Rasori

It is theoretically possible to create an element with any number of protons. However, even the top-level elements now (110-118 or so, depending on what table you look at) don't last long enough for us to observe them--we can only observe (I believe) radioactive traces left by them as they collapse.

...The OP was saying that it's /not/ a collision, therefore, no, we have nothing to go over. It's only when someone tries to say that the unordinary collapse order there was controlled that we get a problem.

In other words, if a line drawn passes the "vertical line test," it is a function and therefore an equation can technically be made to represent it? I say technically because such equation may be different for an infinite number of ranges, but it still exists.

Just a suggestion, I think it would be most realistic for these nanobots, as mentioned, to have an external computer controlling their actions. I also find it much more likely that the nanobots would have some sort of weapon, I think a taser was suggested before, which may or may not work, to combat virii and bacteria than to have chemicals to combat them--this would allow for software upgrades of the nanobots rather than hardware upgrades, making these regular "immunizations" simple software upgrades of the computer--new recognition patterns for new diseases. Of course, this allows for all sorts of downfalls with possible misfires or glitchy coding. Mayhaps these characters who have "extraordinary abilities" are really the experimenters of this technology, so the creators have gone a little overboard--beyond what they're really ready to do, or possibly even beyond what's likely possible, thus suggesting there would be mishaps with the "weaponry" or glitchy code, or, even, a rival company or other saboteur putting in glitchy recognition patterns, having the nanobots destroy normally helpful cells.

The matter is the balloon: the pressure difference between the vacuum and the inside of the balloon would not last. The pressures would attempt to equalize, eventually ending in the popping of the balloon.

Yeah, AI never compares to the 1337 players, but n00bs manage to get pwnd by the AI all the time.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to have a helium-filled balloon in a vacuum.

People only gave him what he requested: a beginning book (You'll notice Halliday, Resnick, and Krane had already been suggested) followed by books on the specific fields.

I thought numbness was lack of feeling. The warmth just could be a filler thing. However, if a part is cold to the touch, your brain should default it to a warm feeling. If a part is colder than its surroundings, then energy will move from its surroundings to it, giving a feeling of warmth. When it's hot outside, for example, your body would feel cold to the touch by anything touching it that had been in equilibrium with the air temperature.

My school was the same way. They used firefox. Very easy to enter a manual proxy. See if there's any workaround like that for you.

Only the most intelligent minds can truly teach themselves based on what happens around them. Most people who come off smart can learn quickly what they are taught, but had they never been exposed to any teaching, they may well be ignorant. That's what I'd say anyway.

Since the topic is simply "About taking notes in class," I've got a question. Is there any research suggesting a difference between handwriting and typing notes? I don't much like taking notes, and I would expect that, if it's at all allowed for me to, I will take notes on my notebook (computer) rather than handwriting them since I type faster than I write anyway--is there anything suggesting that this doesn't equate to handwriting notes?

[hide]Pretty sure the mistake (or at least a mistake) here is dividing by (a-b) which we all know, since a=b is the same as dividing by (a-a) or (b-b) which is dividing by 0.[/hide] Also, one possible rationalization for the OP: [math]1+1=2[/math] is equal to 1 more than [math]1^2=1[/math], therefore [math]a+a=a^2+1[/math] therefore [math]2+2=2^2+1=4+1=5[/math]. We all know, of course, that that isn't true, but I felt like pointing it out. I'm tired and bored, so it comes to that.

I_A, I read that whole post. Kudos to you for having the patience to do that much. I'm starting a pool with my buds right now determining whether or not tree99 is going to come back to this thread again, and if he does whether or not he will even acknowledge your post.

On a more classic level, James Bond is skilled at them all, and getting the girl. Someone like that, I guess is what's being looked for. I'ma say Delta Force, but that's mostly because of familiarity. I'd be willing to bet the Israeli equivalent (presuming there was one) would probably be the best in the world. There may well be one, but I don't know for sure.

Sysco, he's not worried about it not working between patients. What he's saying is that, in one patient, the treatment won't kill 100% of the cancer. What remains in that patient will become another cancerous growth. However, the cancer that remained in the patient will be what was resistant to the drug originally, so any cancerous cells that spawn from it will also be resistant to the drug, so upon the return of the cancer, the drug will no longer work. The same will be true in most/all patients. The drug will seem to work on the first attempt, but will likely be useless after.

If I remember my chemistry right, Na is more electronegative than H, it basically swaps out, creating NaO and free H. From what I can tell doing some research on graphite, that fourth electron that you're missing is in a pi bond, connecting the different layers of graphite. I dunno about the free electrons part, but it makes sense that there are some considering graphite is apparently an electrical conductor.

Good point. Thank you, that certainly does clarify it a bit. But, by the same token, I'm still curious on one aspect: A wolf pack will hunt and make just one, maybe two kills, then stop and eat. After eating, though, they don't go directly out to hunt again--afaik, anyway. Why would that be? Is it because, as you said, dogs (and theoretically wolves as well) stop eating after they get a large enough fill, thus they must get a large enough fill from the kills they do make? While this likely isn't true for the omega, I can see it being workable as a single wolf can't take down a deer or similar prey, so if the majority of the pack gets their fill then the others are, excuse the pun, "boned." I guess I probably answered my own question there, but feel free to confirm/correct it.

Of course it isn't. It's all Bush's fault. I'm afraid, however, that Bush is Pangloss's fault. To be somewhat on-topic, I'm pretty sure the Chinese government's just a bit confused, as I can't begin to see how sanctions are an unhelpful complication. They may be unhelpful...I could see that being argued...but complication is tough to support.

Out of curiousity, does anyone know of any tests done to see how dogs decide what, how much, and when to eat? Pretty much everyone who has a dog as a pet will agree that they always try to get food, but it's generally regarded as fair to give a dog one meal a day. This suggests that either we're underfeeding our dogs or that dogs don't have a good judge of how much they need to eat. Somehow I find the latter unlikely, as if they were to keep eating, they'd never have enough food to survive as a species. Is there perhaps a more proper schedule for a dog's eating habits, and have any tests been done to prove any of this? For example, I've heard of tests on humans where they remove all indicators of time, and found humans really live on a 26-hour or so cycle. I would think some similar thing, perhaps making food constantly readily available, would show what a dog's preferred, and natural, eating cycle would be. Just curious, really.

Japan had some help starting off, but the US has not aided Japan in a long time. The Japanese rely on us solely as consumers, which is not nearly the same thing. The US is not nearly omnipotent militarily. If we were, the war in Iraq would have long been over. Similarly, we are not completely in control of the world's influence--if we were, no one would attack us, nor would anyone not aid us in our wars. It's also arguable whether we are the most culturally important nation, as our culture is mostly a hodgepodge of other cultures--we don't really have our own. But, admittedly, that's a hard point for me to argue. Wars create more money than you put in, eh? France and Britain won WWI, but afterwards they were in severely depressed economies. How can that relate? I do agree that morality has very little role in economics. Edited, as I stopped reading at the end of page 1 originally. These are the remaining points that I felt were useful.

And it's a poor model because: Not as stable as other shapes. Bigger target than other shapes. Harder to move hydraulically (stepping) than otherwise (ie treads or wheels or someday maybe hovering). Not a great platform, especially if weapons are only used in the "hands," as the rear is undefended. And so on. I agree, but think it should be clarified.

I can kinda relate. I'm in my last month (ie, nothing important left) of school at my high school. Next year I'll be a senior, but I'm going on a foreign exchange to Germany so it's not the same. At least if everyone there is a jerk, I'll barely understand them, right? By the same token, I hear math and science (the important stuff) are better over there anyway. I've exhausted my possibilities at my school.

Bold added. I think the problem is that it wouldn't. Very very few people pay attention to the candidates. They either vote for who looks the best, or who sounds prettiest, or who their party supports.

Bah, nuclear power solves it all. To put it more realistically, I can see them happening, just not to the same scale. I'm thinking something more "Matrix" APU-style.