Drew

Take this question for example?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsYXz...

Modern (and for the past 20 years) stem cell research, has nothing to do with embryos. We (Yes, I work with them) take ADULT, SKIN cells... And we step them backwards, to a point where they are mostly undifferentiated, and use them for treatment.

It's less oncogenic (cancer-causing), easier (we use the person's cells, thus making immunosuppression unnecessary), and very effective.

Also - since when is Obama for newborn abortion? What?

I both want the answer, and, more importantly, *how* to get my own answer.

"Find the critical values X^2L and X^2R for the given confidence level c, and sample size n.

C = 0.95, N = 21".

I'm having a little issue with a few questions... Specifically, I don't even know where to start. While it would be nice to just get the answers, I'd also like to know what exactly it's asking, and how to properly solve the questions on my own. I realize, I'm asking a lot, but again, I want to pass the test, *and* get the HW done.

1. A population has a mean (greek u) = 82 and a standard deviation of 36. Find the mean and standard deviation of a sampling distribution of sample means with sample size n = 81. (greek u, with a subscript X, with a line above it.) = ????

2. Assume the random variable x is normally distributed with mean (greek u) = 81 and standard deviation = 5. Find the indicated probability. P(65<x<72). P(65<x<72)=???? (I have the answer, it's 0.0352, but how is that answer derived? What are the steps to solve this problem?)

My teacher is rather.... Terrible, and not communicative at all, so I've basically been on my own since the start, and this is frustrating not even really knowing what I'm looking for, much less how to derive it. Any help anyone can provide would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

I'm having issues with this class (Elementary statistics), because virtually the entire class is (lazily) taught by a teacher who belongs no further than in a high-school classroom, and taught (almost exclusively) on the TI-83. I don't happen to own one, I use a TI-89.

I suppose my question would be, are there any programs/applications for the 89 that one could get to make this class a little... Easier? I've had to learn almost everything on my own, and I'd like to be able to be more confident going into tests. Also, anyone else disagree completely with that teaching style? I'm all about using the technology, but if we're just going to use the calculators almost exclusively, I could do just as well (in this case better) with a TI-89 manual, rather than a teacher.

I see this quoted all the time, "Life cannot appear from nothing, becuase of the laws of thermodynamics."

First of all, abiogenesis's current prevailing theories don't claim that life just poofed, or that lightning struck a mud puddle, and they haven't for a minimum of... decades?

What exactly do you mean that the laws of thermodynamics don't allows for abiotic generation?

Also, if you can't answer this intelligently, please don't answer, I'm looking for the christian opinion, or word from an atheist/agnostic/christian with a brain that's heard the argument.

Is it just a redressed Kent Hovind entropy fallacy? Enlighten me.

What are they talking about? Macroevolution is simply microevolution happening enough time to differentiate a species to the point where inter-breeding and having reproductively viable offspring is no longer possible, which has happened repeatedly, and has been shown over and over to be fact?

Why does anyone try to dispute it?

I know that you believe. But why *exactly*, and implicitly do you believe your religion? Why do you accept that as truth without proof, when you wouldn't accept other things without proof, or even real evidence?

What on earth makes it believable? Especially those who deny things we can empirically prove, but believe in things we can't see, examine, feel, touch, etc.

I... I just don't get it :(

How come religion has so often been so blatantly wrong about, or even abjectly terrified of science?

Why is this so glossed over, and easily ignored?

Why doesn't someone in a position of power take a stand? (Yeah, I know, we could count Dawkins.)

Why? I honestly don't get it. Religion is counter to everything that pushes humanity forward, and yet people flock to it... WHY?!?

I know many perfectly intelligent people who are religious, how... How?

I'm considering putting a few hundred hours into making an article explaining, in real, provable, rational terms, Evolution, from a perspective that can be easily understood and enjoyed by a person of average intelligence with no scientific background.

What's R&S's thoughts? Has it been done before? Think it'll fall on deaf ears? Let me know!

Here's a thought...

Instead of erecting massive palaces, with ornate stained-glass windows, comfortable, super-expensive pews, pipe organs in the 10,000$ range, and giant rooms of worship...

Why not get together outside? Or in inclement weather, gather in someone's living room... Then spend that money, time, and effort making someone's life better? Make your own life better. Make the life of someone in your congregation better. Make a stranger's life better. People are homeless, starving, dying because they don't have medical insurance, warlords in africa are killing entire villages... And you build a big pretty building?

I don't believe in your God (Or, any god, for that matter)... But I fail to see your message... This seems to be the ultimate hypocrasy...

Creationists say constantly that "scientists" are "abandoning" evolution. Can I get a link to a real scientist saying anything like that?

And please, as a... "public service announcement", Theory doesn't mean, in science, "A guess", it means a "testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.".

In other words, a "Theory" is a testable, slightly imperfect fact. Evolution is a fact, but some small details we will find, eventually were either wrong, or (more likely) way deeper than we initially knew.

Where... Where are the scientists that say Evolution is wrong, and carbon dating is ineffective? Where? Show me these people, I want to either 1. Learn from them, or 2. Out them as frauds!

I want REAL QUOTES, from RESPECTED professors at real universities, or scientists that actually matter, not some quack drug addled retard in a town that still thinks it's in the old west, and got a degree from a "university next door".

I want research papers. I want facts. Disprove my theory, disprove my FACTS, with actual EVIDENCE, not pointing and saying "I dunt undastand, so god musta didit." Don't take this as an insult, if this is what you believe, back it up! Show me, show me the evidence, show me the facts.

Don't point to the eye, or the ear, and ask how our sensory systems came to be, you can wikipedia that, and get accurate, detailed answers on the phylogeny of the Eye. The bomber beetle is crap, that's a horrible example of bad christian science, hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide do not react violently, in the concentrations the beetles hold them at, do not react violently without pressure from the beetle. Mix them in a flask, they barely even heat up. (It's a very mild exothermic reaction, sensitive to pressure).

We've deflected every single assault, yet you people still blindly assault, and insult us, and those of us who are over the microscopes are getting a little offended and annoyed. It's silly.

Also - another public service announcement. Evolution is not linear. An assumption people make is that evolution is a straight line, and that things are always mutating and getting "Better". Different environments lead to different advantages based on different traits, thus different things becoming "Better" for that time period, and after a few thousand years, you'll see adaptations based on that.

Did all of your 6th-10th grade biology teachers fail you? Evolution is a fact. The "imperfections" are in the smaller details, but not the ones you claim, we know exactly where eyes and ears came from, we've explained divergence in other threads, we've explained tons of other things, the things we *don't* know, I never see brought up, like contact inhibition mechanisms and protein/enzyme production down/upregulations as it relates to genetics... Which are infinitessimally tiny details, although important ones, but no matter what the result of the testing and what we discover, Evolution as a whole will be unaffected, it's still true. It's true. It's true. It's true.

Why? Why won't you people crack open a textbook, or quit pretending to know about it? Either of the two would be fine, I'm not a mathematician, and I don't talk to people about mathematics, unless they're at a severe proficiency level disadvantage and I have something I could share with them.

Does anyone else think it's hilariously ironic that Scientology was concieved by a science fiction writer?

I get the strange feeling that Hubbard was actually making a public mockery of religion, and died before he could expose it for his own personal LOL factor.

For those of you who have read into scientology's beliefs...

What do you think?

Okay, I have a computer system constructed of very high end components, and no known conflicts, but the performance has been tepid, at best, and I'm genuinely confused. If you have questions for me, or even in answers, try to word them as if you're speaking to a savvy, but not expert user.

OS: Vista Ultimate, 32bit

Processor: Intel Quad Core Extreme Q6850

RAM: 4GB Corsair low latency ram, clocked at 800 MhZ. (And a 4gb thumbdrive set up as readyboost memory).

Video Card: NVIDIA 8800GTX-Ultra, slightly overclocked (factory OC)

Sound Card: Some version of Sound Blaster X-Fi, not sure model #

HDDs: 2x 500GB 7200 RPM drives, don't remember cache size, think it's 8/mb apiece

Network Adapter: Killer K1 NDIS/Edge Interface

Peripherals: Logitech G15, Razer Copperhead mouse, Logitech Headset, Sandisk Thumbdrive for ReadyBoost.

With all that said... The computer is performing worse than my XP box without half it's power. Besides Vista hate... What's the deal? any help appreciated

First of all, the system is an Alienware Area-51 7500, with a Pentium Core 2 Duo Extreme (6800E), 4 GB DDR RAM, 2X NVidia 7900GTX GPU's, 2 Western Digital Raptor hard drives, 10,000 RPM, in a RAID-0 configuration (Data Striping). Games seem to crash out regularly, although they'll run for 5 minutes up to an hour FLAWLESSLY, with details maxed, pushing over 100 frames per second... Then will randomly crash, regardless of detail levels, sound configs, anything! The system does NOT go in the BSOD mode, and can start anything right back up, but it just seems odd that games would react so badly to such a powerful system. Source Engine games (specific examples: Halflife 2, Counterstrike: Source) seem to crash the fastest, and are the only ones that leave a specific error msg, "0x### (memory address) tried to execute a command on 0x### (another memory address) and the address could not be read" Or something to that effect, it's listed on Valve's website, tried all fixes, no luck. Ideas?

I'm worried about diminishing returns on both performance, and on the limits of what windows can recognize. Anyone with any benchmark links, or own a Core 2 Duo extreme system with 4GB?