Registered bored user

7eggert wrote:
Fry some frozen vegetables in a pan. Add frozen or non-frozen ground or chopped meat. Then a little bit of ketchup and some flour - just not enough to be noticeable after frying.

The flour will help with the frying and the meal will be more delicious.

★★★★✬ Easy
★★★✬✫ Delicious
7eggert wrote:
gohikineko I took the numbers from helmet usage vs. accidents. Those wearing helmets have 326 % as much head injuries.
7eggert wrote:
demarc01 I'd fight it on the account that most allowed bells would not be audible in a typical urban environment.(customary practice to not enforce the law)
7eggert wrote:
demarc01 It must be a device, but if you manage to make a sound from a non-mechanical object (also excluding the mechanics of a whistle), that's OK.

Does a tuba count as a whistle?
7eggert wrote:
dm2754 A bell cannot be heard unless a voice can be heard. You can't warn people with that, only ring it right next to their ear until they say: "Why did you not ring earlier"
7eggert wrote:
gohikineko Also because they would not be allowed to do that in a white community, according to this:
7eggert wrote:
daegog First google result on the name, and google corrected a typo:

"Another male went with Davis to the meeting. When Davis tried the shoes on, he told the seller, "These shoes is took." The other male pulled out a gun and everyone fled, the newspaper reports."
7eggert wrote:
gohikineko It's rather orange :-)

Turning crop into fuel makes sense, since on bad years, you can use it for food, and on good years, you'll buy less oil. 

The main problem ist people whining about "It's food, you must not do that" ... but throwing food away is OK? Or selling it below market price in Africa?

Second: Do you use more fossile energy to create bio-fuel than you create bio-fuel? Then you have a problem.
7eggert wrote:
punko Buying oil is no problem, but "bringing democracy" do despots not wanting to sell is, and supporting militia usurpers where a democracy does not want to sell is, too.

What I wrote above is wrong, since needing to be good friend with dictators and IS-friendly Scheiks in order to keep buying oil is a problem, too.
7eggert wrote:
Draculya True, it looks good until you crash.
7eggert wrote:
BuckeyeJoe If you, being far from the ocean, do not experience it, does it mean it's fake? 
7eggert wrote:
monkwarrior Any theory you don't believe in is, and people fight to not believe in new (to them) theories.

Even the world we live in is daydreaming, we are separated from it by our eyes, our ears, our skin. We receive a mashed heap of signals and our brains are tasked to reconstruct something from that. It's only important that these dreams allow us to survive.

We don't know that there its a God - that's faith. We don't know that there is science either - that's faith, too. Tomorrow we may be offered the choice between a red and a blue pill.

Every day we meet people. Which dreams do they have about this world?
7eggert wrote:
BuckeyeJoe Only on Newton's space that might happen (and we know his physics does not apply on these scales). In the universe I picture, it does not, since I'm using Einstein's GRT and no inflation.

In my picture, the border is a tiny point at the knot of the universe balloon. Time happens slowly there; also it's stretched to appear in a billion-lightyears-sphere by looking along the balloon. It's red-shifted to nothingness.
7eggert wrote:
jaysingrimm See above. A Rock neither Archimedes nor a god can lift.
7eggert wrote:
BuckeyeJoe In computer languages, functions may contain assignments, e.g.:c(y) may be defined as "x:=42; return 4711;" and the C language is allowed to evaluate b() and c() in any order.
7eggert wrote:
rammo34 We could make a cable, but then it would not have uniform thickness. We insist on uniform thickness because ... we just do.
7eggert wrote:
jaysingrimm That's what I did. Then I did not stop thinking.
7eggert wrote:
monkwarrior You create order from chaos if you read a book.
7eggert wrote:
semichisam01 Since humans are monkeys ...
7eggert wrote:
monkwarrior If you throw away all the chaos, what remains will be order.

There is a theory of each black hole being a new universe, and these universes shall be similar to the parent universes. Given that, a universe creating a large number of black holes will create a large number of universes, and these universes will create a large number of black holes.

Let's call these universes "good" universes (vs. bad universes), for reasons yet to be shown.

Therefore a good universe will spawn many good universes, and a bad universe will have less daughter universes. Therefore it will be much more likely to randomly chose a good universe.

A good universe is one that will spawn many suns to turn Supernova, and Supernovae are spreading heavy elements into space to form new solar systems like ours. We think life is a good thing, mostly.

Therefore a universe, randomly chosen, is very likely to spawn life.
7eggert wrote:
Almost nothing is cleaner than a common toilet.
7eggert wrote:
boredhuman And that … is bananas.

An analogy: Your car is rolling away from you, uphill without an apparent reason!
7eggert wrote:
jaysingrimm If my theory is true, the number of possible universes is less than the number of rooms in Hilbert's Hotel.
7eggert wrote:
BuckeyeJoe 1) I'm using pseudo-code because it's formal enough to use and understandable enough.

2) I'm almost using the BNF to decribe how to construct a formula. It's close enough for a late-night posting after years of absence from school.

I stopped when I guessed you'd see how to use it. Also again it's just one way of expressing rules to construct a language.

3) A field is a fancy ring, therefore I may use all properties of rings.

Again that's not what I'm aiming at at all. I'm just not introducing uncommon concepts, I might define something else instead.

E.g. I may construct a field using ({1, 0}, xor, and).

At this point, I don't associate operator_+ to the addition known from numbers.

In the same way, I can expand allow to construct rules mapping a string of symbols to a semantic. There may be more than one set, we commonly use the infix syntax. Lisp uses (operator, parameter, parameter), always with parentheses; Reverse Polish notation (IEEE floating point) uses (parameter, parameter, operator) without parentheses.

I was never good at this formalism, and needing to translate does not help.

Edith: Main point is: Leaving out the · is only allowed if the formalism is unambiguous, and there is a reason.

4) I explicitly switched to computer languages to have an example how undefined makes a difference. a,x,y shall be variables; b,c functions.