The different types of Linux users based on their distributions

[Qqmike]

SteveRiley: colorless green ideas sleep furiously

Yes, interesting. As is this correct sentence:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

For this (and a diagram of it) and other such grammatically correct constructions, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffal...uffalo_buffalo
For example,
James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_...on_the_teacher

[InsideJob]

I find this discussion to be counter-propaganda. Thread closed!

[Qqmike]

Not to worry folks, it's open again, alive and well
Is it de-dogding, or de-bunking?

[GreyGeek]

The ideas of Lee Smolin are a counter to such multiverse concepts, which appear to this layman as unscientific. And, hence, nonsense, not even wrong.

Regards, John Little

I mis-wrote. I should have said "raisin bran theory", in line with apple pie and cabbage. My poor attempt at humor aside, I've read two of Lee Smolin's books (The Trouble With Physics & the Singular Universe.) I plan to read Time Reborn next.

He wrote a perfect description of physics as it is today: "When you know the history of physics you are painfully aware of how much each era overestimates the scope of its understanding. Science progresses well, but at each stage, we embrace metaphysical fantasies that seem motivated by the science but come to look silly when people come to know more in the future. As Brian Eno once said, “Nothing so dates an era as its conception of the When you know the history of physics you are painfully aware of how much each era overestimates the scope of its understanding. Science progresses well, but at each stage, we embrace metaphysical fantasies that seem motivated by the science but come to look silly when people come to know more in the future. As Brian Eno once said, “Nothing so dates an era as its conception of the future.”.”


In his 1987 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking admits to a philosophical interpretation of the Cosmological Constant because he couldn't explain its necessity. With his version of the Matrix Brane Theory he explains away the philosophical component and declares that there is no need for a First Cause. They only problem, which Brane Theory believers gloss over, or overlook, is that the theory is not falsifiable, which puts it in the same category as religion.

[Qqmike]

is that the theory is not falsifiable,

That's also, partly, what I meant to say.

[claydoh]

Back on track, a little.
Which one, I dunnno.......







wtf happened to attachments??

[Snowhog]

Back on track, a little.
Which one, I dunnno.......


[ATTACH=CONFIG]6100[/ATTACH]




wtf happened to attachments??

Fixed (again). Sorry.