The whole point of Duchamp's Fountain is that it forces the observer to ask the question "What is art?" Can something be art despite the fact that the object itself has no artistic merit at all, and only could be art as a result of being in an art show? Which satisfies the definition of art, the object's artistic merit, or the opinion of the community (of artists and museum curators and patrons)?
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Well you don't even need drones for that. Just a big enough slingshot. The office drones in gp post would probably be really good at it
I think you are confusing yourself by overthinking things. A 20% exponential growth function doesn't have a slope of 1.2x, it has a slope of ln(1.2)*exp(ln(1.2)*x). But if you miswrote and didn't mean to use the word "slope" and just meant "Y" then actually Y=X^2 is a closer way of thinking about exponential growth than Y=1.2X. I'm assuming your background is computer science, so think of big O notation. If someone mistook O(exp(n)) for O(n^2) you would think they were overly simplifying but for small n it probably not too bad. But if the mistook O(exp(n)) for O(n) (linear) then you would know they are totally off the mark. In the same way, mistaking an exponential for a quadratic is a silly, stupid error, but mistaking it for a linear function is really wrong
The process that gives you that fish size is in fact an exponential process, so in your example, fish size grows exponentially. It is because you say "bigger each year", which implies the recursive relationship S(t+1) = 1.2 * S(t) where S(t) is the size of the fish caught in year t. So if you catch a 1 pound fish in year 0, then you catch a 1.2 pound fish in year 1, and a 1.44 pound in year 2, a 1.728 pound in year 3, etc. S(t+1) = 1.2 * S(t) can in fact be represented as the exponential growth model S(t) = S0 * exp(lambda * t), but that is an exercise left to the reader.
It's not trickery, it's just a label for the particular math used to model the process. And if a process satisfies that model then there is nothing wrong with using that term. But if you are pointing something else out then please reply.
Rx = revenue in year x
R0 = revenue in base year (year 0)
then 20% growth means: Rx = R0 * (1 +
Rx = R0 * exp[(log(base e)(1 +
Which is exponential growth as seen at Wolfram where lambda = log(base e)(1.2) (and every mathematician I have ever known). Not sure what you mean when you say exponential growth, but it's not the mathematical definition.
Your soap box is quite misinformed.
Calgary and Edmonton have more than doubled in value since 2000. Not quadrupuling, but still pretty good.
A depression is a TERRIBLE time to own any asset. You can move to follow a job if you own a house by simply selling your house. You will probably do so at a loss during a depression, but if you were renting you wouldn't get any money out when you move either. And if you were renting, and saving money on the side, whatever you invested in would also have also gone down because *it's a depression*.
Note true. Home equity has rebounded tremendously over the last 2-3 years and is back above 60% of GDP just like it was in the 50's and 60's.
No of course not. They only keep a prorated part of their contributions to reflect the work that they have actually done and pass the bulk of it to the original writers of the code (or Canonical, the Linux Foundation, or FSF to the extent that they can't track down the original authors). It says right there in the blog posting...
Hmmm it's there somewhere...they say
"We believe that if we want to see the world of open source software grow and compete at the same level as closed source software, we should encourage users to pay for its development;"
so I'm sure they are doing their part to pay for its development.
The fact is that in general, people want to own their stuff, not have their stuff own them. Apple taught manufacturers a very poor lesson; namely, the way to make huge profits is to create and cultivate a walled garden that the manufacturer controls and collects the tolls. But Apple wasn't successful because it has a walled garden, it is successful because plenty of people with lots of disposable income like the Apple user experience. You can argue that the walled garden is a necessary condition to the iPhone user experience, and at the very least it makes it easier to define the user experience when you control everything, however necessary != sufficient.
Good UI takes lots of hard work from talented developers, designers, and artists. Apple may not always succeed at this (e.g. maps) but it seems that no other big manufacturer is willing to put in the hard work to make a product that people actually like. So instead of making money by "locking" people into a system that they choose of their own free will, they try to make money by 1) making crap software to save money on costs, and 2) monetizing everything the possibly can, from DRM on a coffee pod to putting commercials into locally stored video.
I'm pretty sure the Rene Van Es who was given the cables and who wrote the review lives in the Netherlands. Do you have any stereotypes or prejudices against the Dutch that you would like to share?
Because the US has the most to lose if every shipment of iphones from China or oil tanker from the Gulf had a big bulls-eye on its stern. International trade becomes very expensive without overwhelming naval power to deter every two bit dictator and warlord who can afford to put a 50mm cannon on an old fishing vessel from trying to steal a big boat every once in a while. And standing navies are a lot cheaper than arming every merchant ship, even more so if you aren't the country that's supporting it.
If they restrict password length (on the back end), then they aren't hashing. That is not the same as: if they don't hash, then they restrict password length.
It is not conclusive proof but I think it is a fair assumption, yes.