Xittenn

Your wolfram post confuses me This is what you have posted here. What you have posted there has an asymptote of 4 on x because 36/9 .... and this is a bit of a jump from your op :/

I'm sorry is that [math] y = -2 \log_3 (x-3)^{-1} [/math]? I need to see it properly regardless to think right, I have a hard time with symbolic representation.

Check both possibilities using a graphing calculator, this will immediately enlighten you to the difference between each of [math] f(-x) [/math] and [math] - f(x) [/math]

This isn't a formatting error and a solution will be found that doesn't involve the format.

Now I see the reason for your other question. Format it as NTFS, Linux can read write NTFS and mac can read it. Just know that Linux ext3 filesystem cannot be read/write accessed by Windows because Microsoft is not interested in such things for their own reasons.

FAT is a featureless file system and NTFS is Windows feature rich file system, NTFS has a journalling system and alternate data streams. I would ask this question on Stack Overflow if you really want to get a bad ass answer. Computer Engineer is a term that I had never heard before. I had always used the term Electronics Engineer but it seems that the two have independent identities; oddly enough it is on my High School transcript as Computer Systems Engineering, I must have been dozing. Computer Engineers deal more in the hardware aspects like controllers and ports and Computer Scientists deal more in software and algorithms. I could see a place where the two might meet and that would be in the design of a processor. Maybe, is ok for you? The deceptive simplicity of the question leaves me uneasy!

Here is an example program. This program is a collaborate effort that includes Emily Carr which is one of the more prestigious art schools in Canada. If art is your thing and you just happen to excel at using computers then I would recommend taking the art route. If you really suck at computers and you need to get your skills up to par and you excel artistically, or you would prefer to be more of a technical liaison for artists to bring their pieces to life, take the BASc or BS(pending your institutions faculty organization; computer science is a BA at UBC.) I can't really comment on this level of education in this field. I think I can safely make comments on the field however, as I did complete a 12 month certificate program in Game Design. If you want to be an artist that works through digital media then most definitely do an arts degree, no one cares how you can do from a technical stance as long as you can do the job satisfactorily. If you want to be a technical adviser and you wish to be involved in setting the platform for artists take the technical route, but keep in mind that if you try to do both at the same time that you risk being left behind. Artists do not want the tech guys feedback, and I don't mean the computer technician, I mean the guy who does the computational effects and lighting. If the artist requests that you accomplish a certain style it will be expected. The same goes the other way around the tech guy really will not accept being told how to accomplish a given goal by an artist. Your portfolio in the end will very clearly indicate who you are. If you are a tech guy and are in denial and are trying to be an artist everyone will know. As these are team oriented environments those who you will be trying to work with will be put off. If you don't bring magic to the team you will be abandoned to yourself. An artist who tries to know it all and run everything is not going to be seen as a team player and this plays into the same game. Do what you do best first and you will find that the rest of the pieces will come in time. I wasn't trying to post over top of you moo, I was posting and reflecting on my post when you were posting.

I've actually experienced the opposite. If I had been a good Christian my family would have been more supportive. My cousins who were good Christians and who wanted to become scientists did so. I have feared that simply not having that community backing would mean too many missed opportunities and that as a result I would never see my goals. It means that I don't have a social network that increases my chances of doing highly recognizable community services and volunteering. It means that I don't have the Dean of such and such faculty in my good services as I never met him at a Sunday service. I guess it really depends on what you are trying to define here. In every culture that I am aware of the scientific leaders have all been highly in tune with their cultural religion. I think maybe your concepts of what religion is and how it is transpiring globally is a bit misconstrued by a lot of the facts. Without a doubt there are many enthusiasts who take religion into places that make it almost impossible to exist as a human being. In reality a good many follower puts his faith in God and the value of the teachings. I think most followers understand that the world was not created some few thousand years ago in a week. I am pretty sure most followers derive meaning from scriptures as opposed to taking it for face value. So really there is nothing that is precluding a Scientist to being Atheist, I think this is a rather shallow observation on your part.

Quantum Mechanics are very useful when approaching various fields of Chemistry(eg. Computational and Physical Chemistry.) Under your argument for productive I would state that this instance is true in that the medicines that come about as a consequence often save the lives or the functionality of people. This in turn means less reeducation of replacements.

You will link the material for us to read?

I've taken from the literature that it is most appropriate to say that equivalent objects are the same objects. As such equality is a subset of the class of all equivalence relations(congruent relations.) I guess what I am getting at is, wouldn't it be a bit inappropriate to assume that two objects that are congruent are in fact equal? And so although they may be synonymous would it not be problematic if one were to treat them as having the same meaning?

This for me is a very hard question to answer as for the most part I don't have the reasons that anyone has mentioned so far. I believe that it is almost indefinitely true that we are in fact the creation of another higher intelligence. In the words of Marylin Manson "We are all gods with with little g's and big .... " and also "What I make is what I am, we can't live for ever ... " and the so called 'god' of my world is great and powerful but is not capable of knowing all and is capable of meeting an end. So I am quite alright with gravity having its foundation in "little pink fairies.." if this is indeed the case. I don't believe in the God of the bible. I see the value of love and family and belonging. I see what the church brings to communities. I see how a divine and righteous figure could be kind of cool. I don't however feel God! I have nothing in any of the fiber of my being that says hey that there is God. I find myself often seeing things and trying to say hey that there could be God but then I reflect and I shake my head, slightly embarrassed with myself for believing in "little pink fairies.." Personally I am a carnivorous animal, I do eat very little that is not in fact a product of an animal and may die as a cause of this. I'm not too fond of a lot of the things I see in the world today and with regards to people I am unbiasedly wishing a lot of them would disappear and leave me with my planet. Could I be walking in sin? To quote Atari Teenage Riot "With no remorse I will watch you die!" I don't see how this could be used as an argument for the existence of God though. I don't think people really deserve a God and what about the animals it always comes back to the animals .... why doesn't little floppy ears get to go to heaven and live in a mansion too? I'm sorry God is just hokey, I would much rather believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santi' Clause. That movie with George Burns was pretty good though. I wish parents would stop punishing their children with religion. That is all! [math] I_{ \omega } [/math]

Well I would like to focus on things like isolating centrosomes for study into how they could be synthesized and specialized into new and higher forms of technology. How such knowledge could be applied to the development of synthetic cells and replacement tissues and maybe also applications in Cancer research. Enzyme use and synthesis as new and emerging technologies or sets of methodologies that could be used directly in techniques related to tissue, cell and nerve regeneration. Knowledge of scaffolding would be nice but the study of new means of self generating synthetic forms of ECM would be preferred. I guess you could say I am curious about what could be and not so much interested in just fixing what is; I am not coming into this from a practical point of view. If a replacement heart is being developed it should not only integrate into the existing system but it should also represent an enhancement to the system as well; such knowledge will only be gained through abstract research, in my opinion. I would like to do research in areas of that which is not, but with my education, still be an asset to the mainstream of society and capable of completing practical tasks. I know the Engineers are often more employable after receiving their BASc but this is not my highest concern and I am striving here to attain a PhD inside of eight years. I know at this point that I am way ahead of myself and that I will most likely be in a far different place when I get there. These are simply the goals I have had in mind, and really, since I was a little kid. I just keep building on what I know and I am pretty sure if I take the BSc Biochem/Biomolecular route I will be well on my way to pursuing my goals, even if I am the slowest scientist ever. \o/

I don't understand why a pressure gauge is non-sufficient? When one or both hit 2 Bar you have your answer. I mean it takes double the mass to achieve the same pressure in a volume that is doubled in size or is this what you are trying to prove? I am sort of under the impression that you are saying that under the same pressure, gas will flow faster to fill a larger void, in consideration of point number 2. Why would you hypothesize such activity? The only way this could be achieved would be to increase the diameter of the hose connecting your pump to the container, while also maintaining the pressure, to effectively double the throughput.

Your first question is really entirely a question about biochemistry. The note above the chart clearly states the percentage of dry weight(Total Nonstructural Carbohydrates) so you might first want to find the definition of a nonstructural carbohydrate. The second part is pretty simple mathematics. If you have the percentage by weight and you know what the weight translates to in terms of calories it follows to do a simple conversion. 1) decide on a set quantity of the dried fruit mass in terms of dry weight 2) multiply this weight by the percent that is each constituent(in decimal form .10 == 10%) 3) multiply each constituents weight by the amount of calories that 1 unit of the constituent would theoretically possess 4) sum the calories of each constituent 5) divide the calories of a selected constituent by the total calories of the mass to get the decimal fraction You might want to find somebody who can help you set up a spreadsheet to quickly do the conversion for you. I don't know if this really helps though, if your document isn't presenting all of the information that you require.

Thanks Horza! o.o

All difficulties aside if you wish to attain the knowledge required to complete such an extensive task why not first do a study on a similar and already active cycle. I was going to post when you had first opened this thread but I feared the onslaught that might have followed; sorry guys it's like a warzone. It's hard, even more so impossible, regardless nothing is ever learned if the question is not asked. I can't give an example of this with hookworms. I was just discussing a project that I have personally had in mind for some time now in the chat room when you had opened this thread. I wish to ferment Streptomyces Albulus for the production of poly-l-lysine. As such I plan to do a study on the matter as it is a well documented procedure. I would recommend finding the equivalent in hookworms and then you will be in more of a position to think about what it is you are doing. Honestly the equipment is expensive but not ridiculously so. This point is moot if you have the equipment already available, but this isn't even the question so I will refrain from making further comments. I will say though there are a lot of things that people do and this wouldn't be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, it still helps to become properly informed before tying up valuable resources; which is kind of what you were doing right?

Very much so farmboy! I will be taking first year common Chemistry at a College or Polytechnic University as I have been graduated High School for fifteen years now. I agree that I should keep my options open, as you suggest, in terms of specialization. I do however have to choose right now if I am going to go for Bio-Engineering or Chemistry and it would seem that you are also suggesting the BSc. I have had a long time to think about this and really everything I have done in the past fifteen years has been related to this matter. I have focused on learning technologies and more the aspects of Engineering, but my concerns in this were supplemental to my desires to be working in the field of Bio-Molecular Chemistry and Tissue Engineering. And this is the main reason why I am still asking myself this question is because Tissue Engineering suggests a degree in Engineering, but the reality is, if you read any of the material in the field currently, these are not Engineers but are in fact Biochemists. I am just trying to make sure I am not making any mistakes in this. I wish to do work with replacement and artificial tissues, cells and potentially organs. I am not entirely concerned about implementation and the technologies necessary to making such products viably marketable to the public; although such knowledge would also be beneficial. In the end I hope to gain the ability to apply for proper licensing through the government to be allowed to conduct research in the lower mainland. I will be meeting with a few academic advisers over the next few weeks but I don't think these questions will be readily answered by these individuals. My appointment with the advisers is mainly to ensure that I am enrolling in the appropriate first year transfer program and that I have all of the requisites to complete a proper application into these programs. I am still at least a year away from entry, I have really done myself a bit of a disservice in having not stepped up for so long. Have fun with your PhD farmboy

I'm thinking you are very much correct. I would much more prefer to have extensive knowledge of all of the details that make up Bio-Molecular Chemistry than to have some integrated knowledge of Life Sciences. The Science Degree would also be more relevant to my preferred professional activities upon completion and that is to develop an independent research facility. I would be more readily capable of acquiring the necessary licenses from the government with a proper degree in Chemistry. I can always maintain my working knowledge of the current technologies relevant to my field on my own. If I did feel the need to develop new technologies or tools relevant to my research I'm sure there would be accessible means to formally do so. Thanks for the opinions Horza2002

May we please have access to the St Mary’s Road Font package; stmaryrd? Much appreciated! <3

I have always wished to be a Tissue Engineer. In saying this I mean that I have always wanted to develop solutions to the human need for replacement tissues. I am looking at my current pathway into University at the moment and I kind of have two choices. The first choice would be to enter into the Faculty of Science and into Chemistry to then specialize in Biochemistry. At UBC, the University I am trying to get into, there is a further specialization of Biochemistry called Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology. This program seems to fit the description of what it is I wish to do and it can be followed up with a direct placement into the Doctor of Philosophy in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (PhD) program. Now on the other hand the Faculty of Applied Science offers the program Chemical & Biological Engineering, this sounds rather ominous to me. UBC is revered for it's Engineering department. Getting into this program is going to be hard but I think that I have a chance that is much better than average. This program can also follow up with a direct placement into an equivalent PhD program. To get into the BSc program all I will be required to do is to take a year of College and my credits will apply for first year and I will enter into the second. To get into the BASc I will have to upgrade my existing Chemistry and Physics at Kwantlen Polytech University College and then do their first year transfer program. The second option is about 10x harder than the first and in this option I will have to fight for my seat every step of the way. I guess the question is would it be worth it to fight for the glam of having a BASc from UBC? Would the BASc even be the right program? I want to develop solutions internally to the problem more than externally. I wish to develop models and new materials for use as a solution. I assume here that the Engineer would do more work in developing the method of implementation as opposed to the actual material itself? I would much like to develop artificial substitutes as well! Chemical & Biological Engineering Molecular, Cell & Developmental Biology Maybe someone has seen the light better on the other end of this tunnel? o.o

I didn't quite understand this? Just to talk because I like to do so .... If you have an equation [math] f(x) = x^2 [/math] then the relation [math] F [/math] is a function such that for each [math] x \in dom F [/math] there is only one [math] y [/math] such that [math] xFy [/math]. So squaring [math] (-3)^2 = 9 [/math] and also [math] (3)^2 = 9 [/math] and each are ordered pairs such that [math] \left \langle x, F(x) \right \rangle \in F [/math] and as such the function is not single rooted and is not one-to-one or an injection. Because the function F is not single rooted the inverse of the function [math] F [/math] is not a function but a relation as it is a mapping from a single value to multiple values. Because of this finding the root of a number does not find a single valued answer but finds a set of possible answers. In reality it should not be written that [math] F^{-1}(1) = \pm(1) [/math] but should preferentially be [math] F^{ -1 } \left [ \left \{ 1 \right \} \right ] = \left \{ -1, 1 \right \} [/math] and where negation of the set reveals that [math] \left \{ -1, 1 \right \} = - \left \{ -1, 1 \right \} [/math] in fact holds because [math] \left \{ -1, 1 \right \} = \left \{ -1, 1 \right \} [/math] by the Axiom of Extensionality. but again I didn't understand what it was you were saying in your second post as noted above .... :/ And \llbracket \rrbracket is not functioning for image brackets, what is the proper latex ??

I think this is the answer you seek!

I would like to try to make some mead. I made creme fraiche last night ....

If you wish to inflect the field for your purposes, feel free do so, I for one will not inhibit your motions!