keelanz

FREEDOOM

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

rephrase "being completely awake to reality", there is no such thing. i agree with the rest though, spot on

<3 numbering patterns

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.

heres 2 more links to help http://en.wikipedia....Morgan%27s_laws http://en.wikipedia....Boolean_algebra my university uses 2 sets of logical symbology which confused me alot, be prepared to switch symbols, its the concept that matters. ill teach you 2's compliment in decimal too okay so say we have 70 - 60 (for what ever reason) well computers cant actually subtract so what they do instead is use a trick called 2's compliment in which they invert the 1's and 0's so that is what we shall do, instead of 70 - 60 we switch the second half of the equation so that its 70 + 40 which = 110, now in binary terms we take the LSD but in decimal we simply take the MSD which leaves us with 10 180 - 115 = 180 + 185 = 365 - 300(MSD) = 65 in decimal it only works if your taking a smaller number from a bigger number in binary its like this 01010101(85) - 00100101(37) so we invert the second half to 11011010 then we add 01010101 + 11011010 = 110101111 now take the LDN which makes it 11010111 and invert again which = 00101000(48) (i think thats right lol)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extropianism thats a pretty good read relating to transhumanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLSI_Project this is a good read relating to AI and HCI (essentially uses computers to make computer more advanced) as far as the actual singularity goes i think its a bit of a conspiracy, especially considering the AI we can currently program is very hardware dependent so we would probably have to scale IC's down a few more times before any great breakthroughs are made, however AI is a very tough philosophical subject and has no real answers yet so lets wait and see.

to be honest no idea on any books, i have a few on logic manipulation but its too complex for me and ive got a strong understanding of the basics, i could probably prep you on computational theory though if you wanted, show you how to create a password or a switch using logic manipulation the IEEE's are a set of standards pretty much all PC's use, so they are the universal laws that all computers abide by, mostly related to networking hackers beware do you understand the binary system? if so go read up on logic gates, theres not many but it can get complex. AND, OR, NOT, Xor, Nand , NOR & XNOR are the basic manipulations so if we have say a simple manipulation of A OR B AND C if we take A =1, B = 1 & C = 0 we can deduct a truth table (or do it in our head as this is simple) A OR B has to be true to have an output of 1, A & B have a value of 1 so the outcome is true, the logic manipulation also requires c to be true aswell as A or B and our C has a value of 0 so the outcome is false. though my example has no relevance the concept should be easy enough to grasp

id write a bit on binary numbering system and fibonacci, explaining how if indian mathematicians were to have had a better knowledge of physics and slightly modified their numbering systems that the modern computer could have been made thousands of years ago. id write a bit about boolean and logic manipulation as that is the real birth of modern computing . the only external link you need http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4948

1 + 1 + 1 = 11

cowoby's of truth can only rock the boat, now conform or get shot kid!!!!

I agree with mooey, im sure you'll find a rather large percent of actual scientist would agree that on probability alone life is not exclusive to our own planet. However as mooey said theres no "absolute" answer until the proof shows itself so we can only speculate on foreign life forms. for the luls peace

I tried to demonstrate in my thread about e=mc^2 that i do understand the concept. Not 1 person said either my explanation or calculation was incorrect. (other than correcting m/s) "I believe the best analogy i can give is that einsteins picture of energy in its purest form is a corn popping .... however the variables would be slightly different, so for example the size of a piece of corn that pops would be turned into to say an atom turning into our planet and this probably isnt suffice due to the speed of light" i would like to apologize if i have offended you or your belief system in anyway as i have not come here to contradict science or start my own theory, im here to learn. Specifically im interested in the equation on e=mc^2 so any external links regarding this equation would be much appreciated (especially regarding half the equation, why is this half so focused upon?) i simply offered the answer for this thread and in the most basic of logical terms "energy has many context's, how can anybody define it as one thing? if it can be defined as one thing then it must be something, if it is something then something that is nothing must not be energy. 100 years ago IC's didnt exist, they do now, somewhere in the last 100 years a form of energy was created." i always had a good grasp of mathematics so i enjoy physics as it shows the relativity of reality in mathematical terms & to mostly all extents i have no quarrels with physics, just this equation (which i even said is true if the equals is bi-directional) perhaps my problem lies with my own education as computers give you a totally different outlook on physics for example timesing something is only a function of addition, things like this arent so obvious without really breaking mathematics down to its fundamentals "You need to have a bit of a background in basic physics and in relativity. These are subjects that cannot be just "compressed" into a single "voila!" proof online." its not that hard to explain e=mc^2 in mathematical terms or linguistic if you actually understand it relativity = the inverted absolute (that which relies on each other to exist rather than exclusive or in absolute) as i said im sorry for offending you (if i have) but realistically other than telling me that im contradicting reality (without showing me how im doing it) what is wrong with the following (scientifically/logically) "Q: how to create energy? A: create something that doesnt exist" create 2 from 1, make plastic from heat and crude oil, manipulate electricity for IC's, make a flag out of dye and material, make language from a voice box all of the above created something that before hand didnt exist, so could that creation Logically/Scientifically be defined as energy? if not, why not? It doesnt matter what i believe what i really want is to rack your brains for your theoretic scientific beliefs. Specifically an analogy on mc^2 would be nice, a definition of energy wouldnt be bad either. Perhaps im trying to make a little room in science for something else? to be honest an external link that shows how you can test that E = mc^2 would be enough proof i suppose, as long as its a reliable source, adequately explained and proven "TESTED"

im not german enough to be einstein all i asked was for proof that e=mc^2, im fully aware of exactly what the equation is suggesting (http://www.sciencefo...ons-of-science/) but as you said "E=mc^2 is the simplified version of a longer equation; it's not the whole story, it's part of it, but it explains (experimentally proven) exactly how things act. The atomic bomb and the nuclear power were both created on top of this "E=mc^2" revelation. It's not just a "nice idea". It works. " e=mc^2 being used in other theoretical equations is just a form of things being logical of its own logic, could you please show me where we have created e from m whereby its mc2? oh please lol now please dont get me mistaken, im not directly saying e=mc^2 is fallacious im saying e is not defined as m, it can be transfered as im sure lots of E's transfer themselves (thermodynamics and all other theoretical jargon) the best way i can describe it would be the fractal equation whereby the equals works both ways, if you changed the = to bi-directional you wouldnt be defining e as m but e as a form of m that constantly changes, therefor e (all forms of) could have a strict definition whereby its existence is defined logically and in relation to lots of other things other than just m. "But you are contradicting reality. The fact you don't understand how things work doesn't mean they don't work the way they do. You're contradicting theories that have prediction power and work, and you propose an idea that has zero predictive power and no evidence. Whether you're trying to or not, you're contradicting reality." if existence is logical how am i contradicting reality? i dont see how an equation being "better" or having more "power" makes it right, its pragmatic but not absolute and i thought science is deduction of absolutes, using lots of proof to back up a theory is a standard of science we are taught from the age of 6 or 7? its hard to get you to understand, ive absolutely nothing to say about 99.9% of science whereby it's proven. theoretical physics ESPECIALLY any equation dealing directly with energy cannot be proven physically only within human understanding(analogies etc). im almost on the brink of saying energy is the evolution of idea's whereby the idea's spill into our physical existence. I mean logically its simple but scientifically we have trouble when we try tackle "idea's", however we have no issues with evolution in science? (charles darwin makes his way onto the back of my monetary's system of constraint & somehow we have the same birth place) no not high school, second year honours degree in computer science, university. Always been top of mathematics classes as its simple which always helped me alot in physics (also top classes) though after secondary school (finish at 16) i stopped with physics and switched to computers. Certain things make sense, certain things dont, 99.9% of physics can be proven, does the .1 percent prove our existence? i said "your call" because actually it is, the only absolute is our own reality, at some fundamental level you decide what you believe. If you decide e doesnt = mc^2 then it doesnt, its your call. Id like to say again im not saying e doesnt = mc2 im sayin if the equation is to have any truth then e must be a form of m not defined by it id like to conclude with you are right, i dont have a solid theory or an equation, i have an idea. In reality though all my idea actually is "Better means that we have the ability to predict how things behave with accuracy, run experiments and explain all phenomena." is a prediction, if you have crude oil and a blast furnace my idea predicts plastic....hopefully it gives people the power to create their own energy too final note "Science requires more than just something to seem logical. In fact, the universe, quite a number of times, is the exact opposite of what you would logically expect of it. Reality requires that you don't just "explain" things for yourself, but also actually be realistic." im not quite sure your understanding of logic? but it doesnt matter how illogical the universe seems because at the most fundamental level it is logical of its own system (in other words its all just an illusion) and thats as real as it gets my friend

if its logical it must be scientific? its only going againts e=mc^2. einstein wasnt defining energy, he was explaining the transference of mass to light im not saying what you think i am haha while were at it (drunkeness) what proof do you have that e=mc^2? theres more than enough proof in all of the science's(biology,physics, chemistry,computer etc) but yet theres still things that cant ever be proven(theoretical (contradiction))...... either theories such as e=mc^2 have no place in science or scientist's whom seek truth have no place in science. i totally agree with the pragmatic approach i just dont think energy is as simple as e=mc^2 your call

to me and my life its very relevant. its not about creating your own reality but creating something from your own reality which aids your reality ...... it has a very powerful physical aspect. (im not trying to contradict conventional science in anyway, i dont try and claim some equation, i just logically proved how to create energy)

its tough to define, i dont think its energy but in a meta sense it feels as though it is. like in a physical world were only manipulating matter but in an idealogical sense were creating the non-existent. hmmmm? lets just say im gona believe what i want anyway, if i decide creating random things is energy....wheres the harm? =D

im currently second year comp science so i have a little experience. it will depend on what language your university teaches (i presume java/assembly/mysql/PHP(JS, VBS)) you will have to prep on a few specific languages logic manipulation deals with alot of the algebra, algorithms is another key aspect (sequences) & numbering systems another. its hard to tell you exactly where to start without understanding your current understanding of PC's etc i would presume with a fairly good understanding of PHP and scripts the programing wont be hard, the logic itself is pretty much self explanatory but id say a good understanding of algebra may be needed. depending on which route your comp science takes you alot of physics and geometry may need to be learned (mostly simulation & games) although comp science is broad to do, really you have to specify anyway(to do well) so theres no shortcut, just have to learn the math etc learn JAVA LINUX IEEE's Computational theory (logic manipulation) PHP/HTML/JS/VB/MYSQL/CSS etc (websites you seem to know already) Databases & manipulation if you go to university with a good understanding of the above, you'll shit a degree P.S get a good understanding of numbering systems, specifically binary such as 2's compliment, hex is also needed.

to be honest i dont think it matters whos definition of E i broke, what i showed was Logical of its own Logic, it answered the question that was asked quack

lots of people have created equations for certain aspects of energy (gravity, heat, electricity) but nothing other than e=mc^2 actually defines E as one transferable force, its fair to say that im only really going against einstein's theory of defining E as mc^2. einstein being the "someone" according to my own source.. E isnt the transference of m to e its creating 2 from 1 or creating a 42" HD 3D TV from LED's, some metal and some plastic.... equations for electricity and heat still hold the same fundamental uses(like in the nice 42" 3D HD TV) but the definition and use of E change

i would presume something like pi "π (sometimes written pi) is a mathematical constant whose value is the ratio of any Euclidean plane circle's circumference to its diameter; this is the same value as the ratio of a circle's area to the square of its radius. π is approximately equal to 3.14159 in the usual decimal positional notation. Many formulae from mathematics, science, and engineering involve π, which makes it one of the most important mathematical constants.[1]" it cant be defined (infinitely long) but is used as a constant.

Well that clearly states energy is some "form of physical change" so its obviously something. Im not even tryin to define energy, as i stated it defines itself by already existing. what i show is how to create energy.

you seem to know alot, who is this "someone"?

ITS ALL BUT THE OPPOSITE OF SELFISH RICH-TARD