Bikerman

I used to believe that a long time ago. Eventually I realised that what I was reading was a two thousand year old set of stories about someone who may have existed and had some nice ideas in philosophy. The rest was really not sensible, and as for the Old Testament - Yaweh is an extremely nasty God in the OT. He spends a lot of the time killing people who don't believe in him, killing people who do, but don't grovel sufficiently, and killing pretty much everybody, one way or another.I find him an intensely nasty character and the idea of worshipping him seems very wrong to me.I agree that we shoul strive to improve each day and that helping others is one part of that. I get that from thinking a lot about life and working out an ethical way to behave, rather than any religious source. Well, I can't say that I believe in the fires of hell (or eternal paradise for that matter). Once the brain is unconscious then you are not there anymore - as we see each night. Modern science has taught us quite a bit about the brain, the mind and how they are linked together, so the religious notion of resurrection - notion that we somehow can be conscious after the brain dies..well again I find it a bit silly really to be honest. I also don't like the idea that people would behave themselves just out of fear or hope of reward. I think behaving well is it's own reward and there is no need for stories to frighten people into it. It must be quite nice to feel that there is someone looking after you, but I'm afraid I've lived long enough to see many friends and acquaintences with that same belief be rather badly let down by it. I have never understood how any father figure could possibly allow the evil and torment that is so much a part of so many lives. Why let babies suffer? Surely they are innocent? It is my observation that good people don't always get good things and evil people sometimes do prosper.

But the same proble arises. The whole point of the cartoon is to say - look, this is not offensive and if you find it so then OK, but we will not be intimidated by threats or violence into not speaking and doing as we intend. Now, if it is just a normal muslim then we are not actually making that point. We would then be saying - hey, we will not be intimidated, but by the way this isn't Mohammed honest so no need to get nasty... That would be a complete cop-out and actually wouldn't make much sense. I do genuinely appreciate that this is difficult for you and I get no pleasure from upsetting you - I am not a sadist - but we have already had the first threats a couple of days ago. I was discussing the cartoon on another forum (Frih-host) with one of the other members, and a young muslim lad posted a stream of abuse and threats, telling us he would behead us ..and various other sillyness.... Now, that is the sort of reaction that makes it necessary to pursue this issue. We are also pursuing the Christians, so it is even handed, but I have to say that their threats are much less in number and intensity. You must surely see that this sort of threat and behaviour cannot be justified or tolerated? The lad concerned (I am a moderator at Frih so I had to ban him) will never see the cartoon. So what he is saying is 'I will kill you for drawing something I won't see, but will still offend me'. Why, then, is he not screaming at the national museum in Istanbul which has many images of Mohammed which thousands of people see every day? or the Topkapi Palace Library in Istanbull? No, this is bullying and not only is it wrong, it is really dangerous. Once we let muslims get away with this blackmail/bullying then the Christians will get on the bandwaggon and threaten people who blaspheme (a small number already do). It must be challenged and challenged and challenged again until muslims either start to behave in a civilised manner, or those that don't are safely locked-away out of civilised society.

No, it isn't really. The vast majority of Christians nowadays don't take the Genesis account literally (it was never intended to be literal, it is a creation myth). The only people who take it literally are Christians we generally call creationists. Interestingly enough they believe that they are upholding a tradition, but it isn't actually the case. The problem with taking the bible literally is, basically, it is daft. The notion of a 6 dat creation a few thousand years ago is sheerest nonsense. Once people start to get comfortable believing nonsense then it is all bad from that point.

They can and do routinely. No I am saying that this has been the case for years. Nobody told Deep Blue what moves to make when it beat Kasparov. Who could have done, since Kasparov is the best chess player in the world.Neural Networks (computers that can learn) are used in science, business, medicine and other fields. The famous 4 colour theorem was solved by a computer. It depends what you mean by self-sustaining. Robots exist which can seek out power points and plug themselves in, as one example. You are wrong and computers have been running without instructions for at least 15 years. Here, go and educate yourself http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Thanks for that. As for dogs - oh yes indeed. Max - Welsh collie - 13yrs (rescue) retired from Agility now but still fit and healthy - Daddies favourite (shhhh!) Minnie - Black Schipperke - 7 yrs (pedigree, crufts 2nd in class twice) Agility level 6. Likes to bully German Sheps - mummies girl Maddie - Border collie - (farm dog) 4yrs Agility level 5 fast and flighty - Daddy's girl Skip- - Cream Schipperke - 3yrs (rescue) still hoping for a clear round if he can stop chasing anything edible - alround cheeky sod.

There are several techniques to implement the Hungarian method algorithmically: eg 1. Write the matrix out 2.Now for each row subtract the lowest value from the others in turn. You will now have 1 or more zeros in each row - the zeros represent zero cost so you organize the tasks using the zero elements. If there are 0s in all the columns then you have your assignments. End eg. 0...a2'..0..a4' b1'.b2'..b3'..0 0...c2'..c3'..c4' d1'..0..d3'..d4' 3.If the matrix does not yet have a full set of assignments then repeat for the columns (ie take the lowest value for each column). If you now have a 0 in each column then you have your assignments. End. 4. If it still does not resolve then Repeat a) Mark all rows which do resolve to 0 b ) Mark all columns with a 0 in that same row c) Mark all rows with a 0 in that same column d) Draw a line through each marked column and each unmarked row e) Find the lowest valued unmarked element f) Subtract that value from the marked rows g) Add that value to the marked columns Until all assignments (0) made. End.

None of the above (depending on what exactly you mean). The singularity is a zero dimensional point. The surrounding event horizon is spherical, but you can't see it directly - only as a black zone. Why worry about the shape then? I haven't a clue what you mean by that last phrase...a filler theory to complete and uncomplete circle? huh? You mean Hawking radiation. No mystery. Even in space virtual particles are popping in and out of existence all the time in the form of particle-anti-particle pairs, like positron and electron. They quickly recombine and annihilate. But if this happens at the event horizon then one of the pair might be pulled-in and the other escapes. That then can be regarded as a particle being 'emitted' by the black hole because it has supplied the energy to keep the pair of particles apart. There is no theoretical limit. But don't think of it as a beast sucking everything in - common misconception. If the sun turned into a black hole, you wouldn't notice apart from the dark/cold. The earth would carry on orbiting, as would the other planets. A black hole can only attract according to it's mass just like everything else in the universe. An apex is normally a tip or point and a circle has no tip or point. In fact it is sucked-in to the singularity - an infinitely small dot in space. This is where the science ends because we don't know much about the singularity and probably never will, since nothing, including light, can escape, so we have no way to see it or interact with it in any way. Some say it is a tear in spacetime - it could possibly lead to another spacetime - another universe.

Which serial is it (left click my computer..properties)? Be aware that the control-panel/programs and settings/windows-components option only deletes the exe file and leaves pretty much everything else. The best bet would be to go into windows components and check or uncheck IE (and if needed repeat to reinstal) then you have a clean installation and can decide what next...

No it isn't. Maths involves using symbols and numbers to investigate - not simply recognising quantity.

I disagree. I think this and other research shows something deeper.I'll try to dig out another study which showed that babies responded to flash cards with different numbers of dots/shapes in a way which seems to indicate they can tell 'less' and 'more'. Of course it doesn't necessarily mean they can count or use numbers, it simply might indicate that there is some processing that is later lost and which allows a baby to tell which of two piles has the most in it. It might mean much more, though... This is not such a startling proposition as it might sound. We know that there is specialised hard-wiring in the brain of babies which allows the acquisition of language and that this wiring is later 're-wired' for other things, so if a child does not acquire language before that key point (somewhere around 5-6 yrs) then they never acquire fluency in language.. I don't think the evidence is conclusive, but it is interesting. http://www.dana.org/Publications/Brainwork/Details.aspx?id=43762 http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/2010/08/17/what-are-the-origins-of-number/ http://findarticles.com/?noadc=1 https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17264-babies-understand-numbers-as-abstract-concepts-/

I don't disagree - I just know that some people feel very strongly that they don't want it on their machine and I would rather they use a tested procedure than attempt an ugly hack of their own. My advice would be to hide/disable rather than completely remove.

He is pulling your leg.Utada Hikaru is a Japanese singer who has a single called A Kaleidoscope Of Mathematics on her album.Hokkaido Mathelogy is a nonsense phrase. Hokkaido has a journal of mathematics but matheology is meaningless.As for the equation 1+1 = ?OK....if you want a mathematically rigorous answer then you have to start by defining the symbols and operators. This is done as follows:We start with the Peano Postulates:P1. 1 is in N.P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication (x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.That defines our number series.Now to define addition:Definitions : D1. Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a' (using P1 and P2 above). D2. If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N (using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.Now define '2'D3. Definition : 2 = 1'Now propose the theoremTheorem: 1 + 1 = 2Finally prove with reference to definitions:Proof:Since a+b=a' (using D1)LET a=b=1 It follows that1+1=1' (D1)and1'=2 (D3)Therefore1+1=2QED.Note that this uses S1 version of the Peano Postulates. The proof for S0 is similar but has a couple of extra steps. That, however, should do you.

Spatial reasoning, pattern recognition and basic number awareness. There is some evidence that babies posses an inate sense of number https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726425.600-babies-reveal-natural-gift-for-numbers

You can remove IE but it isn't simple, as you say. Since windows 7 there is the option to remove it completely. For earlier systems like XP you have to first remove SP3 and then you can remove the core - but it leaves some dependancies.If you really want to get rid then you need to follow a guide like this:- http://webtrickz.com/how-to-uninstall-internet-explorer-8-in-xp-vista-or-revert-back-to-previous-version-of-ie/ or use nlite to do it for you http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancements/nLite.shtml Warning - do this at your own risk and don't come crying to me if it goes belly-up :-)

I don't really see how religion figures. Yes, I probably would have given him some money. I generally do if I can, but I prefer my charitable donations to be more focussed if possible, which is why I have a monthly arrangement.And no, I am not religious.

I appreciate the gesture, but the whole point is to confront this issue, not sweep it aside. The fact is that the issue exists and is real, and I would prefer it to be discussed openly. The only reason for doing so is that Muslims need to change their view on this. It isn't one of those issues where a bit of compromise from both sides would solve it. There is no room for compromise on free-speech - either you support it or you don't. If Muslims were to realise that declaring war on someone for printing an image is wrong, and change, then I guarantee that I will never publish an image of Mohammed again, since I am not interested in gratuitously insulting anyone. Until that time then be insulted, be offended, call me names, scream abuse at me. All that is fine. Threaten me with death (or declare war on me) - no. That must change. If I thought that obliging your request would genuinely help achieve this goal then I would do so, but I don't. I think it would just be one more example of a refusal to confront the issue head-on. I have deliberately chosen a cartoon which does not portray the prophet in a particularly bad light, since that is not the point of the exercise. The point is to show that an image of anyone or anything is just an image, nothing more. Those who call it blasphemy are within their rights, though I think they are over-reacting. Those who call for the killing of people because of it are extremist zealots. The only way I know to change the situation is to honestly challenge it head-on. So I am genuinely sorry to offend you, but I must publish the cartoon. If you have a suggestion to make it less offensive to you then I will try to accommodate it, but it will be published, and the by-line will say that it was drawn by all of us - we have no intention of identifying one person.

It seems to me that miladinoski gives the main valid reason for not using IE. Microsoft are very reluctant to adopt any standard that is not their own. They resisted Java because it was owned by Sun (now Oracle), even though the code and APIs were freely available. The reason that there is so much incompatibility between browsers on the internet is precisely because of this reluctance to accept and properly implement standards. Microsoft constantly look to implement their own proprietary standards so they can cash-in. Their argument is normally that standards are a lowest common denominator arrangement which stifle innovation and lead to mediocre products. That is a superficially attractive argument but I think it is over-stated.The next big test will be how Microsoft implements HMTL5 and whether it still insists on proprietary codecs or finally comes on-board with the definition of HTML5-video standards.

So, do you believe in the literal truth of the bible? Does that include the Genesis account of creation, Noah's ark etc? Or do you concentrate on the New Testament?(Born again atheist who has read and still reads the bible)

Hi, I'd like to know if any of the hosting plans come with MENCODER, FLVTOOL2, and FFMPEG for use with video applications? Or, if not, can they be installed on the webspace (it would require shell access at least)?

Maths is more than just recognising patterns, as I said. It is a language with syntax/grammar. People are born with an ability to do some basic pattern recognition but I don't think that extends to having a natural grasp of mathematics (except perhaps in some rare cases). A russian may not know what 1+1=2 means (OK, they probably would, but an alien wouldn't). You would have to start with a definition of symbols - how would they know that 1 mean 'unit' and 2 meant two such units (let alone knowing the meaning of the plus and equal signs)?I think that you may be getting at the issue of whether maths is a construct or whether it is part of the universe - which is a very deep question. The two poles of that argument are known as the Realism school (mathematics exists distinct from humans in its own right - we discover maths, not invent it) and the Social Constructivism school (mathematics is a construct of humans and mathematical objects have no external existence - we invent maths, not discover it). Within those two extremes are various other viewpoints such as the Logical school (they assert that all mathematics can be reduced to logic), Platonic school (mathematical objects are eternal and unchanging), Empirical school (maths has to be deduced by experiment/research, and it is impossible to know 'a-priori' ie before you work it out by example) & Formalism (maths is just the result of setting certain rules (axioms) - it is a game that changes as you change the rules).It is possible to make a convincing argument for any of these. The Realist says - pythagoras' theorem is always true and therefore pythagoras didn't invent it, he discovered it. The Constructivist retorts 'untrue...show me a single example of an exact triangle in nature. There are non - it is a human invention'. The formalist says 'given that we construct certain axioms (euclid) then pythagoras is a naturally emerging result of those axioms'.

No, this doesn't work as a supporting argument. The economy is based on supply/demand. If you make it so that there is no demand for luxury goods (by legislation, education or whatever) then production will switch to other things. Exactly this argument is used to support the manufacture and selling of weapons worldwide by countries such as the UK and US. It is bogus - the people currently employed making weapons could equally well be employed making other things - it is a CHOICE, not a requirement.

No that is incorrect. If the 'offence' occurred in the UK then you would be tried according to UK laws. If it occurred in Pakistan then Pakistan laws would apply. Rushdie is in England. He has committed no offence in England therefore there is no charge to answer. I am not in Muslim territory - your laws do not apply. Neither is Rushdie nor the Danish cartoonists. You cannot apply your laws in our country because we do not accept them, and you have no right to even try. That is the same as saying honour our rules - or else! Our laws allow us to insult anyone we wish - freedom of speech. Your rules are different but they are not MY rules. If you are prepared to declare war on an individual who is not bound by your rules then of course you are dangerous. The same applies to Christians who are prepared to kill people who violate their rules. I want nothing to do with your rules and the notion that you can impose them on me is profoundly wrong. Rushdie attacked no-one but you would see him killed. Double-standards. Drawing a cartoon is not attacking - ever heard the phrase 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me'? If you find The Satanic Verses offensive then DON'T READ IT. That is your right. Sort of. Moses was a prophet who led the Jews to the promised land, and carried the 10 commandments down from the mountain. Jesus and the apostles were all Jews by birth and by choice. Jesus makes frequent reference to the scripture in his speeches, such as 'not one letter of the law shall be changed' (referring to Jewish canonical law in the Tanakh (OT). Which makes it all the more nonsensical that you feel able to criticise that which you do not know. You have a belief based on one set of scriptures. Christians have the same and Jews have the same, although their beliefs are different. There is no evidence to say that any one view is more valid than any other - that is why it is a matter of faith, not fact. You simply choose to believe that Christians are wrong. Exactly. There is no point quoting quarnic verses - I could quote bible verses until the cows come home - it proves nothing. Of course you are forcing your beliefs. You openly say (or muslims do) that if we do certain things, like mocking your prophet, then you have the right to kill us. That is about as forceful as it gets. You have no such right, and that is a clear attempt to intimidate people into accepting that Mohammed was special and deserving special treatment. I do not believe that, and therefore do not accept the whole notion. To me Mohammed was just a man like any other and like all men he had flaws and weaknesses. Our laws give me the right to express that, and your laws have no jurisdiction here. The difference is that the Christians would have no right to kill you and would not try in most cases. If they did, they would be locked-up for breaking the law. Since you have already agreed that no proof is possible then you cannot prove that your belief is correct - in which case you (mulims) should leave others alone to say and believe what they wish instead of threatening to kill them. You are mistaken and saying the scriptures were altered is something for which you have neither evidence nor knowledge.Jesus claims to be the son of God many times in the gospels - and they are just as valid (or invalid) as the Quran. No it isn't - that is just invented from later interpretations of the Quran. For centuries Muslims made images of the prophet, with no fuss. In fact they adorned many Muslim building. The prohibition on depictions of Mohammed is a relatively recent thing - it starts in the late 16th century. Before that time Muslims frequently drew, painted and sculpted images of the prophet. The fact that your (Muslim) position has changed is not my problem since I don't accept your rules, but this notion that it has always been wrong to make images is just not true. http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/art Yes, I thought you might be. Unfortunately it doesn't change anything. a) a cartoon is not a lie. I don't know what Jesus looked like either, but it is not a lie to represent him in imagery - it is simply a representation. The same applies to Mohammed. The point of the cartoon is to illustrate the double standards that Muslims employ, plus the complete illegality of their position, plus the dangers of allowing the religious to dictate the agenda using threats of violence. c) I absolutely will NOT be dictated to by anyone. I will say what I wish when I wish and I will not be frightened-off by threats of violence. If people disagree with what I say then they have an equal right to say so. That is the civilised way to behave. Threatening violence (or war) is the barbaric way to behave and people who give in to such threats are allowing bullies to set the agenda. This is a very serious issue - I will NOT have Muslims threatening me in my own country for making a serious point about free speech, and if they do then I trust that they will be tried according to OUR laws, which say you do not make threats of violence against people just because you disagree with them, and hopefully they will be locked-up nice and tight in one of our secure jails, until they see the error of their nasty little bullying ways. d) If you want to mock Jesus in my country then go ahead. You may get some fringe groups threatening violence - they are as despicable as Muslims who do the same, and I have the same contempt for them. In fact part of the newsletter deals with those 'Christians' who threatened the producers of films and plays like 'The Life of Brian' and 'Gerry Springer the Opera'. I do not employ double-standards and do not pick on Muslims alone. ANYONE who threatens free speech is the target of our group. The group is currently called 'Campaign in support of free speech' - CAMSUFS (but we are currently looking for a more snappy title). It consists of a few people who are determined to stand up to any bullying on the matter of free-speech. The newsletter will be published via various internet sources when it is finished and agreed by the editorial team - hopefully next month... This is not something we are doing just on a whim. We all know that we face very real risks of violence or even death from fanatical Muslims. That is one reason why we have chosen carefully who is in the group. None of us have children who can be used as targets to scare us, and those who are married have the full support of our wives. We are not playing games - this is a very serious issue which we feel strongly enough to go to the wall for. My grandfather fought for the rights I enjoy, including freedom of speech and I can do no less. I'll be damned if I am going to sit back and let a bunch of religious zealots take those rights away by threats of violence. What we have here is a debate - which is great. You are quite welcome to be angry with me if I do something that offends your beliefs, I have no issue with that. What you are not welcome to do (and I will also quickly say that what you have NOT DONE) is to threaten me, or my family, because of what I say. That is a line in the sand over which NOBODY has the right to tread. Dressing it up as 'war' doesn't change the morality of the issue - which is that people are and should be free to say what they wish, within the normal limits of such freedoms (ie you cannot incite violence against a group of people and still use the freedom of speech argument). Governments impose other limits - such as not being free to talk about issues of national security - but that is by mutual agreement (if you work in sensitive areas then you sign the official secrets act in which you agree not to talk about such issues). Commercial organisations have a similar restriction - you sign a contract which says you will not talk about the companies secrets to other companies. That is no problem because the individual must agree. I have not agreed not to talk about Mohammed and not to draw him, therefore nobody has the right to insist that I do not.

Call me a pedant if it makes you feel better - I don't mind (as long as you don't call me pedantic which would imply a general knowledge of my characterisics/habits which could not be supported from a single, or even multiple examples of postings on internet forums)...

Not really. If 1/2x was sufficient then you didn't need x....but as you say this isn't about that..

But why half? If you need x to do y then 1/2x is not much use....