imatfaal

Brendan

I must be missing something - cos the way I read your message is that nothing fancy is required (and I think that means I must have read wrongly)

For example, with just 3 planitems to choose from, if I made a request of:

• 1000x mailbox resources
• 1x .com resource
• 1x .net resource

Then the recursive function will loop probably (1000/4)^3 (Divided by 4 as the .com and .net provide 4 mailbox resources each, so they should max at 1000/4 worst case scenario).

Why need for a recursive function? The .com resource and the .net resource each provide 4 mailbox resources - that's 8; therefore you need 992 mailbox resources. the three plans you have given have only one common feature (the mailboxes); therefore to minimally evaluate cost all you need to do is

[# .com]*$10 + [# .net ]*$10 + ([# mailboxes]-[# .com]*4 - [# .net]*4) *$1

if the final part is less than one just drop it.

The only reason would need to trial and error test is when you have multiple options with multiple crossovers at different pricing. This rapidly becomes difficult.

I often use the passive voice just to annoy #@!$ing microsoft word and I do not consider rephrasing so as to double the injury.

Good Luck with that Captain.

Has anyone here ever used one of those split keyboards - or a Dvorak style keyboard?

Firstly I would caution against generalities. Not picking on you Marat, but your comment makes a good example.

Have people read the Hindu, Bhuddist and other literature, or do they just generalise from a dislike of the Christian Bible? I certainly grant that if someone comes knocking on the door, they are probably a Christian sect, but if the other literature hasn't been read, how can one know that it is unimpressive?

Yes - in course of my studies I have read other holy books; mediocre to bad philosophy, mediocre to good poetry, mediocre to staggering ideology/dogma

Secondly, only those who have done door to door work know how really hard it is. Whether you're selling religion, a new phone plan or home improvements, it's a hard slog and those who do it are worthy of respect for the sheer amount of effort involved. Queensland in summer is bloody hot and I make sure to always offer refreshments to doorknockers. There is nothing wrong with a little kindness.

 

 

 

Thirdly, the JWs have earned respect for their conviction if not their religious views. They went to the gas chambers with many others for refusing to join the army. They takes the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" very seriously and are willing to be persecuted and killed rather than go with the flow to save their own skins.

and earned slightly less respect for the strength of their convictions in stopping their children have vital blood transfusions and other procedures

Lastly, the Atheists will earn the right to complain when we see "Atheists International" getting in there with a helping hand after a natural disaster like the Salvation Army do. Or helping the down and out, or any number of other things. It strikes me as the height of cognitive dissonance to complain about "religion" and at the same time ignore the very real good and needed work that religious organisations like the Salvos do. Work that no "atheist" organisation does. Has there ever been an atheist soup kitchen? Where are the atheist counterparts to Mother Theresa?

Without knocking the the work on the streets of the SA (who do an amazing job) - You mean like Oxfam, Medecins San Frontier, ActionAid - or individuals like Andrew Carnegie

The Cold War raged through the 20th Century but when a disaster struck who were always there to give a helping hand? The "religious" Americans or the "atheist" Soviets?

 

All forms of thought probably have both up and down sides. What is wrong with accepting the minor inconvenience of the occasional knock on the door as a small price to pay for all the good that many of these organisations do?

 

 

 

I should add that my own beliefs place me in the generic category of "Witch", so I have neither current nor historical reasons to particularly well disposed towards christians, but I'll line up beside the Salvos any day, for any fight.

Do you include their rejection of homosexuality, strong anti-abortion stance, and proscriptive marriage rules in that?

I think we are still relying on Bruce Willis

You are confused because it is confusing.

 

Let's stick to Newtonian gravity and consider the problem from the perspective of a distant inertial observer.

 

A gravitational field is conservative. So if you consider a planet in isolation a spacecraft appraching it speeds up and as it goes away from the planet it slows down. The speeding up and slowing exactly compensate and the spacecraft gains no net energy. There is no "slingshot" effect.

 

But a planet is in reality not isolated. It is in orbit around the sun and moving very quickly. So, a spacecraft approaching a planet "from behind" is being dragged along by the planet via a gravitational tether. The planet has a lot of mass and momentum and slows down by a miniscule amount. The spacecraft is much less massive and speeds up appreciably. That is the source of the "slingshot" effect. The energy comes, not from gravity per se, but rather from the kinetic energy of the planet. Gravity merely acts as a "rope" to couple the spacecraft to the planet.

 

Both momentum and energy are conserved.

Thanks Doc - I had always disliked previous explanations I had heard, I couldn't work out why the acceleration and deceleration wouldn't cancel; your quick expo above made it clear.

now can you give the line # and the page # in

"English 10: developing competency " ?

Youv'e lost me there

seems a bit homeworky

JULIET

Agree Captain - London to Paris is now a complete doddle (when the trains don't get stuck in the snow!) , the actual transit takes longer. But its central London to central Paris rather than god-foresaken holes like heathrow and de gaulle - and much as I love flying , the train is less stressful both mentally and physically.

I must admit I have very little patience for journalists who mock and deride world experts - it all seems to come down to "I don't understand it, it has no immediate technological benefit, and its gonna take many more years for it to be testable" Well - Yes, it's advanced and cutting-edge theoretical physics. I have no proof to this statement - but i am fairly certain that John Horgan could not follow the maths that underlies the work of physicists such as hawking, susskind, greene, and witten (they gave him a fields medal FCOL) - and without the maths any understanding is shallow at best

Advancing knowledge cannot be regimented and held to a timetable; sometimes it seems to stay still whilst various ideas are tried and fail - then it leaps forward. We can either be a society that constrains science and stagnates or one that embraces the highly speculative and theoretical and advances

If you have a good reason to need to read it, and yet you aren't yet in the situation where you would be expected to have personal/academic access to i; then the best option is a nice email to the authors. In many attempts I have only once been rebuffed; these are teachers and academics, they nearly always want to help (unless you are taking the mickey and should really be paying up for a copy).

Is the antiphoton main stream physics? I thought the photon was its own anti-particle.

To allude to Shakespeare: if you are born within a tangled web...all you know how to weave is tangled webs.

Oh what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practise to deceive!

Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.

Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)

Sorry - can't stop being a pedant

I am not sure quite what you are asking; we can see the CMBR because at its origins the entire volume of the galaxy was radiating/absorbing/scattering light - we can still detect the "last hurrah". But after the era of last scattering until now and onwards for many year only a miniscule portion of the volume of the galaxy was/is/willbe radiating; spotting localised events (ie fixed period of time and in certain place) is a hell of a lot more difficult than finding the CMBR

With respect PHDwannabe; it's time to strut your empirical stuff, and make some observations or even better get others to do it. I look forward to the publication of the results

Moontanman - where is SENC? I am from pretty close to central London and I am pretty sure there would be a riot if someone discovered any of the snakes on your list in their gardens. We only have a handful of native snakes and they are all very secretive - most people in the uk will never see a snake in the wild until they go abroad.

If you're serious - provide context, source, links, and as much data as you have. I rather doubt it though...

I would go along with Zapatos - perhaps you are also getting mixed up with car exhaust once in a while, so you tend not to notice where your breath ends and exhaust starts.

Would need help here; but would the black of the asphalt absorb more heat than the more reflective lighter colour paving stones? This might leave the areas of air above roads as cooler and thus more likely to cause condensation (I think there is something wrong here)

Way to go! Remember that atmospheric conditions will affect speed of sound - ie increased air pressure. I would be tempted to set up a control set that I know distances of to calibrate everytime you measure

I hope everyone is checking their bingo cards

Widdekind - it gets beyond me, but I think that the only reason that we talk about and can easily visualize the rubber-sheet analogy working in two opposite ways is that it is a two dimension system embedded within a three dimensional space. Space time distortion is not embedded within a higher dimensional space (or if it is we are struggling to show it). To have a direction of distortion of the whole of space time - you need an extra dimension, and if one extra dimension why not two or three? And with three extra dimensions and (I guess) 8 further new directions of distortion how do you account for the additional 6 forms of distortion.

Oh! The blade is very real and also quite subtle. I may be wrong in my stance on justice. But if, and I say if!, the Muslim Righteous Brothers or street gangs ever take control of even a part of this country, it won't make a damn bit of difference how you feel about justice. Mexico is a perfect example if you want, or dare to look into their desperation. Our turn will come unless we get our heads out of our backsides and start enforcing laws! And if one of these upstanding orginizations should bring your innocence up on charges, I will show my sympathy for you, but other than that; I'll keep my damn mouth shut. You are somewhat safe now because, even with all of our faults, things are handled in moderation. Believe me, a time will come, that will not always be the case. By the way, what kind of business or work are you in? Or a student, trying to save the world?

So your idea of argument is barely veiled threats of damnation. Again where is any stance on justice - you just seem to be peddling fear. You are making an assumption that an attitude of harsh punishment is the only bastion against social anarchy - this is highly contested; there is no point just saying how bad things can get, you need to prove the point that draconian law and enforcement make a difference.

You say that we need to start enforcing laws - how? Do you really see the USA as too lax? How many more people can the USA jail? 1 in 100 adults are in jail - what margin of increase is left? Talk about a carceral society!

And you would negatively judge me for being a "student, trying to save the world" would you? No, can't help you score cheap points there; I work in shipping, based in London, Piraeus, and New York.

Matthew was written around 80 or 85CE, some 50 years after Jesus' death; it's unlikely that the apostle Matthew would still be alive. Also, the titles of the Gospels were added much later -- it was not originally labeled "the Gospel according to Matthew," so you can't say they were meant to be the same person.

 

Also, it's believed that Matthew was written by a very literate Greek (since the original text is Greek), so he was likely from outside of Palestine. Were he in Palestine and a follower of Jesus, he would have spoken Aramaic.

It's obviously very difficult to say one way or another - but it is argued that Matthew the apostle was the writer. It's also argued and widely taught that matthew was originally written in hebrew, which does tally with matthew being the writer.

quote from Wikipedia that states both your and my POV - I think on the whole the nays (ie your later Greek argument) have it

However, 18th century scholars increasingly questioned the traditional view of composition. Today, most critical scholarship agrees that Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name,^[20][21] and prefer instead to describe the author as an anonymous Jewish Christian, writing towards the end of the 1st century. The vast majority of scholars believe that the Gospel was originally composed in Greek (see Greek primacy) rather than being a translation from anAramaic Matthew or the Hebrew Gospel.^[22]

 

While in the minority, some prominent scholars believe that the apostle Matthew indirectly influenced the gospel.^[23] Some conservative scholars such asCraig Blomberg, F. F. Bruce and Gregory Boyd believe that the apostle Matthew did write his gospel, and they note that, as a former tax collector, Matthew would not have been an ideal person to whom to falsely ascribe a gospel.^[15][24][25] Nevertheless, critics charge that if Markan priority is true, proponents of the traditional authorship are in a difficult position of claiming that an eyewitness led a considerable amount of his writing to a non-eyewitness.^[26]