really fast buffers

elay.

s? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input would sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determin e the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In f act the slower it is, the faster it is :)

n 1948.

You don't. All three items were originally published in "Astounding Science Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fictio n"

That is Robert Baer's deluded opinion. He is about a reliable at distinguis hing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about science co uld be written on the head of pin in large letters.

He can't even back-track gracefully. It was a moronic interjection, and he' s silly enough not to realise this.

lay.

? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input would sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs, a nd there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fa ct the slower it is, the faster it is :)

Oi, stop getting all facty.

NT

• And THEN it was published and printed in a BOOK.

• I guess you cannot READ; NO back-tracking, that is exactly what said. Perhaps you think i said there was a negative time delay. Build the circuit as described, and see for yourself..an apparent negative time delay.

e delay.

nd

tes? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input wou ld sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determ ine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs , and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :)

in 1948.

ence Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fi ction"

guishing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about scienc e could be written on the head of pin in large letters.

he's silly enough not to realise this.

Reading is one thing. Comprehending the non-thinking going on is another.

Only if you have absolutely no insight into what is going on.

Read up on "constant fraction discriminators" sometime.

e delay.

nd

tes? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input wou ld sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determ ine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs , and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :)

in 1948.

ence Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fi ction"

guishing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about scienc e could be written on the head of pin in large letters.

he's silly enough not to realise this.

Save yourself the time. He'll never get real.

NT

ime delay.

ast

yond

gates? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input w ould sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would dete rmine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outpu ts, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :)

it in 1948.

cience Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fiction"

inguishing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about scie nce could be written on the head of pin in large letters.

nd he's silly enough not to realise this.

Amusing. NT believes all kinds of nonsense, so his idea of "real" is in the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it's a ctually a different problem.

• I know exactly what happens and why.

• Has nothing to with "my" circuit.

Thanks.

Are you not dee LIGHTful?

time delay.

fast

yond

gates? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input w ould sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would dete rmine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outpu ts, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :)

it in 1948.

cience Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fiction"

inguishing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about scie nce could be written on the head of pin in large letters.

nd he's silly enough not to realise this.

r.

You may think you do. Your confidence about your grasp of your misconceptio ns is just another misconception.

Since your circuit was a moronic thought experiment, who cares?

ote:

time delay.

fast

eyond

gates? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input would sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would det ermine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outp uts, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :)

it in 1948.

Science Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fiction"

tinguishing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about sci ence could be written on the head of pin in large letters.

and he's silly enough not to realise this.

d.

the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it 's actually a different problem.

The illumination I provide does seem to be of a nature that you can't perce ive.

Google narcissist if necessary.

NT

Why does _anyone_ read Slowman's bullshit anymore?

Why does anybody read krw's delusions anymore?

My opinions have been known to change, so there's the potential for an interesting difference. Krw's opinions never change, no matter how wrong they are, so there really is no point in keeping up with them.

I only read his postings because they are so easy to jeer at.

John Larkin is our resident example of the breed, but NT seems to be making a bid to outdo him. He certainly has the same unreasonable confidence in the accuracy of his misconceptions.