/sci/ - Science & Math

Observation of nature has led to many scientific discoveries. So... yeah?

>>3850398

There are several ways to find the nulls (zeros) of a polynomial function. Typically I'll do the rule of signs to see how many positive or negative zeros there will be.

The method you're thinking of is to take the constant as a numerator and the leading coefficient as a denominator and lay out all the factors of each number (also as a fraction).

For example, if the constant is 6 and the leading coefficient is 2, then your factors will be +/-1, +/-2, +/-3, +/-6, +/-1/2, +/- 3/2, +/-3. Any of those could be a zero. But not all of them could be.

Easiest way to figure these out is to do an upper bound and lower bound test. The upper bound will be the smallest factored number above that results, in synthetic division, of all resulting numbers remaining positive. The lower bound will be the highest number factored above that results, in synthetic division, of all resulting numbers alternating between positive and negative.

This method is best used to get you started. After figuring out one or two zeroes, typically you can simply use long division to find the rest. Bear in mind that there still could be imaginary numbers as zeros, which you can find with the quadratic equation.

>>3825675 U.S. would cease to be a world superpower if it reverted to states having more control then the federal government.

The states have NEVER had more control than the federal government. The Constitution provided for a strong federal government, and the balance did just fucking fine. I reject this notion that the US wouldn't still be a superpower today if the government didn't exist in the balance that was in place before the Civil War.

A lot of what made us a superpower was simple luck and opportunity. In other words, the other countries fell on their faces thanks to the death of colonialism and two world wars financially fucking them for decades.

>>3825680 I was told recently 2012 will be a great change within human evolution...

You're going to have to be more specific than that.

(I don't usually do this.. but my captcha was "pedobaptist ndevca".... I don't know what to say to that.)

>>3825632

I swear I think some people think the country existed before the states did.

>>3825628

You're presuming to know what Ron Paul's motivations are. Worse, you're projecting your own prejudices against Christians onto him. Bad form.

It's also irrelevant, since the Supreme Court decision trumps all state and federal laws.

>>3825609 it's not naive to assume it's possible to improve the lives of others.

No one said it was. What IS naive is truly making everybody equal. That's not possible. Not yet anyway. You'd have to be talking about a complete economic and social reordering AND biological / chemical engineering necessary to physically and mentally make everybody equal.

Just not plausible. Even if it was, I think, inevitably, human competitive behavior would dictate that some differences would still appear. Thus, you'd never ever be able to completely absolutely make everybody equal enough that there would be no advantage or disadvantage in opportunity.

>>3825591 Just some vague ideal about freedom for all

That's not a manifesto? It was once...

>>3825576 I think we have a duty to try. thats just me though. I'm sentimental like that....

Now who's being naive? Just sayin'...

I believe in equality of opportunity insofar as the idea that everybody has a right to be treated equally, to have access to society's benefits, education, and participate in civic duties regardless of who they are, what they are, where they came from, etc. What I don't agree with is the idea that everybody be shoehorned into only one social order. Some people have more resources than others... why is it wrong that they take advantage of it? Because it's unfair to some other guy who doesn't? So instead, you're going to lower one guy down and raise another guy up to a particular level and make them both walk it whether they want to or not?

That's way too much for me. That kind of social engineering would require a complete dismantle of our country, and idealistically I'd be opposed to it.

>>3825567 Ron paul just says, it's up to you. i've got my opinion but I'll let the states decide. What's the point of him?

Paul has plenty of his own opinions. Go read up on him or watch some Youtube clips of him at the primaries and debates. The guy speaks his mind quite often.

I think you're confusing the idea of giving the states the power to decide with a lack of conviction. This country has a federalist system for a reason: the states have power and the federal government has power. What Paul wants to do is return some of that power to the states, where it has been eroded and usurped by increasingly unitary minded politicians ever since the end of the Civil War.

>>3825522 because everyone has the same level of opportunity, right??

It doesn't even have to be an equality question. Even a worker who has moderate skills, education, or experience is more valuable than the guy with none. A worker with low skills, education, or experience is more valuable than the guy with none. To what level are you trying to imply that the "none" guy has somehow been unfairly treated by life that he can't achieve even a bit of what the others do?

And, no, not everybody has the same resources available to them to achieve an equality of opportunity. Some have to work harder at it. Some have to work MUCH harder at it. And some may never get to the same level as someone above them. That's life. You can't ever bring this into equal balance.

>>3825525 a guy who's scared to voice his opinion. yai lets vote for him!!!

You sure we're talking about the same dude?

>>3825504 they can be trusted to stand up for the worker when it's not enough for him to stand up for himself.

The idea of the union is to work for the benefit of the group, not the individual, necessarily. Nobody "collectively bargains" for a single worker. What can they really do for the individual worker?

>>3825487 It's idealistically naive to assume that all individuals have that power all the time

I'm not even close to making all inclusive statements like that. What I am saying is that a person who has gained skills, experience, and a positive work history can leverage themselves against a corporation for higher wages and benefits by simply saying "pay me more, or I'll go somewhere that will". A person like that can absolutely do that.

A person who has none of those things has nothing. That doesn't mean he's never going to find work and never going to survive in society. It just means he has to work harder at it than the guy who has gone out and already done the work necessary to give himself negotiating power.

>>3825439 unions are more reliable.

I would say they're more "directly involved" and, thus, more readily active and available. I don't know if that means they're more "reliable". "Reliable at what?" should be the question.

>>3825435 it doesn't matter how many skills you have or experience, if you work for someone you should be given a minimum number of rights and you can't ensure they're kept all by yourself

Why? What rights do you have? You agree to want to work for a particular corporation and sign an agreement with them that you can be terminated by them. If you're truly valuable, they're not going to toss you aside that easily. If you really want to ensure that your "rights" are protected with the corporation, make yourself not-expendable.

>>3825398

Hmm.. you're right. S'not a straw man, it was just a red herring. Tea Party has nothing to do with anything.

>>You haven't seen any "right to work" leaders in the tea party?

I'm sure there are. Does that mean the entire Tea Party supports "right to work" legislation? Does every Republican removing all of our bases from countries around the world because Ron Paul does?

>>3825385 Thanks for agreeing with me. Unions serve a purpose.

Heh... with a special interest group in existence that could do the same thing as the union, no... that means the union serves no purpose anymore.

>>3825380 your unions are doing it wrong. that doesnt mean all unions are doing it wrong

I can find a lot of examples of unions engaging in this kind of "protective behavior". No, not all unions have done anything like this, and as such we cannot lump them all together. So I am in the wrong on that point. However, I would like to point out that in the case of the ILWU incidents in Washington, the company that decided not to use ILWU workers decided to go with a different union. So, in effect, one union is indirectly competing with another union. When we think about that, what's the difference between that and two individual workers vying for the same job? And, thus, what's the point of either union existing?

>because thats inhumane.

Inhumane? We're not torturing or killing that person. That person is going to have to make their way in the world the same as anybody else. He just isn't going to have an easier time of it without the union protecting his worthless ass.

>>3825361 If the Tea Party has their way, we might as well be living in Railroad/Factory tycoon america.

Since the Tea Party has nothing to do with this, I'm just going to ignore this as another straw man argument. However, I would like to say that I haven't seen anything in the Tea Party movement / platform that seems to indicate that they'd do anything of the sort.

>>3825357 Special interest groups come and go

Yes they do. However, some of the biggest and most influential ones, much like the largest and most powerful unions, have been around for a long time. And, in this day and age, there's a special interest for EVERYTHING. If you need someone to help you and your fellow workers, you can find someone.

>>3825317 and what's wrong with it?

What's wrong with engaging in vandalism, destruction of private party, harassment, terrorism, breaking-and-entering private property, and other thuggish behavior?

Nothing, apparently. I'm just weird.

>>the market doesn't achieve that.

If you are a marketable and desirable potential employee, you're going to find work. Whether that means you have a trade, a set of skills, an educational degree, or just lots of fucking experience, you become more valuable. Why should some nobody with no skills, no education, no experience, and / or a poor work history have the same protection as a person with any of the above?

>>3825282 compare that to case of unfair dismissal, underpayment, and poor working conditions

This isn't the early 19th and 20th Century. Let me be frank: unions absolutely once served a necessary purpose. Their usefulness now is easily questionable, especially when you consider all the non union jobs that exist out there earning good wages, having benefits, having good work conditions, and the possibility of earning rewards.

The power of the employee has been improved. Mostly thanks to unionized labor movements of the past. Trying to tell me that a company can get away with the "old ways" now in our highly sensitive society with strong special interest groups out there is ludicrous.

>>3825269 Workers have to be protected.

Odd, that's the justification given by the ILWU, too.