Dave

I suppose the answer to this question is that physics is now becoming a lot more abstract (and to some extents, fairly unusable - for instance, string theory). Who knows how abstract that's going to be in 100 years time?

In short: unless you really need the functionality to be on the bleeding edge or the kits quite old, don't bother.

Trouble is, a lot of programs can do this far more effectively than a human can; Deep Blue did beat the grandmaster of the time, remember.

I think that was probably your imagination. I think we have quite a few graduates lurking around (like swansont and Glider), but I don't think anything you'd class as VIP.

Trouble is, you can't really tell whether someone's cheating or whether they're just really good. But yes, if you're found to be cheating then you should definately be banned (however unlikely that is).

Pah. Get a desktop

Hmm, they're the most popular by far. (and please don't bump in the future, ta)

Just beware that doing that will probably invalidate the warantee on whatever you've bought and, on the other hand, could knacker it up quite a lot (i.e. completely unusable).

How do you cheat at chess?

Yeah, this has been discussed a lot. We're thinking about phasing that group out since we don't really need it.

I prefer the internal with a straight digital out, but that's just me

Yeah, most of the modern mathematics we do is completely abstract and doesn't really have an application in the real world.

That sounds like a pretty sweet sound system. But as you say, they don't really come in cheap.

I don't tend to delete that many posts if I can avoid it, but we've been getting a lot of spam here recently and it's fairly useless to keep it lying around.

Sorry to dredge up an old thread, but I'm interested to see whether there's been any new developments on this. I've been observing from a distance, but it seems that there hasn't really been a lot of progress with the entire peer-review stuff.

Oh, and a small bug: on the homepage, in the About Us section, the font of the main body is Arial for some reason; it'd be nice if it could be Verdana to fit in with everything else.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not really an expert (or even near) when it comes to knowing which theory explains what in QM. It does seem to be the case that there are a lot of these theories floating around at the moment - if you could produce a summarised list of the major ones, it'd be nice.

As far as I'm aware, it's perfectly possible for a black hole to absorb a smaller black hole. I would have thought that the smaller would just add mass to the larger.

Bush is in the list leik.

Not at all. I'm just stating that there are a few people who seem to have considerable knowledge in their particular field(s), and take their time to share it with us.

hehe, maths can be enjoyable y'know

You'll get there in the end

I can't see it happening anytime soon, if at all. We don't even know half the secrets of the brain, and I don't think that we'll be able to create truly intelligent systems until we do.

I simply cannot believe that it's being abandoned like this. What a terrible waste.

Remember my threads are just for guidance in the right direction; you can't beat a teacher with a blackboard*. *In retrospect, this was a bad choice of words.