Well after reading the announcement or whatever we're calling it, I'd have to say it affirms my recently evolved judgment (over about the last two years) that Apple is the opposite of cool...So no worries, they are definitely not infringing your patent.
1. Create something nobody needs, and everybody but the most juvenile will find annoying. 2. Create (obvious) method for limiting the annoyance created by step 1. 3. Patent the method in step 2. 4. ???? 5. Profit!
Well, you don't need to say what P is because the definition is for the property of degeneracy, which can be applied to *any* topos. And we all know that e is approximately 2.718. So the only thing left is Q, which stands for the quality of the paper, which is clearly much less than 2.718.
The first two frames seem unrealistic. Logarithms, really? That would take an engineering *freshman* about 3 seconds to see through. And Klingon? I don't know anybody who has studied linguistics. But plenty of people who haven't could easily see that the question is nonsense. I don't think learning in this field is going to reduce that ability.
The last two frames, though...completely believable.
That's not what the incompleteness theorems say. There are true statements in any sufficiently rich system of mathematics that cannot be proven. The theorems don't say which statements those are (except for the constructed examples). And they really don't say anything about physics, which is an empirical endeavor.
I like fracking because liberals aren't quite sure what line to tow.
First of all, try and get the freakin' idiom right. It's toe, not tow.
Second, where's the evidence liberals are looking for a line to toe? You made some extraordinary claims that you weren't able to find any citation for:
According to liberals:
Fracking is evil when it's for oil. Fracking is good when it's for natural gas.
HOLD IT! Now that oil companies are heavily investing in natural gas, the environmental effects due to getting it and processing it must be scrutinized!
Natural gas bad! Better than coal, but bad!
Third, this is how you decide policy? Sounds like typical right-wing mindlessness to me.
Admittedly, I think this proof assumes that the absence of evidence is not due to coverup or just plain laziness -- although one could argue that absence of evidence of coverup or laziness is evidence for their absence.
"A imples B" is the same as "B or not A" (see the linked article). So your first clause is the same as "there is causation, or there is no correlation". Then, if we grant that there is correlation, it follows that causation is proven, which contradicts the second clause of your statement.
I think what you meant is that "correlation is evidence of causation". This is different from implication.
I'd not be surprised if there we such side effects, but the regulations you listed did not originate from an intent to protect sellers in the markets being regulated.
Slashdot Mirror
2. What can we do? Is it possible to safely eliminate just this one bacteria via a vaccine or antibiotic?
You do not want to encourage antibiotic resistance in this genus!
Link
How about strong encryption for the data network, so that it can't be hacked by a simple R2 unit?
Well after reading the announcement or whatever we're calling it, I'd have to say it affirms my recently evolved judgment (over about the last two years) that Apple is the opposite of cool...So no worries, they are definitely not infringing your patent.
1. Create something nobody needs, and everybody but the most juvenile will find annoying.
2. Create (obvious) method for limiting the annoyance created by step 1.
3. Patent the method in step 2.
4. ????
5. Profit!
Okay, that reading of it is more credible.
Ah, we have somebody who isn't familiar with the Halting Problem, I see.
I'd take off my hat to you, sir, if I were wearing one.
Well, you don't need to say what P is because the definition is for the property of degeneracy, which can be applied to *any* topos. And we all know that e is approximately 2.718. So the only thing left is Q, which stands for the quality of the paper, which is clearly much less than 2.718.
Therefore every topos is degenerate.
And people find this hard to grasp?
The first two frames seem unrealistic. Logarithms, really? That would take an engineering *freshman* about 3 seconds to see through. And Klingon? I don't know anybody who has studied linguistics. But plenty of people who haven't could easily see that the question is nonsense. I don't think learning in this field is going to reduce that ability.
The last two frames, though...completely believable.
I hope at least that they chose these wisely enough to get a low Erdos number out of it.
That's not what the incompleteness theorems say. There are true statements in any sufficiently rich system of mathematics that cannot be proven. The theorems don't say which statements those are (except for the constructed examples). And they really don't say anything about physics, which is an empirical endeavor.
"the Cuba"?
Is that like "the Iraq, and such"?
I can't say I ever used Hotmail, but I sure knew/know a lot of people who have Hotmail accounts.
Are you sure it's not one person with lots and lots of Hotmail accounts?
No true Scotsman would have such a small antenna!
Ah yeah, we can make up our own endings to anything, just to help us completely miss the point.
I like fracking because liberals aren't quite sure what line to tow.
First of all, try and get the freakin' idiom right. It's toe, not tow.
Second, where's the evidence liberals are looking for a line to toe? You made some extraordinary claims that you weren't able to find any citation for:
According to liberals:
Fracking is evil when it's for oil.
Fracking is good when it's for natural gas.
HOLD IT! Now that oil companies are heavily investing in natural gas, the environmental effects due to getting it and processing it must be scrutinized!
Natural gas bad! Better than coal, but bad!
Third, this is how you decide policy? Sounds like typical right-wing mindlessness to me.
Er, you can say it. The two aren't identical. But never say that correlation is not evidence of causation, because it is.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Ah, but it is.
Admittedly, I think this proof assumes that the absence of evidence is not due to coverup or just plain laziness -- although one could argue that absence of evidence of coverup or laziness is evidence for their absence.
Careful there.
Implication is conditional, but that is the only difference between implication and proof.
A = correlation
B = causation
"A imples B" is the same as "B or not A" (see the linked article). So your first clause is the same as "there is causation, or there is no correlation". Then, if we grant that there is correlation, it follows that causation is proven, which contradicts the second clause of your statement.
I think what you meant is that "correlation is evidence of causation". This is different from implication.
I'd not be surprised if there we such side effects, but the regulations you listed did not originate from an intent to protect sellers in the markets being regulated.
Exactly how your thinking but with a slightly posh London accent.
What, to give it panache?
What do any of the regulations you cite have to do with protecting "existing business models"?
Nothing? Maybe that is where the difference lies?
Interestingly, that opinion went against this precedent. It was quite the activist ruling.
You could mask it with this noise.
or maybe this one.
when I can buy a Mr. Fusion.