doG

Well, the Cray XK6 supports an x86 environment. Try loading a copy of vbox on there and tell us how windows runs on it. Then again, I'm not going to claim this to be the best host for a best virtual environment, someone else might find something with a bit more horsepower, something better fitted to windows resource demands. This was just a first guess for me when you said "best".

Copying and pasting the work of another without credit to them is plagiarism by definition. "I forgot" does not change that.

ROFLMAO!!! You do realize wordpress is just a piece of software for personal blogging. It's not some publishing house. And shrugging off plagiarism with "I forgot the link" does not negate the fact that it is plagiarism!

That's science for you...

If you're going to copy and paste from someone else's material you could at least credit the source. You could also get your material from a source that doesn't trace back to an agenda driven anti-atheist site. Such agenda driven mouthpieces are seldom objective. It makes your whole post questionable. P.S. In regards to your question, "What are the Odds of Life evolving by chance alone?"; what does it matter? Even tremendous odds on the timescale involved woiuld not be evidence for or against.

Well let's just start with this assertion first. How many of these scientists can you list? Please be specific and provide links. All we care about is the supporting facts so let's see them.

Actually one could say that all motion is perpetual according to Newton's First Law: What we find is that all of the various external forces like friction, gravity, etc. eventually bring uniform motion to rest preventing such motion from continuing perpetually. If you could produce motion that is perpetually free of any and all external forces then that uniform motion would continue perpetually.

No, the point of physics is too understand nature regardless of how difficult is is too understand, not to reduce it's complexity so that people uneducated in the field can understand it. Neither of these have stated that time travel is in fact possible and that they believe so on faith. They have hypothesized what would be required for time travel to be possible. For that matter you could claim that Einstein's traveling twin paradox is evidence that he believed in time travel too but it would not be in the same context as you use it. Taking such examples out of context to claim they represent your claim is a strawman fallacy.

I get the best performance in reverse, I run Xubuntu and Windoze in a vbox. I tried it your way and found the windoze version of vbox to be too much of a resource hog but I get near native windoze performance running it in a vbox under xubuntu.

Why? Which god? Don't act like man's only invented one of them.

Not at all. I am calling you out to support your assertion according to the rules here. You proffered the belief about some physicists believing in time travel and I want to see you prove it. Provide a citation to back up your assertion.

Your query reminds me of an article in the latest copy of Imprimis I received, Federal Student Aid and the Law of Unintended Consequences. You might find it informative. In short Professor Vedders states: I highly recommend reading the rest of his opinion on the topic.

'uni-' means one so there cannot be multiple universes as the term is currently defined. Our observable universe could be a subset or region of a larger universe or it could be one of part of a polyverse.

The media outlets wouldn't cover it. Over and over again they show they'll only publish positive material on the candidates they support and negative material on their opponents. There is no 'fair and balanced' from any of the media players. Objective reporting is basically dead.

Clinton and Bush Jr. both evaded the draft as well. Woop-de-do-da. Who cares? What I'm wondering is when someone from any of the camps is going to sell us on why we should vote for their guy instead of just trying to give us reasons not to vote for someone else. At this point there's not anyone in the race worth voting for in my opinion. None of them are Presidential material. Negative campaigning is like trying to sell me belief in God because I can't prove he doesn't exist.

Sorry but your Judeo-Christian god actually has ZERO supporting evidence...

Why don't you try implementing the Gauss–Legendre iterative algorithm. It is notable for being rapidly convergent, with only 25 iterations producing 45 million correct digits of π. That should rapidly bring your Commodore 64 to it's knees

Did you know you can paste Mathematica source code directly into WolframAlpha for evaluation?

Not cool. There's too many people on the road now that can't drive and chew gum at the same time. I'd hate to be in the air with them.

Yeah, shine a brighter light on the mirror than the light you're using...

You get more hits searching for center of gravity instead of center of mass. You indicated you had searched the internet for the answer and not found what you were looking for and I suspected the problem was with the search term. The link I provided lists a number of places to help you find the answer. You are basically trying to find the CG of an irregular shape so you would likely need to integrate to get an exact answer. You could get a rough answer by balancing the rock in each of 3 planes and then finding the intersection of those planes.

Do you mean center of gravity?

No, that's not my assumption. My statement is the same as DH's, that you stated that you calculated the integer sums required to complete each numerical place, i.e. You stated the completed value of pi to the 4th numerical place is 3.141 when it is actually 3.142. The fault in this is not the computer's, it is yours. BTW, if you have a Windows machine you can download qbasic and run your program on there faster than your C64. The language is pretty much the same.

I never said the computer would know what to round up to but it has not calculated Pi accurately to 4 places, only 3, Pi to 4 places is 3.142, not 3.141.

I'm sure there are. While some people are genetically one extreme or the other there are going to be some in the middle without a predisposition one way or the other. Some choose to go one way or the other and some choose to go both ways. For those in the middle it is more of a choice than a natural disposition.