Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Recommended Posts

The photo you guys have is all black....I have managed to secure the one that FBI investigators took that reveals more (special cameras I hear).....but they are not sure if its Obama and Romney OR Petraeus and the biographer.

It could even be Mitts latest artistic performance piece.

(thats enough juvenile behaviour for the day for me - its amazing what the yearly admin and accounts will do to your brain)

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32870&stc=1&d=1352969948

5aa7117b2f502_Thegeneral.jpg.43995380620c63dbf13185befb3a13ee.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Eurozone crisis live: Lagarde demands Greek deal next week | Business | guardian.co.uk

 

"Zombie protesters against the IMF

 

Protesters dressed as zombies gathered near the Philippines' presidential palace to protest against the International Monetary Fund.

 

The demonstration was organised by members of the Freedom for Debt Coalition, in solidarity with people in the eurozone. They carried placards with slogans such as "IMF is an economic zombie" and "IMF is dead. A walking dead".

 

Here are a few pictures of the rally, which took place while Christine Lagarde was holding her meetings and a press conference inside the palace."

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=32903&stc=1&d=1353060685

 

lol?

2012-11-16.thumb.jpg.2317cf432505ab2b57997c7a3d25ed30.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sixteen, I think :) You might have missed either the 2x2 square in the centre, or the 3x3 starting at the bottom left?

 

Edit: darn, I was too slow to answer, I was beaten to it by BobC!

Edited by Perrin
Beaten by Bob C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
attachment.php?attachmentid=33114&stc=1&d=1353986730

 

Now come on people - get a grip here!

 

If the centre squares had all sides intact, there would be 16 smallest ones. But there are 7 of them with one side incomplete, leaving 9 - we agree on that.

 

Next, there is ONE all-encompassing square, with a side of 4 matchsticks ... are you with me so far ... if not, then pay attention, because the next bit is going to be difficult, if you are already having bother ... you too Bob!

 

This largest, single square is divided into 4, by the matchsticks that cross in the middle.

 

Finally, I see one 2-matchstick sided square right in the middle, sharing the same centre as the largest, single square.

 

Unless my year one math is a bit off tonight, that is 9+1+4+1.

 

I hope you all stick with 16, because I am going to scoop the pool here ... aren't I?

 

EDIT: After reading Siuya's answer, I concede defeat - clearly I missed the 1x3x3 square. Humble Pie can be delivered to the address I shall send in a pm!

Edited by Ingot54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, if you really want to get picky here, you could say the 6 blue shapes indicate "squares" making it 21 squares in total.

 

I will not accept that the red circles indicate further squares - they have incomplete sides.

3-sided shapes are NOT squares.

 

In that case, though, we would need to add a further 19 bringing the total to 40.

 

I say we have 15 squares made from the lengths of the matches ... and a further 6 "squares (at a big stretch) made from the junctions of the matchstick ends. So the answer is 15 ... or 21 ... depending on how pedantic you are in addressing the definition of a square!

Squares..JPG.36521fbb25136d9777f9e521da103742.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ingot - dont you think there is a 3x3 square starting from the bottom LHS....

 

but its probably all part of some dastardly trick from Tams.....

or maybe a conspiracy from the Fed - shuffling around those matchsticks.

 

google how many squares are in this picture for more fun and games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ingot - dont you think there is a 3x3 square starting from the bottom LHS....

 

but its probably all part of some dastardly trick from Tams.....

or maybe a conspiracy from the Fed - shuffling around those matchsticks.

 

google how many squares are in this picture for more fun and games.

 

Our posts crossed mate - you are definitely correct. I am busy cleaning up egg from the eyebrows and ears.

 

EDIT: Took your advice - turned up this little site: http://www.facebook.com/sapien.Ltd

 

But hopefully Tams will put us out of our misery before we get into anything else!

Edited by Ingot54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a square is a 4 sided polygon with 4 equal sides and 4 right angles. A polygon is a closed shape. Since all of the 16 square shapes are not closed, then there are no polygons in the image. Since there are no polygons, there are no squares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, a square is a 4 sided polygon with 4 equal sides and 4 right angles. A polygon is a closed shape. Since all of the 16 square shapes are not closed, then there are no polygons in the image. Since there are no polygons, there are no squares.

There are no cubes ... only 2-dimensional figures, if you discount the thickness of the matchstick.

 

If the thickness of the matchstick is considered, then there are only cubes as circled in blue in my post above.

 

This is getting all too much.

 

 

Taaams ...

 

Bob ... you are still on my Christmas list ... barely :cool:

 

EDIT: Bob, I was saving this for December 25th, but I see it is time for an early gift.

 

Exercise 3 can be done with your hands in your pockets. For the rest of us, the conservative way will work too ...

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/035071_belly_fat_exercises_fitness.html

Edited by Ingot54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.