No, it's not as simple as that. Take, for instance, one of my favorite short stories by Arthur C. Clarke (I conveniently forget the title, but it's about an extraterrestrial, artificial moon of Jupiter). In the story, one group holds the captain of the other group hostage in hope of trading him for a statue of an extraterrestrial - if they didn't get the statue back, they'd throw the captain off the moon and have him fall to Jupiter. The other group calls their bluff, believing they wouldn't kill him. So they throw the captain towards Jupiter. They can still retrieve him, which they say they'll do when they're given the statue.
So the statue is given to them, but instead of flying out to retrieve the captain, they GO HAVE TEA! (Or they do something to bide their time; I do not remember exactly.) Why? The captain isn't falling to Jupiter - he still has the horizontal velocity of the moon/alien spacecraft. He just makes a slightly elliptical orbit around Jupiter, ending up a couple of miles away from the spacecraft at perigee. After one revolution, the hostage ends up back where he started!
The point is, when two orbiting bodies strike, the debris does not simply lose velocity and fall into the sun; it simply creates an elliptical orbit of its own. For debris of a collision on Mars to get a sufficiently eccentric orbit, it needs a rather large initial velocity (relative to Mars, and generally in a different or opposite direction than Mar's orbit)! However, the same goes for material escaping from Earth - with a sufficient initial velocity, its orbit can become eccentric enough to reach Mars' orbit.
Reason says on the balance of probabilities their isn't a god.
But it doesn't. After all, you later say, "Scientific reason is useless against the proposition of God because by definition God can make the universe look anyway it wants too."
We can't set a probability of the existence of a god. After all, we'd have to consider the probability of the existence of two gods, three gods, etc. So either gods exist or they don't. If a god does exist, he may very well send the faithful to hell and make boring people drive minivans in the afterlife. Or he might force us to take harp lessons with old wrinkly women in smelly homes.
To illustrate this point, God may well have created the universe 6000 years ago but faked all the evidence to make it look like it really started billions of years ago.
The universe may also have been created three seconds ago! You just _think_ it was created before you were born because you were created with pre-installed memories.
God may have faked the appearence of evolution and Adam and Eve may indeed be the truth. Nobody likes the idea of a God that lies but in the Bible it says God created Man in his own image right? Man lies, is it not possible that God does too?
I always imagined that if I were God of some universe and had a sense of irony, I'd build up a loony religion and then send all the faithful to hell.
But this is still good news, because it means that significantly more people who are _learning_ about writing Web pages (with varying levels of experience) are more browser and standards-savvy.
Obviously, it is. If Mozilla had a 60% market-share, people wouldn't say it was threatening I.E. any more. Just like the fact that threats happen _before_ bombings, not after.
No, patents allow individuals to take their ideas and make money off of them. In communist societies, if an inventor invents, the right to use that invention goes to the state.
While there are sensitive/insensitive systems, often the insensitive systems can be the most vulnerable. Suppose that in a major city, every traffic light stopped working. Suppose that a super-virus built into Windows binaries destroyed every Windows computer's hard drive. Suppose the steel used in a large bridge was deliberately sabotaged in construction. Suppose somebody sent a command for regeneration to the Borg Collective.
What if a terrorist gets a job at a software company? Where's the hope of catching the bugs then? It seems to me that closed-source software is more susceptible than open-source.
For that matter, how does soccer etc. help kids? They're just games...:)
For most kids of the kind who would willingly participate in such things, they are fun or interesting. And competitive. Some even require teamwork, such as the American Regions Math League.
Re:Opponent often not present...
on
Is Math A Sport?
·
· Score: 1
I sort of agree with you.
I definitely think olympic sports should mostly be of that sort.
What a bunch of balony. You clearly didn't read the article. This is about math competitions.
Secondly, there is no standard definition of any word. Your dictionary's definition of sport is not what other people use. There are no standards of language.
Going by one categorization scheme, math competitions are sports. Going by another, they aren't. Big whoop.
Re:Opponent often not present...
on
Is Math A Sport?
·
· Score: 1
And I don't think elimination sports should be Olympic sports.. e.g. Tennis.
Tennis is not an elimination sport. Tournaments are what do the eliminating, not the sport itself. By your logic, most professional sports are not sports.
It is a competition on math proficiency of the high-school level kids.
You are totally wrong in that respect. The International Math Olympiad is no test of "proficiency." You might as well call the NBA Finals a test of basic dribbling skills.
For example, here is a problem from the 1998 IMO:
Let I be the incenter of triangle ABC. Let the incircle of ABC touch the sides BC, CA, and AB at K, L and M, respectively. The line through B parallel to MK meets the lines LM and LK at R and S, respectively. Prove that angle RIS is acute.
Do you call yourself "proficient"? Do this problem.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not as simple as that. Take, for instance, one of my favorite short stories by Arthur C. Clarke (I conveniently forget the title, but it's about an extraterrestrial, artificial moon of Jupiter). In the story, one group holds the captain of the other group hostage in hope of trading him for a statue of an extraterrestrial - if they didn't get the statue back, they'd throw the captain off the moon and have him fall to Jupiter. The other group calls their bluff, believing they wouldn't kill him. So they throw the captain towards Jupiter. They can still retrieve him, which they say they'll do when they're given the statue.
So the statue is given to them, but instead of flying out to retrieve the captain, they GO HAVE TEA! (Or they do something to bide their time; I do not remember exactly.) Why? The captain isn't falling to Jupiter - he still has the horizontal velocity of the moon/alien spacecraft. He just makes a slightly elliptical orbit around Jupiter, ending up a couple of miles away from the spacecraft at perigee. After one revolution, the hostage ends up back where he started!
The point is, when two orbiting bodies strike, the debris does not simply lose velocity and fall into the sun; it simply creates an elliptical orbit of its own. For debris of a collision on Mars to get a sufficiently eccentric orbit, it needs a rather large initial velocity (relative to Mars, and generally in a different or opposite direction than Mar's orbit)! However, the same goes for material escaping from Earth - with a sufficient initial velocity, its orbit can become eccentric enough to reach Mars' orbit.
no no no...
...
Step Three:
Step Four: Profit!
2. Thou shalt immediately mod down any post containing the letters TANN. (TANN ROT-13'd to avoid hypocrisy)
By your logic, your post should be modded down!
Apparently, many people think it's worth it, since the company is still in business (they also have a market in handheld devices).
And I'd like to hear you explain why IE is better.
Reason says on the balance of probabilities their isn't a god.
But it doesn't. After all, you later say, "Scientific reason is useless against the proposition of God because by definition God can make the universe look anyway it wants too."
We can't set a probability of the existence of a god. After all, we'd have to consider the probability of the existence of two gods, three gods, etc. So either gods exist or they don't. If a god does exist, he may very well send the faithful to hell and make boring people drive minivans in the afterlife. Or he might force us to take harp lessons with old wrinkly women in smelly homes.
To illustrate this point, God may well have created the universe 6000 years ago but faked all the evidence to make it look like it really started billions of years ago.
The universe may also have been created three seconds ago! You just _think_ it was created before you were born because you were created with pre-installed memories.
God may have faked the appearence of evolution and Adam and Eve may indeed be the truth. Nobody likes the idea of a God that lies but in the Bible it says God created Man in his own image right? Man lies, is it not possible that God does too?
I always imagined that if I were God of some universe and had a sense of irony, I'd build up a loony religion and then send all the faithful to hell.
Then you suggest that Opera should succeed in its business by giving away browsers for free?
Your reply is probably more valued by the parent than any mod points you could give.
Then again, you could also say that Mozilla only has to decrease IE's base by 5.6% - and that's a pretty small leap.
But this is still good news, because it means that significantly more people who are _learning_ about writing Web pages (with varying levels of experience) are more browser and standards-savvy.
So what exactly do you do to help the world's hungry?
5% to 95%..that sure is a big threat.
Obviously, it is. If Mozilla had a 60% market-share, people wouldn't say it was threatening I.E. any more. Just like the fact that threats happen _before_ bombings, not after.
No, patents allow individuals to take their ideas and make money off of them. In communist societies, if an inventor invents, the right to use that invention goes to the state.
"Popular Science." No such thing, man. More like, "nerdular nerdance."
--
If you don't get it, don't moderate!
While there are sensitive/insensitive systems, often the insensitive systems can be the most vulnerable. Suppose that in a major city, every traffic light stopped working. Suppose that a super-virus built into Windows binaries destroyed every Windows computer's hard drive. Suppose the steel used in a large bridge was deliberately sabotaged in construction. Suppose somebody sent a command for regeneration to the Borg Collective.
Just because nobody has been killed in a nuclear war yet does not mean that we shouldn't worry about it.
What if a terrorist gets a job at a software company? Where's the hope of catching the bugs then? It seems to me that closed-source software is more susceptible than open-source.
Your "forever" is kind of meaningless, considering that, as a unit of measurement, it would have units of time^-1.
For that matter, how does soccer etc. help kids? They're just games... :)
For most kids of the kind who would willingly participate in such things, they are fun or interesting. And competitive. Some even require teamwork, such as the American Regions Math League.
I sort of agree with you.
I definitely think olympic sports should mostly be of that sort.
I always find that I cannot hear the high-pitched electronic sound, but I can somehow detect whether a nearby CRT is on or not.
People seem to have a lot of trouble with giving exact definitions for things like sports. Here is a good definition, which I think works:
A sport is what I point to and say " that's a sport."
What a bunch of balony. You clearly didn't read the article. This is about math competitions.
Secondly, there is no standard definition of any word. Your dictionary's definition of sport is not what other people use. There are no standards of language.
Going by one categorization scheme, math competitions are sports. Going by another, they aren't. Big whoop.
And I don't think elimination sports should be Olympic sports..
e.g. Tennis.
Tennis is not an elimination sport. Tournaments are what do the eliminating, not the sport itself. By your logic, most professional sports are not sports.
I did. That was a pretty cool game.
It is a competition on math proficiency of the high-school level kids.
You are totally wrong in that respect. The International Math Olympiad is no test of "proficiency." You might as well call the NBA Finals a test of basic dribbling skills.
For example, here is a problem from the 1998 IMO:
Let I be the incenter of triangle ABC. Let the incircle of ABC touch the sides BC, CA, and AB at K, L and M, respectively. The line through B parallel to MK meets the lines LM and LK at R and S, respectively. Prove that angle RIS is acute.
Do you call yourself "proficient"? Do this problem.