Kyrisch

Well, there isn't an x^2 term so it's not really possible to complete the square including the x, but you can complete the square with y... First, rearrange the equation so that the three terms necessary to complete are on one side, and the x is on the other. [math]9y^2 - 6y - 9 = x[/math] Now, the closest square is [math](3y-1)^2 = 9y^2 - 6y + 1[/math]. This is 10 more than what you have on the left. So, if we add ten to both sides (preserving the equality) you get this: [math]9y^2 - 6y - 9 + 10 = x + 10[/math] [math]9y^2 - 6y + 1 = x + 10[/math] But [math]9y^2 - 6y + 1 = (3y-1)^2[/math] so [math](3y-1)^2 = x + 10[/math] Now, this doesn't appear very useful if you're trying to solve for either variable, but if the directions were to just complete the square then I guess it works. Usually completing the square is a tool used to simplify an equation that isn't otherwise algebraically solvable.

-facepalm- I think it means to talk about the noble gas emission spectra, because noble gases are pretty nearly the last the thing anyone's looking to ionize...

Where did you find a bead like that? I'm interested in doing this myself and am curious.

Actually, the letter 'y' sounds like the letter 'j'. The letter 'j' sounds like the letter 'h'. So it's kind of a reverse substitution.

In fact, purpose is something applied by an outside intellect, so without intelligence the idea of purpose is not nonexistent, but irrelevant.

Thank you very much for the heads up! I just double checked and dipped a match in some hydrogen peroxide and nothing happened at all... I would have gone through with it and everything. I hate bogus science on youtube...

So recently I came across this link, illustrating the steps required to make a really cool glowing flower. Having a rather scientific mindset, however, I was immediately interested in how it worked. I figured out that the oxidation of the phosphorus in the match heads by the hydrogen peroxide was created chemoluminescence similar to the effect in glow sticks. However, I have a few questions before I try it myself, and I'm hoping someone better versed in chemistry can help. Is it dangerous? It seems to me that the mixture of match heads and alcohol would be highly, highly flammable. How long does it last? There's the lifetime of the reaction, and of course of the flower itself due to the fact that you're injecting chemicals into it. What kind of byproducts would be produced? Would it be safe to touch the flower during or after the glow has faded? Should I wear a mask while collecting the match heads? I know that phosphorus is very toxic to breath in, and I'm thinking that there will be powder and mess in the air if I do that to a match.

So you scorned all your previous mental scientific rigour for a mountebank with a good guess?

Confirmation bias?

The Good: I finally got my car inspected today.

The Bad: It's the version annotated by Ken Ham

Well, I think it has more to do with noise pollution. Remember that sound is a wave, and waves can occupy the same space at the same time (it's called interference). Because of this, the sheer amount of sound at any given time will not increase the chance, but actually prevent resonance from occurring because the sound will be less pure. (Imagine you and a friend swinging a jumprope at the same frequency and phase, and then at the same frequency and out-of-phase. No resonance will occur in the second case).

I'm not an economist, but I asked this question myself recently, and this is the gist of what was told me: The debt comes mostly from bad investments. If you put x dollars towards an investment that is supposed to yield 200% return, you expect that you'll soon have 2x dollars. So, in order to maximize profit, you invest that 2x dollars (that you don't have) in another investment that should yield 200% return. Then, with that 4x dollars (that you still don't have) you go and buy something from another country on credit. Unfortunately, the first investment falls through. So you have no money. But you owe 4x dollars. Voila! debt.

What an odd reason to sign up...

Let me Google that for you...

Well, rather, everything (in a valid frame of reference) is at rest wrt itself. Except that the reference frame of a photon is not a valid reference frame.

Such drastic physical changes are reminiscent of the claims made by Therianthropes, the modern-day lunatics who think they are werewolves. It is not only medically impossible, but also highly absurd, just as absurd as the belief that one might sprout fangs at the full moon.

That looks delicious... -drools-

Yelling "conspiracy!!!" is one of the most useless devices in debate. In all but a very precious few cases the principle of parsimony (Occam's Razor) trumps such ad hoc logic.

They would also, presumably, have a very good weapon for defense against attacks on their life -- namely the ability to read minds. The main point of the Randi Challenge is not only that no one has successfully won the money, but that many contestants have actually engaged the challenge under the genuine impression that they had supernatural ability, and then were forced to reconsider after failing to produce significant results in a controlled setting. So it's not like no one who sincerely believes that they can do it has tried.

I talked about this point extensively in the OP, how Cleverbot conducts a "dyanamic (although often wacky)" conversation. It may be random at times, but often full threads of meaningful exchange can be produced, which is markedly different from the approaches of one-liner chatbots like Smarterchild. It's also important to keep in mind that this is the online version. That means it's learned context from any random person (with any random idea of how a conversation with a bot should be conducted) on the internet. I'm almost certain that the main reason it is so random is because people don't feel the need to make sense when they're chatting online anonymously with an AI.

The reason Latin is more of a written language than a spoken one is because it's rather died out. It's an extinct language, with no native speakers. It's mostly evolved into Italian, which is the closest living relative, and a dialect still remains that is used in the Catholic Church called Church Latin. However, since it has died out (and there were obviously no voice recording devices back then ) no one really knows how the common dialects were pronounced. We have an idea, and if you learn Latin proper it will sound different from both Church Latin (which you may be familiar with if you have been to a Catholic mass) and anglicized medical Latin. 'Vulgar' Latin is it is called, is taught with only hard c's and g's. So the following sentence: "Ducle et decorum est pro patria mori" (Sweet and honourable it is to do for the country) In Church Latin: DOOL CHE ET DE KOR UM EST PRO PATRIA MOR EE In Vulgar Latin: DOOL KE ET DE KOR UM EST PRO PATRIA MOR EE And in anglicized Latin: DOOL SE ET DE KOR UM EST PRO PATRIA MOR EE The pronunciation difference is also apparent in many medical and legal Latin terms, and if you learn Latin (and you're anything like me) you're going to cringe whenever someone pronounces a soft c or g or a short vowel.

[in response to iNow's comment about conscious observation] I don't want to beat a dead horse, or hijack a thread, but I think the single best reason why it can be safely dismissed as nothing but a philosophical oe semantical issue is simply because there is no definite scientific definition of a 'conscious' agent, anyway. Consciousness is a gradient, not a binary phenomenon.

You should probably also include the time of your post, seeing as the author, the date of the post, and the time are all important pieces of information that aren't already obviously displayed above the post.

But they can be used to pass the Turing Test. So does the Turing Test in fact not test for intelligence?