ydoaPs

An FBI investigation, led by a Republican appointed and endorsed agent, has found no prosecutorial criminality in any of Hillary's email related actions.

No, it didn't. You may want to go back and read their announcement again.

You have not showed that she lied.

Either she lied, or she is so incompetent that after being FLOTUS, a Senator, and Sec State, she didn't know what classification markings are. I'm not sure which is the better option.

A niggle here.

 

It is not dimensionally true to say you can subtract distance (or its square) from time (or its square).

 

Time has dimension T

The constant, c, has dimensions LT^-1

 

When multiplied together the result has dimension, L

That's why the c is there.

But basically it's just 4-dimensional spacetime with the funny metric that combines time with space to model modern relativity theory.

It's not "funny", it's amazing and elegant. It gives a simply stunning expression for the invariant spacetime distance (well, its square, anyway).

So, the diagonal of the Minkowski metric is 1, -1, -1, -1. This gives our distance measure as s² = (cdt)² - (dx)² - (dy)² - (dz)². If you factor out a negative 1, you get s² = (cdt)² - [(dx)² + (dy)² + (dz)²]. The part in the square brackets is simply the Euclidean distance in the frame being analyzed. So, our metric gives us an amazing equation:

(invariant spacetime distance)² = (distance through time in a given frame)² - (distance through space in the same frame)².

To me, that's pretty freakin rad.

His "meditations on your bookshelf" ?

Giggity? o.O

What is your proof?

Yeah, I believe in solipsism. I've even got proof that it exists. I've got a copy of Descartes's Meditations on my bookshelf.

emphasis added

Do you believe in solipsism?

Yeah, I believe in solipsism. I've even got proof that it exists. I've got a copy of Descartes's Meditations on my bookshelf.

Which shows that if physics progress enough to explain the problem of time, the metaphysical issue may vanish.

Maybe, yeah, depending on how you view it. This is metaphysics indexed to physical theory. It's not reasoning what is real full stop; it's reasoning what is real if GR is true*.

For this particular problem to go away, GR would have to be abandoned in all but name, as it's a matter that arises from the theory itself and is formalism invariant. It's not just an artifact of the EFEs. It is present in all equivalent formulations. Anything that we can accurately call GR has the problem that we can start with two identical metrics at the exact same point, take each along a different path to identical ending points, and have different metrics when you get there.

So, if you mean that progress of physics removes the problem from the metaphysics of time, then sure. If you mean it removes the problem from GR, I'm not so sure, since it will mean GR will have changed to the point that it is unrecognizable from what it is now.

IOW that the metaphysical arises only because there is no affordable explanation from the physicists.

Sort of. Some physicists still do metaphysics (like my intellectual mancrush, Carlo Rovelli), but over time, more physicists have abandoned going further from the model to what options it implies for reality. The problem with that is that sometimes the metaphysics is really important in coming up with new models (like in quantum gravity).

I can imagine that as theoretical physics advances some metaphysical questions will evaporate - but only to be replaced with others!

I'd agree with that. And it's possible that it will go the other way for some issues, too. For example, if Rovelli's metaphysics of time ends up solving the problem of time for quantum gravity. Often, in metaphysics of physics, the line between the physicist and the metaphysicist is blurred (and sometimes physicists do metaphysics and sometimes philosophers do physics [i think it was John Earman that wrote a fantastic paper about whether or not one could survive time travel]).

Einstein proposed it then Gravity Probe B measured it and confirmed it. How real do you want it?

What is "it" that Gravity Probe B measured?

After searching Google I couldn't find a definition of life that everyone agrees on.

That's because there isn't one. Once you get past molecules in the hierarchy, definitions don't seem to work for natural kinds. In practice, though we often talk about definitions, humans seem to use a family resemblance type theory of natural kinds. In the macro-level, definitions will always be either too broad or too narrow to capture all and only the phenomena they are intended to describe.

After the sperm-and-ovum drop (nut.fa) has been [in the uterus] forty-two days, Allah sends it an angel that gives it form and fashions its hearing, sight, skin, flesh, and skeleton.

 

http://www.livingislam.org/n/hfhl_e.html

 

http://www.islamicmedicine.org/embryoengtext.htm

 

What are thoughts on these claims?

The modern form of this question has been around since (and discussed by) Einstein in the form of the Hole Argument. TL;DR: The mathematical formalism leaves us with two options. Either GR is indeterministic, or spacetime points are merely mathematical convenience rather than anything ontologically real.

This problem goes from blurring-the-line-between-philosophy-and-physics to a big effing deal for physicists when it comes to quantum gravity theories, because it is the direct reason behind The Problem of Time.

We spent the last 100k on Mordred.

 

 

OK technically we spent it on Cheez Nips and cheap Portuguese wine at one hell of a party to celebrate.

 

 

But from now on we cannot pay staff cos we are completely broke

Good thing we're grandfathered in, eh?

Actually you are creating multiple timers with trade off on collision detection, but then you need to take into the account of parallel computing , it might work

 

P.S. Actually, you can have infinite timers, but you still need collision checks in the subsequent circuit design, which would take a good few if statements, depends on how many of that you can run in parallel

Yeah, I didn't think about them just pulling charge until they go. We'd need a way to discharge them outside of the network upon a firing of a neuron in that layer. Maybe each neuron gets a set amount of time (like 1/4 second or less) to fire, otherwise it discharges to someplace outside the network?

Sure you can. A simple Artificial Neural Network (even Deep Neural Networks or anything that isn't convolutional) is 2d. You have a layer co-ordinate and a neuron co-ordinate.

And if you don't want it to be software, you could train the software neural net to your liking (make sure the neuron outputs in the input layer and hidden layers are binary [so a step function instead of a sigmoid or tanh], though). Then create a conversion between weights and resistance and between input sum and capacitors. Each capacitor (and a resistor to standardize the outputs)acts as a neuron, and resistors of various resistance act as the weighted connections.

I'm not sure why you'd want to do that, but you could.

In Theory theism is just about being a good person. And in theory atheism is just about empiricism.

Your post started with two objectively false statements; why ought we continue reading?

An old example of tape memory

...not that old :'(

 

Exactly you can't really. That's why there really are no non_deterministic algorithms. You could also say that every Non_Deterministic algorithm is actually just a Deterministic algorithm mislabeled because the randomness could be considered as an additional input.

It's not as though it's impossible. You'd just need an extra bit of hardware. Use as your seed variable(s) the timestamp of a decay of an atom of a radioactive source. A detector picks up the decay, logs the time, sends it to the number generator. Boom, an encrypted truly random number generator.

How do you propose getting truly random variables?

Yeh ive worked through unix, thats why im slightly confused. Is it the binaries like vi and pipes? Or full access to repo's?

 

I dont mind either terminal, i have bash on my phone with most bins. Not rooted though.

I haven't used it yet, but it's based on Ubuntu, so you should have access to the repos you can use in Ubuntu.

Whats the debian console? Bash? Can it use tarballs and repo's? Windows specific repos? I dont like the sound of that.

 

If not what does it have? /usr/bin/ or w/e the binaries are for the terminal.

 

I quite like netsh and wmic on windows.

 

W10 didnt seem to have anything special. I dont know about security.

Iirc, it's got a compatibility layer (like the opposite of Wine Is Not an Emulator), but I'm not sure what the extent of the functionality will be. For instance, I don't think it will have things like apt-get. apt-get will work.

The Linux terminal. It isn't new to windows I have it on windows 7 and it works fine unlike the mac versions could never get xcode working....

Is it the same? I know Windows has always had a command window, but afaik, the commands have always been different. While things like cd (Change Directory) are the same, things like pwd (Print Working Directory) are not the same in Windows.

https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2016/03/30/run-bash-on-ubuntu-on-windows/

Ever wonder what the computers less powerful than a TI-83 that guided the Apollo landers looks like? Well, it's now on Github for all to enjoy.

It isn't paradoxical the answer is that once the host opens the first door with a goat behind it you have a 50:50 chance of getting the car.

That's the incorrect answer. You can do it just marking out the possibility space with pictures of doors, cars, and goats, or you can do it the Bayesian way and you get the same answer. That answer is not 50/50.

You can run actual trials (as Mythbusters did) and confirm. 50/50 is an incorrect answer.

Horrible quality video to follow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAljAvR3L4s

A disadvantage of 10 is a well-known bug where it sometimes doesn't want to give you internet. Just Google the error on your phone. It's a simple enough fix; you just need to clear some registries and restart your computer.

and 2 Acer netbooks using the Atom 2600 processor, for which Intel won't release a video driver.

It sounds like you need some Arch in your life.

I have 2 pc's (desktop and notebook) using Windows 7. What are pluses and minuses for Windows 10?

The debian terminal is coming to Windows 10 soon, so 10 will finally bring a sensible console to Windows. Afaik, there are no such plans to bring it to 7.

Also, the default anti-malware stuff on Windows 10 is actually some of the better free anti-virus software out there at the moment.