Crossfit never takes longer than 30 minutes. Some workouts can be as short as 3 minutes.
1,280 karma · joined January 23, 2008
does not shine a light too bright on the its author's head.
Which I deem to be true. I earlier responded "God does not exists". So there really is not contradiction as claimed by the game
"You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering."
since I deem the premise of question 12 false (God does not exist). Again "If God exists than she can do such and such ..." is always true if God does not exist.
Furthermore I also think there might be a semantical problem in the analysis. The game did not establish that sin implies suffering.
EDIT: Just read aardvark's comment. So never mind.
EDIT: It defines the navigation elements as well.
After all we know, it is probably the best. In every other system known to mankind psychopath cause incredibly more damage. Think Soviet Russia, North Korea, the Roman Empire, Nazy Germany, Cold War Romania, ...
The irony: Aaron Swartz probably had some idealistic system in mind when he wrote it (correct me if I'm wrong or if I am erecting a straw man), that would handle everything better if only the "right" people were in charge. The available data speaks otherwise.
"Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." Georges Clemencea
"Big O notation seeks to describe the relative complexity of an algorithm [...]" Relative to what? To the moon and the stars? Big O is a notation to describe the growth rate of functions.
Therefore, you can also use it to describe the memory usage of an algorithm. Even if the author of the article thinks otherwise.
And so on and so forth.
Seriously, I understand the wish to explain this thing clear and simple. But what is so hard about a clear and concise description using maths and some plots?
Or, in John McCarthy's words:"He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.".
If it would than such mistakes as in the example for binary search "a data set containing 10 items takes one second to complete, a data set containing 100 items takes two seconds, and a data set containing 1000 items will take three seconds."
would not occur.
Also a logarithm does NOT have a "curve that PEAKS [my emphasis] at the beginning and slowly flattens out as the size".
Your argument is not valid. It's not the cost alone that count, but the benefits minus the costs. Imagine your argument against human intelligence instead: Human intelligence could not have evolved for a simple reason: brains that produce intelligent behaviour are expensive. They are expensive to maintain, and no other animal maintains them.
Also: please read up on the unit of selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection. Selection on the level of groups (let alone "society") is very, very unlikely (to say the least) and has long been abonded as theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection.
One word: humanities.