Recent content by Anhar Miah

Also don't forget that "pressed" discs have two layers, by increasing the laser power, it is possible to trasmit through the first layer onto the second layer. Try looking for DVD under wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD and "how stuff works"...

Hello, as far as I can't understand your question: you have the total cost, let us call this Tc, this Tc is made up from a base price, let us call this B, and also a Service cost, let us call this S, and a Tax on the service cost let us call this Tx, thus: T_{c} = B+S+T_{x} and...

I could apply your own strict criterion of specification; from your statement it is ambiguous: But relax Matt The English language is one of the most imprecise and ambiguous language. Now I’m more than happy to say, yes my terms were incorrect, but the underlying point was the same as...

Matt I totally agree with you, one needs to exercise “correct terminology”, I’m not a mathematician like yourself, so I’m not as rigorous and precise in terms of using mathematically orientated terminology/ descriptions. P.S. you too made a grammatical error :) please check your last post again!

well that sir is plainly subjective, what one may find satire another may not. Just out of curiosity how many languages do you speak? In the same essence : "Hmm, you seem to have mistaken this for an English language forum." Now just relax before you get all wound up! I'm joking...

:) This is extremely comical, that’s the exact point I've been trying to point out (via the questions), and how can you (or others) be arguing against me when we are both agreeing on the same point? :D Fair enough, my words have been misinterpreted to mean (by some); that other than which I...

It is not what I consider is, all I am saying is, how is it possible to "prove" (i.e. that which requires logic/rationale) axioms themselves, if logic and rational contain the very axioms we are trying to prove? It is out of that manner of thinking that I said (and as another poster has...

Well I was not expecting sense or nonsense, I can not accurately predict what another individual or individuals reply will be in terms of sense of nonsense, hence the best choice is to opt for is one that is neutral.

Well that's a fair argument, but I feel it falls a bit short: p1. Technology makes people happy This assumes all technology makes all people happy, what about technologies that does not make people happy, such as missile technology or any weapons tech, these cause great unhappiness, thus...

Well many apologies if that’s how it has come across, so now that you have learned better how would you put it? :D lighten up people!

I don't see what the issue here is, here is a simpe related question: "Prove rationally, that rationality is rational"; Go through it carefully.. Anhar,

Thats what's funny about it!

you know the funny thing is, the very principle axiomatic foundations of maths is based upon "self-evedent truths" i.e. we can't prove it is, we just accept that it is, i.e. there is no rationality or logic to rationality or logic itself; Is logic and rationality ultimately purposeless...

I would highly recommend Peter Checkland, he is pretty much the "don" of systems engineering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Checkland Its a complex subject, but one of the best way of understading the concept is: Systems Engineering = a systems approach using engineering...

Oops I forgot to mention, one of the best use was to see Excel used to create a real 3d engine!, each cell was used as a "pixel" ! :)