I do not think it means what you think it means
Specifically, a dichotomy is a separation, usually a splitting of one thing into two separate and distinct parts. It usually requires that there be a choice, A or B.
Wait, so competition increases prices for the consumer? Sometimes I wonder what the Invisible Hand is doing while I'm watching the other one take my money.
Regarding the actions of the police under the covers, are these activities in general efficient uses of police time and taxpayer money? Why are undercover police spending seven years infiltrating environmental activists? Not terrorists, mind you, but activists. Another officer spent 4 years infiltrating an anti-racist group. Not racists, but people against racism. Really?
Seems like in seven years agents could infiltrate various government or corporate entities and expose enough graft that the program could pay for itself.
No, 1000% per year compounded over 3 years would be an increase of 1000 (1000% is 10 times, year 0 = 1, year 1 = 10*1 = 10, year 2 = 10 times year 1 = 100, year 3 = 10 times year 2 = 1000);
For a 30x growth in 3 years that would be an annual growth of 310%.
To calculate a yearly increase of some initial amount A at a rate of r, you would use A(1+r) You don't just multiply the rate of increase by the initial value to get the value at the next iteration. A 100% yearly growth rate implies doubling each year, whereas in your calculation a 100% growth rate implies a static state
1000% growth over three years (compounded annually) would have them grown a thousandfold over three years. Compounded continuously would be ridiculously large.
If you assume continuous growth, the actual growth rate would be ln(30)/3, or about 113%. If you just want a number to quote as the annual growth rate that would give a thirtyfold increase over three years, go with 211% since (1+2.11)^3 is about 30.
Immaculate conception is not the same concept as virgin birth. If the original sin of Adam and Eve have tainted all births since Genesis, consider what the serpent's offspring have had to deal with.
To the religious minded it may be even more inconceivable that a snake be born without sin than without a father.
There are other methods to increase the alcohol content besides distillation. Freezing, for example, works very similar to distillation since alcohol freezes at a lower temperature than water. Get a freezer between these two temperatures and then remove the ice. The finished product is still considered beer.
all of our foodstock has been randomly and chaotically modified over thousands of years
Make that millions of years. There's another name for random and chaotic modification of genetic code until something is found that works. It's called natural selection. Agriculture takes a bit of the nature out of this natural selection, but selective breeding keeps one important thing in place that is missing in GM crops: biodiversity.
Biodiversity protects a species against diseases and against pests. If every wheat plant in an area has the same genetic code they are all vulnerable to the exact same pathogens to the exact same degree, so instead of a bug wiping out 80-90% of a field of wheat and leaving the remaining plants resistant to that disease and stronger, you now have lost 100% of the plants and will have to start over with a new GM strain that is similarly vulnerable.
Telegraph is arguably digital communication, but not at all packet-based. No more so than speech, anyway. If you choose to call a message a single packet, you're ignoring the underlying method of communication, where a link is established and then characters are encoded, sent, and decoded at the other end as just a long string. What's the packet here? What's the payload and what's the header?
When I was a kid, if I was locked up against my will and given something to swing, they would have had to take me down with a tranquilizer gun, and by then half the house would have been broken. This is not how you motivate people to do well.
What you're suggesting is just duplicating the average bumper sticker. What a waste of a something that can generate dynamic messages.
How about something like:
"It's raining and I can barely see you. Turn your lights on."
"You are obviously drunk. Please pull over and take a nap before you kill someone."
I conjecture that it's the same old physics, and that we only understand it a bit better.
Physics is not Truth, nor is it nature or reality. It is an attempt at a scientific model of nature. When we only had Newtonian mechanics, General relativity was new physics. New models, new math, new science, same reality.
When you remove or add words and don't indicate somehow that you have done exactly that, you are no longer allowed to call it a quote. This is not dependent on how well the mutilated quote supports your argument.
The countdown clock on Hofstra University's website is incorrect if your time is not EDT. Mine is counting down to 9pm Pacific. It seems to use the local time on the computer that's viewing it, and if I change my clock, the countdown changes. So just be sure that you've got the right time if you want to watch it.
No, thank you for not adding anything to the discussion. If you can explain what was meant, please do. If not, please don't bother posting.
But seriously, a continuum of what? What the hell does fractal geometry apply to planetary arrangements? To me those two sentences are nonsense. As I see it, fractals just don't apply. It's like asking if we'll have a long winter because a groundhog sees its shadow.
If I'm wrong, please enlighten me. That was the hope of my original post.
Maybe they don't "see" them with the naked eye, but they observe wobbles in the position of a star or observe when the planet occludes the star. How is that so far removed from when you look at any other picture? All you're really seeing is light reflected off the developed photograph. You're not "seeing" the light that hit the negative, but rather you're getting light that is a few steps removed conceptually from the original photons. Does that mean there's no evidence that what's in the picture actually exists?
I would say that there is more evidence that the planet exists than what you see in a photograph, unless someone's tampering with the data. An interesting page on a doctored photographs through history can be found here.
Maybe it's been too long since I've studied fractals and astronomy, but I have no idea what a "fractal planetary arrangement" is, nor can I even guess.
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of a urinal I saw recently that said its 1-pint flush saved 88% more water than standard 1-gallon urinals.
75% smaller or 150% larger = 25% or 250% of the original size
vs.
25% smaller or 50% larger = 75% or 150% of the original size (actual law)
I do not think it means what you think it means
Specifically, a dichotomy is a separation, usually a splitting of one thing into two separate and distinct parts. It usually requires that there be a choice, A or B.
It does not mean "hey, that's interesting."
I often wonder what the state of things would be if software and business method patents had been allowed 50 years earlier.
Quicksort (and others) would be patented, as would the very idea of software encryption. Codebook + on a computer = patent!
Wait, so competition increases prices for the consumer? Sometimes I wonder what the Invisible Hand is doing while I'm watching the other one take my money.
Regarding the actions of the police under the covers, are these activities in general efficient uses of police time and taxpayer money? Why are undercover police spending seven years infiltrating environmental activists? Not terrorists, mind you, but activists. Another officer spent 4 years infiltrating an anti-racist group. Not racists, but people against racism. Really?
Seems like in seven years agents could infiltrate various government or corporate entities and expose enough graft that the program could pay for itself.
What the locket was doing with a metal detector, I'll never know
No, 1000% per year compounded over 3 years would be an increase of 1000 (1000% is 10 times, year 0 = 1, year 1 = 10*1 = 10, year 2 = 10 times year 1 = 100, year 3 = 10 times year 2 = 1000);
For a 30x growth in 3 years that would be an annual growth of 310%.
To calculate a yearly increase of some initial amount A at a rate of r, you would use A(1+r)
You don't just multiply the rate of increase by the initial value to get the value at the next iteration. A 100% yearly growth rate implies doubling each year, whereas in your calculation a 100% growth rate implies a static state
.
Somebody forgot about compounded growth.
1000% growth over three years (compounded annually) would have them grown a thousandfold over three years. Compounded continuously would be ridiculously large.
If you assume continuous growth, the actual growth rate would be ln(30)/3, or about 113%. If you just want a number to quote as the annual growth rate that would give a thirtyfold increase over three years, go with 211% since (1+2.11)^3 is about 30.
Immaculate conception is not the same concept as virgin birth. If the original sin of Adam and Eve have tainted all births since Genesis, consider what the serpent's offspring have had to deal with.
To the religious minded it may be even more inconceivable that a snake be born without sin than without a father.
There are other methods to increase the alcohol content besides distillation. Freezing, for example, works very similar to distillation since alcohol freezes at a lower temperature than water. Get a freezer between these two temperatures and then remove the ice. The finished product is still considered beer.
Make that millions of years. There's another name for random and chaotic modification of genetic code until something is found that works. It's called natural selection. Agriculture takes a bit of the nature out of this natural selection, but selective breeding keeps one important thing in place that is missing in GM crops: biodiversity.
Biodiversity protects a species against diseases and against pests. If every wheat plant in an area has the same genetic code they are all vulnerable to the exact same pathogens to the exact same degree, so instead of a bug wiping out 80-90% of a field of wheat and leaving the remaining plants resistant to that disease and stronger, you now have lost 100% of the plants and will have to start over with a new GM strain that is similarly vulnerable.
Obama planning to cut nuclear arms. Emo President trying to see past 100 megaton bangs.
You must be new here
Maybe not yours...
Telegraph is arguably digital communication, but not at all packet-based. No more so than speech, anyway. If you choose to call a message a single packet, you're ignoring the underlying method of communication, where a link is established and then characters are encoded, sent, and decoded at the other end as just a long string. What's the packet here? What's the payload and what's the header?
When I was a kid, if I was locked up against my will and given something to swing, they would have had to take me down with a tranquilizer gun, and by then half the house would have been broken. This is not how you motivate people to do well.
What you're suggesting is just duplicating the average bumper sticker. What a waste of a something that can generate dynamic messages.
How about something like:
"It's raining and I can barely see you. Turn your lights on."
"You are obviously drunk. Please pull over and take a nap before you kill someone."
Remember kids, quitters never win and winners never quit.
Yeah, but those who never win AND never quit are idiots.
I conjecture that it's the same old physics, and that we only understand it a bit better.
Physics is not Truth, nor is it nature or reality. It is an attempt at a scientific model of nature. When we only had Newtonian mechanics, General relativity was new physics. New models, new math, new science, same reality.
When you remove or add words and don't indicate somehow that you have done exactly that, you are no longer allowed to call it a quote. This is not dependent on how well the mutilated quote supports your argument.
As is the Parkway in Oakland. Also with beer.
The countdown clock on Hofstra University's website is incorrect if your time is not EDT. Mine is counting down to 9pm Pacific. It seems to use the local time on the computer that's viewing it, and if I change my clock, the countdown changes. So just be sure that you've got the right time if you want to watch it.
No, thank you for not adding anything to the discussion. If you can explain what was meant, please do. If not, please don't bother posting.
But seriously, a continuum of what? What the hell does fractal geometry apply to planetary arrangements? To me those two sentences are nonsense. As I see it, fractals just don't apply. It's like asking if we'll have a long winter because a groundhog sees its shadow.
If I'm wrong, please enlighten me. That was the hope of my original post.
Maybe they don't "see" them with the naked eye, but they observe wobbles in the position of a star or observe when the planet occludes the star. How is that so far removed from when you look at any other picture? All you're really seeing is light reflected off the developed photograph. You're not "seeing" the light that hit the negative, but rather you're getting light that is a few steps removed conceptually from the original photons. Does that mean there's no evidence that what's in the picture actually exists?
I would say that there is more evidence that the planet exists than what you see in a photograph, unless someone's tampering with the data. An interesting page on a doctored photographs through history can be found here.
Maybe it's been too long since I've studied fractals and astronomy, but I have no idea what a "fractal planetary arrangement" is, nor can I even guess.