mreiland
-
Posts
305 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by mreiland
-
-
I know this might sound like a cliché, but if you're born poor it's not that easy to become rich. It's far more easier for people born in a middle class family for example.
But the question is *why* are they more likely to make money? It's because of the mentality that they've been raised with, it has *nothing* to do with how much money you had when you were growing up.
We shouldn't both see it so general. Indeed there are poor people who owe it to themself, but there are also poor people who can't do anything about it.Oh of course, if you *wanted* to you could easily misconstrue what I said to include the 75 year old blind cripple, but that doesn't change a point a bit.
A person who doesn't have money is to blame for that situation. If you're 75 and poor, well, I suppose you should have lived life a bit smarter.
In Scandinavia they are extremely severe regarding violating traffic rules. If you drive drunk, even a little, you risk getting in jail. Result: a lot less violatians.So, I'm assuming, 'rich' people get the Death Penalty, correct? If not, they should.
If you don't feel the punishment you'll probably violate the rules again, but if you risk loosing your driver's license or paying a very high fine it's very likely you'll think again before doing it.Then how about: Anyone with X number of traffic violations within Y amount of days will get their license revoked for Z days. If they're caught driving before Z days is up, the go to jail. If they get X number of traffic violations in Y amount of days *again*, they go straight to jail, and pay heavy fines(same for EVERYONE).
Oh, but wait. They wouldn't make as much *money* off of this scheme....
In the end, it's all about the money, not the punishment.
-
Because the subscript operator in C/C++ is synonymous with pointer arithmetic (addition); and the addition operation is commutative.
Correct!
You're up next MarkT
-
I'd like to point out that *everyone* seems to have misunderstood what I'm saying.
If someone is ahead, put them in a more advanced class. I see nothing wrong with that. What *I* said was that it's like having two people who are in the *same* class taking two different tests. They both get B's, but how is that fair? It's not.
You're reading way more into what people are saying than what's really there. Why should rich people get off lightly is a better question to ask? Should running a company effectively justify breaking the law?Should running a company effectively justify charging you more for a T-shirt? How about a house? Or maybe it justifies charging you more for gas. No it doesn't. Neither does it justify charging you more for a fine.
Somewhere around 90% of millionaries are self made. How many of you knew that? I bet most of you didn't because there's this view of rich people being lazy idiots who inherited it. Or that they're unethical and they did it by stepping on "poor" people. This is nothing more than another way to get at a rich person's money, and I find it disgusting. They earned the fecking money, quit treating them differently because you(in the general sense) can't get off your lazy @#$% and do the same.
It is *not* the responsibility of the upper class to support the economy, or the lower class. They can afford a traffic ticket and you can't? Then figure out a way to do it, they obviously did.
-
It's an important question I think - because on one hand you can say, everyone pays the same price to make it equal and fair - but that's not equal and fair for everyone - therefore it's not equal and fair. If you really wanted equality here, you'd want everyone fined at a fixe percentage, not a fixed value.
So you're saying that more intelligent people should be given tougher tests while in the same class with slower people to help even out the grades? How fair is that?
If you speed, you get fined x amount for it. It's not a matter of how badly it *hurts* you, it's a matter of being punished.
From now on, instead of lightly slapping a baby and telling them no, perhaps I should give them an openhanded slap to the face for the boys(they need to learn to be tough anyway).
As you can see, this partisan policy isn't really acceptable anywhere else, why should it be acceptable here? I hate how most people have these negative feelings towards people with money. Gotta make sure the rich people get theirs....
-
Assume a is an integer array with atleast 6 elements.
a[5] = 2;
this is legal C/C++.
5[a] = 2;
Is also legal C/C++.
Explain why
-
*raises hand*
I have a quick question
Why the hell are you worried about overclocking a 3200 AMD? I only ask because I'm sitting on a 1Ghz Duron and that baby hasn't failed me yet and the CPU you're talking about overclocking can do roughly 3.5-4x the work that mine can.
sorry, I can't answer your question, I've just always wondered why people feel the need to get uber-fast cpu's when they don't strictly need to.
PS
Lucky @#$%.... I'm just jealous
-
that's ridiculous.... Just another way to slam people who have money, as if it's they're fault that they're smart than the rest of the population...
-
Eken, when you go to school, there are certain people that attract other people(the 'popular' ones). That's power. Most young people don't recognize/understand it for what it is.
It's more than that, but I suspect you're not going to understand, so I'm not going to bother trying to explain it.
-
You guys are trying to prove a theory....now you can have as much proof for it as you want, but to disprove it I need only one proof of its falseness.....at least in this world....maybe different on some other planet
Actually, in this case, it's up to you to prove that for every star in existence, they're not that old. All they have to do is show that there is *atleast* 1 star that is older.
You beat me to it ThugAMish
It's not that an agnostic is 'not a follower of one religion', an agnostic simply believes that there is now way to definitively prove whether god exists or not. -
We're talking legal marriage. The government doesn't have the right to tell the religions that they have to allow gay marriages.
But there are some things that are negative about gays. forexample, children. I dont think gays should have children. Because that will make the child a bit diffenrent I!!Being abused makes you a bit different. Being homeschooled makes you a bit different. Being me makes you a bit different
I personally don't see anything wrong with it, but first gay marriages(legal). Then we'll talk about the children
-
use trillian(http://trillian.cc)
tada, all your problems are solved
-
Good story. But that sucks that you got arrested. Why didn't he get busted for pot?
Because I lied to the cops and told them we were fighting over him smoking cigarettes. He 'arrested' me *after* I lied to them for him, go figure
@mreiland: Really? That is so bad of your brother. You really should talk serius too him, no one can behave like that, at least not when his your brother!Well, he was doing stuff like picking stuff up and throwing it at me(hitting me). And walking up to me and throwing punches, stopping inches from my face. I'm generally a pretty tolerant guy, but after a while.... When the marijuana thing happened he came at me first. I guess he thought he could take me(no way in hell). I totally stomped his azz, and enjoyed every second of it. I would have done it sooner if he hadn't been my brother.
He later told me that he did that on purpose to get me out of the house(I paid about $750 up front). I've yet to see any of my money back, and I only lived in the house for 2 weeks. Needless to say, I don't have anything to do with him anymore
and to be honest, I won't have anything to do with *any* of my family. They've all stolen money from me in one way or another over the years. Apparently I'm the only one that understands the need to save....
-
actually I was poking fun at sphere, not CO, heh.
But anyway
-
A Christian is not going against morality and the way Humans were meant to be (in fact quite the opposite).....gays are going against morality and true Humanity
Then you need to disappear into the rain forests and live off the land. It's not "True Humanity" for us to be driving cars, and using paper to "buy" products. It's not natural, and if your God wanted us to do such things, he would have started us off that way.
what you call "tolerance" is really the intolerance of someone exercising their right to be intolerant.....freedom of opinion....go figuretotal freedom = total anarchy. We have neither, so your argument has no bearing in reality.
And you must remember, we're not the ones trying to pass laws disallowing a different viewpoint/lifestyle. You are.
-
uhhh, it was whole joking, or something like that
-
Jebus Cheezy, you must be the only one on this planet that didn't know that... pffft.
Get with the program, PRO means PROffessional.
Next you're going to tell me that you didn't know that the lazy instantiation of templates in C++(originally started by Borland) allows for extremely streamlined programs when used in conjunction with Generative Programs(via templates and enums).
What about AGP Pro..... You know what? What About 8-track?
-
Oh I agree, it's stupid and petty, I'm just not willing to put out the energy to worry about it(selfish on my part I suppose).
-
Hehe, so we just spent 10 posts and four hours arguing something we already both agreed on? Isn't the net wonderful
heh, something like that
Maybe I can get Tim to setup the forums to support Tex... or maybe not, lol. Too bad, since there'd definately be fewer misunderstandings that way.
-
ThugaMish: That's too bad, Complex Functions, and Abstract Algebra are my two favorite parts of Math I'd say. I generally know my shiznat when it comes to these two areas(since I love them so much), but MarkT got me this time
You'll start learning about taking the natural logarithms of negative numbers(yes, they do exist in the complex number plane), among other really cool stuff(atleast to me).
You know you're a frickin' geek when.... *sigh*
I really wish you guys hadn't posted that, it's really driving home how much I miss my Math classes
I gotta get back into school so I can start work on my Masters -
Alright Mark, I see what you're saying. I'd like to note that (0,0) is a trivial solution, and the problem was expressed in that form *specificially* so that the trivial solution (0,0) would be valid in this case.
After rereading your 1st proof, I see what you meant( it's hard as hell to convey math properly on these forums), and I agree with you, 2004 roots. I got the exact opposite message that you were trying to convey in that sidenote, which is what I was arguing with.
That's what I get for keying in on 1 thing and not stopping to work the problem out for myself, so I apologize MarkT, you were correct
-
Alright, I've been thinking about it, and here's the conclusion that I've come up to(I'll look for that book later).
When you're looking for complex roots, this is roughly what you do.
z^3 = 1
this means that (r^3)(e^3THETA) = (1)(e^( 0 + 2PI(k) ) )
or
r^3 = 1 and 3THETA = 0 + 2PI(k)
so r = 1 and THETA = [2PI(k) ]/ 3 k = 0,1,2
So you have solutions THETA = 0, THETA = (2/3)PI, THETA = (4/3)PI
What you'll find is that when k = 3, THETA = 6PI/3, which is 2PI, or 0.(much like a modulus function)
You can graph these to see what I'm talking about.
The equation he presented can be rewritten as z^2003 = 1, so it's trivial to see that it will act the same(I don't have all of the proofs to PROVE it, but you can see how it generally acts).
The above method is what I originally had in mind when I first posted, I just hadn't actually rearranged the equation in my head.
The reason that a=b=0 is not included is because of the form it's in. 0 and 6PI/3 are different solutions that are equivalent( If you've gotten into Abstract Algebra, you'll understand what I mean by this), but 0 and 0 have the same form. Therefore, it's already included in the total. Atleast that's my rationalization
*sigh*
Alright, I've convinced myself that the number of roots is 2003, and I'm sticking to that answer
*uses his power voice, ala DUNE*
The answer is 2003 roots.
Now that I've satisfied myself(I can't ever seem to feckin' stop if I come upon a problem I'm not sure about), I'm going to go back to watching Anime
-
Alright, I see what you're saying now. The thing is, I *know* what that corollary states, so unless you can show me that it's a 2004 degree polynomial, it has 2003 non-unique roots.
I have a complex book I bought last year hiding somewhere around here. I'm going to open it up and see what I can find. I'll post what I find later.
-
Come now, you're a programmer You know that there are 2003 non-negative integers less than 2003... unless I'm misreading that comment.
I queued in on the second relation, and didn't even think about the first.
Also, I think the given polynomial is of degree 2003, seeing as it's effectively asking you to solve z^2002=z^(-1) === z^2003-1=0, plus the special case of z=0 (where z* =/= z^(-1) ) for the 2004th solution.My fault for not recognizing that. It would *indeed* be a 2003 degree polynomial.
In the equation z^2003 - 1 = 0, it's nontrivial to see that z != 0, otherwise you'd end up with -1 = 0, which is clearly not correct. As I pointed out earlier, if A is permitted to be 0, then your proof is undefined at that point, meaning it comes to no conclusions.
so the answer is 2003 roots. The lesson to be learned here is that I need to put more thought into my posts, otherwise I come out looking like an idiot, heh.
*walks away in shame*
-
Now that I think about it, they didn't ask for unique roots, just roots. My bad for missing that. In that case, the answer would be 2002 roots.
I looked over your proof to see where the extra 2 roots came from( and to make sure my memory was serving me correctly), and I found them.
0<=k<2003that's less than, not less than, or equal to, so that would be 2002.
(A^2002).e^(2002i*t) = A.e^(-i*t), so(A^2001).e^(2003i*t) = 1, but |e^(i*t)| == 1, therefore (A^2001) = A = 1; (*)
This implies that A != 0, otherwise, this step is undefined. In other words, A cannot equal zero.
There is a corollary to the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra stating that if you have a polynomial P(z) of degreen n(n>0) with complex coefficients, then the equation P(z) = 0 has exactly n solutions(non-unique).
Or something to that effect, it's been a while.
Note, that (a+bi)^n will result in an n-degree polynomial.
Programming Quote
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
How exactly does that violate the Turing test?
GCC does *exactly* that when bootstrapping it(without a previous compiler).