The murderer and the murderee are natives and residents of Alaska, the Land of the Midnight Sun, which did not become a state until 1959. Ergo, ipso fatso, and all that jazz, there was no election in Alaska in November 1956.

Or <Washington DC>?

<Apr-12-07 <hitman84>: < post hoc ergo propter hoc, quod erat demonstrandum, and cave canem to boot!>

<Beautiful song.>

<Regards,
Cacophonix.>

Am working on the "murdered man" one. Several factors obviously need to be connected--the time and date (I had just turned one year old in November of '56--same month as the election-- so of course I can't remember the details of that election; but I don't recall susequently hearing anything odd about it, and he could have voted--or not voted--for Eisenhower in '52), the fact that the eye-witness couldn't see the murderer, the weather conditions, and the man's having lived in the town all his life, as did his father.

One guess would be to try to prove that the murdered man was too young to vote, but I don't see how to do that with the information given. Another strategy--that pursued by <Joe Williams> would be to show that he was not eligible to vote for some reason (not an American citizen, etc.).

Will keep working on it!

Nobili Graecorum et ampla civitate Ephesi lex vetusta dicitur a maioribus dura condicione sed iure non iniquo constituta esse. Nam architectus cum publicum opus curandum recipit, pollicetur, quanto sumptui futurum sit. Tradita aestimatione magistratui bona eius obligantur, donec opus perfectum sit. Absoluto autem, cum ad dictum inpensa respondit, decretis et honoribus ornatur. Item si non amplius quam quarta in opere consumitur, ad aestimationem est adicienda et de publico praestatur, neque ulla poena tenetur. Cum vero amplius quam quarta in opere consumitur, ex eius bonis ad perficiendum pecunia exigitur. Utinam dei immortalis fecissent, ea lex etiam Populo Romano non modo publicis sed etiam privatis aedificiis constitutua esset.

"In the noble and large city of Ephesus of the Greeks, an old law is said to have been instituted by the forefathers, with a hard condition, but not unfair. An architect promises how much the cost will be, when he receives a public work to be done. The estimate is handed over and his goods are earmarked to the magistrate until the work is finished. At completion, moreover, when the cost corresponds to the contract, he is decorated with decrees and honors. Likewise, if it is no more than a quarter more than the estimate, it must be added to the estimate and paid for by the public. Nor is any penalty paid. But when it is more than a quarter over, the money is exacted from his own goods for the finishing. Would that the immortal gods make it that this law be instituted for the Roman People, not only for public buildings, but private ones as well."

Tell me first, Ed, whether my answer was right, or wrong.

I predict the technological hurdles will be overcome sooner rather than later.

I also predict that "solving chess" will have ZERO effect on OTB play between humans.

I can't even memorize four freaking moves in an opening, let alone the "solution" to every game of chess with "objectively correct play".

But I know someone who has access to a Gallium Arsenide prototype of what eventually was the Cray-III, but I am trying to talk him into helping me crack RSA numbers on the solving page. There is $625,000 up for grabs.

So "ignorance of the issue is foolish fire" was the intended literal translation, which has a completely different (contextual translation) except our Latin scholar did not put the verb "est" at the end of the sentence where it belongs, nor was the nominative case changed to the accusative case to reflect it is the direct object of the sentence, rather than the subject.

<Ignoratio elenchi ignem fatuum est >

would be the way a Roman would make this statement. As if I could not possibly draw the weak link suggesting that the "foolish fire" was really "Will-O-Wisp" being synonymous with my "Grim Reaper" name on a game server.

So it was <DomDaniel> who put the <Latin slight> together.

Well I'm afraid you're on your own there, my dear <Cretaceous-dweller>.

Young <Dom> is my hero, and few have crossed swords with him and lived to tell the tale.

He's already forgotten more than the rest of us will ever know.

His Scotch? <Dewar's White Label>.

Sorry for any confusion of any kind. Really.