mooeypoo

Actually it may be worse than that.. parents may ask Gene Therapy for their unaccepted son/daughter. In any case, these things need to be defined. If homosexuality is a disease that is in need to be cured, then our line is stretched farther than we may want it to... many other things would be considered diseases. Any in any case, even if it IS a genetic "condition" that CAN be changed -- do we really have a business to? Do we really WANT to? It harms no one, and is something that defines a person's personality, like a whole lot of other traits that may well have a genetic application as well.. ~moo

Yes, the entire point is that this is a sci-fi futuristic story, hence us speculating I just want the speculations somewhat realistic.. "what COULD happen in the future" kinda thing. In any case, if nanobots DO roam someone's blood, they may be used to BUILD those pathways, and then a person could control them, theoretically. No? Maybe some lengthy "training" period is due? Only people with high mental control can do that? what could be the limitations? This, actually, is awesome. It gives me the "bad" implications. Mental stability is essential, meaning people may have to go through some physical/mental training to control them? perhaps there are a few things they can't control?

Hm I didn't think about that.. so the bots would be more like "drones" and if you want to use any of the 'abilities' you may need a 'master' computer near you to control them...? So if there's a computer console (hand held / watch.. whatever.. ) then the person would be able to control the bots? Why wouldn't it be possible for the person's BRAIN to control these bots btw? isn't the brain somewhat like a processor itself? If the bots are in nthe blood stream, they're in the brain as well... perhaps some sort of new neural connections could control these nano tech things? Thanks for the help btw ~moo

Actually, as far as I know it's a mixture of both genetic and social. I need to re-find the documents, and I promise I will soon (have a few homework.. but i will try to do it after). In any case, it's not HORMONAL. It may be more leaneant to developmental ("nurture") but not hormonal. There are also not IDENTIFIED genes for homosexuality. ~moo

I made a youtube video about this issue, actually. Insanity is poorly defined as it is. What IS insanity? If it's 'not normal' then you need to define "normal". If it's a brain problem, you need to define what a PROBLEM in the brain is. I think homosexuality can be described as insanity only if any other sexual affinity (blondes? younger women/men, etc) is. I also think it's irrelevant. Homosexuality hurts NO ONE.. Declaring it as insanity is only opening a can of worms politically, and requires examining all other social and sexual behaviors. Everyone has different "insanities" in them is homosexuality is being insane. Beyond that, homosexuality is not hormonal, it's genetic. The debate of 'nature vs nurture' goes on, but leans towards genetic; regardless, it's definitely not hormonal. It's not 'insanity' and there are no "drugs" to "cure" it. Homosexuality is not a disease, it's a lifestyle choice, and it's none of YOUR business; you don't have to LIKE it. ~moo

What about radio transmissions? Can they allow the ability to remotely communicate with computers? Wi-Fi style? That would imply controlling brain pathways though.. Anyways, again guys, I'm looking for incredible abilities that can be "simply explained" with nanotech. And no perfect human unless perfection is the REAL implication.. ~moo

So wait.. no "bad" implications at all? perfect humans? If we have nanotechnology in our bodies, we turn perfect? It sounds... unrealistic..

Hey guys, I'm writing a fiction story, and I want to do my best and make it as close to realistic as possible in terms of science. I am trying to avoid "schmaltzy" obvious non-realistic crap most sci-fi novels do, and I would appreciate help. So, it's time to speculate scientifically. What would happen to a person/group-of-people who have nanobots in their blood stream? What logical implications can that do? I am trying to figure out both "good" and "bad" side-effects. I'll give some examples I thought of, and would love it if you could tell me how realistic this could be, or what it would demand. Here's my basic thoughts for example: "Good Implication" -- Rapid healing. For instance, if someone is stabbed, the wound heals relatively quickly. I doubt it could take seconds or minutes like in current sci-fi movies, but perhaps relative to the depth of the wound, the 'nanobots' can repair tissue. This is a known and well used 'implication', but again - i would like to get things as "right" as possible. "Bad implication" -- The need for energy. I would imagine nanobots require energy, and I was thinking perhaps more than regularly used by the body. Perhaps a person would get tired more easily? or need more food? or specific types of food? Is that logical? perhaps jolts of electricity "recharge" the nanobots? I'm throwing ideas here.. Anyways, I would appreciate any suggestion, as close to realistic as possible. Please try to suggest both good and 'bad' implications, I don't want "perfect" humans.. I want realistic futuristic "feature". Would it affect the brain? could they "broadcast" wirelessly to one another? Okay, now I'm seriously throwing wild ideas but.. heck.. it's for a story. Realistic as possible, but still a fiction story Thanks in advance! I'm sure we can have fun speculating what could happen to a group of people with functional nanobots in their blood stream.. ~moo

Google seems to - so far - work quite a lot with open source (or semi-open source, and developer tools) which is encouraging, and quite QUITTTEE different than microsoft. Since microsoft is taking advantage of its power to constantly hold a monopoly, I am actually encouraged by google's fight. No company is perfect, obviously, but relatively speaking, considering the notion of a business world, google seems to be the good guy here. Those are my 2 cents, anyways. ~moo

Well, if you explain it as "Drag is nature's "assurance" that we can't reach high speeds" it's not quite .. scientific? Besides, drag is an effect, and we discovered it after gravity, speed and acceleration (if i am not mistaken). It's not like we said "There must be an effect because Nature wouldn't "allow" something". I guess my problem is setting a standard on Nature to "solve" our own paradoxes. A paradox may just be created by our HUMAN limitation, and stating that Nature just may have means to prevent our own imagination-flaws sound a bit unscientific. But again, I may be wrong - and odds are I just simply did not understand correctly what he said. ~moo

Up on those links there's one. And also, google it: http://www.calculus.org/ HW+Solutions: http://math.stanford.edu/~papikian/Teaching/Math52/Math52.html Practice Final Exam+Solution: http://ecademy.agnesscott.edu/~jwiseman/old/math18F01/index.html Math Nerds (help, tutoring, questions): http://www.mathnerds.com/mathnerds/texan/anecdote.asp Good luck, ~moo

I have a related question, though: When you have a connected to a socket, and you hook up something that takes a bunch of "juice", the light dims. I always thought it's because both of these are using the same flow. So of course I know that it's not "split to 2" between them, but I was sure there's still a limit to what a socket can output, and then if you put 2 devices that take a bunch of juice, they get less each, or - if one just hogs on it - the other one (lamp, in this case) gets less. Am I wrong? If this is true, though, then if I have 10 chargers in the same socket and another 2 devices that seriously hog electricity, won't it limit the flow for the chargers? Thanks for the thorough response, Spyman ~moo

Hey guys, Recently I've heard a layman explanation to what Hawking used to "solve" the grandfather-paradox. I am not too versed in this, but the way I understood it, Hawking solves the paradox by saying that nature will "disallow" the travelling to the past in such sense to create the opportunity of the paradox. That got me thinking. Is it valid to say that on Nature? Doesn't that assumption (that nature will "prevent" -- or rather, laws of nature will accumulate to somehow prevent time travel) puts nature with a consciousness? I mean.. if time travel is theoretically valid through relativity (and it is my understanding that if "exotic matter" is used, it theoretically is valid), then saying nature will prevent it still because we - humans - thought of a paradox is.. well, weird in my taste. Nature is not conscious, it's an accumulation of laws. I hope I am not just rambling through this, and that you guys get my point here.. I'm.. again.. not too well versed in this subject. btw, I wasn't sure if this should be here or in pseudoscience and speculations, so apologies if it doesn't belong. ~moo

Well, "why not" is not a good response to ethics, is it? I think that the question needs to be defined better. If animals are not suffering beyond what they should suffer, then the question of ethics as opposed to advancement is valid. For instance, if experimentation on an ape will lead to a cure for AIDS, then the threshhold of ethics is - in my opinion - higher, which means that it's ethical to do the experiments wth the attempt to prevent NEEDLESS suffering. About humans.. well.. even death row prisoners.. there are diseases that are worse than death, and experimentations that are too. Again, look at the time of the Nazis. The little survivors of Doctor Mengale preferred death, and I doubt this can be called ethical by any standard, even if they were, in a sense, "death row" prisoners. After all, he took them from the furnace into experimentation. I think that the question of ethics is extremely important to continue surfacing up. The debate on it - on both animals and humans - makes sure we don't FORGET that we deal with life here. If an experiment is unnecessarily painful for an animal, it should not be done. If it's the only way to achieve a solution to a life threatening disease, it should be done while trying to prevent suffering. By the way, some animals have different senses than humans, obviously, which means that "cruelty" is different scale. Closing a human being in a small cage for his entire life is abuse. Closing a chicken is hardly that... animals and humans are both life forms, but the relation to ethics is different, at least the way i see it. It doesn't mean we should ignore ethics, though. ~moo

Yes, I understand that - Derivative of position is speed, Derivative of Speed is acceleration. Antiderivative of acceleration is speed, and Anti derivative of speed is position. But you do that with the SECOND part of the FTC. Look here, for example: http://archives.math.utk.edu/visual.calculus/4/ftc.9/ What eludes me is not the ultimate goal of the FTC - I get that as I said above - I even understand how it works with net change of "areas".. I can't visualize the change from the f(x) function to the A(x) function (note the "x" is "instead of" the 'b' in the second part. This, btw, is different than what my teacher taugh in the sense that the parts are reversed (pt 1 in the pic is 2 in my book, and vice versa). So in this picture, I just can't figure out how part 1 of the theorem - a function "within a function" operates, and what is it good for. Why is this needed...? What you explained, it seems to me, only has to do with the first part. ~moo

btw, this is what I got with google: http://www.tutor-homework.com/notes_exams_quizzes.html#Math_exams http://www.clcmn.edu/kschulte/mathworksheets.html http://faculty.uml.edu/rbrent/131/exam_information.htm http://courses.ncssm.edu/math/NCSSM%20Student%20Materials/exam%20reviews/index.htm Math 212 (Multivariable Calculus): http://math.rice.edu/~phorn/Sp06/212.html Also, the website http://www.cramster.com also has mock exams, study sheets and step-by-step explanations of questions in math books. If you have a certain book, pick it and see step-by-step solutions. It has a free membership or a full-paid one. the free does the trick, though. Good luck, ~moo

Yep, at my school: http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/math/Courses/SyllabiExamsPage.htm Just pick your level - they have the past finals, most of them have answer sheets. Beware.. some of the exams have minor errors (fixed in the answer sheet). G'luck ~moo

Hey guys, Okay, so I had my summer utterly destroyed by a crashcourse in Calculus II (have to take it now so I can take Calculus III in the fall along with Physics and Engineering 203 which I wouldn't been able to take without it). The course is extremely fast moving, and I'm doing all the work and all that, but my teacher's running through material and I'm having some difficulty understanding a fundamental thing I thought, perhaps, maybe, pretty-please-oh-help-me-im-goin-insane, you bright fellows will help me out. What the heck is it with the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus!? I understand the second part of it (which is funny.. it's supposed to rely on the first part..) where, basically, as far as I got it, the integral of a function is equal to the antiderivative of that function. We first learned that the "point" of integrals is to calculate area (technically), while negative area comes off of the positive one. So it's not precisely an area, but a "net change". Great. I got it. That's part 2 of the Theorem, and I understand that part. I just don't get the first part -- I don't understand the element of replacing the "b" in the series [a,b] of an integral with an X, which is your function, while leaving a.. FUNCTION.. in the integral itself.. it's like a function of a function? wtf..? It may be a silly question, I just have trouble grasping what it's good for, or what it means really, and what practical uses does it have. The book asks for technical "solve this using 1st part of the FTC" and I do it technically, just by memorizing what I need to replace and how, but I hate doing that, and I usually end up forgetting stuff if I don't understand what I'm doing. I really appreciate anything you could help me with to wrap my head around this (without feeling too stupid ) Thanks! ~moo

Hey guys, As I promised, I have another question in the series of "Help me be a good equipment-mastah" topic I have a question that goes as follows: At work, we have about 20 chargers for magnetometers (we have more devices, but they're not all charged at once) and about 30 for motorola 2-way radios. Up until a few days ago, almost all of the chargers were connected to about 2 electricity sockets. I changed that for now to have about a limit of approximately 8 devices per socket (out of - for now - limitations of room, sockets and chargers). How do I figure out how many chargers can "sit" on the same socket without us waiting a few DAYS for the device to be charged? In other words, if I know the maximum time I am willing to give for charging, and I know the electrical charge of the socket (obviously), how can I know how many to hook up to the same socket? We have a problem of laymen at work, too, so whatever changes I make, I'm going to have to make sure it's easy, non hassle, and most importantly - flexible enough to allow for the stupidities of people who take devices before they're fully charged or are just too damn impatient and declare a device malfunctioning when its only flaw is that its batteries are discharged. In short, I'm supposed to make sure everything works in a workplace where people cry that things malfunction but don't give a crap enough to maintain them. Just throwing this to the equasion so the solutions take it into account. If I split chargers into separate sockets, I'm in need to seal SHUT the other sockets so that people won't connect anything to it. Yah. Talking about 'feeding with a spoon'. Oh, another piece of information: during the night, we have about 10 hours that devices can be charged (though, our "smart" masses at work never shut off the radios, so they don't charge, but hey.. who asked for Geek-IQ when they hired, right?), but during the day we are using them almost continuously. We figured we would buy extra batteries, which is doable for the radios, but as for the magnetometers, the batteries are a hassle to change, so we're stuck with trying to figure out how much we can have while charging. We don't have a lot of charge-time during the day, but every night we should have about 10 hours regularly. The manufacturer states that 16 hours of charge gives 40 hours of work. While I doubt we'll get that today, I assume it relates to a situation where the charger gets maximum charge from the socket.. hence my attempt to try and make the best out of the situation. We don't have 16 hours, and we don't have max output, but.. any ideas how I can make it best considering? Anyhoos, thanks in advance ~moo

WOW.. a fifth would mean us replacing it quite often. This will be ideal, but I will have to see. I'm not the one deciding on the budget ... :\ but for now, we decided to buy about 50 AA rechargeable batteries to test out. Also, we've split the electrical sockets to try and put about 8 2-way radios per socket (it used to be about 30 !!! and they were surprised it took forever to charge... ) and about 10 magnetometers per socket (would PREFER a lot less, but for now there's no other option, out of the limitations of the room and the number of sockets). I hope that would at least increase the lifespan of the batteries and it would probably make the batteries operate for longer. Thanks for all your help guys ~moo

Sounds like a plan. Thanks!! Good to BE back! I missed this place! btw.. I was so pwned in a professional E.E forum, geesh.. I asked a similar questions and within less than an hour someone basically told me to go study, if I am not sure which option has more energy. Agh. Professionals can be so condescending! ~moo

Yeah it's a magnetometer, it's using a fair amount of power for creating an electromagnetic field around the coil. Do you have any idea how I can check the output of the charge so I can plan what kind of batteries I need? It seems, so far, that the AAs will be a bit better both powerwise and cost-effective wise.. And yeah.. I know I should avoid these at all costs... Thanks! ~moo

One of the biggest worries I have is the "memory effect" because the people that work with me just hook up the devices to the chargers without checking, and they're in general a bunch of spoon-fed bastards when it comes to equipment. That's why I thought about the AAs, actually, so that maybe i can replace them individually... But... long term operation also is an issue, if we have double (and sometimes triple) shifts. My boss was also thinking about putting chargers at some of the posts, so that changes the picture slightly too. If we charge a lot, maybe it's better 9V, but wherever we don't charge, the AAs are probably better... Let me try another question, maybe that will tip the balance: I am planning a routine weekly maintenance for the magnetometers and batteries in general. I thought about fully charging them at least once a week (I am almost sure they're not fully charged between shifts). If I am going to do that, and perhaps add a few 'routine' maintenance actions to the batteries (open to suggestions..), I assume that we can use AAs and extend their operation time for a few weeks. Sadly, there's the issue of cost-effectiveness. That's why I'm trying to figure it out. We're thnking of buying about 6 9v initially to test them out. AAAAND Another question: I only find 9v batteries with 200mAh. That's tiny. The only 1000mAh 9v I found are sold 2 for $15 which is expensive. Anyone knows of a place to get bulk ones? Thanks!!! ~moo

Oh, sorry, another thing -- if I do end up buying packs of 7 AA batteries (which also cost more.. and apparantly that's an issue ) is there a limit to the amperage? basically as far as I know the circuitboard itself draws energy, so I THINK (not sure?) that the higher the capacity, the longer they take to discharge and therefore give out more output. But.. maybe I'm wrong.. I don't want to fry the circuitboard, or even the cute little fuse on it. (I had to add 'cute' something... girlish touch). thanks in advance, ~moo

Hey guys The people in my workplace use a bunch of electrical utilities that is - currently - equated to a bunch of crap, due to mishandling and bad maintainance. Since I repaired a few malfunctions, my boss has decided to put me in charge on the equipment in general. The problem is that my knowledge is limited So. I must have some help, so expect a few questions from me in the next few weeks, months, years, however long it'll take to fix the pile of rotten metal to make it appear to be a functioning equipment set. First order of business - Batteries. We work with magnetometers and when I opened them I found most of them are using a pack of 7 rechargeable AA batteries (ranging from 600-800mAmp). One of these, though, used a simple 9v rechargeable battery. All of the connections to the circuit board are through a 9v-type connector, so I can basically switch the 7-AA pack to 9volt with no trouble, and vice-versa. Now it's just about choosing the right kind for the job. The batteries are crap. They were mishandled, used only to half capacity and then recharged, and were last replaced when I was a toddler. We are in dire need of replacements. So we are about to buy a whole new batch. Which is better to use in an environment of non-technical people? a 9v battery (that probably lasts for less but is discharged more and therefore lives longer..) or a pack of 7-AAs, lasting longer but will probably need a routine discharge/charge in scheduled amount of time... Thanks for your replies, Good to be back (and hope school will allow me to post here again more regularly!) Oh.. and expect more questions about faulty equipment rigs soon ~moo