No, they aren't important issues, they are tools to lead Americans down a wayward path so they will vote for someone who is not aligned with their true interests.
You're right, Ron Paul's ideas aren't any crazier than rewriting the constitution to match God's plan (Which won't happen, this time), doubling Guantanimo (which probably won't happen), and stying in Iraq for 100 years (which seems likely to happen, or at least a good portion of it), but they are certainly equally as crazy, and equally as disqualifying. Plus he published racist screeds in his news letters for years, but hey, it's the GOP.
You and Cletus are about on the same thought level. That being said, his path is more intellectually challenging, has better highlights, and will likely lead him to care about something more than maximizing his fun function.
I understand the teleport, but he was putting my guys on the rack, sticking them with hot pokers etc. He did not get the information he was looking for (which was hardly in dispute since I didn't spoof IP addresses). I had great fun pretending that the characters didn't even know each other all the same. Maybe this was just his way of roleplaying a "we will ban you" warning, but I think he was just sadistic. He did ban me after about an hour of interrogation.
I once wrote a gold farming bot for a MUD and had it auto-give the gold to my main character while I wasn't playing. As I was debugging the bot, I got caught by a Wizard. He teleported both my characters to some dungeon and proceeded to torture them in order to get them to admit they were both ran by the same person. I never understood what kind of deluded person would think torturing a MUD character would get him anywhere.
Alton Brown knows his food chemistry and physics, but he's always making an ass of himself whenever he's live, periodically throwing out some off color remark or other. The Iron Chef heritage demands a little more class than Alton Brown can bring to it.
Read past my second statement I didn't just dismiss Einstein, I give my reasons for thinking his quote wasn't well thought out or well informed. I'm also personally tired of people taking it as given that, just because Einstein was the greatest genius ever known, he never said anything stupid (or they are fully aware of what he meant or the context in which he said them).
An apple is independent of my idea of an apple, and there's undoubtedly an objective definition that would distinguish one apple from another and the rest of the universe without assuming the concept of "apple", but if you like you can look for two objects that aren't aggregates.
Einstein said a lot of things that were stupid. Mathematics is not independent from experience, it began as a way of abstracting from experience, then people started applying logic to the abstractions.
Mathematics is just deduction from assumptions. Mathematical structures and proofs are logical. Does math conform to the universe? Well, no, not all the time! A mathematical construct only tells us anything about the universe if it's assumptions bare some relation to the universe. So what are we really saying when we remark how closely we can use math to describe the universe? We're just saying that the universe, in a close approximation, is logically consistent, that there are definable rules that seem to work almost all the time.
But is the universe really mathematical, or is math merely a pretty good method for looking at it? This gets to another stupid Einstein quote: "God does not play dice." (Einstein was smart and he laughed later at the stupid stuff he said)
Apparently, God plays dice. What does this mean for Math? When a waveform collapses there is no logical way to determine how it's going to collapse, or to explain after the fact why it collapsed that way. So for every event in the universe we have a nearly perfect mathematical theory about its probability, but no theory and no prospect of a theory about why or how that particular event happened the way it did.
Your example doesn't even touch the zero construct,
Zero is just another label. The ancients knew what 1 - 1 was, even if they didn't have a number for it. Part of the reason 0 has become popular is that it didn't break the old truth that 1 - 1 is nothing, it just made writing it down easier and led to more rigorous and expansive thinking.
they asked themselves "How can nothing be something?" This is just the Greeks conflating the idea for the thing (or in this case, the lack of a thing), a problem they seemed to have had a lot. I don't blame them. Back then, a person might master a fair fraction of society's knowledge in his lifetime, and those that did must have seemed to themselves like intellectual gods.
She's also a devout Southern Baptist. So much for stereotypes, huh?
My brother had a devout evangelical teach his biology class in High School. On the week they were supposed to talk evolution, he showed "Cliffhanger" with Sylvester Stallone instead.
You are confusing the arbitrariness of symbols with faith.
You can actually prove 1 + 1 = 2 empirically. All you have to do is look at two things and see that they are one thing and another thing.
This works for a particular concept of 1, +, =, and 2. Of course some there are other ways of thinking about those symbols that can make the statement unprovable or even false!
I always thought we could prove it by doing something to get the attention of the simulation operator by creating something the he/she/it thought was outside the scope of the simulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there any one else from the universe where rear view mirrors don't have a night position and Jack Palance died in the '90s?
If they are replicators, there's no reason not to have one of each sex.
Its fascist/imperialist name and its feudal power structure (essentially everyone is a political appointee) don't help either.
That's my understanding of orbital mechanics, that lower energy orbits are faster.
Only the true messiah would deny his divinity.
I wonder how they feel about lobbying by conservative 'pro-family' groups?
Or every other business sector that has felt the weight of legislative attention.
Just wait until real flies evolve to live off of broadcast power.
No, they aren't important issues, they are tools to lead Americans down a wayward path so they will vote for someone who is not aligned with their true interests.
You're right, Ron Paul's ideas aren't any crazier than rewriting the constitution to match God's plan (Which won't happen, this time), doubling Guantanimo (which probably won't happen), and stying in Iraq for 100 years (which seems likely to happen, or at least a good portion of it), but they are certainly equally as crazy, and equally as disqualifying. Plus he published racist screeds in his news letters for years, but hey, it's the GOP.
You and Cletus are about on the same thought level. That being said, his path is more intellectually challenging, has better highlights, and will likely lead him to care about something more than maximizing his fun function.
If you come from a traditional Asian family, then yes.
But then you'll have the border of the screen sloshing in out of view.
Thanks for the information. I'd been musing just yesterday on what chilling events led to the first utterance of this phrase.
I understand the teleport, but he was putting my guys on the rack, sticking them with hot pokers etc. He did not get the information he was looking for (which was hardly in dispute since I didn't spoof IP addresses). I had great fun pretending that the characters didn't even know each other all the same. Maybe this was just his way of roleplaying a "we will ban you" warning, but I think he was just sadistic. He did ban me after about an hour of interrogation.
I once wrote a gold farming bot for a MUD and had it auto-give the gold to my main character while I wasn't playing. As I was debugging the bot, I got caught by a Wizard. He teleported both my characters to some dungeon and proceeded to torture them in order to get them to admit they were both ran by the same person. I never understood what kind of deluded person would think torturing a MUD character would get him anywhere.
Great idea, then we can collect precious Phlogiston as it is burned out of the cloud.
What do you mean? Torture is already legal.
Alton Brown knows his food chemistry and physics, but he's always making an ass of himself whenever he's live, periodically throwing out some off color remark or other. The Iron Chef heritage demands a little more class than Alton Brown can bring to it.
...too bad it wants to erase all life.
Read past my second statement I didn't just dismiss Einstein, I give my reasons for thinking his quote wasn't well thought out or well informed. I'm also personally tired of people taking it as given that, just because Einstein was the greatest genius ever known, he never said anything stupid (or they are fully aware of what he meant or the context in which he said them).
An apple is independent of my idea of an apple, and there's undoubtedly an objective definition that would distinguish one apple from another and the rest of the universe without assuming the concept of "apple", but if you like you can look for two objects that aren't aggregates.
Einstein said a lot of things that were stupid. Mathematics is not independent from experience, it began as a way of abstracting from experience, then people started applying logic to the abstractions.
Mathematics is just deduction from assumptions. Mathematical structures and proofs are logical. Does math conform to the universe? Well, no, not all the time! A mathematical construct only tells us anything about the universe if it's assumptions bare some relation to the universe. So what are we really saying when we remark how closely we can use math to describe the universe? We're just saying that the universe, in a close approximation, is logically consistent, that there are definable rules that seem to work almost all the time.
But is the universe really mathematical, or is math merely a pretty good method for looking at it? This gets to another stupid Einstein quote: "God does not play dice." (Einstein was smart and he laughed later at the stupid stuff he said)
Apparently, God plays dice. What does this mean for Math? When a waveform collapses there is no logical way to determine how it's going to collapse, or to explain after the fact why it collapsed that way. So for every event in the universe we have a nearly perfect mathematical theory about its probability, but no theory and no prospect of a theory about why or how that particular event happened the way it did.
Your example doesn't even touch the zero construct,
Zero is just another label. The ancients knew what 1 - 1 was, even if they didn't have a number for it. Part of the reason 0 has become popular is that it didn't break the old truth that 1 - 1 is nothing, it just made writing it down easier and led to more rigorous and expansive thinking.
they asked themselves "How can nothing be something?" This is just the Greeks conflating the idea for the thing (or in this case, the lack of a thing), a problem they seemed to have had a lot. I don't blame them. Back then, a person might master a fair fraction of society's knowledge in his lifetime, and those that did must have seemed to themselves like intellectual gods.
She's also a devout Southern Baptist. So much for stereotypes, huh?
My brother had a devout evangelical teach his biology class in High School. On the week they were supposed to talk evolution, he showed "Cliffhanger" with Sylvester Stallone instead.
You are confusing the arbitrariness of symbols with faith.
You can actually prove 1 + 1 = 2 empirically. All you have to do is look at two things and see that they are one thing and another thing.
This works for a particular concept of 1, +, =, and 2. Of course some there are other ways of thinking about those symbols that can make the statement unprovable or even false!
Every kg they can take off the plane cuts into fuel costs and makes the plane more pleasing to customers.
I always thought we could prove it by doing something to get the attention of the simulation operator by creating something the he/she/it thought was outside the scope of the simulation.