the tree

'ta, I've found WinShell pretty useful and I'm probably going to keep using it.

The assumptions are not "partially correct", it doesn't matter in the slightest if perfect circles exist in nature or not.

I've finnally succumed and am downloading MiKTeX (TeX for Windows), and it occured to me that I'm going to need a TeX editor. Does anyone know of a good TeX editor for Windows? Preferably one that can preview on demand without too much hassle. Basically I'm looking for WinEdit but free.

Try just looking at one cable, then draw it as the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle with the right angle being at the middle of the crossbar. Your vertical line represents the vertical component of the cable, if you remember your trig you'll see that it's [math]T_{1}\sin{12}[/math] (T being tension in the cable). You also know that the sum of both the vertical components is equal to [math]65gN[/math] in order to be keeping the trafic lights still. [math]2(T_{1}\sin{12})=65gN[/math] ...and now I go look for my calculator....

Time is just another dimension, perpendicular to all the others, just like a dimension should be.

Hmm, would a post-singularity world be able to simulate another more recently post-singularity world? And could that one be making simulations of it's own, and on like that? How many simulations deep would you need to be before singularity just can't happen?

You sound like a Vulcan.

Not really, apart from manhours, we're pretty much using what we've got.

Infinity is not ambiguos and it occurs because we create situations that involve it. Because physics is reliant on what is, not what seems convenient. You know that doesn't make sense, we know that doesn't make sense, why bother? Yes, that's what we've been doing hundreds of years. [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] is hardly a new concept. Inifinity is not "kept out", it just never was part of the group. Wrong.Example: [math]2^{\frac{1}{2}}\notin\mathbb{Q}[/math] where [math]\mathbb{Q}[/math] is the rationals. This is no more extraordinary than performing some function with items of a group of even numbers, and finding an odd number. Leave it, as it is an expected result.

Phsycology is not a soft-science and from what I hear, it's not that easy either. Which science is harder really depends on the individual, if your good with maths then physics will be a lot easier but if your maths is lacking then you're more likely to struggle. Computing, in the sense that it's taught at 6th form/college is by no means scientific, it's a lot more like buisness studies a lot of the time. If you want to get something technical from computing look into Cisco's iPro course.

Thanks, I've guess I needent worry. But I'll avoid accepting prescription painkillers off friends from now on.

How addictive is codine? Would you say that one dose is enough to cause mild addiction?

What? Why would 2r be equal to s at any time?From the context I know that the circle is smaller than the square and contained inside it, at all times.

O.k. so the talking point factor doesn't mean anything to you, that's fine although I suggest that you do take it into consideration. But if you'd taken an interest in music, then you'd know that gold might not be a great conductor but it's absolutely brilliant for shielding cables so as to get a clean signal, therefore it is far from crap and in fact really awesome.

Lots lots more. Note how history is a million times better a talking point with new people than science. Also how an understanding in history really helps with an understanding of modern politics.

Well there's carbon monoxide for starters, restricting the flow of oxygen around the blood is nothing minor.And there's tar, wich makes the lungs permenantly less effective. There's plenty more wich I can't recall on the spot. They may not be carcegens but you can't say that they aren't harmful.

Bascule, you seem to forget that weed is almost always smoked alongside tobacco and is therefor going to at least encourage cancer. And do you honestly belive thier is such thing as a safe ciggerette? Even a rolly with a needle thin portion of tobacco and a complete filter, is still not good for you.

That'd be more acurate, I think "denature" is the "proper" term.

There is a large square of a side s containing a small circle with a radius r, a point is chosen randomly within the square, what is the probability of the point being within the circle? I'm tempted to think that the awnser is [math]\frac{\pi r^2}{s^2}[/math] but the following question is: Show that if r increases by 20% then the probability increases by 40% If [math]r_{1}=1[/math] and [math]r_{2}=1.2[/math] then [math]\pi r^{2}[/math] increases by 44%. Where have I slipped up?

The Tom Korner arrived this weekend and so far it's great. Thanks for the recomendation Matt, it looks like it'll prove useful when I have something important I'd rather not be doing as well.

If they were orbiting in such a way that they were always directly over the same point (preferably somewhere uninhabited) then how about a really really big cable? On a more serious note, how about a shuttle going back and forth with some seriously huge bateries?

A condition where the ones who's traits you don't want to continue die before they can breed. For more on that, Google "holocaust".

Maybe an investigation into what it takes to completely miss the point of an insanley simple idea?

Evolution can be manipulated (dog breeding being a prime example) but no, as you cannot predict mutations: you cannot force the outcome of evolution.

It's soon to stop holding, as silicon can only get so small.