Resume links for wendy enelow

Ratings and impressions for kids

Ratings and impressions for ANTHONY:

Good Name	73%		27%	Bad Name
Masculine	92%		8%	Feminine
Classic	70%		30%	Modern
Mature	66%		34%	Youthful
Formal	68%		32%	Informal
Upperclass	56%		44%	Common
Urban	47%		53%	Natural
Wholesome	65%		35%	Devious
Strong	75%		25%	Delicate
Refined	62%		38%	Rough
Strange	61%		39%	Boring
Simple	54%		46%	Complex
Serious	59%		41%	Comedic
Nerdy	55%		45%	Unintellectual

Based on the responses of 349 people.

Ratings and impressions for ANGELA:

Good Name	75%		25%	Bad Name
Masculine	4%		96%	Feminine
Classic	67%		33%	Modern
Mature	47%		53%	Youthful
Formal	68%		32%	Informal
Upperclass	52%		48%	Common
Urban	29%		71%	Natural
Wholesome	74%		26%	Devious
Strong	47%		53%	Delicate
Refined	74%		26%	Rough
Strange	59%		41%	Boring
Simple	59%		41%	Complex
Serious	59%		41%	Comedic
Nerdy	58%		42%	Unintellectual

Based on the responses of 244 people.

Ratings and impressions for HELEN:

Good Name	74%		26%	Bad Name
Masculine	4%		96%	Feminine
Classic	84%		16%	Modern
Mature	73%		27%	Youthful
Formal	76%		24%	Informal
Upperclass	75%		25%	Common
Urban	21%		79%	Natural
Wholesome	82%		18%	Devious
Strong	63%		37%	Delicate
Refined	82%		18%	Rough
Strange	53%		47%	Boring
Simple	66%		34%	Complex
Serious	75%		25%	Comedic
Nerdy	64%		36%	Unintellectual

Based on the responses of 200 people.

 

Ratings and impressions for SHAWN:

Good Name	73%		27%	Bad Name
Masculine	83%		17%	Feminine
Classic	36%		64%	Modern
Mature	48%		52%	Youthful
Formal	37%		63%	Informal
Upperclass	32%		68%	Common
Urban	39%		61%	Natural
Wholesome	55%		45%	Devious
Strong	68%		32%	Delicate
Refined	40%		60%	Rough
Strange	53%		47%	Boring
Simple	67%		33%	Complex
Serious	45%		55%	Comedic
Nerdy	49%		51%	Unintellectual

Based on the responses of 110 people.

translation zt

sporting house 妓院（不是"体育室"） -

dead president 美钞（上印有总统头像）（并非"死了的总统"） -

lover 情人（不是"爱人"）

busboy 餐馆勤杂工（不是"公汽售票员"）

busybody 爱管闲事的人（不是"大忙人"）

dry goods （美）纺织品；（英）谷物（不是"干货"）

heartman 换心人（不是"有心人"） -

mad doctor 精神病科医生（不是"发疯的医生"）

eleventh hour 最后时刻（不是"十一点"） -

blind date （由第三者安排的）男女初次会面（并非"盲目约会"或"瞎约会"） -

personal remark 人身攻击（不是"个人评论"） -

sweet water 淡水（不是"糖水"或"甜水"） -

confidence man 骗子（不是"信得过的人"） -

criminal lawyer 刑事律师（不是"犯罪的律师"） -

service station 加油站（不是"服务站"） -

rest room 厕所（不是"休息室"） -

dressing room 化妆室（不是"试衣室"或"更衣室"） -

horse sense 常识（不是"马的感觉"） -

capital idea 好主意（不是"资本主义思想"） -

familiar talk 庸俗的交谈（不是"熟悉的谈话"）

black tea 红茶（不是"黑茶"） -

black art 妖术（不是"黑色艺术"） -

black stranger 完全陌生的人（不是"陌生的黑人"） -

white coal （作动力来源用的）水（不是"白煤"） -

white man 忠实可靠的人（不是"皮肤白的人"） -

yellow book 黄皮书（法国政府报告书，以黄纸为封）（不是"黄色书籍"） -

red tape 官僚习气（不是"红色带子"） -

green hand 新手（不是"绿手"） -

blue stocking 女学者、女才子（不是"蓝色长统袜"） -

China policy 对华政策（不是"中国政策"） -

Chinese dragon 麒麟（不是"中国龙"） -

American beauty 一种玫瑰，名为"美国丽人"（不是"美国美女"） -

English disease 软骨病（不是"英国病"） -

Indian summer 愉快宁静的晚年（不是"印度的夏日"） -

Greek gift 害人的礼品（不是"希腊礼物"） -

Spanish athlete 吹牛的人（不是"西班牙运动员"） -

French chalk 滑石粉（不是"法国粉笔"） -

-

-

pull one's leg 开玩笑（不是"拉后腿"） -

in one's birthday suit 赤身裸体（不是"穿着生日礼服"） -

eat one's words 收回前言（不是"食言"） -

an apple of love 西红柿（不是"爱情之果"） -

handwriting on the wall 不祥之兆（不是"大字报"） -

bring down the house 博得全场喝彩（不是"推倒房子"） -

have a fit 勃然大怒（不是"试穿"） -

make one's hair stand on end 令人毛骨悚然--恐惧（不是"令人发指----气愤"） -

be taken in 受骗，上当（不是"被接纳"） -

think a great deal of oneself 高看或看重自己（不是"为自己想得很多"） -

pull up one's socks 鼓起勇气（不是"提上袜子"） -

have the heart to do （用于否定句）忍心做......不是"有心做"或"有意做"） -

-

-What a shame! 多可惜！真遗憾！（不是"多可耻"） -

You don't say! 是吗！（不是"你别说"） -

You can say that again! 说得好！（不是"你可以再说一遍"） -

I haven't slept better. 我睡得好极了。（不是"我从未睡过好觉"） -

You can't be too careful in your work. 你工作越仔细越好。（不是"你工作不能太仔细"） -

It has been 4 years since I smoked. 我戒烟４年了。（不是"我抽烟4年了"） -

All his friends did not turn up. 他的朋友没全到。（不是"他的朋友全没到"） -

People will be long forgetting her. 人们在很长时间内会记住她的。（不是"人们会永远忘记她"） -

He was only too pleased to let them go. 他很乐意让他们走。（不是"他太高兴了，不愿让他们走"） -

It can't be less interesting. 它无聊极了。（不是"它不可能没有趣"）

Before Writing the Review zt

• Before
  

  　　To which manuscript category does this manuscript, best conform?
  　　Are there any potential biases in reviewing this manuscript?
  　　Does the manuscript address an important problem?
  　　Has the manuscript been previously published?
  　　
  

• The Abstract
  　　Does the Abstract appropriately summarize the manuscript?
  　　Are there discrepancies between the Abstract and the remainder of the manuscript?
  　　Can the Abstract be understood without reading the manuscript?
  　　
  
• The Introduction
  　　Is the Introduction concise?
  　　Is the purpose of the study clearly defined?
  　　Do the authors provide a rationale for performing the study based on a review of the medical literature? If so, is it of the appropriate length?
  　　Do the authors define terms used in the remainder of the manuscript?
  　　If this manuscript is Original Research, is there a well-defined hypothesis?
  　　
  
• The Methods Section
  　　Could another investigator reproduce the study using the methods as outlined or are the methods unclear?
  　　Do the authors justify any choices available to them in their study design (e.g., choices of imaging techniques, analytic tools, or statistical methods)?
  　　If the authors have stated a hypothesis, have they designed methods that could reasonably allow their hypothesis to be tested?
  　　
  
• The Results Section
  　　Are the results clearly explained?
  　　Does the order of presentation of the results parallel the order of presentation of the methods?
  　　Are the results reasonable and expected, or are they unexpected?
  　　Are there results that are introduced that are not preceded by an appropriate discussion in the Methods section
  
• The Discussion Section
  　　Is the discussion concise? If not, how should it be shortened?
  　　If a hypothesis was proposed, do the authors state whether it was verified or falsified? Alternatively, if no hypothesis was proposed, do the authors state whether their research question was answered?
  　　Are the authors' conclusions justified by the results found in the study?
  　　If there are unexpected results, do the authors adequately account for them?
  　　Do the authors note limitations of the study? Are there additional limitations that should be noted?
  
• Figures and Graphs
  　　Are the figures and graphs appropriate and are they appropriately labeled? Would a different figure better illustrate the findings?
  　　Do the figures and graphs adequately show the important results?
  　　Do arrows need to be added to depict important or subtle findings?
  　　Do the figure legends provide a clear explanation that allows the figures and graphs to be understood without referring to the remainder of the manuscript?
  　　
  
• Tables
  　　If there are tables, do they appropriately describe the results? Should one or more tables be added?
  
• The References Section
  　　Does the reference list follow the format for the journal?
  　　Does the reference list contain errors?
  　　Have the authors appropriately represented the salient points in the articles in the reference list? Alternatively, have the authors misquoted the references?
  　　Are there important references that are not mentioned that should be noted?
  　　Are there more references than are necessary?
  　　
  
• Summary Opinion
  　 　The reviewer should provide a short paragraph that summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. The actual Recommendation (e.g., recommend to Accept, Accept Pending Revisions, Reconsider After Major Revisions, or Reject) should not be stated in this paragraph, which is sent to the authors, but should be indicated separately in the drop-down list. It may also be stated in the separate box called "Confidential Note to the Editor." However, the overall tenor of this paragraph should support the reviewer's recommendation.

Zero subtraction from a Matrix in Matlab

A=[2 1 0 7 0 1 0 3 4 8 7 5 0 2];
A(A==0)=[];

Team Umizoomi Lyrics

Calling all Umis
Umizoomie!
1 2 3 4
Umi! Zoomi! Umi!
Umizoomi umizoomi
In a world that's not so far away
Umi-city
You can count on us to save the day
Umizoomi Umizoomi
We can better
Build it together
You can help us your so clever
We've got mighty
Math powers
You can call us any hour

Lala lala lala
We are a tiny team
Lala lala lala
We go behind the scenes
Lala lala lala
There's nothing we can't do
Millie, Geo, Bot and you!

That's it for the main theme…here's their "Powers Theme"

I'm Millie
I can make any pattern with my dress
Patterns of butterflies
Pattern power!

I'm Geo
I can build anything,
with my shapes
Triangle! Oval! Super-shapes!

I'm Bot
I can show you anything
On my belly belly belly screen
Skyscraper! Taxi! Traffic light!

Umi-friend, that's you.
You've got might math powers too
Countdown with me
Start with 5!
5 4 3 2 1
You've got mighty math powers
Mighty mighty math powers
You've got 'em
You've got mighty math powers
Team Umizoomi, ready for action!

Difference between Continuum Damage Mechanics approach and Fracture Mechanics approach (zz)

 

http://imechanica.org/node/2988

In Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM), cracks occur at a level and number such that they are modeled as smeared out continuously. In Fracture Mechanics (FM) some small number of cracks are considered which are of size of the scale of interest. To generalise, CDM is useful to model the degradation of a mechanical body leading up to macrocracks and FM is useful for modeling the mechanical body after cracks on the scale of the structure have formed.

In CDM, the engineer imagines that some of the material has become ineffective at resisting loads. For example, if 20% of the material in the cross-section of a bar has become ineffective at resisting loads and the remaining 80% of the material still behaves as the material normally would, CDM would analyse as though the bar is a normal bar with a full area of material with 80% of the strength and stiffness of the real material. This is extended to multiple dimensions.

In FM, some crack is analysed. Its geometry is important and affects the behaviour of the structure. Traditionally small numbers (think on the order of one) of cracks could be analysed, though modern computational methods allow the engineer to model many cracks. Often the cracks in FM are too large to model as though they were smeared out.

I hope this has helped you with your understanding somewhat.