If you're going based off rate of infection then those from Florida, New York, and Louisiana should not be allowed to donate either since they're more than twice as likely as someone from Virginia and more than 18 times more likely than someone from Vermont.
Shouldn't you specify a baseline infection rate if you're going to throw around "twice as likely" and "18 times more likely"?
There's a difference between a base rate of 0.0001% going up to 0.0018%, and 1% going up to 18%.
Remember back in the day when we all thought we'd be driving flying cars in the future? Well that clearly didn't happen, though it still might in the future.
Wow. What a long-winded way of saying nothing of any meaning. There will always be a period during which it "clearly didn't happen" and we just happen to still be in that period.
Luckily I have a copy of 7.1a for x64 linux. Because this is a great opportunity to release a trojan horse version of Truecrypt and many people would be affected
Was Turing Test Legitimately Beaten, Or Just Cleverly Tricked?
Neither.
a) It wasn't a Turing Test. b) It may have been legitimately beaten by the rules of this test, but were the rules remotely legitimate as far as rating AI is concerned? Most Turing-type tests set the bar at a 50% fool-rate (and that's versus a human). This bot got 30%. c) It was about as clever as sending over random keystrokes to pass the Turing-Cat-On-My-Keyboard Test.
I made the conscious decision to reject Darwinian evolution in favor of what is now called intelligent design.
Scientists don't - or ideally shouldn't - make conscious decisions to reject things. They do so when the scientific method leads them to do so, because it's the valid thing to do in face of the evidence.
Do they really believe that a rotary nanomotor that spins an axle at a thousand or so rpm and can stop in only a revolution—all at an efficiency approaching 100 percent—somehow randomly arose from a cluster of molecules hanging out in a protocell?
Yes.
Do they really believe these motors can walk, slide and rotate while performing many functions absolutely essential to the life of a cell—all without a nervous system, brain, eyes or muscles?
Yes.
This guy sure asks a lot of obvious questions.
have a look at some of their videos on YouTube and start asking questions
Yeah, that's the best place to learn the science of evolution...
You will immediately realize why molecular biologists avoid discussing the supposed evolution of these nanomachines.
Before "realizing why," one should first "ascertain if."
Hearing from someone that got disabled for the rest of their life because of a faulty Toyota vehicle...
...is called an anecdote. Some people will do whatever they can to blame someone else, whether or not it's just to do so. Sometimes it's the thing that keeps them going.
1. Find an app that does something vaguely cool and science-y 2. Replicate about 50% of its functionality with a microcomputer that's far less convenient to use than a phone 3. ??? 4. Profit!
Hey everyone, I've just built a hefty box with an Arduino in it that lets you play Flappy Bird on a 16x16 grid of LEDs. One at a time please, no shoving.
I'm not here to dish out citations. What am I, Captain Citation?
You need a short on-point quote, plus the reference.
You might need it, but I don't need to provide it. I'm not beholden to you to explain quantum mechanics.
You've still said absolutely nothing that actually relates to the gggggp post.
I've stated that the UP/DOWN envelope analogy is insufficient to explain observations, which is what I wanted to state. I provided a place to start to anyone who wanted to read further. After that, do your own homework.
Well, in a spring case the attraction increases with distance (upto a point of course).
Aren't all objects "springy" in that sense, up to their elastic limit?
then the spring will eventually stretch, stretch and snap...
If the disks/balls were stuck to the sheet, yeah - but if they're free to slide over it, the spring will stretch, but only to a fixed length for a given rate of sheet-stretch.
If there is a blob of gas in space, held together by it's own gravity, then expansion might mean it's slightly larger than it otherwise would be - but it will stay at that slightly-larger-than-it-otherwise-would-be size while expansion remains constant. I think.
Some very rough calculations suggest that if everything really did stretch with space in the way you suggest, the Earth would have grown by something like 25% since it was formed - as would all of it's constituent atoms. We might not notice since our perceptions are stretched with it, but I don't think quantum mechanics would allow that!
So in a simplistic model if we look at the force of attraction between a nucleus and an electron via the inverse square law of electromagnetism, the increased distance will eventually reduce the force between the two causing the electrons to slip away.
How about an even more simplistic model - suppose we have two balls connected by a spring, rotating around each other (and suppose (by magic) they don't lose any of their angular momentum). Also suppose they are sitting on a rubber sheet. Now, if you stretch the sheet at a low rate, the balls may experience forces, but if you continue to stretch the sheet at the same rate, nothing will change over time. It'd only be when you're stretching the sheet so fast that the spring might snap. The effect of the stretching isn't cumulative over time.
Of course it could also be that I understand none of this and that I'm talking off the top of my head:) . In fact, that is most likely the case!
But the line (ruler) isn't fixed to the balloon. It's sitting on the surface of the balloon, but it isn't part of it. If everything was expanding, how would we know? Galaxies wouldn't get any further apart, in a sense, because they and everything in them would also be getting larger.
But actually, they'll continue to hold themselves together by gravity just as rulers will hold themselves together by molecular forces and atoms will hold themselves together because of all that wibbly wobbly quantum mechanical stuff that holds them together.
That is, until the expansion of space becomes too rapid. If, instead, it was to remain constant, no big rip.
A universe dominated by phantom energy expands at an ever-increasing rate. However, this implies that the size of the observable universe is continually shrinking; the distance to the edge of the observable universe which is moving away at the speed of light from any point moves ever closer. When the size of the observable universe becomes smaller than any particular structure, no interaction by any of the fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, or strong) can occur between the most remote parts of the structure.
The above won't happen if expansion isn't accelerating.
The force should keep decreasing as the distance increases...
If by "the force" you mean the force of attraction between particles, then I suggest that the distance doesn't increase, because (now and for the foreseeable future) the "force" exerted by the expansion of space is not enough to overcome the attraction between particles.
It'd be like me pulling on both ends of the ruler. I can exert as much force as I like (up to a certain limit), for as long as I like, without deforming the ruler. Once I exceed the limit though... instant rip.
Slashdot Mirror
Iraq'n you should stop now.
If you're going based off rate of infection then those from Florida, New York, and Louisiana should not be allowed to donate either since they're more than twice as likely as someone from Virginia and more than 18 times more likely than someone from Vermont.
Shouldn't you specify a baseline infection rate if you're going to throw around "twice as likely" and "18 times more likely"?
There's a difference between a base rate of 0.0001% going up to 0.0018%, and 1% going up to 18%.
Remember back in the day when we all thought we'd be driving flying cars in the future? Well that clearly didn't happen, though it still might in the future.
Wow. What a long-winded way of saying nothing of any meaning. There will always be a period during which it "clearly didn't happen" and we just happen to still be in that period.
No [r] way!
Kenya imagine a worse country-name pun than that?
Easy. Just open all the doors. That'll get just about everything that isn't tied down out.
Luckily I have a copy of 7.1a for x64 linux. Because this is a great opportunity to release a trojan horse version of Truecrypt and many people would be affected
Sorry dude. 7.1a is the Trojan Horse version.
Was Turing Test Legitimately Beaten, Or Just Cleverly Tricked?
Neither.
a) It wasn't a Turing Test.
b) It may have been legitimately beaten by the rules of this test, but were the rules remotely legitimate as far as rating AI is concerned? Most Turing-type tests set the bar at a 50% fool-rate (and that's versus a human). This bot got 30%.
c) It was about as clever as sending over random keystrokes to pass the Turing-Cat-On-My-Keyboard Test.
Are we supposed to ignore all "lesser" crimes while there are greater ones (even metaphorical ones) outstanding?
THEN...your question would be valid
GP didn't ask a question.
fudge the fuck out of the numbers.
As opposed to fucking the fudge out of the consumers.
The point, obviously, is that you can't be identified by the access points you don't connect to.
Of course you're traceable once you've connected; how else could you stay connected and get traffic to your device?
...is built a working man-carrying spaceship.
Off you go!
But I am unaware
You said it, Chewie.
I made the conscious decision to reject Darwinian evolution in favor of what is now called intelligent design.
Scientists don't - or ideally shouldn't - make conscious decisions to reject things. They do so when the scientific method leads them to do so, because it's the valid thing to do in face of the evidence.
Do they really believe that a rotary nanomotor that spins an axle at a thousand or so rpm and can stop in only a revolution—all at an efficiency approaching 100 percent—somehow randomly arose from a cluster of molecules hanging out in a protocell?
Yes.
Do they really believe these motors can walk, slide and rotate while performing many functions absolutely essential to the life of a cell—all without a nervous system, brain, eyes or muscles?
Yes.
This guy sure asks a lot of obvious questions.
have a look at some of their videos on YouTube and start asking questions
Yeah, that's the best place to learn the science of evolution...
You will immediately realize why molecular biologists avoid discussing the supposed evolution of these nanomachines.
Before "realizing why," one should first "ascertain if."
increasing pleasure for the driver and passengers.
Anyone else feel slightly dirty after reading that?
take the first word of each next 7 sentences [...] answer the question the sentence form please
Are the mangled instructions part of the test?
a machine not *specifically* coded
How unspecific does it have to be? Be specific!
I'd be more interested in an AI's answer to the following question:
Why shouldn't I switch you off right now?
an objective list of the 100 most influential people in history
Objective does not equal definitive. Nor does "mentioned on Wikipedia" equal "influential."
It's an objective list calculated from subjective criteria, subjectively believed by its creator to be an indicator of a subjective quality.
The resulting lists of the most influential men and women might surprise.
Yes, it might, for a few seconds, until you realise that getting your name on a Wikipedia page does not count for influence.
The top PageRanked individual is Carl Linnaeus, the 18th century Swedish botanist who...
...named a lot of species and therefore gets mentioned a lot.
followed by Jesus.
I didn't know they had Twitter back then!
Keyword: "transclusion".
Ain't nobody got time for that.
Y'know, from that video. You've seen it. Can't be bothered to find a link.
Arthur remained very worried.
"But can we trust him?" he said.
"Myself I'd trust him to the end of the Earth," said Ford.
"Oh yes," said Arthur, "and how far's that?"
"About twelve minutes away," said Ford, "come on, I need a drink."
Hearing from someone that got disabled for the rest of their life because of a faulty Toyota vehicle...
...is called an anecdote. Some people will do whatever they can to blame someone else, whether or not it's just to do so. Sometimes it's the thing that keeps them going.
1. Find an app that does something vaguely cool and science-y
2. Replicate about 50% of its functionality with a microcomputer that's far less convenient to use than a phone
3. ???
4. Profit!
Hey everyone, I've just built a hefty box with an Arduino in it that lets you play Flappy Bird on a 16x16 grid of LEDs. One at a time please, no shoving.
Citation needed, like this:
I'm not here to dish out citations. What am I, Captain Citation?
You need a short on-point quote, plus the reference.
You might need it, but I don't need to provide it. I'm not beholden to you to explain quantum mechanics.
You've still said absolutely nothing that actually relates to the gggggp post.
I've stated that the UP/DOWN envelope analogy is insufficient to explain observations, which is what I wanted to state. I provided a place to start to anyone who wanted to read further. After that, do your own homework.
Man, this *is* depressing.
Cheer up. It's Friday tomorrow.
Well, in a spring case the attraction increases with distance (upto a point of course).
Aren't all objects "springy" in that sense, up to their elastic limit?
then the spring will eventually stretch, stretch and snap...
If the disks/balls were stuck to the sheet, yeah - but if they're free to slide over it, the spring will stretch, but only to a fixed length for a given rate of sheet-stretch.
If there is a blob of gas in space, held together by it's own gravity, then expansion might mean it's slightly larger than it otherwise would be - but it will stay at that slightly-larger-than-it-otherwise-would-be size while expansion remains constant. I think.
Some very rough calculations suggest that if everything really did stretch with space in the way you suggest, the Earth would have grown by something like 25% since it was formed - as would all of it's constituent atoms. We might not notice since our perceptions are stretched with it, but I don't think quantum mechanics would allow that!
So in a simplistic model if we look at the force of attraction between a nucleus and an electron via the inverse square law of electromagnetism, the increased distance will eventually reduce the force between the two causing the electrons to slip away.
How about an even more simplistic model - suppose we have two balls connected by a spring, rotating around each other (and suppose (by magic) they don't lose any of their angular momentum). Also suppose they are sitting on a rubber sheet. Now, if you stretch the sheet at a low rate, the balls may experience forces, but if you continue to stretch the sheet at the same rate, nothing will change over time. It'd only be when you're stretching the sheet so fast that the spring might snap. The effect of the stretching isn't cumulative over time.
Of course it could also be that I understand none of this and that I'm talking off the top of my head :) . In fact, that is most likely the case!
That makes two of us!
But the line (ruler) isn't fixed to the balloon. It's sitting on the surface of the balloon, but it isn't part of it. If everything was expanding, how would we know? Galaxies wouldn't get any further apart, in a sense, because they and everything in them would also be getting larger.
But actually, they'll continue to hold themselves together by gravity just as rulers will hold themselves together by molecular forces and atoms will hold themselves together because of all that wibbly wobbly quantum mechanical stuff that holds them together.
That is, until the expansion of space becomes too rapid. If, instead, it was to remain constant, no big rip.
That's certainly the impression I get from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
A universe dominated by phantom energy expands at an ever-increasing rate. However, this implies that the size of the observable universe is continually shrinking; the distance to the edge of the observable universe which is moving away at the speed of light from any point moves ever closer. When the size of the observable universe becomes smaller than any particular structure, no interaction by any of the fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, or strong) can occur between the most remote parts of the structure.
The above won't happen if expansion isn't accelerating.
The force should keep decreasing as the distance increases...
If by "the force" you mean the force of attraction between particles, then I suggest that the distance doesn't increase, because (now and for the foreseeable future) the "force" exerted by the expansion of space is not enough to overcome the attraction between particles.
It'd be like me pulling on both ends of the ruler. I can exert as much force as I like (up to a certain limit), for as long as I like, without deforming the ruler. Once I exceed the limit though... instant rip.