The newest excuse: Eskimo heritage
z
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/436522/jonathan-vaughters-on-the-enigmatic-tom-danielson.html
Wouldn't Eskimo heritage give immunity against parasites?
Anton Berlin
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/436522/jonathan-vaughters-...
>
> Wouldn't Eskimo heritage give immunity against parasites?
Sounds like Tom is prone to blow a seal from time to time.
Kyle Legate
>
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/436522/jonathan-vaughters-on-the-enigmatic-tom-danielson.html
>
>
>
> Wouldn't Eskimo heritage give immunity against parasites?
Why? Eskimo's aren't exposed to many parasites.
z
Perhaps not so much in today's world but since we are talking about
Eskimo genetic heritage, they used to eat a lot of raw meats.
Keith
>Kyle Legate wrote:
>> z wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/436522/jonathan-vaughters-on-the-enigmatic-tom-danielson.html
Very interesting, makes you hope the guy will have a great 2010
season.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
I've never read anything about seals being into oral sex.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/436522/jonathan-vaughters-...
>
Dumbass -
The fat storage thing makes sense for Eskimos.
Bob Schwartz
No one has taken hope for a ride like TD.
Bob Schwartz
Anton Berlin
Finally.... someone caught the reference. You're alright HC.
Donald Munro
>> Sounds like Tom is prone to blow a seal from time to time.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
> I've never read anything about seals being into oral sex.
<http://goodnature.nathab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Male-Elephant-Seal.jpg>
Scott
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/436522/jonathan-vaughters-...
>
Seems like an odd conclusion, in that traditional Eskimo diet has lots
of fat in it, but essentially no carbohydrate. From that I'd think
it much more likely he'd be predisposed to burn fat, not store it,
since his ancestors burned fat as fuel out of necessity. Certainly
wouldn't think he'd be predisposed to burn sugar over fat.
Their solution to have him switch over to a primarily protein/fat diet
while training sounds an awful lot like plenty of other riders'
techniques to prefer fat over carbs as fuel and none that I've seen
have claimed Eskimo heritage. BTW, what combination of parentage
results in 20% Eskimo? Anyone know how TD comes to be 20% Eskimo?
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
After ruminating on it for about 30 seconds, exactly 20% does seem to
be mathematically impossible.
Could be wrong though.
Amit Ghosh
dumbass,
i spent and inordinate amount of time thinking about this. 20% is a
weird fraction, but even if it's not exactly possible you could still
devise some construction that comes arbitrarily close.
for example if he has a grandparent that's 75% eskimo he would be
18.75% eskimo. if he has another grandparent that was 12.5% (1/8th)
eskimo he would be another 3.125% eskimo. if he had a grandparent that
was 1/16th (6.25%) eskimo he would be another 1.5% eskimo, and so
forth. 18.75+1.5 = 20.25% which is already pretty close.
Donald Munro
> i spent and inordinate amount of time thinking about this. 20% is a
> weird fraction, but even if it's not exactly possible you could still
> devise some construction that comes arbitrarily close.
50/50 is much easier.
Michael Press
<ea720961-3ca1-419a...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Scott <hendric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30 2009, 10:40 am, z <N...@not.ca> wrote:
> > http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/436522/jonathan-vaughters-...
> >
> > Wouldn't Eskimo heritage give immunity against parasites?
>
> Seems like an odd conclusion, in that traditional Eskimo diet has lots
> of fat in it, but essentially no carbohydrate. From that I'd think
> it much more likely he'd be predisposed to burn fat, not store it,
> since his ancestors burned fat as fuel out of necessity. Certainly
> wouldn't think he'd be predisposed to burn sugar over fat.
Farley Mowat is a biologist and naturalist. Among his
many published works is _Never_Cry_Wolf_. He recounts
time spent among Inuits. In midwinter diving into a
double handful of blubber is more satisfying than a
watermelon in midsummer.
Look him up on Wikipedia. A remarkable man.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<33ef4473-15d8-4938...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Your sense is right.
1 1 1
--- = -- x -------- = 1/4 - 1/16 + 1/64 - 1/256 + ...
5 4 1
1 + ---
4
This is how to find 1/5 inch on a scale
that is marked in dyadic fractions of an inch.
1/3 = 1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + ...
--
Michael Press
bar
> In article
> <33ef4473-15d8-4938-9e27-ed696f472...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
"I suppose this is to protect against arctic winds,"
yeh whatever. puff all the smoke and bullshit you want ... he just
isn't a great cyclist. at best, he's talented pack fill. maybe he
should try triathlon?
-b-
Phil H
>
> - Show quoted text -
1/5 is close to 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/128 + 1/256
That's a 3/4 grandparent + a 3/64 grandparent
Phil H
Scott
You know, if he has a grandparent that's 3/4 Eskimo, you'd think he'd
be more 'pro-Eskimo'.
A. Dumas
> On Jan 2, 3:20 pm, Michael Press wrote:
>> "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni." wrote:
>>> On Jan 1, 2:48 pm, Scott wrote:
>>>> BTW, what combination of parentage
>>>> results in 20% Eskimo? Anyone know how TD comes to be 20% Eskimo?
>>>
>>> be mathematically impossible.
>>> Could be wrong though.
>>
>> Your sense is right.
>>
>> 1 1 1
>> --- = -- x -------- = 1/4 - 1/16 + 1/64 - 1/256 + ...
>> 5 4 1
>> 1 + ---
>> 4
>>
>> This is how to find 1/5 inch on a scale
>> that is marked in dyadic fractions of an inch.
>>
>> 1/3 = 1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + ...
>
>
> That's a 3/4 grandparent + a 3/64 grandparent
Easy. Sixteen generations ago 13107 Eskimos all had babies with
non-Eskimos. Those babies kept breeding, but never again with Eskimos,
and finally produced Tom Danielson who is 13107/65536 or 19.999695 part
Eskimo. Let's call it 20%.
A. Dumas
> Easy. Sixteen generations ago 13107 Eskimos all had babies with
> non-Eskimos. Those babies kept breeding, but never again with Eskimos,
> and finally produced Tom Danielson who is 13107/65536 or 19.999695 part
> Eskimo. Let's call it 20%.
Sorry, 19.9996948242188%.
Henry
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/436522/jonathan-vaughters-...
>
Atkins Diet ?
Ryan Cousineau
"A. Dumas" <alex...@dumas.fr> wrote:
Thanks, Dumas. Now I will never again be able to hear of Tom Danielson
without thinking of his 13107 Eskimo ancestors.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
> On Jan 2, 12:44 pm, "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni."
>
>
>
>
>
> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 2:48 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 30 2009, 10:40 am, z <N...@not.ca> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/436522/jonathan-vaughters-...
>
> > > > Wouldn't Eskimo heritage give immunity against parasites?
>
> > > Seems like an odd conclusion, in that traditional Eskimo diet has lots
> > > of fat in it, but essentially no carbohydrate. From that I'd think
> > > it much more likely he'd be predisposed to burn fat, not store it,
> > > since his ancestors burned fat as fuel out of necessity. Certainly
> > > wouldn't think he'd be predisposed to burn sugar over fat.
>
> > > Their solution to have him switch over to a primarily protein/fat diet
> > > while training sounds an awful lot like plenty of other riders'
> > > techniques to prefer fat over carbs as fuel and none that I've seen
> > > have claimed Eskimo heritage. BTW, what combination of parentage
> > > results in 20% Eskimo? Anyone know how TD comes to be 20% Eskimo?
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > After ruminating on it for about 30 seconds, exactly 20% does seem to
> > be mathematically impossible.
>
> dumbass,
>
> i spent and inordinate amount of time thinking about this. 20% is a
> weird fraction, but even if it's not exactly possible you could still
> devise some construction that comes arbitrarily close.
<snip>
Dumbass -
I was thinking of exactly 20.000%
We have to deal with quite a bit of "power of 2" division in machining
because of fractions of inches, like 9/16 tubing is 0.5625 inches. Got
all that stuff memorized and in all these years it seems like as the
fractions get smaller and smaller, they get less and less "round".
It's probably just an artifact of the power of 2 vs. the power of 10.
They're gonna diverge more and more as you get smaller and smaller.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
Interesting. Dyadic eh?
Where'd you learn that?
bjwe...@gmail.com
> In article <4b43f052$0$22917$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl>,
Look at it this way: we've finally discovered something
about Tom Danielson interesting enough to warrant
an extended RBR thread.
2^10 = 1024, so if you want to make a reasonably
close approximation to a decimal fraction out of powers
of 2, you can figure out what X in X/1024 you need, and
then compose it out of powers of 2. For example,
20% is quite close to (but not exactly) 205/1024, and
you can add some unique combination of powers of 2
up to get 205 = (128 + 64 + 8 + 4 + 1). So 20% is very
close to (128 + 64 + 8 + 4 + 1)/1024, or
1/8 + 1/16 + 1/128 + 1/256 + 1/1024. We can give
Danielson a break on the 1/1024, he probably doesn't
know his family tree that far back - but if you were machining
to tolerances of 1 mil, it might be worth knowing about.
Ben
Ryan Cousineau
<97aaff81-d38a-4cc1...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought A. Dumas' advice on coaching women was going to get this award
today, but now I think you have written the best rbr sentence of the
decade (so far).
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"It's despicable, but it works." -A. Dumas
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
> Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 30 2009, 10:40 am, z <N...@not.ca> wrote:
> > >http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/436522/jonathan-vaughters-...
>
> > > Wouldn't Eskimo heritage give immunity against parasites?
>
> > Seems like an odd conclusion, in that traditional Eskimo diet has lots
> > of fat in it, but essentially no carbohydrate. From that I'd think
> > it much more likely he'd be predisposed to burn fat, not store it,
> > since his ancestors burned fat as fuel out of necessity. Certainly
> > wouldn't think he'd be predisposed to burn sugar over fat.
>
> Farley Mowat is a biologist and naturalist. Among his
> many published works is _Never_Cry_Wolf_. He recounts
> time spent among Inuits. In midwinter diving into a
> double handful of blubber is more satisfying than a
> watermelon in midsummer.
Dumbass -
That was a good movie too.
Amit Ghosh
> In midwinter diving into a
> double handful of blubber is more satisfying than a
> watermelon in midsummer
dumbass,
it's pretty satisfying in the summer too.
Donald Munro
>> In midwinter diving into a
>> double handful of blubber is more satisfying than a
>> watermelon in midsummer
Amit Ghosh wrote:
> it's pretty satisfying in the summer too.
heather
> 1/8+1/16+1/228+1/256+...
1/128 dammit! I should have just copied and pasted what Ben wrote...
heather
>
> Look at it this way: we've finally discovered something
> about Tom Danielson interesting enough to warrant
> an extended RBR thread.
Yes! I've always felt guilty about not knowing anything about him. I
feel like I should know something! But even I, in the last hour, went to
wikipedia and read up on partial sums of geometric series, in spite of
this migraine headache, mainly due to henry's posts. Now I have a
migraine and henry-itis. I even rewrote Press's expression for 1/5 as
1/8+1/16+1/228+1/256+... and added some of parial sums up just to prove
to myself that it works (because you can't trust math after the age of
40, unless you've stayed in touch with it). Then I came and saw your
post about finally finding something interesting about Danielson and I
laughed :)
h
(1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+1/64+... dumbass)
A. Dumas
> 20% is quite close to (but not exactly) 205/1024, and
> you can add some unique combination of powers of 2
> up to get 205 = (128 + 64 + 8 + 4 + 1). So 20% is very
> close to (128 + 64 + 8 + 4 + 1)/1024, or
> 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/128 + 1/256 + 1/1024.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world.
Donald Munro
>> 1/8+1/16+1/228+1/256+...
>
> 1/128 dammit! I should have just copied and pasted what Ben wrote...
Next shew* the negative of the above using two's complement.
* I once had a textbook first printed in 1910 (on analytic geometry I
think) which actually used the word shew.
Michael Press
<dd4117a0-ef30-4897...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Phil H <phol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1/5 is close to 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/128 + 1/256
>
> That's a 3/4 grandparent + a 3/64 grandparent
Yes, better is
1 3 1
--- = --- x --------- = 3/16 + 3/256 + ...
5 16 1
1 - ---
16
For UNIX dweebs
$ dc -e '10k2o 1 5/p'
.0011001100110011001100110011001100
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<77512d05-8321-4724...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Dumbass -
>
> Interesting. Dyadic eh?
>
> Where'd you learn that?
Secondary school and self-study at that time for all.
The theory of geometric series,
the application to common inch scales,
and the word 'dyadic'.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<d4e41889-e600-4ac7...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
"Kurgan. presented by Gringioni." <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Did not know there is a movie.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<97aaff81-d38a-4cc1...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
The theory goes like this.
Propositon: If q is an odd integer then there is a
least positive integer r such that 2^r = 1 (modulo q).
That is 2^r - 1 = m.q for some integer m.
When q = 5, then r = 4, m = 3: 2^4 - 1 = 3 x 5.
So we have
1 1 2^r 1
--------- = --------- = ----- ---
1 m.q m q
1 - --- ----
2^r 2^r
Hence
1 m 1 m
--- = --- x --------- = --- ( 1 + 2^{-r} + 2^{-2r} + 2^{-3r} + ...
q 2^r 1 2^r
1 - ---
2^r
This is the theory. To find r and m,
we ultimately have to do long division.
There is more theory to shorten the list
of candidates for r.
This all works if 2 is replaced by 10 (decimal fractions)
or any positive integer > 1.
--
Michael Press