But then, based on the way you responded to my post, I have to assume you're either trolling, or simply too easily convinced.
The problem is that everything you're claiming (flying hundreds of miles per hour, coming to a complete stop, etc etc) is based on:
at best: firsthand accounts from people who seem to be insane.
at worst: second or thirdhand accounts from people who also seem to be insane.
Note that when I say insane, I mean in ways other than the claim that they observed these events.
On the other hand, one can also see the ease with which islam transcends those same boundaries, and has in fact attracted far more followers. So perhaps they have the one true religion.
Just because god knows (omniscience) how he did something (perhaps via omnipotence) doesn't mean its possible to explain it to your mushy earthling brain.
... if the only explanation god could give that would have meaning to you was: I'm omnipotent, I can cause anything to happen. Where would you be in the argument then?
I mean
Alternatively, if you accept omnipotence as an acceptable answer, and acknowledge that this being is omniscient and omnipotent, then perhaps he has met the requirement of being god, I mean really, what more do you have to be than omniscient and omnipotent to be god?
Taking a sampling of the ten commandments and their common gradeschool violations:
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
Well, we had a widespread problem with people believing in other gods in my schools.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Yep, lots of swearing too.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
Lots of people worked through the whole weekend. Many didn't even go to church!
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
Lots of disobedient brats.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
If only they had this posted all over columbine!
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Well, admittedly, not many married kids in grade school, this one could be safely omitted.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
A widespread problem. Lots of shoplifting.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Kids lied about what each other had done all the time to get other kids in trouble.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
By 5th or 6th grade discussion of who's mom was hot was widespread.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
Everyone is jealous of the kids with the cool sneakers. Sometimes that has even lead to violation of #5.
The general argument would be that a complete faith in jesus would make the action you are suggesting impossible.
On the other hand, if you came to jesus after such an act, then yes you could have true repentence and reach heaven.
On the contrary, I think that most people can easily see that a good moral man can also be schizophrenic with ideations. I have actually met good moral people who thought they were the son of god (or even were god).
Yea, and the righteous shall be called whacked out of their gord, and the wicked and the secular glorified before the final days (Revelations 12:38)
If only a reasonable fraction of modern christian's could come to the conclusion that it was fine if you don't believe in him.
Have you tried the vegetarian M&M's? They're really pretty good. There's a little bit of a wierd after taste to me, but I'm starting to like it.
It is a real religion. They have a set of beliefs, and people who believe them.