DevilSolution

I think it depends on which context its being used, using 'The completion' puts emphasis on completion and so would be used to emphasise its complete, when you say 'Completion took 5 years' your not emphasising the completion aspect but simply stating that its complete. To be honest im not really an expert in language.

You dont need the first 'the'. Its more formal without it when in writing, however sometimes it may be required. Here, 'the' is needed to show that your talking specifically about that object. For example, if you said: "Completion of new hospital was a time consuming process", i may need to ask "which new hospital?", in this context 'the' shows us were talking about the same hospital. To explain better let me say this. 1) "A new hospital was built, completion of new hospital was a time consuming process" 2) "A new hospital was built, completion of the new hospital was a time consuming process" In 2) we can see that your refering to the same hospital, in 1) its not clear that your specifically talking about the same new hospital you just mentioned. The english language is confusing, 'do not' could equally be 'not do', its just convension in some cases.

Id be at liberty to agree. Your all at liberty to take liberty for liberty's sake. So take it.

Depends in which context. The completion of the hospital took 5 years. Completion of the new hospital was a time consuming process. Its; Completion of an action. 'The' refers to something specific and known, 'An' is more vague when defining something. The tiger is scary. An animal is scary. 'The tiger is scary' refers to a specific tiger; 'A tiger is scary' refers to all tigers. 'An englishman ate breakfast' refers to an unknown but single englishman whereas 'The englishman ate breakfast' refers to a known specific englishman but 'The englishmen ate their breakfast' refers to all englishmen.

I appolagise for my ignorance, my original post was incorrect, its not sinx * o/h, its (h * sinx) OR (o / sinx) depending on the side you require, the sine is o/h. Because the number will always be below 1 relative to the graph i drew its obvious that by dividing hypotenuse by it will give a number bigger than H and H is always the longest so o/sinx = h, h*sinx=o. I have done some research into how to compute this and have found the Taylor series seems to relate, although while trying to sieve through the wiki page it looks quite complex. Here's a link if anyone can verify it to be of some computational use in finding the sin, cos, tan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series I would certainly like to wrap my head around this so any pointers would be greatly appreciated. Regards.

Such as jupiter?? I suppose its the same as any atmosophere that switches between states. Temperature can change as can density, mass would remain and the accumulation of gas would only sink as fast as gravity allows i think. This is just my guess.

That idea scares me.

If your using some form of any energy you cant replace it; For example you may capture the unused heat from a lightbulb and convert it back into electricity but the photons are used up in the environment. Same applies to heat, engines, light, radiation, electricity etc. If your not using some of the energy of the system you may be able to traverse it 100% efficently i suppose?? if the technology exists then its scientifically possible, for 99.9% of practical use you will be using some energy from the system to perform a task. The petrol in an internal combustion engine is used to move your car forward, you may be able to capture the remaining heat and convert it back into usable energy but the process of moving the car (the explosion in the piston which rotates the camshaft) has already used some of the energy and that is gone forever. This should help you understand efficiency. I'm not sure the technology is there to convert energy and forces with 100% efficiency but i believe its theoretically possible, infact the science accounts for *almost* every possible way the energy will convert. (finding practical materials and methods is harder) Regards. EDIT: This is the same reason perpectual motion devices dont work, the electrons that are somehow propelled are equal to the force used to propel them. I'm not sure if you can convert energy and force with 100% efficiency but you'd gain nothing from such a system except the energy lost in translation. (which in some cases counts for alot)

I'd like to know how to program it, i already know how to do it with a pen and paper If i said i wanted sine 22" theta how you gona get that onto the paper? i said "protract" as a method. Cheers for the reference, ill check it out. Regards.

Exactly, the wise use disguise. But im open and dont hide. I'm a drop in ocean and i certainly dont observe it, let the moon make the waves.

You cant use a paradox to prove mathematics is the only truth. I've shown how using a false system proves that any outcome of that systen is false, so please show a logical example to disprove it otherwise. btw, russels paradox says ((1 == 1) && ( 1 == (1 / x))) which is false. But (1 == (( 1 / x) * x)), the set of all sets is an accumulation of itself. Its not pseudoscience until science proves it wrong. Logic allows for everything we can conceive, we are after all its product.

Looks more like a hut for goat racing.

Theres nothing seperating us except an ocean, i promise.... You may control us economically, but we control what you can think. Well we dont, our united language does.....

So, lets say i had windows xp source code and was able to compile it. Lets also say i dropped a keylogger in there and also a backdoor to do as i wish. What would be able to detect a kernel level program? one thats specifically embedded in the system from code to ISO. You know exactly what im saying, how do we trust our vendors and especially vendors hiding their code?? And for blackmarket software, how can we reverse engineer such a programming. Hex editing? Line by line? what about code obscurity?

It doesnt though, does it? "The absence (lack of) object (concrete) permananence (lasting evidence) contradicts your claim. For the third time" The lack of apparatus proves nothing, except neither of us are right or wrong. The real question is, what fallacy do you see in my logic? Or why would you disagree with me? (in clearer terms) Just so we are clear, the lack of evidence here does not contradict the thoery, the lack of scientific apparatus to prove such a theory is what is required to contradict me and such technology does not exist ..... i know nothing of radioactive ligands, especially one able to map every neuron in the brain. I certainly dont know how to map concepts of these neurologic connections. There is no science to contradict me, because science isnt able. IS IT? I only emphasize the caps because if it is, science has gone too far.....

Yes, it is. To some extent the language you think in also superimposes how your brain processes other scientifc data. Maybe?? Im not sure, but there is a pattern. Those who think for themselves become what nationality? Dont forget, you have to communicate with other freethinkers.

What route??

The nazi's lost the war. So who won? [snip] the NSA, i run linux, i dont analyse my kernel updates but i have access to the source, regardless of obscurity. [snip] third parties too, i just hit update. Its a simple question of trust, do you have something to hide?? The NSA will target people of interest, scientist have the most to fear in this respect, with intellect comes responsibility, you can abuse this if you so wish and if you do i personally hope someone is there to intervene. Thats naive, who built the encryption? how far behind THEM are WE?? P.S some revolutions do not boil down to meaningless vandalism, someone, somewhere is struggling. Their voice deserves to be heard. The government has ALOT more than me to hide. The real question is, who gave you the tools to rebel? what are those tools? and why and when should they be used??!!??

I understand what you mean and there can certainly be complacency between multi-lingual people via misinterpretation due to lazyness, however dont forget the logic constructs of language and syntactical meaning behind things is not so clear. Simple idioms can become insults. In a broader sense im talking about the uniting of humans through language and the nationality being defined in them terms. If we dismiss culture as an environmental factor, can we ultimately define nationality as the language you consciously think in?? Also can particular languages breed a particular type of science?? the french for example seem to excel at higher level maths while germans seem to excel at engineering, british and americans have made their mark technologically while physics seems to extend over europe....does language dictate what area of science you may excel in????

Well you can be a polyglot and still consciously think in a single language, you simply interpret the second third or fourth language. The language you think in the one which manifests its ideas into reality. I's argue canada is english, though partly french, but ultimately divided. The ability to converse thoroughly in a language distinguishes that countries nationality.

Though culture determines one nation from the next, i.e; Religion, Art, History, Cuisine, Habits etc. Would it not also be fair to catagorize nations by their language?? such that every english speaking country is insolubly english. The language you think in is also the language in which your thoughts will manifest themselves, is it not then the language barrier that distinguishes differences between nations?? This means that your ability to communicate would come before your beliefs because with that barrier in place, there is no method inplace for distinguishing the difference. Two nations cannot unite over a belief which they connot express to one another. Two nations of the same language but different beliefs can unite over language. Any thoughts?

The big crunch. Time is the most important variable, were using equations that dont account for genesis.

What contradictory evidence? You've told me you dont believe what i believe but purely speculatively due to the fact of lack of evidence, not because there is any evidence that disproves it. Im aware the onus is on my to supply that evidence but it doesnt make the theory wrong because i have none.

I really really believe (2 > 1 && (1 != 0 || 1==0)), its quite a vague statement and totally off topic, Semjase seems to be preaching about religion and god, not where, why or how our mind creates these concepts. It doesnt seem anyone has any specific knowledge about my OP. However im interested in knowing if there's any scientific data regarding what i believe. (i know i should do my own research but if anyone has insight, i'd be much obliged) Regards. I asked you by what means already. I honestly dont know. As far as im aware it would require the tracking of neurological paths straight out the womb, being able to map concepts into neurological groups and pathways and then show a correlation between the earliest structures of the brain and irrational belief in god or religion. Say for example; The memory of when you cried and received milk as a baby compared to an adult who believes their prayers will be answered by a higher power. Im still convinced there will be a 99.9% correlation.

I dont get it, whats the answer?