[rasmits]

I don't get the point of cot, sec, and csc, and I don't know how to find them in relation to sin cos and tan. Someone help me!

edit: by the way, it's in 30 minutes.

[spotcatbug]

cot(x) = 1 / tan(x)
sec(x) = 1 / cos(x)
csc(x) = 1 / sin(x)

[rasmits]

Oh, that's much easier than I thought. What is it even used for? Obviously I missed that day.

okay, wish me luck! Hahaha... :/

[AsLan^]

Originally Posted by spotcatbug cot(x) = 1 / tan(x) sec(x) = 1 / cos(x) csc(x) = 1 / sin(x)

Now that's service!

[billybobsky]

Originally Posted by rasmits Oh, that's much easier than I thought. What is it even used for? Obviously I missed that day. okay, wish me luck! Hahaha... :/

it's short hand and that is all...

[rasmits]

haha, it wasn't even on the test. It was on the study guide though.

Oh well! Thanks everyone!

[Dorian Gray]

In this spirit of having others do one's work, perhaps someone could bang out a quick essay for me? No great rush: it's only due tomorrow afternoon. The topic is the relationship* between section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 and section 122(1)(g) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Acts of the British Parliaments of their respective years), at two levels, namely, determining when the court's jurisdiction arises, and determining the principles by which the courts will determine the circumstances in which the application of equitable principles might make it unjust, or inequitable, for a party to insist on legal rights or to exercise them in a particular way. The long-suffering and slightly bewildered student is supplicated to spout forth a maximum of 2200 words of staggering inconsequence in the age-old format: "discuss".

All such "discussions" are hereby welcomed.

* Or alleged relationship, because in peering into the murky depths of said legislation I see no great abundance of evidence to support such a claim. In fact, it's beginning to look like a bookish academic invented the relationship on the spur of the moment.

[Banana]

DG, here's your essay.

Sex.

[Dorian Gray]

LOL! Surely platonic?!

[Windswept]

I like 'this' part:

...determining when the court's jurisdiction arises, and determining the principles by which the courts will determine the circumstances in which the application of equitable principles might make it unjust, or inequitable, for a party to insist on legal rights or to exercise them in a particular way.

Honestly. You lawyers.



P.S. - haha. You know what? I was just thinking about what it would be like if a planeload of lawyers crashed in the jungle or on a desert island.

Can you imagine such a thing? Would they speak to each other in language such as in the above quote?

"...and the party of the first part will scout for a fresh water supply; and the party of the second part will gather kindling and firewood..."

[RowdyScot]

Ooo! Ooo! Someone ask me for help with the physics of ice skating!!! I just got a*ton* of extra credit on an exam for the research I put into the answer

[Dorian Gray]

Lawyers are a pretty useless lot, it must be said. They wouldn't last a week on a desert island. That said, I've heard that surgeons find lawyers particularly easy to operate on: they have no guts, no heart, no spine and their head and butt are interchangeable.

The worst example I've ever seen of "lawyer speak", and quite possibly the worst desecration of language in post-guttural-grunt history, is the following gibberish by Harman LJ in 1970:

"[This] is a tolerably plain case. It is trite law, I had thought, that if directors do acts, as they do every day, especially in private companies, which perhaps because there is no quorum, or because their appointment was defective, or because sometimes there are no directors properly appointed at all, or because they are actuated by improper motives, they go on doing for years, carrying on the business of the company in the way in which, if properly constituted, they should carry it on, and then they find that everything has been so to speak wrongly done because it was not done by a proper board, such directors can, by making a full and frank disclosure and calling together the general body of the shareholders, obtain absolution and forgiveness of their sins; and provided the acts are not ultra vires the company as a whole everything will go on as if it had been done all right from the beginning. I cannot believe that this is not a commonplace of company law. It is done every day."

So let's hear it for Harman LJ, who must have had about eight fingers too much whisky that day.

How many grammar rules did he infringe, Windswept? I swear I've copied it accurately, including "...the company as a whole [big slug of Scotch] everything will go..."

Okay, back to this essay for me. Still no sign of any relationship, illicit or otherwise.

RowdyScot, just yesterday I was wondering why a spinning figure skater speeds up dramatically when she brings her arms closer to her body. Tried to figure it out for five minutes on the bus but failed miserably. So: out with it!

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Okay, back to this essay for me. Still no sign of any relationship, illicit or otherwise.

What do the particular sections of the legislation say?

Anyone wanna write a 2000 word argumentative essay for my one "is free trade fair?" Just to make it interesting for you, my tutor hasn't accurately grasped the concept on an argumentative essay yet, and wants us to write completely for or against (ie Free Trade can't be mostly fair, or fair under certain conditions, it has to be completely fair or completely unfair.

P.S. Bonus points if you can tell me the name of the contraptions where you have a series of balls suspended from strings in a row touching each other, and the end ones swing outwards while the middle ones remain stationary.

[AWR]

Just pick one and be completely obtuse.

Example: Free trade is fair because it allows countries to make the most of their comparative advantages, which benefits both importer and exporter. Extend ramble for 1,978 more words.

Example: Free trade is not fair because the potential benefits flowing from comparative advantages are inherently unequal.

[hflomberg]

I have a stack of papers to grade - anyone wnat to help?

[joveblue]

I'm a little confused

Originally Posted by Wikipedia (I know I shouldn't be using it for academic research but it's a good base to start from) Much of the dispute over free trade is semantic. The official U.S. interpretation of free trade is opposed to the Vietnamese interpretation, but both governments claim to be in favour of free trade.

Does anyone know what the Vietnamese interpretation is and how how it compares to the US interpretation?

Oh, and I found the name of the contraption I was looking for, it's a Newton's Cradle.