DJBruce

I would also recommend series it goes very slow, and is a good introduction. I am not sure if you are into math, but once you learn a little bit you can put your coding skills to the test by working on some of the Project Euler problems. From Capn's second link I would recommend "How to Think Like A Computer Scientist". I found it useful when I first tried teaching myself programing.

For all the hype around anti-incumbency feelings it seems like it is not causing an significant results. So far 215 out of the 217 houses members seeking reelection have been able to win their primaries. This is consistent with recent records. Number of Incumbents to loss in Primaries 2010 2 2008 3 2006 2 2004 2 2002 8 Although this does not mean all the incumbents will win their general elections. It seems at least during primary season the anti-incumbent sentiments is more hype than actual results.

In honor of weed season. Taraxacum officinale also known as the common dandelion is not native to North American and was instead first introduced to the continent in the 1600's by European settlers who brought it for food. Sources: See "Common Dandelion Is An Introduced Weed" Aliens Amoungst Us

If I were you I would apply to colleges undecided, and during your first and possibly even your second year explore classes in the different areas you might be interested. This would give you time to think about it and experience more advanced material in each area. Also if your three main interests are neuroscience, theoretical physics, and cosmology I believe an undergraduate degree in physics would prepare you well for a graduate degree in theoretical physics or cosmology. As for what books you should look at are you looking for textbooks or more fun pop-sci books? By the way what does "on level" mean?

Apparently a majority of the precincts uses voting machines, which have a long history of malfunctions and errors. These machines, the ES&S iVotronic, have been banned by multiple states for being easy to tamper with. So it seems possible that someone might have been able to successfully hack the final vote totals. So the question becomes: -Is Alvin Greene a brilliant computer programmer who secretly hacked an entire election? -Or is DeMint stupid enough to hire someone to hack the primary for him?

The democrats screaming that this candidate was a republican plant have no ground to stand on. South Carolina uses an open primary so even if the republicans backed this guys campaign it would be perfectly legal, although it would be unsavory. Jon Stewart did a piece on this last night.

More math related than science: - I wish I was your second derivative so I could explore your concavities. - I wish I was your derivative so I would lie tangent to your curves.

I might be mistaken but I think you made a mistake when you define a line parallel to one of the asymptotes as: [math] l: y=\frac{b}{a}+c[/math] this would simply be a horizontal line. I believe you are wanting [math] l: y=\frac{b}{a}x+c[/math] which would mean that your substitution would then be incorrect.

So the decade of the 2000's is almost over, and as it seems the popular thing to do I though it would be interesting for SFN to make a list of what members thought were the greatest or most important trends, advancements, and developments in technology, science, and life in general. Some of the things which jump into my mind are: - The emergence of social networks like Facebook and Myspace. - The use of the Internet for delivering news around the globe. - CERN finally firing up the LHC. So what do you guys and gals think the most important trends, advancements, and developments in technology, science, and life in general.

I am really thinking this is all a fraud. His website looks like a complete joke making claims of free energy and anti-gravity, both of which are against the laws of physics. In the description of his machine he says things like, "It changes rotational inertia into linear inertia very similar to the way UFO's achieve their anti-gravity lift from a rotational field." I really feel like this is complete pseudoscience. From how old the video looks if the device designed actually did what it claims to have done I would suspect that the mainstream would have accepted the device, and their would be more credible information on it. Like always the law of conservation of energy means you cannot create energy from nothing, and anti-gravity machines have yet to be proved to exist.

You are correct Cap'n there are different methods algorithms that hide the identity of anyone passing through the body scanners. Here is a paper write by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario detailing the methods of such processes. In her conclusion Dr. Ann Cavoukian PhD. stated: Here's another complaint coming from some people against the use of the full body scanners.

How can the body scanners be considered an more intrusive than the scanners which look at look inside of my personal luggage? If the ACLU is calling the body scanners a virtual strip search would the luggage scans not be virtual unwarranted searches. Flying is not a requirement, and if someone wishes to not have to enter one of these scanners all they have to do is make the decision not to fly. In my opinion having to go through one of these scanners is basically the same as having to give the state my birthday, social security number, height, weight, eye color, signature, home address, and color picture before being able to drive. The thought that these pictures could be used for anything more than immediate threat identification is ridiculous. When you pass through the security check point you are not required to give any identification, so there is no way the government could correlate these pictures with your super secret CIA file the government keeps on everyone of its citizens.

You are right that you are varying the temperature of gas, however, do not forget Gay-Lussac's Law. According to it [math]T \propto P[/math]. So by varying the temperature of the gas you will actually cause a change in pressure. This can be explained according to the kinetic-molecular theory of gases, but I will leave it up to you to figure that out. When you cool the balloon you see that the balloon shrinks, it decreases in volume. This decrease in volume is caused by a reduction in pressure inside the balloon meaning the pressure outside the balloon is greater than it is inside. If you wish to use a different demonstration to show Boyle's Law you could simply place a barometer and a balloon inside a vacuum chamber. As the vacuum evacuate the chamber the barometer will show a drop in pressure. As the pressure drops the balloon will begin to expand according to Boyle's Law. A vacuum chamber is a fairly standard piece of lab equipment, and your school more than likely has one.

It appears as if some Republican congress-persons are calling for Secretary Napolitano's head. Although I feel that the incident points to major flaws in our airport security to rush into firing anyone yet alone a cabinet member is highly impudent. A complete investigation should be conducted and then those at fault should be disciplined as necessary. Turning this into a partisan bicker will accomplish nothing, and that is the only reason Republicans are attacking Secretary Napolitano.

Since this is homework I first have to ask you; what is the combined gas law? What does each relationship mean? What might happen if you place a sealed balloon inside a Dewar of liquid nitrogen? What if you carefully heated the balloon? What causes these changes? If you answer those questions you will probably be able to figure out a fairly easy demonstration. If you want more help post some of your thoughts on the topic, or on my questions, and I'll be more than happy to help. However, it is forum policy not to directly due homework for other members.

You can do the proof by similar triangles. That can be done with just carpenters tools, and basic geometry. That proof will look like: [math]\frac{b}{c} = \frac{AH}{b}[/math] and [math]\frac{a}{c} = \frac{HB}{a}[/math] [math]b^{2}=(AH)©[/math] and [math]a^{2}=(HB)©[/math] [math]a^{2}+b^{2}=©(AH + HB)=c^{2}[/math] However, being a carpenter that knows my trigonometry I know I can use the pythagorean identity to prove the pythagorean theorem. Given: [math] sin^{2}+cos^{2}=1[/math] [math]\frac{opposite^{2}+ adjacent^{2}}{hypotenuse^{2}}=1[/math] [math]opposite^{2}+ adjacent^{2}= hypotenuse^{2}[/math] [math]a^{2}+b^{2}=c^{2}[/math]

Steorn has made claims of perpetual motion before, and they have all virtually been refuted by the scientific community. This topic has been discussed here a few times. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40133&highlight=Steorn http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47146&highlight=Steorn Also an independent jury of scientists stated that ORBO is a fraud. For a little commentary about the company read the Wiki. Thanks to Cap'n Refsmmat and Fuzzwood for pointing this out.

Rowing a boat is all about Newton's Third Law. You apply a force propelling the water backwards, and the water provides and equal and opposite force propelling you forward. As far as I know it has nothing to do with pressure.

Depending on where you go, and that particular institutes regulations and policies you might be able to wear laboratory glasses that have side lenses instead of laboratory goggles. I would wait and see what your particular university or college requires and/or recommends.

That is very very sad. I recently watch a documentary on him, and his abilities are amazing. More importantly than that he was incredibly jovial and sociable.

I know it is possible to synchronize an iPhone with Microsoft Outlook, however, I have never personally done it. A quick search on google however relieves what appears to be the correct protocol for doing so. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1386 http://www.ehow.com/how_2313206_sync-iphone-outlook-calendar-google.html I hope this helps.

The distance would just be the sum of AB, BC, CD, DA. Your second diagram really does not seem to provide any more insight into the difference between distance and displacement. At least not to me.

I, like you, thought that the protests in Iran were virtually down with, but I guess it I was completely wrong. I see no good way forward for the Iranian people. Either they give up their protests, and continue to live in a police theocracy with a crazy dictator at the helm. Or the Iranian people can continue to protest which in my opinion will only continue to increase in their violence. Rebellion from Iran's current government will not come without much bloodshed, and I do not see an major country except possibly Israel willing to step up and help the Iranian people. Israel would probably not even do that as the major interest is simply disarming Iran's possible nuclear capabilities.

Your one article does not prove that a majority, that is more than 50%, of all psychiatric patients are harmed by their treatments. You have even failed to show that a majority of schizophrenia patients are harmed by your treatment, for as your article states, "40% or more of schizophrenia patients would fare better if they were not so medicated." Pointing to one summary on one condition does not make a majority. Yes psychiatrists might not be able to help everyone, but that does not mean they are unable to help anyone. Which is your contention. I does not matter if a test says you are a logical thinker or not. The fact that you have not provided any evidence for your assertions, and the fact that you have continuously used logical fallacy after logical fallacy means you have failed to prove anything.

I have to feel that all of the TSA restrictions are based on some credible data or information. What this information is I have no idea, and have a feeling that the TSA will not release it for doing so would potentially compromise security. Maybe I am just naive, but I like to think that our government has some rationale for their actions, and doesn't just implement security measures willy nilly. That being said I would have to say that I would not so much all the terrorist's plan an epic fail, but instead would call the American security measures an epic fail. The suspected terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, was already on the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, and there for should have been placed on the TSA's No Fly list. The suspects father was the one who called attempted to warn the United States about his son's "radicalization". After being able to obtain a plane ticket he was able to smuggle explosives through security. If it had not been for quick reaction by the passengers and crew, and the ineptitude of designer of the device the outcome of this incident could have been much different. I am not sure what the right methods for airport security are, but we currently do not have them. I am not saying that everyone should be cavity search, but the TSA should definitely rethink its approach to security. BTW: I bet that the no blankets or leaving your seat during the last hour of the flight is probably a hasty response to the fact that this last attempt occurred towards the end of the flight. It seems somewhat ridiculous to attempt to stop a terrorist once they are already aboard, instead of focusing on stopping the before the enter the gate. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/27/investigators-cross-globe-looking-details-plane-bombing-suspect/