Vitki

I took brief calc 20 years ago in a summer session and what little I learned has long faded, so I've been trying to reteach myself. Unfortunately, the first book I used to teach myself didn't explain how a particular problem's answer was reached, nor did the second book I bought on the subject.

here's the problem, when the exponent is a negative fractal, like -(2/3), the yielded derivatives are very different if you treat the exponent as (-2 * 1/3), (2* -1/3) or (-1*2*1/3).

which way do I go? Why?

just wondering if anyone has done any research in this area.

Hint: It happened in Germany about 75 years ago.

After much deliberation I am unable to come to a conclusion as to which is more dangerous to both my life and liberties; a misinformed fanatic with weapons of mass destruction or the uninformed American voter.

What do you think?

Earth’s moon has a mass of approximately 1/81th that of Earth, and orbits at an average altitude (semi-major axis) of 384,399 km.

Ceres, (the largest body in the asteroid belt) has a mass of approximately 1/699th that of Mars—90,000 times the mass of Phobos. If Ceres could be moved into Martian orbit, at what semi-major axis (altitude) would it have a similar tidal effect on Mars as the Moon has on Earth?

Is there a better candidate for a new Martian moon to produce lunar like effects on Mars?

If Mars had a lunar type satellite, would Mars be more Earth-like? Would the tidal forces be sufficient to generate a Van-Allen belt for the planet and/or stabilize the planet’s orbit as well as its rotation?

I already know the legal answer to this, just wondering how the demographics will add up to reveal the distribution of posters here.

What do you believe is the role of the federal Government?

Do they do enough? not enough? too much?

please elaborate on your answers to give me a better idea about what you're thinking.

In trying to understand the world, there are a few ‘truths’ which I have discovered. One of them is my rules of complexity. The essential core of these rules is simply: The more complicated the system, the more likely it is to break and the harder it is to fix.

This is both obvious and evident in our technological society. It is the primary reason that things aren't built to last any more, and why maintenance industries (such as radio repair shops and cobblers) have become so uncommon. As the technology of a society grows in complexity, the more it moves towards disposable technology.

The same rules apply to other systems as well, and I think may explain why the legal system in the US has become so dysfunctional. After more than 200 years of legislators adding more and more bells and whistles to the system, it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to any more, i.e. provide a comprehensive and coherent framework in which societies members can grow and flourish.

Dating back to Hammurabi, attempts have been made to codify these laws, but ultimately, each society ends up adding so many that it can’t function—so my question is this: at what point does the passage of new laws become counterproductive? How many laws are too many?

One of the answers I received recently included a particular phrase that got me thinking. Kat DeMuriel said, “that we are born with an innate need to worship something.” Well, my analytical brain function breaks this down and focuses on that word “Worship.”

Worship is NOT inherent to all religious systems, (e.g. in Asatru, the gods are honoured, not worshiped.) Still, I think she may have a point as in every culture I can think of, there are central focuses which could be construed as worship of some form. For examples here, consider money as being worshiped in the capitalistic world, and/or the scientific method by many self-proclaimed atheists.

So, to better understand your answer, please explain what the word ‘Worship’ means to you—no dictionary definitions please-and where that worship is directed.

Why do people think that instructions given to someone else, in a culture wholly dissimilar from their own, under conditions unimaginable to themselves, should be executed by themselves?

I mean, like, just because I ask the Fedex guy to deliver a message to someone doesn’t mean that I want EVERYONE to deliver the same message to EVERYBODY.

Hey, if God tells you to do something, yeah, you should do it—it’s a bad idea to p*ss off the maker, but why are so many people trying to do things that God told somebody ELSE to do? Especially when they don’t even understand the directions?

read about this last week at:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/11060...

so, here's my question(s):

Guys, would you take it?

Girls, What's your take on this?

I tried asking this under polls, but didn't get much for answers, so i'm re-posting it here.

I've been making my own cologne for years, but i've been thinking about changing the way I make it.

so...to give me some Idea what direction to go, What's your favorite?

I was reading this morning about research being done on 'the pill' for men.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/11060...

and it occurred to me that it could have far reaching social implications in the US and other countries.

Women really first started gaining control of their 'reproductive rights' early in the 20th century through IUDs, and then by the 1960s had the option of "the pill". With the passage of Roe Vs Wade, in 1974, their control was absolute-they now hold exclusive power over whether or not to conceive, and whether or not a given man would be held financially responsible for her decision.

[this is something i've been bitching about for years, but bear with me on this...]

now with "The Pill" for men, males could actually decide whether or not to get a girl pregnant-moreso than with condoms (Which DO break-and are not an available option for those with latex allergies). Furthermore, the man won't have to worry about if she was lying about being on "The Pill."

So, would you take it?

Once it's marketed, do you expect to see a drastic drop in paternity suits and unwed mothers?

How will all those women support themselves without the 25% to 75% of the income of a former boyfriend?

far reaching social implecations?

In the movie ‘the flight of the phoenix’ a model airplane designer uses his knowledge to build an airplane large enough to carry himself and several other people to safety.

I’m wondering about how the same principles could be applied to a model helicopter.

I’ve been looking at an unusual configuration RC helicopter that weighs 1 kilo, and has a carrying capacity of 0.5 kilos. What I’m wondering is how much larger the rotors would have to be to increase the carrying capacity to 600 or 700 kilos.

Furthermore, I’m assuming that with larger rotors and payload, I’ll need to upgrade the 14.8 volt brushless motors. I’d like to keep the whole thing electric, but do they even make electric motors that can put out the kind of power I’d need to make this thing fly?

What percentage of questions here are asked by Idiots?

What percentage of questions here are asked by Trolls?

what percentage are asked by intelligent people honestly looking for an answer?

What about the answers? what are the idiot/troll/honest percentages for answers?

I was just looking at a question posted by one of my contacts, in which the subject of sexting was broached. It reminded me of an article I read a few months ago about someone who was jailed for 'Illegal Communication.'

Don't these laws violate the first amendment?

Whereas I realize that in any form of communication a person SHOULD be constrained by social mores, common sense, and sensitivity to others values, I'm pretty sure the first amendment of the constitution clearly prevents congress from legislating what or how people communicate.

What do you think? are these laws unconstitutional?

[I will not choose a best answer here, I'll leave it up to the community to vote on it.]

I’ve been out of school for years and have recently been working on a problem that requires the knowledge that seemed irrelevant to me when taking chemistry 101.

(Oddly, every single class I was required to take that taught information I THOUGHT I’d never use, I later found to be crucial, highly useful information.)

Anyways, I believe I’ve figured this out, but just wanted to post these questions to double check my results.

Ideal Gas Law: PV=kNT, Where

P=Pressure

V=Volume

k=Boltzmann Constant

N=number of molecules and

T=temperature.

Question 1) assuming no change in P, k or N:

if the temperature of a gas is increased from 0 C to 27.315 C, what is the corresponding increase in volume?

Question 2) assuming no change in k or N in a sealed container of Freon under pressure:

How much pressure is required to increase the temperature of the gas from 0 C to 27.315 C? (remember that the gas WILL compress under pressure, so the pressure increase has to exceed the volume decrease for any temperature increase to take place)

Question 3) (displacement, lift and buoyancy)

Dry air has a molecular weight of 28.9644 grams per mol

At a molar volume of 22.4 litres, 0 C and 100 kPascals.

G=9.81 m/(s^2)

What is the maximum density (mass/volume) at which an object can have neutral buoyancy in dry air?

[I understand that the term 'buoyancy' is usually utilized in regards to a solid in a liquid medium, but it seemed an appropriate analogy here.]

just wondering what time i should shut off all electronics.

and when to look for the aurora....

(i'm on eastern standard time--northern new england)

I couldn't help but notice that this is the first census in the history of the US census without a place to describe your employment or job title.

It Does however, retain the race question--something I find disturbingly similar to the pre-civil war slave census.

I have my own bias on the subject, but i will not say if it is pro or con.

just looking for what others have to say about it.

What percentage of those who do are trolls?

what percentage are just trying to convince others of their own ideology?