
Posts
1550 
Joined

Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Xittenn


You got all of that from my choice of the word "pathetic?" Whoa... Others even before you told me it was the perfect word to describe the data, and yet now here you're telling me it was "skewed in a way that was both malicious and misguided."
I'm sorry iNow I don't argue with American idiots, especially arrogant individuals like yourself who are so proud to call the majority of their country pathetic, and most everyone else for that matter! You obviously have no respect for how people view you, and your callous nature will only ever serve to aggravate any matter which you may or may not intend to correct or other.
To paraphrase "Hello my name is iNow, I am surrounded by pathetic idiots, and here are my statistics to prove it. On the bright side we haven't reached parameciumlevel 15 kiloton thermostupid yet, but we are obviously well on our wayI mean look at the statistics, people adopt religion!" Newsflash iNow, there has never been a time when the majority was your breed of intelligent, and I honestly pray to my cup of java that they never selectively choose your particular branding should they ever decide to move up the evolutionary ladder. I don't care how droll the title was intended to be, and I'm sure Green Day would find it an offensive use thereof. The Punk motto tends to be live and let die, not let's bash the Christian mindset because there is no scientific proof of it's validity. Get a line dude and stop smearing everyone's else!
Argue your points iNow, I've already given mine. Unless of course the epitome of your presentation is Americans are pathetic because they make a choice that you disapprove of and isn't well founded, in which case you have already stated that. I'm pretty sure that no one has forgotten the concept of evolution, nor will anyone forget it, regardless of choice in religion. And if they do, those of us who know better can either do something about it or not, that's really up to those individuals. What we are doing here is not doing something about it. Addressing the issues locally is a far better choice, especially when done in person. There are of course those in the thread who have actually discussed some finer more interesting points, I'm sure these points gave people things to think on.
Can you help me understand what you mean? I've lost your intended meaning, I fear. Perhaps you wish I'd said, "Hey! Look at the opportunity we have for making things better! Yippeee gollly, this is such fandiddlytastic news folks!"
My wishes are simply that if you are going to make a serious statement, that you might apply some class. By all means don't oblige, but don't get all blustered with me when I state my disapproval.
No. Despite the accumulation of evidence and despite the increased availability to information, acceptance of evolution has been flat to negative over the past several decades, and the data skews heavily by ideology. How is it malicious to point out a fact? How is it misguided to present data and share a one word response to it, "Pathetic?" I'd really like you to elaborate on that if you'd be so kind.
It's malicious to call people pathetic for enjoying their personal freedoms, and their traditions. This is especially true when the individual has a personal gripe against those he is contending with, and this holds for anybody and is a concept you apply often. I'm sure I've probably annoyed a few readers by now myself, so do I have permission to be excused now guy, or would you like to drag this through the mud until I get modulated? :/
0 
I can see you as someone with well guided objectives, but your choice of words often leaves me wondering what is your motivation. I'm not trying to disrupt your thread iNow, I just felt the OP was skewed in a way that was both malicious and misguided. Misguided because of the choice of words, maybe if it had been posed differently your meaning might have been more clear to me. I also advocate for the working man, who despite having low literary ability can often prove to be rather perceptiveeven in light of their possible belief in a maybe less favorable concept.
I apologize if I have sidetracked your discussion, do continue as it seems to be very important to you. I will watch from over there ==>
1 
I think that you can approach problems like this by raising awareness. I don't think that involving your own emotions in the problem will help any. My personal opinion, and why I keep bringing up community outreach, is that there are not enough healthy alternatives to religion to offset the gap that the church currently provides. Do you see what I did there, or better yet, what I didn't? I didn't say that people are stupid. I made note of a problem and I suggested a place in where solutions could be found. Is the American government currently an issue that needs to be addressed? This could very well be, but the government of America is not the American people. Voting may not be adequate in solving the problems with American government, these problems may require a more intense solution or more active participation in moving key players into office that would change the way things are done. Key players may be required for that matter. People who call people stupid are rarely key player material iNow!
0 
And please, xittenn... would you please shut up about me not participating in my community or educating those around me. You have no idea what I do when I'm not online, nor how I involve myself in enriching the lives of people... and I'm tired of your continued assumptions about me and what do or don't do in an attempt to make things better.
No iNow, I will shut up only because I have nothing else to say. All you do here is complain about the faults of others, so and so is too this, American people are paramecium. I already made note that I do not know what you do in your spare time, but if your activities here reflect your daily life discourse I'm sure it's accurate to say that all you do is complain. People are not yours for the judging . . . . . are there problems in America, I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. Are the American people parameciumlevel 15 kiloton thermostupid? Probably not! Maturity . . . .
0 
Are you at least familiar with the frequent attempts to legislate that we teach the controversy? We may as well teach the stork theory of childbirth, too.
So you anticipate a time when the government you are voting into office has it in mind to 'educate' the public, or essentially establish a system such that ignorance is abolished? This would be as an alternative, I suppose, to actually reaching out to your community yourself. But your governments actions seem to be quite in contrast to these aspirations, and in fact their actions seem to be motivated more closely with sabotaging the future of the general American public. Ironically enough many throughout the globe fear a potential insurgence by the American government towards military rule, both home and abroad. I mean these are just my observations, and these ideas may not immediately contradict the original hypothesisI believe that they do! I still see your initial argument as confused at best.
Who is voting in who? What are the American public to do about it? Is 'the controversy' really your immediate threat, or is it a smoke screen that you are simply too blind to see through? I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but the actions of the American government these days seems rather subversive. Who has that bull by the horns? Let's say hypothetically for a moment that America is borderline dumb as a rock on a greater whole . . . . ** Thor smash, me hungry ** <== far less worried about how much the American public feels about creationism, [math] \lnot [/math] please enjoy a nice tea party guys :/
0 
Am I really out of line for being incredibly disheartened by the ignorance that is so rampant in our culture? Am I really some sort of monster for prizing education and reason?
No, you are out of line for bitching about it, instead of actually doing your country a service and remedying the situationmy apologies if you actually do spend time confronting the public on this matter. I'm sure the public generally avoids this site, so if this is a plea to the many it may be misplaced.
Again, the lack of concern on the public's part with regards to issues that you feel are important is not proof of their stupidity. Comparing the public to their government is far from a rational choice as well. You wouldn't believe how incredibly meticulous people are with the tasks that are required of them, such as butchering your dinner and not poisoning you in the process. The fact that you purposefully neglect their talents and focus on their inability to write prose is not proof of fact, especially when you've decided which language that prose should be in.
Radical atheist attitudes have risen by 67% within the last 12 years! If this trend continues the US will be void of honest religious people within ~50 years (and also of dishonest religious people). Might this extrapolation foretell the date of Armageddon? Sinners repent!
(brainfucked by trying to sell similarly convincing data to a bunch of referees)
I guess I fall under this category, being an advocate of moving on as opposed to moving forward and all . . .. . . I apologies to the population for being a prick, it was never my primary intention :/
** this was my way of saying I'm like the kettle and all .. . .
0 
Maybe after I take my Analogue Bubblebath!
I might need a walk outside as well!
0 
If Science wants itself to be represented as an alternative ideology it will be required to involve itself 'freely' within the greater community. If Science does not want itself to be viewed as an ideology, then I am unclear as to how you would expect to persuade members of a long standing ideology to suddenly relinquish their methods. Being part of the community doesn't mean volunteer work, it means reaching out to a public, 90% of whom hold no degree and who have incredibly simple views of the discoveries of science.
American's aren't dumb iNow, they are hard pressed to get by. They work to make due, they drink their pop and watch their TV's when the day is done. Most barely have the energy to go to church at the end of their week, but you expect them to learn why they must believe in evolution, a concept which wasn't even understood until within the most recent human history by the most brilliant of minds. People are genetically inferior biological entities who have no superior to stand against so that they might know better.
If you wish to hand out pamphlets iNow I will gladly do the graphic design work and lay them out for you. I will not however stand in front of the Skytrain Station at Central City handing them out . . . . or Metrotown Station either! But honestly iNow you are slamming people who can barely understand what the hell they are doing here and what they might want from their personal existence. They can think, they are just not inclined to do so when there are far more pressing issues like how much the telephone bill is, in contrast to how did we get here.
If my reply is a little too weak for your liking I might suggest that you ignore it . . . . unless you might prefer to educate me on my wrongs :/
1 
Media absorbing the minds of the worlds children, and the eventual destruction of the world . . . . . . or simply Richard James just be his awesome vicious self \o/
He has warped. . . my fragile little mind!
0 
I'm jealous of Zooey . . . :
0 
Then might I suggest coding your alphabet so as to bind phonetic statements by introducing embedded meta data into your numerical representations. Code a letter to not only represent a symbolic character, but also to associate it to its set of phonetic pronunciations as both an individual element within a statement and in conjunction with the letters that it is surrounded by. So:
[math] \underbrace{ 01010101 }_\text{symbol} \underbrace{ 01010101 }_{\leftarrow \text{left}} \underbrace{ 01010101 }_{\text{right} \rightarrow} \underbrace{ 01010101 }_\text{mouth shape} \underbrace{ 01010101 }_\text{other} [/math]
I'm not sure of a 'good' way to do this, but I'm sure you'll figure it out if you ask yourself the right questions.
0 
I did a fair bit of research into this when it was posted. Nitrogenase alternatives are being researched as alternatives, but as for a direct correlation it is quite the opposite. Iron catalysts overcome the activation energy that nitrogenase enzymes would otherwise have reduced, under extreme temperature and pressure. Ru is being used in stages, where it is preferred to poison the Iron catalyst the early stages of synthesis, and where they can then take advantage Ru in later stages. There are a number of newly emerging alternatives that are being used in a variety of stages such as the A301 Catalyst.
interesting stats presentation:
1 

I should have noted I recall I had asked the forum once if I was out of place . . . I had felt bad for whining and expected some down votes . .. I'm sorry for that forum!
0 
I've left before, the last thing I did was whine about it in the lounge. I posted my farewells on my profile, and you were more than capable of leaving a note on your status. Instead you polluted the lounge. Even if things aren't quite right or fair ruining other people's fun is a bit childish. If I pwned this forum I would have banned you and laughed about itI'm just evil like that. Instead I down voted the thread. There should be a corner somewhere to put erroneous threads that deter the general atmosphere away from happy thoughts, so as so I'm less inclined to press the red button . . . . .
Hope you enjoy your moments!
<3 daPincess
0 
So yeah, explanation . .. . . . .
First we realize that the following function [math] f(x) [/math] is simply the equation for the unit circle, and we do in fact require the derivative [math] f'(x) [/math] to plug into the subsequent integral equation:
[math] f(x) = \sqrt { 1  x^2 }\, ; \; f'(x) =  \frac{x}{\sqrt{1x^2}} [/math]
Now by definition [math] 2\pi [/math] is the length of the arc that is the circumference of the unit circle, and so [math] \frac{\pi}{2} [/math] is [math] \frac{1}{4} [/math] of the circumference of the unit circle. We use only a fraction of the unit circle to simplify the overall problem. According to a simple theorem we can derive the arclength of a curve by breaking it down into an infinite number of pieces such that if we add the length of each 'chord' we will find the length of the arc. We can say that a small change in [math] x [/math] will create a small change in [math] y = f(x) [/math] such that the length of the chord can be written as follows:
[math] P_{i1}P_{i} = \sqrt{(\Delta x)^2 + (\Delta y)^2 } = \sqrt{[\Delta x]^2 +[f'(x^*_i) \Delta x]^2} = \sqrt{1+[f'(x^*_i)]^2} \sqrt{[\Delta x]^2} = \sqrt{1+[f'(x^*_i)]^2} \Delta x [/math]
which by taking the limit of the infinite number of pieces of the arc, or by adding the chords as they become infinitely small and taking their limit:
[math] L = \lim_{n \to \infty} \sum^n_{i=1} \sqrt{1+[f'(x^*_i)]^2} \Delta x = \int^b_a \sqrt{1+[f'(x)]^2} dx = S[/math]
This is the arclength formula and is what I'm using for the circumference of the quarter circle. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just trying to give a proper elaboration that might help you see the correlation between the weird stuff and what you are already doing, without posting something that is inaccurate.
So moving on we simply plug in [math] f'(x) [/math] from above into our arclength integral. If you really wanted to you could solve this integral using limits . . . . 'if' !
[math] S = \frac {\pi}{2} = \int_{0}^{1} \sqrt { 1 + [f'(x)]^2 } \, dx = \int_{0}^{1} \sqrt { 1 + [ \frac{x}{\sqrt{1x^2}}]^2 } \, dx = \int_{0}^{1} \sqrt { 1 + \frac{x^2}{1x^2} } \, dx [/math]
But we don't want to do this. We want to reinterpret this integral as a Riemann Sum so that you can use your C64 to solve for pi in basic, because this seems to be what you love to do??
The basic form for taking an integral and reinterpreting it as a Riemann Sum is as follows:
[math] \int^b_a f(x) dx [/math]
We make the following analogies between the two interpretations of our structure:
width of trapezoid such that [math] n [/math] is the number of divisions or 'cuts':
[math] dx = \Delta x = \frac{b  a}{n} = \frac{1}{n} [/math]
left trapezoid edge as it meets the curve for mid approximation:
[math] x = x_i^* = a + i \cdot \Delta x = \frac{i}{n} [/math]
right trapezoid edge as it meets the curve for mid approximation:
[math] x_{i1}^* = a + (i  1) \cdot \Delta x = \frac{i  1}{n} [/math]
the average of the left and right trapezoids as the midpoint meets the curve for mid approximation:
[math] \bar{x} = \frac{x_i^* + x_{i1}^*}{2} = \frac{(\frac{i}{n}) + (\frac{i  1}{n})}{2} = \frac{2i  1}{2n} [/math]
the integral is replaced by the summation symbol and as it is a mid approximation i=1 and n=n:
[math] \int = \sum^n_{i=1} [/math]
We then take [math] \bar{x} [/math] and plug it into the summation via [math] f(x^*_i) [/math] and substitute in [math] \Delta x. [/math] [math] \frac{1}{n} [/math] moves outside of the sum by summation rules and so on . . . solve for the approximation.
[math] M_n \approx \sum_{i=1}^n f( \bar{x} ) \cdot \Delta x = \sum_{i=1}^n \sqrt { 1 + \frac{(\bar{x})^2}{1(\bar{x})^2} } \cdot \frac{1}{n} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \sqrt { 1 + \frac{(\frac{2i  1}{2n})^2}{1(\frac{2i  1}{2n})^2} } = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \sqrt{\frac{4n^2}{4n^2  4i^2 + 4i  1 }} [/math]
The stuff on the bottom is to find the error bounds with given n, but as mentioned before it requires the first, second, and third derivatives of the function found within the integral or arbitrarily [math] g(x) [/math]. I'll gladly post these or the [math] K_2 [/math] if you want. The important part though is the summation or the last variant thereof:
[math] \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \sqrt{\frac{4n^2}{4n^2  4i^2 + 4i  1 }} [/math]
which if you make a little program and make n sufficiently large you will see [math] \frac{pi}{2} [/math]. Simple enough to double this value et la voila, c'est tout! If I made any mistakes, sorry, I'm a noob and it's in my nature . . . .
2 
In this case, however, the integrand is not very well behaved close to x = 1 so accuracy may suffer. For a more practical method using integral calculus I would suggest instead computing the area of a quarter unit circle = pi/4.
Which is definitely true of the original improper integral and would be true of the [math] M_n [/math] approximation if [math] i = n + \frac{1}{2} [/math] produced a whole number given whole numbered ndo correct me if I'm wrong! The original thread title under which I posted required a quarter circle [math] \frac{2pi}{4} [/math].
** also where [math] i \not > n [/math]
0 
As always I made a slight oversight. Not that anything is technically wrong with what was posted, but these three derivatives are useless:
[math] f'(x) =  \frac{x}{\sqrt{1x^2}}\, ; \; f''(x) =  \frac{1}{\sqrt{(1x^2)^3}}\, ; \; f'''(x) =  \frac{3x}{\sqrt{(1x^2)^5}} [/math]
What I should have done is given the derivatives of the function for which we are integrating:
[math] g(x) = \sqrt { 1 + [f'(x)]^2 } [/math]
where the importance of these are in calculating the error of the approximation using the equations on the final line.
At any rate I'll write up an explanation tomorrow, when I'm at home studying. I hope you are somewhat familiar with calculus? It's really not too complicated. The important part is:
[math] M_n \approx \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \sqrt{\frac{4n^2}{4n^2  4i^2 + 4i  1 }} [/math]
0 
I resurrected my portfolio from film school, I thought it might be interesting to someone who is interested in this sort of thingGame Design. It's mostly concepts(presentations/documents) and levels, Roz: New Mexico was my final project concept demo. It might not be the best example of this, I was apparently not a team player, which is bullshit, bullshit I tell you! *rageface* At any rate I worked solo where most were working in groups of five. I was still praised by my classmates for my odds defying feat, having done all the artwork, presentation/concept work, programming(Source), etc. The source code is probably in the zip package . . . .
http://vfs.entangledlogic.com/
0 
this is like... so wrong!
Yeah really, Andromeda and Serenity should have been in the top ten . . . . . .
1 

I guess the big thing with having this kind of power in terms of engine is that it can require an equal amount of power from your computer. When opening a new level the terrain is set well below sea level and a sea is actually automagically added. The sea is using normal mapping and reflection algorithms, much of which is optimized or specifically for a DX11 GFX card. In the thumb I posted, if you blow it up you will notice the poly count. I had simply used a terrain brush to render a flat island with sheer cliffs, followed by a height brush to pull up some spiked mountainous formations. I dropped a big rock on the island and added a ton of vegetation. The terrain hadn't been textured yet and hence the large black line on it. But, the poly count is 1.3Million because I plopped down a considerable number of 3D rendered vegetation, as opposed to trying to fill it in with a terrain texture. I'm still running 56FPS, something that most will not achieve on their computers, especially in an editor. But at the same time, by applying proper techniques, CryENGINE 3 presents to users a rapid game development strategy that will significantly reduce time spent on redundant tasks like adding in a sky box manually.
0 
I'd blame the hormones, but that would be lacking a certain logic . . . . .
0 
Aerodynamics
in Classical Physics
Posted
I'm sorry for my randomness, but, if I don't cauterize the thought it will take up space. . . . I felt that the content of this thread needed clarification and a while back an @minutephysics type known as @veritasium posted a short that puts perspective on my above statements.
When I saw the clip I kind of wondered if @veritasium had seen this thread.