Endy0816

If you want to save some time you can type calculations into the Google search bar as well. It can also convert many constants into their numerical values. ie. Planck Constant * speed of light = h*c =

How much realistic support do they have in terms of governments giving up autonomy?

I'm leaning towards a Big bang - Big Rip - Big Bang progression at the moment. Like a soap bubble that forms, expands and pops, but as it pops sets the conditions for more soap bubbles to form. Avoids the cross Universe interaction issue. Any distance to anything is infinite in the "above" Universe but at the same time in some sense it still exists(such as one can call that state existence). Kind of like the Universe as a Phoenix view, but without the need for a Universe Recycling Program.

^lol, both of you.

Outflanking in different forms perhaps. I probably need to go and reread it again myself. I was more enamored of The Prince at that age. I ended up reading Art of War less as a strategy guide and more as a historical account. If you must attack a walled city, remember a large wooden horse goes a long way. ~ Lesser known quote of Sun Tzu

Little did you know that even as we speak Google is gearing up to "forget" every page that includes words not written in proper American English.

I generally only give neg reps for attacks on others or for displaying willful ignorance. They need some kind of feedback so they can hopefully realize their behavior is a problem, but I certainly don't feel that getting down into their mud pit is always a good use of my time. Obviously if their behavior is extreme enough Moderators step in, but IMO that doesn't tend to have the same impact as peer pressure. Which is what ended up happening with the post Ophiolite mentioned. Note it wasn't me, though I've certainly canceled out what I've felt was undeserved neg reputation in the past.

And = A.B Or = A+B Not = / or a line above http://www.dragonwins.com/domains/getteched/binary/BooleanLogic.htm I read your example as ((Not A) And B). You may want to check with someone local on that one though. Not 100% sure if they meant to negate just the 'A' or the '(A And B)' portion. lot of logic symbols, very little standardization.

"help me or guide me" 0 = false, 1= true help me guide me result 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 So if someone helps you or guides you, you see a result. Now these Or's and And's also equate to logic gates. So logic.ly if there were a logic simulator you could use the appropriate combination of gates and find your answer that way as well.

Minor point but don't feel you have to restrict yourself to named encoding schemes. Sometimes there are good reasons to, but other times you can make up your own to fit the circumstances.

The question is really asking you to find the pattern. If I said C = 44, D = 45, E = 46... What is A? It is a similar set up done in binary. You just need to count up to K and count down to A, then convert it into hexadecimal. A converter can be useful here: http://www.mathsisfun.com/binary-decimal-hexadecimal-converter.html

There can be gravity without pressure. Objects in a vacuum still fall. What is the relationship of a black hole to a cyclone? They don't look anything alike...

That's what THEY want you to think! Seriously though, ideally there were once aliens and they leave their research and/or technology around for us to find. We also may end up as a progenitor race ourselves. Reasonable to think that different groups will seek different means of adapting themselves as the main technologies become more developed.

Meh, this idea is deeply flawed and by any reasonable standard OP would fail their own test. Open minded would include being able to consider alternate definitions of open minded, let alone standard definitions of words found in a dictionary. The main mistake here is one of hubris. You are certainly free to think you know better than society, but you had better consider the negatives that might follow. Failure to do so was what got other such 'innovators', also known as some of the most reviled individuals in history, into trouble. I'm out. I don't see any more point continuing with an obvious lack of mutual understanding or even rational consideration.

Earlier Swansont actually pointed out there is a rough connection via the choice for the length of the meter. Novel bit of unit history. #4 Swansont's Comment #9 Janus's analysis Though if you switch unit systems this sort of relationship can easily vanish. I'm wondering if this type of occurrence explains (some) other numerology-esque observations as well. Time seems to have the largest potential. Good food for thought. Edit: Unsure of equation.

@OP: People who in the past instituted central planning were reasonably intelligent. They were still naive in thinking that they could outperform supply and demand and worse didn't consider what would occur due to their failure. That is along the lines of the same error in thinking that you are making. You are taking away judges from an already overworked system. You believe that Judges and Juries will welcome their advice. You are instituting a dubious metric to select these advisers. You at least imply that these judges will agree with your own views. For these reasons people can reasonably say your view is naive. I saw and can only tell you that you are disagreeing with a vast number of people on the matter. The definitions disagree with you. What is legal may not be moral, which is part of the definition of just. In your example, in either case you have two witnesses stating that Harry made remarks of a sexual nature to a 12 year old. Could ethically and legally seek to find him guilty of verbal molestation.

Generally hear the process described as mapping signals onto a mental simulacrum. Hence you can lose a limb but still feel an "itch". Thankfully there are fairly unsophisticated ways to trick it. and in only slightly more professional settings these methods are used to help with phantom limb pain. The Pinocchio illusion is similar. Essentially your brain concludes that your nose is extending. Stupidly presumptive system. Poor input validation.

The point I was trying to make about elections was that you could elect your judges instead. You can have experience and yet still be naive in thinking your solution is a good one(many historical examples available). People define what is Just. Treaties define what is Legal. More to the point what is defined as legal changes over time, there's nothing to say that even the most heinous acts today won't again be legal in the future. You only consider them one way or another because of the society you live in. If your word is law you are dictating. It doesn't matter if you have the best intentions in the world.

Well, that almost gave me a heart attack... https://www.smashwords.com /books/view/435068 Mostly your price is unrealistic. You may value your work at that level, but others will not and they are the ones you are attempting to sell to. I know I wouldn't even download free sample text if there is no hope of me ever purchasing. Need to check your market and prices of similar offerings. For speculative works many readers don't expect to pay much if anything and many authors publish for non-monetary compensation. That is what you are contending with in practical terms. Promoting your work is broader in scope than offering free samples(though this remains a good option). Here is a fairly well done example: http://www.jim-butcher.com Author commentary, graphical elements, news, etc. Lot of possibilities open as to where you can take it.

^When do you hold elections? In general I think Arrow's Impossibility Theorem would relate. The 'Just Proof' system(described earlier) would be dictatorial. It may well be that is the way society will need to head, but I personally hope otherwise.

What you observe ties into your own ability to exist.

Most I can say is that much of what I've seen supports the standard view. May be an idea to try publishing in a different venue in order to introduce people to your work(site, blog, social media, etc). There are a bunch of self published works out there along with preprints of professional articles available for free. I know I would be hard pressed to see the need to pay.

What Strange said F = G [m1]*[m2]/r^2 assume [m1] is your object so via F=[m1]a we can state [m1]a = G [m1]*[m2]/r^2 and after dividing by [m1] on both sides... a = G*[m2]/r^2 'g' causes way too much confusion for a lowly acceleration.

It provides the force. You can get back to acceleration via F=ma.

Should look into catabolic activity. If you want to have some fun, ask your teacher ask about the lenses of Trilobites and Chiton.