Last person to post wins.

Post Reply New Topic

Got it!

No Krabo sir, you don't!! !

I have taken the win...

Sure you have

Note:

Really? Time to test that...

[size=0]Is there really any point to testing this? I mean, all it does is make text disappear. You know how else you can do that? By not typing in the first place. Yes, I know. Shocking idea. Because, really, if you type text in like this, and set it size 0, does the text exist? I mean, you typed it into the post, and never took it out, but it doesn't actually appear? How is that different than not existing at all?

Although, perhaps, I may be getting too philosophical here. This also doesn't factor in the quoting post paradox. Theoretically, I expect that if someone tries to quote this, it will pop up on the post entry page as existing. But then, unless they modify it to do otherwise, it won't actually appear when they post, so it still won't really actually exist. Now, if they make a slight modification to the coding, they can make it appear and exist. However, as this requires modification, are they making the original text of this post appear at all? Or is what they are posting a new creation of their own design? It's a tough question to answer. They start with a non-existent identity, and make something appear. Yet, even though what they are drawing on doesn't actually exist, they are still using it. Kind of like imaginary numbers. They aren't there, and don't exist, yet by pretending they exist we can do a lot of things- much of math today, and its' applications, could not exist without imaginary numbers. But does that make them exist, available for our use? Or do they remain imaginary? Can something exist as a result of something which doesn't exist, or is that a logical fallacy? If we could answer the question for imaginary numbers, I am sure the answer in the context of this post would soon follow.[/size]

I've made text disappear!

Look underneath here, and you can literally see the text disappear:



Oh, looks like you missed it, it's already gone!

What I made was a verbatim copy of my machine's perception of the no-content.

It is similar to a human perfectly cloning the data found in the components in a bee's nervous system responsible for seeing in the ultraviolet range and publishing the results; although the human cannot see the ultraviolet, the bee can, and the human observes how the bee sees the ultraviolet.

Good analogy, I think you may be right.

Of course, a difference is that humans that have undergone surgery for cataracts can acquire the ability to see some of the ultraviolet, although a lack of specific adaptation for that scenario leads to the light activating the other cones as well, so the analogy is rather imperfect, to say nothing of the fact that human eyes are far more sensitive to longer wavelengths than bee eyes. But in the specific context earlier it may be a passable analogy.

YEE-HAW!

A winner is me!

Not this time