insane_alien Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 if this program exists, send it to my email insane_alien@msn.com and i'll post it. (after several virus scans of course). *** awaits flood of spam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abskebabs Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 A strong person doesn't need to predict the future, they make their own... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 My system has a problem that always lead to the failures of attachments.That's a lame excuse for an excuse. Ask your "program": Are thier always solutions to the Navier-Stokes equation "or not"? Is the big bang currently the most accurate model of the universe's begining "or not"? Can a specific card from a pack be described using less than six binary digits "or not"? Have you not been banned because you haven't quite broken a specific rule or because the moderators are so amused by your idiocy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 It works ! I used the 'universal mind' to predict whether my work mate was going to the toilet earlier, or to grab a drink of water. A huge 50% was displayed that he would come back with a cup of water...indeed he did. After drinking the water, half an hour later, he went to the toilet...so the 'universal mind' predicted his actions to a whopping 100%. Amod, I have already warned you...the designs I have for such prediction are foul indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 The second @ttachment also failed,I will therefore like to refer you to an email created for that purpose and later the program if I find a way out. No, it didn't "fail". You just put a load of carriage returns in to the post to make it look like there is a missing attachment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmallIsPower Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 There is an article in New Scientist about 2 mathemeticans who think a new hypothesis in Physics is flawed. They claim that if true, it would prove determinism. I think proving determinism would lead to paradoxes, but I'm not clear as to how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now