 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> (my point being that Andy thinks he sucks at things he's never tried,
>> and if that's the criteria, then we all suck at even more things <g>)
>
> By that definition, I suck at sex.
>
> Which may or may not be true, IDK.
>
> (Hmm... maybe "suck" is the wrong term...)
You mean, you suck poorly.
(I think that was in a Heinlein novel...)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> There will always be statements that can not be proven within a set
>>> of axioms and theories.
>>
>> The one part of this I've never figured out is...
>>
> IIRC it is one of those proofs where you assume something is possible.
No, you actually construct the string that the formalism can't prove.
The string consists of essentially saying "this cannot be proven." If
you can prove it, then it's false. If you can't prove it, then it's true
but unprovable.
I understand it at that level, but it would seem to need a
jump-out-of-the-system kind of analysis. I.e., that you *know* it "says"
this cannot be proven.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
> Overall I think French is fairly forgiving on vowels
> compared to English.
Well, yeah. I think English has some 25 vowels or so, so being a little
off is enough to give you a different word. Contrast with Spanish's five
or so.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:17:51 -0600, Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
>andrel wrote:
>> One of the great things of being abroad is that they don't know you have
>> problems interacting. They'll put it down to you being a foreigner and
>> will be much more responsive than the people around you who know how a
>> ordinary member of society should behave.
>
> Sad truth about human nature.
I don't think that's sad. I think that's a good thing about human nature.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> One of the great things of being abroad is that they don't know you have
>>> problems interacting. They'll put it down to you being a foreigner and
>>> will be much more responsive than the people around you who know how a
>>> ordinary member of society should behave.
>> Sad truth about human nature.
>
> I don't think that's sad. I think that's a good thing about human nature.
Not sad that they're more tolerant of others, but sad that they have
different standards.
If it's just for visitors, that's understandable. But I regularly see
tolerance of those living in the place for over a decade. I don't buy
the argument that they're outsiders and should be treated differently if
they've been there that long.
--
"A man doesn't know what happiness is until he's married. By then it's
too late." - Frank Sinatra
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I call bullshit, Andy. You may not realize it, but there are plenty of
>>> people who like you.
>> Er... really? :-.
>
> Have a look around this group. No, really, I mean it. A lot of people
> here have taken a fair amount of time to talk with you and interact.
> Right now, it's the middle of my business day, and I'm chatting away with
> you instead of getting work done that I need to do.
>
> I don't spend time talking to people I don't like. I think you've got a
> very bizzare self-perception (though I think I understand why that is).
Heh. With so many people telling me all the ways I suck at life, I
thought it was like people taking time out of there day to yell at kids
"hey, get off my lawn!"
Would be nice to think a few people like me though...
>> *makes mental note* "Jim Henderson"...
>
> It's about time. :-)
Hmm. ASL?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:28:23 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>Heh. With so many people telling me all the ways I suck at life, I
>thought it was like people taking time out of there day to yell at kids
>"hey, get off my lawn!"
>
>Would be nice to think a few people like me though...
No! We are saying walk on the path because we are here and that is what people
do. :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:46:56 -0600, Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>
> Not sad that they're more tolerant of others, but sad that they have
>different standards.
>
> If it's just for visitors, that's understandable. But I regularly see
>tolerance of those living in the place for over a decade. I don't buy
>the argument that they're outsiders and should be treated differently if
>they've been there that long.
That gets my vote.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:28:23 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Heh. With so many people telling me all the ways I suck at life, I
> thought it was like people taking time out of there day to yell at kids
> "hey, get off my lawn!"
That's the minutemen. <g>
Lewis Black suggested that the way we could protect the US/Mexico border
from illegal immigrants was to put retired guys down there - they do such
a good job of keeping the kids off their lawns, after all.
(Note, this doesn't reflect my views on immigration, was just a funny
joke I saw <g>)
> Would be nice to think a few people like me though...
>
>>> *makes mental note* "Jim Henderson"...
>>
>> It's about time.
>
> Hmm. ASL?
American Sign Language? Yeah, I know a bit of it. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> There will always be statements that can not be proven within a set
>>>> of axioms and theories.
>>>
>>> The one part of this I've never figured out is...
>>>
>> IIRC it is one of those proofs where you assume something is possible.
>
> No, you actually construct the string that the formalism can't prove.
> The string consists of essentially saying "this cannot be proven." If
> you can prove it, then it's false. If you can't prove it, then it's true
> but unprovable.
>
> I understand it at that level, but it would seem to need a
> jump-out-of-the-system kind of analysis. I.e., that you *know* it "says"
> this cannot be proven.
>
I stand corrected.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
