Leaderboard

The important point is that the NHS won't say "Go away until you've got some money". The delay is not caused by an institutional policy to do so but by practical limitations and availability of the necessary resources. The US is the richest nation in the world and Daedalus is going through this shit; great advert for the American health model... not.

You are, of course, correct. I doubt anyone would claim otherwise, and it seems equally clear to me that neither did a Ten Oz. You both were, however, talking about politicians... Wallace in particular. Admittedly, I too thought you were referencing other politicians when you introduced the idea of people claiming that minorities can’t be racist, and Ten Oz’ request for specific examples made perfect sense. Either way, it seems you shifted the context a bit and were instead making general claims, not claims about politicians. So, while I struggle to see why you felt it was relevant to introduce this into the conversation, at least we’ve all once again found common ground and can completely agree that such claims suggesting minorities cannot be racists are ridiculous garbage. Back on topic... Independent candidates would do better if our system was more parliamentary, but it’s not. Your intentions are good and it’s hard for anyone to disagree with your underlying points, but Ten Oz makes a valid counterpoint when suggesting that you seem to be describing a mythical candidate and a mythical voting base. History is full of examples showing the gaps in your position. This strikes me as one of those book smart versus street smart conversations. Idealized cases from textbooks like the ones you appear to favor are all well and good, but in practice we need to root our ideas in reality and adjust to what actually happens on the ground in practice. Mike Tyson perhapssaid it best. ‘Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.’ Politics is a cage match, not a chess game.

No, it will feel that pull all along, from stars it has passed. (if the mass is spherically symmetric, all of the mass inside the sphere acts as if it were in the center) As a point of comparison, the Milky Way is estimated to have about 250 billion stars in it, with an estimated mass of 100 billion solar masses. A billion solar masses sounds like a lot, but it's small in comparison to a decent-sized galaxy. 20 million years to go perhaps 20,000 LY is 10^-3 LY/year, or 1000 years per LY. Galaxies are much smaller than the space between them. A million LY, perhaps further. So it would take a billion years at 1000 years per LY...if it's headed in the right direction. "Pass by other galaxies" does not have much meaning in this context. Wait. The galaxy it's leaving won't slow it, but a galaxy 100 times further away will accelerate it? Gravity is 1/r^2. The galaxy it's leaving will have around 10,000 times the effect as any distant galaxy, as it leaves. Odds are it goes out on its own, and nothing further of significance happens. if it's not headed in the direction of the closest galaxy, you have to check if it's traveling fast enough to catch whatever it's headed toward, given the expansion of the universe. Hubble constant is 160 km/s/million LY, so a naive comparison says that anything beyond about 13-14 million LY is receding faster than this is going.

Again, what is your paragraph number 1, please explain what it says. If \(2N = 12,\) and \(p_1=p_2=p_3=p_4=3,\) then if \(2N_1=10\) is the previous even number 10 before 12, then \(p_2+p_4 = 3 + 3 = 6 \neq 2N_1 = 10.\) So why do you say that \(p_2+p_4=2N_1?\)

I asked for you definition of moderate. Can you provide examples of moderate candidates who have previously been on the ballot for President. *Also, moving forward when discussing matters of left and right, independent vs major party, or whatever can we focus our comments on actual Politicians and not random people who blog or post things? The OP asks about the potential of a 3rd party candidate and the Democratic Primary. No point in discussing unrelated fringe views not being advocated by anyone running for higher office.

No need to include the word movement when that term is representable with a vector. I don't make things up, that appears to be your arena considering your now mentioning a time particle lmao....particle half life rates do not require movement how do you account for that as it is definitely change occurring under an interval of time. the qualifier you mentioned only describes certain changes (positional) however not all change requires a change in position. Why would you believe you require a time particle to describe change ? Not all change requires a force to exert that change. The problem is that your trying to make up a substance to give time a materialistic quality. Your going to need far far greater evidence than anything posted in this thread for that. That is your hang-up along with the whole time flowing which is yet another descriptive of some substance like medium. Physics does not describe time in these terms. I still have yet to see anything you've stated to convince me or anyone else your ideas are correct. Is this all the support you have for your conjectures ?

Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. And POTUS. Why are you admonishing me for a low bar, when clearly conservatives are totally fine with one? You're welcomed to the bottom. I won't race you there.

That's part of the base level. In Canada you can pay extra, or use insurance, to get some extra services and prescription drugs, which generally are not covered. You can also go to the States and pay for procedures that are not covered or to reduce your waiting time. Where do you live where you pay a premium for emergency services? I know Medicare is provincially run, and the system is a little different in each province. In Nova Scotia you can pay a small fee to use a private clinic to reduce waiting time for some non emergency concerns. While many Canadians are now born in hospitals, most are born in the wild:

There are two mirror answers of 3025: /* * PuzzleTest v1.0 (c) 2019 created by Sensei. */ #include <stdio.h> void decode( int index, int data[ 3 ][ 3 ] ) { for( int i = 0; i < 9; i++ ) { int value = index % 10; data[ i / 3 ][ i % 3 ] = value; index /= 10; } } bool has_zeroes( const int data[ 3 ][ 3 ] ) { for( int j = 0; j < 3; j++ ) { for( int i = 0; i < 3; i++ ) { if( data[ j ][ i ] <= 0 ) return( true ); } } return( false ); } bool has_duplicates( const int data[ 3 ][ 3 ] ) { bool result = false; int digits[ 10 ] = { 0 }; for( int j = 0; j < 3; j++ ) { for( int i = 0; i < 3; i++ ) { int value = data[ j ][ i ]; if( digits[ value ] != false ) return( true ); digits[ value ] = true; } } return( false ); } int calc_score_column( const int data[ 3 ][ 3 ], int column ) { return( data[ 0 ][ column ] * 100 + data[ 1 ][ column ] * 10 + data[ 2 ][ column ] ); } int calc_score_column_product( const int data[ 3 ][ 3 ], int column ) { return( data[ 0 ][ column ] * data[ 1 ][ column ] * data[ 2 ][ column ] ); } int calc_score_row( const int data[ 3 ][ 3 ], int row ) { return( data[ row ][ 0 ] * 100 + data[ row ][ 1 ] * 10 + data[ row ][ 2 ] ); } int calc_score_row_product( const int data[ 3 ][ 3 ], int row ) { return( data[ row ][ 0 ] * data[ row ][ 1 ] * data[ row ][ 2 ] ); } int calc_score( const int data[ 3 ][ 3 ] ) { int score = 0; for( int i = 0; i < 3; i++ ) { score += calc_score_column( data, i ); score -= calc_score_column_product( data, i ); score += calc_score_row( data, i ); score -= calc_score_row_product( data, i ); } score -= data[ 0 ][ 0 ] * data[ 1 ][ 1 ] * data[ 2 ][ 2 ]; score -= data[ 0 ][ 2 ] * data[ 1 ][ 1 ] * data[ 2 ][ 0 ]; score -= data[ 0 ][ 1 ] * data[ 2 ][ 1 ] * data[ 1 ][ 0 ] * data[ 1 ][ 2 ]; score -= data[ 0 ][ 0 ] * data[ 0 ][ 2 ] * data[ 2 ][ 0 ] * data[ 2 ][ 2 ]; return( score ); } int calc_score( int index ) { int data[ 3 ][ 3 ] = { 0 }; decode( index, data ); if( has_zeroes( data ) ) return( -1 ); if( has_duplicates( data ) ) return( -1 ); return( calc_score( data ) ); } void show( const int data[ 3 ][ 3 ] ) { for( int j = 0; j < 3; j++ ) { for( int i = 0; i < 3; i++ ) { printf( "%d ", data[ j ][ i ] ); } printf( "\n" ); } printf( "\n" ); } void show( int index ) { int data[ 3 ][ 3 ] = { 0 }; decode( index, data ); show( data ); } int main( int argc, int argv[] ) { #if 0 int data[ 3 ][ 3 ] = { { 1, 2, 3 }, { 4, 5, 6 }, { 7, 8, 9 }, }; show( data ); printf( "Score is %d", calc_score( data ) ); #endif #if 0 int data[ 3 ][ 3 ] = { { 9, 8, 5 }, { 7, 4, 3 }, { 6, 2, 1 }, }; show( data ); printf( "Score is %d", calc_score( data ) ); #endif #if 1 // Brute-force scan of the all possible combinations. // Some of them (containing zeroes) will be ignored inside of calc_score() function. int max_score = 0; for( int i = 0; i < 1e9; i++ ) { int score = calc_score( i ); if( score > max_score ) { max_score = score; } } printf( "The best possible score is %d\n", max_score ); #endif return( 0 ); } ps. I don't normally use plain ANSI C, rather C++, but it grew and grew while writing..

I think the OP is not around but I read through the paper a couple of times and have some thoughts. There are two things going on in the paper. One, the OP is making the point that there are striking similarities between infinitesimals as they were used in 17th century math; and the nilsquare infinitesimals of Smooth infinitesimal analysis (SIA). This point of view says that, say, if we went back to the 17th century but knew all about category theory and differential geometry and SIA, we could easily show them how to logically found their subject. They were close in spirit. Ok. That might well be, and I don't agree or disagree, not really knowing enough about SIA and knowing nothing about Leibniz (being more a Newton fan). So for sake of discussion I'll grant the OP that point. But the other thing that's going on is that the OP seems to feel that the history itself supports the idea that they somehow understood this, or that they had a rigorous theory of infinitesimals that was shoved aside by the theory of limits in an act more political than mathematical. That's the second thesis of the paper as I understand it. But the OP presents no historical evidence, none at all, that there was any kind of rigorous theory of infinitesimals floating around at the time. On the contrary, the history is that Newton himself well understood the problem of rigorously defining the limit of the difference quotient. As the 18th century got going, people noticed that the lack of foundational rigor was causing them trouble. They tried to fix the problem. In the first half of the 19th century they got calculus right, and in the second half of the 19th and the first quarter of the 20th, they drilled it all the way down to the empty set and the axioms of ZFC. That is the history as it is written, and there isn't any alternate history that I'm aware of. If there were, I would be most interested to learn about it. The OP makes a historical claim, but doesn't provide any historical evidence. That bothers me. So to sum up: * From our modern category-theoretic and non-LEM and SIA perspective, all of which is math developed only in recent decades, we can reframe 17th century infinitesimals in modern rigorous terms. I accept that point for sake of discussion, though I have some doubts and questions. * But on the historical point, you are just wrong till you show some evidence. The historical record is that the old guys KNEW their theory wasn't rigorous, and that as time went by this caused more and more PROBLEMS, which they eventually SOLVED. They never had a rigorous theory and they never thought they had a rigorous theory. But if they did I'd love the references.

Not a 'super brain', far from it, but before modern technology selective breeding over centuries was well on the way to creating a complimentary intelligence in Domestic Dogs. What could be done there with modern technology, information and greater ability to search out desired traits could be utilised to further that past section process incredibly, if it was still seen as beneficial. Not so common as to define the species by any means, but there were and are still (rarely) found , some amazing examples of intelligent responsibility in dogs. Environmental selection was hijacked by the Kennel clubs to meet their own conditions of physical conformity before environmental fitness and ability of response could be considered. The result has been a decline in mental and physical fitness, and response ability to environment that continues. So if you are talking human, I think it could be done, but eliminating environmental selection to do so would more likely bring unintended consequence. Appreciation, morality and other traits not considered, or their roles and manifestations not fully understood could see the benefits of this 'new race' become more a liability or responsibility than intended. Selection in the hands of a few rarely benefits the environment beyond their own understanding and knowledge. Losses of other valued traits happen more gradually and pass unnoticed with generational memory.

If you can't accept it, is there any point discussing it?

Predictive cognicence(sp?) If a man were standing in the middle of a road with a car approaching at 100mph and is now 5 feet away from the man, would it be predicting the future to say he will get run over? the answer`s a bit Yes and No in my opinion. it would indeed apear to the logical and most likely conclusion as to the mans fate though. using this simple model, gives us an insight into what could be happening in our dreams, only we would take into account MANY more factors, factors that we`re not even aware of consciously because our subconcious filters them out and leaves us with the info that we need, otherwise we`de go crazy if we actualy payed attn to everything around us at the same time, so it`s filtered and stored. various scenarios are played out in our dreams using this stored info, it isn`t any wonder really, that on occasion we will actualy get something right, using these "forgoten/ignored" factors. this is just a breif idea of the way I see it

Another explanation could be that hte pyramid is the easiest large structure to build, of course.

Somehow this got moved to psuedoscience, but psuedoscience would be pushing this theory with a lack of proper scientific evidence. I'm not pushing the theory, I want to test it scientifically. If I use the scientific method to test the hypothesis, then it isn't psuedoscience, no matter what the hypothesis is.

Mordred · Resident Expert · · Resident Experts · · 1102 · 6325 posts · Posted Thursday at 09:12 AM (edited) On 1/31/2019 at 9:03 AM, studiot said: Similarly with time you can measure time difference or elapsed time or lifetime in seconds, but never time itself. * That's really the kicker we can only measure the rate of change and compare different rates of change. One can literally throw away the word time which is just a convenient label and simply describe the rate of change in any process. Another common misconception is thinking time controls rate of change. Time isn't a force or substance that can directly influence anything. Clocks run at one rate, we measure movement against the clocks rate. A rock falls at 10 m/s, a feather falls at 1 m/s; we compare the rate of change in position which is simply movement, we are not comparing the rate of time here. You could throw away the suggestion that TC measures a rate of change by any other name except movement and I would agree. The SI Unit of a second is an exact amount of movement that takes place and is arbitrarily labeled as time but we are simply comparing movement against movement nothing more. The mathematical construct we label as time, TC, compares different rates of MOVEMENT in the real world, but Mordred you never even mention the word movement once, that’s the kicker. One can literally throw away the word time which is just a convenient label and simply describe the rate of change in any process as movement. This qualifier makes it totally correct. Another common misconception you imagine others have is time controls movement, I think TR is when something exists nothing more, it has nothing to do with movement so if you meant me you can imagine what you like, please don’t make stuff up. I have given a full and explicit description of a time particle for you to criticize but you completely ignore this, instead you philosophize that time in the real world, TR, doesn’t actually exist but all you have ever talked about here is TC, the mathematical construct called time. If TR doesn’t exist then now doesn’t exist and the present time is an illusion, the good news is that if you are not arguing for TR you are also not arguing for the time-flow that facilitates all movement nonsense. I think I may have misinterpreted what Studiot meant before, I’m still not 100% sure. Edited Thursday at 09:14 AM by Mordred one post at a time studiot · SuperNerd · · Senior Members · 1570 · 10117 posts · Location: Somerset, England · Posted Thursday at 09:14 AM (edited) On 1/31/2019 at 9:12 AM, Mordred said: That's really the kicker we can only measure the rate of change. One can literally throw away the word time which is just a convenient label and simply describe the rate of change in any process. * Then surely time fits the description of a dimension, since it then a label for a coordinate axis. I am just not sure if you are arguing for or against TR, this seems to be saying time is an actual dimension but just a label for coordinates. From your last post: Similarly with time you can measure time difference or elapsed time or lifetime in seconds, but never time itself. For some reason we (well some of us) bother to make the distinction, but not for time. I think, in retrospect, you were arguing TR does not exist and time itself is an illusion. Time is a confusing subject, like Mordred you can argue time does not exist at all in reality or you can argue a time dimension does actually exists in reality but there are two choices here. Either: The dimension covers the whole universe at one time. Or The dimension covers a single point at different times. There are no other choices so in TR you must decide based on the evidence, the first choice is that time facilitates all movement which is the contradictory time-flow idea being superimposed from a mathematical construct. The second choice is a time particle idea that as far as I can see fits the evidence without any contradictions at all. Edited Thursday at 09:16 AM by studiot one post at a time