Messages

1201

Academic / School / Re: Basic Calculus - Help needed

« on: May 14, 2006, 02:31:10 pm »

You don't have to do 100 reimann sums, you just have to do increasing numbers of reimann sums to see what value they're approaching.  That's pretty easy, but I still think he should let them use FTC2.

No, this is more elegant than just guessing what the sums converge to,  .

1202

Academic / School / Re: Basic Calculus - Help needed

« on: May 14, 2006, 02:19:27 pm »

In my Alg 2 class, its the end of the year and we have covered most of Alg 2, so we are just doing trigonometry. We went over graphing the trig functions, inverses, law of sin/cos/tan, etc. Anyway, for extra credit we were supposed to approximate the area of the function y = sin x at the interval [0,π] using Riemann sums. Our teacher said the person who comes up with the closest approximation will get a whopping amount of extra credit. All we had to do was show our steps and etc. Now, me being me, decided to try and find the integral of problem. I already knew the derivative of sin x = cos x, so I could proceed pretty easily. I found the area under the curve to be 2(Which I know is correct). What I'm asking is, could someone please write out the steps for the derivation and the steps for integration? No need to explain it to me, I just need to know the notation.

Thanks in advance.

I found a way that doesn't involve using a computer, explicitly uses Riemann sums, and doesn't assume the fundamental theorem of calculus (e.g. how to integrate), and hint: is better than if you were to do 100 Riemann sums by hand (which would take hours and is probably a time spending contest the teacher wanted people to enter!).  Since this is for such a whopping amount of credit, I'll let you ask questions instead of giving you the answer, or I'll post the answer here for $50  .

1203

Trash Can / Re: Welcome CrAz3D to x86!

« on: May 14, 2006, 01:33:34 pm »

(To continue offtopic ), Joe did make a decent point  .  While Warrior may or may not have a lower percentage of his total posts in the trashcan (considering posts from an old account), Joe registered his current account on October 31, 2004, and Warrior registered his current account on October 14, 2004; since Joe registered (close to 2 years ago), the proportion of Warrior's posts that have entered the trashcan is 50% higher than the proportion of Joe's posts that have entered the trashcan.   

 

1204

General Discussion / Re: More MySpacae backwardsness

« on: May 08, 2006, 05:29:06 pm »

Society really is fucking retarded. They're is nothing wrong with myspace, first we blame video games for muders, rappers for murders, and now myspace for what, rape and worse? Come the fuck on guys. Even if a girl got a message on myspace from someone she didn't know, it's her decision to message him back and not ignore it. Don't blame the bullshit, blame the actual people.

Ok?  So you don't think extremely violent videogames could have a bad influence on children?  You wouldn't mind if your 8 year old children were surfing television and made the so called conscious "decision" to watch scat porn on a regular basis?  For the most part minors are quite vulnerable and poorly informed: sometimes they are not in a position to make responsible choices.  We can't guide people through life indefinitely, but I think a little guidance at a young age is certainly a good thing. 

I wouldn't want my kids using myspace.  For the most part, I think it's a disgusting, degenerative use of time.  I think there's definitely something wrong with myspace, although I respect its right to exist and the right for adults to make the choice to use it.  Just like a sex talk hotline, I think it is an inappropriate medium for kids to express themselves.

1205

General Discussion / Re: More MySpacae backwardsness

« on: May 07, 2006, 02:14:47 pm »

I think posting a picture of just yourself (e.g. white background) is pretty innocuous.  It would be extremely hard to track someone down on that information alone.  On the other hand, I would still discourage those under a certain age (15?) from doing it, if anything because it may suggest to predators that you are actually a vulnerable and attractive? minor who is worthy of pursuing.

1206

Academic / School / Re: So.... this calculus AP exam doesn't mess around....

« on: April 27, 2006, 11:27:49 pm »

I'm the best student we (my school) have in Calculus, and I don't think I stand much of a chance.  Does anyone have any advice for this test?  I would really feel bad if I don't get at least a 3.

Is it the AB or the BC exam?   Basically just relax.  The written response is supposed to be fairly hard, and most of the questions there are split up into several parts.  If you feel intimidated by a question and its first part, don't just skip to the next question.  Read the question carefully and see if you can do any of it at all.  Although the parts don't necessarily build on one another, you can probably get credit for assuming an answer to one part if it allows you to do another part.

1207

General Discussion / Re: What are some good anti-abortion/abortion points?

« on: April 21, 2006, 12:56:44 am »

Human life is more important to us because that is how we view it. 

Yes, and I could say human life isn't important because that is how I view it.  An unsupported
personal viewpoint is not logical support for a claim.

We are the smartest, most capable creatures on earth

I thought Myndfyre established that this debate should not seriously consider intelligence, (probably because arguing that humans are different because they are intelligent does not bode well for the anti-abortion stance when comparing fertilized eggs, and even many humans, to certain animals).  I'm also pretty sure that you conspicuously agreed with him.

Besides, what are we most capable of? 

we dominate every other creature.

That seems more despicable to me than valuable.  Why should this mean that human life is more valuable than other life?  You would then agree that all predators are more valuable than their prey, because they can "dominate them."  For example, a mite is more valuable than a bee, because mites can dominate populations of bees; yet, the survival of many species (including ourselves) is closely linked to bees practicing pollination.
 

I believe it has been scientifically proven that we have the most complex brain, we obviously have the most complex thought processes

Are you again arguing intelligence?  I guarantee that it hasn't be scientifically proven that we have the most complex brain.  Likewise, it is not obvious that we have the most complex thought processes.

I think that seems like a good reason why to value human life so much

I don't think any of the reasons you have listed are very good.  It mostly seems like you're saying
"we're better because we say we are."  That just doesn't cut it in logical debate.

1208

General Discussion / Re: What are some good anti-abortion/abortion points?

« on: April 20, 2006, 06:29:25 pm »

I say we kill ever retarded person then.  They don't have a clue as to what is going on, they're just a massive burden on society.

This is a good point.  We don't hold qualms about intelligent life, it's human life that we believe has innate value.

Word.
Now, since we value human life why wouldn't we value almost certain human life?
That little blob of cells is going to develope unless some unforseen circumstance comes into play, it WILL become human.  Just because there is a CHANCE we might get in a car accident doesn't mean we don't drive cars. (that seems like a weird analogy, someone make a better one up if you can)

Wow.  Are we just going to assume that human life has innate value then as an axiom, and argue from that point?  That seems pretty primitive to me.  If you're going to have a logical argument about this, better somehow demonstrate why human life is so much more important than other life.  This is absolutely not a given nor is it a logical conclusion.

1209

General Discussion / Re: Stem Cell Research

« on: April 19, 2006, 02:34:16 pm »

I am absolutely against stem cell research.  I believe that when an opportunity to impede scientific progress arises, we are under a moral obligation to take it.  Anything that could possibly develop into human life should be protected; so it is natural that I should want to sexually molest as many women as I can.  To waste my sperm without guilt would be to deny the reality that these sperm are only a few steps from starting a process which could possibly lead to human life. If I feel that it is necessary to make sexual advances towards a nearby able female of the same species, then by all means it is her duty to cooperate -- I cannot understand why society would believe otherwise.  By the way, masturbation is cognitive dissonance.   

Then again, I cannot understand the argument that stem cell research should be acceptable to us "pro-lifers" because a majority of it is done with fetuses from fertility clinics that would have gone to complete waste anyways. I, oh I mean "we", do not believe in fertility clinics.  Allowing the abandoned undeveloped fetuses to be used in a way that would advance science would be an indirect acknowledgement that we somehow support fertility clinics.  It is better to let the fetuses be thrown out and discarded than to risk appearing hypocritical or
supportive of an unwholesome operation.

Besides, why should advancing science and medicine to save millions that are suffering be so important anyways? 
If someone is suffering, it is meant to be that way, and we would be interfering with nature to help them.  I have been taught by my family that this is wrong.  If someone gets seriously injured around me, they better hope that
someone other than me is close by to call an ambulance for them.  You may feel that I am hypocritical, but I have only been to the emergency room 3 times: once because a carrot attacked my private region, and the other two times were to give those doctors a piece of my mind.  Anyone who thinks it is noble to want a career in medicine is lacking in moral fortitude. 

You may be thinking: "shouldn't I be protecting single celled organisms because they may one day evolve into a human form?"  Indeed I should, but let's not discuss that too much because it will make my arguments seem less credible.   Besides, I choose not to understand evolution, and I'll get to that later. I generally like to deem people murderers once they interfere with fertilized eggs.  It may seem arbitrary where I draw this line: after all, a fertilized egg is not introspective, aware, capable of feeling, or even conscious at all -- and it will take many stages of development and quite a bit of time to become a recognizable human.  However, it seems that restricting my arguments to fertilized eggs is more effective for pushing my moral judgements onto other people.  Maybe it's because we started arguing from this point long ago, and the ball just started rolling.  You'd be amazed how effective just repeating your argument over and over again can be.  Soon what you are saying is somehow recognized as a rational point, and then the arguments start to take place under this premise.  I do it all the time.  And don't forget to obfuscate your arguments with words like "cognitive dissonance": it's a good way of shutting people down.

Oh, and don't think that any life is more valuable than human "life": even if we are comparing creatures that are unarguably more intelligent and aware than any fertilized egg, and even compared to some humans.  It is obvious that humans are logically very different and special from all other animals.  It is OK to murder other intelligent animals but not humans, because we are introspective.  No, I don't have proof that other animals aren't, it's obvious you fool.  And don't pull that "evolution" nonsense on me, because it's obvious that's a load of garbage.  Most educated scientists and academics recognize Darwin's evolution as an important theory, but then again, most of these same people are against everything that I stand for.   It saddens me to think that our great species could be connected to other lowly animals.  Even Darwin himself didn't believe in his theories.  I don't have a source for that, but it's common knowledge.

Good game.

P.S.  Do you really want to run the risk of having human clone armies?