mooeypoo

If you want to make the case that homosexuality has health issues, I suggest you find a source that is peer reviewed and not the mythical creation of a deluded web author. If you had read this - and other - threads before hurrying to respond with such an assault on reason, you would see that the peer reviewed sources, the ones that actually go by scientific evidence and empirical tests, have shown this statement to be blatantly wrong. This debate was relatively civil and involved intelligent claims, and avoided personal attacks, bigotry and unsupported logical fallacies. Let's keep it this way. ~moo ~moo

They seem to claim that they'll only be giving free stuff for the first wave of registered users, to encourage people to participate and join and spread the word.. might be a good reason, and then they'll change strategies.

Okay, triclino, first off, drop the attitude. People have been participating in this thread trying to help you make sense of it. No one owes you anything, people are here because they attempt to help, and the conversation seem to resort to frustration on both sides. Derailing it further will not help, and it will definitely will not encourage others to help you. Your question was answered in the second post. Since it wasn't clear (admittedly, to me as well), it was answered further in the rest of the thread. Over and over again. You were given a mathematically sufficient proof. You were explained how this proof is sufficient in basic terms. You were given ample examples and math experts explained why the proof by negation is a mathematically accepted proof. If something is still not clear, or, alternatively, if you want to get into detail, I suggest you ask your questions more clearly and with less of an attitude so people can actually help you. Please, people, don't derail this thread into personal frustrations. Keep it civil. ~moo

Dudde, my experience with Dell's support is always outsourced service.. I keep getting routed to India. It's a bit frustrating at times. I assume that you're working here in the USA? They have tech support here?

I never dealt with microsoft support, so I have no idea how they are in comparison, but Dell were relatively helpful. As many other companies, they seem to have trouble with helping someone who actually knows what she's doing, so that sometimes drives me crazy. Dell: "Alright, ma'am, there's a little square red button at the right hand corner of your window, you can click it now and the window will disappear". GAH!

Which is why I am giving you the benefit of the doubt on this. Next time, avoid posting your email on such things.. This forum isn't meant for recruitment, it's meant for debate. I am not sure what this debate is worth but whatever it is, it's worth much less in your email. ~moo

Dell needs to supply a valid serial number.

I am not sure if that was cynical or not, but my experience with Dell was always fairly okay. Besides, while Microsoft will keep on claiming the software is stolen - and you can't really say anything other than "but Dell sold it to me!" - Dell are actually the ones who are *literally* responsible. As far as the client's concerned, Dell are supposed to solve this. You paid for a product, the product is claimed to be stolen, that's the bottom line. Either it's Dell's fault, or you accidentally switched serial numbers with someone else's.

Let me try to help the confusion here (out of my own empathy -- I always found this subject to be confusing and counter intuitive). The question is asking whether or not S_n's divergence to infinity implies that it goes to a limit. "Implies that" means that we are safe to assume that implication. However, you were given examples of where S_n would *not* diverge to a limit - it can either converge or "fluctuate". Both are AGAINST the suggestion that the claim can imply that Sn goes to a limit. Hence, the answer is no, and it's well shown and demonstrated. If your idea is a full blown mathematical proof, I can't help you there, but I do believe proof by contradiction (hence, showing an example directly contradicting the claim) is, indeed, a proof, even in math. ~moo

If you're going to send people to wikipedia instead of answering their question directly (as opposed of, say, answering and using wikipedia as a source), at the very least send them to the *ENGLISH* version of that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum That said, I'm not quite sure I understand how what you're saying here answers the poster's question..?

Actually, I'd be calling Dell. If the computer is from them and now microsoft is claiming the key *they* sold you is stolen, they are the ones that should help you.

Pfft, that's so 90s.

Locally grown biodegradable quantum solar organic femto-crystal dots. BINGO!

Organic solar femto-crystals.

We would much rather have a discussion than to direct our members to an external blog, Rose Zenh. If you really are interested in a conducive discussion about your ideas, please pick one out of the many you seem to offer in your site and we will discuss it. Which one would you choose? Telepathy, which you seem to state exist with absolutely no proof whatsoever (have proof? why not win a million dollars?), or maybe the slight confusion between a spacecraft and a comet? Pick a subject, and we can discuss the applications scientifically. Do take into account, though, that we discuss science here, and we require proof and we follow the scientific method. ~moo

Yep, for good reason, and I agree with Phi on that too. Speculation should be enough. Happy birthday, Cap'n.

I think it's also more about the initial 'assumptions'. If we move a subject to "Pseudoscience", it's already judged. If we move it to Speculations we give it "a chance".. then what? we move it again? It's just an unneeded step. A single forum can handle both. Besides, a pseudoscientific idea can transform into a speculation if the claims are adjusted, and vice versa.. if we split the forums we'll end up yo-yo'ing threads in between? We might aswell leave both concepts linked; we're handling speculations just fine in this forum, minus the people who decide to get all defensive and offended by the idea that what they're presenting is speculative and not mainstream science. those aren't likely to disappear if we split Pseudo and Speculations anyways. But the idea of putting "Speculations" first gives it the emphasis, and since there's not much use on debating pseudoscience but there's a lot of benefit debating speculations, the emphasis should probably be shifted.. not a bad idea. Worth thinking about, anyways.

And most of the time the line between speculation and pseudoscience is too thin to differentiate.

Whoops, You're right, sorry, there should be a minus on top, not a plus. Sorry 'bout that.

Think of it this way: [math]y=cos^2[\frac{v(x)}{u(x)}][/math] Where [math]v(x)=1-\sqrt{x}[/math] [math]u(x)=1+\sqrt{x}[/math] And so, now doing the chain-rule should be easier. Here's the start (continue on your own): [math]\frac{dy}{dx}=-2cos(\frac{v(x)}{u(x)})sin(\frac{v(x)}{u(x)})\big( \frac{\frac{dv}{dx}u(x) + \frac{du}{dx}v(x)}{u(x)^2} \big)[/math] And so now you need to figure out what du/dx and dv/dx are (the derivatives of the parts of the fraction) and fill in the gaps, more or less. Now, I believe I did it right, but it's 1:20am here, so I might've had some mistakes.. make sure you go over everything. The point of my suggestion is more for order's sake -- when you make your exercise organized, it's much easier to solve and much less scary. by the way, you can use "styled" math by using [math]y=[/math] tags.

That's what happens when avenj picks the way our new webchat looks like...

Check out Bell's inequality (link above, and search the net). It showed there's no need for any "hidden variables" for the predictions of Quantum Mechanics, which essentially shows that observation dictates the state of the particle rather than reveals a predefined one.

Theoretically, yes, entanglement seems to ignore distances. I admit I don't know enough about it yet to give you a proper explanation. In any case, despite distance, emotion, belief or thought does *not* affect the particles. That much is quite proven.

I didn't find it at all ridiculing, he was making a valid point, and knowing him, I doubt he meant to ridicule you. The problem is that we're not talking about your mind, we're talking about reality, so there needs to be some connection here to what happens in reality.. hence the points about demonstrating your idea works in reality. If you decide that challenging your idea is ridiculing you, then perhaps you need to reconsider how certain you are about your own theory. I can assure you the outside world "scientific community" will be much less patient. So, you have an idea, now show us it's realistic and valid. Otherwise, don't pretend that we're the one at fault for your theory not being accepted as real. Why, because we ask questions? I didn't see anyone here trying to ridicule you. People ask questions, and they won't stop asking just because you find it annoying. If you can't answer those questions, your theory has no hope of "graduating" to have a place in mainstream science. If you think actual peer-review process will be any nicer, you're wrong. Too bad, too. New ideas are usually great incentive to learning new concepts, whether they're found to be right or wrong.

You're giving up quite quickly.. swansont raised a few very good questions for you to consider. The point of those questions wasn't to ridicule, but to strengthen the theory: if your theory can survive the criticism, it will only be stronger, and if it can't, then you might get an idea of how to change it to make it better fitting to reality. That's quite a lot of help. And by the way, "pseudoscience and speculation" includes SPECULATION in it. I know people tend to read halfway and ignore the 'speculation' bit, but it IS there. Moving your thread to this forum is because it's a speculation and not mainstream science. It has nothing to do with whether or not it can be debated or might eventually "graduate" to a full fledged mainstream scientific theory. It's not there yet, though, and there are problems in your hypothesis you must deal with before this migration to mainstream science can be possible. Hence, this is the logical place. If you think you should just give up because we raise criticism, I recommend you watch out of the outside world, they will likely be a lot less helpful. ~moo