If you take the money from the rich to give it to the poor, all you do is boost economic activity (as the poor immediately spend all that money).
Wrong. Taking money from the rich reduces their incentive to produce. The more you take, the more effort they'll put into protecting themselves from governmental theft, leaving less effort available for producing.
Poverty doesn't just pop up like mushrooms; people are poor because they're doing something wrong. Give them money, and they'll have no reason to do anything different. So while they may spend all the money they get immediately, a large part of that money will go to booze, cigarettes, drugs, lottery tickets, junk food, widescreen TV, fancy phone, etc.. Not education. Not shoes to walk to an interview with a potential employer.
There are several things that help humans.One is that you can take several perceptions over the course of a fraction of a second and unconsciously merge them in a manner that improves resolution. Another is that humans can do pattern recognition of things buried in noise that a computer can't do unless specifically programmed to do that specific thing. (Think of resolving a head of hair in in a dim corner in a dim room.) Another is that the brain just makes up stuff (read about the blind spot.) You may be picking up clues that you're not conscious of, and fitting them into patterns that you're not conscious of, either.
You've got a lifetime of experience using a highly developed adaptive imaging system. Computers have to be told explicitly how to accommodate all sorts of corrupting factors that you do automatically, like shadows, tilt, lens distortion, blur, lighting levels, lighting colors, makeup, bruises, 5-o'clock shadow, etc.. It's a lot of stuff to compensate for, it all has to be done and combined properly.
We don't use the higher resolution photo in the first place because we don't know which high resolution photo is the proper one. All that we're sure of is that we've got a crappy low resolution picture.
Consider the extreme case: we've got a picture in which a person's head fills one pixel. It's a black and white photo, and the value of that pixel is 128 (on a scale of 0-255). Now, from that, determine which photo, from all photos taken over the last 200 years, best matches that one pixel. Have fun!
You need to define your challenge more tightly, or I can do stuff like this: Op1(a,b,0) == a+b; Op1(a,b,1) == a*b; etc.. An indexed stack removes the need for variable names.
Because square root has been around as a standard defined function for a long time, using the radical symbol ( if it will show up here ) ( ) ( U+221A ).
Consider this to be a historical puzzle. Any operator that can be found in a mathematical reference book published before 1900 is fair game. Factorial, and the related gamma function, have been used in Taylor expansions for 300 years (although I don't know how long the exclamation point has been used as that operator).
Engineers, generally being competent people who have to think for a living, tend to be conservative. I can understand the Intel workforce not being happy with their CEO getting into bed with the gov't, but they'd be even more unhappy if he cozied up to a Clinton.
Slashdot Mirror
The teacher's union didn't do you any good.
The difference is that automated vehicle fatalities will make national news.
It's a little more than one cent per person.
Kenya doesn't need any help in literally fucking itself to death. The population has quintupled since 1960.
This has something to do with Obama's background, although the tortuous mental process that gets from that to money for Kenya is beyond understanding.
It doesn't matter what the objective is. intentions don't produce results.
Wrong. Taking money from the rich reduces their incentive to produce. The more you take, the more effort they'll put into protecting themselves from governmental theft, leaving less effort available for producing.
Poverty doesn't just pop up like mushrooms; people are poor because they're doing something wrong. Give them money, and they'll have no reason to do anything different. So while they may spend all the money they get immediately, a large part of that money will go to booze, cigarettes, drugs, lottery tickets, junk food, widescreen TV, fancy phone, etc.. Not education. Not shoes to walk to an interview with a potential employer.
Oxymoron.
If you really believe that, it's a horrible revelation of your mind and nothing else.
Do you not want to deserve to live?
I hope you never do Fourier transforms.
"I am Chronos, God of Time" (Johnny Bravo - Bearly Enough Time - 1997)
I use an indexed table. The first entry is the Library of Congress.
There are several things that help humans.One is that you can take several perceptions over the course of a fraction of a second and unconsciously merge them in a manner that improves resolution. Another is that humans can do pattern recognition of things buried in noise that a computer can't do unless specifically programmed to do that specific thing. (Think of resolving a head of hair in in a dim corner in a dim room.) Another is that the brain just makes up stuff (read about the blind spot.) You may be picking up clues that you're not conscious of, and fitting them into patterns that you're not conscious of, either.
You've got a lifetime of experience using a highly developed adaptive imaging system. Computers have to be told explicitly how to accommodate all sorts of corrupting factors that you do automatically, like shadows, tilt, lens distortion, blur, lighting levels, lighting colors, makeup, bruises, 5-o'clock shadow, etc.. It's a lot of stuff to compensate for, it all has to be done and combined properly.
We don't use the higher resolution photo in the first place because we don't know which high resolution photo is the proper one. All that we're sure of is that we've got a crappy low resolution picture.
Consider the extreme case: we've got a picture in which a person's head fills one pixel. It's a black and white photo, and the value of that pixel is 128 (on a scale of 0-255). Now, from that, determine which photo, from all photos taken over the last 200 years, best matches that one pixel. Have fun!
You need to define your challenge more tightly, or I can do stuff like this: Op1(a,b,0) == a+b; Op1(a,b,1) == a*b; etc.. An indexed stack removes the need for variable names.
Of course it can be done, for small values of practical.
Too easy. How about Euler's constant, 0.5772156649...
There are several video downloader extensions for firefox.
Because square root has been around as a standard defined function for a long time, using the radical symbol ( if it will show up here ) ( ) ( U+221A ) .
The same is not true of an increment function.
Before the universe rolls over it first has to play dead.
Consider this to be a historical puzzle. Any operator that can be found in a mathematical reference book published before 1900 is fair game. Factorial, and the related gamma function, have been used in Taylor expansions for 300 years (although I don't know how long the exclamation point has been used as that operator).
You need to use parentheses, i.e. ((4!)!)!
The !! (bang bang) operator has a different meaning than ! (bang) applied twice. 7!! = 7 * 5 * 3 * 1.
Like pointing out who pompous jackasses are.
It should bother you. % used as an operator means "divide by 100."
[Citation needed.]
Engineers, generally being competent people who have to think for a living, tend to be conservative. I can understand the Intel workforce not being happy with their CEO getting into bed with the gov't, but they'd be even more unhappy if he cozied up to a Clinton.