Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 1133. page

>>8512511
Yup, getting ready for it right now.

>>8512511
The kind of problems they put on those things aren't appealing enough to waste hours and hours on study sessions prepping for

I'm not bright enough to get more than like 1-2 questions even with intensive study for it

>>8512511
I know the series on the bottom track has a sum of -1/12. Insofar as each set of kills on the bottom can be brought into a 1:1 cardinality with the individual kills with the top, does this still favor the bottom from from a by-the-numbers utilitarian standpoint?

>>8517156
Source?

>>8517156
>16 years old students created Martin Shkrelli medication for less than 2$


What the fuck are you saying?

File: faggot.png (41KB, 651x537px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 651x537px

>>8517156
Good luck getting it approved by the FDA.
>During the Super Bowl, a representative of the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly posted the on the company's corporate blog that the average cost of bringing a new drug to market is $1.3 billion
>OP is a faggot.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/#4851cc764477

i fucked up, okay?

tfw modern colleges are now mostly just sports stadiums with degree mills on the side.

lol Americans...

What happens if you breathe the eyeurn dust?

>>8512051
u die.

>>8512048
Deoxidation of iron? What if its just a chromatic effect? More iron oxide builds until the orange hue becomes so dark it appears black?

just do what indians do and just shit where convenient

>>8511723
DESIGNATED SHITTING SPACESHIPS

put it into a fucking storage bin
problem solved

>>8510823

asexual reproduction and human asexuality are completely different things

>>8510833
Yeah but evolution makes asexuals and homosexuals not motivated to reproduce

>>8510823

Asexual organisms DO reproduce you retarded faggot. As to why it is that you're a walking failure, you can contribute to your genes survival without having kids, by for example helping a sibling raise their kid, or even by paying taxes that go to feed children with some of your genes (you're fairly closely related to eveyone in your country)

>>8507480
>Muskposting

Remember only [math] you [/math] can prevent cancerous posts.

>>8507480
>Elon Musk
>""""changing the game""""

I wouldn't count throwing random ideas at his workers "changing the world".

Telsa is a failure, commercially and technically.
SolarCity is a good idea but is much more expensive than union-made solar panels. Musk is also a sore loser in business : http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10905624/utilities-rooftop-solar-storage
SpaceX is about an industry that should never have been made for profit in the first place, and see its rockets exploding.

Not counting his shitty labour practices, his crazy talks about "muh simulation theory" and his obssession with Mars which is definitively not to make you give him money on a fairy tale.

I respect the man and his success. But I don't like the cult he's build, and I don't think his success are legitimate.

We all wish we could be him.

In a perfect world, everyone would be born Elon.

WE WUZ STARS

File: 14316707_339316886410315_1413713214335033618_n.jpg (30KB, 518x356px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 518x356px

But until you look at it, it is both!

>nature

oh no

I don't have much experience with pre-meds, but engineers are definitely some of the scummiest people alive. I'd be surprised if anyone's much worse than an engineer who thinks he's smarter than he really is because he managed to pass a dumbed-down differential equations course.

Speaking of experience - is pre-med pussy worth it?

>>8511567
Math class filled with engineers

Got my batchelor's in Mech. Eng.

In calculus we saw lots of arrogant engineers, myself included to some extent. Some thought they could get away without studying and they became Civil Enigneers.

After all the weed out courses were through, the survivors shaped up.

Underclassmen always think they know something, I don't think it's exclusive to us.

>>8517049
correlation =/= causation

>>8517050
>correlation =/= causation
What?

sounds more like you're having a stroke

>>8517047
Just do what you are told, dummy dumb dumb. Don't live the illusion of academia. You think that your paper matters and if you publish false results then in 10 days it will be used in 500 papers and then in a startup and then society will collapse but the reality is that the only people who will read it are the people who know it is wrong, you and your supervisor. Nobody gives a shit about your paper. Just publish it, get your PhD and then let your first shitty paper fade into obscurity. Nobody reads fucking dissertations, why do you think they have to force the people on top in your department to read them. If they don't then nobody will.

>>8517047
>He's fairly influential so I can't exactly report him without getting my career destroyed.

Sure you can, email him with your concerns and try and get something incriminating, then report him to your head of school. If you just go a head with it and you get exposed who do you think is going to get the blame?

>>8517047
Record him secretly and fuck his shit.

>1
obvious
>2
we contribute. the extent that we contribute and the consequences are inconclusive.
>3
tldr

>1
There are obvious massive differences, and the way research is treated is a sad reaction to WW2 basically. Hopefully in the future science will get back on track and research this more.

>2
Looking at charts that show many thousands of years it doesn't look like we're in an unusual spot, but I don't know

>3
He was treated very unfairly by the scientific community but he was wrong in the end

>>8516978
1) PEEPEE
2) POOPOO
3) #MAGA

>>8516386
reality is subjective

what is reality to a brain with no sensory perceptions?

Could you in theory given enough generations evolve someone with a head as their chair?

>>8516413
Google problems with/criticisms of solipsism you imbecile.

some guy literally died from it yesterday
brain aneurysm

It does do what it promises. But that's not saying that those side effects are not real as well.

It's effective in the short-term only. If you keep using it, as many people do, you can get yourself in some serious trouble. You're better off trying to build up your self-control naturally.

>>8516066
Yeah. And not using that shit ever. I've got a feeling if you do start using it that it won't be a year that you decide you wish you never had and you won't again. For me the productivity aspect of it makes it no fun. Get your work done and then take it to go have fun like doodling but the short term will be to I'll effect cause you'll lose what you're trying to learn.

File: awooos growing louder.gif (499KB, 350x197px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 350x197px

>>8515510
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract?sid=e88a32fa-d470-486d-92ea-97bf18db30c9
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1406.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_2/19729.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/14/5743.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
Now get the fuck off my board.

>>8515510
Threadly reminder that only [math] you [/math] can prevent cancerous threads.

>sage
>hide
>report

Just don't reply to it.

There is not a chance in hell they can solve this without decoupling emissions from GDP... with a cheaper alternative to coal. At least not until we are basically technologically powered gods in 100 years.


Using the IPCC's own calculations, I will show that the policy recommendations to "stop" climate change are insane.

>The IPCC figured a 5% cut in emissions when

>Australia implemented it's carbon tax by 2020. (the largest and most ambitious plan implemented to date) source source2

>100% of Australia's emissions are 1.2% of global emissions.

>The 5% cut of Australia's global amount of 1.2% is 0.07% of total global emissions.

>IPCC figures Co2 will be 410ppm by 2020
0.07% of 410 is 409.988 ppm

>IPCC equation for Co2 forcing is (5.35 * ln(current Co2 / revised Co2 )) or (5.35 * ln(410/409.988)) source

>(5.35 * ln(410/409.988)) = 0.00016 w/m2 of reduced forcing

>Climate sensitivity parameter is simple the change in temperature per w/m2 increase. In other words, the actual change in temp divided by the change in energy 'imbalance' since the start of the industrial revolution(150 years). Accounting for El Nino it's risen ~ 0.7-0.8 K over the last 150 years, but lets just say 1 C.

>(5.35 * ln(400 / 280)) = 1.90821095007 w/m2

>1 C / 1.90821095007 = 0.52 K per w/m2 (PS, This number is unlikely to rise because it's derived from a natural logarithm, thus will asymptotically approach zero as Co2 concentrations rise)

>Then figure the climate sensitivity parameter of 0.52(0.00016) and you get 0.0000832 C reduction in global temperatures.