And the area of a unit circle is pi, not tau.
To be honest, my biggest Amazon Prime purchases are around the holidays or events like birthdays/weddings/baby showers etc. It is so much easier to just order something and have it shipped -- the sheer convenience of it all makes it worthwhile.
While I may order a 3-4 orders a month for most of the year, I end up ordering at least three times that during the holidays.
I try and make sure that my local bookstore gets my business -- but sometimes, I just don't have the time or the energy to look for a book, only to find that they don't have it yet. Especially when they're written by authors who aren't particularly mainstream. So, I can pre-order some of these books by my favorite authors, which is a huge perk.
There's also something to be said about impulsive shopping -- for instance, I just saw a book that looked quite interesting, and it was under $10. Normally, shipping would have been expensive relative to the cost of book, but given that I have Prime, I just ordered the book. A few weeks ago, it was a sandwich maker.
Prime Membership also provides you with "subscribe and save" offerings that I take advantage of (whey protein for my workouts, diapers etc).
So, yeah. Personally, I think that even at $99, it is definitely worth the money.
No cable, so my TV is used for playing video games and watching Netflix/Amazon videos.
So, it comes to less than 5 hours a week -- usually, I watch an occasional movie or an episode or two of some of my favorite shows.
With a full time job that entails travel, wife and a newborn baby, and school part-time, I am lucky if I get more than a couple of hours a week of "down time".
The only known cure is to spend years in a basement alone eating cheetos, while insulting others' trivial math and lingual mistakes.
Mistakes in math and language or mathematical and lingual mistakes.
I have always wondered why puzzles were never included in any educational system. Logical puzzles, spatial manipulation, patterns, and lateral thinking challenges go a long way towards improving general intelligence and learning abilities. Much more so than, say, memorizing multiplication tables. It also helps them with those complex ideas that you spoke of.
Instead, kids are taught to hate math and hate puzzles, and standardized tests are a joke.
My grandfather was a mathematician and he taught me that geometry and algebra were essentially the same when I was about 7. So, as I grew up, I could "visualize" every equation and that improved my problem solving ability. I cannot help but feel that teaching multiple complex ideas earlier will help children's creativity as they learn to combine them (i.e. spatially visualize a problem to look for patterns and use that to solve it as an algebraic equation).
I thought that of all the candidates, Romney was the most moderate of them all. If anything, had he stuck to his guns, rather than try and appease the Tea Party extremists, he had a pretty good chance of winning. Post the GOP nomination, Romney should have gone back to taking a moderate stance, which would have helped him immensely with some of the moderate voters. Instead, he tried appeasing the far right, at which point he pretty much lost any chance of a victory.
Personally, I felt that between Obama and Romney, this country could not lose. While they weren't ideal, they were both pretty competent, well-educated, and sharp, with a proven track record. I'm not sure any of the other GOP contenders even stood a chance (Rick Santorum? Newt Gingrich? Rick Perry? Herman Cain? Heck, Ron Paul?).
I thought Microsoft was trying to re-brand itself as a devices and services player. So, what does it mean when they bring on board a technical, enterprise guy as the CEO?
To me, it would seem that they're ignoring everything Apple has taught the industry -- usability, good design, and marketing.
Instead, they'll become the next IBM and be a large behemoth who just does enterprise tech "stuff".
Quite sad. And I'm pretty sure eventually they'll eventually spin off their Xbox division.
Gandhi did not receive a Nobel.
White Americans organized systems to keep black people from achieving the same success available to other ethnic minorities.
Yeah, but they did it to other white Americans too. White sharecroppers were subjected to much the same treatment as blacks were -- if not by law, socioeconomically, they were nevertheless slaves. Hell, the game is rigged against most Asians and whites today thanks to affirmative action -- an ethnic "minority" with a lower score has it easier than an Asian or a white with a much higher score.
If you want to fix it, fix it socioeconomically across the board. You cannot decry racism on one hand and apply the same select hypocrisy to other groups.
The maturity of the article, combined with the vulgar name calling and his own admission that he did not read the book, makes me question anything he has to say. A quick search shows his penchant for beating people up and getting himself incarcerated, none of which particularly helps his case.
In contrast, Amy and Jed are both Yale professors, and if nothing else, their hypotheses are backed up by some semblance of data.
He also employs sheer hyperbole in interpreting the piece:
Yesâ"the Nigerians. According to Chua and Rubenfeld, Nigerians are one of Americaâ(TM)s Eight Master Races. The bookâ(TM)s promotional material states that âoeNigerians earn doctorates at stunningly high rates.â Doctorates in whatâ"childhood witchcraft? Baby farming? Penis panics? How to murder someone via telephone? How to transform yourself into a goat? They are highly accomplished in the art of Internet scamming, Iâ(TM)ll give them that. But I suspect that Nigerians may be mere tokens on this list, tossed in at the end to avoid overt accusations of racism.
If he had read the piece, he'd have read the following:
Immigrants from many West Indian and African countries, such as Jamaica, Ghana, and Haiti, are climbing Americaâ(TM)s higher education ladder, but perhaps the most prominent are Nigerians. Nigerians make up less than 1 percent of the black population in the United States, yet in 2013 nearly one-quarter of the black students at Harvard Business School were of Nigerian ancestry; over a fourth of Nigerian-Americans have a graduate or professional degree, as compared with only about 11 percent of whites.
So yeah, I don't think the word "salient" really applies here. He's nothing more than a dimwit troll, and his language, demeanor, and reading skills only highlight that.
The Obama administration doesn't compromise. They give ultimatums, and when they don't pass he circumvents the law by using executive orders.
How much Fox News do you watch a day? I just really like to gather data on that fact when I see such a polarized person.
The OP stated an opinion, one that's not entirely untrue, as I showed you in my later comments.
You assumed the following, based on his comment:
1. That he was polarized because he disagreed with Obama's policies
2. And disagreeing with Obama's policies would imply he had a propensity to watch Fox News
If you still insist that you're impartial, I'd like to point out that you have not asked that question to any of the other posters who have *supported* Obama. Impartiality might be more believable if your Fox News questions weren't directed at those who disagreed with Obama.
So, either you're lying about being impartial or you're assuming that there's a relation between the two. It can't be both. Gathering data requires a control group and an unbiased sample, and your method indicates neither.
But go ahead, keep trolling.
It's even worse than you know.
I posted this on another thread, but I quote below:
The worst travesty to date is the Supreme Court decision in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project. It was brought to court by the Obama administration and argued by Elena Kagan says that even talking to terrorist groups for "strategies of nonviolence" can be considered advice, which should be considered material support. And they won. So, if you tried to talk a terrorist out of their terrorist acts and move to a path of peace, you would be providing material support. Heck, if you proselytized to a terrorist, you'd be treated the same way. These are executive decisions -- without review, without recourse, which is what makes them worse.
With draconian laws like this, all you need to do is have a chat on the dietary benefits of celery with a suspected terrorist and you could get be held without charge on the grounds of "national security".
Perhaps not explicitly, but you certainly implied it.
Through fear, not genuine goodwill.
It's like someone who is good because they are constantly afraid of being sent to hell over someone who is good because they're genuinely a good person, and need no "incentive".
In each case, take away the fear and you revert back to barbarism. I'd rather have a society that is internalized with politeness and good values, not one where people constantly live in fear.