Strange

I don't see how that is supposed to work. I think you should demonstrate that the method works for smaller files before worrying about the time taken for larger ones.

The same is true in the UK generally (but perhaps not in Ireland, where the OP is).

Nonsense. I think you have posted enough erroneous crap in this thread already. Time to bow out gracefully, perhaps.

You have demonstrated that your opinion isn't worth much (*). How about some data? (*) For example you thread asking why "all Cro Magnons have the same dent in the forehead"

And efficient because the compiler will (should) turn it into a simple loop.

Even if that were the correct definition of factorial (it isn't) then you have still have a bizarrely complicated way of calculating it. To caclulate this function you have invented, it could simply be a loop: for i = 1 to n { sum = sum + i } result = sum * n https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factorial

Found this Sumerian dictionary: http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd1/index.html Looking up "su" returns the following meanings: None of which seem to confirm your claim. Looking up "rise" returns "zig" (and some variants): Looking up "vertical" finds "si sa": Unfortunately, I can't link directly to the results because of the way the website is structured. But this does seem to confirm that you are talking what the Sumerians would have called lum or murgu. p.s. I am guessing your JPEG shows some Akkadian words, not Sumerian. But many are unrecognisable (to me).

What? And your code is incomprehensible, appears to be very inefficient and will run out of precision for the sort of numbers being talked about. factorial(n) { if n > 1 return n * factorial(n-1) else return 1 } As far as I know, there is no shortcut for calculating this. (Although there might be techniques for evaluating the number of permutations to avoid overflowing.)

It doesn't answer the question about what data you are using to reach your conclusions. You rely on some current conclusions to confirm your opinions and then say others are wrong simply because you disagree with them. I would like to see the evidence judged by more than your opinion. I would like to see some data (and references to the source of the data).

I have a 12 hour clock here - it measures time. If I can measure it and take "readings" of it - I know it exists.

Even if it did turn out to be incorrect (and you provide no reason why that should be the case) it certainly wouldn't be embarrassing. It is based on one of our most successful theories and is consistent with all the (current) evidence. Why would anyone be embarrassed by that?

"Appears to me" is not a scientific argument. Please provide details (i.e. not "its obvious") of the features that are different, how they are different (i.e. quantifying it) and how this compares with the normal range in each group.

He is citing sources. You are making assertions (as well as saying your opinions are "obvious" and alternative views are "silly/unscientific"). Sounds like you are the one doing (unjustified) guesswork, to me. How many is "a few" (please provide a source for the number)? How do you know these "deformities" are due to Neanderthal DNA or a "medical condition"? Please provide sources to support this. How do you know that this is due to interbreding with Cro Magnons? Please provide references to support your answer. The reason is, as always, your attitude. (Not the fact that you are bringing dangerous new ideas to our attention. Which you aren't.)

We would see Hubble's law showing a constant relationship between distance and speed (at all times and distances).

That makes approximately zero sense. 1. The USA doesn't determine wages internationally. 2. Why would international minimum wages be relevant anyway 3. Your calculation could only be correct if the only cost of production were labour. I can't think of a single product that is true for. 4. You are ignoring margins (as well as costs of raw materials, distribution, sales and marketing, and many other fixed and variable costs). I can only assume you know even less about economics than I do (which is close to nothing). Which confirms that your analysis is totally wrong. Whether he knows or not (and it hardly matters) this is certainly the motivation.

You have completely failed to quantify the differences, as requested. Why is that?

1. Please provide a proper source. (A JPEG image is not a valid source.) 2. The word "su" may indeed mean vertical. There is no indication in your image that it also means rising. 3. This is irrelevant to the etymology of the name Jesus. I assume you cannot provide any evidence for the etymology you claim? I accept that Jesu is not a school. Do you have any evidence that it is? I doubt that very much (just based on the small number of Jesuit universities(*)). Please provide some evidence to support that claim. (*) 28 in the USA, out of a total of over 4,000 colleges and universities

Anyone whose profile begins, "When it comes to clever: I Am; you are not." doesn't really endear themselves to an audience.

Make your comments descriptive and useful (e.g. don't comment a line that increments a counter with /* increment counter */, try something like /* keep track of the number of lines we have processed */). Imagine you are explaining your code to someone else (who isn't as smart as you) when writing comments. Add comments at the start of each file saying what that file contains. Add comments at the start of each function/procedure saying what the function does, what parameters it takes and what it returns. Add comments at each step in the function explaining what it is doing and why it is doing it that way - it is OK to document your design decisions in the comments. Otherwise, one day you might come back and think, "that seems an odd way of doing it; I think I'll simplify it .... Oh no! Why doesn't it work any more!?" As well as using meaningful variable names, add comments to the declarations with more info (e.g. why it is that type /* We use a set rather than a list here to automatically remove duplicates, and we don't care about the ordering */) If you "temporarily" comment out lines to try a different implementation then: 1. Add a comment explaining why those lines are commented out 2. Consider deleting them when you are happy with the new version 3. Start using a version control system! Keep the comments up to date with the code; e.g. if a function is given an extra parameter, update the comments.

Of course, distance is just an abstract concept and you can't travel through a concept.

I'm still not quite clear about this: do you want to become a god or not?

And, just like on Earth, you can see stars if the picture is taken at night: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=88026

Then please provide a reference to a peer reviewed paper on historical linguistics that supports your claim. Otherwise, I think it is clearly something you have just made up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua

Unless, of course, Jesus didn't exist.

You have no proof that the universe is infinite. Even if it were, you have no proof that there are an infinite number of "you". (And even if there were, they would not be "you".) But, luckily, the forum has an ignore function for just this level of idiocy.