Arguably, given that ultimately all code is executed by microprocessor/controller/ASIC/whatever logic gates, I would say it has to be one of AND, OR, or NOT (or one of their base combinations). Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gates
Also note that this answer satisfies the "non-assembler format" constraint (in letter if not in spirit).
Actually you miss the context of 1Co26. That passage isn't referring to intelligence per se, but to those who think they are more intelligent than God (like, for instance, those individuals quoted by the original thread author).
(From your own link)...so let's take a look at the controlling congressional parties during those years:
Reagan +9.3%, Democrat House, Republican Senate followed by Democrat Senate
George H. W. Bush +13.0%, Democrat for both
Clinton -0.07%, Democrat House followed by Republican House, Democrat Senate followed by Republican Senate
Clinton -9.0%, Republican for both
George H. Bush +7.1%, Republican House, Split Senate followed by Republican Senate
George H. Bush +20.7%, Republican House followed by Democrat House, Republican Senate followed by Democrat Senate
If you fail to discern the underlying pattern there, then you are not paying attention. Presidents get far too much credit and blame for the debt load of the country; it is Congress that writes the laws - the President signs or vetoes them. So when Joe Randomcitizen or some Talking Head tries to give credit to Clinton (or too much blame to Republicans) for a particular debt load without recognizing Congress's far-greater contribution, that too is misleading. Possibly known as lying? You be the judge.
(Side note on Clinton: he presided during one of the biggest economic booms in our history. As one presidential candidate recently put it: "when you're dealt four aces, it's easy to win the hand.")
The logical counterargument is that the buck stops with the president. Ultimately he decides whether to sign whatever congress puts on his desk. And arguably there are times where a president signs something that does not match 100% with his fiscal (or other) ideology. That's called compromise, and I think that our current congressional gridlock (Cf. funding the nation for months at a time rather than a full year) is due to the virtue of compromise being retrospectively mis-cast into a vice. Our congresspeople have no choice but to dig in their ideological heels or risk being outcast by their peers, Talking Heads, and even their opponents for not strictly following their chosen party doctrine.
Interesting that the captcha for this entry is 'revival'. That is truly what this country needs.
From Gleick's "Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman"...
"'People say to me, "Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?" No, I'm not...If it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it--that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers...then that's the way it is.' He believed that his colleagues were claiming more success at unification than they had achived--that disparate theories had been pasted together tenuously. When Hawking said, 'We may now be near the end of the search for the ultimate laws of nature,' many particle physicists agreed. But Feynman did not. 'I've had a lifetime of that,' he said on another occasion. 'I've had a lifetime of people who believe that the answer is just around the corner.... But again and again it's been a failure. Eddington, who thought that with the theory of electrons and quantum mechanics everything was going to be simple...Einstein, who thought that he had a unified thoeiry just around the corner but didn't know anything about nuclei and was unable of course to guess it...People think the're very close to the answer, but I don't think so....
Whether or not nature has an ultimate, simple, unified, beautiful form is an open question, and I don't want to say either way.'"
(From the epilogue of the book, pp. 432-433, emph. added.)
My Polar S725i Heart Rate Monitor has to be one of the more impressive feats of wristwatch geek engineering ever invented. It records heart rate, temperature, and altitude right out of the package, as well as cycle speed, cadence, and power with optional wireless or wired sensors. All of the captured data can be downloaded to a PC using the built-in IR port and analyzed/graphed using Polar's own software or other publicly-available packages.
One is not forced use the HRM or cycling functions to utilize the watch's other sensors. I once used the watch on a vacation trip around Colorado. When I got back home I was able to download the sensor readings into Polar's software and better visualize the elevation changes I had experienced during my trip.
A word of note: this watch is huge. I bought a runner's version of the same watch for my wife and it looks very out of place on her dainty wrist. A fashion statement it is not, but I've been surprised at the number of comments I've received about it (mostly from people who own HRMs of their own.)
Or just get yourself a PDA running version 5 of PalmOS (lower versions are supported for certain PDAs) and use an emulator to turn the PDA into your old HP48S.
The emulator seems to get good reviews. Unfortunately it doesn't run on my Treo 90.:(
Start a hotmail email account. Within days of starting mine and not using it anywhere I was inundated with spam at the rate of approximately 50 per week.
I shudder to think what that rate would be like if I'd actually used it in a web form/rebate submission/blog reply.
(Now I know what you're thinking: why create a hotmail account and then not use it? Well...before I had a chance to use it I started getting spammed, so I figured it would be a neat experiment to see how bad the spam would get.)
Slashdot Mirror
Arguably, given that ultimately all code is executed by microprocessor/controller/ASIC/whatever logic gates, I would say it has to be one of AND, OR, or NOT (or one of their base combinations). Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gates
Also note that this answer satisfies the "non-assembler format" constraint (in letter if not in spirit).
Actually you miss the context of 1Co26. That passage isn't referring to intelligence per se, but to those who think they are more intelligent than God (like, for instance, those individuals quoted by the original thread author).
The thing that struck me in reading all of those quotes is that Russell seems to have been unaware (ignorant?) of the parable of the shrewd (intelligent?) manager. Cf. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:1-15&version=NLT
Bart Simpson: I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.
Appropriately, from the episode "Screaming Yellow Honkers".
(From your own link)...so let's take a look at the controlling congressional parties during those years:
Reagan +9.3%, Democrat House, Republican Senate followed by Democrat Senate
George H. W. Bush +13.0%, Democrat for both
Clinton -0.07%, Democrat House followed by Republican House, Democrat Senate followed by Republican Senate
Clinton -9.0%, Republican for both
George H. Bush +7.1%, Republican House, Split Senate followed by Republican Senate
George H. Bush +20.7%, Republican House followed by Democrat House, Republican Senate followed by Democrat Senate
If you fail to discern the underlying pattern there, then you are not paying attention. Presidents get far too much credit and blame for the debt load of the country; it is Congress that writes the laws - the President signs or vetoes them. So when Joe Randomcitizen or some Talking Head tries to give credit to Clinton (or too much blame to Republicans) for a particular debt load without recognizing Congress's far-greater contribution, that too is misleading. Possibly known as lying? You be the judge.
(Side note on Clinton: he presided during one of the biggest economic booms in our history. As one presidential candidate recently put it: "when you're dealt four aces, it's easy to win the hand.")
The logical counterargument is that the buck stops with the president. Ultimately he decides whether to sign whatever congress puts on his desk. And arguably there are times where a president signs something that does not match 100% with his fiscal (or other) ideology. That's called compromise, and I think that our current congressional gridlock (Cf. funding the nation for months at a time rather than a full year) is due to the virtue of compromise being retrospectively mis-cast into a vice. Our congresspeople have no choice but to dig in their ideological heels or risk being outcast by their peers, Talking Heads, and even their opponents for not strictly following their chosen party doctrine.
Interesting that the captcha for this entry is 'revival'. That is truly what this country needs.
From Gleick's "Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman"...
"'People say to me, "Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?" No, I'm not...If it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it--that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers...then that's the way it is.' He believed that his colleagues were claiming more success at unification than they had achived--that disparate theories had been pasted together tenuously. When Hawking said, 'We may now be near the end of the search for the ultimate laws of nature,' many particle physicists agreed. But Feynman did not. 'I've had a lifetime of that,' he said on another occasion. 'I've had a lifetime of people who believe that the answer is just around the corner.... But again and again it's been a failure. Eddington, who thought that with the theory of electrons and quantum mechanics everything was going to be simple...Einstein, who thought that he had a unified thoeiry just around the corner but didn't know anything about nuclei and was unable of course to guess it...People think the're very close to the answer, but I don't think so....
Whether or not nature has an ultimate, simple, unified, beautiful form is an open question, and I don't want to say either way.'"
(From the epilogue of the book, pp. 432-433, emph. added.)
My Polar S725i Heart Rate Monitor has to be one of the more impressive feats of wristwatch geek engineering ever invented. It records heart rate, temperature, and altitude right out of the package, as well as cycle speed, cadence, and power with optional wireless or wired sensors. All of the captured data can be downloaded to a PC using the built-in IR port and analyzed/graphed using Polar's own software or other publicly-available packages.
One is not forced use the HRM or cycling functions to utilize the watch's other sensors. I once used the watch on a vacation trip around Colorado. When I got back home I was able to download the sensor readings into Polar's software and better visualize the elevation changes I had experienced during my trip.
A word of note: this watch is huge. I bought a runner's version of the same watch for my wife and it looks very out of place on her dainty wrist. A fashion statement it is not, but I've been surprised at the number of comments I've received about it (mostly from people who own HRMs of their own.)
The Treasure Department has already found a way to fund this, and then some.
Or just get yourself a PDA running version 5 of PalmOS (lower versions are supported for certain PDAs) and use an emulator to turn the PDA into your old HP48S.
:(
The emulator seems to get good reviews. Unfortunately it doesn't run on my Treo 90.
Start a hotmail email account. Within days of starting mine and not using it anywhere I was inundated with spam at the rate of approximately 50 per week.
I shudder to think what that rate would be like if I'd actually used it in a web form/rebate submission/blog reply.
(Now I know what you're thinking: why create a hotmail account and then not use it? Well...before I had a chance to use it I started getting spammed, so I figured it would be a neat experiment to see how bad the spam would get.)
you could make the system safer by enclosing the bowel
You make your roommates happier when you enclose your bowel, too.
I'm sure the pun is unintentional, but do the news channels really need to refer to this story as "breaking news"? It seems horribly insensitive.
I pray for the families and friends of those lost.