Results
|
Choice
|
Votes
|
|
Percent
|
Yes
|
55
|
28.6%
|
|
Sometimes
|
59
|
30.7%
|
|
Once
|
17
|
8.9%
|
|
Never
|
35
|
18.2%
|
|
I don't go outside
|
26
|
13.5%
|
|
|
Re: Do you use your calculator outdoors?
|
Sebastian Schmied
|
Sometimes I am forced to leave the house to buy new batteries. It's terrible.
|
Reply to this comment
|
16 October 2005, 10:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you use your calculator outdoors?
|
Cuddles
(Web Page)
|
I think it would be pretty easy to never leave the house. Say, for example, you run an online business out of your home, or you sell stuff on eBay, so you make all your money online, and it's all digital, going straight to your bank account, cause you only take paypal, like a jerk. Seeing as how you've got all that free time at home because your online business isn't demanding at all, build a DC adapter for your calculator. Food is easy too, you'd just be spending a lot on delivery, and you can always get some nice stuff from the Schwan's ice cream guy. I think they go to your door. That covers the essentials: food, water's from your faucet, money, and calculator.
|
Reply to this comment
|
18 October 2005, 15:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you use your calculator outdoors?
|
CajunLuke
(Web Page)
|
Schrödinger's calkfreak83!!! He's either inside, outside, both, or neither, or pick any zero, one, two, three, or four of the above, and there's no way to tell until you ask MV and cart him off to the lab, at which point the whole exersize is moot, as we would have just lost a valuable member… number 48429.
But we won't and he's still here and it's just after midnight here and I need to do my math homework and I'm rambling
|
Reply to this comment
|
18 October 2005, 05:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you use your calculator outdoors?
|
Cuddles
(Web Page)
|
I'm going to cheat and say outside, because regardless of your location, you're never inside all things, therefor you're always outside of something. And I think by traditional standards, "inside" is defined as being within a bounded region, and said regions are frequently nested, so once again you have to specify "of what". You can be half outside the house, half inside the house, but you're (a) inside your neighborhood, (b) outside your bathroom, and/or (c) inside the doorway. So, if you say, "am I inside or outside of my house, if i am half out the front door and half in the door?" you are then faced with another problem. You have to define "i", your "self". IMO, one is the collective sum of one's parts, therefor if half of you is outside, and half of you is inside, the collective "you" is simply both inside and outside.
However, you must also consider accepted uses of the word "inside" which include the example where a pencil is pushed about one and one half inches into a pencil sharpener, and one could say "that pencil is inside the sharpener, even though the entire mass of the pencil is not encompassed by the sharpener.
I mean, how can we come up with a definitive answer with all these inconsistancies? :(
|
Reply to this comment
|
18 October 2005, 15:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you use your calculator outdoors?
|
Cuddles
(Web Page)
|
well, imo there's not much you can rule out when you talk about the big crunch, because, according to some, at the time the universe (as we theorize it was at the time) was created, there were some extra dimensions and such which would make the laws of physics as we apply them to the universe as we know it now inapplicable. so perhaps it is safe to assume, if you believe this, that a similar inapplication of physical laws would be reasonable during the big crunch.
however, i must say i believe an infinitely fast super computer is somewhat inconsistant, as with anything that's really infinitely anything, because as i see it, if a super computer could be made infinitely fast, then some part of the computing mechanism, the inner workings of the computer, in fact, every part of it, would have to be infinitely fast, which would require, for example, electrons to move infinitely fast, iow faster than the speed of light, which, according to most, is bad, or just impossible, or simply inconsistant. and i think that in such a situation, if i were to see an infinitely fast supercomputer, and my professor said to me "well yeah, i think it's because the universe is collapsing" would be a ... reasonable explanation. anyone agree?
btw i use my calculator outside all the time. one time my chemistry teacher forced the class out of the school to do our work outside cause it was a nice day, and i had it then.
|
Reply to this comment
|
22 October 2005, 02:40 GMT
|
|
1 2 3 4
You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.
|