Shadow

Maybe because Obama is, from their point of view, doing such a better job than his predecessor?

I like that.

Done. And the cake is not a lie. Not only do you see it at the end, you can even get to it through some glitch.

As long as I'm able to learn and use a keyboard, I don't really care how old I am.

But they're needed for consciousness. Okay, how about cake?

Thanks again

I knew that That's why I stopped trying First one to make GLaDOS gets cookies!

Okay, me feeling stupid... Thanks man EDIT: Just a question, why does [math]\frac{d}{dx} \left(y^{-2}\right) = \frac{dy}{dx} \frac{d}{dy}\left(y^{-2}\right)[/math]?

You know, that is exactly what I did when I started. I got stuck on emotions

Hey all, I've been trying to learn second order differential equations with x and y' missing. I've been doing so with some material my math teacher gave me, and they give the following example: [math]y'' = -\frac {1}{y^3}, \ y \neq 0[/math] They go on to multiply both sides of the equation by [math]2y'[/math]: [math]2y'y'' = -2 \frac {y'}{y^3}[/math] Now here comes my problem. They rearrange the left side like so: [math](y'^{\ 2})'[/math] That is correct, when we use the chain rule the result is [math]2y'y''[/math]. However, it's the right side rearrangement that confuses me. From [math]-2 \frac {y'}{y^3}[/math] they somehow get [math]\left(\frac {1}{y^2}\right)'[/math] How is this possible? As far as I can see, [math]\left(\frac {1}{y^2}\right)'=\left(y^{-2}\right)'=-2y^{-3}=-\frac{2}{y^3}[/math]. Is there something I'm missing, or is the book in error? Cheers, Gabe

Got it thanks ;-)

Don't all other physical abstractions (point masses etc.) violate relativity as well?

I know, but for the sake of argument, if it were inflexible, it would move immediately at the other end, right?. Also, what affects flexibility? Or, what would have to happen for a material to be 100% inflexible? @iNow: I had a feeling there was something similar here, but again, I wasn't sure. Thanks for the help guys.

Hey all, I was wondering; we have points A, B and C in space, where |AC| = some big number, say a million light years and |AB| = |BC|, and an inflexible pole from points A to point C that would be fixed at point B. Now person X is standing at A, and person Y at C. Person A moves the pole in some way (rotation, displacement, angle, you name it). Would the change in the pole's rotation/position/angle/whatever be apparent immediately to person Y? Cheers, Gabe

Couldn't have been. A person walks with his arms (and hands) along their body, and a meteorite falls down. The article said nothing about him scratching his head at the time. Just adding to the pot.

Why did they stop giving elements reasonable names?

God forbid...

Maybe he's a passionate biologist...

That's interesting, never knew that. It very well might, I'm no expert in this matter. But how does it concern what I wrote? Even if energy is flexible, it still doesn't equal mass.

Well, I don't think I'm at the complex problem modeling part in my programming life just yet. I still have lots to learn, as is illustrated by this topic. Erlang sounds interesting, I might have a look at it. I don't really mind ugly syntax, on the contrary; the faster it is to type, the happier I am. TBH, I also love unreadable code, but also often fall into the hole you described with APL. Who knows, maybe I'll end up using something like Brain**** For now, I think I'm going to stick with C++, since it serves my purposes well enough. I'll glance at Java further, see if I can manipulate myself into learning it properly, and after that it's either Assembly or Erlang. Probably the latter, since my indifference towards syntax has it's limits. Or would you recommend something else?

You might have meant that [math]E \propto M[/math], or "energy is proportional to mass". Energy doesn't equal mass. Not here, not in any fantasy world. [math]E=mc^2[/math].

Nice. I have no doubt that, were I to do the same thing in C++, it would take a lot more code. But there is another important factor I forgot to state earlier, and that's fun. At my age and with the range of programs I am able to make, I almost never program for the result. I've only done that twice in my life. All the other programs I've made are absolutely useless, and I've never opened them twice. But it was fun. And you have to admit that implementing the Sieve of Eratosthenes in C++ would be a lot more fun than just writing "sieve" on three lines. I think it also explains the divergence of our views quite nicely; I doubt you do much programming for fun anymore, although I admit that's just a guess. I beg your pardon?

Yes to 1 and 3, no to 2 and 4, since I never heard of them until know. I had a quick look at RTTI and...well...what's it good for? But Boost looks cool. And I confused two things in my head, I meant dynamic, not interpreted. As in, you type in the commands, and they execute now. I just can't even imagine how one would make, I don't know, a program that accepts an integer x and outputs the first x Prime Numbers.

Well, to be honest I'll probably completely ignore the update when it comes out. What I meant to say is that I've finished learning most of the language, as in the stuff you find in most tutorials, and I've delved a little in the standard library. I don't know any other major things in C++ that one can learn. In other words, I think I have all the knowledge I'll need for your basic problem. The problem I have with Ruby, Python and others is that I just can't get over interpreted languages. I had a brief look at the two back when I "finished" learning plain C, and it was something so completely alien to my style of thinking that I dropped both of them within 5 minutes. I can't imagine making an application in them, because I just...I don't know, I just lack the imagination to think "interpreter".

Thanks bascule, that helps a lot. I'll have a look at the links you posted when I get back. But I was wondering; what languages do you use, for what purpose (as in what do you mainly use it for) and why those languages? 'Cause I "finished" learning C++ about a year ago, and for some time now have been thinking what language I should start learning. Java was an obvious choice, and I started delving in that a little but I didn't last long. I'm going to pick it up again eventually, and maybe even take a crack at assembly, but that's just going "up" and "down" from C(++). And I'd like to go right