July 2008 Board of Directors Meeting

[KD5MDK]

Quantum Mechanics wins EVERY argument.

-m

I think Quantum Budgeting would be a terrible idea.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I think Quantum Budgeting would be a terrible idea.

Quantum Refereeing?

[Peach]

Quantum Refereeing?

We already have that in sabre--both fencers did score (and therefore understandably yelled) until the referee decides what happened.

[fencerbill]

Your epistemology needs work. Things cannot be worse than they are. They can become worse, or they can be worse than they are thought. But there are not two truths in existance at the same time.

Remember the old saying, "Cheer up, things could be worse"?

So, I cheered up.

And, sure enough, things got worse.

[JEC]

A thing can be worse than we think it is, or it can become worse than it (currently) is, but it can't be worse than it is.

It depends of the definition of "is" (or as Clinton said as his rationale for "I did not ...)

[telkanuru]

*sniff* Obviously you're not a student of quantum physics. There is perishingly small but nonetheless finite chance that two truths can co-exist. *sniff*

Infinite universe, so no matter how small the chance, the chance of it happening approaches 1.

So there.

[arc]

Infinite universe, so no matter how small the chance, the chance of it happening approaches 1.

So there.

You're assuming an infinite universe. Modern cosmology tends to believe that the universe is not, in fact, infinite, but this is an impossible concept to definitively prove, particularly in light of how poorly understood the early universe is (i.e., concepts of inflation, when the early universe expanded at a speed exceeding that of light) as well as the gaps in our current knowledge about the nature of matter, fundamental forces, etc., not to mention that the boundary of the universe will, presumably, never be observable from our position within it due to the constraints of observation through the electromagnetic spectrum ...

[oso97]

We already have that in sabre--both fencers did score (and therefore understandably yelled) until the referee decides what happened.

*chuckle* truly a case of how one goes about observing a happening can change the result!

[arc]

OK...

I think that we are in a bigger financial hole than it has been said to be.

I bet you that we are going to find that items were counted as inventory do not exist, and that there are additional book-keeping errors made by moving forward some unexisting balances or inventory.

"Inventory"? In my recollection of looking at the budget & balance sheets, I don't recall "inventory" appearing anywhere. What, pray tell, do think the USFA's inventory could possibly consist of? (There are fixed assets, to be sure, but the USFA is a service organization, not a store; its product is not a tangible good ...)

[mfp]

"Inventory"? In my recollection of looking at the budget & balance sheets, I don't recall "inventory" appearing anywhere. What, pray tell, do think the USFA's inventory could possibly consist of? (There are fixed assets, to be sure, but the USFA is a service organization, not a store; its product is not a tangible good ...)

Red plastic water bottles?

[Inquartata]

Splort!

You owe me a new keyboard.

Well, you owe the library a new keyboard...

[JEC]

"Inventory"? In my recollection of looking at the budget & balance sheets, I don't recall "inventory" appearing anywhere. What, pray tell, do think the USFA's inventory could possibly consist of? (There are fixed assets, to be sure, but the USFA is a service organization, not a store; its product is not a tangible good ...)

Perhaps, red bottles, supplies, uniforms, masks, and other tangible assets ... As a non-accountant, I was referring to inventory value of assets. Overvaluing assets in the book is a trick often found in floundering organizations when looking back in forensic audits.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Your epistemology needs work. Things cannot be worse than they are. They can become worse, or they can be worse than they are thought. But there are not two truths in existance at the same time.

Watch out there! If JEC tries to read this one too many times, he will get a seizure or something!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[peet]

We already have that in sabre--both fencers did score (and therefore understandably yelled) until the referee decides what happened.

Dammit, I can't rep you any more...

"Saber ROW as explained by Quantum Mechanics"
3rd. edition, by Peach et al.


Gotta get that for my library....

Hysterical!

-p

[keith]

Schrodinger's cat is both dead and not dead.

Hah, I win.

No. It merely has a undetermined state from the observer's position - don't blame your ignorance on the cat

[notalent]

No. It merely has a undetermined state from the observer's position - don't blame your ignorance on the cat

-FTW-

[notalent]

You're assuming an infinite universe. Modern cosmology tends to believe that the universe is not, in fact, infinite, but this is an impossible concept to definitively prove, particularly in light of how poorly understood the early universe is (i.e., concepts of inflation, when the early universe expanded at a speed exceeding that of light) as well as the gaps in our current knowledge about the nature of matter, fundamental forces, etc., not to mention that the boundary of the universe will, presumably, never be observable from our position within it due to the constraints of observation through the electromagnetic spectrum ...

Truely your intelect is dizzy.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Infinite universe, so no matter how small the chance, the chance of it happening approaches 1.

So there.

Yeah, it's looking like that's not the case. See: Poincare Conjecture.

Funny story: An Astronomy Prof at a small liberal arts college teaches a beginning astronomy class aimed at first semester freshmen. The last class, he starts talking about "what if the universe is infinite". He then discovers he has three senior math majors who have all taken topology (which is usually taught at a graduate level... or at least not at small liberal arts schools), one of whom worked for the guy who literally wrote the book on the Poincare Conjecture. He's completely ignorant of the math, and starts refuting something he doesn't understand based on a made up concept of "mathematical hypothesis"..... sorry, dude. Math has "proof".


Who on earth doesn't take a million dollars and a field's medal?

(Grigori Perelman, that's who.)