Heretic

I'd have severe delusions of grandure if I claimed to be remotely talented, but I'll submit none the less.

It is my strong belief that most feminists are "self-deluded sadistic man torturers".

Cap'n' date=' everybody knows rats are junkies.

 

I don't know how social rats are, but there is a similar study in cocaine use in chimps. The chimps were strapped to a machine that had a button that would give them a dose of coke whenever they hit it. All the chimps loved it and would hit the button over and over and over again, with one exception, the alpha male, who hit it once or twice to check it out and then lost interest. I'm sure if they switched the drug to heroin, I'm sure they'd get the same result, the alpha checking it out but not that interested and the other chimps as fiends.

 

[/quote']

 

I'm going to have to call you on that one... that is a study I've read. The thing about the study that was fascinating was it was the ALPHA MALE who was an addict. The scientists doing the study found this interesting because they had hypothesized that it would be a subordinate or loner chimp that would become the junkie. They were unsure whether or not this was related to the fact he was hording a rare resource (so to speak) or whether being an Alpha Male makes you more prone to drug use.

 

Generally speaking if you look in ANY HIGHSCHOOL you'll find an exact parrallel to this study, as most alpha males are the ones using the drugs, while the loners and geeks tend to avoid them.

Just an update, they've found the mercury in vaccines (Thimerosal I believe) has no impact on autism at all... How they found this out so quickly I'm still a bit puzzled about...

Is it not also theoretically possible that silicon based life exists? Since Carbon and Silicon are atomically similar?

A friend of mine recently gave me a laptop of his to look at. He said it was running terribly slow, so I did the usual and scaned for all manners of spyware and viruses.

NOTHING (very weird) but he says he only uses Firefox and rarely searches the dark questionable depths of the Internet. Fair enough. He had Norton Systemworks 2005 installed, with CheckIt diagnostics. I figured it was a useless program, but tried it anyway.

Apparently it clocks his CPU speed at 950 MHz? That's pretty damn slow for a 64 bit processor. I was wondering if this had anything to do with the fact CheckIt is a bad program or if it's possible some safety feature to conserve energy is causing his processor to run at a slower speed.

Of course I checked the BIOS. The settings were on the default, and the computer speed could not be adjusted (according to the BIOS it should be running at 2.2 GHz the computer does not in anyway run that fast.

He had taken it to the shop but they said nothing was wrong and charged him $50 since the warranty doesn't cover cost if there's nothing wrong with the laptop. Since then he's afraid to take it anywhere else.

Any advice?

I believe we will be able to at one point type using just our brains, but it will be so expensive and difficult that most people will settle for digital.... pardon the pun.

I made it to 18 and I hate myself for putting me through that.

I can't remember the exact term for this, but it happens with ALL senses. It was essential to our survival and is still very helpful.

My understanding is:

Whenever one of your senses is continually stimulated, whether it be seeing the same colors, hearing the same sounds, etc. your brain tunes it out. I know that in the eyes the response is somewhat different, as the cones and rods actually get "tired".

This system helps you find changes in the enviroment. Something that is paramount to survival, whether it is used to find prey or avoid predators it's a handy tool.

Take for example you're in the woods and birds are constantly chattering. If you continue to focus on that chatter you might not hear that twig snap behind you. However with your brain getting rid of "background noise" it allows you to focus more clearly on new sounds.

It's really fascinating stuff.

I believe Einstien had a theory simliar to yours except he came to the exact opposite conclusion.

I believe he stated that the closer you get to the speed of light the slower time goes. In fact if you surpassed the speed of light (an impossibility in his mind) you would actually go back in time.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I had a winner just a few years ago back in High School.

It was a giant sling. We basically loaded the egg up in a small margarine container, surgical rubber tubing provided the sling, and two large posts which could be adjusted or mounted into the ground, but we used a couple people to hold them up.

This allowed us to get huge distance, but we needed the egg to land safely. So we did what wost people would do. We caught them.

Two members of my team stood out in the field with large butterfly nets stuffed with shredded newspaper. We set the record with over 120 meters, literally the length of the entire field.

In three tries we caught two and lost only one. Which is surprisingly better then most teams fared.

I guess my real suggestion is think outside the box. It's a sure way to win or at the very least attract a lot of attention.

EDIT: I should state that record was one set for the competition I was in and due to the nature of the landing (in a net) the measurement was a little iffy. Oh and a suggestion... always make sure the egg is resting on the bottom of the cup pre-launch... or you're have egg all over you and the sling.

Nuclear energy is an incredibly clean and reliable source of energy. I know this may be hard to believe but our methods of containing radioactive materials exceeds burying it in the sand. There are several methods of properly containing waste and most waste is non-radioactive within a century. There however is one byproduct that remains radioactive for 10,000 years or so, and therefore long term storage facilities must be in place.

Nuclear reactors are extremely safe especially Candu reactors. There are many fail-safes in place to prevent meltdowns as well as leaks. Other then the radioactive waste (which is contained to prevent eniviromental contamination) there is little pollution. It is much safer, cleaner and reliable then fossil fuels, and far more reliable then natural sources (other then Hydro).

I sugest you read more about it, or rather about countries who have been running nuclear reactors for decades without problems. Understand that there is still a lot of research dollars dedicated to finder clean and better nuclear solutions.

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/

That's a good site about how my country deals with it. It's not the best but I used it not too long ago when doing a little research of my own.

I hope something is wrong with those numbers. If 1/100 people can be linked to DNA some a random source, we need a FAR better system. If that's true DNA evidence isn't showing you who the suspect is, it's merely eliminating 99% of the possibilities. That's really not enough to base an entire case after, like so many prosecutors have.

EDIT: Missed Page 2 for some reason...

I have to agree with Matt it's more a 1/65. The odds that more people with the same DNA live in the same area is VERY HIGH. For example, when I grew up with my 2 brothers, my mother and father there is at least 2 people (my brothers) with very similar DNA.

My mother grew up in a small town (3000) with 7 siblings and almost 20 cousins. Her odds of having DNA mixed up would be a lot higher I would assume.

So basically unless it's an alien with no relatives in the country, you can't be sure you have the right guy based on DNA or proximity.

Even though West never portrayed Batman very well, he was BY FAR the most entertaining. In fact if it wasn't for his ridiculous acting, beer gut belly, and blue bat eyebrows I don't think I could've watched that show.

He has a charm and a knack for dry comedy. If you really don't think he's that hilarious rent the original Batman movie and turn on the commentary.

You can't really compare him to the rest, since his show was a comedy and the others have a much more serious tone.... and bat nipples *shudders*

Sorry I didn't mean to sound like I doubted you.

I'm sure it's correct, I just want to work through it myself and find some proofs of that theorem. I'm just quirky like that. I have to see it for myself.

I'm still impressed you have knowledge like that at your disposal. Thanks again for your help.

I knew it was some weird rule I couldn't remember. Thanks for all your help, pepperchin. I appreciate the fact you explained your steps so I can clearly see how it's all done.

I guess it really was a high school problem, just to prove one theorem. I should probably go through my textbooks again just to remember all that I've forgotten.

I'll get back soon with the answer but that seems right to me, if that theorem is true.

Tell them we have to beat the reds to the bomb.

Hilarious.

No seriously there's no shortage of interest in my generation (The 80's). I think you're getting nervous over nothing. There aren't enough post-secondary schools here (Canada) to teach all the people who WANT to learn science.

Maybe Canada is different though? I can't see how...

If you want someone to become interested in science, simply ask them questions about there interests. Even explaining the science of sports, cars, whatever. You'll find once people realize the answers to all their questions lie in science they'll come to appreciate it all the more.

However' date=' this weapon, which it's effects are easily controlled, massive, cost effective, and have no long term damaging effects on a global scale,and the death induced would be [b']painless one[/b], would be perfect for the U.S to use, and the U.S could get away with using a weapon like this.

Exactly how do you know it's painless? How many of the people who died from your weapon can testify that this death was painless?

There's a lot I can believe but I think you're pushing it. Seriously though does this also run on AA batteries?

Each side is 16 units.

You know that since the sum of the 3 values on the one side equal 16.

1 + 2 + 13 = 16

That's the easy part so the other sides are equal to:

16 - x

and

16 - 7

You can tell from the numbers the circle isn't centered which causes the problems.

Where I work I have a patron who come in and picks my brain. Usually just politics, riddles or I.Q. Test type questions. Most I chew up and spit out rather quickly and haven't had a problem until now.

I admitted to him I was no mathematician but he gave me this problem stating it was only a high school problem, but it took him 2 months to figure out. I took a look at it and it seemed fairly easy but I can't seem to find the right equation or series of to solve for the unknowns. It's been a month and I've been scanning over all my old texts for similiar questions but to no avail.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, even just a general point in the right direction. I'd put some of my work up but quite frankly I'm embarrassed as it goes NOWHERE at all.

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: Sorry I forgot to add in case you can't tell from my diagram... that's a circle and it's overlapping an equilateral triangle. And you're trying to solve for X. Sorry again about the diagram.

It would be nice if the quoted researcher had not been quite so forceful in his conclusion ("It's highly likely that heavy metals are responsible for childhood autistic disorder in a majority of cases"). Based on this short summary, he's shown correlation, not causation.

After reading over the article I realise they aren't even wholly sure if heavy metals are causing the results they're seeing. It's been shown heavy metals effect the levels of porphyrins in urine. Heavy metals themselves were not found in high concentration. Hence high levels of porphyrins themselves may be a result of Autism not heavy metal exposure.

I'm going to look into what else might cause porphyrins in urine.

Sorry I know nothing about this topic and this is my first time on these forums so forgive me as I can only quote the article above.

You're right, that isn't much. Room temperature is 300 degrees Kelvin, and we've had cermic superconductors around for 20 years.

You're right in the fact that ceramics have been around for a while (1986) and have the record high temperature of superconducting at 138 degrees Kelvin. That's not what the article is about however. It seems to be about how a binary alloy has the ability to surpass the current binary alloy record of 39 degrees Kelvin held by magnesium diboride (MgB2).

It seems there are stressing the fact that this new alloy "should be" incredibly stable compared to other superconducting alloys. I guess ceramics aren't stable or easy to produce comparatively? Again I don't know much about it, but if you read the whole article SIP you might be able to see something I'm missing.