Sorry I mean 11 can't be, because one of the terms would have to be 9 which isn't prime.

I've also heard Tao say in lecture that he doesn't even like using computer assistance when he's working out theory. I found some of his lectures to be great for getting the scope of ideas, but unless you really know the subject of number theory he can be hard to follow.

Parent probably isn't a troll. The summary should say every even integer greater than 2. For example, 9 can't be expressed as the sum of 2 primes.

How's this for a reason? Law shouldn't be ambiguous. If it takes a judge more than 2 seconds to figure out if something is illegal, then it shouldn't be illegal. If figuring out the legality of google's use of the API is so damn difficult that a judge would go so far as to try to avoid ruling on it altogether, then it shouldn't be illegal. It's not very different from ex post facto legislation when judges have to "decide" things like this.

It is such a fact, that no one on the entire forum has given one argument in favor of it.

Here's a better idea. Screw Evolution, don't teach it in high school, teach math instead. Having a student who can put "yes evolution is a fact" on a test does not make him any less of a moron. Force them to learn the things that would make them somewhat capable of defending a position on evolution.

Chemistry. Combinatorial counting. Statistics and Probability. Anatomy.

Teach these in high school and save the more advanced topics for college. Most high school students couldn't even handle this much. Furthermore, if the students learned these things, they'd be smarter than everyone on this forum. Then instead of shouting "oh god evolution is a fact" they'd be capable of human reasoning.

This will never happen though. The reason is because there are a hell of a lot of people who want to pretend that they are scientists but can handle basic mathematical rigor. So instead of going into physics and chemistry, they go into a field that will coddle them: biology. There are no teachers who can teach the subject correctly because our standards are just too damn low.

Funny how much criticism he gets, since Kepler we've known the sun isn't the center, it's off at one focus of elliptical orbits.

But maybe there is a sun at the center of the galaxy. Maybe he meant that one.

You don't need a commodity based currency.

You just need to tell the Federal Reserve to stop loaning out money altogether. The only thing they should be doing is 1:1 exchanges of US currencies (dollars to cents), and only printing to replace damaged currency. There shouldn't be more units of money in existence now than there was 100 years ago. The extra is going into the Federal Reserve's rich friends (sometimes called "investors", often overseas) pockets, a little bit at a time to a few people.

We could at least start with auditing the Federal Reserve.

I see deflation as a result of a more efficient economy. When technology makes it cheaper to create bread, the value of currency should deflate in relation to that. It's like you had 100 loafs of bread stored in the bank, and now you have 200 because better technology makes it possible for the same time investment of work. In the short term, most technology improvements are difficult to cope with, they require people to change their outlook on things. This is what is reflected in most "deflation is bad" arguments. But those who only see short term results will suffer long term consequences.

All in all, with the technology improvements we've had in the last hundred years, our currency should have deflated tremendously, maybe even 100 or 1000 times. The interesting question then becomes, "where did all the extra money go?"

The same reasons everyone else does it: because his boss told him too, because everyone he works with does it, because it's never been a problem before, because being the guy who won't do it would make him a troublemaker, etc etc.

At least when a person cheats company policy like this, he is doing what the person who the company put in charge told him to do. But when a cop does it, you get the government-monopoly-of-force destroying people's lives. To the cop, it feels the same, and the consequences are easily rationalized.