Spinoza's views, while derived from Judeo-Christian theology, don't really fit in with traditional religious views. One of his core ideas is that if God is perfect, he can't have any unfinished objectives. So God doesn't have desires, plans or intentions. Spinoza says that God cannot be described in anthropomorphic terms. So God, as Spinoza described him, does not do anything. He simply is everything.
It's also worth noting that Einstein's beliefs weren't exactly like those of Spinoza's. Einstein just said that his conception of God was similar to Spinoza's.
While Einstein certainly helped to establish quantum mechanics, he did not like the Copenhagen interpretation because he could not bring himself to accept a non-deterministic universe.
It's rather interesting that after his work on relativity some people asked him about his religious beliefs to which he replied that they did not matter, but ultimately they did matter. Einstein later said that his religious beliefs were losely based on those of Spinoza. Basically Spinoza said that the universe is itself a part of God (this is an oversimplification though). To Einstein, if the universe is non-deterministic, then God must be capricious and random, which is something that Einstein could not accept.
Einstein believed that the probabilities that arise in quantum mechanics must result from incomplete knowledge of underlying hidden variables. However, Bell's work showed that there are some problems with hidden variable theories.
You missed the part where I said it can't be pluralized as viri since it's neuter and neuter nouns always have plurals in -a.
Anyway, even if viri were the correct case, ambiguity with vir wouldn't matter since the Romans never let ambiguity bother them in the first place. For example, some forms of the verb edo (to eat) are the same as those for the verbe sum (to be).
Nullify only positive moderations? Edit only posts that haven't been modified or replied to? There should be some way to work out a fair post editing system somewhere among these possibilities.
My best guess is that the plural of virus would be virus since this follows the pattern of other second declension neuter nouns with gender confusion issues.
Oops, typo. What I meant to say is that the plural of virus would probably be vira.
Would post editing really be that bad of a thing? It could work if all moderations were nullified and you were allowed to see earlier revisions of the post.
I'm not so sure about virii originating on warez sites. I remember having a middle school science text book that claimed that virii was the plural of virus and this would have been around the early 90s.
It seems like most of the things taught in middle school are either partially or completely wrong.
Except that there is no basis for virii being the plural of virus in Latin whatsoever. The plural of murus (wall) is muri. The plural of filius (son) is filii. Apparently someone thought virus should have a plural ending in -ii because they saw the plural of filius and other second declension nouns ending in -ius and thought that all nouns ending in -us ended in -ii.
The confusion doesn't end there though. There is no example of the word virus being pluralized in any classical works. This wouldn't be a problem except that virus is an irregular noun. It's a neuter noun that is declined like a masculine second declension noun (except the accusative case which is also virus). In Latin (and Greek as well) neuter nouns have plurals that end in -a. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. This is one of the most reliable rules in Latin (and in Latin most rules have very few exceptions in the first place). As such viri can't be the plural of virus either.
Then there are some people who upon hearing that virus is neuter mistake it for a third declension neuter noun and say that the plural of virus should be virora just as the plural of corpus is corpora. However, this cannot be the case since virus is known to have the genitive singular form viri and if it were a third declension noun it would have the form viroris.
Then there are other people who say that virus is a fourth declension noun but this doesn't make much sense since the genitive form doesn't match what would be expected for a fourth declension noun and as for as I know all fourth declension neuter nouns end in -u and not -us.
My best guess is that the plural of virus would be virus since this follows the pattern of other second declension neuter nouns with gender confusion issues. However, it's probably best to avoid all of this confusion and just pluralize it as viruses.
I'm afraid of how waffle irons might be used to invade my privacy.
This technology is only useful for networking large numbers of simple devices.
From the IEEE 802.15.4 page
The IEEE 802.15 TG4 is chartered to investigate a low data rate solution with multi-month to multi-year battery life and very low complexity. It is intended to operate in an unlicensed, international frequency band. Potential applications are sensors, interactive toys, smart badges, remote controls, and home automation.
Low data rate and low complexity mean that this is most likely a poor choice for bugs or other surveillance devices. The only potential application for it of any possible relation to privacy issues is smart badges, but this doesn't sound like it will provide much that RFID smart badges wouldn't be able to provide.
Typically, each Link has been in two games. The Link from the original Zelda was the same as the one in The Adventure of Link. The Link from A Link to the Past was also in Link's Awakening. I'm not quite sure where Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons fit in though.
PayPal... PayCrud. Wow that's clever. You know when most people make up mocking names for businesses or products, they replace one word in the name with another word that rhymes or in some way resembles the original word. But I find your approach very interesting. Simply replace one word in the name with another word that has nothing to do whatsoever with the orignal word. This opens up a whole new world of mockery.
Microsoft? More like Micromonkey. George W. Bush? More like Smelly W. Bush.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Stallman is past his prime. He has made tremendous contributions in the past, but it is clear that he has been doing relatively little in recent years. He's basically got a free ride based on his past achievements.
No one can take his accomplishments away from him, but let's be perfectly honest: these days MIT doesn't have that much to lose if they let RMS walk. He doesn't teach any classes. He doesn't publish any papers. He does bring some prestige to MIT, but MIT has plenty of that already. If he left there would be a bit of a fuss in the press, but MIT wouldn't suffer any great permanent loss.
One could adapt this program to work through Papa John's web order system. I'm surprised no one at Georgia Tech has done such a thing (the Papa John's at Georgia Tech is immensely popular and delivers orders in less than 15 minutes).
However they do not make exact copies of themselves (i.e. when a cell divides you won't get two cells with cell walls of precisely the same size and shape). Cells also have very specific metabolic processes and so it is reasonable to expect any nanobot to only be able to work with a small set of molecules.
Slashdot Mirror
You still have to pay for a copy of Windows that way.
You must be truly naive if you think that will stop anyone.
Spinoza's views, while derived from Judeo-Christian theology, don't really fit in with traditional religious views. One of his core ideas is that if God is perfect, he can't have any unfinished objectives. So God doesn't have desires, plans or intentions. Spinoza says that God cannot be described in anthropomorphic terms. So God, as Spinoza described him, does not do anything. He simply is everything.
It's also worth noting that Einstein's beliefs weren't exactly like those of Spinoza's. Einstein just said that his conception of God was similar to Spinoza's.
While Einstein certainly helped to establish quantum mechanics, he did not like the Copenhagen interpretation because he could not bring himself to accept a non-deterministic universe.
It's rather interesting that after his work on relativity some people asked him about his religious beliefs to which he replied that they did not matter, but ultimately they did matter. Einstein later said that his religious beliefs were losely based on those of Spinoza. Basically Spinoza said that the universe is itself a part of God (this is an oversimplification though). To Einstein, if the universe is non-deterministic, then God must be capricious and random, which is something that Einstein could not accept.
Einstein believed that the probabilities that arise in quantum mechanics must result from incomplete knowledge of underlying hidden variables. However, Bell's work showed that there are some problems with hidden variable theories.
You missed the part where I said it can't be pluralized as viri since it's neuter and neuter nouns always have plurals in -a.
Anyway, even if viri were the correct case, ambiguity with vir wouldn't matter since the Romans never let ambiguity bother them in the first place. For example, some forms of the verb edo (to eat) are the same as those for the verbe sum (to be).
I was really bored during class in high school. I'm currently studying discrete math.
It's actually a lot simpler than it sounds. To learn Latin you mostly just have to memorize a bunch of lists.
Nullify only positive moderations? Edit only posts that haven't been modified or replied to? There should be some way to work out a fair post editing system somewhere among these possibilities.
Oops, typo. What I meant to say is that the plural of virus would probably be vira.
Would post editing really be that bad of a thing? It could work if all moderations were nullified and you were allowed to see earlier revisions of the post.
I'm not so sure about virii originating on warez sites. I remember having a middle school science text book that claimed that virii was the plural of virus and this would have been around the early 90s.
It seems like most of the things taught in middle school are either partially or completely wrong.
Except that there is no basis for virii being the plural of virus in Latin whatsoever. The plural of murus (wall) is muri. The plural of filius (son) is filii. Apparently someone thought virus should have a plural ending in -ii because they saw the plural of filius and other second declension nouns ending in -ius and thought that all nouns ending in -us ended in -ii.
The confusion doesn't end there though. There is no example of the word virus being pluralized in any classical works. This wouldn't be a problem except that virus is an irregular noun. It's a neuter noun that is declined like a masculine second declension noun (except the accusative case which is also virus). In Latin (and Greek as well) neuter nouns have plurals that end in -a. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. This is one of the most reliable rules in Latin (and in Latin most rules have very few exceptions in the first place). As such viri can't be the plural of virus either.
Then there are some people who upon hearing that virus is neuter mistake it for a third declension neuter noun and say that the plural of virus should be virora just as the plural of corpus is corpora. However, this cannot be the case since virus is known to have the genitive singular form viri and if it were a third declension noun it would have the form viroris.
Then there are other people who say that virus is a fourth declension noun but this doesn't make much sense since the genitive form doesn't match what would be expected for a fourth declension noun and as for as I know all fourth declension neuter nouns end in -u and not -us.
My best guess is that the plural of virus would be virus since this follows the pattern of other second declension neuter nouns with gender confusion issues. However, it's probably best to avoid all of this confusion and just pluralize it as viruses.
And now you know. And knowing is half the battle.
What about www.homestarrunner.com?
This technology is only useful for networking large numbers of simple devices.
From the IEEE 802.15.4 page
Low data rate and low complexity mean that this is most likely a poor choice for bugs or other surveillance devices. The only potential application for it of any possible relation to privacy issues is smart badges, but this doesn't sound like it will provide much that RFID smart badges wouldn't be able to provide.
Typically, each Link has been in two games. The Link from the original Zelda was the same as the one in The Adventure of Link. The Link from A Link to the Past was also in Link's Awakening. I'm not quite sure where Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons fit in though.
I still think this is worse.
PayPal... PayCrud. Wow that's clever. You know when most people make up mocking names for businesses or products, they replace one word in the name with another word that rhymes or in some way resembles the original word. But I find your approach very interesting. Simply replace one word in the name with another word that has nothing to do whatsoever with the orignal word. This opens up a whole new world of mockery.
Microsoft? More like Micromonkey.
George W. Bush? More like Smelly W. Bush.
The possibilities are endless!
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Stallman is past his prime. He has made tremendous contributions in the past, but it is clear that he has been doing relatively little in recent years. He's basically got a free ride based on his past achievements.
No one can take his accomplishments away from him, but let's be perfectly honest: these days MIT doesn't have that much to lose if they let RMS walk. He doesn't teach any classes. He doesn't publish any papers. He does bring some prestige to MIT, but MIT has plenty of that already. If he left there would be a bit of a fuss in the press, but MIT wouldn't suffer any great permanent loss.
Hey a cheap flight's a cheap flight, regardless of how many Pokémon fans are on board.
Or you could build one to get your whiny friend tostop whining.
One could adapt this program to work through Papa John's web order system. I'm surprised no one at Georgia Tech has done such a thing (the Papa John's at Georgia Tech is immensely popular and delivers orders in less than 15 minutes).
How about a contest to find the best method of begging congress for money? It pays for itself!
However they do not make exact copies of themselves (i.e. when a cell divides you won't get two cells with cell walls of precisely the same size and shape). Cells also have very specific metabolic processes and so it is reasonable to expect any nanobot to only be able to work with a small set of molecules.
Well personally, I can't quite explain why, but I don't think that Cowboy Bebop lived up to its soundtrack. It just didn't work for me.
I didn't know that. I may have to look for it just for that. I remember not too long ago seeing a store with several boxes of Perfect Dark.
There is nothing more important than being cool, not even success in business. AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT.
They may weasel out by saying that you agreed to accept spam from their partners by accepting the terms of service.