Spyman

If we were able to build a robot that has intelligence, is conscious, feels emotions and has its own free will, then I would consider it alive. Species is maybe not the correct technical term for such a lifeform, but a large population of such replicating robots would certainly be able to build nations, wage war and conquer extraterrestrial worlds. However I don't think that inventing such robots is the ONLY way for us to secure future survival of intelligent life, it is much more likely that we will build machines that helps us travel through space, improve and preserve our biological life, to such extent that humans can survive the Sun and explore the Milky Way.

I am not convinced that it is only a language barrier, this reply to zapatos indicates otherwise: That is because no-one is used to the concept, not that the concept is wrong. If no-one is used to your concept then it is NOT in line with scientific consensus. If your concept is in line with consensus then your wording and explanations don't suffice. You act and express yourself as if the real objects actually physically are where you observe them to be, both in space and time. If that is your concept then your concept is clearly wrong, if that is not your concept then your expressions thereof are wrong. We now have three pages of discussion and I still don't know if it is only a bad wording or a very strange concept...

Ampacity is the maximum amount of electrical current a conductor or device can carry before sustaining immediate or progressive deterioration. Also described as current rating or current-carrying capacity, ampacity is the RMS electric current which a device can continuously carry while remaining within its temperature rating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampacity Table of AWG wire sizes

No apology needed, at least not for me anyway. No, I don't accept this, the photons arrive to us from an event in the past and carry information therefrom, but the galaxy has now moved to a different location and aged since then. Anything we see is only an IMAGE of something as it was in the past, not where it is right now. Further more the close future is observable if I have time to wait until it becomes my past. As such I can make predictions of where an object is physically right now and later when this event is in my past and is observable confirm if it actually was where I thought it was when I made the prediction. I can throw a ball in your direction and predict that it will hit you in a future moment, later on the ball hits you at the predicted time and slightly afterwards I can confirm that the ball did hit you as I predicted. If you throw the ball towards a wall making it bounce back so you can catch it again, then it will always be you in the past who throws the ball to you who catches it in the future. You are NOT able to send the ball back to the past, so that you catch it from the future. IMO: "send it to the past" equals "backwards in time" which means the opposite direction as the arrow of time. If you really think this then you are very very wrong and if you don't then communication has failed.

If I throw a ball at you and it hits you after I throwed it, then clearly from my vantage point when I let the ball go, it hits you in the future. If the spaceships arrives thousand years after it left Earth, then it will land in the future from our view right now when it takes off. Saying that I am throwing the ball into the past or that the spaceship is moving into the past makes people think that you intend to mean that the objects are travelling in the opposite direction as the arrow of time. You need to be careful to express yourself with clarity and use the words like everyone else commonly will interpret them or the discussion will very fast get confusing and degenerate. When I read what you wrote here to D H for instance, I get very confused of what you try to say: You can NOT go into anyones past, you are not able to go into my past and prevent me from making this post or send a message to influence it. But then later you say: So you seem to understand that you can't go into the past, neither your own or someone elses, but yet you choose to express yourself contradictory which implies that there is still something that you are perceiving differently or fail to voice. An astronaut standing on the Moon is not in our past, it is only the image of him that will be a pair of seconds old when it reaches us. If you are seeing something distant from you then you are looking at history, "as it was in the past", but that doesn't mean that the objects you see are in your past, we can't see them instantly as they are in our now, but if they are not in our now then we would stop seeing them in the future. If the astronaut would not be standing there on the Moon and waving his arms, right now when you see the old image of him looking down at you, then you would not be able to see him wave to you at exactly that time interval later on that the speed of light causes over that distance.

If I throw a ball at you will it hit you before I throw it or after? But the spaceship will not land before it left Earth.

Mission successful.

9. so we know that if you take a close object, then propulse it far away, you are throwing the object into the past (and not in the future as comonly believed). And that is coherent with point 8. because the object is continuously observable along its path. As the distance increases the object falls into the past. Post #14.

Yes, you and raj bhramar are of course correct, I must have had a brain fart. EDIT: And still can't spell...

Post #1 is one puzzle and post #9 is another totally different problem, try to solve them separately.

This other problem is more a trick question than a math question... The spoiler tags are: [spoiler] hidden message [/spoiler] LOL - Edited since I failed to spell "spoiler" correct.

I don't think veproject1 claims that PMM would work but that his models is working as in they move, turn or whatever - albeit not forever. Perpetual Motion Machines The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. However, perpetual motion usually refers to a device or system that delivers more energy than was put into it. Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed, and is therefore deemed impossible by the laws of physics. Our working models assist us to better explain the impossibility of Perpetual Motion. It's excellent tool to discuss first and second Laws of Thermodynamics, Hydrostatic equilibrium Law, Law of Gravity, efficiency, friction, http://www.veproject1.org/vepprograms.htm The sale advertisment angle seems a little strange though... Here are links to the OP's other two threads here: Perpetual Motion Why PMM cannot work History of Engineering Working Models of Ancient & Medieval Machines

No, you appear to be describing motives to my actions rather than assessing them objectively. I told him where I think the the boundary lies, I offered a method to avoid future penalisations, I am arguing with him and providing my opinions of his questions, which is exactly what he asked for. You on the other hand seem more interested to engage in a personal battle with me, than to actually help and address raised arguments. BTW, if you can't see the difference between calling someone a "jackass" or saying that the theory of relativity is "gibberish" then you are blind. You might have tried to insult me but you failed miserably, simply because you have to be much more personal to offend me. I did value and respect your opinion but now not so much anymore, I guess I can live with that too.

Maybe slightly out of context but seems to be a good fit, iNow have to clarify if he truely is that aggressive in real life though...

I did not and do not claim that iNow is a childish person, like "zapatos skillfully defined it" but in my opinion iNow's arguments in this thread about his *unfair* punishments while others get away with it, is childish behaviour. You are however free to have your own opinion both of iNow's purpose with the thread, zapatos's definitions and whether I am "pulling shit" or not. And don't worry Ophiolite, you didn't manage to insult me with neither your flawed observation nor your disgust of my opinion, even with repetition. ---------- Since my post was reported, I will repeat what I think should be obvious: I do NOT consider iNow to be a childish person, but he is acting childish.

Well, it is my personal opinion and I still stand by it, your whole post sounds to me as you want to point out others and complain that you got busted when they got away with it. The argument that because someone else managed to get away with bad behaviour makes you less guilty is not mature. Like everyone else you can report others when you think they should get punished, instead of complaining afterwards when you got caught. No, I did not, read my post again. Secondly, I even gave you good advise on how to avoid repeating such situations in the future. No, the rules are very clear: No flaming. - That is a precise zero line, can't get much more exact than that. AFAIK the staff have showed a firm and good consistency in their judgements and takes great care of the forum and members. And to make my opinion on this point clear: calling someone an "jackass" is uncivil and such insults is absolutely not the "status quo" here. First and foremost can you provide evidence of situations when you have been punished unwarranted? Secondly, this is your opinion and I don't agree, from my limited reading of a small sample of your very huge amount of posts, you seem to be crossing the line far more often than you get punished for. I suspect that the staff premiates the quality of your arguments and frequently let you slip away. Lastly I question your motivation to "illuminate" an unfair difference in punishment. I would like you to clearify whether you want the enforcement to be looser or tighter, it gets confusing when you complain that you get caught violating the rules to frequently as if you seem to want the enforcements to be more forgiving, but when your argument is that others are able to evade their punishment to often, you seem to want the enforcement to get enhanced instead, which is a contradiction. What do you want with this thread, what is your goal here? Everyone should try to follow the rules to their best ability, even without enforcement and any threat of punishment. The staffs ability to carry out exact, perfect and fair enforcements does not give you or anyone else the right to overstep the rules. Most of all members I come in contact with seems to have a very clear picture of what is allowed, what is not and how to avoid breaking these boundaries, how this boundaries can be "horribly unclear" for a veteran member like you seems unbelievable. I can't see any "core problem", neither with the rules nor with the judgements by the staff.

FYI, if you try to avoid being insulting then you are also very likely to succeed, but by pushing the limits you will overstep the line eventually. The Forum Rules are simple and straightforward: Section 2: Posting 1. Be civil. a. No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion. And there is also an Etiquette Guide: Don't Flame Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you need to insult them. They may be ignorant, but try not to flame them out of the forum. If they're intentionally insulting people, don't reply--just use the Report Post function to let the moderators know about it. They can deal with insult wars and rule-breakers more efficiently than regular users. IMO, you were caught violating the rules and got punished - acting childish, pointing fingers at others and complaining about it wont help.

For those who doesn't know, Ushie has been banned: From: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/

In the simplest case with only ONE islander, would any of the examples above provide enough clues for him to conclude his own eye colour? Would it help that ONE if he was not alone and could see another islander with blue or brown eyes? Would it help that ONE if he was not alone and could see several islanders with blue or browns eyes?

I am glad you didn't give up since you were right, sorry for being so thickheaded, +1 for you.

The OP might not be as clear as the xkcd link but I think those parts are sensible to assume, however at the xkcd site they explicitly state that: "Everyone on the island knows all the rules in this paragraph." http://www.xkcd.com/blue_eyes.html Which makes it common knowledge that there exists blue eyed islander before the explorer arrives. If everyone knows that everyone counts then it is common knowledge that there are at least 98 and at most 101 blue eyed islanders: "Everyone can see everyone else at all times and keeps a count of the number of people they see with each eye color (excluding themselves)," http://www.xkcd.com/blue_eyes.html Anyone of the one hundred blue eyed can see 99 blue eyed islanders and knows that: If he has blue eyes then any blue eyed can see to 99 blue and any brown eyed can see 100 blue If he has brown eyes then any blue eyed can see 98 blue and any brown eyed can see 99 blue Conclusion, everyone knows that everyone knows that there are at least 98 blue eyed islanders. Anyone of the nine hundred brown eyed can see 100 pairs of blue eyes and knows that: If he has blue eyes then any blue eyed can see 100 blue and any brown eyed can see 101 blue If he has brown eyes then any blue eyed can see 99 blue and any brown eyed can see 100 blue Conclusion, everyone knows that everyone knows that there are at most 101 blue eyed islanders. If I can figure this out then surely any *hyper logical* islander can too. But they do need to have common knowledge of what the others are trying to figure out, everyone knows and follows the rules and everyone knows that everyone counts all islanders of each different eye colour before the spoken words. Consider what would happen if the explorer says: "How pleasant it's to see another pair of brown-eyes, after all these months at sea" ?

I think it is enough that I rejected John Cuthber's example already in post #45, as something different that the quiz in the OP. I don't know what the *standard* blue-eyed islander puzzle is, this is the first time I heard about this puzzle, but both this one in the OP and the one in the xkcd link relies on that they can all can know how many blue eyed there are except themselves and know that they all know this. From the xkcd link where it is worded better: "Everyone can see everyone else at all times and keeps a count of the number of people they see with each eye color (excluding themselves), but they cannot otherwise communicate. Everyone on the island knows all the rules in this paragraph." The puzzle simply won't work if they don't know each others colours and know that the others also know. The quiz in the OP is not worded such that we can to one hundred percent conclude that every islander can know that every one have seen and counted every one except their own eye colour. But I think it is sensible to assume that they had, they have lived their entire lives on the same isolated island, they all are extremly religious and eye colour is very important in their religion. How certain are you that gravity works as normal somewhere on Earth were you had not been yet? Granted we can never know until we test but after lots of tests the probability increases and we can start to assume that gravity acts normal everywhere. If I never had seen anyone with a different eye colour and everyone I had ever seen had the same colour, then I would be very certain. Further on in the context here I think if I where the only one with a different eye colour than the entire population with such a morbid religion, I would likely notice others treating me differently unless they all are extremly good actors. I don't think trees have much deducing powers, whether they are alone or in a forest... No, they don't need a common plan of what to do. All they need is the understanding that everyone else is acting "hyper logically". The islanders don't need a plan, to know that if day k passes and no one is gone, it is common knowledge that there are at least k blue. If I'm blue, and I see 99 blue, and all the blue go on day 99... I did not say *a common plan*, I did not mean that they gathered together and took a collective decision, what I tried to say is that they all need to know what everyone else is using their *hyper logically* ability to try to figure out. If the explorer would have mentioned brown eyes instead the outcome would have been different because everyone would try to find out if they have brown eyes. IMHO the common knowledge of the task at hand, including a syncronisation time, is the essential spark that starts the purge of blue eyed.

Actually, the puzzle is real and Joe would be the dancer, it seems like Queen of Wands - First↔Cause ♀ duplicated about half of it: What is each man's artistic field? Dancer:_____ Singer:_____ Painter:_____ Writer:_____? Orly, Nick, Roger and Jeff are four creative artists of great talent. One is a dancer, one is a painter, one is a singer and one is a writer, though not necessarily in that order. a. Orly and Roger were in the audience the night the singer made his debut on the concert stage. b. Both Nick and the writer have had their portraits painted from life by the painter. c. The writer, who biography of Jeff was a best-seller, is planning to write a biography of Orly. d. Orly has never heard of Roger. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070617082812AAZSmdj

I would consider Joe to be dishonest if he claims to never have heard of John after he had painted his portrait.

While looking back at John Cuthber's example I might have misinterpreted him when he said: "As far as I can see they all suddenly become aware that everyone knows that lots of people have blue eyes and that starts the destruction.", I thought he ment that the god gave them this knowledge... Either way, I agree that John Cuthber's example changes the original quiz in the OP to something else. Yes, I agree, the start time is only one piece that is needed and does not suffice alone. I think the quiz in the OP can be interpreted as that the two eye colours are common knowledge, firstly there are only two colours mentioned and secondly this island is far away enough that it is an explorer that finally arrives there after several months at sea, so the islanders might very well never have seen or heard of any other possible eye colour than the two they can see. (Since he is invited to speak to the whole population it might even be the first non-islander they meet.) So I think John Cuthber is correct about that the existence of a blue eyed islander is already common knowledge, if there is more than two islanders with blue eyes and everyone know everyones eye colour except their owns, then everyone would know that there is at least one blue eyed islander, but I don't agree with him that they can deduce their own eye colours since they lack a common syncronization. It is a quiz after all, we are supposed to assume some sensible stuff not mentioned in exact details. Agreed. No, I don't think "Oh by the way, everyone knows the rules" is enough even if the two eye colours are common knowledge, the syncronization must include a direction too, they must have a common thought of what to deduce, otherwise one might think of blue, another of brown, while a third think of the forced suicide, the fourth thinks of forbidden communications and so on, in short all need to know what they are trying to figure out.