cosine

Yeah eugenics was a popular modernist idea that came from social darwinism. We discuss it alot in my Latin American class about transculturation.

Personally freeloaders on my dime don't bother me. I'd rather know some people are getting help they don't deserve at my expense' date=' than know some people who [b']do[/b] deserve help aren't getting it because I made a big stink over a few freeloaders.

 

 

Edit:

PS: The people who I would suspect of getting handouts in this case are corporations getting way overpaid by the government for the services rendered. And they aren't even hard up for cash.

I would say my own views are probably dead on with padren here. [over enthusiastic saturday afternoon]THANKS PEDRAN![/over enthusiastic saturday afternoon]

hey, im not litterally white; but for the sake of succinctness, i wont get offended if anyone wants to refer to me as 'white', as opposed to the more accurate but less eloquent 'person of pinky-slightlylightbrown-whitish ethnicity'.

Sure you wouldn't. And I don't know many Africans (or other "black" people such as Jamaicans) insulted by the term "black." However more and more you can notice forms and such starting to use terms such as African, Caucasian, European (instead of using Caucasion that is), etc. just because it is more factually correct anyway.

I was too general in my previous post. I have no problem with people using those terms, although one description is skin color, the other is origin. I am white and have no problem with that description. Why is any other skin color seen as offensive?

Oops, I forgot to include that one. I remember consiously telling myself to put it in. Oh well time to add to the list of rhetoric questions:

Are Europeans literally white? Are Aliens literally grey? And are all "greys" aliens?

Should we teach people that black or red or yellow skin color is offensive?

You were right I forgot to include everyone in my list, but don't look too much into it.

In any case, African American, Native American and Asian/Oriental or Pacific Islander are used commonly. If that is what a certain ethnic group want to be called than so be it.

Right, this would be my position.

Carrying these things to an extreme is also wrong though. Saying blackboard or master/slave drives should not be offensive to anyone. If it is, they have the problem and need to fix themselves, not the other way around. We should learn to be respectful and have empathy towards others, but also learn to not rush to judgement and be easily offended.

I agree, however things that are actually "extreme" never gain enough momentum to be legitamized claims. However the points of the original women in the op were quite justifiable.

The other information in the universe would be the conservation of energy I believe. You put energy into that hot water, and if you don't cool it down, then that heat will still not leave to someplace else.

For the geometry I would get H.S.M. Coxeter's Introduction to Geometry.

Wouldn't the demand have to increase "drastically" for the effect to by "drastic"?

Basically what I imagine is a population growth curve, minus the bell curve. The gap between demand (the population curve) and supply (bell curve) would grow faster than if demand remained constant. A lot faster. If you have access to a graphing calculator (you can use one at http://www.coolmath.com), graph

1) [math]ae^{x}[/math] the population curve

2) [math]ae^{k-(x-k)^{2}}[/math] the bell curve with peak at [math]x=k[/math]

3) [math]ae^{x} - ae^{k-(x-k)^{2}}[/math] to see the difference between them.

By the way, a is just a height scaling scalar.

Yes' date=' that makes more sense. I think it is good for teachers to be aware of tendancies, such as calling on boys, responding to bright students better, etc. But to tie hands is another story.

 

As for the other things, you mentioned what harm? It takes time and attention away from the teachers, and justifies the ' I am a victim ' thinking. People look to be offended, and so they find it eventually.[/quote']

Breaking bad habits should not be considered time "taken away" from other things. And the terms are frequently more factually correct as well. Are Africans literally black? Are all "blacks" African? Are Asians literally yellow? Are Native Americans literally red? Are Native Americans actually from India? Are we really too stubborn to correct things we know are wrong?

Hi everyone!

 

This has been annoying me for a while now' date=' you can have things like base 8, base 6, base 2, base 10 but how about something like base 2.5 for example, would that be valid? (Probably useless but there we go!)

 

Also, would a negative base be valid and would an irrational base be valid too, such as base Pi for example?

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones[/quote']

 

You could definte a way for your base system to work. Base systems are just ways of representing numbers as multiples of powers of other numbers. The problem in your scenario will rise, however, from describing how digits will work. Using Natual numbers > 1 for bases lets us use the digits we are used to. However a system with base pi would need figure out how to use digits. I wonder if this could be helped with linear algebra...

I'm reading through Introduction to Lattice Theory by Rutherford at the moment. Believe it or not I had to get some kind of background in lattices as they're used as a basis in a formal expression of semantic aspect.

 

I'm ususally rather wary of mathematical texts from that period (this book's from the 1960s) but it's pleasantly surprising so far!

Why worry about books from that period? I don't not much about lattices... I'm reading a book from 1969 by H.S.M. Coxeter called Introduction to Geometry, incredible reference!

When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere! 216 steps from the sidewalk to your apartment, 216 seconds you spend riding the elevator; you've chosen 216 and you will find it everywhere in nature! But Max, as soon as you disregard scientific rigor, you're no longer a mathematician: you're a numerologist.[/Quote]

 

Sol is awesome

I thought it would but there seem to be some difference

I mean here is example

 

for Aa * Aa' date=' on the punnet square we write,

A a (on top) * A a (on side)

 

for AaBbCc * AaBbCc, we write

ABC ABc AbC Abc (on top) * ABC ABc AbC Abc (on side)

 

notice it is 3 letters at a time instead of 1 letter.[/quote']

 

Oh yes, very different I see... I really have not seen a solution for this, maybe Dave's link will work.

 

Are you saying that there are 4 different tops or 4 different columns? If the latter I expect the solution to still be represented by (ABC+ABc+AbC+Abc)*(ABC+ABc+AbC+Abc)

when finding the genotype ratio of Aa * Aa

we could use binomial expansion (A+a)*(A+a) to get 1:2:1 ratio

but how do we find AaBbCc * AaBbCc ?

Hm interesting observation. I expect it would be (A+a+B+b+C+c)*(A+a+B+b+C+c) unless there is something I misunderstand about the question?

There is a sticky in this forum for questions like this.

 

In case you didn't notice.

 

 

 

Anyways' date=' I don't think economics has all that much discussion going on here, so it really wouldn't be necessary. If you want, start a few discussions, and if people are interested in economics, then it may be done.[/quote']

Oh... um... sticky, what sticky?

 

Okay thanks for the suggestion... If I have another such suggestion, I'll remember where to put it.

How many people actually talk about econmics? There will have to be quite a few for the forums to be added.

 

I hear its quite a complex area' date=' I'll be avoiding it should it get added!

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones[/quote']

Oh forsooth! I'd love to see what new propagation of knowledge could be learned from an economic forum.

Have you ever heard of this thing called "macroeconomics"? Aggregate supply and demand?

 

Peak oil implies a gradual' date=' steady decrease in supply. If supply decreases while demand remains constant, then price increases. As the price increases then demand for alternatives to oil, including ethanol, kerosene (coal oil), and hydrogen, will increase, and a new energy infrastructure will begin to materialize as demand for alternatives increases and the money made from them can be re-invested back into developing the infrastructure.

 

The grid doesn't just break when it runs out of something. The market will respond dynamically by bolstering alternatives as oil becomes increasingly more expensive.[/quote']

 

Yes, peak oil implies a gradual, steady decrease in supply. But you're assuming that demand remains constant. However, wouldn't demand increase due to natural overall growth? Causeing the seperation between supply and demand to grow not steadily, but drastically?

I don't agree that analogies are attempts to find isomorphisms. I agree that that CAN happen' date=' but the implication that they're always a logical fallacy is not fair. They can also be a valid tool for giving an example for one's position, without necessarily suggesting that the comparison is direct and perfect. (I'm interested in discussing that further, but we might want a separate thread for it. I think others might be interested in that discussion as well, if you don't mind starting it.)

<snipped for revelence of reply>[/quote']

 

Done and done, its in the general sciences forum:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16587

Okay I'm back, and I had a thought to elaborate more:

My position is that while analogies may be used as a starting point to suggest further investigation, they can not be used to substantiate a point.

so this is the problem:

 

[math]d + e + f = A[/math]

[math]d*e + d*f + e*f = B[/math]

[math]d*e*f = C[/math]

 

Where your trying to isolate d' date=' e and f in terms of A, B and C.

 

Is it impossible? I haven't been able to isolate anything...

 

BTW I got this by figuring out what the factors of

[math']x^3 + Ax^2 + Bx + C[/math]

 

would be:

 

[math](x + d)(x + e)(x + f)[/math]

 

and the system of equations was how I'd figure out what the d, e and f's equaled.

 

anyways, if it is possible to do, please help, this isn't homework or anything just trying to figure out this...

Don't do it! Haha trust me I spent more time than I should have trying to solve that system. Its related to the roots of a cubic. Whatever answer you get like Dave said will be a cubic, because any of the roots of the cubic will satisfy any of those variable properties, because the conditions you've placed on them are all commutative, so you can switch them around as much as you want.

The creation of this thread being rightly inspired by Pangloss:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=227050&postcount=42

I don't agree that analogies are attempts to find isomorphisms. I agree that that CAN happen, but the implication that they're always a logical fallacy is not fair. They can also be a valid tool for giving an example for one's position, without necessarily suggesting that the comparison is direct and perfect. (I'm interested in discussing that further, but we might want a separate thread for it. I think others might be interested in that discussion as well, if you don't mind starting it.)

I don't mind at all!

Here are the analogies that inspired this:

Pangloss's Grocer/President analogy:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=226783&postcount=36

My personal opinion is that the evidence of WMDs was marginal and circumstantial' date=' and the administration, upon realizing that the terrorism/9-11 angle was going to be insufficient to bring the country to war, decided that WMDs constituted a more powerful motivator. That's deceptive, but it's not the same thing as a "lie". We were sold a bag of goods, Madison Avenue style, and we bought it, hook, line, but no sinker (not everyone was convinced, but not enough people disagreed to stop it).

 

This is different from saying that we were LIED to. And frankly I think the problem here is that we as Americans are unwilling to own up to our own responsibility for this mess. It's too easy to dump it all in George Bush's lap. Who are the real fools here? [/quote']

 

With Mokele's Response:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=226798&postcount=37

 

And, while I would agree about owning up to the responsibility of having fallen for it, I'm not sure your analogy is valid; we have good reason to expect a street vendor to try to cheat us in order to get our money, but to expect *any* branch of government to spin (or otherwise present in a biased manner) information to lead us to war?

 

Then there was the second analogy:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=226909&postcount=39

 

[b']We went to the auto dealer to buy Ford Explorer, and came home in a Ferrari, and now the wife is standing in the doorway with the kids demanding to know what the hell we think we're doing. And all we can do is stare at the ground and mumble something about the color red.[/b]

 

And my subsequent response:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=226929&postcount=41

 

First of all, analogies are attempts to find isomorphisms... however they are frequently false isomorphisms. I really don't see how your analogies are applying or what they even mean.

 

 

So now that you're all caught up...

Analogies are attempts to compare two like things, to try to map the properties of one onto another. However when two systems have intrinsic differences, its important not to overapply the properties of one onto another. For example, in mathematics 1=1, and we usually apply that to metersticks, where the length of one meterstick is equal to the length of another. However if one meter stick is hurled at the sun and it burns into flames, and one kept on earth, then the one on earth is not equal to the one burnt up in the sun.

 

Gah, time for class, hope that was a good example, though I'm not sure if the connection with analogies is readily obvious. But before I go for now, I'd just like to say: An analogy to a situation is like getting a crayon-drawn stick figure after asking an artist for a portrait.

 

Edit: So yeah, I didn't explicitly state this: What are your thoughts on analogies? Please, discuss amongst yourselves.

 

AND OMG MY 100th POST!

I thought you posted something in support of Tiger's Eye's comments on the atomic bomb, but looking back at the thread I don't see it now. Sorry for the confusion. I wonder if I just shorted neurons and confused you with Tiger's Eye completely. If so I apologize for that error instead.

No problem, I was almost hoping I had said something interesting enough to be cited by another thread.

<snipped for brevity>

Where I fault them is that they should have known better. When it became clear that the American people were not going to support a "solo" war in Iraq on terrorism grounds' date=' and they couldn't get the support from the UN/"world opinion", they should have stopped. They chose not to, and at that point they changed their message, and crossed a very narrow but very important line.

 

And we let them do it. We're not calling them on the carpet for it, even now. The complaint today is that they lied to us about the existince of WMDs. Apparently we're not capable of considering that we were simply oversold a package of goods, and fell for it.

 

[b']We went to the auto dealer to buy Ford Explorer, and came home in a Ferrari, and now the wife is standing in the doorway with the kids demanding to know what the hell we think we're doing. And all we can do is stare at the ground and mumble something about the color red.[/b]

First of all, analogies are attempts to find isomorphisms... however they are frequently false isomorphisms. I really don't see how your analogies are applying or what they even mean.

And you admit that they crossed a line in their attempts to bring us into war. What distinctions are you arguing for exactly?

It's the first part of that sentence that I'm questioning. I'm not convinced that's the case.

 

The second part of the sentence is something I have no problem with being flexible about.

 

Here's an honest question for you (or anybody else): Do I have a right to know whether they are part of the former group' date=' or the latter?[/quote']

 

What two groups are you referring to?

I think an Economics forum may be appropriate in the "Other Sciences" catagory. Does anyone agree/disagree?

Haha I love to see swift-boating become a term that characterizes underhanded and lying smear campaigns.

Well first of all, you're more or less preaching to the choir here, so I don't know that I'm the best person to answer these questions. But this claim, as with your point about the atomic bombs in the other thread, is similarly refutable.

My point about atomic bombs in another thread? I checked my posts in my profile and didn't find anything like that.....?

My personal opinion is that the evidence of WMDs was marginal and circumstantial' date=' and the administration, upon realizing that the terrorism/9-11 angle was going to be insufficient to bring the country to war, decided that WMDs constituted a more powerful motivator. That's deceptive, but it's not the same thing as a "lie". We were sold a bag of goods, Madison Avenue style, and we bought it, hook, line, but no sinker (not everyone was convinced, but not enough people disagreed to stop it).

 

This is different from saying that we were LIED to. And frankly I think the problem here is that we as Americans are unwilling to own up to our own responsibility for this mess. It's too easy to dump it all in George Bush's lap. Who are the [i']real[/i] fools here?

Are you calling us fools for expecting the president to not lie to us? Mokele expressed this point in a larger context and very well.

At any rate' date=' Anendberg Factcheck did a specific piece on this just yesterday which demonstrates why the "Bush lied" point is so fully refutable.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/article358.html

 

A couple of particularly relevent quotes from their piece:

 

 

 

I highly recommend that all "Bush lied" proponents read that factcheck in detail. It forms a nice basis/beginning point for further debate, with [i']extensive[/i] sources and much more specific points than what I quoted above.

Is your arguement has become that since the Bush administration was able to trick us, we can only blame ourselves? The article you cite explains how any possible evidence was weak if not retracted. What about the direct quotes from White House Administration I posted? Did you read them? How are they "preaching to the choir"? I dug up direct quotes to illustrate how they are not biased. What is your arguement against the administration's own words?