Cap'n Refsmmat

If you need any help past what that provides, ask here and I may be able to provide some support.

Onomatopoetic made-up words work very well, especially when you do what bascule suggests. A simple example would be "splat" -- "sp14t". Mix up capitalization if you'd like.

If you keep up this argument style I'll have to pull out my moderator pistol and threaten both of you. There's no need to get angry, guys.

Red names are for administrators, blue for moderators.

That'd be a bit difficult. Unless there's a plugin avaialable, I'd have to manually tweak the template to select from a list of colors, etc... actually, I might be able to pull it off with a clever JavaScript thingy. If anyone has any other clever ways of making it easily readable -- moving the forum name over, changing its font somehow, etc. -- I'm open to suggestions. I'll try to figure out what I can achieve when I have some time.

This violates the forum rules. Rule #2, to be specific. We're not going to be hosting copies of copyrighted material here.

From what I understand, that's one way to do it. Slam a neutron of sufficient energy into a uranium nucleus and it'll split apart.

http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/02/15/the-laser-elevator/

In a chemistry class last year: Dude behind me: "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics." Me: "The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system." (In exactly that sort of terse wording.) It wouldn't count were it not for the fact that the entire class immediately reacted like I had dished out a very nice insult. I think it was how quickly I said it that did it.

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/66795671.html Not entirely relevant, but it does have some important points.

I always thought it was made of Venezuelan beaver cheese.

Come on, surely this is the obvious answer... You'll just have to wait and see if there's chemistry between you.

Then you also saw: cameron: click on the fancy math to see how we did it. There should also be a link to a tutorial when you do.

Oops. Yes, iNow is right, I meant [math]\sqrt{4} = \pm 2[/math], which is true. Read the Wikipedia page I linked to.

A rough calculation shows that Earth would have to be receding from the Sun at a rate of 33 meters per year to have come from the Sun in the 4.5 billion years it has been around. That's only, oh, five or six orders of magnitude off from the actual number.

I'm guessing it's easy enough to measure. It's just extremely difficult to extrapolate backward over time to see the trend.

It is extremely difficult to answer that question because there are so many other celestial bodies that affect Earth's orbit.

Well, there are two options. I could put it back in its own column, which I found visually distracting, or I could make it easier to read where it is, perhaps by darkening the text color or making it larger or something. Do you have a preference?

"Washer" or "shell" isn't the shape of the volume; it's the name of the method you can use to find the volume. With the washer method it's easy to find the volume of something rotated around the x axis, assuming it's defined in terms of x. If you have a function f(x), its area is: [math]\mbox{Area} = \pi \int_a^b (f(x))^2 dx[/math] What you're doing is moving from left to right (a to b) and finding the area of an infinitely thin circle at each location. The radius of that circle is f(x), since that's how far the line is from the graph, so you'll see the integral is basically of [math]\pi r^2[/math]. Make sense? The shell method can easily find the area of a volume rotated around the y axis when it's in terms of x. That volume can be represented by infinitely thin "shells" going around the y axis (google it and there are some images showing this). I'm not as familiar with the shell method, so I won't try to explain too much. Of course, you can use each method to integrate around the other axis if you really want to. It's just a matter of doing some extra algebra. Make sense?

[math]\sqrt{2} = \pm 2[/math] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root

I think the trouble here arises from taking the shortcut. [math](a+b)(a-b) = 0[/math] [math]a+b = 0[/math] or [math]a-b=0[/math] [math]2a = 0[/math] or [math]a - a=0[/math] [math]a = 0[/math] or [math]0 = 0[/math] You never get a chance to show that 1 = -1. You can't jump ahead to the conclusions you made if you don't take the "shortcut" to finding solutions. The shortcut is invalid here.

I seem to have a problem with music. A few months ago I attended a jazz performance at a local restaurant and was attempting to enjoy the music. While listening, I noticed several things: I could only pay attention to one instrument at a time. Listening to the whole band was too difficult. I had no short-term musical memory, so to speak -- by the end of the song I had forgotten the melody. I could, with incredible ease, ignore certain instruments or the music altogether. I'd randomly notice that I hadn't even heard the piano for a minute or two, or just start daydreaming and realize I hadn't heard any music for a minute -- with no conscious effort. My family basically thought I'm nuts for not being able to just enjoy the music, but I started wondering what's going on. Since then, I've noticed that I can easily set an iPod to, say, play everything it has from Gershwin while I complete my homework, and an hour later notice it's done, with no recollection of what occurred in between. It was merely background as I did my work. Actively listening does little better. Is this some sort of musical dysfunction or am I just normal without knowing it?

I have to admit, legalese would be a whole lot more fun if it were all written like that. You need to start a trend.

What permission error do you get?

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6 Especially this link.