Xittenn

No one knows what exactly created the big bang, that's how! God's paper trail . . . . ** it's not my religion dammit

There are plenty of companies that make quality appliances or other goods, people just have to choose to buy them. I only buy things that are quality or whose quality is adequate to the amount of use I will be requiring from the product. I buy things that will last because I want to decrease my carbon footprint, as well as see to it that the workforce is employed efficiently and not repeating tasks unnecessarily. Should we be restricted to buying only quality items? I don't think this is something that can be mandated, it literally goes against the concept of a free market and so we are bound to create externalities and the system will fail or create a social cost. What could be done is something like the Carbon Tax implemented here in BC; implement a pigovian tax to adjust consumption and offset any social cost.

And why not? I can see an argument for the christian God creating the universe and it goes something like "To God a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day!" Simple case of a bunch of broken people misinterpreting the meaning of a book written by a bunch of broken people. I find it best to not try and eliminate any possibility and I simply respect that there are sides to the story and I choose the one that I like best--I choose to not believe. I like this thread 'cause it asks an interesting question, and although it implies that theists are crazy, it does not assert it because broken =/= crazy and so we are left to interpret our own meaning. ** again I don't believe in a 'God' . . . maybe a groverlord . . . but not a 'God!' http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4005/4359736418_57a4765b43.jpg ^groverlord (maybe more Grover meets Einstein or something, but is fallible and limited to a universe or a set of them!) ^ I only state this to make known my position as I feel it may have relevance to the conversation

all by myself . . . . ~Don't want to be, all by myself anymore

Who me? I'm not sure what you are saying. My premise was that most religions are founded on a certain human inadequacy or state of brokenness. God, for these people, is the enlightened or perfect--non broken--being whom all should strive to be like, and should ask for protection from. What is the perfectly good stereo? What is proof of a bad system? What words are you putting in whose mouth? Why are you talking like a stoned teenager? Are you high? :/

This here is the strongest argument for God's not having any contradicting evidence--can't blame the book, the book is broken. We are broken and so when God speaks to us crap comes out of our pens! It's not the fact of what the book says (although particularly broken theists do often try to cling to such things) but the fact that there is a God. I say these things from a non-theist observational standpoint, that also happens to be broken, so take it as you wish.

My biggest fear is that one day the entire universe will one day instantly crystallize into a giant grain of quark-gluon plasma. . . . If this happens, I will miss you guys . . . especially the angry button, 'cause he is so cute when he is angry!

It was about not doing work, because I'm lazy--word!

Stompin' My mantra is to opt outta just 'bout everything I gotta simply cause I wanna! ** sorry page out . . . . Lala posted stuff first see last page

Just for my reading purposes! On a scale of 1 - 10 in terms of analytically solving first order nonlinear ordinary differential equations how hard is this?

Science provides nothing in terms of self preservation, how is it rational to accept defeat?

Believers of God tend to affirm this broken nature by asking for God's redemption for being broken. If they want to label themselves I see no reason that they can not go ahead and do so. And if someone were to argue that in fact you cannot be broken if you were always broken, isn't it pretty broken to then claim to be broken if you are not?

I think the belief in 'God' is rooted in death, a state of being broken. People who dwell on this state are too concerned with being broken and focus on a solution that meets their needs. In all we are all broken, as there isn't a well defined state of fixed, but people who believe in God are especially broken because their belief comes directly from this state and doesn't really exist otherwise. That said I appreciate what faith has to offer even if I don't accept it. I am probably more broken, but this has nothing to do with my lack of faith!

ahhh I thought he had a square tube and wanted a closed loop of current. :/ **Like not a loop but just a single chamber in the shape of a square! ** somebody neg rep me, make me feel better . ..

Yes, a U tube! :/

The radiating heat would cause the liquid to radiate out radially, and not simply up, although there will be a pressure difference that will cause this as well. I think you will see the fluid that is rising streaming along the walls, and the same with the radiated fluid, it will also stream along the wall but on the opposite side. I believe you will see a dispersion that coheres into a stream that will subsequently engulf a cooler liquid 'sheeted bubble' which will quench the hot spot and recycle the process. There will probably be two cycles one from above and one from below. The one from below will be smaller. Overall the cycle I would imagine would be quite turbulent. I have no solution for your problem short of using a u tube that allows for the hot water to stream up and flow back around. I am obviously just making unsupported generalizations, the outcome is going to have a lot of dependencies that no one can easily account for in a brief topic of conversation. The proper answer to your question is probably no one really knows from the description given. I'll stop talking now, and just post my reply regardless!

You have your unknown AP call it x so what is AB equal to? You have side c for both triangles so it only makes sense to use similar triangles, and ratio and proportion. Cos this all makes so much sense 75.5 quickly becomes a very appropriate answer . . . .

I have a pretty large book collection as is. I'm afraid that one day I may be like that guy in that movie where he is surrounded and living in books--sleeping on them too IIRC. I try to be selective of the books I keep, although as of yet I have only donated a few to charity. We have bins here like for donating clothing but for books. I had moved a while back and at one point I had to give up a collection which included some Lewis Carroll and J.R.R. Tolkien and now all I have are textbooks. I'm going to try and not have four Calculus books, and three Vector Calculus books and so on . . . . and I aim to get the best of each subject. I'm noticing that my college books are pretty categorical, something I had imagined quite differently when I was younger. I guess I expected that each class would present a number of books that would specialize on different topics--like these dozen or so pamphlets I've collected on portions of physics and math! I don't see how anyone could get on without a proper set of textbooks as reference, unless they maintained themselves to a fairly limited working set of their educated knowledge.

I like the idea of being admonished from undue punishment incurred by others outside of law and order, but suppressing the actions of others is probably not very realistic from a political pov. What bothers me is that my right to self defense has been taken away from me in a very real way, right now. If I wanted to walk around publicly with a force field(bullet proof jacket/Kevlar suit) to protect myself from either gang violence or the local coyotes that roam around at 1:00AM, I am legally not allowed to do this. I think this is something that should be changed. As for verbal abuses it would be nice to have a real world ignore button, but there isn't one. Ear plugs are a sucky option. My point? I see what Green Xenon is saying even if it is unrealistic and I do try to find real solutions to these problems as I often feel I am the victim of unfair evilness!

What would be wrong with citizenship, are we too good for robots? I wasn't just responding to your comments but other comments made! I don't see that being none sexual would mean that they are any less likely to congregate. I don't believe we can even make assumptions on how they might procreate or do anything really. If we don't even understand why we procreate sexually, and from our biological stand point, how can we make consolidated assumptions about a species that doesn't even exist. Furthermore we don't even know that they won't manifest as parasitic little buggers that take the world by storm. It's not like there isn't plenty of silicone to go around. In another thread I had suggested that we may even be the precursor, where although this form of life will not manifest directly on its own, we are in fact like the larval prestage bound by some logical consequence to becoming an amorphic inorganic life form. I see some adaptive advantages to being a little less squishy. People associate robots with metal and cold, not to mention heartless. I see the possibility for something very interesting arising from such a new species, and we might even consider making the move ourselves!

There are plenty of asexual entities of whom we refer to as species of living organisms, I don't see why this is an issue. I also don't see why in the future if robots were self conscious enough to ask for fair treatment that they would be treated with anything less--which includes being honored as a living species, organic or not. I believe the simplest route to take on this would be to modify the statement to a species of non-biological living organisms. I'm of the opinion that people enjoy their bragging rights and too many humans will step on anything that doesn't meet its needs. I make this my opinion because some feel we are very nice beings that see the good in all, and I do not agree with this. If the robot is conscious it will not need our approval of it as a species if it chooses to consider itself as one. If we choose to treat them without respect chances are there will be problems. If robot consciousness is going to be a problem, and we can't respect them as a species should need arise, then we had best not create them in the first damn place. Stupid humans . . . :|

Karatzoglou, Alexandros, David Meyer, and Kurt Hornik. "Support Vector Machines in R." Journal of Statistical Software 15.9 (2006): 1 - 26. JSTASOFT. Web. 09 Apr. 2012. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v15/i09

Use a list and remove each item as it is used! So populate a list with 3-1's, 5-2's, and a 3, and then randomly pick from the list removing the picked item each time.

[math] \int x^n \; arccot \; \frac{x}{a} \; dx = \frac{x^{n+1}}{n+1} \; arccot \; \frac{x}{a} + \frac{a}{n + 1} \; \int \frac{x^n+1}{a^2 + x^2} \; dx [/math] "Table of Integrals, Series, and Products 7th Ed." - Gradshteyn and Ryzhik