It's not just *an* interpretation. You claim it's *the* interpretation, as in, other interpretations are wrong and yours is right. What evidence do you have to back this up?
A story's effect does not prove its intent. Take Ed Wood's _Plan 9 from Outer Space_ for example. People laugh at his serious effort.
What actual evidence do you have that, "The message of Abraham and Isaac is about learning that sometimes what you feel is right emotionally is actually wrong, and sometimes what feels wrong emotionally is right"?
The law should say that the trademark holder must either defend the trademark *or* proactively grant license to use it when it looks like someone might be in violation. IANAL but it seems like the law binds your hands if you hold a trademark. Either you act like a douchebag or lose it.
They *felt* sharper? So what? Sometimes I *feel* like a dragon with a nine-foot penis. Doesn't mean I *am* one.
I'm so sick of this bullshit I could just scream.
I have one question: Will the sequel also be monotonously brown?
Between Fallout 3, New Vegas, the caves in Oblivion, and Borderlands, I've had just about all the grey and brown I can stand.
The test set represented 18000 users. The probability of flipping 18000 coins and getting 65.9% heads or more is 8.1e-405.
Light has momentum, not mass.
Beside that, special relativity has been corroborated again and again, tachyons are shown to be unstable due to their imaginary mass component, and physics as we know it simply doesn't hold up well in the presence of closed spacelike paths.
This isn't to say FTL travel is impossible. *Maybe* some way exists that gets around these huge obstacles, but when they say there's no known way it could work, it's not for lack of imagination.
Ah, okay. Right. So then I guess different waveforms represent different superpositions? What is the basis? The only one I can imagine is complex exponentials, but the closest thing those have to a "location" is phase, so I don't see how they could exhibit a propagation velocity. Maybe I'm just going to have to read a book about this.
What does "single photon with controllable waveforms" mean? I thought photons were all sinusoids under a gaussian envelope.
"Spooky action at a distance" happens faster than light, but only *after* the entanglement has been set up and the partner particle has been transmitted at light speed or slower. And even then, no information can actually be sent by this method.
I'm an American and I sympathize with you wholeheartedly.
I'm not a big fan of Terraria, but I do feel it's different enough from Minecraft that it deserves to be its own game. Its RPG-ish sense of progression is much stronger than Minecraft's and its sidescrolling style is not to be overlooked. I can totally imagine Terraria being born from someone looking at Minecraft and wishing it had gone in a different direction.
We're missing the island of stability and we don't know how to hit it yet. As the article you link states, "The manufacturing of nuclei in the island of stability proves to be very difficult, because the nuclei available as starting materials do not deliver the necessary sum of neutrons."
Why must they repeatedly conflate partitions, partition counts, and sequences of partition counts? I can't tell what they're actually saying. First the article reads, "To be slightly more technical, from Ken Ono and Kathrin Bringman, 'A partition of a non-negative integer n is a non-increasing sequence of positive integers whose sum is n.' The concept is straight forward, but how to obtain these partition numbers, in general, is actually no trivial matter."
Then later, "...a finite, algebraic formula for partition numbers thanks to the discovering that partitions are fractal." Well do they mean partitions are fractal, or partition counts are fractal?
Another article at eScienceCommons (another post here links to it) quotes Ono: “We prove that partition numbers are ‘fractal’ for every prime." How can a number be fractal? Or does he mean the sequence over primes is fractal? WTF?
Ken Ono says in the press release, "I can take any number, plug it into P, and instantly calculate the partitions of that number." Does he mean the partitions themselves or the partition count?
You'd think detail-oriented professionals would be more precise in their wording.