I'm not an expert in any of this, but your reference to way in which the cold, and diarrhoea work sparked a question in me.
Has anyone tried to "super-saturate" an infected host with HIV, thus bringing it to the level of the cold, kind of killing it by over-population?
Now only if the entire United States High School Curriculum was similar to Arizona's
This has got to be the first time I've ever heard someone say they wish the whole country would model themselves to Arizona academically, and I've been here since 1982.
See department of education
Seriously, I went to 2 different relatively rural schools for high school, and didn't know students could learn a language other than spanish or english, had computer programming in school, and could have classes like psycology, or philosophy in secondary school.
Here's a failure:
Logic operators:
& == and
| == or
&& == xor
How the hell did they get && for XOR, I wrote testing scripts in Rexx and this was one of the most hidden bugs that could be introduced.
I mean cmon some forms of logic had used & for and for a long time, just find a different character for XOR.
However, before all this, there had to be ONE thing to be "first". Occam's razor requires that that one infinitely improbable thing that was "first" be the thing most able to account for everything else. And I am convinced that the best account for this is a single, personal God.
Why does everyone seem to feel the need to have a first. Many people, myself included, have no problem seeing the universe exist forever, hell conservation of energy dictates this, but for some reason, this number drops significantly when it comes to always having existed, there doesn't have to be a first. If the universe can exist infinetly, then why can't it have existed for infinity.
We seem bound to our concept of time as being 1-directional, and since most things we know have been created, mostly by us(humans not geeks), then we assume the universe had to have a beginning.
Is there someone more enlightened then me who could expand on this, or am I just howling at the moon, in which case a rebuttal would be helpful.
I would just like to point out that the high modded posts in this thread are an extremely intelligent discussion, and that perhaps after the students are being taught evolution, this exact discussion could happen.
If there was actually intelligent discussion like this in High School I might have actually showed up more. And if we shield our children from this discussion, and others like it, then aren't we being complicit in their ignorance.
Your point is well taken, but much like an all in bet in poker, it works every time but the last time. And I'd personally like to see the next frontier horizon first.
I may be missing the point here, but if corporations are no longer considered "persons" in the legal sense then they can be held accountable for their actions. So if someone creates a drug that kills someone, they could be held accountable for that death. That might be a bigger deterent that the current system.
Now: Make bad drug, pay lawsuit/higher insurance premiums
Proposed: Make bad drug, sleep next to bubba for 10-20years.
Yes,
I'm not entirely sure why the electoral college was set up in the first place, but I like it. It represents state's rights. I am a citizen of Arizona first, and america second. So I vote for who I want my state to pick. What I don't agree with is the delegates not always being bound to abide by the state's decisions. That is just a time bomb waiting to blow.
"If you put enough computers on the problem, you will eventually find a solution by random chance. (correct me if I'm wrong.)"
Yeah, but the number of primes 2^109(109 bit number) is about 2^109 / ln(2^109), and after some
ballparking this is 2^109 / 109 (pretend e = 2)
which is still a 100+ bit number of primes. Now if you have 1,000,000 computers doing 1,000,000,000 checks per second, this would be a total of 1 quadrillion checks per second. or about 2^40 checks per second, so then this would take 2^60 seconds to check all primes this way. This is equivalent to 2^25 years, a little longer than most of us will live.
And the above was only for RSA, and ECC is more secure than that, so enough computers doing this randomly is not a viable option.
The RIAA is kind of like the UN, a lot of groups are involved, but the big boys still decide on policy. The main reason I believe the RIAA is fighting so hard, is not that it is some old curmudgeon that is has waited to long to adapt, but rather that if music goes completely online then everyone will be on equal footing, the indies will be as pervasive as the majors. It will be increasingly unlikely that cash cows like Britney Spears will come about.
Long story short, complete(or mostly) online music will cause loss of marketshare for the majors.
This is good for the consumer, but bad for Sony, et. al.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard he controls the weather, and wrote Glitter.
The words are spelled Fuck and Fucking respectively, not F*** and F'king.
Sorry for the grammar nazi.
I'm not an expert in any of this, but your reference to way in which the cold, and diarrhoea work sparked a question in me.
Has anyone tried to "super-saturate" an infected host with HIV, thus bringing it to the level of the cold, kind of killing it by over-population?
Thanks for the great post.
Now only if the entire United States High School Curriculum was similar to Arizona's
This has got to be the first time I've ever heard someone say they wish the whole country would model themselves to Arizona academically, and I've been here since 1982. See department of education Seriously, I went to 2 different relatively rural schools for high school, and didn't know students could learn a language other than spanish or english, had computer programming in school, and could have classes like psycology, or philosophy in secondary school.
Arizona is NO gold standard.
Here's a failure:
Logic operators:
& == and
| == or
&& == xor
How the hell did they get && for XOR, I wrote testing scripts in Rexx and this was one of the most hidden bugs that could be introduced.
I mean cmon some forms of logic had used & for and for a long time, just find a different character for XOR.
However, before all this, there had to be ONE thing to be "first". Occam's razor requires that that one infinitely improbable thing that was "first" be the thing most able to account for everything else. And I am convinced that the best account for this is a single, personal God.
Why does everyone seem to feel the need to have a first. Many people, myself included, have no problem seeing the universe exist forever, hell conservation of energy dictates this, but for some reason, this number drops significantly when it comes to always having existed, there doesn't have to be a first. If the universe can exist infinetly, then why can't it have existed for infinity.
We seem bound to our concept of time as being 1-directional, and since most things we know have been created, mostly by us(humans not geeks), then we assume the universe had to have a beginning.
Is there someone more enlightened then me who could expand on this, or am I just howling at the moon, in which case a rebuttal would be helpful.
I would just like to point out that the high modded posts in this thread are an extremely intelligent discussion, and that perhaps after the students are being taught evolution, this exact discussion could happen.
If there was actually intelligent discussion like this in High School I might have actually showed up more. And if we shield our children from this discussion, and others like it, then aren't we being complicit in their ignorance.
Your point is well taken, but much like an all in bet in poker, it works every time but the last time. And I'd personally like to see the next frontier horizon first.
they could get dealt 7-2o all night long and still walk away with all of your money.
Especially if they bet you they would get 27o all night long.
I know its not a local client, but pokerroom has a java applet client that is pretty good.
I may be missing the point here, but if corporations are no longer considered "persons" in the legal sense then they can be held accountable for their actions. So if someone creates a drug that kills someone, they could be held accountable for that death. That might be a bigger deterent that the current system. Now: Make bad drug, pay lawsuit/higher insurance premiums Proposed: Make bad drug, sleep next to bubba for 10-20years.
Yes, I'm not entirely sure why the electoral college was set up in the first place, but I like it. It represents state's rights. I am a citizen of Arizona first, and america second. So I vote for who I want my state to pick. What I don't agree with is the delegates not always being bound to abide by the state's decisions. That is just a time bomb waiting to blow.
"If you put enough computers on the problem, you will eventually find a solution by random chance. (correct me if I'm wrong.)" Yeah, but the number of primes 2^109(109 bit number) is about 2^109 / ln(2^109), and after some ballparking this is 2^109 / 109 (pretend e = 2) which is still a 100+ bit number of primes. Now if you have 1,000,000 computers doing 1,000,000,000 checks per second, this would be a total of 1 quadrillion checks per second. or about 2^40 checks per second, so then this would take 2^60 seconds to check all primes this way. This is equivalent to 2^25 years, a little longer than most of us will live. And the above was only for RSA, and ECC is more secure than that, so enough computers doing this randomly is not a viable option.
The RIAA is kind of like the UN, a lot of groups are involved, but the big boys still decide on policy. The main reason I believe the RIAA is fighting so hard, is not that it is some old curmudgeon that is has waited to long to adapt, but rather that if music goes completely online then everyone will be on equal footing, the indies will be as pervasive as the majors. It will be increasingly unlikely that cash cows like Britney Spears will come about.
Long story short, complete(or mostly) online music will cause loss of marketshare for the majors.
This is good for the consumer, but bad for Sony, et. al.