Desert Devil

Statement is too simplistic, here are the numbers; turns out Olbermann gets that 65+ crowd in droves as well. There's only one demographic in which he outdraws O'Reilly. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/..._dead_90756.asp

Don't think he did it, it's been going around for a while. Guess some causes are so great we have to be tricked into believing in them (this is aimed at the source of the fake image, not the poster who linked it).

That image is photoshopped. Here's a link to the actual interview with the CATO Institute guy who is shown in the image. http://www.cato.org/videohighlights/index....highlight_id=36

Very true ...... but there seem to be some posters in this thread (i'm not referring to you, Puddy) that seem ready to nominate Corzine for sainthood.

I suppose the fact that the state can't afford to pay for these things is inconsequential. http://www.cbpp.org/10-22-03sfp2.htm Hey, I guess it's nothing more taxes can't solve!

Derek, Hope you don't mind a relative stranger replying, but... 1. Actually, the Steelers just took advantage of opportunities better than the Jets did at the end. Remember, the Steelers started their winning drive deep in their own territory. Were the Chargers a better team than the Jets last week, by the same reasoning? 2. It's hard to claim that someone who is 14-0 as a starter is overrated and not have it sound like sour grapes. Just remember that the only horrible game he had before tonight was against the Jets a month ago. The Jets have his number this year, yet the Steelers still managed to win both times. 4. No argument here. You'd think the Jets would have learned from watching Marty S. make the same mistake last week. 5. I've been watching Steeler games a long time (been a fan since the early 70's, guess I've always had a thing for defensive teams) and I can tell you that Heinz field gives opposing kickers fits. i've seen better kickers miss there in the past. Still, an NFL kicker should have made at least one of those kicks. 6. I think that the playcalling on the 3rd and 10 in OT was far more costly. They may be a lucky team, but when you're good you tend to make your own luck. I guess we'll see how overrated they are after the next few weeks.

Right on! Seriously, though, being a native Texan I remember my high school having a day like this every year and nobody having a fit about it.

To be fair I think the networks were trying to avoid a Florida 2000 embarassment. It was obvious , however, that Kerry's people were spreading the rumor that not only were there 250,000 uncounted provisional ballots, they were also from predominantly democratic leaning areas (Susan Estrich (sp?), normally a level-haded liberal commentator, was absolutely sure they would be able to make up the difference after talking to the Kerry people).

Interesting numbers on the Penn. race. I heard somewhere (I can't remember the source, so I'm not standing by this as the absolute truth) that the 5 states where Bush had a worse showing than in 2000 all passed the anti-gay marriage referendum. This is significant because of the hysteria going on in some parts of the democratic party that bigotry against gays was solely responsible for the election day results. Some democrats do seem to get it. Never thought James Carville would be the voice of reason within the party. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041109-120712-7714r.htm

IQ is such a subjective thing that it wouldn't be uncommon for you guys to have a difference of 50-60 points if you took a number of different tests. You can use GRE, SAT, ACT, etc. to approximate an intelligence quotient. Additionally there are a bunch of IQ tests that supposedly measure creative ability. I attended a conference last year on intelligence and after many discussions it was decided that IQ was the property which an IQ test measures . But what the hell do I know, I'm from a red state !

Oh really? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, sheeps, the link I gave takes you to the numbers of the "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" study. If you take a look, it's obvious the numbers don't match the "red states are stupid" chart. IQ is such a subjective thing (I'm a proctor in Mensa and we have hundreds fo different ways to gauge intelligence) and it may be that people in red states have lower IQ's than than those in blue states, but it seems to me someone is really trying too hard to say that stupid people are the reason the election went the way that it did.

It's a hoax. The same thing was tried in 2000. http://sq.4mg.com/IQstates.htm Guess it's better to call the other side stupid than it is to admit that your own party was wrong about a lot of its assumptions (I'm not referring to anyone here, just the people that set up the bogus IQ listing).

And Ohio..... http://election.sos.state.oh.us/results/Si...ry.aspx?race=PP

For what it's worth, here's a link to some real-time data from Florida... http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/20041102_SUM_PRE.html

ya i skipped a couple math courses. I know a guy above me who did the same thing above me and he says physics is a breeze with calc. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, you're supposed to take calculus I concurrently with the first engineering physics, but if you've already been exposed to calc you have a hell of an advantage. Of course, my undergraduate advisor felt that since I'd taken high school calculus I should be in a junior level mechanics course in my first college semester (I'm kinda fuzzy on the details as this was my "vivarin + wild turkey = passing grade" semester).

Wow, a sophomore doing this stuff! You'll be in great shape if you go into physics or ee or me.

Cool. What are you guys majoring in?

Meh, i guess ur right. It looks right. But the other people i talked to says it wasn't BLAH!!!! SO CONFUSED!! Yeah our quiz was on implicit differiention(sp?). My sister said we'd never see something like this on the AP test, so that takes a load off my shoulders...but i HAVE to do good in this course. I want to take advanced calc(high school version of calc 2) next year. Anyways, i hope this is right. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, this may not be a great comfort, but seeing this stuff in high school will make any college calc you have to take a lot less intimidating. What you're doing now will take you through Calc I and II in college, meaning you can start taking an applied analysis course (basically a continuation of calc II) right off the bat.

you differentiated implicitly, which should give you the correct result. I overcomplicated the problem. They both should yield the same result, which means my answer when simplified further will reduce, but man, what a mess!! Your first derivative is correct. Taking the second derivative and subtituting the value you got for dy/dx into the y'' equation will give you the correct answer. The answer you've given seems to be very nicely simplified. Are you sure it's not right?

I tried the problem but can't get it to simplify to something nice. I assume you're looking for the second derivative of y with respect to x. First, you solve for y and get y = ((3 + 2x)^1/2)/x. Taking the derivative and applying the chain rule to the expression on the right gives you y' = (1 / ((2x +3)^1/2)(x) ) -( (2x +3)^1/2) /x^2 ) Take the derivative again and you get a horrific expression y'' = [-1/((2x + 3) ^3/2) (x))] - [2 / ((2x + 3)^1/2)(x^2)) ] +[( 2(2x + 3)^1/2)/(x^3)] Couldn't get it more simplified than this. Hope this helps, and sorry!

i was in 8th grade when i took taht every day i did one of 3 things 1. played magic(for some reason i was into that) 2. played calculator games or 3. sleeped. freaking easiest course ever. i got a 100 every marking period and a 98 on my final. NOTHING PREPARES U for this evil though NOTHING I TELL U!!! NEVER TAKE CALC BC IF U DON'T HAVE TO IN HIGH SCHOOL!!! fyi i failed the test 2 sections i did good till the last question.....then things when downward. nobody else understood it though so hopefully he'll curve it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I hope not to dampen your spirits but you don't know evil until you've taken Cal II

Whoops, just noticed it's not an indeterminate form. As you've written it, the numerator goes to infinity and the denominator goes to zero, making your whole expression go to infinity at x=0.

Sorry I didn't see this until today, but have you tried using l'Hopital's rule? It basically states that for a quoitent that goes to either 0/0 or (infinity/infinity) at its limit, limit f(x)/g(x) = limit f'(x)/g'(x). where f'(x) and g'(x) are the differentials of f(x) and g(x), respectively.

I think the refs are getting all the bad calls out of their system now in case there's no season.

Anyone else get the feeling that our defensemen had a little too much vodka before the game? I've never seen Leetch or Chelios look so tentative.