doG

Your arguments are meaningless. Have you any evidence to support your assertion? That's all that really matters. Your ability, or lack thereof, to deduce via any thought process or logic what may or may not be more or less probable has no meaning in the matter.

No, making an assertion and not supporting it is against the rules here. You need to present your evidence or retract your assertion!

The real problem here is people trying to make an apples to oranges comparison which sets the whole debate on an indeterminate slippery slope. For clarity I'll weigh in on these in reverse. With a scientific theory we usually begin with a defined, falsifiable assertion. The Big Bang is a good example. What we as a group are talking about when we refer to the Big Bang is defined in a manner such that we all have some level of agreement on what it is that we are discussing. There's little ambiguity in the definition. It's also well understood by all that anything presented as evidence to support the assertions that the Big Bang is true or false is itself verifiably true like red shift. You cannot propose a hypothesis for example as evidence to support a theory until that hypothesis is itself proven to be true. With the assertion that there are/were one or more deities we are immediately debating the definition of what it is we're even talking about. There is no reasonable agreement on the definition of god(s). This compounds the difficulty in determining what exactly is or isn't evidence to support the assertion of the existence of god(s). Without defining exactly what assertion it is we're trying to prove or disprove we can't even begin to decide what is or isn't evidence in context of the assertion. Seashells on mountain tops might be evidence in a very narrowly defined Abrahamic god but it is meaningless in the debate of any other god(s). That's why it's really pointless to discuss any alleged evidence of any supposed deity until you have actually defined that deity.

What I say is that the evidence claimed to support the Big Bang is either presumed to be true or proven true by other evidence (with the rule recursively applied of course) as described in the wiki entry. As an example, expansion of the Universe as indicated by red shift should qualify 'expansion' as evidence. I think expansion can be presumed to be true and it is supported with other evidence. I do not believe any alleged evidence of a miracle claimed by the Vatican can be presumed to be true or has been proven true with other evidence so I wouldn't consider it evidence according to the rule. Note, neither of these require the event itself to be true, either the Big Bang or the miracle, only that the evidence supporting the event itself be true in order for it to qualify as evidence.

So you are saying that you disagree with this wiki entry?

Uhhh....you misspelled holey

That's not evidence. Evidence is that which can be used to determine or demonstrate the reality or truth of an assertion. The Vatican's documentation might be called testimony but even then it would be hearsay. What you really have is the claim that someone was sick, that someone prayed and that the sick person got better. That does not mean that the prayer actually caused the person to get better, just that there was prayer and the person got better. It could be pure coincidence. There is no evidence in the matter to determine or demonstrate the reality or truth of the assertion that prayer itself was responsible for the person getting better.

Hmmm, did I miss something? I thought this thread was about computing.

If statements require at least 2 values to compare with each other. IF there is a match per the criteria THEN the output reflects it. With a 2 input AND gate the inputs are compared with each other and the output is adjusted accordingly. In this sense it does effectively function as an IF-THEN function.

Get a microwave browning plate.

I realize that. That's why my next question was how much radial or centrifugal force would be created if a 1kg mass with a 150mm radius moving at 20,000 rpm was 1g out of balance

OK, that hints at the axial load capability and says nothing of the radial load question I raised. Do you understand the difference between axial and radial loads?

Actually it could be. An AND gate is actually an IF-THEN device itself, If INPUT A=1 AND INPUT B=1 THEN OUTPUT=1 ELSE OUTPUT=0. Any number of simple logic gates could be configured to make specific binary functions like this. It is more efficient though to use the gates to build programmable processing units that can more readily adapt to a variety of uses as opposed to a single hardwired application.

Ha Ha Ha ... Did you notice that you actually linked to a unit with the freezer at the bottom? The refrigerators do not make warm areas. I am convinced though that trying to help you understand this is probably futile so I give up. Good luck esbo. I'm sure that vendors like your power company probably love your misunderstanding of efficiency. Hopefully they'll not take too much advantage of you.

Think of it this way. Consider an ice box at one end instead of a freezer. If you put ice in it will the ice last longer in a box at the bottom of the unit or one at the top?

Multiplication takes precedence over addition and subtraction. Find the products first and then evaluate.

Wow, I can't believe this confuses you so much. If you put the coldest part at the bottom it does not take as much energy to keep it cold as it does if you put it at the top where your refrigeration is constantly working against rising warm air that is working against you. That's why the article states that it is most efficient with the coldest part at the bottom. At the bottom you don't have to worry about warm air sinking into the freezer and causing the compressor to run more often like it does on top freezer models.

'understand' is not the right word to use for your idea of how the flow of solar energy works in the atmosphere!!!

No they don't. Why do you keep making the same unsupportable assertion?

OT: Trail/trial is a good example of why people shouldn't rely on spell checkers. It's an example of why today's kids should learn to spell without a spell checker and how to do math without a calculator.

That's hard to answer. If msg.exe has dependencies in another system file that's not on his system then it won't work. The easiest way to find this answer is to just try it.

Yes, since it equals [math]12\sqrt{2}[/math] For that particular triangle you could choose units that make the hypotenuse a nice even square but it could make your sides irrational. A triangle with sides of 3 and 4 units in length has a hypotenuse of 5 units. All 3 sides are integers and therefore rational.

How well does that handle radial loads?

any key in the system registry can be edited with regedit. I don't have a copy of Windows 7 Home Premium to tell you what key to edit but I can tell you what tool to use so I did.