Dak

OH FOR F*** SAKE! i only just realised that this is page 2, i thought that it was page 1 and that redalerts post was the op... you would not believe how long i spent trying to figure out in what dieviouse way a maths puzzle had been encrypted as 'the grapes are too sour anyways' dammit.

this being a science forum and all, would you mind referensing a few of these studies, that we may read them ourselves. just out of interest... i understand the not wanting to turn someone into a paedophile bit, but why not turning someone gay?

an investigation was done into this on a group of english people (whos first and onlylanguage was english) and another group of people whos first and only language was korean or taiwaneese or something (cant remembre what language it was, sorry, but i think it was oriental). the individuals were given pictures of things and told to sort them into two groups, but not given the criteria by which to sort them. so for example they may have been shown pictures of red things and green things, of animals and innanimate objects, things on boxes and things in boxes etc and have to spot the criteria themselves. the time taken to spot the grouping charectoristic was recorded, and the average times for each group compared. in most instanses the time taken was consistantly proportional to each other. however a few charectoristics were chosen because the two forms of the carectoristic had different names in one language, and just one name in the other, and in these instanses the people who spoke the language in which the different forms had different names spotted the differense significantly faster. (appologies for bad wording) the only example i can remember was the 'snugness of fit' charectoristic, in which items were shown plased in shoe boxes, and the differense was that some fit in snugly, whereas other items fit in with lots of space spare. in english, both a snugly-fitting and a loosly-fitting item would be said to be 'in' the box, whereas the other language had two different words, eg (words made up) a snuggly-fitting item would be said to be 'wang' the box, whereas a loosly-fitting item would be said to be 'choing' the box. this linguistical seperation of the two differnt types of fit allowed the charectoristic to be spotted significantly faster by the non-english speakers (in this case) so language definately has an impact upon cognition.

as its the second time its been alluded to, then i guess it might be useful to give a link to the duct-taped-dog thread from my own observations, i think also that the more developed the moral system, the more succinctly it can be described, ie a (n in my oppinion) poorly developed moral system will consist of a long list of 'dos' and 'donts', whereas a well developed moral system will consist of a few guidlines, or 'moral axioms' i suppose might be a better term. for example, 'rape is wrong' is not one of my morals as such. however, my moral guidlines leave me with no option but to view it as immoral, even though it is not spesiffically refered to in any of my morals, if that makes sense? also i think its interesting to contrast 'intuative' morals with 'inteligent' morals. ever notised how some people naturaly know what is right/rong without ever having had to think about it? if i tried to do that, ie do what i felt was right without actually thinking about the moral implications, id be such a b*****d! maybe the more morals someone has, the more naturally a/immoral they are?

because our morals are forsing us to attempt to stop people from doing things that we disagree with, ie duct taping a dogs mouth shut. and anyway, like i said i was being cynical, although i suppose guilt could be stopping ourselves from doing something that we disagree with, ie morality is the 'stopping people doing stuff...' drive focused externally, whereas guilt is the 'stopping people doing stuff...' drive focused internally?

you mean like a golfballs occelation shrinks at a lower rate than its mass, so that when you get to the size of an eletron the occelation is by far a more inportant factor than the mass, even though the occelation of a golf ball has virtually no baring on its behavior (whereas its mass does)?

fair point my anger was more at the fact that someone that ignorant of a dogs feelings/nessesity to breath was allowed to keep a dog in the first place, rather than at his stupidity itself, which after all isnt his fault. people can be that stupid, and theres nothing we can do to stop that. but we can stop them owning dogs (if only we could stop them having childeren too)

what in the name of gert big wobbly testicles are you two talking about? RedAlert, im sure if they are the same person, sayo, blike or dave will sort it out. also, what with this being a sciense forum, maybe you should substantiate your claim with some quotes from the two of them, highlighting any interestingly similar distinguishing charechteristics of theire two wrighting styles (eg spelling mistakes, gramma mistakes, syntax mistakes, word usage, collequialism use etc) and explaining why it is more likely that the similarities result from the two posters being the same person, rather than by coinsidense. a little ameture forensic wrighting analysis shouldnt be too hard. back to morality, carrying on in skyes cynical vein, morality is peoples justification for stopping other people doing things that they dont want other people to do.

tapeworms may actually help to rebalance the digestive system. the theory is that we evolved to tolerate enteric parasites, and only resently have we bin able to live without them, therefore all of our evolved techniques for counteracting them could, in their abscense, cause an 'unbalansing' of the gut, explaining the high frequensy of bowel disorders (IBS, colonic sistitus, sistic colitus (theyre different apparently), chrohn etc) in developed contries compared to less developed contries where enteric parasites are still common. clinical studies are being carried out in germany to investigat the potential of pigflukes (i think) in curing human IBS.

can it be fixed so that only one score per person is entered onto the records? so that its more like 'top ten players' rather than 'j'dura's top ten scores'?

and hover your curser over someones equasions to see the exact wording of the coding, eg [math]2x^2+3Y_b \leq 7\delta-3[/math] hover your curser over that and it should say '2x^2+3Y_b \leq 7\delta-3', which is what i put inside the [math] tags to get the equasion (or click it to see the entire code, [math] tags an'all)

here dont forget to encase it in maths tags, ie the coding should have [/math] after it and [math] before it.

id agree with YT - and judging by the poor-looking quality of the bends id guess that this was actually made for fermentation (ie, beer making) rather than by a sciense-ware company. (also the bends are too wide - the amount of water needed to fill them would shoot out of the tube in any reaction that creates gas much faster then an alcohol fermentation).

my pet rats used to love being tickled on the tummy, and would make wierd chky-chky-chky noises. i saw a program on psycology once, with that bloke with the mustash (BBC) and when the chky-chky-chky noise is recorded and slowed down, it sounds exactly like 'heee-heee-heee', and apparently the eletrical activity of the rats brain during tickling, and the phisiological spasms that cause the chky-chky-chky sound are pretty similar to the eletircal activity of a humans brain during tickling, and the phisiological spasms which result in the 'te-he-he' sound. plus they always liked playing. and to them, my hand was 'one of the rats', and anecdotaly i believe they injoyed playing with me as much as i enjoyed playing with them, exept for when they bit, which, due to the differenses between rat-skin and human-skin, i wasnt too fond of.

he had to breath throughought the night, you dumb tit. even had he have survived, i doubt the duct tape removal would have been plesant. people should have to undergo psycological screening before owning pets. and before you get all "i didnt mean to" on me, consider: i used to have two pet rats, and i broke the tip of one of there tails by treading on him. i didnt mean to, and luckaly i had the common sense to take my shoes off before letting my rats out, so he wasnt too damaged, and i was very tolerant of having the tip of my finger penetrated everytime i tried to touch him for the next month. this was a genuine mistake, and arguably i should have been more careful where i trod, but at least i was A/exhibiting common sense by removing my shoes, and B/not being cruel to him, even when he transmogrified into an evil fluffy ball of rage, thus i feel that this accident was excusable. duct-taping your dog is neither common-sensicle nor purely accidental, and cannot in any way shape or form be considered 'not being cruel'. so unintentional? yes. exusable? no.

as i previousely stated, i consede that not all people above the age of consent are ready for sex, and not all those below are unready. bourbohemian is proof that people even as young as 11, as, shal we say, unituitive as it may seem, are capable of having healthy sexual retationships. i guess the ideal solution would be a system whereby the AoC was worked out for each individual, BUT i cannot conseve of any way in which such a system could be implimented. given that, then adversly affecting some people will be unavoidable -- the question is, do we allow paedophillia and allow the possibility that some childeren will be abused, or illegalise paedophillia and allow the possobility that some childeren will be traumatised by having healthy relationships broken up. taking everything into account, i believe that it would be less damaging to illegalise paedophillia than to legalise it and attempt to set the AoC individually. yes, there will be 'abuse' from the system, however it is by far the lesser of two evils (as a turn of frase) and the best viable option.

no, homosexual sex between two consenting men/women has the differense of involving two adults who are mentaly developed enough to make a desicion about what they want to do/not do. paedophillia involves a child who may not be mentally developed/experiensed enough to be in a position to make a sensible well informed desision, which is the (huge) differense.

some aspects of HIV are highly conserved, eg the binding molecule gp120, and also i would assume that reverse transcriptase is highly conserved, or if not at least the mechanism by which it works is going to be highly similar in all cases, giving us an angle of attack. in addition, tat and rev are always present in HIV infected cells, allowing for the possibility of a gene which initiates cell suicide upon HIV infection, eg fatal gene being regulated by tat tat promter---diptheria gene = cell perfectly ok, but HIV infection = production of tat --> production of diptheria --> cell death --> halt of HIV spread throughout body. now, if only we could work out how to completely halt the production of diptheria in the absense of tat, whilst maintaining a high level of transcription in the presense of tat... basically the high mutability of HIV is a problem, but not an insurmountable one.

its interesting how theres no potential for confusion... take N for example, which is 202 in the code. now look at L, whos value is 262. there are no letters whos code value ends with 20... if there were, there could be confusion if plased before to L, eg imagine F was 120, then FL would be 120262, which has 202 in the middle, which would be confusing in a long line of numbers. ie, 783251202625498654 could be interpreted as having an N in the middle, eg 783251202625498654 or as having an FL in the middle, eg 783251202625498654 but as F doesnt = 120, and as no letters code value ends with 20, this confusion does not arise and as far as i can see there are no two letters which can be plased next to each other to create a confusion... is that something to do with the fact its a quadratic, or something to do with the numbers chosen for a b and c? or did the teacher just keep choosing different quadratics untill he found one which didnt result in confusion?

yes but, what with me being dyslexic, typing '4nums' is considerably faster than scrolling up and down four times to find out what those four numbers are, and after that 'sarcastic bitch/im going to hunt you down' thread, i felt our aquantiance was informal enough for nicknames to be acceptable

our definitions of 'nice' obviously differ quite alot. i would consider a nise proof to be: four possibilities: X..Y -..+ -..- +..+ +..- if x and y are positive, then |x + y| = |x| + |y| if x and y are -, then |x + y| = |x| + |y| which is consistant with the 'or equal to' part of the [math] \leq [/math] assertation if x is + and y is -, then logically speaking, remembering y is negative, x + y < x, and so |x + y| < |x|, whereas |x| + |y| will obviously be greater than x, as you are adding a positive to it (|y| being positive), hense |x + y| < |x| + |y| is logically equivelant to something less than x < something more than x which is true. (this is what i was (badly) trying to say when i said |x+|y||<|x|+|y|) ritey dokey, so far weve adressed three of the four possibilities and found them to be consistent with the statement [math]|x+y| \leq |x|+|y|[/math], all thats left is if y is - and x is +: which is identical to the issue of x being + and y being -. so, whatever the values (+ or -), the term |x+y| never exceeds the term |x|+|y|. tada! proven. i think this way is 'nicer' cos it doesnt involve maths, though im sure youd disagree

cool, i know 'help me with this' is fine, but wasnt sure if 'randomly teach me stuff' was ok. still, its not as if i have to learn it, just remember it. i aim to get back up to being able to integrate at least. cheers

oops. ok, from the contents of 4nums link, apparently if we all click on the ads google will catch on and be pissed, so we probably shouldnt do it. sorry about that.

AHA! its comming back now. yes indeedy, 'cos both -2 and -3 will give the answre 0 when plugged into the quadratic. which i would work out using that plus-or-minus b times sqare root of 4ac over 2a or something formula (sorry, i will learn latex soon)! cool, i can remember (kinda) is it cool to pop back in this forum and ask exessively simple questions everynow and again, i kinda wanna re-learn maths?