StarGateWars Forums

Offensive Bias wrote:

temptress wrote::-k

where does one find a cave?

*not looking for a caveman*

Under the ground, usually.

Possibly the side of a mountain

moses of romania wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

temptress wrote::-k

where does one find a cave?

*not looking for a caveman*

Under the ground, usually.

Possibly the side of a mountain

The mountain being a bump in the ground, and the cave being under that bump, so yeah, also the side of a mountain.
Undersea, sometimes..

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

SuperSaiyan wrote:simple fact, chicks don't need to flirt...

We do if we have standards, SuperS.

or if WE do...

Chances of that being the case are slim to none on average.

just goes to show how high YOUr standarts are...

It does?
I suppose it does, yes. Have a problem with that?

whatever rocks your boat, i guess.

Well.. yes.

so in essence, you agree that you don't need to flirt?

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

SuperSaiyan wrote:simple fact, chicks don't need to flirt...

We do if we have standards, SuperS.

or if WE do...

Chances of that being the case are slim to none on average.

just goes to show how high YOUr standarts are...

It does?
I suppose it does, yes. Have a problem with that?

whatever rocks your boat, i guess.

Well.. yes.

so in essence, you agree that you don't need to flirt?

I don't recall denying I didn't have to flirt. "We do if we have standards" merely implies that girls who have standards would need to flirt. It didn't touch the question of me having standards or not. I'd hesitate to permanently associate myself with people who have standards. I'd flirt for fun, or not at all.. it serves no practical purpose for me other than to facilitate pleasure if I'd want to apply certain standards. Which is, as SS said, optional.

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

SuperSaiyan wrote:simple fact, chicks don't need to flirt...

We do if we have standards, SuperS.

or if WE do...

Chances of that being the case are slim to none on average.

just goes to show how high YOUr standarts are...

It does?
I suppose it does, yes. Have a problem with that?

whatever rocks your boat, i guess.

Well.. yes.

so in essence, you agree that you don't need to flirt?

I don't recall denying I didn't have to flirt. "We do if we have standards" merely implies that girls who have standards would need to flirt. It didn't touch the question of me having standards or not. I'd hesitate to permanently associate myself with people who have standards. I'd flirt for fun, or not at all.. it serves no practical purpose for me other than to facilitate pleasure if I'd want to apply certain standards. Which is, as SS said, optional.

= yes.

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote: We do if we have standards, SuperS.

or if WE do...

Chances of that being the case are slim to none on average.

just goes to show how high YOUr standarts are...

It does?
I suppose it does, yes. Have a problem with that?

whatever rocks your boat, i guess.

Well.. yes.

so in essence, you agree that you don't need to flirt?

I don't recall denying I didn't have to flirt. "We do if we have standards" merely implies that girls who have standards would need to flirt. It didn't touch the question of me having standards or not. I'd hesitate to permanently associate myself with people who have standards. I'd flirt for fun, or not at all.. it serves no practical purpose for me other than to facilitate pleasure if I'd want to apply certain standards. Which is, as SS said, optional.

= yes.

Efficient.

much mor than explaining the difference between the IF switch and the IFF switch
sorry, had to break the qoute chain.
we reached the limit on that.

Hitchkok wrote:much mor than explaining the difference between the IF switch and the IFF switch
sorry, had to break the qoute chain.
we reached the limit on that.

*grin* I know, I had removed Supersaiyan's original post from my own set of quotes.
What is an IF/IFF switch anyway? *googles*

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:much mor than explaining the difference between the IF switch and the IFF switch
sorry, had to break the qoute chain.
we reached the limit on that.

*grin* I know, I had removed Supersaiyan's original post from my own set of quotes.
What is an IF/IFF switch anyway? *googles*

IFF is an abbreviation (quite ironic, how long a word "abbreviation" is...) of IF AND ONLY IF
for an IF switch, having the first term FALSE will give the switch a TRUE value, regardles of the second term.
for an IFF switch, both terms must have the same value in order to give the switch a TRUE value.
in other words, while the IF switch depicts a sufficient BUT NOT neccessery term, the IFF switch depicts a sufficient AND neccessery term

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:much mor than explaining the difference between the IF switch and the IFF switch
sorry, had to break the qoute chain.
we reached the limit on that.

*grin* I know, I had removed Supersaiyan's original post from my own set of quotes.
What is an IF/IFF switch anyway? *googles*

IFF is an abbreviation (quite ironic, how long a word "abbreviation" is...) of IF AND ONLY IF
for an IF switch, having the first term FALSE will give the switch a TRUE value, regardles of the second term.
for an IFF switch, both terms must have the same value in order to give the switch a TRUE value.
in other words, while the IF switch depicts a sufficient BUT NOT neccessery term, the IFF switch depicts a sufficient AND neccessery term

Oh boy. I've had this with Logic and Computer Technology, I believe. But that's a while ago..
Thought that IF switches didn't have 2 terms? Or am I confusing it with an IF statement..

Either way, let's see if I got this right.
IF the pie is green, THEN it is edible.
The pie is green; so it is edible. If it is red, it could also be edible, but we don't have sufficient information to say that.

IF AND ONLY IF the pie is green, THEN it is edible.
The pie is green; so it is edible. If it is red, it is not edible.

Right? I remember liking the subject.. but I think I failed it.

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:much mor than explaining the difference between the IF switch and the IFF switch
sorry, had to break the qoute chain.
we reached the limit on that.

*grin* I know, I had removed Supersaiyan's original post from my own set of quotes.
What is an IF/IFF switch anyway? *googles*

IFF is an abbreviation (quite ironic, how long a word "abbreviation" is...) of IF AND ONLY IF
for an IF switch, having the first term FALSE will give the switch a TRUE value, regardles of the second term.
for an IFF switch, both terms must have the same value in order to give the switch a TRUE value.
in other words, while the IF switch depicts a sufficient BUT NOT neccessery term, the IFF switch depicts a sufficient AND neccessery term

Oh boy. I've had this with Logic and Computer Technology, I believe. But that's a while ago..
Thought that IF switches didn't have 2 terms? Or am I confusing it with an IF statement..

Either way, let's see if I got this right.
IF the pie is green, THEN it is edible.
The pie is green; so it is edible. If it is red, it could also be edible, but we don't have sufficient information to say that.

IF AND ONLY IF the pie is green, THEN it is edible.
The pie is green; so it is edible. If it is red, it is not edible.

Right? I remember liking the subject.. but I think I failed it.

regarding the "switch"/"statement" thing, i'll regard it as a simple case of "potato"/"tomato". "statement" is probably more accurate, as i learned it in formal logic. Although, i'm fairly sure the whole thing is translateble into electronics, where the "switch" (actually, i think they call it "gate") comes into play.
any way, for your examples:
essentiely, yes. however:
you got the order of the terms mixed up. (and note: the word "term" has two distinct meanning here. my fault for the mix up. "term" is also one part of a statement (as it is used in logic), and also a requirement (as used in programing))
IF the pie is green THEN it is edible, is programing. the equivelent statement in logic will be written:
the pie is edible IF it is green.
now, we have four options. every term can have two values (T(rue) and F(alse), which in programming will be 1 and 0. in electronics, it will be current, and no current) which are independent of one another.
so we have the options:
T IF T an edible, green pie
T IF F an edible, non green pie
F IF T a non edible, green pie
F IF F a non edible, non green pie
for the first option, the entire statement is obviously T. for the second, it is obviously F. and heres the trick: the third and fourth are considered T.
why? because if the pie is non edible, the statement doesn't apply to it, hence the requirement is not broken, and cannot be F. if it's not F, it must be T. you'll notice the statement isn't symmetrical.
the pie is edible IF it is green DOES NOT IMPLY THAT the pie is green IF it is edible.
an IFF switch, is a different matter altoghether.
for an IFF switch, our statement will be:
the pie is edible IFF it is green.
our same four options:
T IF T an edible, green pie
T IF F an edible, non green pie
F IF T a non edible, green pie
F IF F a non edible, non green pie
get different values. the first is still T. the second is still F. the fourth is still T. but here's the point: the third is F. why? because IFF is IF AND ONLY IF i.e., only an edible pie is green, and only a green pie is edible.
you will note that this statement IS symmetrical.
the pie is edible IFF it is green DOES IMPLY the pie is green IFF it is edible.

it's all very confusing. but hey, told you it was much less efficient than the "= yes" option.
i'll leave it to whomever may care to to apply this to the discussion above.
and, also note, that the topic may be misleading. this is NOT the recommended way to flirt in a cave.

So that's why that girl was grabbing my arm at the movie theatre..

Death, most definitely.