On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:20:30 -0600
Daniel Fussell wrote:
> Wait, I thought pi was redefined to 3.2 by the Indiana house of
> representatives...
They passed a bill to do so, but the Senate did not pass it, so the
bill never took effect.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.asp
--
Charles Curley
On 03/17/2013 10:24 AM, Levi Pearson wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Levi Pearson wrote:
>>> Seriously, pi is 4? Do you understand that if this guy was actually right,
>>> we wouldn't be able to build a proper bicycle, much less
On Mar 17, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Levi Pearson wrote:
>> Seriously, pi is 4? Do you understand that if this guy was actually right,
>> we wouldn't be able to build a proper bicycle, much less a computer or a
>> nuclear reactor.
>
> He only
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Levi Pearson wrote:
> Seriously, pi is 4? Do you understand that if this guy was actually right, we
> wouldn't be able to build a proper bicycle, much less a computer or a nuclear
> reactor.
He only derives pi as 4 for kinematic scenarios, not static.
Furthermor
On Mar 15, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Levi Pearson wrote:
>> Crackpots aren't marginalized and dismissed because
>> they attack the status quo. They're marginalized because they're
>> wrong, or at least their arguments are flawed to the point of
On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 10:51 -0600, Alan Young wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Daniel C. wrote:
> > I suspect that we're preaching to the choir here, folks. I doubt
> > anyone on this list is a member of the Young Earth Creationists, etc.
>
> I, myself, am an advocate of the Middle Ear
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Levi Pearson wrote:
> Crackpots aren't marginalized and dismissed because
> they attack the status quo. They're marginalized because they're
> wrong, or at least their arguments are flawed to the point of being
> inadmissible to serious consideration.
Yes, there
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 6:16 PM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
>>
>> For the Mormons here - how does this square with your religious beliefs?
>>
>> -Dan
>
> Religion and Science are methods of seeking answers to different questions.
> One cannot correctly substitute for the other.
>
> Put another way,
> S
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> Science is getting less and less wrong all the time, and I like that
>> trajectory.
>
> It would be great if this were completely true. But in some fields,
> some people would strong
On 03/15/2013 10:30 AM, Joshua Marsh wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Lonnie Olson wrote:
>
>> I hate to disagree with you, but you are wrong. I wish you were right
>> though.
>
> Just because not everyone gets it, doesn't make it wrong. Sure, there are
> examples of when people got it
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> Science is getting less and less wrong all the time, and I like that
> trajectory.
It would be great if this were completely true. But in some fields,
some people would strongly disagree with this:
http://milesmathis.com/string.html
http://m
On Mar 15, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Joshua Marsh wrote:
> I think they are still exceptions though. If we base things on the mistakes
> that have been made, then science certainly is in the same boat.
I'd like to offer a data point to support this argument.
Important Note 1: I'm not arguing whether re
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Joshua Marsh wrote:
> I think they are still exceptions though. If we base things on the mistakes
> that have been made, then science certainly is in the same boat.
Totally the same boat: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/extremists
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on
On 03/14/2013 09:13 PM, Stuart Jansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 21:00 -0600, Daniel Fussell wrote:
>> On 03/14/2013 06:51 PM, Stuart Jansen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 19:16 -0500, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
Religion and Science are methods of seeking answers to different questions.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> Of course there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. I was
> objecting to the generalization that "Religion" only answers WHY
> questions. There are a very significant number of examples that
> disprove this generalization to make
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Daniel C. wrote:
> I suspect that we're preaching to the choir here, folks. I doubt
> anyone on this list is a member of the Young Earth Creationists, etc.
I, myself, am an advocate of the Middle Earth Midgardians ...
--
Alan Young
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #u
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Barry Roberts wrote:
> I agree, and it does go both ways. Religious zealots staying out of
> science is about as likely as science zealots (like Richard Dawkins)
> staying out of religion, unfortunately.
Heh, I guess you have a point, but your scale is off incre
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
> Tell that to the zealots that are trying to change the nation's school
> curriculum.
I suspect that we're preaching to the choir here, folks. I doubt
anyone on this list is a member of the Young Earth Creationists, etc.
/*
PLUG: http://
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Joshua Marsh wrote:
> Just because not everyone gets it, doesn't make it wrong. Sure, there are
> examples of when people got it wrong. I think there are examples of people
> who got it right though and did great things in either or both fields.
Of course there a
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
>
> Tell that to the zealots that are trying to change the nation's school
> curriculum. They misunderstand the simple concept of fact vs
> theory/belief. Yes, theory != belief, the former being testable--but
> neither is strictly fact. So l
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> I hate to disagree with you, but you are wrong. I wish you were right
> though.
Just because not everyone gets it, doesn't make it wrong. Sure, there are
examples of when people got it wrong. I think there are examples of people
who got i
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 6:16 PM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
> Religion and Science are methods of seeking answers to different questions.
> One cannot correctly substitute for the other.
>
> Put another way,
> Science asks HOW.
> Religion asks WHY.
>
Tell that to the zealots that are trying to change
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 6:16 PM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
> Religion and Science are methods of seeking answers to different questions.
> One cannot correctly substitute for the other.
I hate to disagree with you, but you are wrong. I wish you were right
though. Many religions often answer the que
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 21:00 -0600, Daniel Fussell wrote:
> On 03/14/2013 06:51 PM, Stuart Jansen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 19:16 -0500, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
> >> Religion and Science are methods of seeking answers to different questions.
> >> One cannot correctly substitute for the other.
>
On 03/14/2013 06:51 PM, Stuart Jansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 19:16 -0500, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
>> Religion and Science are methods of seeking answers to different questions.
>> One cannot correctly substitute for the other.
>>
>> Put another way,
>> Science asks HOW.
>> Religion asks WHY.
Should have started that with IMHO. Not trying to start a flame war,
just voice my opinion on the subject of science vs religion. My
opinion is there is no vs.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Stuart Jansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 19:16 -0500, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
>> Religion and Scienc
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 19:16 -0500, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
> Religion and Science are methods of seeking answers to different questions.
> One cannot correctly substitute for the other.
>
> Put another way,
> Science asks HOW.
> Religion asks WHY.
Of course the accuracy of the above claim depends o
>
> For the Mormons here - how does this square with your religious beliefs?
>
> -Dan
Religion and Science are methods of seeking answers to different questions.
One cannot correctly substitute for the other.
Put another way,
Science asks HOW.
Religion asks WHY.
Science by definition cannot answ
On 03/13/2013 12:12 PM, Levi Pearson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Alan Young wrote:
> Yes, science is continually wrong about things, but the scope of its
> wrongness in a given domain tends to narrow over time.
> See this essay, where Isaac Asimov makes the point far more
> eloquent
On 03/12/2013 06:14 PM, Barry Roberts wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Daniel C. wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
For the Mormons here - how does this square with your religious beliefs?
>>> You mean the fact that Levi believes FTL information transfer is
On Mar 13, 2013 10:16 AM, "Corey Edwards" wrote:
>
> On 03/12/2013 06:26 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> > I was always under the impression that every node that you add to a mesh
> > network that cannot directly see a node elsewhere in the mesh will half
> > your current bandwidth.
>
> That's still c
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Alan Young wrote:
> The other end of this spectrum is that people are claiming we know so
> much about the physical laws of the universe that any new discoveries
> won't significantly change our understanding, so how can fit what we
> "know" of the universe with w
On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Corey Edwards wrote:
> On 03/12/2013 07:00 AM, Jared Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:50 AM, S. Dale Morrey
>> wrote:
>>> I've been asked to salvage a project where someone laid cat 5 to all
>>> the houses in a neighborhood but didn't seem to have a concept
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Daniel C. wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> For the Mormons here - how does this square with your religious beliefs?
>>
>> You mean the fact that Levi believes FTL information transfer is impossible?
>> Not too bad.
Perhaps God is c
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 03/12/2013 03:46 PM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
>
> I was always under the impression that every node that you add to a mesh
> network that cannot directly see a node elsewhere in the mesh will half
> your current bandwidth.
>
> I know that a
On 03/12/2013 06:26 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 03/12/2013 03:46 PM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
>> Another alternative since the ground is flat and the houses are spaced
>> at a fairly even distance may be just to build a wireless mesh network
>> and call it good.
>
> I was always under the impressi
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Stuart Jansen wrote:
> I'm sorry, but the thread is just begging for this reference:
>
> http://www.veoh.com/watch/v16924901MqxQfdTG
Would you like a sandwich?
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 19:38 -0400, Daniel C. wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Levi Pearson wrote:
> > I don't think FTL information transfer is possible, though, because
> > Einstein's theories of relativity have been experimentally verified to
> > a great degree, and they show that if si
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Troy Wolfe wrote:
> Since we only operate in 0.5 dimensions of time, (linear one directional)
> we inherently can not understand how 3 dimensional time would work. Our
> understanding of causality is wholly inadequate I think.
I disagree. We don't have to live in
Since we only operate in 0.5 dimensions of time, (linear one directional)
we inherently can not understand how 3 dimensional time would work. Our
understanding of causality is wholly inadequate I think.
Dr. Ross has several books, but they can be hard to find, as he goes
against main stream Christ
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Troy Wolfe wrote:
> I am not lds, but I believe YHWH exists on at least 9 dimensions of space
> and 3 dimensions of time, where mankind operates in 3 of space and 1/2 of
> time.
>
> For more on this, "Creator and the Cosmos" by Dr. Hugh Ross is a great
> read. He h
On 03/12/2013 11:59 AM, Steve Alligood wrote:
> the problem is that every one of these solutions will not be cheap.
>
> If the cat5 is in conduit, I would pull fiber. If not, I would scrap
> the cat5 and look into wireless, either point to point, or a small
> mesh around the neighborhood. Compan
I am not lds, but I believe YHWH exists on at least 9 dimensions of space
and 3 dimensions of time, where mankind operates in 3 of space and 1/2 of
time.
For more on this, "Creator and the Cosmos" by Dr. Hugh Ross is a great
read. He has his phd in cosmology.
Troy
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah
On 03/12/2013 03:26 PM, Jonathan Duncan wrote:
>
> On 12 Mar 2013, at 13:53, Levi Pearson wrote:
>
>> Quantum teleportation, although instantaneous, still requires classical
>> information transfer in order to interpret the teleported quantum state.
>> Still no FTL information transfer.
>>
>
> N
On 03/12/2013 03:46 PM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
> Another alternative since the ground is flat and the houses are spaced
> at a fairly even distance may be just to build a wireless mesh network
> and call it good.
I was always under the impression that every node that you add to a mesh
network that
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Barry Roberts wrote:
> You might consider this just hand-waving, but I believe we're about as
> smart about real physics as the inhabitants of Flatland. There are
> entire dimensions our mortal minds probably aren't even capable of
> comprehending.
Well, I would
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Daniel C. wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> For the Mormons here - how does this square with your religious beliefs?
>>
>> You mean the fact that Levi believes FTL information transfer is impossible?
>> Not too bad.
>
> No, I mean th
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> For the Mormons here - how does this square with your religious beliefs?
>
> You mean the fact that Levi believes FTL information transfer is impossible?
> Not too bad.
No, I mean the fact that FTL travel (as well as time travel in
general) w
On Mar 12, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Daniel C. wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Levi Pearson wrote:
>> I don't think FTL information transfer is possible, though, because
> ...
> For the Mormons here - how does this square with your religious beliefs?
You mean the fact that Levi believes FTL in
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Levi Pearson wrote:
> I don't think FTL information transfer is possible, though, because
> Einstein's theories of relativity have been experimentally verified to
> a great degree, and they show that if signals could propagate faster
> than light, you could easily
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Jonathan Duncan
wrote:
>
> On 12 Mar 2013, at 13:53, Levi Pearson wrote:
>
>> Quantum teleportation, although instantaneous, still requires classical
>> information transfer in order to interpret the teleported quantum state.
>> Still no FTL information transfer.
>
I'd take a look at mesh dynamics. They have some really top-notch gear
for mesh networking.
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
On 03/12/2013 03:26 PM, Jonathan Duncan wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2013, at 13:53, Levi Pearson wrote:
>
>> Quantum teleportation, although instantaneous, still requires classical
>> information transfer in order to interpret the teleported quantum state.
>> Still no FTL information transfer.
>>
> Not yet.
On 03/12/2013 03:46 PM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
> If you were to build a wireless mesh network in a 32 home subdivision
> what access points would you use as repeaters? I'm looking at the
> venerable Linksys WRT54GL and thinking throwing a custom firmware
> would be a good option, but that thing is
On 03/12/2013 07:00 AM, Jared Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:50 AM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
>> I've been asked to salvage a project where someone laid cat 5 to all
>> the houses in a neighborhood but didn't seem to have a concept of
>> signal loss in long runs of cat 5.
>> Assuming this is
I am very happy with my Asus RT-N16 running EasyTomato. It is just my home
firewall / access point, but it was built for the mesh-network use case.
http://www.easytomato.org/get-easytomato/
Richard
On Tuesday March 12 2013 15:46:09 "S. Dale Morrey"
wrote:
> To answer the questions about condu
To answer the questions about conduit. Yes it's sort of in conduit.
They ran 1/2 inch pvc. Running fiber by using the existing cat 5 to
pull is an option I hadn't considered. However pricing fiber out here
(Ecuador AND rural even by Ecuadorian standards), it may be cheaper to
just bust up the cu
> If removing the concrete does become an option I have a good friend
> who does concrete/cement work.
>
> Let me know.
I'm in Ecuador right now. Guess I should have mentioned that first ;)
but thanks for the offer.
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.or
On 12 Mar 2013, at 13:53, Levi Pearson wrote:
> Quantum teleportation, although instantaneous, still requires classical
> information transfer in order to interpret the teleported quantum state.
> Still no FTL information transfer.
>
Not yet.
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
On Mar 12, 2013 12:37 PM, "Jonathan Duncan"
wrote:
>
> I hear that there has been good progress in the quantum entanglement
field. Practical applications of entangled particles could eliminate the
need for wires AND broadcasting. Just think, instantaneous data transfers
from anywhere in the uni
On 12 Mar 2013, at 12:29, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
> It's not a matter of signal degradation so much as a matter of the
> timing regarding the ethernet spec. The standard specifies the maximum
> cable length with respect to bit times in order for CDMA/CD to
> function properly. If the length preclu
It's not a matter of signal degradation so much as a matter of the
timing regarding the ethernet spec. The standard specifies the maximum
cable length with respect to bit times in order for CDMA/CD to
function properly. If the length precludes CDMA/CD, you wind up losing
packets to noise from colli
the problem is that every one of these solutions will not be cheap.
If the cat5 is in conduit, I would pull fiber. If not, I would scrap the cat5
and look into wireless, either point to point, or a small mesh around the
neighborhood. Companies like aruba networks, etc, are not too pricey. ;)
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:50 AM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
> Hey everyone.
>
> I've been asked to salvage a project where someone laid cat 5 to all
> the houses in a neighborhood but didn't seem to have a concept of
> signal loss in long runs of cat 5.
> Assuming this is a max of 250m from the head e
On 12 Mar 2013, at 01:03, Gabriel Gunderson wrote:
> Was there any conduit? If so, the CAT5 would be *perfect* to help pull
> fiber to each home :)
>
This is what I was wondering also. Was the cable buried naked or was it buried
inside a conduit? If it was buried naked, no wonder the origina
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:50 AM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
Hey everyone.
> Anyways, any ideas that might be helpful. There are 30 homes, and
> this cable is buried under road and concrete so removing it &
> replacing it to do it correctly is probably not an option at this
> stage.
>
If removing the
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:50 AM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
> I've been asked to salvage a project where someone laid cat 5 to all
> the houses in a neighborhood but didn't seem to have a concept of
> signal loss in long runs of cat 5.
> Assuming this is a max of 250m from the head end, is there an
> a
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:50 AM, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
> Assuming this is a max of 250m from the head end, is there an
> amplifier or relay or something that can be placed at the end points
> to mitigate the packet loss issues?
You can't add anything to the ends of the run and make it work. It
w
Hey everyone.
I've been asked to salvage a project where someone laid cat 5 to all
the houses in a neighborhood but didn't seem to have a concept of
signal loss in long runs of cat 5.
Assuming this is a max of 250m from the head end, is there an
amplifier or relay or something that can be placed a
69 matches
Mail list logo
