mmmcannibalism

mass cannot travel at or above the speed of light

profit percentage isnt relevant when your going for max profit.

possible forward through relativity yes(I figure aging slower then earth counts) backwards I doubt, maybe under parallel universes but I find it nearly impossible for it to be possible.

Then what's strong? Rune defender is better 95% of the time. Unless you are a dragon hunter or a slayer. defender is still normally better for slay, and dragon killing would be that 5 percent.

Calm down mage, we all know this is just rhetoric by some really far right wing nuts. Not that I doubt a lot of the idiocy here, but as long as it was brought to a popular vote and anyone not interested was allowed to leave the state I dont see how it would actually be wrong(even if it would screw the economy they have the human right to be self sufficient correct?). All political movements have their fair share of idiots backing up the cause; not to pick on Obama here but myriads of his supporters cant even name his policies. Same thing with a lot of news reporting, the american media likes to presume guilty before trial for better ratings because the masses want to demonize someone. (seriously the obama thing was just an example, Im sure we could all prove that holds for Bush, Clinton, Bush the elder and so on back across time)

when neither point is truly better yes; however, you could never win an argument with say the opinion that hydrogen doesnt exist since its been proven even if you somehow argue more effectively then the other person. it would also be noteable to add that not believing in god's existence(not the belief he doesnt exist but finding it unlikely, weak atheism) based on the fact that science has/is explaining all natural processes would not be faith.

[hide=] No, this is where I was having the problem. You're viewing .999... as a finite number. If you plug in .9999, the 5 gets sent back another decimal place. This continues and continues into infinity, so it's always .999.... You'll never reach the 5, thus 5=5 or .999...*5=1*5.[/hide] yay we converted laura to add clarifying, the x is a variable that is representing a given number, in these proofs we give x an initial value for normal equations you are generally looking for x in the equation 3x+5x=7 3x+5x=7 8x=7 x=(7/8) plugging 7/8 into the first equation we prove our answer is accurate because 3(7/8)+5(7/8)=7 21/8+35/8=7 sorry if this sounded like an algebra lecture, Im just not sure how much math you have had so I figured I would be thourough. 56/8=7 7=7

I don't see how adding more words means you've "won" the debate. Well... you were partially right. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm the argument for red is much more detailed and supported, basic element of a good argument is depth and supporting factors and since I didnt feel like digging up two essays I just used something simple That definitino for weak atheist is what I said, semantic differences aside.

just a symbolic protest; I doubt it will amount to anything.

He said they can win the debate evern though he disagrees lets say you were arguing over which color was better you say blue and your reasoning is "because its pretty"; the other person says red because its "very bold and warm, it reminds me of the autumn sun". You disagree with them and they havent proven it, but its pretty clear who made the better argument. weak and strong atheism, finally someone gave a proper set of labels. I always thought of weak atheism as agnosticism with a feeling god doesnt exist.

[hide=] You've made a calculation error here: 10(.99) -.99 does not equal 9(.99) it equals 9.9-.99 You have to multiply before you subtract. Even if you could, it would be 9.11(.99) not 9(.99) You proved that 1=1 not .99=1 If x=2 10x=20 10(2)-1=20-1 20-1=19 not 9(2)=19 If I had calculated it the way you did, I would have proved that 18=19. [/hide] I subtracted x from both sides not 1(well x equaled one but you get the point) x=2 10(2)=20 10(2)-2=20-2 9(2)=18 the reason I change to 9(2) is the same property that gives 5x-2x=3x Okay, I see what you're saying. I missed that you had subtracted x from each side. #-o Can you tell it's been many years since my last Calculus class? :lol: [/hide] no problem, it took me a minute or two to see what was being done that step the first time around.

However, I dont believe there has been an actual elector changing votes from his district for practically ever; if they did this at will it wouldnt be a democracy though so really they are just symbolic.

You've made a calculation error here: 10(.99) -.99 does not equal 9(.99) it equals 9.9-.99 You have to multiply before you subtract. Even if you could, it would be 9.11(.99) not 9(.99) You proved that 1=1 not .99=1 If x=2 10x=20 10(2)-1=20-1 20-1=19 not 9(2)=19 If I had calculated it the way you did, I would have proved that 18=19. I subtracted x from both sides not 1(well x equaled one but you get the point) x=2 10(2)=20 10(2)-2=20-2 9(2)=18 the reason I change to 9(2) is the same property that gives 5x-2x=3x

Oil tanker was my original idea, posted back Zombie Jesus knows how long ago. It was still my plan until a few months ago. Think about it; out at sea, no zombies. You'd be accepted into pretty much every major port as long as they at least think you have oil on board in order to resupply. Crew is the only problem. how many people would it take to man an oil rig if we dont have to worry about actually having full tanks of oil?

No. Your math teacher doesn't understand math very well, and that's why he's teaching high school instead of getting his PhD. Care to explain why he's wrong, ye mighty mathematical genius? lets just write the .999... as .99 here for the sake of simplicity x=.99 10x=9.9 10(.99)-.99=9.9-.99 9(.99)=9 .99=1 since multiplying both sides by 10 and subtracting .99 are both legitimate operations (not multiplying by 0) this functions as a proof.

not sure of the origin of the name, but the guide uses it so its pretty much official. Oil rigs are interesting, excluding accidents it would be a decent to good choice.

How about instead of joining just to be an annoyance and a jerk you could actually pitch in the conversation? And in my honest opinion, I think 1/3 =/= .333.... Mathematics is a crazy subject that no one knows the right answers in. Crazy subject maybe, however mathematics isnt subjective(with few exceptions such as the continuum hypothesis), your opinion is wrong and thats a fact. Why does 1/3 extent by .3 for infinity? Because we cannot reach 1/3 in decimal form. For if we move it one decimal at any given point then it goes over or under. .333... is a third of .999... not 1. How is it contradictory? You would get infinitely smaller until you reached an insignificant value. 1/3 is .3 forever because basic division proves it; .999... is 1 because its 3 times 1/3 which equals 1 its contradictory because any rational number can be represented in the form a/b; .333... is not irrational because it repeats yet you are saying there isnt a fractional form for it.

How about instead of joining just to be an annoyance and a jerk you could actually pitch in the conversation? And in my honest opinion, I think 1/3 =/= .333.... Mathematics is a crazy subject that no one knows the right answers in. for the sake of the discussion then, what is the numerical difference between 1/3 and .333...? mathematics is hardly crazy, its just a matter of learning the material.(and what utopian said) I do agree kazzin is just being a jerk though

I guess its possible you did, wish there was a way to find out.

[hide=] If 3+3+3= 9, how is .333...+.333...+.333...= any different? Because .333... is 1/3, and 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 No, it isn't. Any number of threes added vertically above each other will result in any number of nines. One third can only be represented as a fraction. so you dont believe 1/3 yields .333...? If so, its pointless to argue with you. If you think you can divide one into three equal parts represented by decmals, it's pointless to argue with you. I agree. .333... is a third of .999...not 1. 1/3 is a third of one, which cannot be represented in decimal form and is therefore rounded as .333... [/hide] if it cant be represented in decimal form then it must be in irrational number; however, all rational numbers can be expressed as a/b, 1/3 satisfies this so your statement is a contradiction.

If 3+3+3= 9, how is .333...+.333...+.333...= any different? Because .333... is 1/3, and 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 No, it isn't. Any number of threes added vertically above each other will result in any number of nines. One third can only be represented as a fraction. so you dont believe 1/3 yields .333...? If so, its pointless to argue with you.

being able to eat all day and not getting fat of course no world hunger and such

Then why does it continue? It's a representation of 1/3 in decimal form because we cannot achieve 1/3 in this manner. .999...=1 assumes that 1/3=.333... And .999...=/=1 assumes that 1/3=/=.333... it continues because manually dividing 1 by 3 gives the result .333...

the old testamant which holds the creation myth is far older then 2000 years.

[hide=] I see where you're coming from, but that's the wrong way of showing that number because it implies that the 0's aren't infinite - they stop before the 1. 0.<--0001 is the same concept but it is mathematically possible, because the 0's run into the decimal point instead of an actual number. But doesn't the phrase infinite indicate that it will never, ever, ever, ever.... ever, ever, stop? You would never get to the 1, and therefore be left with 0.999... laura--how is .333... not a third of one? If I divide 1 by 3 manually I get .333... 10 cannot be divided into perfect thirds. Neither can one. 1/3=.333...; saying thats not perfect is a semantic debate. Well, it's just that the fact that your arguments are based on a third of one, and one can't be divided into thirds... it just seems... stupid? [/hide] I have to be blunt now, if you cant accept thet .333...=1/3 then your wrong and its impossible to debate this with you.