Check out the new **SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test!** No Flash necessary and runs on all devices.
×

It would be pretty silly to build such a system in Alaska. Not enough people there.

Under the Affordable Care Act, all health insurance plans are requried to have an out-of-pocket maximum of at most $5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families.

At least for new policies, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) made lifetime maximums illegal.

The US Navy has broken the existing record for the power of a laser.

[...]and package it as a 100 kW weapons system[...]

So, NIF isn't a thing anymore? Or is 100kW more than 500TW and someone forgot to tell me?

Furthermore, this guy is asking for a "complete and consistant" definition.

In the Incompleteness Theorem, a system of axioms is complete if, for all statements in the system, either the statement or its negation is provable from the axioms. A system is consistant if there exist no statements for which both the statement and its negation are provable.

Basically, his "proof" is "Hey, we don't want a contradictory or unfinished definition, right? And those words mean the same thing as consistant and complete! So, Godel!"

In the Incompleteness Theorem, a system of axioms is complete if, for all statements in the system, either the statement or its negation is provable from the axioms. A system is consistant if there exist no statements for which both the statement and its negation are provable.

Basically, his "proof" is "Hey, we don't want a contradictory or unfinished definition, right? And those words mean the same thing as consistant and complete! So, Godel!"

The bottom line is that there are limits to how small things can get with current technology.

They're right, SSDs won't replace hard drives with the current technology. If only we had a way to improve technology over time!

Your question is, "Hey, these guys who spend their entire lives predicting financial markets aren't good at predicting sports. How can we trust them to predict financial markets?"

Astronomers are having difficulty pinning down the galaxy's exact mass, but it's clearly the biggest bruiser within 1.5 billion light years of home

I mean, it's the largest galaxy they've seen at this point. But, if a galaxy of that size can go undiscovered for this long, how do they know there's not another one within 1.5 billion light years that's larger? Did they look at all of it, and just leave this little section for last?

Or is the summary just fabricating things that aren't in the article?

epee1221 writes: *The Clay Mathematics institute has announced its acceptance of Dr. Grigoriy Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture and awarded the first Millenium Prize. Poincaré questioned whether there exists a method for determining whether a three-dimensional manifold is a spherical: is there a 3-manifold not homologous to the 3-sphere in which any loop can be grdually shrunk to a single point? The Poincaré conjecture is that there is no such 3-manifold, i.e. any boundless 3-manifold in which the condition holds is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere. A sketch of the proof using language intended for the lay reader is available at Wikipedia.*

If we're going for stupid ideas that might keep people from killing themselves, why not just ban cars altogether?

By the time you've sorted through and ranked every single comment, you'll be so tired of them that you won't want to mod and not having mod points won't be an issue. Sounds like he solved your problem to me.

And it's easily proven:

If 2^x - 1 is prime, then neither 2^x - 1 nor 2^x is divisible by 3. Of any 3 consecutive integers, one must be divisible by 3. Therefore 2^x + 1 is divisible by 3.

Therefore 2*(2^x+1) = 2^(x+1) + 2 is divisible by 3, and so is 2^(x+1) - 1.

A (completely useless) counterexample: Let x = 2.

... but seriously, how is access to a broadband Internet connection a legal right? Somebody please explain this to me, because the article doesn't give any supporting logic.

They made a law that says everyone gets it. Isn't that all something needs to be a legal right?

If you could use my car without having any chance of crashing it and with no wear/fuel usage, I'd be completely fine with it. I'm not going to be upset that you gained some benefit with no negative consequences for me.

When we write programs that "learn", it turns out we do and they don't.