 | | Re: Comparative freedom
|
|
(...) Evidentily, no one was paying attention on how to successfully pull off a revolution. Wimps! :-) (...) Oh, alright, I don't particularly want to see Canada broken up either (Canadians are too darn peaceful - ya shoulda shot DeGaul when you had (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tyco problems
|
|
(...) Well, that made for an interesting result. The Tyco dike with the baseplates curls. Without the baseplates it lies flat. Attach the Megablok wall on top of the dike and it starts to curl again (but not as bad as with the Lego baseplates). To (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
| |
| | Re: Comparative freedom
|
|
(...) Yes, Pedro was right--Quebec did not want to 'bring the constitution home' for they could appeal to a highter authority than the Canadian Supreme court if they were denied something from the Supreme Court. The separatists wanted a higher (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Vote against/for...
|
|
(...) Herein lies the real problem. You hit it right on the head with that question, Rosco. I am somewhat in favor of blasting violent people with violent retaliation, but I do fear that to some extent such activity can breed future violence. Many (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Vote against/for...
|
|
(...) Well, since I've publically stated I think their reasoning in WWII was nothing short of terrorism anyway (lets not go there again), I'd have to say "neither", especially with dubya at the helm. Here's another question: Do you think that (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Comparative freedom
|
|
(...) David (no "!") understood what I was refering to - technically everything Canada did was supposed to be approved by the Queen until that last vestige of empire was officially expunged a couple of decades ago. I was embarrassed for my Canadian (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...]
|
|
(...) In what way are they *SPECIFICALLY* linked. -John (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Test #2
|
|
(...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.test.foo, lugnet.off-topic.test.bar)
|
| |
| | Test #2
|
|
I hate Computers (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.test.bar)
|
| |
| | Test
|
|
Just a test! (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.test.foo)
|
| |
| | Re: Comparative freedom
|
|
(...) If it was Québec, I am not a bit surprised. The Crown had assumed compromises to protect the french heritage of the province. Obviously, they would rather keep the privilege. (...) Was that clause used often, btw? (...) The Crown declared war. (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) Per Dave's last message, y is unknown (can't be 0), which Jeff has solved to 855/11. -Rob. (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) Hey, that's super! And I finally found an online reference at the U of Georgia site, so I can probably handle these in the future. Thanks for the clear explanation and the solution. Dave! (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Comparative freedom
|
|
(...) Someone once said that America needed a revolution to become their own country--Canada just 'evolved' into our own, and not without a few snags ourself. PET (Pierre Trudeau) 'decides' to get our constitution over here from Britain--got 9 (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) Oops. Hang on there Adrian, read for content. The five points as given in the initial problem (including 0,0) will not solve to a simple parabolic equation. Eliminating 0,0 does give us the solution specified above. Bleh. Adrian (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) Sorry, but this doesn't go through 0,0. Solving x=0, y=0 gives 0=855/11, which is clearly not true, so this isn't the equation he's looking for either. Adrian -- www.brickfrenzy.com (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) Yes, it does. If you just have the last four points to work with, then you definitely have an upward-turned parabola, symmetrical about the y-axis. Here's what you have to do to find the formula for a parabola, given three points: y = ax^2 + (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Comparative freedom
|
|
(...) Actually, they did not told the Queen to bugger off... because they did not have to; they got their own PM instead. Given that the Crown has little (if any) effective power, it is even better: getting independent whilst assuring a powerful (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) Hmm. Well, now that I think of it, the vertex could be x=0 with y as an unknown. Does that change anything? Dave! (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another math problem
|
|
(...) Oops - I'd better correct myself before else does. Your parabola does NOT exist. It is NOT symmetrical. I solved it for the three points with x > 0 My bad. :( Jeff J (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
