Says who?

I don't use cursive. Therefore, any signature on any document that is in cursive is not my signature.

Or MAYBE you're just not a REAL MAN!

I jest, of course. Exceptions, rules and all that.

These large media companies better learn quick that they are not going to save their industry by making it harder to access their media. As it is now, to get media I have to buy equipment, have it installed, get the dish pointed correctly... it cuts out during storms. Cables isn't much better. The force me to order channels in "Packages" so 90% of the channels I get are either espn (dont want) or home shopping network. I have absolutely no option to get rid of these channels. When I want a DVD they delay the release for months, but will release it in other country's first. I can't order it from those countrys becuase of my DVD players country code. Then they release 1 version of the movie... wait 6 months and release an extended version of the movie... then wait another 6 months and release a directors cut and then even a "Series" pack where you can get all the sequels. OR... I can go to a torrent site... click on the movie. 8hrs later I have the full, directors cut, with all the extra features, in english and I don't have to drive anywhere. Talk about a service I'd be willing to pay for. Oh wait, they wont let me pay for it. Morons.

This is one theory of knowledge transmission, and it deserves to be taken seriously; however, we're at the head of a four-thousand-year-long counterexample in our current technological progress. Many students learn things that their masters never knew, and the overall state of the art advances. So while I think it's possible that Stradivarius knew more about violin-making than his students, it also seems very unlikely to me that we've never recovered his knowledge.

If the difference is in materials (as is usually claimed), well that's certainly more plausible.

That's because they used the wrong speaker cables and missed out on the warm sound only pure gold provides.

I doubt that they would have gotten the same reaction if they had offered a $1.50 discount to customers agreeing to receive electronic bills.

The "positive" part is not the redundant part... it is the "nonzero" part that is. You have started with "every prime number is a natural number", which is a false premise... you can't rely on wikipedia for everything.

More precisely, that definition taken from wikipedia is closer to that for an irreducible, not a prime.

A nonzero element p in a ring is a prime if when p divides a product "ab", then p must divide one of the factors "a" or "b". A nonzero element p is irreducible if whenever you write p = st then either s or t must be a unit (in the case of integers, 1 or -1).

It just so happens that in the case of integers, the concepts of prime and irreducible turn out to be equivalent, which results in endless confusion. This means that "definition" of primes that people usually give is more correctly a "theorem". Anyhow, in the ring of integers, we have both positive *and* negative primes (i.e. 2 and -2 are both primes). In common speech though, we restrict ourselves to natural numbers (as the wikipedia article appears to do, sacrificing mathematical correctness for vulgarity).

So as I said to start with, the "positive" part isn't redundant; it's just being more precise than people normally bother to be. However yes, the "nonzero" part is redundant.

Any IT dept that likes to keep working will just give him/her an identical unit, Use Fog (or what have you) to clone the HD to the new unit, and upgrade (or my recommendation, backup and reinstall) on the original.

You're taking it to the extreme ignoring all real world factors.

Yes, as a thought experiment, the human brain, because it is able to, although extremely inefficiently, perform basic arithmetic and logic operations, could emulate any infinitely complex hardware running any infinitely complex software if all information about the hardware was available and correct and humanly understandable and if the software was available in human readable form and if there was an unlimited means to manually store data and unlimited time to compute and perfect computation accuracy and unlimited ability to focus on said task.

But the converse is true as well I'm afraid. Not only can humans """THEORETICALLY""" emulate computers, but computers can right now in real life accurately emulate a portion of a mammal brain.

By the way, the idea you are describing is called the church-turing thesis. Sure any computational device can theoretically emulate any other, but it's theoretical for a reason. All external factors can not be reproduced. If a computer does calculations based on yesterday's weather, if I don't have yesterday's weather, then those computations can not be emulated.

From the Wikipedia article on Emulation: In a theoretical sense, the Church-Turing thesis implies that any operating environment can be emulated within any other. However, in practice, it can be quite difficult, particularly when the exact behavior of the system to be emulated is not documented and has to be deduced through reverse engineering. It also says nothing about timing constraints; if the emulator does not perform as quickly as the original hardware, the emulated software may run much more slowly than it would have on the original hardware, possibly triggering time interrupts to alter performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulator

That depends on your point of view. Ford turned down the loan from the TARP program, which most people are referring to as bailout money.

But Ford did accept a $5.9 billion dollar loan from the Department of Energy and has asked for another $5.1 billion.

Some people argue that the DOE money is not bailout money because it is part of a program to get automakers to build cars that are 25% more fuel efficient. Some people say that this view is bullshit and it is all bailout money.