DJBruce

I agree that it this seems like a good move by the Obama Administration. However, some pundits are already mischaracterizing this tour or are using it to stoke the fire. Some have apparently hinted that the State Department is hiding Imam Rauf. Others are suggesting somehow that this tour is a conflict of church and state: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's Goodwill Tour Comes Amid 'Ground Zero Mosque' Furor

If you guys want a hint...

I have to agree with you and say that Imam Rauf seems to be a bridge builder, and it seems that this has been his strategy all along, and is not just a ploy right now. Here is a very nice New York Times article about the life and positions of Imam Rauf:

Yes, there would be conflicts for resources, which would led to some death. However, I would assume that this death would just be par for the course, and would not cause the extinction or near extinction of the human race. Of course this would all change if the conflicts for resources were fought on a international scale. In this case this could result in a world conflict, which would be exceptionally deadly. However, if the conditions were that bad nations would probably attempt to hoard resources even if their was a cull, so I don't think the conflict aspect would matter that much. Don't worry I don't think anyone believed you were condoning this as a practical idea, and agreement with the idea on the hypothetical side is not wrong, but is simply an opinion.

First, I find the idea of releasing a virus to be a very poor one. Once released into an uncontrolled virus their is nothing to stop the virus to mutating into more leathal forms, and once released their would be no way to remove that virus. As for the idea of killing people purposefully. If their was a food shortage as you suggest their would be no need for us to decrease our population. Nature would take care of that for us through famine and malnutrition. Lowering our population until it returned to its carrying capacity.

The doctrine of mutually assured destruction in its original form has been long gone. Regan's strategic defense initiative and the fall of the Soviet Union slept the end of mutually assured destruction. Currently aside from Russia the United States has 32 times as many nuclear warheads as the third country. So the mutual part of that destruction is anything but assured. That being said I would venture to say that no major country will ever launch a nuclear attack on another country. They realize that a nuclear act would provide no benefits, and would cause a massive economic and diplomatic crisis.

Thanks StringJunky. Have a +.

So I am wondering what the optimal temperature range for a laptop is. According to SpeedFan my GPU is 64C and my core is 54C.

You might be able to find some ethyl-rubbing alcohol that is 80%. I know Walgreens cares rubbing alcohol that is 70% ethanol. So you might be able to find 80% somewhere.

I am fairly certain that your numbers are off. The annihilation to .45 kg of antimatter with .45 kg of matter, assuming all mass is converted to energy, which isn't actually true, would release about [math]8.1*10^{16} J[/math], which is about 19 megatons of TNT. Increasing the amount of antimatter and matter to .9 kg results in [math] 1.62*10^{17} J[/math], which is about 39 megatons of TNT. So even 2 pounds of antimatter would produce less energy than the Tsar Bombas.

Do you guys feel that this issue will have any political impact for either the upcoming mid-term elections or the next presidential election? I have a feel like this may slightly benefit the Republicans in the mid-terms, but I doubt that it will play a large role. I see the boost coming from the fact that the Republicans will use it to attack President Obama and by association the Democrats as going against the will of the people, and will in some cases rely on fearmongering to gain a few votes. As for the long term political impact I doubt it will effect President Obama. By the time the election comes around this issue will be long forgotten by most of the American people. However, I think that this issue could prove disastrous for some of the possible Republican nominees. For example, I can not see how Newt Gingrich will explain away the idiotic comments he has made on this issue, and I would be shocked if he even has a chance at the nomination anymore.

In many cases in science the "standard" definition of a word is not precise enough. In science words tend to have very precise and specific meanings. For example, in everyday language acceleration is the speeding up of an object, however, this definition is insufficient for physics so acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity of an object. Science relies on its precision, so definitions are very important.

See posts: 3, 6, 15, 18, 24, 84, 85, 107, 111, 119, 123, 128, 144, 150, and those are only the ones where examples are given or linked to. It excludes the numerous other post where people have tried to explain evolution to you. So there you can't say their wasn't any evidence provided. Now lets see some of your responses: That is just from the first page of this thread, and so it is obvious that either you are not reading what people are linking to, you are not capable of comprehending what people are linking to, or you are simply ignoring the evidence that stares you directly in the face. Whatever the reason support of evolution has been posted NUMEROUS times and you have failed to refute ANY of it. So rignt now you can't say evolution is proven. How about you either: A.) Refute the evidence in front of you. (Note: Saying "Naha" or "I need evidence" is not a valid argument) B.) Admit you are wrong about evolution.

N is currently 31, and has been virtually static for about a week so I think I am going to shut the survey down, and begin going over the results. Hopefully I can begin posting some of the results by this the end of this week.

Yes you could use that method and be gaurenteed to save 1/2, however, there is another method that will gaurentee you to save many more of the men.

Do you perhaps have an English version of the question, or what language is this so we can translate it?

This is a little alteration on the many different versions of the hat puzzles. Ten men have been falsely imprisoned. The ten men are in a room lined up in a straight line so the first man is looking at a wall, the second man is looking at the first man's head, the third man is looking at the second and first mans' heads, and so one. The ten men are told that in one hour the guard will place either a white or a black hat on each of the people's heads. The distribution of the hats is completely random. The guard will then ask each man what color his hat is. If the man answers correctly he will be sent free. If the man answers incorrectly he will be shot on site. The guard will begin by asking the tenth person, the person who is farthest from the wall, which hat he has. Develop a strategy that is guaranteed to save the most number of the innocent men. A few things to keep in mind: - A man cannot see his own hat. He can only see the hats of those in front of him, and in the case of the first man he can only see the wall. - The men can only answer "white" or "black". - The men cannot change the inflection of tone of their answer to convey extra information

For the second since L'Hopital is not an option try rationalizing the nuemerator; like this: [math]\frac{(t+4)^{\frac{1}{2}} -2}{t} = \frac{\left(\sqrt{(t+4)} -2\right)\left(\sqrt{(t+4)} +2\right)}{t\left(\sqrt{(t+4)} +2\right)} [/math] [math]\frac{\left(\sqrt{(t+4)} -2\right)\left(\sqrt{(t+4)} +2\right)}{t\left(\sqrt{(t+4)} +2\right)}=\frac{\left(t+4-4\right)}{t\left(\sqrt{t+4} +2\right)}[/math] [math]\frac{\left(t+4-4\right)}{t\left(\sqrt{t+4} +2\right)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{t+4}+2}[/math] So now we can evaluate the limit and it should be fairly obvious: [math]\lim_{t \to 0} \frac{1}{\sqrt{t+4}+2}=???[/math]

[math]\frac{0}{0}[/math] is an indeterminate form, which allows you to L'Hopital. So I would suggest you try and apply L'Hopital to these.

Opps, sorry about that typo I did indeed mean analog. Yep, nice job NI.

I really never viewed George Bush as a bad as a president, and generally his decisions matched my ideology. On the other hand I don't view President Obama as a bad president, but I do tend to disagree with most of his policy decisions. So do I miss George Bush, no I do not miss him. Would I prefer George Bush over President Obama right now; yes I would. But I think I would prefer most people who's beliefs were more in line with my own. So George Bush really is not that special. As for the topic of George Bush's legacy. I would be willing to bet that as time goes on his image will slowly improve, and he will eventually be remembered as a decent to good president. As they say time heals all wounds, and in people tend to view past more rosey than they did at the time.

The conditions need for A would already be taken into account of for the value of P(A) so once the value is established it will not change unless the conditions itself change. If event A has a probability of occurring of P(A), P(A) will not change regardless of the number of trials (years) occur. The number of times A occurs, the expected value of A E(A), would change with the number of trials. For example imagine that the probablity of getting a heads on a fair coin is P(H)=.5. The expected value of an event is the probability of the event occurring, P(H) in this case, times the number of trials, n. So lets see how the expected value changes as we vary n [math] n=2, \left(.5\right)\left(2\right)=1[/math] [math] n=10, \left(.5\right)\left(10\right)=5[/math] [math] n=1000, \left(.5\right)\left(1000\right)=500[/math] So as the number of trials increases the number of times we expect the event to occur increases. No lets consider something that is very rare like Earth being struck by a comet. I am going to make the probability of Earth being struck by a large comet in a day [math]P\left(C\right)=10^{-11}[/math]. So the probability is very low. However lets see what the expected value of is for large comets striking the Earth. The Earth is [math]4.45*10^{9}[/math] years old, and there are 365.25 days in a year. This means there have been a [math]1.66*10^{12}[/math] days on Earth. So the expected number of large comets to have stricken the Earth is: [math]P\left(C\right)*n=\left(10^{-11}\right)\left(1.66*10^{12}\right)=16.6[/math] So in this situation we expect that the Earth has been hit by about 17 large comets in its life. So even though the probability of the event is small with enough trials the event can occur quite a few times. So no the probability of the event would not change to near 1 or 1. It is just that the number of trials make the event occurring eventually likely. Please Note: The probability of a comet striking Earth is a completely made up number.

As nothing is perfectly rigid, as the ball strikes the wall it will deform. This deformation allows the wall to act through out a distance and thus preform work on the ball.

So again it appears you want examples of specieation. You have been given numerous examples by many different people. So I am not sure why you ignore these examples, or refute them by claiming they are not right when in fact you have no evidence of such. The theory of evolution has been widely test and widely accepted in the scientific community. So if you wish to make the claims that evolution doesn't exist or isn't proven why don't you bring some evidence to support your position, and claiming that it has never been observed is bunk as there are probably over a dozen examples of speication in this thread alone.

This is not accepted by by everyone, and Solomon Feferman a mathematician and philosopher who worked and studied with Godel even rejects this notion. The Nature and Significance of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, 15-16