Cap'n Refsmmat

Do you get an error message, or does nothing happen at all?

There's no selection pressure to eliminate duplicate genes, as far as I know.

I don't see how you can get a radius bigger than your circumference. [math]2\pi r = 25[/math] [math]r = \frac{25}{2 \pi}[/math] which should be less than 25. Try that and see if you get the right answer.

First, ask yourself a few questions: What's your audience? You'll need to scope out the competition to see if you can make a site that offers something better. How big do you want this to be? If it's a small deal, you can find a free forum host and go for it (Google for some). How much are you willing to pay? If you want your own domain, you'll have to spend $10/year for that, plus probably $15 or so per month for a cheap shared hosting plan. What forum software do you want? vBulletin (which SFN uses) costs something like $180 (I haven't checked in a while). phpBB is free and pretty nice. There are loads of other options as well. Are you willing and able to put in a good bit of spare time to running the site? Once you decide what software/hosting option you'd like to go with (free hosting or paid) I can give you some more advice.

It's close enough to criticism for me. Look, can we just stick to answering the question? A simple "yes" or "no, I'm agnostic" would do quite nicely. As soon as you start applying reasons you start insulting people.

If you'd like to look at it from an electromagnetic viewpoint, you'll end up simulating every single electron and proton inside the brain. That is not very easy. Chemical laws are merely uses of electromagnetic laws to explain large-scale interactions, which are more relevant on the scale of something like the brain. So while you could talk about electromagnetism and how that makes atoms bond in the brain, it'd be a lot easier to just talk about chemistry.

If that is causing problems, vB now keeps track of all edits, so I can look back at old versions of posts.

They will say you are being annoying. To reiterate what mooeypoo has stated: The point of rational discussion is to educate those involved and hopefully reach some sort of conclusion. Insulting the others involved does nothing to achieve either and merely serves the purpose of irritating everyone involved. If you would like to discuss this subject with iNow, feel free. If you'd like to continue your current style, well, don't.

[math]\frac{1}{0} \neq \infty[/math]

Only when I'm doing server maintenance.

Now that I think about it, I think the existence of the quote tags in vBulletin has degraded the quality of discussions on SFN. Instead of constructing a well-reasoned response to another user's post, you can merely take it apart sentence by sentence without having to construct a solid cohesive thought of your own. Think about how "proper" debates -- the ones you'd have in a debate competition -- work. Instead of stopping your opponent every three sentences to correct him, you think about his statements for a while, determine the best response, and deliver one well-reasoned speech that refutes it. (Ideally.) But the quote tags make it easy to just say "no, you're wrong" for every single little niggling detail. And I have a feeling that it feels less confrontational when you don't pull apart a post piece by piece. Does anyone agree? I think some of our discussions might be made better if we all make less liberal use of the quote tags. (Note: Quoting individual sentences of this post to respond to is totally not creative.)

In other words, all you'd be doing is using your engine to run the generator, rather than using it to drive the car. That doesn't give you any extra energy.

To make that clearer: I'm sure you'll agree that atoms usually have the same number of protons as electrons, and the number of protons is given as the atomic number. So we can look at an element and see how many electrons it has fairly easily. As an element gets more electrons, they come in "shells" -- first a layer of two, then successive layers of eight. The element would like to have its outermost shell entirely full. So look at fluorine, for example. It has two electrons in its inner shell and seven in the outer shell. It'd like to gain one electron to have eight. Then look at magnesium. It has two, eight, and then two more in the outer shell. It could try to gain six, but it's easier for it to just lose the two in its outer shell, thus "exposing" the next (full) shell down. If magnesium and fluorine were to bond, there's a problem: magnesium would like to give away two electrons, and fluorine would only like to gain one. So magnesium goes and finds two fluorine atoms and bonds with them. Hence [ce]MgF2[/ce]. This method will work for any compound where one atom wants to gain and the other wants to lose (and they have a certain difference in their electronegativity, but you'll learn about that later). CO3 is what's called a "polyatomic ion" and is merely a "gang" of atoms that would collectively like to gain two electrons.

Incapable of harming a cardboard box? I've seen drain cleaner eat holes through the bottom of cardboard boxes. That stuff is stronger than you think.

By not understanding anything, do you mean you don't understand what it wants you to do (like what a Hamming window is) or you don't understand how to do it in Matlab?

31. I'm not too surprised, and I may have biased the test by not wanting to answer "Strongly Disagree" any. edit: retook it, saying "strongly" more (when I meant it), and got a 28. I'd call it within a decent margin of error.

[math]5500 = 25500 \cdot 0.85^x[/math] [math]0.21 = 0.85^x[/math] [math]\log_{0.85} 0.21 = x[/math] [math]\frac{\log 0.21}{\log 0.85} = x[/math] Looks like CrazCo already got that bit. Doesn't matter what the bases are, it's still the right answer...

My first thought was "pumpkin," but then again, my immediate instinct is to pick something weird. As an amateur card magician, I can tell you that it is very easy to make people believe you are doing one thing when you aren't. They'll even assume you're doing some fancy trick with cards up your sleeves because they can't believe it's actually far simpler and I was lying to them all along. For example, I have a trick where I hold three cards -- a joker, another joker, and the queen of hearts. The audience is supposed to find the queen of hearts. The deck then becomes three jokers, then three queens, then a joker, a queen, and a random other card. Of course, I had those three there all along, but the audience refuses to believe that I had anything other than two jokers and a queen at the beginning. Even though that was an illusion, they accept it and try to work around it, assuming I had something up my sleeves.

For every year registered, you get an extra point. For every 750 posts, you get an extra point. For every 100 points of reputation, you get an extra point. That's all there is. We deliberately made the gains in rep power small so there wouldn't be users who overpower everyone else.

hermanntrude has it right. It's based on postcount, how many reputation points you have, and how long you have been a member. We tried to tone down the system so that you can't get too much rep power, since otherwise people would start being able to give 40 or 50 points at a time.

Please don't bite the newbies.

First off, I'd be extremely paranoid connecting to the Internet over an open wireless connection. There has already been a recorded case of someone intercepting secure traffic on wireless and trying to catch secure information via presenting fake certificates (which Firefox catches, but users just click past the warning). But if you want to go ahead with it, you can buy an external antenna for your wireless card (if it's a desktop with a wireless antenna on the back that you can take off), get or make a Cantenna, or make some sort of aluminum-foil based reflector thing.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=18&a=14 And take a look at the logo in the upper left of each page...

That seems counterintuitive. I thought the zombies wanted to eat the people with "braaaaiaaiiiiinnss" first. ...sorry.

Lesson 7: Derivatives of Trigonometric Functions Often times you'll see something like this: [math]f(x) = \sin(4x^2)[/math] and be asked to find the derivative. This leads to the obvious question: what's the derivative of a trig function? How do you derive sin? There's no easy method to do so (save a lot of math you haven't learned yet), but it is easy to memorize: [math]\frac{d}{dx} \sin x = \cos x[/math] [math]\frac{d}{dx} \cos x = -\sin x[/math] [math]\frac{d}{dx} \tan x = \sec^2 x[/math] [math]\frac{d}{dx} \sec x = \sec x \tan x[/math] [math]\frac{d}{dx} \csc x = - \csc x \cot x[/math] [math]\frac{d}{dx} \cot x = -\csc^2 x[/math] (Helpful memorization hint: The derivative of any trig function starting with a "c" is negative. The rest are positive.) You'll have to memorize that and practice a bit to make sure you know them. Ah, you ask, but what about [imath]f(x) = \sin(4x^2)[/imath]? Is the derivative just [imath]\cos(4x^2)[/imath]? No. It's a chain rule question again. The derivative of [imath]\sin x[/imath] is certainly [imath]\cos x[/imath], but when you put in the [imath]4x^2[/imath] it becomes a chain rule question. Think of it this way: [math]f(x) = 4x^2[/math] [math]\frac{d}{dx} \sin(f(x)) = \cos(f(x)) \cdot f'(x)[/math] That looks a lot like the chain rule stuff from above, right? You split it into two functions, sin and x, and apply the chain rule as I explained in the previous lesson. So the answer would be: [math]\frac{d}{dx} \sin(4x^2) = \cos(4x^2) \cdot 8x[/math] Remember, if you need help understanding any of this, you can just ask in our calculus forum.