jordan

Your work ethic is the commitment you have to getting the required work done. If you procrastinate a lot, you have a poor work ethic. If you never finish all of the assignments, you have a poor work ethic.

That looks like good to me. Nice job.

We don't really want anything (except word and powerpoint) from the old one that we can't put on the new one. Is there any easy way to back those up? And how do I clean 98 off?

Ok, I went on with that, but it says that installing multiple OS's on one partition can cause them to run improperly. Not only that, but I don't want both anymore. What is the easiest way to unistall the old one since that's not given as an option on the screen?

Very nicely said, bloodhound. That's pretty much my list too.

You forgot to carry the subraction sign all the way through. If should be: n+nw-n+gwl-gw-n(squared)-gwl+gw-w+1 and that boils down to: -n2+wn-w+1 I can't factor that any more unless n(w-n)+(1-w) helps.

I tried upgraded our old computer from 98 to XP this morning without success. It said I needed to unistall programs that couldn't be upgraded (pc anywhere, some game controler thing and a few other programs). Well, I looked for them everywhere but i couldn't find them, so I can't really unistall them. Ok, no problem. Rather than upgrade, I just want to wipe off the old OS and put XP on in place of it. No upgrading. But now it wants to know what partition I want to install this to. It gives me one choice that says C: Partition1 9782MB (5764MB free) That doesn't look promising. Does anyone have any suggestions on what the easiest thing to do here is. I don't know too much about what I'm doing. Thanks.

Remember two things: 1) A B isn't necessarily a bad grade 2) Grades don't necesarily reflect learning. They more accurately reflect effort. Though it's a good indication, a B in no way means that you will have to get a B on the final (or whatever). If you look back over the material, you can probably make up for the little things you missed and get an A by the end. I would say if you put that extra effort into building the foundational stuff you missed first semester, second semester will incorporate and elabortate on it, just further reinforcing it. By the end of the year, you should easily be able to catch up.

True, but once you've learned to beat one, the others aren't much of a challenge.

Honestly, the tactics never change and so no matter what type of tycoon you develop it will seem too similar to another.

I thought after the LOTR was just being released (The Fellowship) that it would be cool to have a version along the Age Of Empires/Age Of Mythology line but was taylored to LOTR. Too late. After that, I was happy.

I think number theory sounds better, but depending on what you're getting into after college it could very easily be less useful.

That's exactly what I've been trying to figure out. It didn't answer his question, but if it wasn't an attempt to answer it, what was it? But where is this going anyway? I guess I understand now what you were getting at, I just don't agree with it.

All of which is understandable. But the fact that events before and after the big bang are seperate is independent of the fact that we are going to search for a cause to the big bang. So the fact that everything subsequent to the big bang can be understood without actualy understanding the big bang doesn't answer the question "What caused it"?

You've lost me. Jacques asked for an explanation of what caused the big bang. You replied "why do we need one", in escence saying that we don't really need one. Then you yourself brought in the fact that physics does not cover that. Jacques never asked about physics, just if we can explain it. So by sidesteping the question, it looks to me as though you have resorted to the same creationist-style arguements that you so hate.

You can substitute the word "God" for each time you see "big bang" in your last three posts and it sounds like what every creationist says. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by saying that the big bang is out of our current scope of understanding. Why make it sound like scientists don't care about what caused it?

I was told recently to think of a in the more accurate terms of N/kg rather than m/s2. As for that part, the numbers are all right, but you're not measuring in the right units. The answer to the first one isnt' 10N, it's 10(lb*kg/min2). The second one is being measured in onces*kg/min2. Neither of those are equivalent to a Newton. You need to convert everything to consistant units. It doesn't matter what you want to use, as long as it's the same for the first and the second. Once the units all line up, the magnitudes will follow.

With all the new stuff that's coming out these days, I just grow more and more thankful for the older rock.

That's begining to sound like a creationist-style argument to me.

No on the Frank Sinatra, but there have definitely been some great soundtracks out recently.

It's an abismal use of mathematics as far as I can understand. From what I gather, he's trying to quantify emotions by using limits and it's just not comprehensive.

6...a little more than a minute. It was the 32 that threw me off a bit.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4236