Maybe the car companies should start paying for highway and road infrastructure. But, without any cars or vehicules, there would be little demand for road infrastructure. The ISPs make plenty of money, not even serving, but transmitting data from external providers, over their networks. They pay nothing for the development, maintenance and serving costs of this content. Web sites, apps, etc., provide a reason for customers to even use the ISPs services. Maybe the ISPs should be sharing in the costs of development and serving of these services prior to their customers being able to use them. There would be no need for ISPs if there were no companies providing content, apps, etc., over the internet. Also, since these services would have to contribute to ISPs costs, then they should get part of the profits; that's what you get when you put significant money into a company — shares. Also, if the internet goes down, the ISPs should pay money to recover the loss in profits incurred by these services during those outages, since they would have failed to provide the service paid for "fairly".

Exactly... Obviously the person asking the C->ASIC question doesn't really know anything about any of the processes involved. They need to work with people that do. On that note, I wouldn't advise anyone to work with them though as there is little point in creating a product for someone like that unless you are a partner. Even then, it is unadvisable as they haven't the faintest clue what they are doing, and won't put in any substantial work. They will benefit with no work involved and if it fails, will do so after putting in little work. Win win for them. They probably learnt about the notion of ASICs and know some algorithms(I've never heard of algorithms being described in kb, but I guess they could be) and thought they could make money implementing them that way. Of course, no computer engineer, who has knowledge of both would ever think of that!! Not really that innovative and it is what is understood once you make it past your first year of computer engineer or before. Once we did PCBs and then were doing stuff on FPGAs and then understood what ASICs were, I immediately came to the same conclusion while in university. Algorithms could be implemented on an ASIC. Furthermore, C is quite different from HDLs(VHDL or Verilog). Not just different ways of saying the same things, but completely different mind spaces and concepts. I've never tried the converters, but I doubt they produce output that would be commercial quality for an ASIC. To get something efficient running takes quite a bit of knowledge and a team.

I agree! The usefulness of the data is even questionable and too simple to provide anything beyond correlation and conjecture. The $100 000 is probably given as a number, because the data they produce should be more advanced than just DeptA -> M vs F, Dept B -> M vs F. More variables should be included, such as the experience, education and effectiveness(productivity) of these workers. What you get paid in salaried positions that are negotiable is a function of your ability to negotiate and the HR person you are negotiating with's responsiveness to that. It also depends on what you have to offer obviously(experience, domain knowledge, your references, etc). How do you quantify these variables? If it is shown to correlate, the cause would be hard to determine. Is it caused by the effectiveness of males vs females to negotiate, or is it caused by HR's lack of response to the same input from potential female candidates? Or is it caused by disparities in experience and qualifications. Anyone could conjecture all day long as to the causes, but that's all it would be; conjecture. This could only be offset by richer data. Even then, there are so many unquantifiable variables involved. The resultant correlation, if shown, could be seen as a microcosm of what happens in the wider world. It would fail to show a "systematic" cause, i.e. Google purposely did this. As far as the costs are concerned, just because a company makes a lot of money, doesn't mean that money has less value.

Where it says, "...blinded the minds of them which believe not", the addition of [the Bible] is not what it is being spoken about. Believe not, as in those who do not beleive in salvation through the Christ, if read in context. The Bible speaks of those things, but isn't the same as those things :)

Thee believe not part addition [Bible] is not what it is speaking about. Believe not, i.e. salvation through Christ, God, i.e. the gospel if read in context. The Bible contains those things, but isn't the same as those things :)

I said nothing against what was said there, in fact, they all speak of perceived broad issues, but it doesn't state any specific issue with any particular argument or source about the existence of Jesus. Even one of the guys quoted by you states that most people who study the historical period of Jesus believe that he did exist, and do not write in support of the Christ myth theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Criticism). Again, the issue isn't the existence of said person, but is about what he did.
How we perceive a 1st century entity won't be perfect and will be with bias. How we perceive Julius Ceasar is likewise tainted. But, he still existed.
Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and the criticism section and smell all you like. And you never responded to your authorship and dating issues. And also there is more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

Well, actually, I have a poor sense of smell and if you want to refute the wikipedia article and challenge the sources, do so. That onus is yours. That's the only way things are improved. The earliest papyrii we have is from the 2nd century not the 3rd and date of authorship(divine or not) ranges from 60-130 depending on the document and the book you are referring to even according to liberal scholars. And sources...well have fun, not going to bother with you :)

I heard about the "scraping process" when in theology(I completed and then went on to do Computer Science lol). But, years ago I saw it again in relation to a Yemeni manuscript of the Quran, which had that on it. It is called the Sana'a manuscript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . The process is called palimpsest and has an article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . That's definitely my word of the day.

I'm sure we are referring to the same story about the forger. Even the ussuary of Jesus' brother James was supposedly found, only to have been found to be a fake(the inscription at least) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Not that anyone would care if they found it. Plus, if I remember Josephus claimed that he was thrown off the temple wall at some point (prior to 70CE when the temple was destroyed of course).

We observe ancient gravity daily when we see its effect on the stars since we are seeing their light from millions or billions of years ago(it takes a long time to get here). I we could be in a matrix or something. But, I'm speaking of the world as we observe it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . The belief that he didn't exist is sort of back water and uncommon. There are writers and scholars who believe in many things, which are often contradictory. You could find an odd scholar to back lots of odd beliefs. The overall consensus is that Jesus did exist. The nature of that existence is at question though.

Even the wikipedia article and then the article on the documentary by James Cameron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , especially the second of the two, shows that there is more criticism than agreement on the conclusion given of the Talpiot Tomb.

It states on the bone container that it contains Jesus son of Joseph and then there is a container with a Mary. As shown in the article, Jesus was the 6th most common name at the time, Joseph was the 2nd, and Mary was the most common for females. There was a Judah(4th most common name) son of Jesus and someone else if I remember.

Currently, http://names.mongabay.com/male... , that would be like finding a tomb with a David son of John, Michael son of David and a Mary and then claiming it was a specific person. They only DNA tested and found that the Mary and Jesus weren't related *maternally*. Therefore the assumption is made that it must be the wife. Ever heard of paternal cousins? I have quite a few. They didn't test the DNA of the others and asked why not indicated that they weren't scientists/archealogist but journalists. I.e. if their story doesn't fit they have issues. An academic paper was never submitted to an archealogical journal for review. The media doesn't just do that with religion but with many subjects.

The article for the movie, which contains the more extraordinary claims being made, contains great critiques.

This all reminds me of how dissapointed I am in general with documentary quality as it has degraded over the last 20-30 years. The journalist were more honest scientifically it seems then and gave good explanations of things. Now, it seems like we are fed pop candy science with flashy pictures.

My brain hurt when I read the first part, i.e. that some scholars claim...did not receive...from heaven. No? I thought all scholars were muslim and thought that the Quran was revealed from God! The whole sentence is insulting to human intelligence.

That's to be expected. The media generally glosses over details and gets them wrong oftentimes just to have a good story. Journalists write about fields they know nothing about oftentimes. They oftentimes have a set desired story and then find the off field people in the field who agree with their desired results.
A good example of this is the previously-mentioned Talpiot Tomb with its given wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and then about the movie made from it by James Cameron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , you will find that under the criticisms that essentially the thing is bogus. It states on the bone container that it contains Jesus son of Joseph and then there is a container with a Mary. As shown in the critiques, Jesus was the 6th most common name at the time, Joseph was the 2nd, and Mary was the most common for females. There was a Judah(4th most common name) son of Jesus and someone else if I remember.
Currently, http://names.mongabay.com/male... , that would be like finding a tomb with a David son of John, Michael son of David and a Mary and then claiming it was a specific person. They only DNA tested and found that the Mary and Jesus weren't related *maternally*. Therefore the assumption is made that it must be the wife. Ever heard of paternal cousins? I have quite a few. They didn't test the DNA of the others and asked why not indicated that they weren't scientists/archealogist but journalists. I.e. if there story doesn't fit they have issues. An academic paper was never submitted to an archealogical journal for review. The media doesn't just do that with religion but with many subjects.

I haven't the faintest clue how your beliefs even relate to Buddhism considering you don't believe in reincarnation or the karmic cycle, etc. I guess you can call yourself whatever you want. You probably are an Atheist who embrasses some aspects of Buddhism. Mohammed, as far as I understood the muslim story to be, never wrote down the Quran. That was part of the alleged miracle, i.e. that he was illiterate and yet dictated the Quran. Others did, or verbally memorized it and recited it. Within a generation it was by Caliph Uthman, if memory serves, compiled into the Quran as we know it now, and possible variants were burnt/destroyed. Revelations did come at different times according to Islam(it speaks of the times in the Hadith). Most religions are about the miraculous in some way, i.e. that which is impossible physically - the supernatural. It would be impossible to follow most religions and not believe in things that cannot be scientifically substantiated. Otherwise, those things wouldn't be supernatural and those things would be Science and not faith. You can never prove the Resurrection of Christ nor that Mohammed was met by the Archangel Gabriel, etc. That's the point. I won't go into this further, but essentially without dating the ink, little is shown. People used older parchment and hides, and even erased/wiped them off and then wrote something else on them later. The ink has to be tested. I don't think the thing is a forgery. On a cool note, one forger, which unfortunately I can't remember the case, managed to use medieval ink(how did he get it?) on a medieval parchment and sold it for millions of dollars. It was only years later that it was shown to be a fake. He was already dead by then :). Now that's genius. If only I had those skills :(

That is beyond awesome!