I don't want 11 to be prime, either. Would you mind doing some of that math work and fixing this, please?
A prime number is a number that can only be divided by one and itself, one can not "fix" this. I was merely pointing out why 0 and 1 are so special, 11 is not, and therefore can not be "fixed" as you say.
This didn't make mention of the huge (and renewed) debate as to whether 1 or 0 is a prime number or not.
At the conference for applied and new mathematics in Melbourne last year there was a huge fervor over this as new evidence came to light.
Basically, from I gather, it's like this:
Technically, neither 1 nor zero is a prime number. It is easiest to see why zero isn't: since a prime number is only divisible by one and itself, let's find all the divisors of zero.
Well, since 0 x 1 = 0, and 0 x 2 = 0, and 0 x 3 = 0, and so on, all these numbers divide zero, i.e. zero is divisible by every positive integer. So it isn't a prime number.
As for 1, you might want to call it a prime number, since it really _is_ divisible by only one and itself. But then you run into some problems. For instance, you may know that every positive integer can be factored into the product of prime numbers, and that there's only one way to do it for every number. For instance, 280 = 2x2x2x5x7, and there's only one way to factor 280 into prime numbers. But if you let 1 be a prime, then you can get the following factorizations: 1x1x1x2x2x2x5x7, 1x2x2x2x5x7, and so on. The factorization is no longer unique.
Furthermore, there are a whole bunch of theorems in Number Theory that tell you something about prime numbers. But most of these theorems just flat out ain't true for the number 1. So in light of these facts, we just declare the number 1 to not be a prime.
So that's why we don't WANT 1 to be a prime. Mathematicians have summarized this in a nice neat definition: a prime number is a positive integer which has exactly 2 different positive integers that divide it evenly - no more and no fewer.
The quantitative description of cell structures in light microscope images is an important task in biological research. Quantitative measurements can be compared between different experiments which increases their usefulness to the biological research community.
Our research have indicated that replicating the human brain just will not work, actin and other things can't simply be reproduced into AI.
Digital imaging has made this task feasible because computers can now be programmed to automatically detect cell structures. Furthermore, the digital image analysis of cells has been improved by the use of fluorescent markers to tag specific structures simplifying the image segmentation problem.
Actin, a protein common in muscle cells of animals, forms fibers and fiber bundles which can be dyed with fluorescent markers and then detected by a light microscope. Quantitative measurement of the properties of Actin fibers will lead to a better understanding of how Actin interacts with other cell structures and contributes to cell locomotion and morphology.
We present a method for detection of Actin fibers in 2D images. Our approach has three stages.
First, a set of pixels that follow the contours of the fibers in the image is extracted from the original gray-scale cell image using edge detection techniques. Each fiber has two edges associated with it, so the next step eliminates one edge associated with each fiber by selecting an interval of edge direction such that one half of the edge pixels lie in this interval. The surviving edge pixels that have an edge magnitude above a threshold are selected and then thinned.
The second stage connects all of the edge pixels into a minimal spanning tree, using inter mediate algorithms from computational geometry. As a result, successive points from a fiber contour will tend to be linked. However, the tree will also connect points that belong to different fiber contours partly because the fibers intersect in the image, but also because by definition a tree must provide a path of links between any two vertices in the tree.
The third and final stage extracts the individual fiber contours from the minimal spanning tree. Long links within the tree are deleted because they connect two different fibers. Intersections of multiple fiber contour at a tree vertex are handled by heuristics based on proximity and on rough collinearity. The overall result is a set of fiber contours that appear in the a 2D cell image.
Our approach has worked well on a small set of real and synthetic images. The minimal spanning tree approach has proved fairly accurate because it groups pixels based on a global perspective rather than relying on uncertain local predictions of where fibers might extend.
These results are just way too bizarre, trust me, people have been trying to do this since the 60's!
The problem with parts like these, are they are very hard to find, and the problem is only going to get worse. The reason for this is nanotechnology.
Imagine trying to find tiny parts like these little buggers! The future is upon us, and pretty soon after the government have forced nanotechnology on us, *everything* will have small, un-replaceable parts.
You think it's bad having to replace a $600 phone, imagine having to replace a Microwave, PDA, toaster, because one tiny little part that cost about a fraction of a cent got damaged during the move, etc.
Unless you are a physicist, or just really, really smart, you better be prepared to get used to this.
In case anyone is curious about nanotechnology, I have decided to give a (brief, i promise!) summary below:
Manufactured products are made from atoms. The properties of those products depend on how those atoms are arranged. If we rearrange the atoms in coal we can make diamond. If we rearrange the atoms in sand (and add a few other trace elements) we can make computer chips. If we rearrange the atoms in dirt, water and air we can make potatoes.
Todays manufacturing methods are very crude at the molecular level. Casting, grinding, milling and even lithography move atoms in great thundering statistical herds. It's like trying to make things out of LEGO blocks with boxing gloves on your hands. Yes, you can push the LEGO blocks into great heaps and pile them up, but you can't really snap them together the way you'd like.
In the future, nanotechnology will let us take off the boxing gloves. We'll be able to snap together the fundamental building blocks of nature easily, inexpensively and in most of the ways permitted by the laws of physics. This will be essential if we are to continue the revolution in computer hardware beyond about the next decade, and will also let us fabricate an entire new generation of products that are cleaner, stronger, lighter, and more precise.
It's worth pointing out that the word "nanotechnology" has become very popular and is used to describe many types of research where the characteristic dimensions are less than about 1,000 nanometers. For example, continued improvements in lithography have resulted in line widths that are less than one micron: this work is often called "nanotechnology." Sub-micron lithography is clearly very valuable (ask anyone who uses a computer!) but it is equally clear that lithography will not let us build semiconductor devices in which individual dopant atoms are located at specific lattice sites. Many of the exponentially improving trends in computer hardware capability have remained steady for the last 50 years. There is fairly widespread belief that these trends are likely to continue for at least another several years, but then lithography starts to reach its fundamental limits.
If we are to continue these trends we will have to develop a new "post-lithographic" manufacturing technology which will let us inexpensively build computer systems with mole quantities of logic elements that are molecular in both size and precision and are interconnected in complex and highly idiosyncratic patterns. Nanotechnology will let us do this.
When it's unclear from the context whether we're using the specific definition of "nanotechnology" (given here) or the broader and more inclusive definition (often used in the literature), we'll use the terms "molecular nanotechnology" or "molecular manufacturing."
Whatever we call it, it should let us
* Get essentially every atom in the right place.
* Make almost any structure consistent with the laws of physics that we can specify in molecular detail.
* Have manufacturing costs not greatly exceeding the cost of the required raw materials and energy.
There are two more concepts commonly associated with nanotechnology:
* Positional assembly.
* Self replication.
Clearly, we would be happy with any method that simultaneously achieved the first three objectives. However, this seems difficult without using some form of positional assembly (to get the right molecular parts in the right places) and some form of self replication (to keep the costs down).
The need for positional assembly implies an interest in molecular robotics, e.g., robotic devices that are molecular both in their size and precision. These molecular scale positional devices are likely to resemble very small versions of their everyday macroscopic counterparts. Positional assembly is frequently used in normal macroscopic manufacturing today, and provides tremendous advantages. Imagine trying to build a bicycle with both hands tied behind your back! The idea of manipulating and positioning individual atoms and molecules is still new and takes some getting used to. However, as Feynman said in a classic talk in 1959: "The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom." We need to apply at the molecular scale the concept that has demonstrated its effectiveness at the macroscopic scale: making parts go where we want by putting them where we want!
The requirement for low cost creates an interest in self replicating manufacturing systems, studied by von Neumann in the 1940's. These systems are able both to make copies of themselves and to manufacture useful products. If we can design and build one such system the manufacturing costs for more such systems and the products they make (assuming they can make copies of themselves in some reasonably inexpensive environment) will be very low.
This is not DRM, it is a form of multi-layered technology that will not only play audio CD but other forms of multi-media, it's a broken standard it seems (at first glance anyway) and some players don't know how to read it.
It is breakthroughs like these that seem good at first and hurt us later.
Please study the following example (sorry in advance for any minor flaws, this is all from memroy!):
In June 1801, Zach, an astronomer whom Gauss had come to know two or three years previously, published the orbital positions of Ceres, a new small planet which was discovered by G Piazzi, an Italian astronomer on 1 January, 1801.
Unfortunately, Piazzi had only been able to observe 9 degrees of its orbit before it disappeared behind the Sun. Zach published several predictions of its position, including one by Gauss which differed greatly from the others. When Ceres was rediscovered by Zach on 7 December 1801 it was almost exactly where Gauss had predicted. Although he did not disclose his methods at the time, Gauss had used his least squares approximation method.
Gauss had been asked in 1818 to carry out a geodesic survey of the state of Hanover to link up with the existing Danish grid. Gauss was pleased to accept and took personal charge of the survey, making measurements during the day and reducing them at night, using his extraordinary mental capacity for calculations.
From what I understand, Gauss original identity was:
e^(ix)=cos x + sin x for any x that is a real number. When Pi is substituted in for x, then e^(Pi*i)+1=0 is obtained.
But it doesn't end here. If one substitutes in Pi/2 for x in the trigonometric identity, then e^(iPi/2)=i is the result.
If both sides are raised to the i power, then e^(-Pi/2)=i^i is staring us in the face. And if e^(-Pi/2) is punched out on a calculator, one finds the puzzling and troubling result that i^i =.0208045182. Go try figure that one out!
Not necessarily wishing to get into a debate: is this a chance accident of evolution or does it point an Intelligent Designer? I believe the latter but, no doubt, the point can be argued. What I want to know is since i^i =.0208045182 is woven into the fabric of nature, what practical use does it have, if any?
What does it mean? Or is it just simply a beautiful paradox for us to marvel at?
Anyway, all apoligies, as I tend to ramble a bit myself, the point being is that we face these paradoxi in real life:
Does "new improved" technology with multilayered CD's worth the chance of it not working in some players?
Or the mere fact that e^(Pi*i) + 1 = 0 to some in the math.sci community feel that this proves God's existance?
Some would say only God would allow a transcendental number raise to another transcendental number, raise to an imaginary number to come out so nice as just -1!
By evaluating and studying the past you can deduce alot of information about where we are headed, there are guys that are paid to do this.
After reading the article I whipped up a quick little formula that would say, help studying the past and future of our current economic system.
You could use this to find several useful things and reverse the formula to see what may be projected, (barring a future disaster that would take the stock market into a depression or something) economists do this all the time.
The exact formula is
DT = log(2)/log(1+p/100)
where p is the percentage increase per unit time. Thus, in your example, p=7, so 1+p/100 = 1.07 and
DT = log(2)/log(1.07) = 10.245 years
However, this doesn't directly solve your problem, which says nothing about doubling time. Instead we can write this equation:
C = 5(1.07)^t
where C is the cost of a lift ticket and t is the number of years since 1963. Do you understand this equation? At t= 0 (the year 1963) the cost is $5:
C = 5(1.07)^0
= 5(1)
At t = 1 (the year 1964) the cost is 1.07 times $5; that's an increase of 7%. Each year following, you multiply by another factor of 1.07.
You can find the cost of a lift ticket in 1993 by deciding what the value of t is in that year, then plugging this value into the equation in place of t, and evaluating it to find C.
Now, with this raw example you coud make what futurists call "forseeable return index" or commonly reffered as FRI.
You can deduce apply to this the sales of the cable industry, airline industry, any industry.
Apply your newly generated FRI and cross reference it with the stock market PAST performance, and, removing the wierd bizarre random happenings that made stock to plummet (enron, say a CEO was caught freebasing, etc), and then reversing it, you will have a ghastly close representation of how to play the market.
Economists have been refining this for years. Their formulas are different then mine of course (and probably more complex!), but it doesn't have to apply to this one example, others could be things such as generating a loose time line of every automobile upgrade (introduction of anti-lock brakes, airbags, then say get a loose idea when something like a wheel turns into jet burner, etc). Moores law is a good example here.
Thanks to progress in biology and nanotechnology, the molecular processes needed to convert raw materials into turkey will be understood sufficiently well to make a good artificial turkey for the vegetarians.
In reference to the "trianglature formula," it states simply: "sqrt (pi) times diameter of circle gives a triangle with precisely the same area as that of the given circle, where triangle base is circle diameter."
The formula by itself merely confirms the centuries old quadrature formula which "squares" the circle. Heat of the controversy is over the accompanying statement that either formula (squaring or triangulating) shows the ratio of pi to be arbitrary, which smacks in the face of the longheld academic assertion that the traditional pi is sacrosanct.
This causes huge problems with technology when it comes to developing AI (eg, robots) or even a synthetic turkey, what people arent aware of is that sythetic turkeye could not be exactly replicated the same time, leaving certain mutations.
Oviously, the harmless ones could be a pigment splotch or a cosmetic defect, but imagine a more serious one of note such as something similiar to anthrax, bubonic plague, or something WORSE.
Slashdot Mirror
off with their heads!
I don't want 11 to be prime, either. Would you mind doing some of that math work and fixing this, please?
A prime number is a number that can only be divided by one and itself, one can not "fix" this. I was merely pointing out why 0 and 1 are so special, 11 is not, and therefore can not be "fixed" as you say.
This didn't make mention of the huge (and renewed) debate as to whether 1 or 0 is a prime number or not.
At the conference for applied and new mathematics in Melbourne last year there was a huge fervor over this as new evidence came to light.
Basically, from I gather, it's like this:
Technically, neither 1 nor zero is a prime number. It is easiest to see why zero isn't: since a prime number is only divisible by one and itself,
let's find all the divisors of zero.
Well, since 0 x 1 = 0, and 0 x 2 = 0, and 0 x 3 = 0, and so on, all these numbers divide zero, i.e. zero is divisible by every positive integer. So
it isn't a prime number.
As for 1, you might want to call it a prime number, since it really _is_ divisible by only one and itself. But then you run into some problems.
For instance, you may know that every positive integer can be factored into the product of prime numbers, and that there's only one way to do
it for every number. For instance, 280 = 2x2x2x5x7, and there's only one way to factor 280 into prime numbers. But if you let 1 be a prime,
then you can get the following factorizations: 1x1x1x2x2x2x5x7, 1x2x2x2x5x7, and so on. The factorization is no longer unique.
Furthermore, there are a whole bunch of theorems in Number Theory that tell you something about prime numbers. But most of these theorems just flat out ain't true for the number 1. So in light of these facts, we just declare the number 1 to not be a prime.
So that's why we don't WANT 1 to be a prime. Mathematicians have summarized this in a nice neat definition: a prime number is a positive integer which has exactly 2 different positive integers that divide it evenly - no more and no fewer.
Freedb was having lots of problems yesterday, presumably due to a Christmas-induced DDoS attack.
Word on the street is that it was intentional (crash the server before/while everyone pops in the new cd).
This is good for the economy.
A mammoth country like India is the first spark, pretty soon after other parts of the world follows, the tech support business model will take off.
The quantitative description of cell structures in light microscope images is an important task in biological research. Quantitative measurements can be compared between different experiments which increases their usefulness to the biological research community.
Our research have indicated that replicating the human brain just will not work, actin and other things can't simply be reproduced into AI.
Digital imaging has made this task feasible because computers can now be programmed to automatically detect cell structures. Furthermore, the digital image analysis of cells has been improved by the use of fluorescent markers to tag specific structures simplifying the image segmentation problem.
Actin, a protein common in muscle cells of animals, forms fibers and fiber bundles which can be dyed with fluorescent markers and then detected by a light microscope. Quantitative measurement of the properties of Actin fibers will lead to a better understanding of how Actin interacts with other cell structures and contributes to cell locomotion and morphology.
We present a method for detection of Actin fibers in 2D images. Our approach has three stages.
First, a set of pixels that follow the contours of the fibers in the image is extracted from the original gray-scale cell image using edge detection techniques. Each fiber has two edges associated with it, so the next step eliminates one edge associated with each fiber by selecting an interval of edge direction such that one half of the edge pixels lie in this interval. The surviving edge pixels that have an edge magnitude above a threshold are selected and then thinned.
The second stage connects all of the edge pixels into a minimal spanning tree, using inter mediate algorithms from computational geometry. As a result, successive points from a fiber contour will tend to be linked. However, the tree will also connect points that belong to different fiber contours partly because the fibers intersect in the image, but also because by definition a tree must provide a path of links between any two vertices in the tree.
The third and final stage extracts the individual fiber contours from the minimal spanning tree. Long links within the tree are deleted because they connect two different fibers. Intersections of multiple fiber contour at a tree vertex are handled by heuristics based on proximity and on rough collinearity. The overall result is a set of fiber contours that appear in the a 2D cell image.
Our approach has worked well on a small set of real and synthetic images. The minimal spanning tree approach has proved fairly accurate because it groups pixels based on a global perspective rather than relying on uncertain local predictions of where fibers might extend.
These results are just way too bizarre, trust me, people have been trying to do this since the 60's!
Have you tried Radio Shack?
The problem with parts like these, are they are very hard to find, and the problem is only going to get worse. The reason for this is nanotechnology.
Imagine trying to find tiny parts like these little buggers! The future is upon us, and pretty soon after the government have forced nanotechnology on us, *everything* will have small, un-replaceable parts.
You think it's bad having to replace a $600 phone, imagine having to replace a Microwave, PDA, toaster, because one tiny little part that cost about a fraction of a cent got damaged during the move, etc.
Unless you are a physicist, or just really, really smart, you better be prepared to get used to this.
In case anyone is curious about nanotechnology, I have decided to give a (brief, i promise!) summary below:
Manufactured products are made from atoms. The properties of those products depend on how those atoms are arranged. If we rearrange the atoms in coal we can make diamond. If we rearrange the atoms in sand (and add a few other trace elements) we can make computer chips. If we rearrange the atoms in dirt, water and air we can make potatoes.
Todays manufacturing methods are very crude at the molecular level. Casting, grinding, milling and even lithography move atoms in great thundering statistical herds. It's like trying to make things out of LEGO blocks with boxing gloves on your hands. Yes, you can push the LEGO blocks into great heaps and pile them up, but you can't really snap them together the way you'd like.
In the future, nanotechnology will let us take off the boxing gloves. We'll be able to snap together the fundamental building blocks of nature easily, inexpensively and in most of the ways permitted by the laws of physics. This will be essential if we are to continue the revolution in computer hardware beyond about the next decade, and will also let us fabricate an entire new generation of products that are cleaner, stronger, lighter, and more precise.
It's worth pointing out that the word "nanotechnology" has become very popular and is used to describe many types of research where the characteristic dimensions are less than about 1,000 nanometers. For example, continued improvements in lithography have resulted in line widths that are less than one micron: this work is often called "nanotechnology." Sub-micron lithography is clearly very valuable (ask anyone who uses a computer!) but it is equally clear that lithography will not let us build semiconductor devices in which individual dopant atoms are located at specific lattice sites. Many of the exponentially improving trends in computer hardware capability have remained steady for the last 50 years. There is fairly widespread belief that these trends are likely to continue for at least another several years, but then lithography starts to reach its fundamental limits.
If we are to continue these trends we will have to develop a new "post-lithographic" manufacturing technology which will let us inexpensively build computer systems with mole quantities of logic elements that are molecular in both size and precision and are interconnected in complex and highly idiosyncratic patterns. Nanotechnology will let us do this.
When it's unclear from the context whether we're using the specific definition of "nanotechnology" (given here) or the broader and more inclusive definition (often used in the literature), we'll use the terms "molecular nanotechnology" or "molecular manufacturing."
Whatever we call it, it should let us
* Get essentially every atom in the right place.
* Make almost any structure consistent with the laws of physics that we can specify in molecular detail.
* Have manufacturing costs not greatly exceeding the cost of the required raw materials and energy.
There are two more concepts commonly associated with nanotechnology:
* Positional assembly.
* Self replication.
Clearly, we would be happy with any method that simultaneously achieved the first three objectives. However, this seems difficult without using some form of positional assembly (to get the right molecular parts in the right places) and some form of self replication (to keep the costs down).
The need for positional assembly implies an interest in molecular robotics, e.g., robotic devices that are molecular both in their size and precision. These molecular scale positional devices are likely to resemble very small versions of their everyday macroscopic counterparts. Positional assembly is frequently used in normal macroscopic manufacturing today, and provides tremendous advantages. Imagine trying to build a bicycle with both hands tied behind your back! The idea of manipulating and positioning individual atoms and molecules is still new and takes some getting used to. However, as Feynman said in a classic talk in 1959: "The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom." We need to apply at the molecular scale the concept that has demonstrated its effectiveness at the macroscopic scale: making parts go where we want by putting them where we want!
The requirement for low cost creates an interest in self replicating manufacturing systems, studied by von Neumann in the 1940's. These systems are able both to make copies of themselves and to manufacture useful products. If we can design and build one such system the manufacturing costs for more such systems and the products they make (assuming they can make copies of themselves in some reasonably inexpensive environment) will be very low.
This is not DRM, it is a form of multi-layered technology that will not only play audio CD but other forms of multi-media, it's a broken standard it seems (at first glance anyway) and some players don't know how to read it.
.0208045182. Go try figure that one out!
.0208045182 is woven into the fabric of nature, what
It is breakthroughs like these that seem good at first and hurt us later.
Please study the following example (sorry in advance for any minor flaws, this is all from memroy!):
In June 1801, Zach, an astronomer whom Gauss had come to know two or three years previously, published the orbital positions of Ceres, a new small planet which was discovered by G Piazzi, an Italian astronomer on 1 January, 1801.
Unfortunately, Piazzi had only been able to observe 9 degrees of its orbit before it disappeared behind the Sun. Zach published several predictions of its position, including one by Gauss which differed greatly from the others. When Ceres was rediscovered by Zach on 7 December 1801 it was almost exactly where Gauss had predicted. Although he did not disclose his methods at the time, Gauss had used his least squares approximation method.
Gauss had been asked in 1818 to carry out a geodesic survey of the state of Hanover to link up with the existing Danish grid. Gauss was pleased to accept and took personal charge of the survey, making measurements during the day and reducing them at night, using his extraordinary mental capacity for calculations.
From what I understand, Gauss original identity was:
e^(ix)=cos x + sin x for any x that is a real number. When Pi is substituted in for x,
then e^(Pi*i)+1=0 is obtained.
But it doesn't end here. If one substitutes in Pi/2 for x in the trigonometric identity, then e^(iPi/2)=i is the result.
If both sides are raised to the i power, then e^(-Pi/2)=i^i is staring us in the face. And if e^(-Pi/2) is punched out on a calculator, one finds the puzzling and troubling result that i^i =
Not necessarily wishing to get into a debate: is this a chance accident of evolution or does it point an Intelligent Designer? I believe the
latter but, no doubt, the point can be argued. What I want to know is since i^i =
practical use does it have, if any?
What does it mean? Or is it just simply a beautiful paradox for us to marvel at?
Anyway, all apoligies, as I tend to ramble a bit myself, the point being is that we face these paradoxi in real life:
Does "new improved" technology with multilayered CD's worth the chance of it not working in some players?
Or the mere fact that e^(Pi*i) + 1 = 0 to some in the math.sci community feel that this proves God's existance?
Some would say only God would allow a transcendental number raise to another transcendental number, raise to an imaginary number to come out so nice as just -1!
By evaluating and studying the past you can deduce alot of information about where we are headed, there are guys that are paid to do this.
After reading the article I whipped up a quick little formula that would say, help studying the past and future of our current economic system.
You could use this to find several useful things and reverse the formula to see what may be projected, (barring a future disaster that would take the stock market into a depression or something) economists do this all the time.
The exact formula is
DT = log(2)/log(1+p/100)
where p is the percentage increase per unit time. Thus, in your
example, p=7, so 1+p/100 = 1.07 and
DT = log(2)/log(1.07) = 10.245 years
However, this doesn't directly solve your problem, which says nothing
about doubling time. Instead we can write this equation:
C = 5(1.07)^t
where C is the cost of a lift ticket and t is the number of years
since 1963. Do you understand this equation? At t= 0 (the year 1963)
the cost is $5:
C = 5(1.07)^0
= 5(1)
At t = 1 (the year 1964) the cost is 1.07 times $5; that's an increase
of 7%. Each year following, you multiply by another factor of 1.07.
You can find the cost of a lift ticket in 1993 by deciding what the
value of t is in that year, then plugging this value into the equation
in place of t, and evaluating it to find C.
Now, with this raw example you coud make what futurists call "forseeable return index" or commonly reffered as FRI.
You can deduce apply to this the sales of the cable industry, airline industry, any industry.
Apply your newly generated FRI and cross reference it with the stock market PAST performance, and, removing the wierd bizarre random happenings that made stock to plummet (enron, say a CEO was caught freebasing, etc), and then reversing it, you will have a ghastly close representation of how to play the market.
Economists have been refining this for years. Their formulas are different then mine of course (and probably more complex!), but it doesn't have to apply to this one example, others could be things such as generating a loose time line of every automobile upgrade (introduction of anti-lock brakes, airbags, then say get a loose idea when something like a wheel turns into jet burner, etc). Moores law is a good example here.
Just my thoughts.
Thanks to progress in biology and nanotechnology, the molecular processes needed to convert raw materials into turkey will be understood sufficiently well to make a good artificial turkey for the vegetarians.
In reference to the "trianglature formula," it states simply: "sqrt (pi) times diameter of circle gives a triangle with precisely the same area as that of the given circle, where triangle base is circle diameter."
The formula by itself merely confirms the centuries old quadrature formula which "squares" the circle. Heat of the controversy is over the accompanying statement that either formula (squaring or triangulating) shows the ratio of pi to be arbitrary, which smacks in the face of the longheld academic assertion that the traditional pi is sacrosanct.
This causes huge problems with technology when it comes to developing AI (eg, robots) or even a synthetic turkey, what people arent aware of is that sythetic turkeye could not be exactly replicated the same time, leaving certain mutations.
Oviously, the harmless ones could be a pigment splotch or a cosmetic defect, but imagine a more serious one of note such as something similiar to anthrax, bubonic plague, or something WORSE.
Tell this to networks, not the cable companies you idiot.
YES, it is technically possible. Cable companies are FORCED by some networks to not let the customer pick and choose regular basic tv channels.
Don't fucking believe me? Read the telecommunications act of 1992 that SCREWED the consumer and took away choice.
Write your congressman and not your cable company if you want a la carte basic tv channels.
Still, it seems a very large chunk can't read but can post :).
:)
And there is a large number of us that can read, but aren't allowed to post
Let's hope the FBI doesn't use doubleclick.net servers or most of the mozilla users won't see it.
This is a very, very good idea. It's like returning those postage paid envelopes from junk mailers and writing a big "screw you" note inside them.
Most consumers don't for the bandwidth used by retrieving ads anyway.