text:
Feeling Exhausted? It Might Be Pandemic Fatigue
Social distancing is one of the most effective ways to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Staying apart has saved lives.
But now, six months into these measures, we are still working our way through reopening and an eventual return to normal. As a result, many of us are experiencing "quarantine fatigue"—a state also known as "caution fatigue."
"Anytime we're in an advanced state of awareness for a prolonged period of time, our bodies slip into a 'fight or flight' response," explains Glenn Armstrong, nurse practitioner and lead advanced practice provider with Kettering Physician Network Behavioral Health. "Humans are social beings by nature, and when we take that away, it creates a drain on the human condition. And with that comes a cluster of symptoms."
These symptoms can include
Increased irritability
Trouble sleeping or oversleeping
Overeating or undereating
Feeling run-down
Glenn stresses, however, that while these symptoms can closely mimic a mental health disorder, "the fact is that it's not a disorder—it's a normal response to an abnormal situation."
To get through it, Glenn offers this advice:
Change your thinking. You are helping to slow the spread of the virus by social distancing. You are making a difference. Try to focus on the good you're doing. "Folks who voluntarily quarantine, versus those who feel it's a mandate or are forced into it, generally respond better because it comes from an altruistic part of us," Glenn says.
Keep a routine. Make your days as scheduled and as similar as possible to life before quarantine, Glenn advises. "Even if you don't have to go in to work, still maintain a set bedtime, a set waking time, scheduled mealtimes."
Reach out. If you can't be with loved ones, stay in touch with calls, video chats or social media. "Technology is a great and wonderful thing," Glenn says. "It's not the same as being in someone's presence, but we're doing ourselves a disservice [if we don't] reach out because it's not the same."
Practice self-care. Wash hands often, eat a balanced diet, get adequate sleep and stay hydrated. Also stay active—exercise lowers stress and lifts your mood. "Get out into the sunshine when you can," Glenn advises.
Jan 26, 2021 | KHN


text:
Fast food salt levels vary from country to country amid calls for cuts
Campaigners are calling for fast food giants to reduce the salt content in their food after finding the same meals vary significantly from country to country
August 18 2015 12:28 AM
The same children's meals at popular fast food chains have been found to contain hugely varying levels of salt in different countries, which campaigners say shows that the companies could reduce levels if they wanted to.
Research by World Action on Salt and Health (Wash) found that a KFC kids meal in Costa Rica contains 18 teaspoons more salt than the same meal in the UK.
Its analysis of children's meals sold in fast food restaurants in 37 different countries also revealed that eight out of 10 meals contain more than 1g salt per serving.
The maximum recommended salt intake for children aged four to six is 3g a day, while it is 5g for seven to 10-year-olds. Anyone older should eat no more than 6g of salt a day.
The UK performed better than most countries, with its Burger King kids meal burger and fries containing 1.06g of salt and its Subway Kids Pak turkey sub containing 1g, compared to Finland (2.54g) and Germany (1.5g) respectively.
It was also rated lowest of all for its KFC popcorn nuggets and fries meal, which measured at 0.9g of salt per serving, while the McDonald's Chicken McNuggets Happy Meal also had the lowest at 0.78g.
The highest sale levels in these restaurants was found in Costa Rica's KFC at 5.34g and McDonald's in Turkey at 2.4g.
Wash said that too much salt in childhood habituates youngsters to the taste of salt, and puts up blood pressure, which leads to strokes and heart failure.
The group is calling for all food manufacturers to universally reduce the salt content of their products, to help achieve the target of 5g salt a day.
Nutritionist and international programme lead at Wash, Clare Farrand, said: "The fact that these fast food chains are able to produce less salty children's meals in some countries means they can do the same in all countries, and should immediately.
"All children, regardless of where they are from, should be able to enjoy the occasional meal out, as a treat, without putting their health at risk."
Latest UK
'Unique and rare' Henry Moore sculpture discovered on family's mantelpiece
In Pictures: Clear skies provide fine views of Wolf Moon
First look image of new Britain's Got Talent series sees judges finally reunite

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Product prices and availability are accurate as of 2019-04-18 23:40:36 UTC and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on http://www.amazon.co.uk/ at the time of purchase will apply to the purchase of this product.
The Single Malt Whiskey Store are happy to offer the excellent Whisky Brasil, Ballantine's 70 cl (x3 bottles).
With so many available today, it is great to have a make you can recognise. The Whisky Brasil, Ballantine's 70 cl (x3 bottles) is certainly that and will be a excellent purchase.
For this reduced price, the Whisky Brasil, Ballantine's 70 cl (x3 bottles) comes highly respected and is always a popular choice with most people. Ballantine's have added some excellent touches and this equals great value.


text:
Q: Algorithm for creating binary rational numbers I read here an algorithm to convert a decimal rational number to binary by multiplications by 2, but although it's very simple to carry on, I still haven't managed to explain myself why it works.
Anyway at least I've understood the principle behind the algorithm to convert a decimal integer to binary by successive division by 2.
Now I'm asking whether both methods might ever be the same exact algorithm in two different forms, since the multiplication by 2 is just a division by 1/2. But as for the rest of the algorithm? Why does one perform operations on the quotients and the other continuously subtract 1 from the product?
Could anyone give a rather formal proof for these algorithms, and particularly for the one for rational numbers?

A: To represent a rational number $a$ as binary means to write it in the form $$d_n2^n + d_{n-1}2^{n-1} + \ldots + d_02^0 + d_{-1}2^{-1} + \ldots$$ where each of the $d_i$ is either $0$ or $1$.  For example, the  number $5\frac34$ can be represented as $$\color{darkblue}{1}\cdot 2^2 + \color{darkblue}{0}\cdot 2^1 + \color{darkblue}{1}\cdot 2^0 + \color{darkred}{1}\cdot 2^{-1}+ \color{darkred}{1}\cdot 2^{-2}$$ and we usually abbreviate this to just $$\color{darkblue}{101}.\color{darkred}{11}$$
Note that this does not say anything about how to actually find the digits $d_i$; that is a separate matter.  It also does not say anything about how the original number $q$ is represented itself; it could be in decimal or it could be in Roman numerals.  it doesn't matter; as long as you can do arithmetic with it and somehow compute the correct set of $d_i$, you have converted the number to binary.
Integers
Suppose we have some integer $q$ and we would like to find the correct set of $d_i$ to represent the number in binary.  One algorithm we might use is as follows:  We want to write
$$q = d_n2^n + d_{n-1}2^{n-1} + \ldots + d_12^1 +  d_02^0 \tag{1}$$
and it should be clear that every one of the terms on the right-hand side is even, except possibly the $d_02^0$ term.  So if $q$ is even, we must have $d_0=0$, and if $q$ is odd, we must have $d_0=1$.  Then $q-d_0$ is even, and $\frac12(q-d_0)$ is a smaller integer.  We can write
$$q-d_0 = d_n2^n + d_{n-1}2^{n-1} + \ldots + d_12^1$$
and dividing by 2 we get:
$$q' = \frac12(q-d_0) = d_n2^{n-1} + d_{n-1}2^{n-2} + \ldots + d_12^0.\tag{2}$$
The right-hand expression is in the same form as $(1)$, so is the exact binary expansion of the  smaller integer $\frac12(q-d_0)$, which we can call $q'$.  Comparing $(1)$ and $(2)$, we see that the binary digits of $q'$ are the same as those of $q$, but with the rightmost one, $d_0$, dropped from the end.  So if we could find the binary digits of $q'$, they would be $d_nd_n-1\ldots d_1$ and we could simply append $d_0$ to the end to get the digits of $q$.

Example: $11$

To compute the binary expansion of $q=11$ we first check that $11$ is odd, so $d_0 = 1$, and then calculate $q' = \frac12(11-1) = 5$.  The binary expansion of $11$ will be the same as the expansion of $5$, with an extra $1$ on the end.
Repeating the process, we now want to calculate the binary expansion of $q'=5$.  This is odd, so $d_1 = 1$ and we take $q'' = \frac12(5-1) = 2$.  Then $q''$ is even, so $d_2$ is $0$, and $q''' = \frac12(2-0) = 1$, which is odd so $d_3 = 1$ and $q'''' = \frac12(1-1) = 0$ and we stop.  The binary representation of $11$ is $d_3d_2d_1d_0 = 1011$.
Integers with fractions
Suppose we have $$q = d_n2^n + d_{n-1}2^{n-1} + \ldots + d_12^1 +  d_02^0 + d_{-1}2^{-1} + \ldots
\tag{1}$$
We will work from the left instead of from the right this time.
The sum of the terms except for the first is $d_{n-1}2^{n-1} + \ldots + d_12^1 +  d_02^0$ and can be shown to be strictly less than $2^n$. (There is actually an interesting exception to this that we will disregard to keep the discussion simple.)  So $d_n=1$ if and only if $q \ge 2^n$, and conversely $d_n=0$ if and only if $q < 2^n$.  So we can determine $d_n$ easily just by comparing $q$ with $2^n$.
Having done so, we can calculate $$q' = q - d_n2^n = d_{n-1}2^{n-1} + \ldots + d_12^1 +  d_02^0 + d_{-1}2^{-1} + \ldots$$ and repeat the process for $q'$.

Example: $\frac52$

Let's consider the number $q=\frac52$.  We guess that $n=3$ and find that $q<2^3=8$, so $d_3 = 0$.  We then subtract $d_32^3 = 0$ from $q$ to obtain $q' = \frac52$ and continue.  $q'\lt2^2$ so $d_2 = 0$ and $q'' = q' - 0\cdot2^2 = \frac52$ again.  But on the next step something more interesting happens: $q'' \ge 2^1$ so $d_1 = 1$ and $q''' = q'' - 1\cdot 2^1 = \frac12$.
Then $q''' < 2^0$ so $d_0 = 0$ and $q^{iv} = q''' - 0\cdot2^0 = \frac12$ again.  And $q^{iv} \ge 2^{-1}$ so $d_{-1} = 1$ and $q^v = q^{iv} - 1\cdot2^{-1}  = 0$.  $q^v=0$, so we can stop.  We have calculated that $(d_3, d_2, d_1, d_0, d_{-1}) = (0,0,1,0,1)$, so the binary expansion of $\frac52$ is $0010.1$; we usually drop the leading zeroes and just write $10.1$.
Instead of stopping, we could continue for as many steps as we wanted, calculating more $d_i$, but it is clear that since $q^v=0$, all the following $d_i$ would also be $0$.  So we can also say that $10.1000000000000000$ is a binary representation of $\frac52$. This is also correct; binary expansions, like decimal expansions, are not quite unique.
Note that there was no need to have the $\frac52$ written as an ordinary decimal; the only important thing was that we could compare it with the various $2^i$ and that we could do arithmetic on it. if you need it to be decimal to do those things, then yes, you need it to be decimal.  But that it a contingent fact about your knowledge of how to calculate, not anything that is required by the algorithm itself.  The algorithm finds a binary representation of a number, not of a decimal numeral.
Numbers less than 1
Suppose our number $q$ is between 0 and 1, so that the $d_i$ are all zero when $i\ge 0$.  That is, $$q = d_{-1}2^{-1} + d_{-2}2^{-2} + \ldots.$$
Here we could proceed exactly as in the previous section, checking to see if $q\ge 2^{-1}$, then if the remainder $q'\ge 2^{-2}$, and so on.
But we can simplify the arithmetic a little bit.  Instead of testing $q\ge\frac12$, we do the equivalent check to see if $2q\ge 1$.  If it is, then $d_0 = 1$, and if not then $d_0 = 0$.  Algebraically, we would write:
$$2q = d_{-1}2^{0} + d_{-2}2^{-1} + \ldots$$
and then $d_{-1} = 1$ if and only if $2q\ge 1$.  Having found $d_{-1}$, we can as usual subtract it (from $2q$ this time) and continue checking the remainder $2q-d_{-1}$, using the same method.

Example: $\frac13$

For example, let us find the binary expansion of $q=\frac13$. We see that $2q = \frac23 < 1$, so $d_{-1} = 0$, and $q' = 2q - d_{-1} = \frac23$.  Then repeating the process we find $2q' = \frac43 \ge 1,$ so $d_{-2} = 1$ and we calculate $q''= 2q'- d_{-2} = \frac13$.  At this point we recognize that we are in a loop and the same calculations will keep producing $0$ and then $1$ over and over.  Or put another way, the binary expansion of $q$ starts with a $0$, followed by the binary expansion of $q'$, which starts with a 1 and is followed by the binary expansion of $q$ again.  So the complete expansion for $\frac13$ is $.0101010101\ldots$.

Example: $\frac\pi4$

We can apply the same technique for an irrational number, say $q=\frac\pi4$:
$$
\def\no{\text{no}}
\def\yes{\text{yes}}
\begin{array}{ccc}
q & q \ge 1? & d_i \\\hline
\frac\pi4 & \no & 0 \\
\frac\pi2 & \yes & 1 \\
\pi-2 & \yes & 1 \\
2\pi-6 & \no & 0 \\
4\pi-12 & \no & 0 \\
8\pi-24 & \yes & 1 \\
16\pi-50 & \no & 0 \\
\end{array}
$$
So the binary expansion of $\frac\pi4$ begins $0.110010$ and continues from there.  Notice that again we did not have to represent any of the input numbers in decimal, unless perhaps we needed to do so in order to calculate whether each one was bigger or smaller than 1.  (Maybe you use decimal, but I ask the computer, which uses base 256 arithmetic; there is no decimal number anywhere to be seen.)
The only difference between handling a rational and an irrational number is that the procedure will eventually repeat, when applied to a rational number, and if we detect this we can cut if off early.  When applied to an irrational number, the procedure will never repeat.
Summary
Each one of these methods starts from the same place: the formula $(1)$ which defines what it means for a sequence of binary digits to be a binary representation for some number $q$.  Each one then manipulates the formulas to show how to calculate the particular set of binary digits for a given $q$.

A: A bit of a rambling answer, here's the short answer to the question of why divide vs. multiply to find the digits:
The reason that you divide to get the integer value and multiply to get the fractional value is because you are moving the digits towards the one's place: $2^0$.  When the digits are to the left of the decimal (integers) you need to divide by $2$ to move them towards $2^0$ and when the digits are to the right of the decimal (fractions) then you need to multiply by $2$ to bring the digits closer to $2^0$.
Original Answer:
The multiply by $2$ is no different than in elementary school when you're taught how to divide by $10$, $100$, $1000$, etc. by moving the decimal place.  Let me do this backwards as an example.  Say you are told that the wavelength of green light is $0.000\ 000\ 510$ meters--how many nanometers is this?  The conversion is $0.000\ 000\ 510 \text{ meters } * \frac{10^9 \text{ nm}}{1 \text{ meter}}$.  So you just multiply by $10^9$ to get the nanometers.  This can be done by moving the decimal nine places to the right: first move it three spots: $000.000\ 510$, next move it three more places ($6$ total): $000\ 000.510$, and finally move it three more (total of $9$): $000\ 000\ 510 = 510$ nm.
Converting Fractional Numbers
Finding decimal values for base two is essentially the same.  Formally think about what you are trying to do.  Let's find the base $2$ form of a value $x$ which we know is positive and less than $1$:
$$
x = n_1 \frac{1}{2} + n_2\frac{1}{2^2} + n_3\frac{1}{2^3} + \dots = \sum_1^\infty a_n \frac{1}{2^n}
$$
Finding the base two representation amounts to finding all $a_n$ (most of which will be $0$ if the number is "nice"--which most aren't).  If we multiply both sides by $2$ then what do we get?
$$
2x = n_1 + n_2\frac{1}{2^1} + n_3\frac{1}{2^2} + \dots = a_1 + \sum_1^\infty a_{n+1}\frac{1}{2^n}
$$
Since this is base $2$, $a_1$ must be either $0$ or $1$.  Which one it is will be obvious once we multiply $x$ by $2$.  For example if we want to find $x = 0.3125$:
$$
2*0.3125 = 0.625 = a_1 + \sum_1^\infty a_{n+1}\frac{1}{2^n}
$$
$a_1 = 0$ because there is no whole part--we still get a decimal so now we are trying to solve a different problem:
$$
0.625 = \sum_1^\infty b_n\frac{1}{2^n}
$$
This is the same as the original problem!  Now we are trying to find the binary representation of $0.625$ (this will give the $b_n$'s).  But we need to keep in mind that the $b_n$'s represent $a_{n+1}$ from the original problem!  So we recurse:
$$
2*0.625 = 1.25 = b_1 + \sum_1^\infty b_{n+1}\frac{1}{2^n} \rightarrow b_1 = a_2 = 1 \\
0.25 = \sum_1^\infty b_{n+1}\frac{1}{2^n} = \sum_1^\infty c_{n}\frac{1}{2^n} \\
2*0.25 = 0.5 = c_1 + \sum_1^\infty c_{n+1}\frac{1}{2^n} \rightarrow c_1 = b_2 = a_3 = 0 \\
0.5 = \sum_1^\infty c_{n+1}\frac{1}{2^n} = \sum_1^\infty d_{n}\frac{1}{2^n} \\
2*0.5 = 1 = d_1 + \sum_1^\infty d_{n+1}\frac{1}{2^n} \rightarrow d_1 = c_2 = b_3 = a_4 = 1 \\
0 = \sum_1^\infty d_{n+1}\frac{1}{2^n} \rightarrow d_{n > 1} = c_{n > 2} = b_{n > 3} = a_{n > 4} = 0
$$
So this gives: $0.3125_{10} = 0.0101000\dots_{2}$ or just $0.0101_2$ (which indeed is $0.3125 = \frac{5}{16} = \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{16}$).
Converting Integers
Now let's look at converting integers to binary it's essentially the same thing except now you don't have powers of $\frac{1}{2}$, you have powers of $2$:
$$
x = a_0 + a_1*2 + a_2*2^2 + a_3*2^3 + \dots = \sum_0^\infty a_n*2^n = a_0 + \sum_1^\infty a_n*2^n = a_0 + 2*\sum_0^\infty a_{n + 1}*2^n
$$
Hopefully that shows why we should divide by $2$.  When we divide by $2$ what we are really doing is writing $x = 2\alpha + \beta$, plug that in:
$$
x = 2\alpha_0 + \beta_0 = a_0 + 2*\sum_0^\infty a_{n + 1}*2^n
$$
Clearly $a_0 = \beta_0$ and $\alpha_0 = \sum_0^\infty a_{n + 1}*2^n$.  So again, we recurse:
$$
\alpha_0 = 2\alpha_1 + \beta_1 = a_1 + 2\sum_0^\infty a_{n + 2}*2^n \rightarrow a_1 = \beta_1 \\
\alpha_1 = 2\alpha_2 + \beta_2 = a_2 + 2*\sum_0^\infty a_{n + 3}*2^n \rightarrow a_2 = \beta_2 \\
\dots
$$
So, for instance, we can do $x = 45$:
$$
45 = 2*22 + 1 \rightarrow a_0 = 1\\
22 = 2*11 + 0 \rightarrow a_1 = 0\\
11 = 2*5 + 1 \rightarrow a_2 = 1\\
5 = 2*2 + 1 \rightarrow a_3 = 1\\
2 = 2*1 + 0 \rightarrow a_4 = 0\\
1 = 2*0 + 1 \rightarrow a_5 = 1\\
0 = 2*0 + 0 \rightarrow a_6 = 0 \\
\dots \\
\text{it repeats--these are the zeros to the left of the integer}
$$
So this gives $45_{10} = 0\dots000101101_2$ or just $101101_2$.  The way we recursed suggests that we could write:
\begin{align}
45 = & 2*22 + 1 \\
=& 2*\left(2*11 + 0\right) + 1\\
=& 2*\left(2*\left(2*5 + 1\right) + 0\right) + 1\\
=& 2*\left(2*\left(2*\left(2*2 + 1\right) + 1\right) + 0\right) + 1 \\
=& 2*\left(2*\left(2*\left(2*\left(2*1 + 0\right) + 1\right) + 1\right) + 0\right) + 1 \\
=& 2*\left(2*\left(2*\left(2*\left(2*\left(2*0 + 1\right) + 0\right) + 1\right) + 1\right) + 0\right) + 1 \\
=& 2*\left(2*\left(2*\left(2*\left(2*\left(2*\left(2*0 + 0\right) + 1\right) + 0\right) + 1\right) + 1\right) + 0\right) + 1 \\
=& 2*\left(2*\left(2*\left(2*\left(2*\left(2*\left(2*\left(2*0 + 0\right) + 0\right) + 1\right) + 0\right) + 1\right) + 1\right) + 0\right) + 1 \\
=&\dots
\end{align}
The reason that you divide to get the integer value and multiply to get the fractional value is because you are moving the digits towards the one's place: $2^0$.  When the digits are to the left of the decimal (integers) you need to divide by $2$ to move them towards $2^0$ and when the digits are to the right of the decimal (fractions) then you need to multiply by $2$ to bring the digits closer to $2^0$.
Another example: base $3$
Let's say we want to find $45_{10}$ in base $3$.  It's the same procedure--divide by $3$:
\begin{align}
45 =& 3*15 + 0 \\
=& 3*\left(3*5 + 0\right) + 0 \\
=& 3*\left(3*\left(3*1 + 2\right) + 0\right) + 0 \\
=& 3*\left(3*\left(3*\left(3*0 + 1\right) + 2\right) + 0\right) + 0 \\
=& 3*\left(3*\left(3*\left(3*\left(3*0 + 0\right) + 1\right) + 2\right) + 0\right) + 0 \\
\end{align}
So now that we are starting to get $0$'s, we know that $45_{10} = 0\dots001200_3 = 1200_3 = 1*3^3 + 2*3^2 = 27 + 18 = 45$
I should probably add
This is part of why we can represent any number as:
$$
x = \sum\limits_{i = -\infty}^{i = +\infty}a_in^i
$$
where all $a_i < n$

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Bright the great outdoors into your sewing room! Animals will adore these incredibly realistic looking prints. Birds, bears, raccoons, pandas, giraffes and more...it's like walking through the zoo or a forest from the comfort of your own home!
These fabrics make fantastic border prints, or you can fussy cut squares of the animals to use in block centers. Pair the prints with coordinating Painter's Palette Solids (black is always a great choice for a dramatic quilt), or try the small print neutrals in our Essentials 2 collection.
Take a closer look at the incredible detail!
This fabric line is magnificent! Thank you so much for sharing it with us!
Very pretty fabrics! Love the panda print.


Extend the life of your hot tub cover by protecting it with COVERCAP, the spa cover cap. This spa cover protector works in every climate, from super hot to frigid cold, shielding your spa cover from damaging sun UV rays as well as rain, snow, sleet, ice, dust and dirt. The COVERCAP is construction of a tough woven polyethylene designed to withstand harsh weather of all types along with reducing the effects of wear and tear.
Spa Cover Cap is rated 3.5 out of 5 by 4.
Rated 5 out of 5 by Caron from Gets the job done This is not a permanent cover and won't last forever, but it definitely protects my expensive hot tub cover. I am purchasing my second one; the first one lasted about 3 1/2 years on my covered outdoor deck. It doesn't snow here, but I'm on the Gulf Coast of Florida, where the heat and humidity are serious. So, even though $100 seems like a lot to pay for a flimsy piece of vinyl with elastic around the edges, at least it saves me from having to purchase an expensive hot tub cover every 5 years or so.
Rated 4 out of 5 by Jane from Cover Cap Idea My caps have lasted years. I keep them nice by purchasing the cheapest king size fitted sheet I can find. Put it on over the cap, and it will last.
Rated 3 out of 5 by Toni1948 from Only lasts about 3 years It doesn't last very long, BUT, it does protect the expensive cover that we have on our spa. It serves it's purpose for about $25.00/year.
Rated 2 out of 5 by Rozie from Good Idae.....But.... It's a great idea as I've had purchased 3 regular covers (costing anywhere from $300 to $600) in 10 years due to wear so for the money (under $100) it is worth it to save another $3-600. BUT....it only lasted 1.5 years (1 year warranty) so now I have to buy another. Maybe should be made from heavier poly to last longer. I've had those ugly blue tarps on my wood pile under same conditions last 5 years. Just saying it should last a lot longer.


The Laplace Transform is a particular tool that is used in mathematics, science, engineering and so on. There are many books, web pages, and so on about it.
But nothing for Laplace Transform that I can find.
So, I will attempt to fill that gap.
What is the Laplace Transform?
Note: The graphs say "Next frequency to add: … where ", but really it should be "Next two frequencies to add: … where " since we are adding two frequencies at a time, in such a way that their imaginary parts cancel out, allowing us to keep everything real in the plots. I fixed this comment in the code, but didn't want to rerender all the videos.
Note the overshoot 'ringing' at the corners in the square wave. This is the Gibbs phenomenon and occurs in Fourier Transforms as well. See that link for more information.
Now some that it absolutely can't handle, like: . (A function that is 0 everywhere, except a sharp peak at exactly time = 0). In the S domain, this is a constant, meaning that we never converge. But visually it's still cool.
Note that this never 'settles down' (converges) because the frequency is constantly increasing while the magnitude remains constant.
There is visual 'aliasing' (like how a wheel can appear to go backwards as its speed increases). This is not "real" – it is an artifact of trying to render high frequency waves. If we rendered (and played back) the video at a higher resolution, the effect would disappear.
At the very end, it appears as if the wave is just about to converge. This is not a coincidence and it isn't real. It happens because the frequency of the waves becomes too high so that we just don't see them, making the line appear to go smooth, when in reality the waves are just too close together to see.
The code is automatically calculating this point and setting our time step such that it only breaksdown at the very end of the video. If make the timestep smaller, this effect would disappear.
← Compiler is ignoring my C code!


text:
Q: The case of coincidence of the two tokens using Str::random (or native php method) Many developers use Str::random (in Laravel) to generate a random token (no matter what it is used for). In my project, this method is also implemented, and I also have a check for the uniqueness of the api_token field.
There is a small chance that the two tokens may match and an error will occur for the user. Yes, the chance is small, but I want everything to work perfectly : )
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

A: You could do something like:
do {
    $token = Str::random(60);
    $data = Model::where('api_token', $token)->get();
}
while ($data->count());

// now the $token is unique

You can also mark the database column as unique() just so you can have that check on the database level too.

A: You can use ramsey/uuid package for Laravel. As the probability that a UUID will be duplicated is not zero, it is close enough to zero to be negligible and how you can read here in it's working methodology.
It works like:

Collision occurs when the same UUID is generated more than once and assigned to different referents. In the case of standard version-1 and version-2 UUIDs using unique MAC addresses from network cards, collisions can occur only when an implementation varies from the standards, either inadvertently or intentionally.

In contrast to version-1 and version-2 UUID's generated using MAC addresses, with version-1 and -2 UUIDs which use randomly generated node ids, hash-based version-3 and version-5 UUIDs, and random version-4 UUIDs, collisions can occur even without implementation problems, albeit with a probability so small that it can normally be ignored. This probability can be computed precisely based on analysis of the birthday problem
For example, the number of random version-4 UUIDs which need to be generated in order to have a 50% probability of at least one collision is 2.71 quintillion, computed as follows
n ≈ 1 2 + 1 4 + 2 × ln  ( 2 ) × 2 122 ≈ 2.71 × 10 18 . {\displaystyle n\approx {\frac {1}{2}}+{\sqrt {{\frac {1}{4}}+2\times \ln(2)\times 2^{122}}}\approx 2.71\times 10^{18}.} {\displaystyle n\approx {\frac {1}{2}}+{\sqrt {{\frac {1}{4}}+2\times \ln(2)\times 2^{122}}}\approx 2.71\times 10^{18}.}

This number is equivalent to generating 1 billion UUIDs per second for about 85 years. A file containing this many UUIDs, at 16 bytes per UUID, would be about 45 exabytes.
The smallest number of version-4 UUIDs which must be generated for the probability of finding a collision to be p is approximated by the formula
2 × 2 122 × ln  1 1 − p . {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2\times 2^{122}\times \ln {\frac {1}{1-p}}}}.} {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2\times 2^{122}\times \ln {\frac {1}{1-p}}}}.}

Thus, the probability to find a duplicate within 103 trillion version-4 UUIDs is one in a billion.

So if you need more than billion or trillion string then it could
match one


text:
Even a small amount of weight loss can have a profound impact on some people's health
Ian Sample,
Justin Sullivan/Getty
Even small reductions in bodyweight can have a profound impact on the health of obese people and their risk of future disease, researchers say.
A study of 40 obese men and women aged 32 to 56 found that losing just 5% of their weight led to substantial improvements in health through the better control of insulin in the liver, fat and muscle tissues.
The changes led to a lower risk of diabetes and heart disease, which along with cancer, rank among the most serious complications that people with obesity face.
Samuel Klein, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at Washington University in St Louis, said that expert societies generally recommend obese people to lose 5 to 10% of their bodyweight if they want to improve their health. But until now, there has been little research into the effects of losing 5% rather than 10%, which is tougher to achieve.
"It's important to distinguish what benefits you get from 5% versus 10%, because losing 10% of your bodyweight is so much harder," Klein said. "We were surprised to see really profound benefits in multiple organ systems simultaneously with only a small change in body weight. The biggest bang for your buck is with 5% weight loss."
The researchers followed 20 obese people who maintained their bodyweight during the study, and another 20 who were tasked with losing 5% of their weight initially, and then 10% and 15% as the study went on. In the weight loss group, 19 people managed to lose 5% in weight. Of these, nine went on to lose 10% and later, 15% of their bodyweight.
Tests on the volunteers found that most of the improvements in so-called insulin sensitivity were seen with the first 5% of weight loss. For a person weighing 100kg, or 15 stone 7 pounds, that amounts to losing 5kg or 11lbs. The study is published in the journal Cell Metabolism.
"If you're obese and have metabolic abnormalities, which these people did, and that means insulin resistance, some fat in the liver, but not yet type II diabetes, you'll do yourself a remarkable benefit by losing only 5% body weight and keeping it off. You don't have to become svelte and thin," Klein said.
A host of diseases linked to obesity are caused by the body losing its ability to control insulin. When working properly, the hormone slows the release of fatty acids from fat into the bloodstream. In the liver, it suppresses glucose production, and keeps blood sugar low. In muscle, insulin stimulates the uptake of glucose, again keeping blood sugar down. "Insulin is a key regulatory hormone that underlies the pathogenesis of many cardio-metabolic diseases," said Klein.
Stephen O'Rahilly, director of the MRC Metabolic Diseases Unit at Cambridge University said the results "provide a solid foundation for believing that even modest amounts of weight loss will bring health benefits."
In England, the obese population has risen from 15% to 26% in the past 20 years [pdf], with the proportion classified as overweight hovering at around 37%. Only a third of men in England and about 40% of women have a healthy body mass index, defined as between 18.5 and 24.9. The rise in obesity in the UK is mirrored in other countries, such as the US and Australia, where obesity rates have reached 35% and 28% respectively.
"This is an important message for healthcare professionals to get across to patients in that even if this weight loss might seem small in terms of patient expectations, it conveys a significant health benefit. Clearly if you lose more weight the benefits are even greater," said Jeremy Tomlinson, professor of metabolic endocrinology at Oxford University.
Tracy Parker, a heart health dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, added: "This study is good news for people who struggle with their weight as it suggests that even losing a small amount of weight can have a positive impact on heart health.
"As little as 5% weight loss resulted in improved blood pressure, levels of triglyceride fats in the blood, and blood sugar which are all risk factors for heart disease. Losing more weight was shown to further improve heart health. This study is a reminder of the benefits of gradually getting to a healthy weight. Setting realistic goals such as 5% weight loss is a good way to maintain healthy weight loss.
"When it comes to reducing your risk of cardiovascular disease, lifestyle changes do not just apply to losing weight. Giving up smoking, decreasing your alcohol intake and being more physically active all help reduce our risk of developing heart disease."
This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk
SEE ALSO: This might be one of the most sensible, scientifically supported diets we've ever seen
CHECK OUT: The government just proposed a sea change to American diets, and it could send an entire industry reeling
NOW WATCH: An exercise scientist told us 4 big things people get wrong about working out and weight loss
More: The Guardian Health Obesity


text:
Tag: Edgar Allen Poe
Is There Any Evidence for Life After Death? By Dr. R.C. Sproul
Objection #10 Answered: "When You're Dead You're Dead! There Is No More!"
(This is #10 in a series of book excerpts from Objections to Christianity derived from Chapter 10 in *Dr. R.C. Sproul's fantastic book Reason To Believe, [originally entitled Objections Answered] Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982)
Death is obscene. It runs counter to the vibrant flow of life. When we encounter it we shrink from it in horror. We use our finest cosmetics to disguise its impact. When death strikes it always leaves the question, "Is this the end?" Is there absolutely nothing more to hope for?
Perhaps the most ancient question of all is the question, "Is there life after death?" We think of Job in the throes of his misery crying out, "When a man dies, will he live again?" (See Job 14:14). We think of Hamlet musing over the question of suicide in his classic soliloquy, "To be, or not to be?" He contemplates the mystery of the grave and weighs the burdens of the alternatives of life and death. He retreats from suicide asking if man would "rather bear those ills we have than fly to others we know not of?" (Hamlet, act 3, sc.1). From Job to Hamlet to the present day the question persists, "Is there life after death?"
A negative spirit of skepticism has made itself felt in the cultural atmosphere of our age. A sense of despair and hopelessness characterizes much of our culture. We hear such statements as "When you're dead, you're dead"; "This is the Pepsi generation, the now generation." The television commercial exhorts to live our lives with gusto because we only go around once. Those who persist in their hope of a future life are regarded as weaklings who are clinging to naïve superstitions that are outmoded. Christians have received their share of scorn and ridicule for hoping in fantasies of "pie in the sky." But the issue is not simply a religious question. The issue is far more significant than that. It is the issue of the meaning of all of life. If death is ultimate then life becomes a cruel and mocking joke.
From ancient times the keenest minds of mankind have sought intellectual evidence for the survival of the soul or spirit beyond the grave. Charlatans and magicians have plied their arts couching their tricks in a garb of pseudo-intellectualism. Scholars have given the question serious attention because it is the most serious of all questions. But for the most careful and sober scholar the issue of death has strong emotional overtones. No one can face the question dispassionately for it touches each one of us in a final way.
Does Nature Teach that There Is Life After Death?
Plato faced the question in a deeply personal way when he visited his beloved mentor, Socrates, in his prison cell. As Socrates prepared himself for execution by enforced drinking of hemlock he discussed the question of immorality with his students. The Socratic argument for life after death is recorded by Plato in his famous Phaedo Dialogue.
Plato explored the question primarily from the vantage point of analogies found in nature. He detected a kind of cycle that was common to nature. He noted that spring follows winter which in turn moves inexorably toward another winter. Winter does not terminate in itself but yields again to spring. The cycle goes on as day follows night and heat follows cold. The pattern continues. He examined the drama of the germination of the seed into flowering life. For the seed to bring forth its life it must first go through a process of rotting. The shell of the seed must decay and die before the life that is locked within it can emerge. He saw here an analogy to life and death. Just as a seed must die and disintegrate before the flower emerges, so the human body must die before the life of the soul can come forth.
Plato looked beyond the realm of flowers to the animal kingdom and was stimulated by the drama of metamorphosis. The beauty of the butterfly begins in the grotesque form of the caterpillar. The caterpillar appears as a worm, bound to the earth, virtually immobile and unattractive. The worm forms for itself an insulated cocoon, withdrawing from the outside world. The cocoon remains dormant and inert for a season. In time the drama mounts as a new creature begins to scratch and stretch its way out of the cocoon. Wings and a body begin to appear and suddenly the woven prison yields a magnificent soaring creature of multicolored beauty. From the "death" of the caterpillar comes the new life of the butterfly!
These analogies from Plato do not present compelling evidence for life beyond the grave. Plato understood that they were but analogies that provide hope in the face of mystery. He was aware that butterflies do not live forever, but he pointed to the complexities of the various forms of life that surround us to cause us to move with caution in the face of unbridled skepticism.
Must We Live as If There is a God?
In later times another philosopher approached the question form a different perspective. Immanuel Kant was perhaps the most weighty and significant philosopher of all time. Certainly his massive work has been a watershed for the development of modern thinking. Though skeptical about man's ability to prove immortality by reason alone, he offered an ingenious argument for life after death. His argument offers practical "evidence" for the existence of God and for life after death.
Kant observed that all people seem to have some concern for ethics. Though morality differs from person to person and society to society, all people wrestle with questions of right and wrong. All human beings have some sense of moral duty. Kant asked, "What would be necessary for this human sense of duty to make sense?" Are our moral senses merely the by-product of parental discipline or the imposition of society's standards? Kant thought it went deeper than that. Still the question of the origin of moral sense is different from its ultimate meaning. He noticed that we have a sense of duty and asked what would make it meaningful? Kant answered his own question by saying that ultimately for ethics to be meaningful there must be justice. From a coldly practical perspective he asked, "Why be ethical if justice does not prevail?"
Kant saw justice as an essential ingredient for a meaningful ethic. But he noticed at the same time that justice does not always prevail in this world. He observed what countless others have observed, that the righteous do suffer and the wicked do often prosper in this life. His practical reasoning continued by arguing that since justice does not prevail here in this world there must be a place where it does prevail. For justice to exist ultimately there must be several factors accounted for.
We must survive the grave. For there to be justice, there must be people o receive it. Since we do not receive it in this world, we must survive the grave. Justice demands life beyond death, if ethics are to be practical.
There must be a judge. Justice requires judgment and judgment requires a judge. But what must the judge be like to insure that his judgment is just? Kant answered that the judge himself must be just. If the judge is unjust then he would be prone to pervert justice rather than establish it. The judge must be utterly and completely just to insure ultimate justice. But even just judges are capable of perpetrating injustice if they make a mistake. Honest judges have convicted innocent people who were framed or surrounded by an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence. Our just judge must be incapable of such mistakes. To render perfect justice, he must have a perfect knowledge of all the facts and mitigating circumstances. A perfect judge must be nothing less than omniscient.
There must be a judgment. A perfectly just and omniscient judge is necessary for justice but it is not enough to insure it. Once the perfect judge offers his perfect verdict, the sentence must be carried out. If proper rewards and punishments are to be meted out, the judge must have authority and the power to carry them out. If our just and omniscient judge is impotent then we have no guarantee of justice. Perhaps an evil power would prevent the judge from carrying out justice. Thus the judge would have to have perfect power of omnipotence.
Thus, for Kant, practical ethics require life after death and a judge whose description sounds very much like that of the God of Christianity. Kant recognized that his arguments were of a practical nature. He did not think that he had provided an airtight case for the existence of God or for life after death. But he did reduce the practical options for man to two. He said we have either full-bodied theism with life after death or we have no meaningful basis ultimately for our ethical decisions and actions. Without ethics life is chaos and ultimately impossible. Without God ethics are meaningless. Thus Kant's conclusion was: "We must live as though the were a God." For Kant, life was intolerable without a solid basis for ethics. If death is ultimate then no ethical mandate is really significant.
What If Life is Meaningless?
Kant's practical optimism was not universally welcomed. The existentialists of modern culture have taken the option Kant refused. They've dared to ask the unaskable question: "What if life is meaningless?" Shakespeare's Macbeth says despairingly:
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Signifying nothing (Macbeth, act 5, sc. 5).
Maybe there is no justice. Maybe there is only the tale of the idiot. Perhaps ultimately so much sound and fury that is empty and void of significance. Why should we live as though there is a God if in fact there is no God? These are the penetrating questions of modern man. All attempts to maintain faith in God and faith in life after death may be only exercises of wish fulfillment for those not courageous enough to face the grim facts or our sound and fury.
Ingmar Bergman states the dilemma of modern man in a dialogue contained in his film The Seventh Seal. Here a conversation ensues between Knight and Death:
Knight: "Do you hear me?"
Death: "Yes, I hear you."
Knight: "I want knowledge, not faith, not supposition, but knowledge. I want God to stretch out his hand towards me, to reveal himself and speak to me."
Death: "But he remains silent."
Knight: "I call out to him in the dark, but no one seems to be there."
Death: "Perhaps no one is there."
Knight: "Then life is an outrageous horror. No one can live it in the face of death knowing that all is nothing" (Taken from Donald J. Drew, Images of Man: A Critique of the Contemporary Cinema, Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1974, 74).
Long before existentialism was in vogue and playwrights and novelists began to flood our nation with cries of despair, America listened to the painful poetry of Edgar Allen Poe. Some say he was brilliant; others that he was demented. Still others maintain that he was a little of both. One thing is certain; he had a unique ability to express the anguish of the human soul who experiences the loss of a loved one. His poetry is filled with mournful groans of the bereaved. Consider his short poems such as "Annabel Lee" or "Ulalume." But it is in "The Raven" that the urgency of the issue of life after death is most clearly expressed. The poem begins:
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
" 'Tis some visitor," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door;
Only this and nothing more."
Ah, distinctly I remember, it was in the bleak December,
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrow; vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow, sorrow for the lost Lenore,
Nameless here forevermore.
In the introduction Poe sets the scene of his midnight remorse crushed by his loneliness and the fear of the morrow. With the appearance of his nocturnal visitor who comes from the shores of hell, the poet asks the burning question, "Will I ever see Lenore again?" The reply of the fiendish bird is always the same, "Nevermore." The poem moves along to the point where the tormented man screams in anger at the visitor:
"Prophet!" said I "think of evil!—prophet still, if bird or devil!
Whether tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Desolate, yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted—
On this home by horror haunted—tell me truly, I implore:
Is there—is there balm in Gilead?—tell me—tell me I implore."
Quoth the raven, "Nevermore!"
And the raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming;
And the lamplight o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted—nevermore!
The poem ends in despair. No hope is given for the future. Such an ending is intolerable for many. The current rage of occult films and deep fascination with parapsychology are evidence of the protest of modern man to the prophets of despair. New interest in the recollections of people resuscitated from clinical death have spawned hope that tangible evidence of survival may be available from science.
What is the Biblical Case for Life After Death?
The strongest and most cogent case for life after death comes to us from the New Testament. At the heart of the proclamation of the ancient Christian community is the staggering assertion that Jesus of Nazareth has survived the grave.
Christ was resurrected from the dead. In a classic treatment of the question of life after death, the apostle Paul summarizes the evidence for the resurrection of Christ in his first letter to the Corinthians. His Epistle comes partly in response to skepticism that arises in the Corinthian church. Note how he deals with the question:
Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised (1 Corinthians 15:12,13).
The logic of this assertion is almost humorously simple. If Christ is raised, then obviously there is such a thing as resurrection from the dead.
On the other hand, if there is no resurrection from the dead, then Christ cannot be raised. The question of Christ's resurrection is crucial to the entire issue of life after death. The apostle follows with an interesting line of reasoning. He considers the alternatives to the resurrection of Christ. He uses the "if-then" formula of logical progression.
If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching I in vain and your faith [also] is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14).
Paul gets to the heart of the matter quickly. If Christ is not raised then it is clear that the preaching of the early church is an exercise in futility. The preaching becomes empty words and the faith that follows is worthless.
Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those who also have fallen asleep in Christ have perished (1 Corinthians 15:15-18).
The implications of the Corinthians' skepticism continue. If Christ is not raised then the apostolic witness is a false one. God has been implicated in a spurious historical claim. Again Paul mentions the futility of faith and adds to it the serious result that man is still without a redeemer. Then, almost as an afterthought, Paul touches the emotional nerve of his readers by reminding them of the fate of their departed loved ones. They have perished. At this point the apostle sounds a bit like the "Raven." He is saying that, without resurrection, death is final.
The madness of the concept of the finality of death came home to me in somewhat unusual fashion. On July 1, 1965, my wife gave birth to our son. I remember the exhilarating experience of observing him through the nursery window at the hospital. All of the dynamism of life seemed to be captured in the animated action of this newborn child. I was thrilled to behold one who was "flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone." I experienced the inordinate pride that so often attends fatherhood.
The experience of birth was by no means unique or even unusual. What followed, however, was not commonplace. The first visitor to the hospital was my mother. Her delight witnessing her grandson was unbounded. I took her home from the hospital and spent the night in her house. The following morning I went into her bedroom to awaken for breakfast. There was no response, no movement. As I touched her hand to rouse her, I felt the chill of death. Her body was hard and cold. She had died during the night. Within the space of a few hours I witnessed the birth of my son and the corpse of my mother. As I stood stunned by her bedside, a sense of surreal came over me. I thought, "This is absurd. A short time ago she was a living, breathing, dynamic human being, filled with warmth and vitality. Now there is only coldness and silence."
But as Paul points out, if Christ is not raised then our loved ones have perished. The Raven has the last word.
Paul continues his discourse by saying, "If we have only hope in Christ in this life, we are of all men most to be pitied" (1 Corinthians 15:19).
Perhaps you are not a Christian. Maybe Christians tend to annoy you. Perhaps you become angry when Christians try to force their religion upon you. But if you do not believe that Christ has been raised, don't be angry with poor deluded Christians. Pity them. They have put all their eggs in a basket that cannot hold any eggs. If all the Christian has is hope with no historical reality to undergird that hope, he is committed to a life of futility. Christians need your sympathy, not your hostility.
Paul concludes his exercise in "what if" thinking by saying, "If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die'" (1 Cor. 15:32). No resurrection? Then we may as well sleep in tomorrow. Eat, drink, and be merry while you can. Get your gusto now before it's too late.
There is a striking similarity between the way apostle Paul approaches life after death and the approach of Kant. Both are keenly aware of the grim alternatives to life after death. However, Paul does not leave us where Kant does. Kant reduces the options to two and then encourages us to choose the more optimistic one. Paul examines the grim alternatives to resurrection but does not build his case on those frightening options.
Rather he says:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me (1 Cor. 15:3-8).
Now Paul speaks in a fashion that moves beyond speculation. He doesn't play with the occult or rest his case on analogies drawn from nature. He offers two kinds of evidence: First, he appeals to the prophetic predictions of the Old Testament Scripture that are fulfilled with uncanny accuracy in the person of Christ. Secondly, he offers the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses to the event. Christ does not appear on one occasion to a secret audience, but manifests Himself on several different occasions. One occasion involves an audience of over 500 persons. Paul's final appeal is that he beheld the risen Christ with his own eyes. As John remarks everywhere, "We declare to you what we see with our eyes and hear with our ears" (see John 1:1-3). Paul then rehearses the history of his personal life following his sight of the risen Christ. He speaks of his trials, his imprisonments, his labors, all of which give credence to the impact his visual experience of the resurrected Jesus had on him.
The best argument for life after death is the record of history. The act of resurrection is as well attested to as any event from antiquity. Those who deny it do so invariably from the perspective of a philosophy that would rule the evidence out arbitrarily. Jesus Himself predicted it and spoke in an authoritative way concerning our own future life. He said, "In my father's house are many mansions, I go to prepare a place for you. If it were not so I would have told you" (see John 14:2). For those who think Christ credible, His words are overpowering. "If it were not so—" Jesus is saying in this discourse had his disciples believed in an empty hope for the future, Jesus would not hesitate to correct it. The victorious implications of Christ's resurrection are summarized by Paul:
Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting?" The sting of death is sin, and power of sin is the law (1 Cor. 15:51-56).
Your labor is not in vain. That is the essence of the New Testament message. Death is not ultimate. The answer of the Raven is "Nevermore." The answer of Christ is "Forevermore."
Key Points To Remember:
(1) Nature, as Plato suggests, offers analogies that give evidence and hope for future life.
(2) Kant argued for life after death out of a practical concern for ethics. His argument says that universal moral sense would be meaningless apart from ultimate justice: we must survive the grave; there must be a judge; there must be a judgment.
(3) If death is final then life has no ultimate meaning. How we deal with the question of death will reveal how seriously we regard life. Existentialism and the poetry of Poe illustrate man's sense of hopelessness and futility.
(4) The Bible definitely says, "Yes, there is life after death." Without Christ, men are without hope. Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live" (John 11:25).
(5) The biblical claim for life after death rests on credible eyewitness testimony of historical event. The eyewitnesses were men whose work reflects sober judgment, judgment, whose contemporaries offered to refutation and whose conviction of the truth of their testimony made them willing to die for it.
(6) The ongoing power of Christ to transform human lives gives corroborative evidence to the assertion that He lives in a more real and powerful way than as an inspiring memory.
Dr. R.C. Sproul is the founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries, an international Christian education ministry located near Orlando, Florida. His teaching can be heard on the program Renewing Your Mind, which is broadcast on hundreds of radio outlets in the United States and in 40 countries worldwide. He is the executive editor of Tabletalk Magazine and general editor of The Reformation Study Bible, and the author of more than seventy books (including some of my all time favorites: THE HOLINESS OF GOD; CHOSEN BY GOD; KNOWING SCRIPTURE; WILLING TO BELIEVE; REASON TO BELIEVE; and PLEASING GOD) and scores of articles for national evangelical publications. Dr. Sproul also serves as president of Ligonier Academy of Biblical and Theological Studies and Reformation Bible College. He currently serves as senior minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew's in Sanford, FL.
Author lifecoach4GodPosted on April 3, 2012 June 21, 2013 Categories Apologetics, Book Excerpts, Eschatology (The Study of Last Things), Great Questions, R.C. Sproul, Sermons, Theology Proper (The Study of God)Tags After you die will you live again?, Are you prepared to die?, Christ's resurrection, Death, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Edgar Allen Poe, Exposition of 1 Corinthians 15, How to prepare for death, Immanuel Kant, Is there an afterlife?, Is there any evidence for life after death?, Meaning, Nature and Life After Death, Objections Answered, Plato, R. C. Sproul. Reason To Believe, RC Sproul, Resurrection, Socrates, Sproul, The RavenLeave a comment on Is There Any Evidence for Life After Death? By Dr. R.C. Sproul


text:
Suspension of Disbelief: TNA Wrestling Report for 06.24.2010 -Featuring Abyss, Hulk Hogan, Jay Lethal, Sting & Mr. Anderson
Rey Mundo | June 28, 2010 | Reviews, Shows, Top Story, TV Shows | No Comments
Greetings & Salutations from your new (new!) TNA Impact Recapper.
First off, let me apologize for the tardy post, but thanks to a series of misadventures up to and including a missing laptop, a busy weekend, and–I sh*t thee not–Phil Collins, I've been unusually busy. Still, I labored away, typing 1,000 character blocks in my trusty cell phone to recap what proved to be an entertaining episode of Impact.
Let me tell you what I love about wrestling: At some point, your favorite guy is gonna have his moment in the sun. From the lowliest curtain jerker to the highest main eventer, odds are good that each man or woman competing for a wrestling company will get a chance to show off what they can do. "Real" sports? Not so much.
I say that because I have the misfortune of being a die-hard New York Knicks fan, and I spent the majority of Thursday trying not to hurl at the thought of the Miami Heat and the Chicago Bulls clearing more salary cap space for the big free agent class available to seek out new teams starting on July 1st. The Knicks had the advantage for a bit with a buttload of money available, then the Heat & Bulls did some fiscal maneuvers and have even more.
If you're a b-ball fan from the '90s, you know why this might irk a Knicks fan.
In any event, it looks like the Dismal Decade of Dolan (James Dolan, owner of Cablevision as well as the Knicks & Rangers) shall continue. Thus, I turn to my 2nd-ever sports love (after University of Florida Gators Football): Pro Wrestling.
And now, without further ado, here is the Suspension of Disbelief TNA Impact recap for Thursday, June 24th, 2010.
We open up with a recap of the conclusion to last week's Impact, with Abyss chokeslamming Jeff Hardy off the stage, slamming Mr. Anderson into glass, and having a confrontation with Hulk Hogan. The episode is titled "Monster on the Loose" and I immediately wonder if Sean, Patrick, Fat Kid & Rudy are available.
Ahh, the melodic sounds of a retooled nWo entrance music. Hulk Hogan is in the Impact Zone! The Hulkster says TNA is kicking with horsepower and then says that since the #1 contender's match ended in a count-out, the main event for Victory Road will now be a 4way match for Rob Van Dam's TNA World Championship. Mr. Dam will be taking on Abyss, Mr. Anderson & Jeff Hardy.
Abyss' music plays and The Monster makes his way down to the ring. I half expect Freddie Prinze Jr. & Jennifer Love Hewitt to show up because it looks like Abyss has modeled his outfit tonite after the killer who knew what they did 13 summers ago. Hulk asks Abyss why he freaked out last week. Abyss says he doesn't think anyone realizes what's going on (not gonna do it… not gonna do it…), and that he assaulted Hardy & Anderson because "They" told him to destroy anything in his path. He says "They're" coming soon, that no one can do anything to stop it. Abyss goes on to say that "They" said he no longer needs Hulk Hogan. Hogan asks who "They" are. Abyss says that he knows, and the rest of us will find out soon enough. He reiterates that he doesn't need Hulk Hogan, that we're all sheep, and to tell Dixie Carter and Eric Bischoff that "They're" going to take over TNA. I know speculation is rampant at this point, but I think that, given the evidence, the "They" Abyss speaks of is none other than the Archies. You heard me.
At this point, Abyss decides that it's chokin' time, and he puts his hands on The Hulkster. Fully bent on asphyxiating Hogan, Abyss removes the Hall of Fame ring and tries shoving it down Hulk's throat. Abyss then goes for his patented Bag O' Glass (now with more Glass!). Before he can toss Hulk into the glass, R.V.D. saves Hogan, only to get chokeslammed for his trouble. Mr. Anderson runs down to make the save with a steel chair. The chair has no effect on Abyss, but it proves to be enough of a distraction for Mr. Anderson to get everybody out of harm's way.
We are then treated to our first commercial break of the evening, which I use to ask my dog, F.R.E.D., if he wants to go outside. F.R.E.D. then spins around in a circle a few times, which we all know is the international sign for, "Yes, I would like to go outside." Try that next time you're in a foreign country that doesn't speak American, like Canada or England.
We're back from commercial and we are treated to a recap to what we just saw, this time with CGI sombreros superimposed. El Monstro Abyss es muy enojado! Next we're whisked backstage where Hogan is conversing with Eric Bischoff. Hulk says that he gave everything he could to Abyss. Bischoff wonders who got to him. Hogan says he doesn't get it. Bischoff said he never thought Abyss would turn on Hogan. Hulk wonders aloud if Flair could be behind it. E-Bisch says he doesn't think so. Gotta admit, the backstage "casual chat caught on a hidden camera" bit is absolutely superb. I enjoy it quite a bit, and think it's a great "reality" accent to help further angles.
We then cut to The Beautiful People, who say Angelina Love is used to being on her back. Madison Rayne says Velvet Sky needs to get her head into the game.
We have our first match of the day, Angelina Love vs Velvet Sky. They show clips of the Leather'n'Lace match gone wrong from 2 months ago. Angelina Love is in charge on the outside for a minute before Velvet regains control and tosses Angelina Love into the stairs in a surprisingly violent-looking move. Mid-Match, Tenay announces that our main even tonite will be Abyss vs Anderson, proving that alliteration is alive and well in Total NonStop Action. Back in the ring, Sky tries to get the pin but to no avail. Angelina Love kicks up her comeback, grabs a chair, kicks Velvet Sky in the face. Sky recovers, sends Love face-first into the canvas. Sky goes for a DDT, which Love reverses into the chair. Velvet Sky wins via disqualification. Angelina Love then taunts Madison Rayne, the TNA Knockouts champion who in no way looks like Rahzar from "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze."
We then go backstage to TNA's secret camera, this time focusing on Jay Lethal, who is getting a visit from his brother. Not sure if they're twins, but they definitely share a resemblance. Please note that I didn't say "They all just look alike." They talk about how big Lethal's match against Ric Flair at Victory Road is. Lots of humility on the part of Lethal, talks about what a great opportunity it is, how happy his parents are. This angle is very well done, very respectful all around. Lethal then tells his brother that there's free food in catering, and off goes the brother. And by brother, I mean sibling of Jay Lethal.
We are then treated to our second commercial break of the evening, which I use to attempt to do 25 squat thrusts. I fall short by about 25 or so.
Impact returns, with Kevin Nash & Eric Young walking down a hallway. They discuss Scott Hall & Sean Waltman, with Nash saying that Young should distance himself from Hall, that while Kevin has 15 years with the guy, he shouldn't get involved. A man-hug ensues.
Back in the Impact Zone, Matt Morgan walks out and we get a recap of last week's low blow on Hernandez during his match with Samoa Joe. Morgan says he told everyone so, that he was going to walk out of Slammiversary victorious and he did. Morgan then calls out Hernandez by telling him to "…put down the burrito" and get down there. I'm choosing to believe that wasn't racist, as I'm puerto-rican & cuban and I fucking love burritos. Anyhoo, Taz tells us that Hernandez is in Mexico drinking tequila and terrorizing the small village of Santo Poco, but Morgan says that Hernandez sweats him. Morgan then announces that at Victory Road he will take on Hernandez in a cage. Just then, Homicide runs in and attacks Matt Morgan. Double M turns the tables on Homicide and in a disturbing bit of ass kickery, kicks Homicide's head into the ringpost. Morgan says Hernandez will receive the same, as in a cage, there's nowhere to hide.
We are then treated to our third commercial break of the evening, which I use to alphabetize my sock drawer. I got up to "S", for "Socks." (that's a Mitch Hedberg homage, kids)
The show is back, and A.J. Styles is backstage with Ric Flair, and apparently a mysterious package has arrived. We can only hope it's a giant wooden crate with "ACME" stamped on it. *crosses fingers*
We jump right into the introductions for match number 2, and it's Kazarian vs Jay Lethal. I like everything about Jay Lethal, and I'm getting very attached to him. Not "Wheeler" attached, but if they were both drag-racing for my affection, I'd be torn as to who I'd want to win. Crowd chants "Let's Go Lethal!" and we're underway. Quick armdrag by Lethal, then Kazarian gets a solid punch in and says "That's for Ric!" Huge slam by Kazarian onto Lethal, followed up by a sick springboard legdrop. We cut backstage to see that Ric Flair & A.J. Styles are beating up Jay Lethal's brother. The mark in me is all riled up, as that isn't cool at all–the beating, not the markingness. Meanwhile, back at ringside, Lethal is unaware of his brother's peril. Lethal is on the offensive with some chops, a clothesline, and a neat handspring back elbow. It's not enough, as Kazarian takes over and attempts a pin which only gets a 2 count. Both men up, and Jay Lethal hits the Lethal Injection out of nowhere for the pin. Lethal rejoices, and Ice Cube sends a C&D letter to Dixie Carter.
Flair shows up on the Impact-O-Screen and continues beating up Lethal's brother. Lethal takes a beat to process and then runs to the back to rescue his sibling. That was friggin' intense. Great segment, and here's to hoping they don't do something goofy like having Brother Lethal turn on Jay. That would make me sad, and now that I've said it… *sigh*
We are then treated to our fourth commercial break of the evening, which is a Sobe commercial featuring Ashley Greene in body paint. This is awesome, as cute girl-next-door brunettes are my kryptonite. Hang on a second, I have to pour a bucket of ice water over my head.
We're back from commercial and I've got water all over the keyboard. Jeff Jarrett is backstage prepping for his match with Sting. We cut back to the announcers, who plug tonite's main event of Abyss vs Mr. Anderson…Anderson…Anderson…Anderson…Anderson… Okay, I'll stop.
Match #3 is upon us, "The Icon" Sting vs Jeff Jarret! Jeff Jarrett comes down to the ring. Sting's music plays but he doesn't come out. Cameras catch Sting up in the rafters and Jarrett is headed to Sting's sanctuary to confront him. Sting meets Jarrett halfway and they brawl on the stairs. Sting and Jarrett make their way to the ring when the ruse is revealed! Jarrett has been fighting a fake Sting the entire time! The Real Sting is in the ring and uses his bat to choke out Jeff Jarrett. With all of the fake Stings throughout the years, I keep waiting for them to use special holograms and watermarks to distinguish the genuine Sting from all the fraudulent ones. Referring to the speech Jarrett gave last week about siding with Hogan, Bischoff, and the TNA Fans, Sting says that if Jarrett is going to walk with them, he's going to go down with them. Pause.
A plug for Bound For Glory 10 is shown, and I'm pretty sure I already saw that flick on an Adult Entertainment Website.
We are then treated to our fifth commercial break of the evening, which turned out to be a three and a half minute clip of Sarah Palin doing fancy pageant walkin'. Well, that and a plug for TNA merchandise. Gotta love the Knock Outs overall Porn-Starriness. I never thought I'd miss silicon enhanced blondes, but I think I did. Also? I think the TNA t-shirts are better looking than their competition's shirts. In my opinion, WWE t-shirts nowadays aren't stuff you can wear to someplace cool and actually LOOK cool. The TNA shirts are more subtle, with better graphics.
The show returns with a recap of the Desmond Wolfe-Kurt Angle feud. This leads to the announcers explaining Kurt Angle's quest to make his way through the Top 10 Contender List, and then the current match: Kurt Angle vs Desmond Wolfe. Wolfe makes his way out with Chelsea. Angle is out next and I'm sorry, but Kurt looks Kreepy. I think it might be an illness or something, but it's a little off-putting. As the match is underway, Mike Tenay asks Taz what the hell is going on. Way to break the fourth wall, Tenay. Reversal of holds to start, along with several shots of Chelsea, who is hot in a "The Hills" kinda way. I'm snapped out of my oogling when Wolfe hits angle with an Aziatic Thrust. Aziatic Thrust? Drink! Wolfe keeps yelling at Chelsea in between working over Angle's arm. Angle regains control of the match and nails an awesome belly to belly overhead suplex. Angle then hits 3 belly to back suplexes. Angle goes for the Olympic, er, Angle Slam. Wolfe reverses and nails Angle with a sick hammerlock-DDT. The crowd, sensing their country's hero is in need of a boost, begins chanting "Federated States of Micronesia!" No, wait, check that. They were chanting "U.S.A.!" Sorry, those two sound so similar. Wolfe sets Angle up for the Tower of London, but angle reverses into an Anglympic Slam, which is followed up by the ankle lock, to which Wolfe taps out. Good match, lots of cool holds, arm attacks, and Chelsea looking hot.
We go to the "reality-cam" backstage with Mr. Anderson talking about injuries at the hands of Abyss. Anderson says he's ready to throw in the face of Abyss anything Abyss might throw at him…off in whose camper they were wacking. Anderson does look like heck.
We are then treated to our 6th commercial break of the evening, which included an advertisement for Sony's 3-D television. Look, I'm all for 3-D movies, and 3-D books, but I don't want to watch television with goofy glasses on. I say we bring back Smell-O-Vision and be done with it.
Impact hath resumed, and we get a Doug Williams video package and highlights of his battles against Kazarian in the X-Division. We come back from the video package to find Williams in the ring, talking about how Brian Kendrick jumped him last week and put him in a submission hold. Williams goes on to say that Kendrick needs to be taught a lesson in professionalism. Williams calls out Kendrick, who saunters down to the ring and says that at Victory Road, the X-Division title will be up for grabs in an Ultimate X match, and that, as an added stipulation, victory can also be attained via submission. I think other sports need stipulations. Like, if the Lakers lost to the Celtics, Ray Allan could've gotten to spend a week with Kobe Bryant's wife, or if the Celts lost, Boston had to leave town and become the Sheboygan, Wisconsin Celtics. Anyway, Williams agrees and says they should just turn and walk away, saving any physicality for Victory Road. Kendrick agrees and, in a shocking turn of events, is then assaulted by that lying liar Williams. Kendrick turns the tables and locks Williams in a submission hold. Williams taps, and two Aesthetically Challenged girls in the audience laugh.
We head backstage to find Abyss lurking in the shadows. Abyss says that soon everybody will realize that what he did he did because "They" told him to do everything he did, and that it'll continue tonite with Mr. Anderson. Abyss says he's paving the way for "Them" (of "They" fame), and that TNA will never be the same. He says there will be no stopping him from doing what "They/Them" want him to do. Okay, that's it. I'm convinced that Abyss and Angelina Love are going to turn into dogs and "They" is Zuul.
We are then treated to our 7th commercial break of the evening. I used this opportunity to sing "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall." I got to 83 bottles before F.R.E.D. threatened to call the A.S.P.C.A. on me.
Impact commences, and Brother Ray is beating up Jesse Neal backstage. Apparently, Brother Ray wanted his girl and Mr. Neal took umbrage, stating "Go somewhere else to find a woman like that." The brawl gets broken up, and Brother Devon asks what Ray's problem is. He says he told Ray to leave the Ink Inc. boys alone and that, on his father's grave, Brother Ray better not test him.
We go to ringside where match #5 is about to get underway. Beer Money is taking on Ink Inc. in the finals of the Tag Team Title series, and the Motor City Machine Guns are on commentary. Neal isn't down at ringside because of the brawl, so Moore goes at it alone, cleaning house. During the action, Raven, Tommy Dreamer, and Stevie Richards make their way to the crowd and take seats. They immediately order hot dogs and beer, and Raven gets cotton candy because school just finished and he got straight A's. Beer Money has Moore on the outside, tosses him into the guardrail and then into the steps. Moore gets tossed into the ring and Neal makes his way down to ringside. Shannon Moore takes more abuse but manages to get the hot tag to Jesse Neal. Hot Tag fun only lasts for a moment because suddenly all four men are in the ring until Moore gets tossed outside. Shades of last week, beer gets spat into the face of Jesse Neal, who gets DWI'd and pinned. Victory Road's tag team championship match will be Beer Money vs the Motor City Machine Guns. The Motor City boys were pretty amusing on commentary.
We cut back to the locker room where Kazarian and A.J. Styles are talking about what happened with Lethal. Styles, looking resplendent in his "What Are You Looking At, Dicknose?" t-shirt, opens up the package that arrived earlier. The contents of the box reveal a major award, he won this! Actually, it's an A.J. Styles action figure. Styles brags about how he's got an action figure. A.J. leaves, and Kazarian tells him to take the doll and go play with himself. Pardon me, I had to laugh at that. Next up is our main event, with Mr. Anderson taking on Abyss in a Fall Count Anywhere, No Disqualification match.
We are now treated to our 8th commercial break of the evening. I used this break in the action to paint my toenails a nice shade of seafoam green.
Impact is back, and we have our main event. It's Abyss vs Mr. Anderson. Abyss makes his way down to the ring while the announcers remind us of the No DQ, Falls Count Anywhere stipulations. We also get a recap of the whoopin' put on Jeff Hardy and Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson is out but doesn't wait for the microphone to drop, he just starts wailing on Abyss. Mr. Anderson stomps on Abyss, but Abyss takes over and chokes Anderson on the ropes. Mike Tenay tells us that Jeff Hardy is not at the arena, as he suffered cracked ribs when he took the chokeslam off the ramp last week. Mr. Anderson battles back with a Lou Thesz press and punches, then rolls outside the ring and asks for a fan's chair. Anderson goes to hit Abyss with the chair, but Abyss punches the chair into Mr. Anderson's face…face. Abyss, Anderson, and the chair are in the ring. Anderson snags Abyss in a drop toe hold, and Abyss goes face-first into the chair. Anderson hits Abyss in the back with the chair but only gets a two count as a result. Anderson sets the chair up in the corner, tries to toss Abyss into it, only to have Abyss reverse the irish whip. Anderson slides under the ropes and then rolls under the ring.
Anderson crawls out from under the ring with a Kendo Stick, and then pummels Abyss with it. Anderson goes for the homerun swing, but Abyss moves out of the way and then takes over. Abyss chokes Mr. Anderson, then irish whips him into the ramp. Abyss goes to expose the concrete and chokeslam Anderson onto it but Anderson evades. Abyss puts Mr. Anderson into the ring. Abyss sends Mr. Anderson to the canvas, then places the chair on his chest. Abyss goes for a seated splash, but Mr. Anderson lifts the chair up sideways, right into Abyss' junk. There will be no lovin' in the Abyss household tonite! Anderson goes up to the top rope and attempts a SwanTon Bomb in honor of Jeff Hardy, but Abyss gets his knees up. Abyss throws Mr. Anderson into the chair he set up in the corner earlier in the match. Abyss then his the Shock Treatment backbreaker on Mr. Anderson and gets the pin.
Post-match, Abyss throws Anderson outside. Anderson tries to crawl away but Abyss catches him. Mr. Anderson regains control and goes to Mic Check Abyss off the ramp. Abyss blocks it and then chokeslams Mr. Anderson off the stage. Hulk Hogan comes out with a chair and slams it into Abyss' back. Abyss is unfazed and then tosses out the security that have come to keep Abyss from Hogan. Abyss points at Hogan and yells "YOUUUU!"
Tenay wonders who can stop Abyss, and the show draws to a close. All in all, an entertaining show. Forward progress on the angles from last week, nice and linear. There is still plenty of time for the wheels to come off, but you have to start somewhere, and the last 2 editions of Impact have been very solid.
This has been Suspension of Disbelief. Thanks for tuning in.
Rey Mundo is new to the Internet Wrestling Community, but he makes up for his newness with moxie, gumption, and, when appropriate, masculine sass. Also, "Masculine Sass" would make a great name for a cologne.
Tags: Abyss, beer money, desmond wolfe, Hulk Hogan, Jay Lethal, Kurt Angle, mr anderson, Ric Flair, Sting, TNA, tna impact, TNA Wrestling
reythehussein


We would love to welcome you to our campus to meet our teachers and see our classrooms in action. Schedule a personal tour and get all your questions answered by school leaders.
At Monarch, we strive to provide every opportunity for excellence, including our youngest students. Our Early Education students are experiencing hands-on, interactive learning every day. We know that kids learn by doing, so we offer opportunities to explore, create, and engage their minds all throughout the day.
Through our motto, Honor God, Pursue Excellence, Monarch students are taught the value and implementation of critical thinking, core character values, and to live a life that honors the Lord. MCS students are taught and encouraged to write cohesively and coherently, read critically & fluently and question thoughtfully.
Given from a desire for quality education, and to further the Kingdom of God, your gifts can help provide not only improved academic programs and facilities, but also give the school a margin of excellence.


I chose this grey long sleeve V-Neck sweater with solid pattern. I combined it with black leggings, black booties, orange bag, brown sunglasses and silver necklace. The sweater is of high quality, the size fits from S-L (it's One Size) and the length is not too short, not too long to me. Really comfy clothing item for the fall. Currently is sold out, but you will find similar sweaters in this color under my blog post.
I was wondering, how would look the sweater with jeans on me, so I made similar outfit. Which one do you like more? Wit black leggings or with blue ripped jeans?
Because I love Sammydress products, I ordered the orange shoulder bag with zips and solid color design also. It's 3 piece set bag: includes shoulder bag, cross body bag and purse. Very practical set for the woman, what do you think?
Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, Blog, Coupon Codes.
Love this post and these bags… amazing!
Love it :) I like it more with jeans !
Beautiful and stylish look dear!!!!!!