look, just 'cos your too dump to follow, dont attempt to take every one else down with you :rolleyes:

its the notion of mathematical infinity - it says you can never reach infinity because it is not a rational number and so cannot be counted. the trick here is that it demonstrates the requirement to count as fundamental property. And the clever bit is that it shows that countable numbers can be expressed as ratios of other countable number - [this the def. for rational numbers]. The realy really clever bit is that it does this on the small scale rather than the grand scale by using an infinite precision. The simplest way to see this is to imagine that we have a ruler that measures the distance between archy and the turtle and gives us a number, call it 'A'. if we know 'A' then we know what half of A is. Now imagine our rules is slightly more fine grained and gives us an extra precision of 'e', so instead of a measurement of 'A' we can instead get a measurement of 'A+e'. Again because we know 'e' we know what half of 'A+e' is. and so on. Now imagine our ruler is kind of magical and the closer we look at it, the better precision we get from it. So instead of having a constant extra precision of 'e', 'e' now depends on how closely we are looking, the closer we get, the better it is at judging the real/accurate distance. In other words, the more precise we get, the smaller 'e' gets. And as a consequence the only thing that determines the value of 'e' now is our own perception - i.e. how closely we can look, not the values that 'e' can hold. In this way the magical ruler is a analogous to a measure of a number, where the precession is determined by the increment we use. i.e. 2+0.01 or 2+0.001 or 2+0.0001 we can make that extra precision as small we like because there is no limit to the number of '0''s we may use. Such numbers are now called 'real numbers' their characteristic is that there is no limit to their decimal representation or precision. So as a consequence, they are uncountable - the only way to count them is to fix the precision to a single number, ( for example setting our precision to 0.01 would give us a 100 points between any two whole number, i.e. 0-1 or 1-2 ..) -- in the same way as the number unique measurements you can get from our magic ruler is determined by the maximal level of precision we ourselves can observe.

^ I'm shocked as to how such a chief could of overlooked the virtues of whitespace!

steps back in quietly to ask ... Puuja, why in the world is your company moving to java and at that mixing it with perl of all things! -- it kinda sounds like swapping a headache for a bellyache, while making it all bulky, unmaintainable (java) and unintelligible (perl).. no criticism you understand, just wondering .. anyhow it atleast means they'll create the problems to keep the programmers employed for a while to come

<- backs away slowly

Originally posted by Johnny B: there is no clear cut answer ,the best two shots beeing either XCode or VC, borland might sue us. GCC, gdb and emacs c-mode Never could use a MAC that funny key always got in the way .. i gave the powerbook back in a week

sharmarke if your programming/learning, use linux as your OS (ubuntu is very very user friendly), all the development tools are free and easy to find. If you like IDE's then kdevelop is very good and mature. If your wanting to go 'old-timer then emacs, gcc and ddd (a gdb frontend) should give you the skills to be able to program on a papyrus.. i.e. emacs (once you get past the learning curve) has modes for every language you can think of .. and with use quickly becomes indispensable p.s. GCC is the defacto C/C++ compiler for everything from embedded systems like device drivers/mobile phones to big software like the linux kernel and the apache web server that keeps SOL online

^ couldnt agree more on the violence, when the brick heads of the forum realise that violence begets violence

^ how do you manage to live with yourself?!

uuum, i promise its not me she

an all time , its just how cool and easy he pulls it off

Originally posted by Libaax-Sankataabte: I don't see how this helps any cause. Big mistake indeed. They have killed the wrong guys. Meles loves this kind of news because he doesn't want AU troops coming to Somalia. Couldn't agree more. its just an invitation to make Ethiopian occupation indispensable... They couldn't of done better if they tried

Originally posted by The Duke: Stop trying to be to clever dear lad. Somalia is not a unique place in the world. Every nation has and goes through these dark periods in their history and many have come out stronger, better with more hopeful societies. Real clever! Yes every nation goes through some disaster. But the *clever* thing is this, reconciliation governments work by holding the tyrants accountable for their actions. The even *cleverer* bit is this, if they don't these monsters worry about the day they might face justice, so they prey further on the countries, while perpetuating their power with tyranny and the country doesn't move forward. Duke, this is what i don't get about you. You know what these people have done and continue to do, you also understand that they are are henchmen, and enforcers to keep the people in check. Why do you give them your support? Supporting a reconciliation or a transitional government is very different to supporting tyrants, but its 'all and all' with you. Are you worried that the house of cards will crumble when you say no one tyrant?

Originally posted by The Duke: ^^^Pardon your contribution as ever saxib, but that remark was simple. Though as usual you make a meal of it. pardoned Originally posted by The Duke: If an SNM supporter in Hargaysa can forgive Riyaale why cannot the people of Mogadishu forgive Mohamed Dheere? Before of after the memory of their victims is gone with the dust? I'm sure this is what the people of somalia wanted for governance .. who wouldn't. Seriously, do you not see that there is a no better incentiviced job in somalia than tyranny and mass murder, or, that such actions only water the thirst of the next generation of would be's?

Originally posted by The Duke: [...] these men who served under the regime that butchered and massacred your people according to your myths. Yet you want others not to do the same? Pardon but the hypocracy smells bad. Pardon me for the absurdity of that sentence .. p.s. I think that smell is coming from the corpses on the ground

ueum uuuuuum *roll head in shock* tan oo kale waligeed lama maqlin! What kind of somali person doesn't have their birth date on the 1st Jan!?! Anyhow pacifist i admire and respect your attempt of trying to shave 5 months of your age - so happy birthday

centurion saaxiib, thank you for the good points, and forgive me for my corrupted education, let me try to answer your points as faithfully as i can. First I'm not trying to recreate the western jurisprudence, my interest is that i do not wish to see an elitist system. The reason i say this is because any system not based on the cooperation and comprise of consensus leads to serving one group above the rest. Why I think this might be the case for religious law is that not everyone interprets doctrine in the same way. Therefore religious law or for that matter any law with infallible doctrine is prey to those that control the *acceptable* interpretation of the doctrine. (On a side note I actually believe that people interpret and disagree of on doctrine and interpretation because it is a sign of thought and advancement and richer understanding) If you don't believe this is the case, then look at the breadth of muslim consensus in the judgment, practice and theory of islam. Given its wealth how much beyond the basics have adequate consensus to form mass law. When we say Sharica is not set in cement i think we're actually wrong in a lot of the cases. The fact it takes its inspiration from faith means that it is reducible to the tenants of the faith - no further. However the interpretation of those tenants are varied. So you would that before a society composed of many different people can follow such laws, they must first define what they agree on. Now if we follow a process of finding some consensual agreement, and if as you say judgment is open to question and reason to revision, then we have nothing to disagree on. However, and this is a big however, the phrase "the principles of Sharica are unassailable" is the interesting one, because you first have to define what is and isn't unassailable, and how long it remains unassailable. In the most general sense, the aims of any just law aught to be unassailable, in that they aim to look for the well being of the society. Therefore saying a principle is unassailable is only valid as far as what each of the components of the principle is unassailable. Let me give you an example, since we are taking the principles of a faith as the irreducible parts of the law, which interpretation of faith is unassailable? This is a problem because when you say "the interpretations of the Quran and Hadith can of course evolve with the modern world", you must also answer *whose interpretation*, yours or mine, theirs or ours. Of course that is unless we'd like to argue that there is no such thing as an interpretation when it comes to faith. > When you say "[Western jurisprudence] .. shaped by 'the societies it judges' is a double sided blade" you are completely right. And actually it aught to be a double sided blade, otherwise we would be talking of a perfect system - the practicality of which as you can tell i don't have much faith in. More than that, if a law cannot address all of the subjects that it affects equally and fairly, sooner or later you are also a minority on some subject and prey to its distortions. Unless of course every one is the same and no one could possibly fall into a minority of some sort. With regard to your sentence "[Western jurisprudence]'s .. bestowing guardianship of the rules of law to the defendant is naught but a make shift solution to the fact that it has lost its grip on its foundation tenets inherited from Christianity and has but modern society's moral compass as its guide." That my friend is nothing but a good thing. It realises that western society contain more that christians and have more than one notion of a christian, therefore when it works best is when it is blind to christian doctrine. Sadly there is an unsatisfiable constraint on the premise. "Sharicah bestows guardianship to the glorious Quran, which judges can fall back on every time." Having bestowed guardianship on the Quran, whose interpretation of the Quran shall we take - since non of us can claim to have a complete understanding of it. This would be no problem, if the tenant were questionable, however if we state infallible and assailable wisdom, must find the interpreter and and interpretation of the infallible and assailable wisdom. You see the obvious contradiction. Finally on "Judges of contemporary non-islamic systems of law live in a world where they but follow ever changing laws, which are dictated by todays debased morals." Two points, first, why do you think laws change? Surely all secular laws are not dreamt up to satisfy the books of bureaucrats? Second, it is your prerogative to find the modern world as having "debased morals", however sadly this is the world you live in and predictably that line is as old as the notion of a moral. - xiin: i'll also cut it short, Would love to, soon as you give me how fallible judgments may be made from a infallible laws? how we recognise them - since interpretation on the infallible is a touchy point, who does the judgment? how do we choose them khalaf: First, thank you for the read, the problem is not one of "stringent", somethings must necessarily be stringent, others not, but how to manage infallible laws in world that you live in, with its diverse opinions and interpretations. The world that it was practiced faithfully no longer exists and hasn't existed for over a millennia. And the problem are not questions of 'can you earn interest on your savings' but how do you balance between the interests of individuals in a heterogeneous society and on whose interpretation of that balance. My point is not that there is a right or wrong, but a consensus- even if a society in the majority chooses the most draconian interpretation possible of sharica law - then that is what its members aught to respect and abide by. But a society must always have the power to choose, question and revise. ----- -+ sorry for bad grammar/spelling, etc i cant write even at the best of times -+ wrt to the topic of the thread, ummm Ms Dhucdhuc & Dheylo, i hold you responsible for going of the topic

lol, i've seen these before in india, they are oracle boxes ... you look deep and all your want shall be realised .. pretty cool

JB, your musing sound to me like the seeds of some real scholarly research .. i think you need to hit the library and start talking to shariica scholars dude

Centurion When a ruling goes against you, surely you do not question laws already considered infallible, but rather how they are exercised by mortal men. you question both the judgment and the reasoning behind the judgment. You accept if you agree with both or the consensus says so (which is not always right and depends on who is given the power to advocate) - for examples look at how many cases go appeal courts. There are two reasons for having fallible laws, first, you can question the logic behind them in every sense, there is no higher authority to appeal to than the justification of the reason. If the justification is no longer valid, you may modify the law. Therefore laws represent and evolve with the societies they judge. Second, sadly there always exists a paradox of power in human society, if you give up the power of judgment to the judges/rulers/guardians of your society, you entrust them to watch over that society, but who watches over them? Since they are also human, they are also susceptible to the same temptation that you are. So you are faced with two options: 1. You assume them to be perfect and above all temptation to misuse their power or 2. You appoint someone to watch over them. The first point there entails the perfect people, but whom chooses who is perfect and can fulfill such a role. The second point means that you will forever have to come up with guardians that watch the guardians. In effect this is what common law attempts to deal with, it is extremely pessimistic. It assumes that no one is capable of fulfilling such a position of trust. It therefore takes you, the subject of that law as its guardian. If you disagree with it you make you point and you challenge it, if your case is convincing, such laws may be repealed . Therefore the fallibility of the enforcers is inconsequential when you can challenge the law it self. This is not case the other way round. --- xiin, awoowe, of course they are not deep, they only deal how you live your life and on whose consent, but its not like it makes a difference. Though it is interesting that when you say a "desirable shariica" you implicitly qualify the existence of an "undesirable shariica" - but i'm sure we'll be able to tell the difference and have the choice to pick right one. JB, sorry i'm lost, what don't you get - the identification of a bonafide shariica?

^ get your keyboard love, you've pulled

Originally posted by shehehehehehe: Shoot, why don't men do that for women? shehehehehe, before you go any further with that i think you have a certain kaptin to thank a certain brother for Originally posted by Magool: Haven't heard or haven't seen? There is a big diff you know [big Grin] Baah, your just trying to test our faith and conviction, but we see through it

Faarax-Brown Caano,on a scale of 1-10,10 being the most liberal,how do you rate yourself? Depends on what the interpretation of ratings resulting from the scale entail

Originally posted by Centurion: So what you are saying in effect GC, is that you'd rather be governed by fallible persons with their fallible laws, rather than by fallible persons with infallible laws (which is what we consider Sharicah to be) Yes, because you cant question infallible laws when practiced by fallible people. Originally posted by xiinfaniin: cg, I gather you think sharica can only exist in an ideal world, and not practical in the reality that's governing a nation! Did I read you wrong adeer? Have we found the perfect people or have i missed something? But seriously what do you think. How do you manage the incentives of people to govern fairly and provide for the consensus of their population, react to a changing world, when you empower them with infallible and intractable laws. Or do we just say that doesn't happen to us?

Originally posted by Johnny B: ^ Can i dash in and ask how could Caano geel or a mullah diferentiate how many of the sharea paragrapgs are devine and how many are man-made? lol@JB, walaal, since your lacking in that way somewhat, you wouldn't get them when they revealed themselves to you .. so for you its the ones that you don't get