Papes

Seems like an enterprising young man! I just sold a speed cube for twenty bucks, and I'm hoping to sell 2 more. On the math side of things, while it's true that you need know nothing of how the cube works, just a memorization/understanding of algorithms, I've long wondered how an understanding of the cube would affect my solves. I consider myself to have a pretty good understanding of how pieces are manipulated and I can look pretty far ahead when moving through certain parts of the CFOP system, such as the F2L and OLL. But how many more seconds does it take someone who can't look ahead and adjust? Just some more food for thought.

By the way, new personal best of 18.89 seconds.

But even so, I find it amazing that with that many possible positions, we have managed to find the optimal solutions to every position, even if many, many of the patterns are easily solved by using the same algorithm. By the way, my new best average of 12 is 33.4 seconds.

Nice wording, and I think you have a point. I don't believe that the US and as a country could not put together five logically sound arguments without sounding like sadomasochistic idiots.

I encountered my first Rubik's cube about 3 months ago in the dwelling of my best friend. He was messing around with a Revenge (4x4) and couldn't even get one side. I did some research and discovered that there are 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 possibilities for the cube to be arranged (Wikipedia it for more info). Would somebody like to explain to me how out tiny human brains are able to take all 43 quintillion possibilities and reduce it to one solved cube? Enlightenment welcome. P.S. Anyone can solve the cube. My best average of 12 is 58 seconds, which is terrible.

Barack Obama dangerous? I think not. Now, even with politicians being so horribly hypocritical and flip floppish, I would like to think that Obama hasn't lied to us. This time.

Now, try to comprehend infinity. A bit much eh? Well, now apply that confoundnessocity to every opinion and fact you have ever come across. Voila.

But, if Kinetic energy = 1/2mass times velocity squared, and humans can pick up and object and throw it, there is an infinite amount of energy, whether potential or kinetic. This is, of course, assuming humans decide to procreate for eternity, eg. infinity.

I believe it. Without question. Scary enough for you?

I recently read an article about the next Einstein, a surf/snowboard bum who just wrote a new model of the universe on the same scale of string theory. What i remember of it was that the 244(?) verticied shape that, when the equation of the shape was written out in newspaper print would cover the same space as the island of Manhattan. Can anyone help fill me in?

I think my algebra 2 math teacher, Mr. Brett Seeman stands considerably higher, at least in the aspect of actually engaging my interest.

It sounds perfectly realistic, if you were living in a hypothetical world, in which most of my scientific calculations have been. In my chemistry class this year, all numbers we get are totally hypothetical, such as the ideal gas law, which is almost never feasible.

Oh. My. God. First, did that guy even try to justify his spending of government funds for the research of the pure pap and dreck? I truly wish to be able to unread/unlearn what i just read/learned. Maybe this is my future, however I sincerely hope to be studying something such as the likes of String theory, etc.

I hate Hypocrisy, in any form. Whether it is one of my friends, enemies, or presidential hopefuls, a flip flopper in any sense of the phrase is a detriment to mankind, unless of course you provide some rationale for switching.

Take off all legs and and two more arms. No hands, just stubs. Then make them race!!

Well, in Mr. Almiedas defense, he has great command of a vest cesspool of legal jargon.

Responding solely to the title and description, it depends on the status of the country. I believe that it depends on the status of the country. How primitive a country are we talking about here? I mean, are we speaking Sherpas of Nepal primitive or bushmen in Africa? Second, are the resources vital to the sustenance of said primitive countries? I think that those are the two biggest determining factors.

Although Kant's ethics system might be slightly skewed, I have read a footnote in an excerpt form Kant's "Metaphysics of Morals" in which Kant argues that one MAY NOT employ common sense when debating the principles of Philosophy. I guess my argument is just defending deontological systems, although I don't wholly or even partially agree with them.