JaKiri

Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem AFTER 350 years. Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem IN 7 years (or however long it was). Leibniz discovered Calculus 10 years AFTER Newton. Leibniz discovered Calculus IN 4 years. I can't believe you even started to consider that a valid argument, as Andrew Wiles was working with the additional mathematics of over 3 centuries; the amount of mathematics in a certain field in a decade is going to be much smaller. Furthermore, the structure of that point was similar to 'Nowadays, students can prove Calculus pretty quickly, yet Newton took years over it!'

1K. It's One Kelvin. Not One Degree Kelvin. One Kelvin.

It doesn't actually matter as much any more. NTFS is less likely to become fragmented, and Windows XP is exceptionally stable. I've had to do a physical shutdown many times over many PC's since the two mentioned features became common, and there has been no obvious detriment to the running of any of them.

No there isn't. 10 years at most; there's a mere gap of 6 years between Newton finishing and Leibniz beginning. But that's beside the point; 10 years is utterly inconsequential.

That's not Carbon Dioxide, that's the water vapour precipitating from your breath.

That's something that string theory is hoping to deal with. There almost certainly has to be a link between the constants of the fundamental forces, but beyond that things become less clear.

I know that Newton did it first, but the fact that it was independently replicated at a similar point in time remains the case; indeed, it seems likely that the work would have been replicated anyway; Newton was working in a popular area, and working from a base of knowledge established by Fermat and the like. There is argument over whether he did it better. Of course, we wouldn't be having this discussion if Newton had actually published his results when he acquired them.

It's afternoon here. A curse on your household!

After, but independently. Knowing the result, it can become trivial to replicate.

Who gives a flying dog about how this forum works? It's how science works. Your idea explains nothing. String Theory also explains nothing (at the current point in time), but, if it is to come anywhere close to acceptance, has to predict things as well. Furthermore, you're understimating the need for mathematics. Qualitatively, String Theory is fine. Great. Wonderful. The reason it's not accepted as theory is that it has no mathematical backing, and that is the problem that is being worked on. Until there's some kind of mathematics involved, there's no need to; furthermore, you yourself said that there's no way to test it, and so the scientific method dictates that it is, by definition, not worth consideration. The scientific method goes something like this. 1. You start off with established theory. Science being what it is, this is assumed to be false. 2. To test the established theory, you develop new conjectures, and new experiments with which you can compare the new conjectures and established theory (sometimes the experiments come before the conjecture). 3. If the conjecture successfully predicts something that the established theory does not, and is not shown to be lacking by the existing body of evidence for the established theory, the conjecture replaces the established theory as the established theory. 4. Repeat. Your 'idea' cannot perform step 3, therefore it cannot ever become a scientific theory. If you like, I (we) can explain all you like about General Relativity and the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics. However, this was not asked for initially; it is assumed (wow!) that people who wish to be a constructive member of a scientific community, such as this, will fall into one of two groups: 1. People who know established theory, and can debate its merits or shortcomings. 2. People who do not decry established theory until they know what it is. If you do not know how the current theory acts, how can you possibly construct a valid argument against it?

Oh sweet jesus. That's not only wrong on an actual level but a fundamental one as well.

Even the link itself says that it isn't to be relied upon, because that's the beep codes for one specific mobo manufacturer. To find out the answer, op, you must check your mobo's manual.

I didn't understand a word of that.

Most excellent!

Iain M Banks.

I never suggested that it was; merely that Einstein's work was revolutionary, whereas Newton's most used piece of work was replicated at the same time. And of course that we use Leibniz's notation (I always spell his name wrong first time round).

It doesn't deserve the name 'Lovecraft' if it is. Howard Phillips was a master of tension. Also adjectival overload.

It will be for many users, who were not wise in the ways of science.

I've no idea who you thought I was talking about.

Slickinfinit:

It's a shock. It's easy, and bad game making, to make something that relies on a linear sequence of shocks. There's no tension, there's no artiface. Try playing System Shock II.

How would you define 'Left', 'Right' and 'Neutral'? How can you have people who personify this? How in any way is this possible?

So did Liebniz.

pi/4=1-1/3+1/5-1/7+1/9-...