@keoni, the reason I brought it up is that the CPU core supports it. They just don't have any ICs with the address pins broken out.

In transistor logic, no, it wouldn't be. The low is determined by how low the transistors can pull (usually 0.5v to 0.7v) and is not affected by much else as far as circuits go. This limit is determined by the method by which the transistors function, and their materials. (Germanium diodes can pull down to 0.2v, for example, but they're very slow). This value is actually equivalent to the voltage drop across the diode. This means a 100 mv difference would put the "high" value at about 0.8v for standard circuits.

The high side is more arbitrary, but if you go too low (read: <1.7-ish volts for high-end consumer electronics) the circuits become unstable, reporting 0 where it should be 1, and vice versa. They push it as low as they can for speed and power reasons, as you said, but 100 mV difference is less than the thermal fluctuation, even ignoring problems like crosstalk.

My biggest reason doubt this, though, is that the CPU operates at 3.3v. 3.3v USB, while not spec, would make sense, as they would have voltage-adjusting circuitry off-board. (see the RS232 port for an example of exactly this design choice in use) Choosing to lower the voltage any more than the CPU is running, simply for I/O purposes, and taking the protocol even more out of spec? Why? It won't be faster or more efficient, thanks to conversion inefficiencies.

The nspire is not a fancy, cutting-edge piece of electronics. As far as mobile ARM devices go, it's quite ordinary, and an old ordinary device at that. I just don't see TI using such futuristic technology in a device like this.

Hey, that 3D grapher isn't orthogonal, even! (Orthogonal rendering is easier, stuff doesn't get smaller as it gets further back. Also has a small advantage when comparing two locations, but generally less intuitive)

Stefan, in Mormonism Eternal Life refers specifically to Godhood, ie the Celestial kingdom. This is why so many scriptures say "Immortality and Eternal Life" since they are not considered the same. The path to Eternal Life is quite small, and many won't make it, but those people won't necessarily go to hell.

@scipi that's pretty much exactly right. Also, why would a God bother with sacrificing something tangible of their own something basically portrayed as a pet project? Clearly we are worth a great deal. (explained by the doctrine of us being children of said God)

Hell isn't really a popular term in mormon sects. The general term used is Outer Darkness, described as being filled with weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth (from the other inhabitants of said place). This place is reserved for those who knowingly reject the atonement, e.g. participation is 100% voluntary.

@Stefan A detail to remember is that mormons consider revelations highly symbolic. This does not mean we discount the doctrine, but we don't think Hell is literally made of fire, for example. (Not an important point)

More importantly, the standard mormon doctrine says that the Hell described in revelations is the spirit prison, not outer darkness. (similar, but spirit prison is definite in length, and technically a state, not a location) This is a state of relative suffering, post death and pre-resurrection. The people who stay there (the ones who don't repent - which they can) continue in this until their resurrection, which happens after the resurrection of the more righteous.

That's pretty fancy. Are the programs being run on the propeller or the ez8?

The whole point of mormonism is that it isn't a new doctrine. It's the old doctrine, without 2000 years of corruption.

I don't see any references in that link that aren't entirely up to interpretation/misuse of either vague or context-sensitive scripture.

On his point 4: "Ask again what it is and listen closely for any hint of the free forgiveness of sins through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. You usually hear an answer dealing with works, obedience, doing something, etc." This, while common, is incorrect doctrine. The Mormon church believes as much as anyone that we are 100% saved by Jesus. The difference is, he cleanses us, to the point where we can then be judged for our capacity to be certain exalted beings. That's not judgement in the accusatory sense.

No one goes to hell, unless they go through a fairly complex set of actions where they directly refute the savior's help, with a full knowledge of its truth. The three kingdoms often depicted are all sub-sections of a large "heaven", and even the lowest is described as wonderful.

Point 5: The church was not prevailed against during the time of Peter's service. That came after he was crucified upside down. The savior's promise was that while the church had Peter as their rock, the gates of hell would not prevail against it. No such promise for afterward. (That's 100% interpretation right there, but that enforces the point that most of this is interpretation that doesn't match the mormon interpretation)

On point 6, he argues that the priesthood after the order of Melchezidek was only ever held by the Savior. This is simply not true, as a prime example would be Melchezidek himself. The order gets its name from him, although he was not the first to have it. He was the only one to have it at the time (due to various Old Testament happenings), although he later granted the same priesthood to Peter so he could lead the church. (Matt. 16:19) Peter did not get the chance to pass it along, so it stopped there. The catholic church was later formed out of the various bishoprics, with only the Levitical/Arronic priesthood.

Point 7: While Mormonism believes in plurality of gods, there is an important distinction to be made. The only god with authority over our world is our one God. All other gods are either his children, or (depending on whether you consider our God the first or not, I'm not sure which is correct) his relatives. Since, in order to become a god, you need to become one with the Father, there is no conflict between the gods.
The scriptures he references can be classified into two groups: Rebuttal of nature worship, and situations where Jehovah is referring to himself as God. (A frequent confusion) Since mormonism believes Jesus and the Father are separate beings, it's important to understand which is speaking to get the correct context. In the Isaiah verses, he is referring to being the one and only who can redeem their sins. There will be no Savior before or after him.

Quick resolutions to the "Errors" in point 8
A. Here's the scripture, which he doesn't link to. "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." He claims this is an error since Nephi states that grace saves us, despite what we can do to purify ourselves being lacking. Isn't that the whole point of being saved by grace? Where is the error?

B. He claims that Moroni is quoting New Testament scripture, when in fact he is not. He is quoting prior writings of his people. If he was quoting those verses, he did so quite poorly.The confusion stems from the fact that the footnotes point to the accused New Testament verses. The footnotes are for gospel study, and only point to similar topics. They do not indicate quotation, and are not part of the actual scriptural text.

C. Once again, a "quoting problem". Those quotations are straight out of the 5 books of moses, which they had. Once again, footnote confusion.

D. He simply states that "Jesus, a Son of God" is incorrect. I can only assume that he's referring to Mormon non-trinity belief. Not an error. Besides, this is a guy remembering what his father had taught him years before, while he's going through a horrible trial. (in coma, all sins brought down upon him, etc) after being an anti-gospel preacher for years.

E. I'm not sure where he gets his reference for claiming that King Benjamin was the one who could translate foreign languages, most especially since later Mosiah is the one to do it. A translation error fixed before publication is not an error in the publication, it's an error in the original manuscript. (there have been many corrections)

F. The BoM claims Jesus will be born in Jerusalem, "The land of our forefathers", where he was born in Bethlehem. Keep in mind, it has been almost 600 years since anyone was in that area. Jerusalem was only 6-8 miles away from Bethlehem, so if we assume that they were saying "he will be born in the land of our forefathers, the land of Jerusalem" it's extremely accurate. Far more precise than many other prophecies.

100% correct, although I don't mind if you use the term mormon if you prefer, or LDS.