So counting in hexadecimal goes like this: 7, 8, 9, a, b, c, d, e, f, 10, 11,....19, 1a, 1b, ... 99, a0, ... ff. ‘ff’ is the maximum for RGB (red green blue) which is 255 in decimal. ‘10’ hex is in decimal ‘16’!
Good luck!
Oh, and btw, it is easy to have an answer on the question of free will, I gave mine several times. (Free will means being able to do what you want, it follows that free will and determinism are compatible, which means ‘yes, we have free will’). To have correct and rational arguments for it is much more difficult.
So take the challenge, or accept that your answer might be wrong.
Well done. You did it, but it’s too much trouble to enter the gray in hexadecimal so I’ll just stick with the white.
And, no you are defining free will differently from the way I do. As I said at the beginning of that thread, long, long, long ago. All events (actions) are caused by prior events. As such all our behavior is determined, but the causes are so complex and hidden that we can’t predict behavior or recognize its causes. However, I won’t be sucked into that ridiculous argument here just as I stopped quickly in the other thread.
You’d have do the white originally, then when someone quotes it, they’d have to change the color to the correct one of the grays GdB listed. In fact, I’ve just copied his post so we can see which of the ones in the list disappears in the gray background.
Occam
GdB - 22 September 2010 11:43 PM
Occam. - 22 September 2010 05:12 PM
Notice that the while shows up just a bit in the quotation blocks. I guess GdB has to figure out how we can change it to light gray.
Occam
The gray listed is just a bit too dark as demonstrated in the screen name.
So counting in hexadecimal goes like this: 7, 8, 9, a, b, c, d, e, f, 10, 11,....19, 1a, 1b, ... 99, a0, ... ff. ‘ff’ is the maximum for RGB (red green blue) which is 255 in decimal. ‘10’ hex is in decimal ‘16’!
Good luck!
Oh, and btw, it is easy to have an answer on the question of free will, I gave mine several times. (Free will means being able to do what you want, it follows that free will and determinism are compatible, which means ‘yes, we have free will’). To have correct and rational arguments for it is much more difficult.
So take the challenge, or accept that your answer might be wrong.
It just occurred to me. Dead_Monky said he would like to use profanity but was gently reminded that there was a rule against it. D_M, you could go wild, but just block it as white. That way, no one who didn’t wish to see it would be offended.
It just occurred to me. Dead_Monky said he would like to use profanity but was gently reminded that there was a rule against it. D_M, you could go wild, but just block it as white. That way, no one who didn’t wish to see it would be offended.
And, no you are defining free will differently from the way I do. As I said at the beginning of that thread, long, long, long ago. All events (actions) are caused by prior events. As such all our behavior is determined, but the causes are so complex and hidden that we can’t predict behavior or recognize its causes. However, I won’t be sucked into that ridiculous argument here just as I stopped quickly in the other thread.
Hi Occam,
But you did not give your definition of free will. If you do I’ll stop reacting here.
This is my last post on the free will subject. As I see it, free will is the myth that we make decisions based our immediate desires, but not affected by the long string of causes that lead to those desires.
Occam
This is my last post on the free will subject. As I see it, free will is the myth that we make decisions based our immediate desires, but not affected by the long string of causes that lead to those desires.
Occam
Besides, while you can rationalize making invisible posts in a riddle thread….free will is waaay off topic!
Right. I felt I had to answer GdB, especially since he was so helpful about the invisibility, but I absolutely refuse to have anything to do with the F-W thread (thread? It’s a whole Persian rug) in the Philosophy section.
Right. I felt I had to answer GdB, especially since he was so helpful about the invisibility, but I absolutely refuse to have anything to do with the F-W thread (thread? It’s a whole Persian rug) in the Philosophy section.
That’s fine, but if people make sneers, and think they make a point I am back again. Making a statement without being prepared to give arguments for it cannot count as rational, or scientific. Specially in a forum dedicated to rationalism, skepticism and humanism.
Ok.
Next riddle:
A man walks through a street and suddenly realizes that he sees his old school friend, working in the garden. They say hallo, talk, and then the man in the street asks ‘do you have children’?
‘Yes, I have three children’.
‘How old are they?’
‘Well, if you multiply their ages you get 36’.
‘That doesn’t help much.’
‘Well, if you add their ages, you get my house number.’
‘OK. I see your house number, but I still don’t know how old your children are.’
‘The oldest got a ‘how to build your own quantum computer’ set for his birthday yesterday.’
‘Oh, but then I know old your children are!’
