Sayonara

Use a laser distance measuring thingy.

There's a very healthy "alarm bell" response that goes off in the mathematician's head whenever he sees the odds given as "50/50"

I was under the impression that the concept of space being a 'vacuum' derived from the idea that the matter it contains is so massively dwarfed by the volume of the universe, that the universe effectively adopts a density that is infinitely close to zero. The fact that we can see stars is a good indication that, as a whole, it's not a vacuum in the truest sense.

Rermember chaps we were discussing MS sneakies allowed by the EULA that nobody ever reads, and not just the usual exploitations.

Yeah I know, it's just easier to address the points as you made them rather than saying "the point from that paper you posted about" each time I would contend that 4 and 5 are not 1, because 1 assumes that some civilisations will develop the required technology at some point. 4 assumes that all civilisations go extinct before reaching this point, and 5 assumes that no matter how much time they are given, no civilisation will ever be this sophisticated. The paper omits 4 & 5 because it assumes the technology must exist right from the start, which helps a lot if you are devloping a formula to show that the technology exists. I don't think this really has anything to do with the theoretical possibility of simulating the past though Anyone who tells you that deserves to have their eyes poked out. It seems to be a "trendy" idea at the minute, that there's nothing left to be thought up, because we're all so jaded by the constant doing stuff. Weird.

I really don't see why people get so afraid of possible changes to the timeline. I mean let's face it, Earth can hardly get much worse, can it?

Precisely. We have other options available to us, Ebola does not. I would not attempt to argue that life cannot be interpreted as a destructive force, I'm just saying I see no evidence for Ebola 'valuing its life' and plenty evidence of it having no such notions.

That's one of 'em yeah, think most people know about that one. It was Paul who had the automatic connection problem - I'll ask him about it later.

Point scoring table for Pseudo-scientists 1. A -5 point starting credit. 2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). 8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstein", "Hawking" or "Feynman". 9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to university, as if this were evidence of sanity. 11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. 12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. 13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory. 14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at maths, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". 15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. 16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". 17. 10 points for each favourable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". 19. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. 20. 20 points for each favourable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 21. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact. 22. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories. 23. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary". 24. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy". 25. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his undergraduate physics textbooks.) 26. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. 27. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilisation (without good evidence). 28. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, etc. 29. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. 30. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on. 31. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasising about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.) 32. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

No, pre-assigned bandwidth for discrete functions that are allegedly part of XP's wonderful interoperability. Or something. I'll try and hunt down some articles later when I get home from work. As I recall I used the term "backdooring" as a verb, rather than the noun "backdoor"

Therefore tie an aircraft to the top, problem solved.

You can just paste a URL into your post and it will automatically link it for you

There's no such thing as degeneration through evolution - that's a contradiction in terms. You either adapt, or you fail to adapt. Whether or not an adaptation is a positive factor in selection in the long run is neither here nor there.

Just got back from seeing it again. It still owns

OK... (4) The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature are non-existant, (5) The ability to run a self-aware, reality-questioning simulation does not require mere technological maturity, it requires such advanced technology that none of this type can be found on any civilised world. Let's assume that your point (1) is correct. If this is true, it is more likely that any race at our stage of development is real and on the dawn of its own self-annihilation, than it is a simulation controlled and/or devised by another race. QED.

It was widely publicised in all the IT pages, I don't know how you could miss something like that really. Entire websites exist just to tell people how to configure XP to get rid of all the 'nasties' MS pulled in conjunction with the EULA. As far as my friend goes, he knows what he's doing.

Errr... that's the best bet out of the given options?

No point waiting about

It's more likely that the condensing vapour descended before settling on anything because its density changed, as you see between the panes of double-glazed windows that weren't properly evacuated before being sealed. The hottest water vapour will always rise above the coolest.

Although it is generally better to use the appropriate word in many situations, particularly in a scientific discussion (I'm not sure that's true here though )

lol Back to the drawing board, eh? :-D

Windows ME is a godawful piece of crap. 98 SE is a bit more stable; and Win2K, NT and XP are about 10,000 times more stable.

In all current (credible) models of what we'd call "time travel", both.

Unless it ends up with unexpected characteristics that merit further study, like super-fast healing abilities a la Number 8 in "Alien: Resurrection". Unless it ends up with unexpected characteristics that merit running away very quickly, like biting off people's heads a la the Newborn in "Alien: Resurrection".