keelanz

Will government ever take its foot off the gas pedal of spending? We're up to our necks people and the engine is revving even faster than ever. So, can this "insane" attitude of borrowing to spend more be curbed before we destroy America? Is there a ceiling to it? The link below may be absolute truth, or a fantasy of one party kicking at the other. Let's face it, there is no innocence of either party. Both are at fault. Whatever, the whole sad mess must come to an end soon or we will all say goodbye to our freedoms. The wolf, (us) is at our own door. "HELP"!

 

http://www.youtube.c...bed/VtVbUmcQSuk

this is some zeitgeist stuff

essentially the borrowing only increases which causes inflation which on its own isnt that bad(its relative), when interest gets added a few problems start arising and then when the whole monetary system is rules by a few private companies then shit really hits the fan.

there isnt much anybody can do without destroying the whole monetary system and with what? who knows thats why its a problem.

capitalism is a very easy system to work in but a very hard system to change but i suppose it starts with a post like this

there is a ceiling to it approximately every 20 or so year.

the most realistic thing to do is to spend your money wisely, dont invest in corrupt companies & use things like building societies instead of private banks, decide what aspects of commercialization you want to improve and spend your money in them area's (I.E. invest in green technology rather than buying power from the grid)

thats not much we can do really without getting rid of central banks and creating some other system. sorry i couldnt be of more help.

As far as I can see, it's a perfectly accurate metaphor; I'm not sure why you disagree. You can never exactly express a third using decimal numbers; you can with fractions. Also, what's pretentious about calling the universe "the universe"?

I'm well aware of the different number systems. However, since introducing all that extra information wouldn't do anything to help the attempted simplicity of the explanation, I refrained from giving it. Also, since it might not have been obvious from my previous post, I was responding to the following:

 

 

 

However, I might have misinterpreted the meaning; the way I understand it, and for me the post is not clear enough to be completely sure, the author was saying that numbers with infinite decimal places are "unreal". I was attempting to point out that there is a way to represent them finitely and thus helping the author accept their "realness", evidently not doing a great job of conveying that either.

 

A piece of trivia, which you might already know, not even the complex numbers occupy the highest level; see quaternions, octonions and sedenions.

 

 

keelanz: What numbering system would that be? The naturals?

Binary

He didn't need to... he's more immortalized and influential in history than 99.99>% of his and future generations will ever be. In his case, lack of gene transference was trivial: what more could the Newton line do than produce one of the brightest minds in human history? I'd swap my sperm for his intellect any day.

i was just referring to the general necessity of a species for survival, if the >99.99% of us did what newton did then well...you wouldnt be here to get the picture

Not in the mathematical sense, no. Science is inductive. Relativity is well-established. Informally, though, it would not be wrong to say that it is proven (within some limits of application).

logically it could be proven, logical manipulation/simulation of physical machines can prove scientific theory's relative to each other, so scientific facts? fairly sure we cant physically create anything quite powerful enough too map the whole of relativity yet, but theoretically its as possible as e=mc^2, you love it.

Obviously I don't think ydoaPs question is something to joke about...

 

Do we want young kids to come here to read and learn science?

 

Do we want young kids to come here and read offensive language?

Their getting screwed by the music industry anyway? and their parents im sure. We dont all get sheltered upbringings, i said puck, i find it funny, im over it, are you? w8, w8, w8, i dont care. BTW puck isnt a swear word and as he said in his post nobody's noticed the glitch yet which obviously means there isnt enough profanity for any of the mods or admins to take note. oh yeh im sure theres plenty of 8 year old learning special relativity....

im done with you

sorry btw its gone my bed time, its now 12:15 pm so ive only missed it by 14 hours? i dont mean to be sarcastic or aggressive im just playign around cuz im tired mate, not much else is happening

Obviously not. Those who dedicate themselves to Science will accept every fault of their theory as readily as they accept its fair points. Ideas are floating constantly. It was a situation during the BC times when someone who stood against the knowledgeable person was beheaded. Now, with the end of open crimes against humanity and crimes against science, people have become active and feel free.

 

The + and - points given to certain posts really makes this thread colourful.

no i kinda agree with hal, scientists and the religious are the same, they sometimes hold their own truth above reality such that a new theory or idea could breath new life into new areas of science but is blindly refuted by scientists because past theory's constrain its progression, im not sure if hal is an r*tard or what but people are hating on him quite alot, maybe hes just misunderstood? TROLOLOLOL

like i mean i dont think scientists are so ready to take on new idea's, well not idea's that contradict what is, they will accept new idea's that help prove or aid what is ... like quantum mechanics TROLOLOLOL

Check out recent threads by hal_2011.

 

[EDIT] Ooh, you are already participating there, then why are you asking if you know?

aww lol, guess they didnt give you a sense of humor with that degree? <3 u longtime

Are scientists afraid to give their opinions in science because they don't want to be seen to go against the ' knowledgeable ' crowd ? Is this preventing the exploration of new idea's ?

 

This is an open thread but it may be better if the ' usual suspects ' kept their opinions to themselves . I will not reply to any poster who has previously engaged in disputed discussion with me .

i think you'll find science works in a similar way to religion, if i wanted to create my own religion right now it wouldnt be worth anything to anybody (other than you guys who would throw yourself off a bridge for me i know) however if i was to go and study all the different religions of the world and then try and create something from all of them, more people will be not only willing to listen but to believe. Science is much the same, you have to understand firstly everything about the boat your trying to rock, its size/max speed/max capacity etc once you have a solid grasp maybe then someone may be willing to listen not always though, regardless alot of scientists wont revolt against theories they are being taught because they have to take the theory's as fact or else science itself would be useless.

its all just one big illusion but the philosophers cant explain to the physicists and the physicists try to prove the illusion is truth & the masses dont care either way.

It seems the censor did not survive the software transition. Should a new one be put into place? Then again, with it taking THIS LONG to even notice, we might not even have enough of a problem to warrant the effort needed to make a new one.

what the puck are you on about?

Hello,

 

I'm having a bit of a problem. I'm not sure if this is the right forum to post this in, if it's even the right website. Anyways, please answer if you can.

 

You see, I created an HTML web page with Microsoft Notepad. I'm really proud of it, and I want to share it with the world. The only problem is, I tried finding a free domain hoster, but nothing worked for me. I'm not familiar with the computer language. I didn't understand, really, anything on Atspace.

 

So, now my question: Is it possible to create a link (like "www.scienceforums.net") to my file? If so, how? If I wanted to post my web page on the Internet, would I have to pay up?

 

If it helps any, the file is located in C:\Program Files\Internet\www\Chat Groups.htm.

 

Even if you can't answer this, thanks.

your a bit skrewed without some computer knowledge, heres what you do if you dont want to pay for domain hosting...download ubuntu, install apache, open port 80 then you are essentially running your own server, download notepad++ its a half decent IDE for websites.

also its <a href = "www.scienceforums.net" > most loved </a> ..... not sure if your asking how to link to a site tho? this isnt web hosting

i kinda feel insulted by this post lol

i can pronounce antidisestablishmentarianism so what?

anybody who thinks in "english" is "english", i dont give 2 damns about nationality but the language you speak dictates who you are as you are constrained by it. essentially whatever language you "think" in determines your nationality, accent's really have nothing to do with mentality or trying to be a baby. 1 out of 10 english people mumble they dont have a lisp

Is the U S shirking it's duty to democracy ?

 

If the U S does not exercise Police action in the East, is it shirking it's duty to Democracy?

 

Like it or not, the Western forces, through the U N's use of U S military might, along with it's allies, and the World Bank, Police the world.

 

A speedy resolve to many of the relatively small wars around the globe could be ours, if we all just told the U S to just do it's Job and go do the will of the revolutionary forces and take over.

 

With environmental change moving along at a brisk pace, we as peoples must impose peace more quickly in order to divert resources to life instead of death.

 

Clearly the people of the East are hesitantly showing that they wish to share, in Western culture. There are points of irritation, so to speak, between East and West but a rapprochement, on the big picture, is obvious.

 

We know that there are two ways to conquer a nation. Physical warfare or economic warfare. China, as well as other powerful economies, are presently putting economic pressures on the U S economy and therefore inhibiting the U S efforts to protect the revolutionary forces with police action, as opposed to, military, forces.

 

Democracy would be well served if these countries would ease up just a bit and allow the earth to benefit.

 

Let me be quick to tell my American friends that in no way do I intend or desire to denigrate U S actions to date. I ask the question more for a future, more simplistic time.

 

The question then should really be, Is the U S shirking it's duty to democracy, by advocating an easing of pressure on the economic front, to facilitate an advance on the switch from military intervention, to a more police style intervention with military intervention, as required.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

America has ONE duty and thats to its people. democracy is worthless without a political platform & the general support of its population, america and us guys in europe will soon find out that you cant bomb democracy into a nation, mark my words

so sinister but true, look inward before you look outward its in the rule book.

& please china putting pressure on your economy? SERIOUSLY? was you never taught what slave labour is.... im genuinely upset

& its not the "east" you do realise how many countries are actually east of you right? we are dealing with revolutionary's in north africa and the middle east not the east per say

you'll find alot of these native cultures do less damage to the earth than us earth dwellers do in the west, infact were the negative to their positive. they dont eat certain meat, they live a natural existence, they dont cage animals for pleasure, enslave entire cultures or eat up all the earth resources as if it were a race......ahh man some peoples political views go straight over my head

!

Moderator Note

 

Stuff where Hal is trying to understand what science really is has been moved here:

 

http://www.sciencefo...es-faith-based/

 

Stay on topic.

 

too funny

If it wasn't clear, when we said that foul language and bad attitude is against hte rules, we meant EVERYONE. The next post with derogatory language will be deleted.

 

You should be adults, you can speak without resorting to foul attitude.

 

Also, there are RULES for this forum, and it is a private forum, not a publically-owned venture. You are getting services from this place for free, you're not paying or have voting rights here. The rules allow the owner(s) to do pretty much whatever they want.

 

They happen to not do "whatever they like" but rather follow a set of very clear rules they and the staff composed. Follow it, or leave. It really is that simple.

 

This isn't a free government. And this particular subject of the rules here is not up for debate or vote.

The staff is a group of volunteers who take time to try and make the experience a good one for all posters, and most of our members take their time to help out and answer questions.

 

You're welcome. All we require is that you follow the rules. It's not that hard.

 

~mooey

sorry i thought this part of the forum may be more laid back, he did get anal though nah ill conform cant be bothered getting shot by the cowboy

on another note, the american bill has "in god we trust" the sterling has "charles darwin born 1809 - 1882", thats government censorship on a whole new level

im live on a few sites if anyone cares to play, blitz or correspondence its all good.

this can be an ongoing discussion into chess to if anyone cares to take it up.

peace all.

Precisely; the problem is not with the Universe, but with our methods of describing it. People realized long ago that .3333...just wasn't going to cut it, and thus fractions were born (probably not true historically, but you get my point). Today, we use fractions to avoid (some) infinite decimal expressions. Think of decimal numbers as being a less perfect "language" than fractions with which one expresses amount.

where does the simplest numbering system fit into all this jargon?

I am going with "C" as the solution.

 

In the first row when you overlay the patterns of the circles ie top to bottom you end up with a circle pattern on the grid with one double up , 2nd row triangles same pattern and same double up ... the third row overlay the crosses that's my guess and why as well.

 

I realised with the total sum of objects it had to be something beyond my first guesses.

i think you got the general rule right, i think the amount of shapes that you can get on 1 3x3 is relative to the shape, so the circle misses one shape as its 1 line, x misses 2 shapes as its 2 lines and the triangle misses 3 shapes as its 3 lines HOWEVER theres a few answers which fit that logic so following this rule there must be something else relative to the overlay of the other shapes too......far too much thinking at 9am

I believe in a lot of things but I can admit that some of my beliefs are probably false, the problem is I don't know which beliefs so I still hold onto my beliefs but most I avoid holding certainty in it. In my opinion 100% of the world is the same. We all have various beliefs mixed based on what theories and movements tell us, like science, religion, philosophy and of course we all have our own general original opinions. But let's be honest many of those beliefs are probably false.

by taking the pragmatic approach it is likely mostly everything we hold as being true or logical will either evolve in complexity and void our current truth or become totally fallacious of the new truth which means almost every belief (other than perhaps existence itself) are and will be proved void. To me things like morals and ethics are just like taste, we all have our own preferences, some are willing to try new things and some are not, some like sweet and some sour, we cant dictate our taste we just grow to accept it and in some cases if we know its bad for us or others we will choose not to eat it anymore (like fatty food or having a fking conscience)

i think actual truth is exclusive to the particular subject however to grow as a race we must create some collective consciousness in which we all accept our duty to the human race within a certain set of laws & to be open with each other about our own subjective beliefs. In the long run the rationals like me will destroy us all anyway so fuckit have fun and get laid....

great site, i seen a documentary on topdocs about fractals

your site seems very informative but would it be possible to actually re-create computer code so we can all play with the algorithms changing the fractals colours and sets etc. cheers

Should those in a science forum regard suspicion with curiosity? A book, 'Final Exit,' has already been published on effective suicide methods, and it was extremely popular -- though the market quickly died out. Given its popularity (even though its preferred method was ridiculous), we must assume that society regards it as appropriate to allow people to indulge their curiosity about these methods.

somebody with the name of MysteryOfGodST im not quite sure it is appropriate

Do*s Cen***sh*p **ss yo* O**?

FREEDOOM

He was also the President of the Royal Society so the scientists can claim him...clever bugger all round really.

wasnt clever enough to pro-create though huh? i dont think any humanist will lay claim to him or any social scientist.

Just as adults are generally less happy than children, because they are honestly confronting all the difficult uncertainties of human existence with none of the reassuring myths of infancy, so too religious believers are happier than atheists, as most polls suggest. But a more essential question is, who wants the happiness of being naive? If the price of being a fully conscious human is direct confrontation with existentialism's unsolvable challenges, then that is a price worth paying for being completely awake to reality.

rephrase "being completely awake to reality", there is no such thing.

i agree with the rest though, spot on

<3 numbering patterns

I have two neural network topologies. The first has two input nodes that are fully connected to 14 hidden layer nodes. The hidden layer is then split. 7 of those nodes go to 2 output nodes. The other 7 go to another 2 output nodes.

 

The second topology is very similar, but instead of the split hidden layer receiving input from the 2 input nodes, each section of the hidden layer receives input from separate input nodes (2 each). Effectively, then, the first network is split into 2 networks.

 

The thing is, what if these two networks in the second topology receive exactly the same inputs to their input nodes? Does it then produce the exact same results as the first topology? I am asking because the second topology is easier to implement (just two instances of a simple network, with identical input).

 

My understanding of the back-propogation algorithm is that it would not matter which topology I used, as long as the inputs were identical, but I wanted to verify this (as the network is not working in the way it is supposed to, and I am not sure if it is the network itself or some other factor).

hmm, MCDST, A+, N+ and even uni have (as of yet) never mentioned neural topology, just the old ones like star, net, mesh & token ring. do you have any visuals of your topology? might give a better understanding of whats going on, i would presume a neural network would create itself? i.e. find relative nodes to itself and only talk to them i cant see any algorithm that could define it though, otherwise AI would have existed a good while ago.