hotcommodity

Well if this was a scientific thread, then the above would have been stated in the first post. By your own admission the thread was created out of boredom, and for no other purpose other than entertainment. The thread only serves to degrade anything resembling a conspiracy theory, whether the it contains truth or not. Commonplace mindsets, such as the ones portayed in this thread, only train others to mock ideas that are not readily accepted. Therefore this thread not only lacks a scientific base, but aids in counterproductive thought processes.

Now I think this thread is a conspiracy to bring SFN down to a non-scientific community. There, I participated

Somehow I was given the impression that non-scientific threads such as this weren't allowed to snowball on these forums.

I'm just a bit curious why you think this is wacky. If you can show me why, you have my attention.

While coming up with, and repeating unsubstantiated conspiracies can be quite entertaining in the world of politics, it's also disruptive to any truth or logical analysis that tends to reflect a conspiracy. Obviously the majority of conspiracies are laughable and downright stupid. But one must look at the world in the big picture, and relate it to what we've learned from humanities mistakes. When we look at the history of older nations, such as the Roman Empire, we realize how corrupt militaries and emperors were. But people at the time were content with their surroundings, and their leaders, and the ones who rebeled against the empire were mocked and murdered. Look at the masses today. Most people get up Monday through Friday, go to work, come home, deal with their family, bills, and other distractions, and look forward to the weekend when they can piss away their time infront of the television. Sometimes they're even able to catch the nightly news. Does this truly constitute a well-informed American? I think not. Additionally, they'll be the first to tell you what a great American they are, as they loyally watch Brian Williams every night, or they're able to catch Sean Hanity on the way home from work. They can tell you all the latest sports scores and highlights. But ask any one of these people what their 3rd amendment is and they wont have a clue. Does this type of person really have the authority to claim what's really going on in the world of politics?...What about the person who actually takes time to do their homework, and sort the logical from the illogical without bias? Who makes it his duty to pour through documents and newspapers, interviews and video clips? And who comes to the conclusion that there is something seriously wrong with where politicians have led their people? Who is more qualified to assess the state of the nation? Yet who is more readily mocked? It's easy to tell someone they're a conspiracy nut, and never take the time to look into what they're actually trying to point out to you. It's easy to avoid the task of going out and doing your own research and simply take the word of your nightly news anchor, your talk show radio host, or your college professor. When has truth ever been easy to conquer?

People here only know about it to the degree it's discussed in the mainstream news. Average that with claims by the underground media and you probably have a pretty good picture about what actually goes on there. Either way it's not pretty, but possibily necessary. Keep in mind you're asking your question on a forum of semi to well-informed people, which doesn't describe the average American. Ask someone on the street what Guantanamo is and chances are they will have no idea what you're talking about.

Should be [sqrt(3)/4]*s^2. http://www.mathwords.com/a/area_equilateral_triangle.htm

Try not to make two threads concerning the same issue. If no one answers your questions, chances are you're better off asking on another forum. A topic such as this is better suited for theologyforums.net. And that sentence in Ezekiel could mean a number of things. Who knows, it could be a description of an unidentified flying object, and an encounter with a different species.

Ok, I think I understand now. You're saying if it's a strong acid, or a stong base, then it should be broken up into ions with respect to total ionic equations. And if the acid or base is weak, then it shouldn't be written as separate ions. I also understand why the H2CO3 wasn't broken up. I should have been looking at my solubility chart, and I would have seen that carbonates are generally insoluble. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks for the replies.

Alright, I found a few examples where an aqueous reactant and an aqueous product are not written in ionic form in a total ionic equation, which is what's confusing me. example 1 (total ionic eq.): H3PO4(aq) + 3[K^{+}(aq)+OH^{-}(aq)] -----> [3K^{+}(aq)+PO4^{3-}(aq)]+3H2O(l) This is an example in my book, but I don't understand why H3PO4(aq) is not broken up into ions. example 2(total ionic eq.): 2[H^{+}(aq)+Cl^{-}(aq)]+ CaCO3(s) ----> H2CO3(aq)+ [Ca^{2+}(aq)+2Cl^{-}(aq)] Here I don't understand why the H2CO3(aq) is not broken up into ions.

Somewhat, I get what you're saying. I'll be right back, I'll find an example of one of the total ionic equations thats confusing me and edit this post...

I get the idea of spectator ions, which do not appear in the net ionic equation. But I'm having trouble in trying to determine which aqueous solutions are written and examined in ionic form with respect to total ionic equations. I mean, does it have to be a strong acid or base to be written in ionic form? I just don't know what the guidelines are.

Hello, I'm having trouble writing out total ionic equations. In a total ionic equation, I know to write the ions separately as they exist in aqueous solution, and to leave solids as they are. But sometimes I come across examples where, even tho' one of the reactants or products is aqueous, it isn't broken up in ionic form. This is also giving me trouble writing net ionic equations, as I don't know what the spectator ions are. So my question is, what are the guidelines in writing total ionic equations? Any help would be appreciated, thanks...

I second the recomendation on the TI-89. Just be sure you can use it in the classes in which you would need a graphing calculator, as some professors do not allow it. Plus it's only about 15 or 20 dollars more than the TI-83, well worth the extra cash.

It's a shame to see a grown man act out in that manner. The racial slurs were stupid to begin with, but using "motherf**ker" for every other word proved his intelligence level.

So I thought I had a good grasp on rotating functions and evaluating volumes, but apparently not. I'm having trouble picturing the cross sectional area of a 2-d graph. I get that when you have a volume (3-d) of say, a sphere, the cross sectional area is simply a circle, or when you have a cube, the cross sectional area is simply a square. But the 2-d graphs confuse me. Like the bottom two graphs on this page: http://www.pinkmonkey.com/studyguides/subjects/calc/chap8/c0808301.asp Could anyone help me picture why the one graph has a cross sectional area of a circle and why the other has a cross sectional area of an equilateral triangle, thanks...

We had a snow day here in Texas of all places. It snowed about an inch, maybe 2 inches and they canceled classes for the entire day and night. The streets were pretty slick so I suppose it was with good reason.

Don't you have a text to help you? I believe you plot a function as such: -define the function, say 2x squared-> f:=x->2*x^2; -plot it on an interval-> plot(f(x),x=-10..10,y=-10..10); That's the basic way to plot.

Fair enough, I fixed it. First, you're not really in any position to speak about how Americas culture has been effected, as you reside in the United Kingdom. Secondly, you're assuming that I attribute all of Americas woes to black people, which is ridiculous. I never stated that black people invented baggy pants, that they are the exclusive source of promoting sex and drugs, or that they invented gibberish. Clearly you're missing the concept, which is that their culture, which is one that has made few contributions to society, and one that is primarily materialistic, is having a negative effect upon society as a whole. Additionally, you have no basis to say that my opinion of blacks is "stupid" until you successfully debunk my statements. You can go off on as many tangents as you would like, but I suggest you read my comments very carefully, so as not to put words in my mouth. King:"Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. " I don't believe any black person would regard Lincoln as "a great American" if they had read his congressional quotes stating that he supports the supiority of the white race. King:"When the architects of our great republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed to the inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check that has come back marked "insufficient funds."" Do you really believe that Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the Declaration of Independence, and other founding fathers thought of negros as equal? Of course not, as they were slave holders. This is exactly what I mean when I say that King misrepresents the intentions of our founding fathers. By "equality," our founding fahters meant that they deserved the same rights as British citizens, not that the negro is equal to the Anglo American. King says that "America has defaulted on this promissory note ." The fact is that the founding fathers never promised them anything. Either King was smart, and used these words to manipulate the black masses to a common negro benefit, or he was stupid, and blindly misrepresented the intentions of our founding fathers. I probably shouldn't have called him an idiot, and I confess I was having a bad day the day I said it and that's no excuse. But what I'm stating here are facts, which is what I stick to, popular or not. It's fine to disagree. I don't expect very many people to agree with me or take my side as it isn't a popular one. But i hope you can elaborate on your post. I could very well be wrong about what I say, and I like to think that I can learn from others, including but not limited to the posters here. So if you can sway my opinion by way of fact and logic, so be it. But don't expect me to change my views out of emotion or guilt. I'm not sure what that would accomplish. I think you're getting a bit too emotional over the internet. But again, if you can sway my opinion by way of logic and/or fact, I urge you to do so. And my name is Evan ( I don't work yet, I go to school) and believe it or not it's a pleaure to have meet the rest of you, Zyncod included. This is a simple discussion, no need to get overly contentious.

I agree, and you're making my point for me. This is the negative effect that their culture has on our society. All of the above has been popularized by rappers, sport-players, and the like. And all the kids watching this on television or hearing it on the radio think that it's "cool" to act that way. I don't have any "white guilt," as I never did anything wrong. Therefore it lacks validity. You mean, like, people don't want to take the chance of having their belongings stolen? What bastards! For me to try and make amends would require me to have done something wrong in the first place. What's done is done. I, and other white Americans, don't owe you a thing. Again, no one living today has to retain any guilt for what happened to your ancestors, because we did nothing to them. And yes, I would support the Black Codes today, as it would keep a huge chunk of the population from mooching off of unemployment, and keep firearms out of the hands of "gangsta" types, making our streets safer. Exceptions to the rule would be those who can prove their intelligence via I.Q. testing or something of the sort. We always lose? wtf. I don't pretend I was behind Rose Parks, or Martin Luther King, who was an idiot. People watch his famous speech and accept it as truth while he tries to misrepresent the intentions of our founding fathers and make Lincoln look like an African-American sympathizer. Beyond that, your last paragraph was bordering unintelligible. Feel free to elaborate.

Haha, that's awesome. I like that online integrator too. I wouldn't have thought to use [math]cos^22x = \frac{1}{2}(1+cos4x)[/math] .Great work! Ohhh edit: I'm not in high school, I'm in college btw.

It's ok, I really do appreciate the help. I get your example, and u=sin(x) works out great for something like [math] \int cos^3x dx [/math] but when it's [math]\int cos^4x dx[/math] , it's the extra cos(x) that keeps me from letting u=sin(x) because I would have du twice in the problem as du would equal cos(x) and I would have integral (1-sin^2x)cos^2x dx . I wish it was an easy fit like that haha. But I'll see if I can drag the answers out of my professor tomorrow and I'll post them in case anyone is interested. Thanks for everyones posts tho'.

I appreciate the help but I'm a bit lost on what Evo posted. I thought you could only add integrals when something was being added in what was being integrated, rather than multiplied. If you can do it that way I wouldn't be aware of it, I'm only in cal II. Another thing I'm confused on is if you let u=sin(x) then du=cos(x) dx, and there isn't any cos(x) dx to substitute for. Anyway the assignment due tomorrow morning so if anyone wants to work out the problems and test their skills rather than doing the work for me, feel free to do so. I doubt my professor will go over it in class and I'm interested in how to work the problems.

Ok, I tried using the identity cos(x) squared is equal to (1/2)*(1+cos(2x)). So then I have one half times the integral of (1+cos(2x))*(cos(x))^2. Then I tried plugging in 1-2(sin(x))^2 for cos(2x), but that brought me back to square one. Then I tried plugging in (cos(x))^2-(sin(x))^2 for cos(2x), but I'm not sure I can do anything with that. Am I headed down the right path?...

So, my math professor assigned homework over the break on material he didn't cover in class and that is not in our text book. Any help would be appreciated... Ok, we're supposed to use basic trig identities to get the integral down to something manageable where we can use u-substitution and/or integration by parts. I've worked out one but I'm having trouble on the other two... 1. the integral of (cos(x))^4 dx. [Hint: also (cos(x)^2)^2] 2. the integral of sec(v) dv. [Hint: multiply sec(v) by (sec(v)+tan(v))/(sec(v)+tan(v)).] Some identities to use: sin(2x)=2sin(x)cos(x) cos(2x)=(cos(x))^2-(sin(x))^2 cos(2x)=2(cos(x))^2-1 cos(2x)=1-2(sin(x))^2 (sin(x))^2=(1/2)[1-COS(2X)] I'm not looking for the answer, just a push in the right direction, thanks. (Sorry about my lack of LaTex skills =/. )