It's an election year. What more can you say?

I'm looking forward to watching the daily show make fun of the nominees. I hope Bush gets his butt kicked.

Of course Bush had no choice, but to send those troops into Iraq. If he had not then we would have been hit with a nuke. Personally, living near a navy base, that would not be to cool. Therefore, what has made Bush such a bad president?

Though i do like how the daily show makes fun of the nomineas ;). Happy New year.

I surely hope you're not talking about Saddam's "Weapons of mass destruction", whose existence has become nothing more than a running joke...

Oh no, a History conversation. This automatically means two things.
1) I am clueless.
2) I really don't care because I am clueless. :-D

I think when I get old enough to vote, I'll leave the voting up to the people who know what they're talking about.

People died for rights to vote in the US, and more than 50% of the people don't vote.

Turnout was 38% in the 2000 election. 19% voted for Bush, 17% being the same number who still believed Nixon in 1974 (hard-core Republicans, nazis, fascists, religious extremists, etc). 81% of people are either disgusted with both parties (59%), are party-line Democrats (19%), or don't care (3%). The Democratic strategy, BTW, is to go for the 2% of people who care to vote Republican but who aren't nuts, hoping to win an election 21%-17% instead of 80%-17%.

I know, it's sad, but if I don't know what the heck I'm voting for, then I guess there's really no point.

See link. Read his books.

I doubt that they will find any WMDs, but something people seem to have forgotten is that at the beginning of the war, the opponents of it did not use challenge the idea of Saddam's WMDs in their arguments. [wow! That was one run-on sentence!]

MWM

Please, people, this is a calculator web site, not a political debate. If you want politics, go to my web link.

This survey isn't about calculators. It's about 2004, which happens to be an election year.

You have a good point. However, I would not go to CNN for a discution of politics! Have you ever read their economics editorials!?!

MWM

They have a message board on this at CNN?

I never said you could _discuss_ politics on CNN. I merely stated that if you _wanted_ politics, you should go there.

*looks back up*

Oh, you're right. I see. I just assumed that's what you meant.

I did.

OOH OOH! That reminds me of a joke, but you have to read it out loud...A few months ago, troops went into iraqi schools and found them playing with rulers, calculators, and balance scales. They were then able to confirm to the president that Iraq really DID have weapons of math instruction...Hee hee...:)

That joke would be even better if the person telling it had a lisp. :)

Yeah, it probably would

And yet it's still incredibly corny.

See link. The nuclear weapons do not exist in Iraq (the argument being based upon forged documents from Niger), most chemical weapons have been accounted for, and the biological weapons have died of old age. BTW, the US military blew up the archives where the records for the weapons were stored, so they wouldn't have been able to find the WMDs if they had any. They also don't have delivery methods (their longest-range rocket having a range of 400 miles).

Exactly. Bush The Idiot had no good evidence.

Whether they had weapons or not, the people there were still getting abused for no reason. That's evident in how happy they are that Saddam was found out. Did you know that while the iraqi's were starving, Saddam had a GOLDEN TOILET in his BATHROOM??? that's just SICK!

Who would not want a gold toilet? I mean really. A gold toilet would be damn cool.

-W-

Don't you mean cold? :P

No kidding! I'd never want to sit my butt down on that thing in the winter!

Especially in the frigid north.
-or in 1337 5|>33|< -
35|>3[14|_|_`/ 1|\| 73|-| F|21g1|) |\|0|27|-| ! \/\/007!
I |20><0|2!
Man I was 80|23|) to do that.

j00 \/\/3|23 80|23|) 70 |)[] 7|-|47? 1 7|-|1|\||< 1 \/\/1|_|_ |-|4\/3 70 60 4|\||) |-|4><0|2 j00 |\|0\/\/! 83[4(_)53 1 |20><0|2!!!!!!!! \/\/[][]'|'!!!!!!!! 4|-|h, /\/\'/ 13375p34k 15 \/\/31|2|)

... I know how to read lEEt, but I'm not bored enough to read that.

Erm, a few things:
First off, what's so fun about a golden toilet? I mean, it's unconventional. And why not get a gold-plated one, a few thousand times cheaper, and no one will notice the difference. (The only difference is in mass/density, and no one's going to try to pick up a toilet)
And, what he was talking about is not merely that Saddam is wasting money on a gold toilet, but that the money could have been better spent on other places.

I know. I just always wanted a gold toilet. For all I care, it could be painted gold.

-W-

Gold toilet? Why a White House? Other than to pay tribute to the Canadians who burnt it in the war of 1812, I say the pres can sleep in the gutter. Gold toilets, on the other hand, can be heated, and are perfect for buying with US support money from before Gulf War I.

The British army burned the White House, not the Canadians.

lol how could the canadians? there was no canada! wasn't it like a province of Britain being overrrun with French fur traders?

Wait, don't misunderstand me.....Saddam was a HORRIBLY cruel person, and should have been taken out of office much earlier, but I'm just saying that the "weapons of mass destruction" thing was fake. There might have been a better way to remove Saddam without the huge invasion and bombing and things.

So now that Saddam is gone, why are there still attacks on US soldiers? You'd think that that kind of behavior would've stopped if what you say is true.

But, yeah, Saddam is an evil person. Comparable to Hitler.

It wasn't only Saddam. He has people that like him, I'll give you that, but the majority hated him. Also, there's still Osama I believe...or did they get him too? I didn't think so...
-Politically clueless, I am not W-

They did NOT capture Osama bin Laden. The majority hates him, but hates the US more-that's why they're all talking about "Saddam's government without Saddam."

And now 3,400 (US estimate) to 20,000 (real estimate) people are dead or maimed and there still isn't a Western mindset among Iraqis (which is what the point of the war was).

no it wasn't. We didn't go to americanize them, we went to stabilize them. If americanization was a goal of somebody involved in the war, it wasnt bush's fault.

Think about it. The mass media (and Republican) definition of 'stabilize' is 'westernize'-the establishment of Western institutions, they say, is the only way to stabilize a country.

Operation Iraqi Freedom, not Operation Iraqi Americanization...

That's what they called it. So what?

Bush seems to think the only way for them to have a good society is to have one like ours (which does have many flaws)...

>What more can you say?

Leap year!!! 366 days!!! Whoo!!!

What? This Year is going to be LONGER than last year??? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-W-

Oh, summer Olympics in Athens, Grece, as well.

-W-

*Greece

Oh, that's right...
if (year%4==0){
doOlympics(Olympics.summer);
}else if (year%4==2){
doOlympics(Olympics.winter);
}else{
dontDoOlympics();
}

right?

What??? There is a C command called "doOlympics()"? I gotta see what that does!

Hey, wait a minute... That is not a C function!

That looks about right.

-W-

That would be really funny if it was a pre-defined function. Actually, that seems like a good idea for the programmer of a C compiler to do. Code in secret pre-defined functions like that and then wait for people to discover them.

That would be cool...

Yep.

#include <eating.h>
void main()
{
eatAnApple();
}

I never knew that there were so many optimizations to C code. My NCalc program needs some work.

Optimized!!!!
switch (year%4)
{
case 0:
doOlympics(Olympics.summer);
break;
case 2:
doOlympics(Olympics.winter);
break;
default:
dontDoOlympics();
}

Don't even put in the default section.

And there's really no point in putting dontDoOlympics() in there, just doNothing(), or nothing at all will suffice. Or, have it even more optimized:

decideYourselfWhetherToDoOlympics (year);

the dontDoOlympics() function displays a guy sitting on a couch doing nothing. It DOES do something. You can't just leave it out... :)

Wait! Let's add parameters to change the color of the couch!

Java:

dontDoOlympics (Color.red);
or
dontDoOlympics (Color.blue);

And I guess for C++, you could just use a numerical value to denote certain colors, like for QB (1=blue, 2=green, ...)

Hey, you stole my signature!!! >:O

GASP! How could he do such a thing?! Rest assured, I would never do something like that ;)

Now you too. *sulks*

you would have to if there is no modulator (or whatever the remainder is called), or else it could end the loop without doing anything. The point is to actually see what dontdoolympics() does, not to literally 'dont do them'

and btw I had no idea that C had a switch function. I am (was actually) learning C++ from a Sam's Teach it Yourself book from Wal-mart/sam's club I guess. Anybody else hate those books? The Java one is about 4 inches thick and the hardest read I've ever had (other than Master and Commander 1)

Use Herb Schildt's 2nd edition C++ book "C++ From the Ground Up" found at general as well as technical bookstores.

LOL! You like optimizing with switch/case statements, don't you? :) I don't use them much. I probably should. I like optimizing my code.

I'd doubt if that will make any real-world optimization at all. Any decent C/C++ compiler will easily optimize away any difference at even it's most conservative optimization settings. Not knowing, I'd guess that works for Java or other bytecode-compiled languages as well.

That said, it can be considered an optimization in readability :-)

eek you wrote dontDoOlympics() instead of dontdoolympics(). I do all lowercase all the time, unless it's a built-in php.php function like round or something.

Well, here's how the standard is. With method names with multiple words, the first word is lowercase and the rest are capital. That's what you mostly see, with Java, anyway. But, anything could be correct. It's just for readability.

dontDoOlympics() is much easier to read than dontdoolympics, you have to agree.

Although, you would really write it however you like. As long as you're consistant. It helps you later on, with huge programs.

dontdoolympics(), dont_do_olympics(), dontDoOlympics(), DONTDOOLYMPICS(), dOnTdOoLyMpIcS(), etc.

And after it's compiled, it doesn't have a name anymore anyway, so the key is to just have it be readable...I ususally use the underscore separation, just because I like the all lower case, and I use mixtures for classes, structures, etc. I just did it that way to be consistent with your post...

Only longer according to the calendar. Each year is really about 365.245 days long, which is why centennial years not evenly divisible by 400 are not leap years.

But also the Earth's rotation is slowing down, and every century, the days are approximately a second shorter...

Would that not mean that it is speeding up? If it were slowing down, would the days not get longer? And where the hell did you get the crock from?

-W-

Crock?

As in crock of shit. However, it has come up on here that "shit" and "sh*t" are not acceptable, theus I just poot crock. If you have never heard this expression then this should help:

crock = bag of garbage; pile of crap; or in this case, fals info.

-W-

I meant that the days get a second longer every century, and this isn't a "crock." Think about it. The laws of thermodynamics: everything is heading toward a state of entropy (loss of energy) so the rotational kinetic energy of the Earth is also decaying...thus we get longer days (although by only a second per century)

Ok, did your physics teacher teach you anything!? If you havn't realized, mass is conserved. As Einstein explained (as well as nuclear bombs and nuclear power supplies), mass and energy are DIRECTLY related (as in practically the same thing). This then means the ENERGY IS CONSERVED! so if energy is conserved, I dought that the Universe is heading twords entropy. And... if you look at the sources of energy of just about everything (such as stars), you would figure out that the stars are turning MASS into ENERGY. So if you were going to say any crock of SH*T, then it would be that all of the mass is dissapearing. If you'd like me to explain this further, I'll be glad to. but i just don't have the energy now. gods-be-good-den!!!

P.S. There is absolutely not evidence (direct or indirect) that the Earth's rotation or reveloution of the sun is slowing down at ALL.

The (second?) law of thermodynamics is that all things in the universe are heading toward a state of entropy (messiness or decay). This contradicts with the law that all matter and energy are conserved because so far we have not found the source of all the loss of energy in, for example, a transfer of mechanical energy of kinetic in a car. We have found quite a bit of the loss which is due to heat, but there is still a small part that is unknown. In physics classes, they usually assume that there isn't this "unknown loss" Also, this is where the string theory becomes important. Some scientists believe that there is some other dimension (other than x, y, z, time, etc.) that the energy goes to...All over my head though... :)

mechanical energy *to* kinetic energy

Ah, but you do have to remember the difference between theory and proof. Although many theories become proof, some of them are still not quite there. Take in the loss of energy concept, that is purely theory. It may be true, but as of now, it is still just theory. However, the concept of mass + energy being concerved is now widely considered to be proof. Even if it is wrong, it is still concidered proof. Now, if the theory of loss of energy thingy is only theory and the mass and energy thingy is now proof, then the mass and energy thingy is officially considered more substantial. However, both of them directly oppose each other meaning that only one of them can be true. right now, whatever is proofed is considered to be true. Maybe in the future you thermodynamics thingies will be proofed making the mass and energy thing just theory. So a i guess we can have a lot of fun with this. Anyway, allow me to apologise and restate my... um, statement...

There is absolutely no proof that the earth's rotation or revolution of the sun is slowing down at all.

P.S. you may have noticed that i didn't bother with scientific terms. That is because this was not a scientific argument. I was using pure philosophy, so please don't respond telling me i didn't take the time to reaserch the matter fullly and include necessary vocabulary. Gods-be-good-den (let god give you a good day)

Ooooooooooooo, read my next comment before responding please. I'm not thinking straight so the second one might help i think.

Please explain how this works. From my intermediate knowledge of Newtonian orbital mechanics, the Earth has a fixed amount of angular momentum which nothing is resisting, thus producing a constant orbital and rotational velocity.

Something is resisting it. Otherwise the Earth is in perpetual motion...something proven unattainable.

Ah, but nothing has to be resisting for it to have an end. Eventually, there must be resistance, but for now it can go along it's merry little way. Using the most simple laws of gravity, what goes up must come down, would pretty much mean that the moon will crash into us and the earth will dissapear into the sun (if the sun didn't explode first, which is unlikely seeing as how it would take approximately 1 billion years for mercury to collapse onto the sun). Plus, if you think about it, the earth is actually resisting against dust particles. and gasses.

Plus, as i said, not all proof is true, so theoreticly it could be possible for propetual energy, but then again you have proof on your side, so...

Ooo, ooo, one more thing. The thermodynamics thing, well, yes, it is considered to be proof, but that doesn't mean is is constantly losing energy. well, it may be losing energy, but at the same time it gains energy from variouse places. so yah, i think i'm done.

It may be gaining energy, but the _law_ (not theory) of thermodynamics says that the amount of energy is going down, so at least as much as is being gained is being lost. Wow. That was the most confusing sentence I've ever written. Also, the only way for the Earth to gain velocity or whatever from the sun is by getting closer to it and _losing_ its potential energy...

Thermodynamics is based on Newtonian physics. Thus, to decrease energy, there must be resistance. What I think you're talking about is the cooling of the Earth's core by radiation into space, which does happen. However, for the Earth's orbital velocity to be dissipated as heat, there would have to be resistance to its orbit. Fortunately for us, the only resistance is the Sun's gravity, and that's not even on the same plane or there would be no orbits.

Two words, space dust

Negligible

well think about it:
the sun is pulling the earth along (not stopping it). We aren't talking about perpetual motion because there is a constant force pushing on the Earth; it is not a single mechanism. Its like turning a little water-wheel with you hand and calling it perpetual motion. But then again, would small bits of rock (or even large ones, if they don't penetrate the atmostphere), dust, etc slow down the earth if it hits the atmosphere. I wouldn't think so, I would think that the force of impact with the air would be so minimal that the air near the ground wouldn't have been moved at all, therefore not even touching the ground. And then there is weather. hmmmm not much there. Didn't they discover that little subatomic particles fly straight through the earth, like a billion a second? space wind I think its called. That might have some effect, but I doubt it. If these particles did anything other than pass right through the earth's atoms (highly unlikely anyway considering the absolute density of earthanoid matter) it would generate nuclear fission, wouldn't it? doesn't everything give off radiation? so if they don't collide, which would probably make them blow up anyway, they go right through the earth and don't affect it at all. hmmmmm

<sarcasm>
Oh man, I just can't WAIT for Physics next year...
</sarcasm>

That was definitely the scariest thing ever. Now I know how the algebra 1 students (seniors, lol) feel when I talk about math like that.

are you calling me an Algebra 1 student???? And I have never taken physics, that was all guesswork

Even though you say it was guesswork, it seemed sound to me.

No, I compared this to a situation where I talk about math and know what I'm talking about, where another kid, who may not be good at math, won't know what I'm talking about. This happens all the time.

In this case, with physics, you, and the other people involved in the discussion are the smart people. You know what you're talking about. And I am the person who has no idea what you're talking about.

I said that I know how the other kids feel now, for the sense of "that was all over my head" kind of thing.

No, I wasn't calling you an algebra 1 student... if you're on this site, you're probably good at math, already. And then again, algebra 1 students aren't necessarily bad at math... you have to take the subject some time.

Well, I haven't had Physics yet (my teacher tells me to wait until I get into high school before I learn physics), but what Brian Gordan said was relatively understandable.

What is resisting it is the gravity from the Sun. However, at the altitude of its orbit, its momentum and the Sun's gravity keep it on a trajectory with a curvature the same or approximately the same as the surface of the Sun's gravitational sphere of influence. Thus, an orbit.

Ok, I'm using this in compillation of what everybody has said. What an orbit is (according to Newton) is the planets are falling, but the planet's fall past the horizon of the sun. According to newtons second law of motion is that an object in motion wants to remain in motion, so the earth will continue to fall past the horizon of the sun, unless a force is acted upon it. Note: this system has nothing to do with perpetual motion, so we can just leave that out. ok, well, yes, there are plenty of dust and junk to resist against the earth, so according to newtonian physics the earth is in fact slowing down. Then we go back to jrock who was talking about the laws of thermodynamics. Yes, just by moving, the earth loses heat, and thus energy, and in fact will NOT cause the earth to slow down in the slightest. It will just be a cold ball going around the sun.

Now, to the whole longer year thing that started this. The earth is slowing down due to resistance, but reffering back to newton again, the earth will just fall closer to the sun's horizon. So the orbital get's shorter and the year will pretty much be exactly the same. eventually the earth would crash into the sun (if the sun didn't lose enough mass to lose the earth into deep space or the sun imploded/exploded first).

In conclusion, Jrock was wrong, and I was wrong, and I'm going to leave everybody elso out because I'm not debating with any of you!!!

Oh yeah... thanks. I have heard that expression used a few times before. I just didn't make the connection. LOL I have a teacher named Ms. Crock, I was probably thinking toward that direction.

Very true. If the rotation speed was decreasing, the days would get LONGER, not shorter.

I hope so too.

Why on Earth do you guys not like Bush? If Gore had been elected, he would have not done anything about the September 11th attacks, and we would have been in MUCH deeper trouble than we were. I think every decision Bush has made so far is great! If someone hits you, you hit back, and you stick up for the underdog. That basically covers everything he's done so far.

Sorry, it seems like i'm arguing with you on everything. Nothing personal. But anyway, if you were to cunsult a school teacher, she/he would say you need to not hit back and just go tell a superior. Well, i think the UN has more influence (even though it was the U.S. that initially proposed the league of nations) in the world, seeing as how it is the world, and they did in fact disagree with our war efforts. But you know, I'm not really up to date on everything so i'll stop there.

Oh yah, I personally wish that bush never was in office, however, i'm not saying Gore was a prize pick either. I think we should have just thrown out the ammendment and allowed Clinton to serve again. I think he was an excellent president (a little horny perhaps) but overall, a good president.

I agree. Bush should have tried harder to get approval from the UN before starting any war, possibly revised his plan so that less innocent civilians would be killed and Saddam would be removed more quickly.

Yep. Out of the five nations with veto rights in the UN, the only nations to support the war was the US and Britain.

Why do we HAVE that amendment, anyways? If the current president has already been in office for two terms, but people still vote for him, why not let him be president again?

I agree. There's always an endless supply of fools, and not enough statesmen that can serve for long amounts of time.

That clinton thing would be unconstitutional but I won't get into that. About the "telling your superiors"...Who is Bush going to tell? He's the President of the United States for crying out loud! And if I am correct, he DID go to the UN, and they declined, so he had to take action on his own!

They declined to go to war because they saw through Bush. I'm surprised that they kept a straight face when Colin Powell showed them a railroad loading station and said that it was a rocket test stand.