Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 03:00:23 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@bitbox.follo.net> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: don@PartsNow.com, perhaps@yes.no, nate@mt.sri.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) Message-ID: <19971112030023.06691@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199711120153.SAA20048@usr04.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Wed, Nov 12, 1997 at 01:53:16AM %2B0000 References: <3468FAD1.49A8@PartsNow.com> <199711120153.SAA20048@usr04.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 12, 1997 at 01:53:16AM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: > > As I remember, the prayer experiment was very well prepared. The > > pray-ees didn't know they were being prayed for, and the pray-er's > > didn't know who they were praying for, except a first name and a general > > description of the problem. The groups were statistically equal, and > > relatively large. If I remember [too many bosses whizzing past FTL, > > Amancio], there were a total of 400 in the study. > > How can you seperate the telepathy theory from the God theory with this > set up? > > The researchers should have lied about the names, or given only number, > and/or not stated the symptom(s). This one is GOOD. I'd have liked them to pray by number, with the number referencing a random list mapping to names stored in a computer somewhere, and with about half as many numbers as there were people. God is allseeing, rigth? Then the complex mapping should be inconsequential. OTOH, I don't claim to know God's mind (if he exists). He might refuse to participate in such a complex experiment, thinking it shows a lack of faith. Eivind, _not_ attempting to be sarcastic.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971112030023.06691>