Dave

Economic Left/Right: -6.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13

rofl

Quite frankly, that's one of the most homophobic, illogical and quite frankly unethical pieces of writing I've read all year. What on earth inspired you to write that load of inane twaddle is quite beyond my comprehension. That statement just defies belief. I think you need to take a step back from the thread and read just what a contradiction that statement is to the rest of what you have been saying.

You may be familar with a very famous equation, E = hf, where E is the energy of a photon, h is Planck's constant (6.63x10^-34) and f is the frequency of the photon. We also know that c = f*lambda (c = speed of light, lambda = wavelength). So E = h*c/lambda. So for microwaves with a shorter wavelength, the energy they have is going to increase, and for microwaves with a longer wavelength, their energy will decrease. (Please note: I haven't done Physics for about 6 months now, so my definitions and explanations of the equations might not be entirely right )

Easiest way is to read the manufacturer's booklet or sometimes it's on the side of microwave. This method also prevents you having to clean up a rather large mess from exploded/molten marshmellows

A lot of people have died from ultra low frequency research. The Germans used it as a kind of riot control I think.

It almost certainly can't

I think you need to be a little more detailed than this, I don't know what you're trying to ask for.

Agreed, this is one of the best implementations of vB that I've seen in quite some time.

Since you'd be drilling quite far down into the Earth, I daresay that once you got somewhere near the mantle a large amount of lava, given a nice big hole to escape the pressure of the mantle would suddenly decide that it'd be a nice idea to come up through the hole, creating an underwater volcano, and vaporising whoever or whatever was drilling the hole.

Not really I don't think. Voyager's way out beyond Pluto's orbit, I'm not sure if its still operational.

That's just not true. I've got lots of friends (some of whom aren't even taking a degree or not taking a degree in a science subjects) who find calculus very interesting. It all comes down to the way it was taught - I mean, if your teacher did the boring examples all the time, it's gonna look pretty dismal. Luckily I had a teacher who gave us optional fun things like integrating 1/(1+x^4) and showed us quite a lot of very nice examples all related to calculus. You really can't generalize like that, because calculus is a very diverse area of mathematics, and hence it's going to touch a lot of people in a lot of different fields of work.

What exactly were you testing? Er, no, not really. I think you might have meant to say something else there, cos that just don't make sense.

I've read your previous posts. I was curious as to how you simulated dropping ball bearings in 49 buckets. I don't believe you've stated that yet.

That would cause problems

Just this whilst browsing; is this not blatently obvious? A lot of people who are addicted to drugs often perform acts of crime just to get the money to buy them in the first place. It's hardly a surprise that even with stricter sentences/increased chance of getting caught/etc that overall drug use isn't declining. If you're talking about dealers, then it's a bit different. But these people earn a lot of money from selling drugs, and I daresay that is probably what entices them to continue.

Since this was performed on TV, I daresay it wasn't a fair experiment. Also, I'd bet quite a significant amount that the 'experiment' was either (a) rigged or (b) the difference between the number of ball bearings in the buckets was negligable when compared to the overall tests. I don't know how many people have done significane tests in statistics, but I'd bet a fair amount that this was probably insignificant. Not really. The odds on winning the lottery are pretty small. Doesn't mean you can't win it though. Similary with your 5 numbers. How does one go about making computer programs using psychic research, just out of interest?

From the definition of the problem, we have a pair of simultaneous equations: [math]\frac{m+1}{n+1}=\frac{3}{2}[/math] and [math]\frac{m^2-1}{n^2-1}=\frac{21}{8}[/math]. We also have to assume that [math]n\neq-1[/math] otherwise it doesn't work. Now by simply cross multiplying and rearranging the equations generally we get: [math]2m-3n=1[/math] which implies [math]m=\frac{1}{2}(1+3n)[/math] from the first equation and [math]21n^2-8m^2=13[/math] from the second. By substution, therefore, [math]3n^2-12n-15=0[/math]. The solutions for this are n = 5 or n = -1. But we stated in the question that n can't be -1, so disregard this answer. So n=5, which means m = 8.

Was interested in the post (always wanted to build my own model rockets, but didn't know where to start so I haven't), and stumbled across this. Thought you might be interested so decided to post

you're a crazy boy yt

You've actually done most of the work by yourself. The linear independence is the hardest bit really. Basically if a set of vectors span a vector space, this means that if you take any element in the vector space, you can use your set to form that particular element in the vector space. I'll do the standard basis for you (the first one) and leave you to do the other one. Consider the general case, for some element (a,b,c) in R3. If (1,0,0),(0,1,0),(0,0,1) span the vector space, then we have: p(1,0,0) + q(0,1,0) + r(0,0,1) = (a,b,c) We want to show that the constants p, q and r actually exist, otherwise the vectors wouldn't span the space. I think it's pretty obvious that the co-efficients actually exist (p = a, q = b, r = c) so the vectors span R3. The second set of vectors can be proven to span by a similar method. Hope this helps.

I think you mean every pi radians there, not 2pi. Indeed. I suspect that this isn't the most efficient method you can use. I think the correct answer is the one I quoted above, since I've now verified it with matlab and mathematica - both of which are very capable of producing numbers to arbritary precision.

My favourite game ever is Starcraft, by a long way

from matlab: >> format long >> sin(10^40) ans = 0.64678458842683 which isn't what you got. Don't know who's right though

I've been looking at the problem, and I can't really see a solution of the top of my head apart from just plugging it into Matlab/Mathematica. I've got a hunch that you could use the fact that 1/10^40 = 10^(-40) is such a small angle that you can use small angle approximation, but I'm probably totally wrong.