Acme

Gotcha. A dado head for your saw will speed up the hogging and leave a smoother cut than a saw blade. Dado Heads @ Finewoodworking How to cut tenons on a table saw

Finger joints are glued, not friction fit. One of their advantages is providing more gluing surface than miter or butt joining. iNow, you can make a simple jig for your table saw to cut these joints if that doesn't offend your Zen. Making a Table Saw Box-Joint Jig

Presuming you mean if casting out works in other bases without any regard to the OP and Primes, the answer is yes. Note that in base ten the digital root is congruent mod 9. (Note that numbers divisible by 9 return 9 for the digital root and 0 for mod 9, but the results are congruent) Similarly, casting out 7s in octal is congruent mod 7, e.g. 97 in octal is 141 and the digital root in octal is 1+4+1=6 and 97 mod 7 = 6. In octal, a number with a digital root of 7 divides evenly by 7. This holds for all bases. I have no proof but recall seeing one some years ago. As to binary, all digital roots = 1.

Depending on country and/or state, you should find out what flight rules you have to follow in addition to boating rules. Here are the applicable rules in the US. > PART 101—MOORED BALLOONS, KITES, AMATEUR ROCKETS, UNMANNED FREE BALLOONS, AND CERTAIN MODEL AIRCRAFT

Ben Franklin pulled himself across a lake using a kite, as well as pulling himself on ice skates. Kite/ballon hybrids do exist and are called 'kytoons'.

Curses on the multiquote! As Area54 corrected me when I brought this data to light, it was 38% of adults and adults are about 260 million, so the 38% is just under 99 million. This is still over a third of adults who believe Earth is only 10,000 years old and God created it just as we find it, to answer Dim's earlier challenge. To Area54's earlier reply to me, I'm fine with people getting comfort with their belief in a god, but not fine when acting on their belief brings discomfort to others and/or is set in opposition to facts and critical thinking. Here's a link to Area54's correction.

Damn new editor won't allow me to toggle to text mode and parse your reply. Arrrggghhh! Anyway, your are correct to make the adjustment for adults; my bad for not taking the time to do that. Perhaps between that and the fact that on the 38% "...Gallup noted was the lowest level in 35 years.", our bowels will not befoul us and merely threaten. As to the more general question of the thread, vis-à-vis the belief in a god, we may also take some comfort in that such belief is also on the wane in the US according to the Demography of the United States Wiki page. At the same time, Pastafarianism is on the rise. Flying Spaghetti Monster preserve us! All hail his noodly appendages. As is written in the Pastalms of the The Loose Canon: Always my pleasure to provide and per se purvey germane data.

Who necromanced this 2 year old thread! Anyway, I'm no Iotero -thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster- but I can lend some support to the 140 million figure. First, Wiki says that of July 1, 2017 the US population was 325,350,377. source Second, Wiki says in their page on Young Earth Creationism: Lastly, my calculator tells me that 38% of 325,350,377 is 123,633,143 people. So, not 140 million, but still a considerable, if not worrying, number. Whether these folks would label themselves YECs would be fodder for another poll.

Rats are not mice and you better use a metal container or the rats will just chew through. While vegetable matter composts well enough, animal matter does not. As to cats, letting them run free results in the death of billions of birds and other small critters every year. Not a good idea. While it's not illegal to allow cats to run free in my area, it is legal for homeowners to live trap them and take them to the animal control station. If one doesn't have a live trap, animal control will rent you one. Another note on the OP; wash your canister after every use. No buildup, no mold.

Then be prepared to kill the rats that your compost attracts.

Try boric acid. I had to kill some heart-rot fungus in an Oak slab I was using for dendrochronology and while it took several applications it worked like a charm. I found a bottle of boric acid crystals in the drug section of a department store, but you might also find it at a farm/garden supply outlet.

True but is that conditioning or because those things we squash are not conscious and we inherently know that? Inherently knowing about consciousness is conditioning of consciousness. This is not to say some conscious creature -humans included- can not reflexively, i.e. instinctually, squash a mosquito that has bitten them or even alighted on them, without any conscious consideration of the squashee's consciousness. See withdrawal reflex

If we accept/presume all living things are conscious, then most people implicitly accept degrees of consciousness. [Most] people think nothing of squashing the life out of a mosquito, whereas [most] people would not squash the life out of another person.

Pyramids are 3-dimensional; polygonal numbers are 2-dimensional. They are not interchangeable.

Well, sounds like you have made similar searches to mine so what we found is what we found (or didn't find as the case were). In the general sense of evolution, I see no reason why instinct or consciousness or curiosity should be any different in the way they evolve(d) than any other attributes of evolved creatures. While interesting, I'm not losing any sleep over the issue.

Asking the question again and again in slightly different forms is useless. Nobody yet knows, and those claiming they do are talking through their hats.

From what I have been reading the last couple of days, the short answer is that nobody [yet] knows. Seems there was a flurry & flap over the claim it was an epigenetic effect, but the consensus was that the idea was not well supported. I haven't saved any of the links I read, but I searched the phrase 'evolution of instinct' to find them. As to not having expertise, you're in good company.

I sincerely hope that is not me. I am just a lowly individual , with an inquiring mind desperately trying to find his way in this immense cosmic sea. Doing the thing he only knows how to do . That is. ' ASK his way in this puzzle of life ' . Unfortunately for me , the things I want to know ' how it works ' , is EVERYTHING ! Then, when I find an answer , all I want to do , is jump up and down with glee, and want to tell everybody . Millions of people pose questions on the Internet every day , and get answers every day . Nowerdays , We accept that as normal . I seemed to have tapped into a universe wide, time wide mechanism , that can answer some time wide , universe wide questions . Maybe that is the nature of the Cosmos , namely it is time wide and universe wide network of 'knowledge ' and capable of answering time wide and Universe wide questions , should you care to ask ? ( this all sounds a bit " Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy " ish ) ... Mike Just pointing out that the process you described is known as divination. It -divination- has been lauded and decried for as long as lauding and decrying have been around. In any case, divination is not scientific and so hardly admissible as evidence in a presumably scientific discussion. (And per my quote, not admissible in a Christian discussion either.) Good luck, keep that thumb up, and if you get a ride may it not be with a psychopath.

Wile's proof agrees with you that there are no solutions to [math]x^n+y^n=z^n, n>=3[/math].

Jeremiah 14:14 14 Then the Lord said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

Hofstadter -and so I- would beg to differ on the bolded. Just because no sufficiently complex artificial net has not yet been confirmed to be conscious, does not mean it can never be so. After all, at some point Earth had no conscious life and yet here we and the flys be now. (At the risk of being called out for appeal to authority, I appeal to authority. Douglas Hofstadter profile @ Indiana University College of Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor, Cognitive Science Adjunct Professor, Comparative Literature Director, Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition) Education •B.S., Mathematics (with distinction), Stanford University, 1965 •M.S., Physics, University of Oregon, 1972 •Ph.D., Physics, University of Oregon, 1975•Thesis advisor: Gregory H. Wannier •Thesis area: Theoretical solid-state physics •Thesis title: “The Energy Levels and Wave Functions of Bloch Electrons In a Homogeneous Magnetic Field” Awards •Pulitzer Prize (General Nonfiction category), 1980 • American Book Award (Science Hardback category), 1980 for Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid • Guggenheim Fellow, 1980-81 PS I have made a couple new posts that were appended to post #16 and so did not appear separately.

I am, in fact, familiar with it, and I don't think that it offers an actual explanation as to what consciousness is, where exactly it comes from or why it exists at all, and it certainly doesn't do so in a scientific way, which requires a testable model of consciousness in order to qualify. Mmmmm....does 'familiar with it' mean you read it, or just read about it? In any case you're under no constraint to accept Doug's or my contentions and certainly as a conscious being you are free to form your own conclusions. I don't see any scientific refutation from you however, rather you just offer "I don't think...'. As I alluded when I first posted, Hofstadter's work is the best take I have run across that meets the criteria set out in the OP, as well as Phi's mod note. I encourage readers to fully explore these neat, if not difficult, ideas. Here again, Hofstadter's approach is to allow for a continuum of consciousness, i.e. some things are more conscious than others. The worm is more conscious than the bacteria and less conscious than we peoples. He also makes clear that given the variability of consciousness within peoples, the judgment of where things rank is a subjective result of that variability itself. A strange loop, ain't it? Addendum: Hofstadter says he wrote I Am A Strange Loop in good part because folks -me among them- didn't understand that Gödel, Escher, Bach was about 'I', that is consciousness. My copy of GEB was lost in a fire and I just went searching the webernet for an inexpensive replacement copy. There to my amazement I found it is now downloadable as a PDF! Woot woot!! Here's the addy: link removed What's more, I also found that I Am a Strange Loop is also now available as a free PDF. Woot woot woot!!! >> link removed Notice: I am presuming these PDFs are authorized by the author and respect his copyrights. I have dropped Doug a note to check, and if they are not authorized I will have staff remove the links. I do have a hardcopy of the latter and I'm on my third read so I thought I would throw a passage from my current place into the mix here to bolster my claims. Mind you that no mere snippet is going to answer all you dear tender readers' questions, anymore than some snippet of Wile's proof would explain the whole. Both are structured, progressive, logical arguments leading to conclusions and to the best of my knowledge constitute scientific investigations. Anyway, FWIW:

Precisely. And to clarify 'he', Fermat proposed the theorem/conjecture & claimed he proved it never works (saying the proof is too long for this margin), while Wiles actually did prove it never works.

As I just said, strange loops are a necessary but not sufficient condition for consciousness, so no. Also as I said, you will have to read Hofstadter's I Am A Strange Loop (and Gödel, Escher, Bach) to make your own determination of whether or not his model is up to your snuff. What have you got to lose?

Are you asking me to give the evidence, or asking if it exists? I would say no inasmuch as a strange loop is a necessary but not sufficient condition for consciousness. Hofstadter points to Escher's print 'Drawing Hands' as a strange loop, but this does not imply that the drawing is conscious. Again I'd say no for the same reasons I just gave above. Here I will say yes. I'll give a quote from MathWorld to support my answer, but if you want to understand the full argument you will have to read Hofstadter (presuming you have not) and make your own determination. Lead a horse to water and all that. Strange Loop @ Wolfram MathWorld