dragonstar57

their is no specific problem I need help on but a operation we have used in my class frequently which I don't understand. the elimination method for solving linear systems of equations it has something to do with taking the coefficient of a variable in one equation and making it the opposite of the coefficient of the same variable in the other equation then eliminating (doping I guess) them from the equations. can someone explain how this works and perhaps frame a few examples?

I don't know about that I know plenty of people who are great multitasksers

I would like to add that just because their is a book written by scientifically illiterate (and largely literally illiterate) desert dwelling peasants does not prove god either anymore than the Iliad proves Poseidon. we have to acknowledge a big chunk of why people are religious is because they were told that god exists by their parents and like Santa that was all they needed to disregard logic and believe blindly.

the us doesn't take a more aggressive stance because it is not what the us population wants. no one wants to this war to become an full-scale occupation like you are suggesting. I could imagine someone reading your idea and translating it to "hey guys? Remember Vietnam? LETS DO DAT SHIT AGAIN!!!!! I would Imagine if another country was occupying America many of the us citizens (I assume this applies to any western nation but my knowledge of the rest of the world is limited) would join a resistance or keep quiet about anything they know, perhaps solely for national pride. a population who doesn't trust us and shares many beliefs with the people we are fighting. I am starting think you are looking at it as if al qaeda and the Taliban are the same organization. they are separate organizations with separate goals. :facepalm: and how can we tell who is an enemy and who is not? We are not trying to make "these people" surrender but "the enemy" surrender. The enemy is not "the people" it is Al Qaeda and the Taliban and their state sponsors. You win wars by killing the enemy. Everyone where, Afghanistan, Pakistan? What a horrible genocidal thought if that is what you are suggesting I might be capable of being willing to contemplate - horrible! Everyone in a Taliban base? Sure you can kill everyone there but most people do not live in or work out of a Taliban base. Sure winning is going to happen if we kill the enemy. freaking hydra, cut one head off it grows 2 more no it is true when you kill a terrorist those who cared for him/her will seek revenge. basically their is no fortress in Normandy to storm, it isn't that simple. their are no lines. their are no enemy beach heads. their is no enemy air support. etc. all their is is some guys with store bought chemicals a gun and a cellphone. I see no reason to assume that Pakistan wouldn't defend its own intelligence service. the Taliban are an ousted government trying to re-establish control of Afghanistan they are not international terrorists who fly planes into buildings, they just allowed aforementioned terrorists have bases in their country. (and I would imagine they don't get along to well anymore)

all defenses fail eventually most of the walls failed because they were not attacked from the direction the walls were designed to be effective against ie. the roman walls in England didn't help defend Rome from Germany.

no hogwash is an extreme understatement and if someone actually tried it this argument would get annihilated without distracting the professor enough to forget to give homework

I think a good percentage of Americans want an immediate full withdraw from all conflicts we are currently in. I think building a huge fortress on supply lines would be unpopular both here and in Afghanistan. it would strengthen the claims we are attempting to take control of the area for oil.

now they are

just curious which SFN users tend to prefer.

1. i think your plan would be more effective with snipers 2. I think what you are calling for is Insane 3. you propose we turn supply routes into massive fortress while many people want out? all that would cost SO MUCH MONEY!!! and the people would hate it. (and consequently us) this sounds like a really REALLY bad idea.

that is not something anyone is going to accept anytime soon. no the rest of us are bitching because a small group are benefiting from our system disproportionately to what they are paying in taxes I think taxing a loaf of bread is a lot worse than taxing capital gains IMO the solution to this would to sum peoples income (including capital gains)have that number decide the tax bracket and tax the capital gains 5% less than any wages for that bracket. is it fair for some wealthy investor to pay a lower tax than a middle class worker? and this is why a 401k is not a savings account. they are also what made it possible in the first place. which is why capital gains should also be a progressive tax. (although I doubt many poor people are risking a whole lot on investments) the fact is that it takes money to make money. The poor do not typically invest. (Assumption) you know what limits creativity ?poverty. If you have a hard time paying your rent and feeding yourself, are you going to be playing the real-estate game? Are you going to be buying stocks? yeah they have cars, Cars that break down every two months and cost 4-5k to repair.Yeah they have air conditioners, air conditioners which double their electricity while only cooling one room. The fact is that MANY people go without. Many people go with shitty versions which cost more in the long run and aren’t as good in the short run. I think we can all agree that the current system needs a major overhaul. *filch* the regulations are so restrictive because big business has so much power on the regulators. We need to redo all the regulations to make sure they keep everyone honest while allowing people to be able to start up small businesses. people having a hard time buying groceries aren’t investing. many poor look at a 401k as a joke.hmmm pick between making ends meet a little easier/pay rent/eat or save for when I’m old? 401ks are supposed to be a long term investment and that fee is to discourage people from using it like a normal savings. that and people would empty their 401k’s every time they need some extra cash.I think we haven’t gotten to the real question yet and that would be “is a tax increase necessary” and the answer is yes. I think we need to overhaul our infrastructure and transpiration system. We need to invest in public education. We need to invest in more grants for people wanting further education. We need to invest in the sciences and NASA. We need to redo most of our regulation so it is less restrictive to small business and forces big business to be honest. There is a lot to be done and we will need a large sum to do it. Who will benefit from the newer more efficient roads, the bridges, the tunnels, the bullet trains? Who will benefit from a more educated mobile populace? Doesn’t it seem right that we raise taxes on those who would not be harmed by it? No one is saying “share the wealth” we are saying that the more society has contributed to you the more you should have to contribute back to society especially when it is in such dire need of systemic change.

I think his meaning was that "which god" isn't important as this question is about what you would do with godly powers. I would destroy apple and give all of there patents to Microsoft. then I would make all people instantly forget there and replace it with English (all these languages make everything a little too complicated) then I would remove the barriers (ethnic political religious etc) between nations either by making them get along or by somehow invalidating them. then the nations of earth would get along far better. I would transform a large amount of useless rock into a kind if radioactive element which could produce vast quantities of power without creating a long lasting radioactive waste (pretty sure this breaks some law of physics but I gots da omnipotence so might as well use it then I create a way for cold fusion to be possible. add negative energy and negative mass to the universe if they don't exist already. curse everyone who works at the history channel or for a show on the history channel (H2 as well) so whenever they speak people only hear obnoxious flatulence like noises (in other words it would be about the same.) I would make Pluto become habitable for dogs named Pluto. I would name a planet Micky I would cause an intergalactic war I would force all global warming deniers to live at one of the poles (or Greenland) for 5 years I would write have someone else write dictate to a number of people over 6,000 years a obviously BS book and see how many people are stupid enough to hold that book up and claim it to be truth.

[13:35] <drgaonstar> what does mode/#sfn mean? [13:36] <%Schroedingers_hat> the mode, on channel sfn has been set to +o for ecoli [13:36] <%Schroedingers_hat> meaning he's an operator [13:36] <@ecoli> mode +o [13:36] <@ecoli> bitches [13:39] <@ecoli> tremble before me peons [13:40] <%Schroedingers_hat> idunwanna [13:40] <@ecoli> its also my birthday today [13:40] <%Schroedingers_hat> oh, alright [13:40] <@ecoli> so you must [13:40] <%Schroedingers_hat> for your birthday [13:40] * Schroedingers_hat trembles [13:41] <@ecoli> evidence: http://www.scienceforums.net/ [13:42] <@ecoli> scroll down to the bday section [13:42] <@ecoli> muahhaha [13:48] * drgaonstar can't remember how to tremble [13:52] <@ecoli> ok you're off the hook then [13:53] <drgaonstar> goes to irc quotes

when an atheist can bench 300 I agree with 3 out of 10. the rest I disagree with (especially if the punishment for breaking them involves killing or torture) your morality is just as harmed by this argument as any secular morality would be. if we are defining naturalism as the belief that nature is all their is, than my argument is the definition of nature is pretty much everything there is. what If I had infinite knowledge would that make my opinion better than yours? and if you cannot answer mine than with god no objective moral standard cane exist. people who use something they wrote elsewhere to attempt cite what they are saying here are either dishonest or do not understand what a citation is for.dogs can talk see this website it agrees, never mind that I wrote it. saying something in 2 places doesn't make it true.

Atheism is the non-belief in a deity. You don't have to "believe that there is no god" just not believe that there is. I do not BELIEVE that there is a bear outside eating my garbage. I do not believe that there are no bears outside eating my garbage. I simply lack an opinion strong enough to be described a belief on the issue. wait WHAT! IS SOMEONE STEELING THE HUNDREDS OF FOSSILS OF TRANSITIONAL SPECIES!!!!!!! the fact that you have gotten this of topic is a little telling...Planets forming is well explained in modern science. Dark matter can't be seen because it is dark. (not emitting em). Why can't you find your keys in a dark room? The big bang theory is full of holes partly because it is not a widely understood theory. Many of them would be filled in if it were understood. Again cause and effect does not make sense without the existence of time. then what did god use to make the universe?He made it out of nothing? That makes no more sense (NEITHER DOES A BEING SPEAKING ANYTHING INTO EXISTINCE.) all concepts rooted in time and do not make sense "prior" to the big bang. You can take any question we don't yet know the answer to and say it proves god.Unanswered questions do not indicate god. Prove that your moral standard is correct. Prove that your morals are moral.we have MANY standards ONE OF WHICH IS IN POST #7 THE FIRST VIDEO (I all caps for emphasis, not to denote that I am shouting) have you ever wondered why in the court of law a person is guilty until proven Innocent?It is not because we wanted the process to be biased towards the accused. One cannot prove the validity of a negative statement ie I did not throw an egg at that dragon statue. if there is a cup on a table and I tell you "there is a ball under that cup" you cannot prove that there is not. You can pick up the cup and say "where is the ball". I can respond with "it is invisible (or microscopic etc)" You can feel around the cup to see if you can feel the ball but I can claim that it is incorporeal. No one can prove that a creator does not exist. A positive statement however can be proven true (if the ball had been visible) therefore the burden of proof is placed on the one making the positive affirmation. ie. you have to provide evidence for your gods existence. yes we know that you think so. can you tell us why? especially in light of the first video in post 7? no way you can ignore it now. I used obnoxiously large text. Same question, right back at you. Matthew 7:12 - "So in everything, do unto others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." ps. sorry if their any grammar errors. with a post so big they are hard to spot.

You have been presented with an objective moral standard that does not need god. couldn't this "objective moral standard" come from a different god. perhaps a deistic god? Your god does things which we all can agree are wrong even if that moral consensus is subjective. Why do we need an objective moral standard to judge god (or anything else)with? Why do you insist that all morals come from god?

Are you attempting to claim these things are moral? Would you claim that if a human did these things that they would be objectively immoral? I think that you would. If we use the standard from post 7 than we could show things to be immoral. (like all that stuff post 15 from makes him immoral)

Thus far no evidence has been presented.to validate the statements about DNA information having to coming from a mind. complexity is not proof of design. 1. Something capable of self replication arose through chemical reactions. 2. This "something" was not a perfect replicator of its simple chemicals and changes occurred 3. Complexity arouse through natural selection. ie DNA eventually began to be used and the originally random code which made inefficient proteins eventually became specific codes to make more efficient, complicated proteins. 4.??? 5 profit!!! Then what is gods cause? If god doesn't need a cause why does the universe require one? This is where you pull out the old "begins to exist" "He always existed" You will say. Perhaps the universe always existed as well. Perhaps the "cause" is not a creator but always existed. Your notions of cause are all based on your perceptions of time which is part of the universe. Either time always existed or the concept of cause makes no sense.

so "what if the rules are written in the sky but we can't see them."then they are meaningless and irreverent btw we have a thread for this morality conversation now anyway. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68142-does-morality-depend-on-religionobjective-vs-subjective-morality/page__gopid__695319#entry695319

the supernatural does not exist. do you know how I know? because that is basically what the word supernatural means.... natural:Existing in or caused by nature nature:the universe, with all its phenomena. so the phrase unnatural basically not existing within the universe. lets see what universe means.... universe:the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm. so basically if something exists it it natural and not supernatural. if ghosts were proven to exist they would be considered natural. so we know that life began by natural means because whatever happened (even if it was your god) we would describe it as natural. so why should we pick one natural argument over another: evidence Aabiogenesis has more

he also asks you to kill anyone who works on Sunday

I don't see the point of teaching multiple languages at all. at least not mandatory language. for mathematics I would have them done on computers which would have a program to decide what problems to give the student. it would give perhaps 75% questions which is what is being "currently" learned and the other 25% questions from previously. this way the teacher could get real information about proficiency subject by subject and could change the kind of questions given to a particular student ie. more polynomials than systems etc. (this way the greatest effort can be dedicated to where the student needs it most, while making sure that previous skills do not degrade.) for those of you who do not like tests what would you propose to replace them? homework would be the main factor determining grades (if the old method of grading were retained) and in many cases homework is pointless nonsense to lend legitimacy to the teacher. I disagree while the current method hasn't exactly been working, we do not need another culture of "beat up the nerds/dweebs/dorks".school didn't used to be "rough" it used to be outright hostile and that kind of thing makes school children socially form into packs. do we want our students to assemble into packs like wolves where the most malicious and dimwitted are in charge?

I think you are underestimating children. the only way to teach the higher level thought patterns is to teach higher level maths. are you really any better at logical thinking at 9 than 14 or at 17 for that mater?

As of now elementary school teaches mainly basic math and reading and that is about it. I would have algebra and biology taught perhaps as early as 3rd grade. algebra 2 and beginning chemistry in 5th grade. geometry and beginning physics in 3rd grade. The higher maths such as trigonometry and calculus would be taught in middle school. I would want to teach to today's graduating standards by the 8th grade.