atinymonkey

After. Da Vinci was 23 years older than Michelangelo.

Ok, we know the database now. Nice and simple. But we still need to know what it is attempting to solve? How is it supposed to acheive the solution? What was the criteria given? I'm guessing there is some form of problem with ordering, and the database is going to solve that. Is it a technical problem, a resource problem or a time problem?

What we normally do is construct the user acceptance critera from the requirements given at the start of the project. The point is to evaluate how the software fufilled the objectives it was supposed to fufill. So, what we need to know is what sort of software is being deployed. What is it attempting to solve? How is it supposed to acheive the solution? What was the criteria given? If you are providing a solution, you must know the problem. I can give you frameworks to follow to produce the feedback, but it's dependant on the type of software solution you are talking about.

The mind tends to fill in the gaps to help you understand and process what you perceive. For instance, when you are reading your eye flicks across the page rapidly from one section to the next. In between the flicks the eye processes no information at all, and the mind fills in the blanks to present the eye with a complete picture. Effectively it shows a 'screensaver' image of what it supposes should be there. The flicks are called saccades: - http://www.4colorvision.com/reading/saccades.htm They demonstrate how the imagination fills in the blanks. When a person is losing eyesight, the mind tends to imagine things at the edge of the vision that the person is expecting to see. This can be people, or objects, and when the person turns to look the object or person simply is not there. The mind invented it to fill in the gap. This capacitity of the mind to present perfectly formed images is a demonstration of how complex your perception is, and shows how the mind is capable of taking very little information to make a massive leap to a conclusion. This skill is often labled 'extra-sensory' or a 'psychic' as you described, by people who think they are imagining an unlimited potential to the mind. In reality describing that skill as precognative or psychic is grossly underestimating the complexity of the brain. You were on the right track with the reasoning, just not the result.

Oooooh, so close to the real reason but went for the magical instead. 6 out of 10, must try harder.

1) The hippocampus and the subgenual cingulate, I think. Pwetty picture : - 2) Ones linked to depression, probably. More than you'd think but less than you'd hope. It's also rather extreme, and only really for clinically depressed patients. Oh, and your thread is this one : - http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7664 Not the one about differential equations you linked to

Chapter 5, paragraph 4. You ain't no fanboy http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Hitchhikers/00000016.htm

It's not set yet, but I've sent 3mb without a problem.

I'd like to see them get past my armoured monkey army.

No, I've had gmail for almost a year. it's nice of you to offer, but I think it's redundant. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8338 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4752 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5868

Zero wing. And it's posted all over the internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us

You know there is a thread for this, and almost all the members have 50 invites?

I'm off the see the Hitchikers Guide in an hour, and I quite want to watch it. Although I appreciate your opinion, I'm going to suspend myself away from reality for the duration. Thanks for the concern though, I'll try not to turn crazy.

Hmmm, you be suspicious acting man thing. Why you make post with such word things and brain ideas?

If you don't like language, don't use it. I don't think I need to hear what you have to say anyway.

To summarize for David, he's marketing a form of Religious Esperanto.

I think you are wasting your life and my time with this 'future' science hokum.

Yeah, I like totally don't believe in France anymore. It's just, like, a figment man.

How about I kick you repeatedly in the head until you really don't know if we live in a movie or not? I'll dress up like Neo, if it helps.

I presume this has some sort of point to it, but I'm as a bit of a loss as to what. If your saying you don't handle even light criticisms, then you are probably in the wrong place. I don't remember ever playing up the crowd. If you took a poll of popularity of forum members, I'd probably not get one vote. I post for myself, not some pseudo popularity contest. You are quite right. I'm an analyst. I'm paid to scrutinize complex systems/processes and come to a logical decision. I'm very accustomed to logic, million of pounds ride on me getting the systems right. I'm not sure what I'd class you as, but a few things do spring to mind. I do indeed have replys. I thought I'd pointed out, in a light and accessible manner, why your 'common sense' approach was invalid. Theorys based of faulty logic are, coincidentally, faulty. That's odd. I thought I'd responded succinctly to your point. I thought I'd highlighted that what you are using is not logic, but conjecture. I thought I'd presented a rather convincing argument against the very base of your theory. I'm not sure I could put it more bluntly without being rude. If you think I have some sort of power over you, it's only because you perceive me to have. This post, all my posts, and all the points in this thread are just ghosts in the machine. Intangible and insubstantial, you are free to ignore them or to take them to heart. It really is up to you, not me. Press the little x in the corner of the screen if you want the text to disappear.