lakmilis

complex algebra.. argand diagram...complex trigonometry will cover it pretty much for ya. oh and a^x * a^y = a^(x+y) is just algebra from age 13 or 14 or something. .atheist gave you the best succint steps really. (normal algebraic rules and euler's formula),

well i did comp sci @ warwick in the days. Depends on what your criterias are for your study? (both acadademic, financial, social etc..). Both are good uni's. For comp sci.. I don't know.. maybe would go for imperial? (London is more expensive though.. there are many many criterias so giving advice simply on that little is near to impossible). When it comes just to which uni is better or something, you could prolly get a lot of for and against so rather try and specify more about what is important to you. lak

hmm YT.. I'mnot sure if i follow... let's see. We decide to remove one of the sides (not knowing if its the one which is due toa heavier ball or a lighter one). We take 6 from one side which either were 'lighter'or ' heavier'. IF balanced, we now know we measured the wrong set and have one measurement left to do the other 6.. (so not really good).. it would just be down to luck IF we happened to choose the right 50 50 chance of hitting the assumption of heavy or light. So no.. it is not really valid (although could work if one guessed right in the first place..) but it is not* solving it without chance.

would you mind maybe posting Direction file (maybe even Tile file)? also.. for the hell of it.. could you try adding a default action inside the default constructor (so when you call it, it actually instantiates an 'empty' tile) and see if that helps? Although this might be due to empty constructors inside Direction or even Tile file.

well, let me point out first of all... online tests are bollox. They make them easier and not according to the strict rules of a proper IQ test so that you get a ncie score, bloating your ego if you are stupid enough to fall for it and pay perhaps for some 'analysis'.. Online I get anything from 137-152 (and I am soo not that ) which eevr it is (bar the MENSA ones). But if you do a proper one, (on paper observed), you are not allowed to use the pencil even to sketch, neither do you have limitless time etc etc. then i guess id be hitting more the 105 mark or so. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged lol.. had to laugh on the 'oh dear'part Yes.. just yesterday when I was talking with my friend, I just couldn't think of the colour cyan for the LOVE OF GOD... AND right after.. just couldn't remember the BLOODY name of our most famous writer DOH (boring as he is). lol, the 72.. was that an online or a real test?

What mokele is saying is accurate. And yes, sounds as you have sectoral heterochromia in your (right ? ) eye. Oddly enough, some of the current exhange students I met not long ago (spanish, portuguese and italian mostly) , one of the more popular ones has sectoral heterochromia.. 35 % brown , 65% blue, other eye blue and it's the first time I see it! .. i normally don't get so into blondes and blue eyed but cos of that little speck there, we ended up making out a lil lol :/ (then again, that wasnt her only favourable attributes).. anyway. Yes.. the colour changes are mainly lighting plus some chemical interaction within the body. The inner 50% circular area of my irises are yellow and the outer blue, but due to lighting and (other things) , they can be green sometimes, sometimes blue, but mainly *seemingly* green due to the mix of the two colours. As with many , looking close up , there are also some red specks due to the protein layout. Although if I go through my pictures, there are also cases with special light settings I seem to have crystal blue eyes, even if this almost never would be the case in daylight. And as someone pointed out... we wish for what we don't have ME LOVES BROWN EYES :P:P: I wish I had eyes like mickey rourke, johnny depp or keanu reeves ;p And IM a total sucker for brown eyed girls.. (and ok, if a beautiful lass has light brown eyes AND blonde hair.. I admit then I can like the blondehair.. eg. Holly Valance ;x) Sorry about the 80% none scientific post but eyes are indeed the best part about a person's looks.

ok sayonara.. but then another poster is right aboutmentioning the dangers of sending a highly pregnant woman into space with g forces and all.. but ok.. if we pretend she can get up into space in a nice way from soem celestial object.. and just to carry out the birth.. I guess the dangers would like far more for the woman giving birth than the child. (weightlessness, the strains on the body due to pressure differences in the cardiac system etc etc.). not to mention as someoen pointed out the free flowing goo

Well then, you know more than anyone else on this planet , young sir. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedmax.. No.. I do not see why thermodynamics would be affected by the speed of the traveller? If in my rocket I have an oscillating atom radially to the travelling direction (and let's say it is 'fuelled' by temperature, or rather is a function of temperature), then why as the speed would increase, would the system lose thermodynamic energy?

Yes but AG (artificial gravity) isn't as easy as one thinks. First of all rotation creates a moment on your balancing organ when you turn to a side in such a concept and several factors impact on what is known as a ocmfort zone (4 parameters mainly I believe). But anyway.. going back to the birth if in zero g env... disastrous!!!!! as people say.. bone and vascular system detrimental effects!! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I am not sure I would agree on this one. 'instinct' is a very vague concept. A baby born in such an environment quickly adapts.. the so calld instincts of fear at first.. is the sudden breathing, the no longer nourishment through the umbellical? chord.. etc. however.. balance organ deprivation in such an environment could make the baby cry far more.. but not due to an instinctive fear really.

well, all I can say , is that im doing your test.. AND OMG... ok I know it sounds vain but could you not have found ONE.. just ONE nice looking gal???? LOL.. bloody brits (even if that is one of my 4 nationalities). Anyway.. the site keeps reloading and not loading properly and i am over and over again rating these doooh pictures. you want a beautiful face? (Nicole Scherzinger tjihi).. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Not sure if that spot is in the brain ;p Ok, anyway.. about attractiveness.. looking at various 'sub-groups' in our species (asian, caucasian, bla bla), think when they overlapped the faces, they could find many similar traits. Symmetry is of course important.. but beauty is certainly got a huge share in an 'objective' world and attractiveness more linked to our memories/experiences as someone pointed out and latent prevalence to these. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOh and snail... I think that must be a very outdated view... familiarity? Gosh... that doesn't hold for a second. You could perhaps go as far as to say , that due to cultural norms more people stick to familiarity than not.. but this would be influenced by the consensus in a society.. imagine for example, religions and cultures NOT going mental of cross cultural partnerships.. and imagine in our countries, we didn't have the issues between 'traditional native'and newer 'inhabitants'... if these social constraints were lifted... boy oh boy do I dare you familiarity would probably lose out to diversity EDIT: btw.. we do tend to react (let's say) if we see a couple 'obviously' differing in beauty (please take this loosely.. im just not bothered writing it more accurately but hope the drift is taken).. We do often say.. ye they mix well or suit each other.. be it both two minging two lovely or two average bla bla couples... so in this sense familiarity or rather a coefficient of beauty is often seeked (as in symmetry) but thats about it. I have seen though in many cross cultural couplings, that due to cultural ideas and preconeptions , you can get quite a big divergence there in a couple. (whereas if one has a multiethnical cross couple but with similar mindset or culture.. than one sees again that harmony of level of beauty).

Frak me.. someone deleted my deus ex machina entry about BSG on wiki grrr. jees .. the ending .. so cut short... ah well...

evidence so far shows very little cross over breeding between the two and as such , one for now says they were not our ancestors. (but who knows.. maybe some local pocket somewhere , interbreeding happened a lot.. it's after all... erm evidence in this area depends on finds not natural laws). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Guess it has a lot to do with the history of the 20th century in particular. And seeing just what terrible actions humanity is capable of , based on theories of race etc. (what we saw in nazi-Germany at the time just went beyond anything I guess, we thought we could be able to do in a somewhat 'developed'society). Ironically, one of the major groups which suffered, are now practicing similar atrocities towards the people displaced due to the land they got after the 2nd world war (i.e. Israel/Palestina).

hehe ye... god fits the bill too i guess... but i like it have forgotten most of me other riddles I think... how about : you are standing on one side of a river with no bridge... one can not cross the rivr as the ice on the river would break and one would drown in the cold as it's winter. On the other side however, there is an apple tree... how does one get the apples?

No YT.. we are wrong on that initial assumption.. (how would you know if one side is lighter due to a lighter odd ball, or the other side hevier due to the odd ball being heavier? ) It took me the time it took to type my proposal to figure it out... as i finished I realized OOOPS.. that doesn't work

arrrg.. ye am trying to solve that #4 pffff annoyed ^^

ok my favourite one but pretty simple: The beginning of eternity, the end of time and space. The start of every end, and the end of every place.' What am I?

Ok i just saw this but I would do it differently : Weigh 6 balls on each side (you will know get a side which is heavier or lighter.. lets just assume one ball is HEAVIER. discard lighter side, weigh 3 balls on each side , again discard lighter side. weigh two balls of the 3.. if balanced.. last ball in hand is the heavier one else the heavier of the two on the beam is the heavier one. Alright.. hehe.. couldnt solve it in 1 minute after all... (of course , one can't figure out if the ball is heavier or lighter from this blah)

Hehe.. the postds above weren't showing when I replied.. but still .. don't I just hover now anyway they are in the quote cameron: Using Laplace Transform to Solve ODE's with Discontinuous Inputs oops wrong copy paste here is the link for latex : http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4236

Yes .. congratualtions ennui.. I just wanted to point out a thing which helps a lot. You say you were 'paranoid' about this or that and so you applied for a broader spectrum, making you feel you didn't seem focused enough to do something? In interviews, I have come to learn (in fact I am like this as a person), to nto be afraid to state exactly that... if you feel this is a case, just say it.. I chose various fields in fear of not being accepted or so. Everyone who interviews you has been there so they do know how it is.

Well cheers Martin.. Yes I think I was in that site ages ago.. but I tend to not like 'calculators' etc but stick to the theory itself rather.. (so thanks for the input earlier, the link to calcs.. I am interested in knowing how we do it.. not actually calculating it without knowing ). (truth is I have been 'away'from cosmology and even just physics for ages.. forgot more than I remember xx) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWell cheers Martin.. Yes I think I was in that site ages ago.. but I tend to not like 'calculators' etc but stick to the theory itself rather.. (so thanks for the input earlier, the link to calcs.. I am interested in knowing how we do it.. not actually calculating it without knowing ). (truth is I have been 'away'from cosmology and even just physics for ages.. forgot more than I remember xx)

Oooh... me likes these ponderings ;p It is interesting as dark matter by the very way we say it must interact (or rather not), is perhaps not linked in the same way indeed. (however, before we can make more observational study on its effects, I'd say we would be well speculating)... could we produce dark matter somehow in the LHC?? (How would be detect it. could we?). Does dark matter follow the E=mc^2 relation? <- (think this one is one of the big questions then according to the idea you flung out there). I like the question posed, but have not at all had any thoughts about it.. maybe when I have time, I will ponder than question when I see more data/hypothesis'on dark matter/energy.

Well it depends a bit on how you construct your instrument which converts it so. (but generally speaking , the resultant energy from such a conversion, artificial or natural, is electromagnetic energy). (light, heat, gamma rays, etc etc... but also some other particles)

amazing howa year on something can wake up again.

LOL!!!! No YD you always amaze me with your funny 'answers' NO, you can not JUST take root 9 and adjust decimals (see earlier replies .. sorry didn't read all the way down).

hehe... ocmpleting the square is *not* impossible: completing the square means adding 1/4 to each side. thus [MATH](m+1/2)^2 = 13/4[/MATH] completing the square is a means to make it easier to look at so to speak, thus the numerical solution is not so interesting (apart from if one is solving an actual problem).