Xittenn

I had a dream once about a ghosthut--it was more so a ghost resort but whatever. It involved a large cliff which the ghosts tried to pry me from as I was climbing down a rickety old iron ladder. It also involved crazy demon sex, which I couldn't really complain about. Maybe the ghosts were trying to kill me so that I would stay with them forever. \o/

Because it omits a step taken when calculating standard probabilities, which is to combine the probabilities stepwise. The final probability is the same in all cases as a combination, or else you have a 1/3 probability the first time, and a 1/2 the second. If lying to yourself makes you feel better, then philosophically speaking, all the power to you! The chances that the pair group probability is, is also another consideration when putting this idea into perspective but also does not help your case any.

I'm curious what are common forms of Autism that actually do show retarded speech but a fairly normal ability to function otherwise. I had thought a relative of mine had Asperger's but speech retardation seems to be contrary to general symptoms. I would really rather not ask her and am just curious if I can narrow it down. There are probably quite a few though right? Are there common ones?

Stale as toast or Gumby, I am so old time crumbles before me . . . .

Thanks for clarifying that for me!

I agree with everything up until your last statement. Although many MTF persons are attracted to women, despite their identity, which is quite non-conforming and quite alright as far as I'm concerned, I myself enjoy the company of men. As it stands I've had a lot of relationships with men but have never been in a meaningful relationship and this has left me feeling very depressed. I think this has a lot to do with how people make their judgements and I fear that this means that I will never find someone to share my life with. This also means in my having made my own personal choices that I may have very well forfeit the deeper meaning that I truly desire. Some might say that I should have married a woman and have lived a normal life, but honestly I would have not been happy in that role and I would have felt--forgive the pun--castrated. Although, my inability to bare children kind of sort of makes me feel the same way anyway. Sometimes--most of the time--I don't even feel human, like there is this boundary that keeps me in a pen separated from the herd. When I was a child I was cast out to the island of me, and as an adult, well I was never really any good at making friends so this is nothing new. The real question is, is it me, is it my status, or is it maybe a combination of both. I'm sure I could be more relatable as a human being and this is not a gender issue, so maybe it is just me and I need to stop placing the blame on my issue . . . I don't know, if my stature wasn't so I might be a little more approachable. People say that I need to relax, but I want to be around people that are excited and open and always doing stuff . . . . which isn't really a gender issue.

calm your britches there young man . . .

I'm saying the popular running theory--AFAIK--is that mitochondria were bacteria and not archaea. You are saying that the engulfed organism was archaean, so I'm asking you why you are making this statement? If I am missing something I can gain some insight into the matter. My intended meaning in my question was, if mitochondria are bacteria, then what organelles were archaean that came before this event? Or are you suggesting that mitochondria are assumed archaean? My notes come from Campbell's biology--sorry for any confusion, I seem to be completely incapable of transmitting a complete thought . . . . . Weird! Very interesting, but very weird. Thanks for pointing that out!

The model would predict the boundary layer to rarefy and condense with oscillating torque and varying wing twist. Adjusting concavity under the wing to minimize boundary layer friction and to maximize lift by allowing the proper up/down flow of current is absolutely essential--as is the case with any model no? I wouldn't really call this 'my model' as it is probably simply a regurgitation. My main focus is to put this into code, although it would be nice to come up with my own sustainable model, I would make myself proud. I really don't feel I'm deviating in some way from modern theoretical models. I don't see what I'm saying that is unusual that one might see my statements as not reflecting current methods. A wing is a lever arm, air is a bunch of particles striking the lever arm and imparting angular momentum, what is so weird about this statement? Planes are designed around the balancing of weight around this pivot. The controls implemented are also pivots in and of themselves. These facts extend to all of the aerodynamic systems that I can think of and if they didn't I'm not sure what I would be looking at.

This was simply one example of many MigL. There are plenty more like the aerodynamic center and the angle of attack and so forth. I guess I'm seeing a loop within a loop, within a loop, or a series of torques that balance and counter balance into centripetal motion. It starts from an inertial moment and focuses it into a centripetal pathway and only then do we see a coherent linear motion established. i.e. http://jeb.biologists.org/content/142/1/87.full.pdf http://www.regenpress.com/ There are better articles but the maths slowly becomes pretty incomprehensible unless one understands what is implied. I've actually gone over several models since I've posted this and I'm quite satisfied with my viewpoint. I'm still all ears if anyone has anything substantial to say. But, I emphasize substantial here because I am, like in most of the threads I start, hoping for a consolidated response--something I can sink my teeth into(I'm a little upset here because I can never find someone to talk to about what interests me.) I'm well aware of the difficulty of the mathematics, I've been working towards this end for over fifteen years now. I was just hoping to hear some clear points on the mechanics involved as opposed to wiki quotes where even wiki says most simply don't understand. Thanks for trying though guys, and if its me please feel free to ask me more specific questions that will assert or destroy my viewpoint--the one I really don't have, I'm only trying to break this thing down in a somewhat longer discussion.

I used carbon paper yesterday for a projectile motion experiment. I also live in a city whose population thrives on the collection of classic cars so I see rumble seats everywhere. That said I can't see the rumble seat ever making a comeback and so the word usage will probably soon follow in the wake of demise. Typewriter is getting there I give it twenty years . . . . Oh and pecker . . .

Forgive my being short but this omits almost everything. All angular momentum is built upon the summation of the angular momentum of particles, you make it sound like I've said something unusual. Airfoils and their respective crafts entail a good many angular momentum. When an aircraft lifts off are we seeing a linear plane of travel or are we seeing the plane rotating into the air around a centripetal point. I think if you look at the system closely you'll find most of what you see is angular moments subtended by the sheer stress as opposed to the other way round. I may not be correct in my point of view but I think your blurb greatly oversimplified and removed the reasoning involved that led to my own statements.

Well you got me khaled . . . next time I'll try thinking 'inside' the box! ;-)

I haven't thought about aerodynamics since secondary school and it rather baffled me back then. Is this something I could simply think of in terms of an integration of the angular momentum of point particles, conservation of angular momentum, and surface friction? Are there more detailed equations that can be used that do not try to explain by sacrificing detail? I don't see why I can't do as I mentioned in my points and I can model this sort of behaviour fairly accurately on a computer without mashing my brain cells.

I really like your challenge phillip1882, I will have to add it to my list of things to do between terms--your challenge, the challenge that I posted, and a blog post on the infeasibility of 'Self-Generating Darius Windmills' or windmills whose magnet is the earth . . . . Rabin-Miller Primality Test: Composite Numbers Which Pass It F. Arnault Mathematics of Computation Vol. 64, No. 209 (Jan., 1995), pp. 355-361 Published by: American Mathematical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2153340 I don't see how khaled's first challenge is at all feasible without modifying the compiler itself???

I laughed moo, honest!

You have been given everything you need to substitute in proper values, solve for C after finding [math] \phi [/math]. Oh you have C, solve for A and [math] \phi [/math].

Partyline . . .. it isn't even a word according to the spellchecker but I used to have one--back in the eighties. It was shared between our family and a dozen others!

It was a game mechanic >.>

[math] L\frac{d^2I}{dt^2}+R\frac{dI}{dt}+\frac{1}{C}=\omega E_0 \cos{(\omega t)}[/math] try starting with a basic wave equation: [math] I_p(t) = A \sin{(\omega t + \phi)} [/math] differentiate, substitute, and solve . . . .

Robotics/Embedded Systems

However poorly I've worded it this is simply an example of Propagation of Uncertainty. I guess I should review this as well because I'm obviously having trouble with the concept. The fact that these are uncorrelated means the final term for [math] (\frac{\sigma_f}{f})^2 [/math] is equal to zero because the vector uncertainties in combination with their respective vectors are orthogonal to all other vectors. The wiki on this is not the best either, try a year one physics book. ** there is also the partial derivative example below the general list . . . [edit] changed to this "the vector uncertainties in combination with their respective vectors are orthogonal to all other vectors" from this "the vector uncertainties and their respective vectors are orthogonal to each other" because it sounded like the uncertainty was orthogonal to its respective vector which was not what I meant!

You can register a patent for a game mechanic, but this will unlikely be the case. It would have to be demonstrably unique in all of its concept which is very difficult in the realm of game mechanics! Had the mechanics for Sudoku not previously been demonstrated in the realm of game mechanics then I believe this would have been an excellent example of a patentable mechanic. [edit] than => then; in case anyone was wondering . . .

So like the uncorrelated small error in vector displacement over n dimensions! How would you say this properly because now it neglects to say what is uncorrelated, which is the error of the components of the final vector . . .

Java!