Kedas

They launch and an explosion damages it. How long do you think will be without good eyes? and Hubble would stay very important even if the James Webb Space Telescope is operating.

I find it strange/funny that US president elections are always around 50%. because that is what you would get if everyone would choose without thinking. So does this basically mean that they don't know what they are choosing?

The only interestng thing that I know about heartbeat (but I'm not 100% sure if correct) is that when it starts to be very periodically (equal time measure) that there most likely somehing wrong is about to happen. Can anyone confirm? (about not correcting heartbeat anymore or something)

Ophiolite, I think you are on the wrong forum

I think there will always be a small group of people that manage to survive. here a quote from A. Einstein that fits this thread I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

Your brain is able to manipulate your memory so the longer is has been in there the bigger the chance that what you remember isn't what really happened. about your question: The best public know subject about it is commercials radio/tv etc. even in the 50-60 years they were already 'Devilish'. http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/1999/01/27/p14s1.htm So are you sure they did teach you Shakespeare because of Shakespeare or do they like the side effect more. http://www.psychotactics.com/ This is probably too much but here is more: http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id206/pg1/

how is (42 choose 6) = 57646 ? I got 42!/(6!*36!) = 5245786 3003/5245786=1/1746.85 (=33/57646) => 27/1746.85 = 0.01546 edit: Any ideas why 0.01546 <> 0.01534

should be [math]p=A*\rho*t*v^2[/math] I assume. but otherwise interesting to see it written out.

Hi, In the paper today they mentioned 800 people that played together for a total of about 40.500 Euro, max to win if they are the only one is 7.000.000 euro. I want to know the chance that they win. you have 42numbers (order doesn't matter) 6 numbers are drawn. if you only choose 6numbers of the 42 than your change is simple. 6/42*5/41*4/40*3/39*2/38*1/37= 1/5.245.786 But they paid a lot more so they could choose 14 numbers of the 42. and they did that 27times (27*1500euro) Now how to calculate the chance that they win (or lose)?

In real life yes but here that person without seat will take an other seat (wrong seat). The order how they come in doesn't change the chance. It will have an other result but the chance will stay 1/2. Even if the crazy person doesnt go in first, but not last. person 100 must be last (the person that has the chance of 1/2)

I just quickly wrote a program out of curiousity. but I got a chance of around 1/2 ?? Do you see something wrong in the program? Dim person(100) As Integer Dim Random As Integer Sub crazy() Countright = 0 Count = 0 Do Count = Count + 1 'attempts For n = 1 To 100 'init loop person(n) = 0 Next n Random = RandomNumbers(1, 100) 'first crazy person person(1) = Random 'takes seat number random For n = 2 To 100 If CheckIfFree(n, n) Then person(n) = n 'if their seat is free then take it Else: Do 'take a free random seet Random = RandomNumbers(1, 100) OK = CheckIfFree(Random, n) 'random=seat number , n=number of persons with a seat If OK Then person(n) = Random 'if free take it Loop Until OK 'if not free pick an other seat End If Next n 'the same for the next person If person(100) = 100 Then Countright = Countright + 1 Loop Until Count = 1000 Debug.Print (Countright / Count) End Sub Function CheckIfFree(ByVal location As Integer, ByVal personcount As Integer) As Boolean Dim personNR personNR = 0 Do personNR = personNR + 1 CheckIfFree = True If person(personNR) = location Then CheckIfFree = False Loop Until (personNR = personcount Or CheckIfFree = False) End Function It's slow though because random numbers are always choosen from 1 to 100 also if there are only two seats free so it has to generate much more random numbers this way to get the right one. person(x)=y x=number of the person that comes in y= seat that he took

Wrote that down also but getting 99 times 1/100 did 'feel' wrong. (maybe I should just believe in this logic ) Anyone that tried it with a program to prove it?

Probably close to 1/100, because that would be the chance if the first 99 go sit at random places. just a thought But like YT2095 said they really should arrest that person edit: For every person that comes in there is always 1 seat to make it right again. (except for the last person), not 100% sure though --- hmm doesn't seem to work but it was just a thought

physics teacher: "yes physics explains everything.... and for anything else theres Einstein!"

The way I always understood it is that there is an explanation behind things. as far as I know he was convinced everything was based on some 'simple rules'.

You can also use PNG instead of GIF or JPG. http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2002/JPG_GIF_PNG.asp http://www.webcolors.freeserve.co.uk/png/

how is primitive defined? -something simple or -since long ago If you answer this then the answer if it's primitive or not is also simple.

You are right E=mc² doesn't say anything about velocity, that part has to be added seperately. This will help you out: http://www.vttoth.com/emc2.htm

Because dreams become more and more detailed/accurate it's makes it a lot harder to control them. (more info that needs manipulation) just my thought

http://www.learnersonline.com/weekly/archive99/week43/ This is the best I could find http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news157.htm http://www.hominids.com/donsmaps/mammoth.html

http://images.google.be/images?hl=nl&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=+Wooly+Mammoth&btnG=Zoeken

Yeah, I wonder about that also maybe it's just a statistical trick to come to that number. Like calculate the average then group those above seperate of those below if you devide the amount of numbers you have above with the number of numbers below average then you get the magical number '1' out of this random numbers If it's practical or not isn't important the fact that you can do it is much more interesting (assuming you can't do it for every number).

There is an article in New Scientist about it but no article on there site. found some other link about it here: http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/navigation/ideas/grains/pi.shtml It's not news but I didn't hear that before but it's sure interesting.

So you say any termination/murder is OK? or can you define your 'developed' for me?