Mathsorcerer

If the legislation is so important then why are they afraid to have it read out loud?

Normally, when someone is afraid of something happening it is becuase 1) they fear the consequences, 2) they don't want others to know the truth of something, or 3) they have something to hide.

Is there something in the "omnibus" bill that they don't want anyone to hear?

The question is straightforward enough--do you believe that intelligent life exists on other planets in the universe? If you do, then *why* do you believe this?

There is no proof that such life exists. Despite claims of visitations based on carvings from ancient civilizations, no definitive proof supporting that intelligent life exists anywhere else in the universe. There are no DNA samples, no non-terrestrial artifacts exist, and there are no ships actively visiting us at this time (if they really want to land and visit they would do so). I know that numerous scientists have, over the years, described in detail exactly *why* that intelligent life exists elsewhere and they sometimes even try to calculate the probability of such life existing, but that still isn't proof.

When you analyze it, the people who believe that intelligent life exists on other planets do so only by faith--they are believing in something they cannot see or prove to anyone else.

Suppose a spaceship leaves from the station where it is docked accelerating at 1 m/s^2 in a particular direction. Because the crew wants to make sure they aren't followed, they then begin accelerating the ship at 0.1 m/s^2 at a right angle to the original acceleration (note that the ship continues its original acceleration of 1 m/s^2).

How long will it take for the ship to be going in a direction *opposite* of their original direction? How far will they travel during this time?

I want to say that because the ship is constantly accelerating in two perpendicular directions simultaneously (but at different rates) that the ship will travel in the shape of an ellipse, but for some reason I can't seem to get the equations for this to work out correctly.

"In the Name of God, the All-Merciful,the All-Compassionate, All praise and gratitude (whoever gives these to whomever for whatever reason and in whatever way from the first day of creation until eternity) are for God, the Lord of the worlds," --Al-Fatiha 1.1 and 1.2

In teh naem of Ceiling Cat, wif awl teh blessinz n teh kompassinz, awl prayz an thx (tehm hoo givz deez to dem for wahtevr in wahtevr way frum teh furst dai uv creayshun til furever) are fur Ceiling Cat, teh mastr ov teh worldz....

Why not?

In teh nam uv Celing Cat

Consider the equation y = k - cosh(x), where k >= 1. The graph of this equation will look like the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, MO. Now, graph the equation and, on the same set of axes, graph the equation y = x. Notice that the two graphs intersect.

Find the point of intersection of the two graphs; phrased differently, find out the value of x such that x = k - cosh(x). You may use whatever value of k you like.

For which value of k will the tangent line at the stable point have a slope of -1?

Recently, Anil Bakshi wondered why more advanced questions in analytic geometry weren't being asked here...so I am asking one.

Oh...don't try plugging this in to Wolfram Alpha. I already tried and it didn't recognize the full equation; it kept wanting to give me only parabolas in terms of k or, when I rephrased the problem, a plane.

This isn't even the most challenging one I came up with over the weekend.

http://rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/1110/20113883/...

Ethel Jones was legally able to own a gun, so she used it to shoot the man who broke into her home.

If the Second Amendment were not in place, we might be reading about Ms. Jones' funeral instead of her victory over crime.

This is *not* a question about whether or not global warming may or may not be happening. I have become curious, though, as to *why* people who believe in "anthropogenic global warming" think that is is something negative. What destructive scenarios are they envisioning that leads global warming to be the end of the world? Also, why do global warming believers seem to think that weather or climate patterns are not supposed to change?

Perhaps if I can understand their fears then I can come to understand more completely their belief set and their stated positions on the topic.

This article in the New York Times from Friday 16 July 2010:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18...

Quote from the article:

[In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

*****

Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.]

So...Congress can exceed or go beyond is Constitutionally-listed powers by levying a tax to "promote the general welfare" or "regulate commerce"?

Second quote from the article:

[Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.

Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”]

So...since this tax is completely constitutional, according to Mr. Balkin, then *any* tax designed to "promote the general welfare" or to "regulate commerce" is completely constitutional.

This administration is giving itself rationalization to levy any kind of tax they see fit.

WTF?!

Click the article and read it for yourself; it isn't that long.

The Democrats have a *majority* in both the House and the Senate. They should be able to pass any piece of legislation that they wanted to; however, they cannot seem to pass a budget, or immigration reform, or energy reform, or extensions of unemployment benefits.

Why?

I suspect that they don't *want* to pass legislation with which a majority of voting citizens will disagree. Instead, they would like to paint their opposition as a party of true opposition, as if they--the minority--could prevent anything from happening. The minority cannot prevent the majority from doing what they please.

If there is any other logical explanation, please present it so that we may all understand why the Democrats aren't doing the things they would like to do.

For example given an integer k you can say {[k, 1],[k^2-1, k]} and you have a 2x2 matrix that will always have a determinant of 1 regardless of the value of k.

Now choose 3 integers and do this for a 3x3 matrix.

I finally got around to putting the finishing touches on this and I wanted to see if anyone can break it or figure out what process I am using. Two complete sentences (ignoring punctuation and capitalization)

drbkangefubefodaawendvavhfgtbjbbCoAxEqFlAbBmbbAyimlubyCoJwByCiFpAgBlEcAkhhjsbqEoEmAd

CybtAyaeDlAsGiIdBneqdgauEyHtByAvBzAxBlEcAkhhjsbqaxczajBmbyaaAkAaAweuhxbfdbdvarcuAjag

Here is the news story about the teenager who was apparently shot by Border Patrol agents:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100609/ap_on_re_us/us...

Now...the Mexican Government is upset and wants to protect the right of Mexican "migrants" and is causing an international uproar.

Where was our uproar when Mexican military helicopters were flying over Texas cities? Twice!

Where was our uproar when pirates were attacking fishermen at gunpoint on a Texas lake?

According to the article, 17 Mexican civilians have been killed by Border Patrol agents this year. How many American citizens have been killed by "migrants"? You do realize there is a street in El Paso where you don't dare walk--you risk being shot from Cuidad Juarez across the river.

It is time we being using "all available resources to protect the rights" of American citizens, to use Calderon's words against him.

Read the actual laws for yourself and decide.

http://law2.house.gov/lawrevisioncounsel.shtml

This is the site of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel for the U. S. House of Representatives. Click "search", enter a Title number (8 in this case) and/or a Section number (1304, 1324, 1373, or 1644) then click "search".

http://www.azleg.gov/

This is the site for the Arizona State Legislature. The first listing under the FAQ takes you directly to the actual legislation in question.

What you will find is that the Arizona law supports and mirrors the Federal law. If the Arizona law is "racist", then so is the Federal law. If the Arizona law is unconstitutional then so is the Federal one.

Of special interest is the fact that the Arizona law clearly states that having a valid Arizona driver's license will qualify as proof that the owner of the license is (most likely) in the country legally, regardless of skin tone, accent, or clothing.

Now that I have done the research for you, anyone who continues to claim that the law is "racist" and/or "unconstitutional" has not actually read the legislation. I would hope that this settles the issue...but I know it won't.