Slashdot Mirror

I think that most people have at least heard of Sheldon Adelson or Tom Steyer, so I would guess that most people know that PACs aren't just a way for corporations to buy political influence - they're also there to increase the influence of rich individuals

There's also increases to the voice of folks who think women need equitable access to reproductive healthcare; people with concerns about environmental policy; folks who want to protect social security and medicare (and not just one); people who want our criminal justice system fixed so it actually helps people and reduces crime; various efforts to drug policy; and so forth.

That seems unimportant though, the main thing about PACs is that they only increase the influence of the wealthy.

They increase the influence of small donors, but we call those PACs "special interest groups" and pretty much bitch about femenists, wage workers, gay marriage advocates, abortionists, and people who think we treat felons pretty shitty as having too much of a voice in government.

Anyone with less than ~$5,000 to donate has always been able to so by contributing directly to the campaigns, so the difference with PACs is that if you have more money you can now funnel unlimited amounts of it into those.

Actually, a PAC can only donate $5,000 per election to a campaign.

Collecting signatures in order to get on the ballot has been the norm in... every state? Virtually every state?

I paid $100 and got on the ballot. No signatures.

If someone tried the same thing but with funding and got too many candidates, they set their threshold too low.

Gotta keep the rabble out by making sure they have to have a team behind them to get their voice heard. Well-connected rich folks only please, someone who can get 20,000 signatures.

Citizen's United overturned a law which limited speech in the interest of preventing corruption.

That's all it did. It's not legal to donate a shitton of money to a candidate--Citizen's United didn't change that.

The law says it's not legal to run broadcast advertisements to influence an election within 60 days of the election unless you're a direct affiliate of the Candidate, basically. That means if NARAL decides within 2 weeks of Jeff Sessions's primary to run a ton of ads in Alabama talking about his endorsement of personhood-at-conception and felony murder charges for abortion, they can only legally do so because of the Citizen's United decision. Whether that's a power you want anyone to have is up for debate; but that's the scope of Citizen's United v. FEC.

Without Citizen's United v. FEC, NARAL--whose funding comes from both charities and individuals and who represent the will of a large number of regular people with little enough voice that we don't have to care about any of them (especially the poor rabble)--can still run such ads and make powerful indictments against the character of Jeff Sessions (or anyone else) up to 60 days before an election.

This also applies to SuperPACs--PACs not affiliated with candidates and not restricted to spending (this was a thing before Citizen's United v. FEC)--and to individuals. Corporations and individuals actually can m

In the regions where land mines are buried, knowing the exact area or field where the mines are is the biggest problem. Because of the unknown area, there is no way to apply this in sprinking the bacteria except with a crop duster, and then it is useless when there is any overgrowth. Then the whole "use a laser" bit limits this to formerly advanced economies e.g. the balkan nations, not the areas where there are major issues Thailand, Myanmar, etc.

For background read this and this. Notice the different dates on these articles and that gives some idea of the difficulty in actually finding and removing these immoral weapons.

I believe his claim. My father published the solution to the n-body problem: it involves applying the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard Iteration to celestial mechanics.

Google it. His tutorial is easy to understand and use for other applications.

http://csma31.csm.jmu.edu/physics/rudmin/parkersochacki.htm

Arxiv.org/pdf/1007.1677

Why do I believe his claim? Because although Parker and Sochacki independently came up with their solutions, my father believes that others have as well: an italian guy seems to have done it in the 50s, and his paper describes another such historical event. In both cases, the solution was not published, but the results were, and show the hallmarks of the method.

That's what I get for making stale arguments from shit I haven't thought about in a while, I guess. It made sense at one point, but that was back when I knew what a halide was.

Also, This is not NaF, though NaF is harmless. Mostly I've never seen NaF actually used. Ca+ is a common ion in water so I guess this makes sense but I've no time to re-research this again.

Wikipedia disagrees with your analysis of fluorosilicic acid.

We do have analytical solutions to the orbital problem,look up the parker sochacki solution to the picard iteration.

http://csma31.csm.jmu.edu/physics/rudmin/parkersochacki.htm

But there are limitations of how good our understanding of the initial position/velocity vectors are, so yes, we are also limited on the value of the results.

>>Fucking victory for the funniest Jesus reference ever.

=)

>>Also, I'm an atheist, There's a difference between what you call "mainstream" and fundementalists, yes (though I bet the average is not what you're considering mainstream) but it's not a large difference. In the end, it always comes down to belief without evidence -- That's the definition of faith after all. That is not scientific, it's not logical, and it's not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

Faith isn't belief without evidence. It would be a very funny thing to believe in, after all, something that you felt had no evidence supporting it. To paraphrase James, who wrote a very logical and reasonable treatise on the subject, faith is something you choose to believe in that *might not* be true, but which also is not proven to be false. It would be very strange to believe in something proven false, though fundamentalists do give it a good try (there's your difference with mainstream Christians, if you wanted one).

Give it a good read, it's fairly short and easy to understand:
http://educ.jmu.edu/~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html

Ummm... but that doesn't mean that the US images are any better or worse than the russian images.

Take, for example, what appears to be a Cal Tech prank that seems to have made it into NASA's photo-of-the-day, back when CASSINI was sending pics of Titan.

http://csma31.csm.jmu.edu/physics/rudmin/titan/titan.htm

Now, the author may be right -- it wouldn't seem that Titan could have an atmospheric-style plume, with strong wind shears at 10000 feet, now, would it? But right or wrong, my point will still hold.

Point being, that unless you are somebody who knows what they are looking at, all the photos are simply a pretty picture, nothing more.

Netware got it right two decades ago. When files are deleted, they are gone from the file system tree and the file space is returned as free disk space. However, you can open a recovery utility, Salvage, and recover the files if the disk space of the file data hasn't been overwritten.

An improved version could be done with modern OSes and versioning file systems - no more recycle bin metaphor: In the OS you would launch a deleted file recovery utility to view recoverable deleted files. With proper FIFO and under-the-hood defragmentation techniques, the entire free space of a hard drive could be deleted files (and/or older versions). On top of having all the "free space" be recoverable deleted files (but still completely available, i.e. you can still fill up the hard drive and use the file space of deleted files), you could have a control panel applet where you can configure a recycle-bin like "mandatory minimum" for recoverability: you could set the number, size, or age of recoverable files to keep (or set any/all of these criteria), and the drive space of these deleted files wouldn't be returned to the free space pool until the safety criteria for the deleted files expired. This would also be where you configure your deleted file wiping parameters, like deleted files are recoverable for a week, then the disk space and file names are securely wiped to be never recoverable.

https://users.cs.jmu.edu/bernstdh/web/common/lectures/slides_algorithms.php

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines an algorithm as "a process or set of rules".

Dale and Lewis define an algorithm as "unambiguous instructions for solving a problem or sub-problem in a finite amount of time using a finite amount of data".

The OED says it was first used in 1969.

Some believe that the word is derived from the name of a Persian mathematics teacher named Muhammad ibn-Musa al-Khowarizm, one of the first people to develop step-by-step procedures for doing computations.

Both of these speak of implementations.

# Correct To be correct, an algorithm must produce results that are appropriate and complete given any and all sets of appropriate data.

# Well-Designed Well-designed algorithms are precise and simple.

Since we are talking about input and results, we are talking about specific implementations, not some higher-level generalization.

It goes on to state that you can have both higher-level and lower-level (more implementation-specific) algorithms. Stop being such a Javanista. Implementations ARE algorithms in their own right, as well as a concrete expression of a higher-level algorithm. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Most people with such beliefs don't need confirmation from some "outside source" as to whether their beliefs are well founded. That's why they call if faith.

That's a common myth, often repeated by the more militant atheists. Although there have been some crackpots who reject evidence and reason, who provide ample fuel for the myth to get around, I think you will find that most people of faith have just as much regard for reason and evidence as atheists do and agnostics like I do (at least within the Christian traditions, which have a strong history of reliance on evidence). They simply make different assumptions when the evidence runs out. (And everybody makes assumptions when the evidence runs out. That is where "faith" comes into it.)

Have a look at William James' lecture The Will To Believe for a realistic discussion of the role of faith in religion.

Yes, this is all cool and impressive and all, but hang on a second. Why does the US still put so much faith in technology to fix all the world's problems?

Because at some point a lot of us have to go back to living in grass huts (not all bad, mind you) or we have to believe that the only way out is through.

I remember reading an article in The Economist years ago about an American-developed mine clearing system.

You should have read about this one instead. I don't know if this is the same project, but there is one with a spider robot that has bamboo legs. It steps on the mines from a distance, and loses a leg, which can be replaced.

Air strikes in residential areas? Sending in troops to act as policemen when they can't even speak the local language? What the hell are they thinking?

They're thinking about paring down the population and setting the stage to make a lot of money. Who's "rebuilding" Iraq, again?

http://csma31.csm.jmu.edu/physics/rudmin/titan/titan.htm [jmu.edu]

I will note that the author is *not* me, but I am quite aware of the situation.

Actually, I didn't want to cite it, because the author is the target of JPL. At a different conference, another JMU employee had a reasonable question, and JPL started harranguing them "oh, you're from that conspiracy nut university..." and so on. So after enough targeting, the JMU professor asked his boss what to do, and his boss said "I'd prefer if you just let this die."

In other words, academic freedom and the search for truth is snuffed. *Very* related to Hayak's book, if you ask me. According to Hayak, typically, when socialism goes to complete control, all truth goes out the window, and the only judgement to be made is "how does this support loyalty to the government plan?". So if it is against communism, or not specifically shown to be in support of communism [or the myths that determine current communist thought], then it needs to be silenced. Likewise, if it doesn't serve the interests of National Socialism [Nazi], then it is to be silenced.

Anyhow, all that also came after the author found a 1% error in JPLs predicted orbits of venus, causing NASA to cancel their contract the JPL to provide the predictions, until JPL fixed it. Again, the author represents a threat to JPL, and so must be silenced. And since JPL is much closer to the seat of power than the university, the silencing works. In other words, the author is academically reasonable, and should not be subject to silencing (were academia performing properly).

I think it might be an april fool's day prank, but I found this: http://csma31.csm.jmu.edu/physics/rudmin/titan/titan.htm

Okay, I searched "Joseph D. Rudmin", and "Joseph Rudmin thoughts electron mass".
A google search turns up this:

A poster session, describes some of the equations, conclusions, and sources.
http://physics.fau.edu/Events/PastEvents/Gulf_Coast_2006/Talks/Rudmin/POSTER0H.PDF

The book is here:
http://www.allbookstores.com/book/9780976894728/Joseph_D_Rudmin/Thoughts_On_The_Electron_Mass.html

Other searches yield paper abstracts:
http://csma31.csm.jmu.edu/physics/mattson/csaaptvip/CSAAPT-VIP%20Fall%202006%20Talks.html
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/SES06/Event/55517

In a Wikibooks talk section, Joe writes about Kaluza's theory, which is the basis of Joe's work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Kaluza-Klein_theory

Yes, I am aware that things can be published on the web. Do a search of Rudmin Arthur Cerdic, and the first thing that comes up on Microsoft's live search is:
http://www.celtic-twilight.com/camelot/rudmin/arthur_cerdic_c7.htm

That was published on the web. But not everything is.

If it's green when you see it, assume it will turn yellow at any time: prepare to stop.

That's good advice, but if you're watching the light and traffic, it can still take anywhere from 1/4 to 3/4 seconds to observe that the light has changed and depress the brake pedal. At 35mph, you're traveling at 51 feet per second and will need 101 feet to safely stop, or 130 feet if you're a truck. That means that if the yellow light is less than two seconds and you're 100 feet away, you can't safely stop without entering the intersection, and you can't enter the intersection before the light is red. Hopefully, the cameras will at least let you go if you enter the intersection on the yellow and leave on the red, otherwise you need to add the full length of the intersection to the calculation, and that can easily be 50 feet, or another full second.

Therefore, if you come back and record the light's transitions and discover that the light provides less than two seconds of stopping time you have an affirmative defense in that it is physically impossible with standard automotive equipment for a vehicle to stop in the time allotted. You might reasonably argue for 3 seconds, since stopping distance is increased in foul weather to about 150 feet and setting the time less than that is unsafe (though if weather is that foul, the driver should be reducing their speed so that they can stop in 100 feet anyways). Also, a setting of 2 seconds requires that the driver be able to identify their range to the intersection as greater or less than 101-102 feet, which is an unreasonably small target to estimate on the fly. A setting of 3 seconds in fair weather allows the driver to estimate their distance as greater or less than a 101-153 foot space, which is reasonably manageable.

http://www.jmu.edu/safetyplan/vehicle/generaldriver/safetybelt.shtml/

http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/seat_belts.html/

And here is one from the UK government

http://www.roadsafetyni.gov.uk/index/cars/newseatbeltregulations/seatbelts.htm/

I don't know enough from the question to know if this would supply the answers he needs. My answer below requires any system equations, set up as an initial-value problem. However, I would like to suggest that he try looking at the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard iteration (officially written up here in Neural, Parallel & Scientific Computations, and mentioned here in Wikipedia, and explained here. This can give you a taylor series solution. It occurs to me that the system might be modifiable to give fourier series solutions... hmmm... interesting problem there. Anyhow, good luck.

Approximately 35,000 people die in motor vehicle crashes each year

Prototype mine detectors based on NQR have been built and tested. The signals are very weak, even with tens of watts of excitation which makes this a difficult techique for practical use. See http://maic.jmu.edu/JOURNAL/9.2/RD/williams/willia ms.htm for more info.

It doesn't work for scanning luggage because RF at this frequency doesn't penetrate well.

Earth is hot on the inside: http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/fichter/PlateTect/he athistory.html (think fission)

And as a side note - electrical heat is mumbo-jumbo. There is an electromagnetic mantle surrounding earth which is generated by the rotation of the earth's magnetic core. It's very useful as a solar wind deterrent - except for that tiny bit called the Aurora Borealis. It's not doing much(any) heating.

And as another side note: You might want to lookup the fact that this protective field is on the decline - so at some time in the not-so distant future we'll get hit by the solar wind - dead-on - that's bad for us living things. (but the bright side is - the field is doing cycles - so it'll get up again later)

Still upset about Marbury vs. Madison, eh?

According to http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.h tml, the Enlightment occured before the founding of the country. Considering the U.S. forefathers were heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, I suspect they probably meant a separation of separation of church and state. You might want to see James Madison's view, http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madis on_archives/constit_confed/rights/epilogue/epilogu e.htm, or, perhaps, the view of Thomas Jefforson on Church and State, http://www.unf.edu/~dschwam/danbury.htm.

I read all 6 links that resulted from your google search, and I think I'm going to have to ask for some specific examples from you because NONE of those links to indicate that the executive or legislative branch of the U.S. Government is not accountable to the judicial! Most aren't even about the American government! Did you read MY links? Most go to people who are suing the federal government!

I also read the links from my previous post. Here's the actual text from one

The settlement comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled two years ago the White Mountain Apache Tribe could sue the Interior Department for failing to take care of buildings at the historic fort since 1960, when Congress made the department a trustee over the Indian land.

If you want to REALLY learn something about the court system in the US and it's role in relationship to the other branches of government read about Marbury v. Madison

The government does not have the power to abuse citizens

It depends on what you mean: legal authority, or ability. It has the latter, and not the former. Granted. But as I've not been given a decent example of how the PATRIOT Act grants the latter, I assumed the former was intended, from the context.

There is plenty of opportunity to correct my assumption if it is false.

You, sir, must not believe in freedom from your rhetoric you spew

Have you stopped beating your mother?

Yawn.

You clearly believe that systems where abuses are impossible do not exist.

Yes, I do, when such systems are created and controlled by men. And I am in good company, as this was a pervasive theme in The Federalist. Madison once noted, "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."

I am merely echoing Madison, as I often do.

I say that those who dismiss anarchism are hypocrites

I say those who think I did dismiss it were not reading very carefully (not that I am asserting you said that).

Punctuated equilibrium is an alternate theory invoked to explain gaps (no, they are not a creationist myth) in the evolutionary records

The theory of punctated equilibria was invented by paleontologists. The "short periods of fast evolution" they refer to often span hundreds of thousands of years. This is "short" when you're a paleontologist, but is perfectly compatible with "smooth" neo-Darwinian evolution by genetic mutations and recombination - it's just occuring faster due to new environmental / ecological conditions. By the way, the guys behind this theory (essentially Nils Eldredge and the late S. J. Gould) never missed an opportunity to stress that they were bona fide Darwinists.

What causes periods of fast evolution ? Of course you can invoke asteroids or volcanoes, but it turns out that evolution itself is naturally unstable. Because most species depend on other species in some way, when a species evolves a new adaptive feature, this has consequences for all other species that depend on this one, possibly leading to a cascade of evolutionary changes in those species.

Per Bak and his colleagues came up with an insanely simple model of co-evolution between many species: organise a set of variables along a circle. Initialise them with random values. At any time step, change the lowest value to another, random value (evolution of a species) and do the same with its two neighbours (consequences over "dependent" species). Rinse, repeat.

This model happens to exhibit punctuated equilibria and avalanches of evolutionary adaptations, with a neat power-law distribution in the size of these avalanches (the number of species that are affected by evolutionary change in one species).

This also offers an explanation for mass extinctions. Sure, asteroids or volcanoes can trigger the process, but the most likely culprit overall is simply the instability of ecosystems.

Thomas-

Seriously, if it takes 5 minutes to do an integral, then those calculators are ripe for reprogramming.

Seriously.

You could quite possibly do a numeric integral, faster, with paper and pencil.

http://csm.jmu.edu/physics/rudmin/ParkerSochacki.h tm

At this link, the author shows how to solve (exactly, numerically) a previously unsolvable system of differential equations using a relatively new (~12 yrs old) method.

Program your calculator to do that, and you'll be lightyears ahead of the competition.

Note that this is also fusion power (though far less potent than the sun, but what in our solar system isn't?)

wash mines from storage areas or fields into open civilian areas. Since the 1980s, only 10 percent of 1,430 washed away mines have been recovered."

"I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdicts the abuse of certain powers in the state legislatures, some other provisions ... that no state shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights."

If the bill of rights was intended to limit state as well as federal government, then this proposal makes no sense. That Madison proposed this in addition to what became the first and sixth amendments means that those amendments did not apply to the states, and Madison thought those restrictions needed to be on the states as well as the federal gov.

Yeah MS is really on top of the ball.

"btw. you need to realize how automatic updates work - you do *not* need to be an administrator to use it. They download in the background and and are made 'live' by a scheduled reboot overnight. You could have all your users as 'guest' and you'd still be hosed."

WRONG! *You* need to realise how Automatic Updates work. you have complete control over a lot of aspects of how it works and so don't have to have it download and install automatically and don't have to have it prompt non-administrative users

see http://www.jmu.edu/computing/security/info/susinfo .shtml

Hear, hear. The Stars My Destination, Lord of Light, Stranger in a Strange Land, Gateway, When H.A.R.L.I.E. Was One, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress... don't get me started. I found all of these challenging and fascinating. Meanwhile, I struggled mightily through school-proscribed tomes like Moby Dick, Canterbury Tales, and the aforementioned Jane Eyre, to name a few. I'm sure this must break the heart of an English professor, but the truth is that most of the perennially approved tomes do not speak to our life and times. Reading Chaucer was like taking cough syrup. I speak as someone who got a degree in creative writing, for what that's worth.

The problem with sci-fi is an academic perception as stiff and dusty as the books they pummel us with. It's still seen as a Buck-Rogers-laser-gun-alien-invasion-from-Jupiter, with a little condescending Freudian interpretation for good measure. Penile spaceships! To be fair, the overwhelming bulk of SF books on the shelf are generally graced with space ships and people in jumpsuits, with an interchangeable backdrop of galaxies, planets and stars, so the publishers aren't doing us many favors.

On a side note--but still relevant to the topic--I hate it how people say that the Harry Potter books get kids to read. They don't. They get kids to read Harry Potter books. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell Harry Potter books. You want child-accessible books that can actually spark an interest in the habit of reading, try Roald Dahl.

I do believe the Internet has impacted both our print reading habits and our ability to write well. Anyone who doubts the downturn can check the American Bureau of Circulations database, which tracks single-copy and subscription sales for, I don't know, a lot of magazines. It's not free, unfortunately, but the numbers are there. Whichever rag has managed to stay afloat has done so by maintaining subs, not by single-copy sales. In other words, they retain people who already read, while losing new customers to (1) another medium or (2) an aggressive competitor who will also eventually experience decline as its readership moves on to the next big thing. Again, there's the theme of retention of the core with the inevitable trickle of attrition.

More importantly what you need to do is read a good book on photography. I found this online tutorial particularly interesting when I first started out. I spent a year making poor shots when it dawned on me what I was doing wrong. Depth of field is sooooo important.

i think i read that ordinary bomb-crew robots carry either a gun or a water-gun to induce explosion in potential bombs.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the goal of the gun/water-gun is to demolish the workings of the bomb (e.g. the timer/transmitter/etc) so that the bomb doesn't explode.

Using Bomb Disrupters in Demining Operations
Robots Make Bomb Disposal Safer

Video available here

PDF available here

Video available here

PDF available here

But not exactly off topic either.
http://ruff.cs.jmu.edu/~ripleymj/site-mirror/Scree nshot.png

Kristopher

I'm sorry, but you used the wrong OS for that screen shot, so I've taken the liberty of fixing that for you: here

Original image mirror here

I'm sorry, but you used the wrong OS for that screen shot, so I've taken the liberty of fixing that for you: here

Original image mirror here

Just in case his site goes boom: Insta-mirror

Quick mirror, since I think his server's been Slashdotted: http://ruff.cs.jmu.edu/~ripleymj/funstuff/mars.htm l

What they said was correct at one time. It is no longer correct.

It actually isn't all that hard to predict their motion. There's a new mathematical tool, the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard Iteration, that has made great strides in the ability to predict this.

What's even better, this solution method is incredibly easy, conceptually simple, ideal for initial value problems, yields exact functional solutions, involves simple algebra [yes, that's right: simple algebra solutions to almost any set of partial differential equations] and turns out doubling precision for every iteration.

Oh, yes: there is a version out for Maple, too.

The solution that it turns out is a MacLauren series [functionally equal to the Taylor Series] dependant on as many variables as you need. However, for this you'd have everything dependent on time.

Also, this method *has* been used to predict planetary, moon, and asteroid motion. It works.

[PS: That last link has code for you code monkeys]

What they said was correct at one time. It is no longer correct.

It actually isn't all that hard to predict their motion. There's a new mathematical tool, the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard Iteration, that has made great strides in the ability to predict this.

What's even better, this solution method is incredibly easy, conceptually simple, ideal for initial value problems, yields exact functional solutions, involves simple algebra [yes, that's right: simple algebra solutions to almost any set of partial differential equations] and turns out doubling precision for every iteration.

Oh, yes: there is a version out for Maple, too.

The solution that it turns out is a MacLauren series [functionally equal to the Taylor Series] dependant on as many variables as you need. However, for this you'd have everything dependent on time.

Also, this method *has* been used to predict planetary, moon, and asteroid motion. It works.

[PS: That last link has code for you code monkeys]

What they said was correct at one time. It is no longer correct.

It actually isn't all that hard to predict their motion. There's a new mathematical tool, the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard Iteration, that has made great strides in the ability to predict this.

What's even better, this solution method is incredibly easy, conceptually simple, ideal for initial value problems, yields exact functional solutions, involves simple algebra [yes, that's right: simple algebra solutions to almost any set of partial differential equations] and turns out doubling precision for every iteration.

Oh, yes: there is a version out for Maple, too.

The solution that it turns out is a MacLauren series [functionally equal to the Taylor Series] dependant on as many variables as you need. However, for this you'd have everything dependent on time.

Also, this method *has* been used to predict planetary, moon, and asteroid motion. It works.

[PS: That last link has code for you code monkeys]

What they said was correct at one time. It is no longer correct.

It actually isn't all that hard to predict their motion. There's a new mathematical tool, the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard Iteration, that has made great strides in the ability to predict this.

What's even better, this solution method is incredibly easy, conceptually simple, ideal for initial value problems, yields exact functional solutions, involves simple algebra [yes, that's right: simple algebra solutions to almost any set of partial differential equations] and turns out doubling precision for every iteration.

Oh, yes: there is a version out for Maple, too.

The solution that it turns out is a MacLauren series [functionally equal to the Taylor Series] dependant on as many variables as you need. However, for this you'd have everything dependent on time.

Also, this method *has* been used to predict planetary, moon, and asteroid motion. It works.

[PS: That last link has code for you code monkeys]

I know that James Madison University uses Mulberry as their organization mail client as well, at least what the students use.

Note, this is only from word-of-mouth of my sister who attends there.

Use the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard iteration. The orbital positions and therefore the gravity field [and thus the derivatives] become a simple matter of additions and multiplications, and everything comes out as a polynomial function of time.

The original method was published in Neural Computing.

"I hereby declare that The White House will no longer be boring "beige", it shall be painted "Lickable Blueberry".

Bah! You do that, and first thing the next morning us Canadians will come and burn the place down again. Don't make us come down there!

The symptoms of giftedness and ADD/ADHD are very similar. The following behavior checklist is taken from the Eric digest: http://www.ericec.org/fact/dualexep.html
Behaviors Associated with ADHD (Barkley, 1990)
1. Poorly sustained attention in almost all situations
2. Diminished persistence on tasks not having immediate consequences
3. Impulsivity, poor delay of gratification
4. Impaired adherence to commands to regulate or inhibit behavior in social contexts
5. More active, restless than normal children
6. Difficulty adhering to rules and regulations
Behaviors Associated with Giftedness (Webb, 1993)
1. Poor attention, boredom, daydreaming in specific situations
2. Low tolerance for persistence on tasks that seem irrelevant
3. Judgment lags behind development of intellect
4. Intensity may lead to power struggles with authorities
5. High activity level; may need less sleep
6. Questions rules, customs and traditions

From what you described, it seems that your daughter is just not interested in the material being taught- probably stuff that she mastered by age 3! One solution is for her teacher to figure out her preferred learning style and teach to it. http://falcon.jmu.edu/~ramseyil/learningstyles.htm

Another solution is for the teacher to use the curriculum compacting model and acceleration in your daughter's areas of interest. Curriculum compacting is when the teacher uses pretests to determine what the student already knows as to avoid wasting time with repetition. If your daughter consistently gets 100% on all spelling tests, for example, she should not need to continue these. (I am assuming that she is in first grade since she is 6 years old.) Your daughter could select a list of words from books that she reads (probably above the class level) and use these for her word list. These are a few simple ways to engage your daughter and keep her learning "meaningful." Hopefully she will also begin class with the gifted and talented program if your school has one. If anything, at least this will give her the affective component she needs to meet her emotional needs and give her time with other children who are more like her. If this is not available, talk with her teacher about allowing your daughter to work in depth on a subject that she is interested in, for example- animals...maybe she could bring in materials from home and use the internet to find out about animals who live in the rain forest, gather data, make predictions, analyze and synthesize what she has discovered and present it in some way such as a portfolio, book for the class, sculpture, song, poetry, puppet show, skit, etc. incorporating several curriculum units such as math, history, science, and language arts all in one.

Some great websites for you to check out: http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/ ;http://www.uniquelygifted.org/;http://www.eskimo. com/~user/kids.html;http://connections.smsd.org/sp ecialeducation/gifted.htm