Xittenn

In windows right click on the console and choose MARK. Highlight the selection you wish to copy and press enter, this will store the text to clipboard and you can then paste it wherever. If you wish to paste from clipboard onto the prompt you must right click and choose PASTE there are no other solutions as far as I am aware as ctrl-v does not work ..... :/

Top 10 1) The Great Gatsby; F. Scott Fitzgerald 2) The Beautiful and the Damned; F. Scott Fitzgerald 3) The Guns of Navarone; Alistair MacLean 4) The Running Man; Stephen King 5) Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; Douglas Adams 6) Z for Zachariah; Robert C. O'Brien 7) Dracula; Bram Stoker 8) The Silmarillion; J. R. R. Tolkien 9) The Outsiders; S. E. Hinton 10) Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas; Hunter S. Thompson

My Grandmother worked in a balloon factory for twenty-five years. They didn't use masks and it was sufficient to maintain good air circulation in the plant. It was never considered a concern, but this is something that would probably be considered to some extent controversial. Latex and dyes I'm sure, and especially the dyes, as inhaled particulates can most probably be related to various pulmonary diseases given long term exposure. If there is concern why not just wear an appropriate mask, there are an assortment of them that are available for a number of applications. A good place to start might be with masks used for spray painting in confined spaces.

Because 1 + a = 1 and 1 * a = a ... I never say that y' + z = 1; x' + x = 1 though :/

This x' + y' + z + ((y'z + x)((w + y' + z')x)) should actually be this ( x' + y' + z + (y'z + x) ) * ( (w + y' + z')x ) ... so I have to go over everything again. what? Wait that allegiance makes the two equal and then it is safe to conclude that there is honestly no difference between either solution \o/ F' = (xyz'(y'z + x)' + (w'yz + x'))' = (xyz'(y'z + x)')' * (w'yz + x')' = ( (xyz')' + (y'z + x) ) * ( (w'yz)' * x ) = ( ( (xy)' + z ) + (y'z + x) ) * ( ( w + (yz)' ) * x ) = ( ( (x' + y') + z ) + (y'z + x) ) * ( ( w + ( y' + z') ) * x ) = (x' + y' + z + (y'z + x)) * (w + y' + z')x = (1 + y' + z + y'z) * (w + y' + z')x = (w + y' + z')x (this is the first time I have done this) = (xyz'(y'z + x)')' * (w'yz + x')' <=== I had moved the bracket here to conform to the expected answer :/

F' = x' + y' + z + ( (y'z + x) * ( (w + y' + z')x ) ) = ( ( x' + y' + z ) + ( y'z + x ) ) * ( ( x' + y' + z ) + ( (w + y' + z')x ) ) = ( 1 + y' + z + y'z ) * ( ( x' + y' + z ) + ( (w + y' + z')x ) ) = ( x' + y' + z ) + ( (w + y' + z')x ) = ( ( x' + y' + z ) + ( w + y' + z' ) ) * ( ( x' + y' + z ) + x ) = x' + y' + z + w + y' + z' = 1 I can't find a direct algebraic manipulation that proves or disproves that (w + y' + z')x == x' + y' + z + ( (y'z + x)( (w + y' + z')x ) ). I believe that any algebraic operation taken that can eliminate a pathway needs to be considered before it is applied. That said if the two solutions are equivalent minus some extra information than the most appropriate answer would have been the one expected without the over simplification. I guess I would say take care to not eliminate a possible solution ... just my thoughts on the matter! I could be way off of course :/ (w + y' + z')x != 1 :/

Definition number two suggests that this is in fact a paradox because most people feel that it is a contradiction but is in fact true by rigorous mathematical proof.

A paradox seems to have several definitions; I had to double check this because I recently had an English assignment that was developed around definition number two. On the one hand a paradox is defined as: 1) A statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory On the other hand a paradox is also defined as: 2) A seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true so I think the use of the definition of a paradox as an argument with direction, especially under the context, is not paradoxical, but maybe misguided??? i.e. a paradox denotes absurdity ..

F' = (xyz'(y'z + x)' + (w'yz + x'))' = ((xyz')') + ((y'z + x)(w'yz + x')') = (x' + y' + z) + ((y'z + x)(w'yz + x')') = (x' + y' + z) + ((y'z + x)(wx + (yz)'x)) = x' + y' + z + ((y'z + x)((w + y' + z')x)) what exactly did you do? (y'z + x)' = (y'z)'x' = ((y')' + z')x' = (y + z')x' = x'y + x'z' xyz'(x'y + x'z') = xy(x'yz' + x'z') = x(x'yz' + x'yz') = xx'yz' + xx'yz' = xx'yz' = 0(yz') = 0 <==== this ???? F' = (w + y' + z')x

I disagree about the hole being obvious, I think it looks more like the dimple of an extremely worn out set screw .... but I could be wrong and if it is a hole well maybe it was extraction .... I don't think I am though :/ If it was a through drill I would expect to see some striations in the shiny bit and some burring ...

I think the strongest evidence to suggest that this didn't happen on the way out lemur, is that there exists an intact broken off portion. If it had gotten stuck on the way out and sufficiently so as to break the Allen Screw the most likely thing to have followed would have been the drilling and possible subsequent re-taping of the hole. Also if tools had been used to take the piece out without a head it would have left a mark that would have been worth mentioning; assuming it could have been taken out whole. You can also, again, tell by the formation of the break and where the slope and the rise meet the 'stock' or the 'break' respectively. And undermine away .... I was just not going to bother with such a trite detail ....

I'm sorry I think that a) that is pretty self explanatory from the description and b) I have never met an English speaking person, regardless of nationality, who would be in an appropriately related profession, who hasn't used or understood this statement in any of the probable contexts(of which there are several) ... I am refraining from answering this question.

I find it is easiest to switch it between directions if you look at the foot that is stationary in the center and then look up at the rest to see it spin that way. Looking on other sites it seems to be 50/50 so if left brain is a social norm this doesn't seem like a very good test.

Actually it is pretty obvious based on the formation of the break ... :/

The bolt was too long and bottomed out and the cap was still free to move. The amount of thread there, above the break, was probably in an untapped over sized bore. Somebody applied too much torque on it when it bottomed and it twisted off like an old school bottle cap? Is there a particular answer you are looking for? Somebody may have forgotten to use the appropriate washer .....

The Spinning Ballerina is something I see pretty often :/ I finally took a moment to look at it and see if I could in fact change the direction in which it spins. It has always spun clockwise for me, apparently this means I am right brain dominant. If the descriptions I have found are correct about what this would imply it would seriously explain why I have such a hard time with things like spelling and formulating viable life solutions. I am also prone to migraines in areas of the left side of my face and temporal regions that I have long associated with a variety of brain functions and have been meaning to get some medical aid as the pain can be debilitating most of the time. How much truth is there to this whole idea? Is it in fact true that most persons are left brain dominant? How would this reflect on a persons ability to write; I can write left or right handed but when I write left handed it prefers to write mirrored. I can make it turn the other way as well, but in the end it always wants to turn clockwise ....

You know what one of my favorite things to do with a computer is? I like to search for books as every catalog in North America is online. A lot of the magazines are archived online as well. Quoting online sources is usually not a best practice unless you are citing papers, many of which if you look hard enough for you will find. :/ (Wiki usually cites sources use it as a starting point)

- I saw no mention of Ada Lovelace being the worlds first programmer - first general purpose digital computer was ENIAC - first single chip processor Intel 4004 - ARPANET I'm sure there is a lot to say about the introduction of computers and robots into surgery and medicine ....

I think he means learn the IEEE standards for things like floating point values. You may want to keep an eye on ternary and qubit systems as well, this fore knowledge may help you in the long term should there be a sudden shift in the approach to marketable technology and programming methodologies.

I am a really good cook! I have my WHIMS certificate and I have worked in a lot of similar positions just never directly in a position that involved real live chemists. I'm sure you are right, I'll just have to go in with that never fail positive attitude .. .

I have an interview on Monday to work as a production assistant for a major pharmaceuticals manufacturer. What should I learn on the weekend to impress the president of this company? I have no formal knowledge of chemistry and really I am a chem nub as I have been saving all my learning in this department for school. I know book stuff like Organic 101 and Bio 100.5 :/ what lab type stuff should I blast through to at the very least look like I have some potential?

It's my SFN blog . ...

I hope you don't mind I posted my results in my blog .... w/ credits

I have two code samples, one fulfills Kullback Entropy equivalent of Mutual Information and the other fulfills the histogram model. The results of each leave me asking the value of the information provided by each value for which each model results. The problem I am seeing with your original post is again that you have mixed the two concepts together. You say 'fixed' I'm curious how and if we have come to the same conclusion. I have concluded that for (i in 1:N) { <------ ****** sum.temp <- 0 for (j in 1:N) { <------ ****** ki <- ki.find(xcut[j]) <------ ****** kj <- kj.find(ycut[j]) was the cause of the problem and that in fact kij * log2((kij/(ki*kj))) should be negative and that the sum of ij kij * log2((kij/(ki*kj))) should never be greater than log(N). You should be stepping through the bin divisions not the samples .... :/ note the little note on S233 and modify this appropriately if ( ( as.character( ycut[i] ) == cut.table$xcut[g] ) && ( as.character( ycut[j] ) == cut.table$ycut[g] ) ) {