## Comment Re:R? (Score 1) 100

only if calculating the Planck Constant

only if calculating the Planck Constant

increases your chance of unibrow

I don't have that problem because I run **Winbrow** instead.

Me Sad

Don't worry, you'll feel better after bashing a mammoth in the head with a large club. That always cheers me up.

There may be some upsides to their DNA that we don't yet know about. Diseases and extreme problems are better understood because that's what medical experts are expected to focus on. But there could also be some nice traits we picked up from them such that they counter the negative traits enough to survive in our genome.

And the down-sides of them may only show up in some people. That is, they depend on combinations of other genes to manifest themselves.

...only if you're targeting other Mac users. Since everyone else in North Korea is using PCs, Kim might not be using the right tool for the job.

Of course some people think Macs are great status symbols. Kim probably thinks that he's the envy of all his Generals. They probably just think it's a big and intolerable dufus with this whole Apple think just being the tip of the iceberg.

Did you learn how to catch fish efficiently, though?

That feature is called apt-get upgrade.

Someone got it loaded pretty quick. Interesting. Thanks.

Never mind nearby towns. Google isn't even smart enough to realize that perhaps you want the closest variant of "streetname" rather than one 2000 miles away. This aspect of Google maps never ceases to annoy.

Tech built into cars is always behind after market devices including replacement in-dash units.

Okay, there was some uncertainty over the what phenomena could cause gravity waves, but that still creates mostly the same in issue on the generation side.

Colliding black holes is about as big as you can get. There's nothing *known* that's more massive, except "collective" objects like galaxies and dust clouds.

Those things are either too diffuse to generate GW's, above noise, or would create them as such a low frequency to be beyond the frequency range of current detectors.

I understand that, but I've never seen an article about past attempts with statements similar to, "most existing theories on gravity say we shouldn't expect to detect gravity waves with [current gizmo] because it's not sensitive enough, but part of the purpose of [current gizmo] is to verify this expectation."

The ones I first worked out on my own were that all whole numbers were the result of the sum of a single set of only primes raised to powers (2^3 + 5 + 11^2) or the *product* of a single set of primes raised to powers (2 * 3^2 * 7). Then some teacher told me there was no chain rule for integration, and I found the chain rule essentially a mental mathematics strategy for solving complex derivatives, so I took the next 40 minutes to analyze several integration exercises and produced integration by parts (which we learned about a week later--what a waste of time). Simple stuff.

My favorite one was physics tensile problems. I *hated* tensile problems. To solve a tensile problem, we had to carry out a seven-step algorithm in which we'd break down each angle into its horizontal and vertical component vectors, then solve the right triangle for each, and combine the solution's horizontal and vertical vectors, solving for the hypotenuse.

In that picture, consider T1 and T2 as the length of those sides (they're the tension on each rope or whatnot they represent). M is the hanging mass. As it turns out, you can get a triangle by placing a line of length M between the top left point (where angle Theta is) and the bottom right vertex (where T2 meets the vertical wall); or by moving T2 *without rotating it* such that any of its vertexes connects to any of T1's vertexes, and then connecting the remaining two with a line of length M. I recognized this largely by mathematical result.

Pick a set. You'll either end up with two sides and an angle or two angles and a side. You can now glance at this diagram, apply the Law of Cosines, and solve it in one step. When I showed my physics teacher, he said he didn't see any mathematical reason that would work, although it *did* work on every problem we tried. Should have asked the Asian chick who took every form of math there was when she went to college; my teacher was largely a materials science type of guy.

Obviously, this one's my favorite because it's a *much* simpler way to tackle an irritatingly tedious problem *and* my academic superiors could never understand why it worked. That means I didn't waste my time figuring out some mathematical trick I could have found by flipping a dozen pages ahead in the book. As far as I know, this is a known technique, but *very* few sources mention using either the law of sines or the law of cosines to solve tension triangles.

This is why math was always fun for me. I reflected a lot on how it all fit together.

Einstein didn't own a computer, you anesthetized testicle.

Building a solar facility isn't a no-op. It's not like you can say, "We built a house there and put sheds and structures all over the place, and tromp all over it with machines and boots; but nobody paved it, so we didn't destroy the ecological habitat." You definitely do not want ecological habitat thriving among your solar panels and concentrating reflectors.

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.