But, using the same open, high, low, close price data available to all traders using all kinds of charts and methods, candlesticks will provide you with a better visual picture of what is happening in a market during a specific period of time. With a clearer view of the dynamics of market movement within that period, you can interpret traders’ reactions to various price levels and make decisions about how you might respond to what the charts are telling you.
Candlesticks are a relatively new approach to Western traders, but the speed at which they have become perhaps the most popular way to look at markets and charts today attests to the value traders have found in them. For many traders who have become familiar with the various candlestick patterns and the nuances of each of them, there will be no going back to the traditional old bar charts any time soon.
Like any other aspect of trading, using candlestick charts won’t guarantee profits or instant trading success. You will still have to do your analytical work when you use candlesticks, you will still have to make tough trading decisions, you will still have to manage your trades and your account carefully to avoid risks or exposure beyond your capability to control it.
Trading Forex using Binary Options
The drawings are pretty close to what we taught. The only added information had to do with the third and fourth options on each style of block. First, if on Zorro or Zulu our blocker has only #4 to block, then he is encouraged to combo on from there to any linebacker that shows up in the 1 or 3 area. For the Outside Zone Blocks, if the teammate stepping in front of you gets to #3 first, OR you can’t get to your target in four steps, then climb to the #4 area and cut someone off.
So I did what I usually do, and simplified it down to make up my own system. I wanted our linemen to be sure of what they were supposed to do, and get there quickly and aggressively. From day one we began describing just four blocks to our third grade linemen:
I found out during the summer of 2015 that of our sixteen 2nd grade players, three had moved out of the area, and four had chosen to do other sports (three soccer, one fall baseball.) It isn’t unusual to have some turnover from first year football players, but having 20% move out of area was pretty bad luck. In addition, three of our four assistant coaches were now out of the area or otherwise unable to coach. However, we added eight new kids to roster, and two of them came with dads that would help coach. In e-mail exchanges and at the pre-season meeting I held, we all talked about our goals for offense, and my desire to get our O linemen faster to their blocks and more certain of their assignments. We determined that our backs would likely be better than they’d been.
Finally, I was not satisfied with the way our linemen were getting off the ball. I thought that some of that problem was due to the complexity of the rules that the linemen were expected to follow. There were just too many conditional statements to process for a young kid before the snap. I knew that all our offensive linemen were actually pretty good, and that they should have been better than they were. So that really disappointed me, because that meant their struggles were really MY fault.
For our purposes, we only used the B step and C step. The Zorro and Zulu blocks used the B step. The Oreos and Olives blocks used the C step. We worked on the two B steps and the two C steps at every practice. When we did the step and block drills at practice, we’d start with one step, then go to two steps, then go to live blocking. During the one-step and two-step drills we would work on stances, get off, and body position at the step. We worked on six inch first steps, and how wide to open that first foot. For Zorro and Zulu, the distance of the second step would vary based on the Responsibility. For Oreos and Olives, our second step could cross over if we hadn’t reached our responsibility yet.
Those have been our rules – we always “protect the mesh”. Not everybody does it quite that way, but that has worked for us pretty well for fourth graders and older.
Target means our aiming point for blocking contact. For Zorro and Zulu the target is the Direction half of the defender (as we look at him) struck with the opposite hand. For example, in Zone Left (Zulu) if our lineman identifies based on Responsibility that he will probably be blocking jersey #61, he aims for the 6 on the front of the player’s jersey, and tries to get it with his right hand. For Oreos and Olives, our linemen are trying to get the far side shoulder of their opponent with their own near side forearm, make contact, and then (in most cases) climb. So for Oreos (Outside Right Zone) if our right tackle has identified a six technique to his right as his likely block, then he is trying to get his own left forearm on the 6 tech’s outside shoulder to pin him inside. We teach that if he can’t get to him in four steps to pin him, then to just drive him on in the direction that he is running away.
* Playside Guard’s first Step for Midline is toward the center, but he dips shoulder to skip a head up dive key if possible. If head-up crosses inside we block him down. º Playside Tackle has a Zone block inside – but skips the B gap player if he is the dive key. ** Playside Tackle’s has a Zone block on any head up player, but he skips the closest outside overhang, who is the dive read for this play.
Email Processing jobs system Legitimate work from home job 2017
Exactly 6 surgical technologist schools in California have Youtube channels. On average, each of these schools has 9 Youtube channel subscribers. The California surgical technologist schools with the greatest number of Youtube channel subscribers are:
Exactly 10 surgical technologist schools in California have Facebook pages. On average, each of these schools has 891 "likes" on their Facebook pages. The California surgical technologist schools with the greatest number of "likes" are:
And the California surgical technologist school website that is considered the most authoritative by SEOMoz belongs to Fresno City College. It has a SEOMoz Page Authority rank of 60.5.
There are a total of 22 surgical technologist schools in California state. With 25,511 students, Fresno City College is the largest surgical technologist school in the state of California.
Make money from home: working at home ideas - Saga
The income potential of trading forex and CFDs is not that different from trading the emini S&P (see Day Trading Income Potential For Index Trader) with similar trading capital. The difference, however, lies in the transition issue mentioned above.
Wow! This is highly insightful,truly encouraging and timely information for me. It has strengthened my hope and solidified my resolve to trade the Forex market rightly and profitably. Thanks a great deal Lawrence Chan.
This is the power of scalability. The very same trading strategy that generates only $6 per trade on average in the beginning can also generate $264 per trade on average when it is executed with position size of $132,000 instead of the original $3,000. A position size of $132,000 is not a big one in the forex markets at all. Moving positions of size $300,000 to $500,000 is also not a problem during busy market hours. Beyond that, you will have to think about your impact on the market with your orders in illiquid conditions.
Why diversify from a winning strategy when it is working so well?
Consider the transition from the small account size (less than $50,000) to reasonable account size or trading capital (up to about $200,000) as the bottleneck period, it is the the most likely time when a good trader who can turn, say, a $5,000 account, into $30,000 in months, going busted in just a few weeks. A trader who can run the account up 6 times the initial capital is not stupid. The trader obviously has done something right. The problem, however, is that along the way in accumulating the capital, unlike playing pokers, the trader can easily deviate from his original working strategy to optimize for the current market environment.
In this case, those poker players are doing the same thing like the forex and CFD traders who raise their position size significantly disregarding the risk of losing everything in the trading accounts. If things work out, of course, the trader would be looking at a significant boost in the available capital to trade with. Well, if things do not work out in the trader’s favour, this trader has to start all over again.
Amazon FBA and Ecommerce
How to Make Money Working at Home: Income Earning Ideas - One Hundred Dollars a Month
HOW TO ANSWER THE MONEY QUESTION? There are two basic approaches to this question. A logical, or theoretical approach; and a practical approach based on experience- on the facts- what is called an empirical approach. This last was Van Buren’s favored method: “…experience, the only unerring test…”, he wrote. In the field of money this factual approach relies on history, since that’s where mankind’s experience with money is found! We also have memories of our own experiences, but the effects of monetary systems often require several generations to become apparent. Keeping in mind that logic can become too divorced from reality, and that experience can be misinterpreted, lets take a look at:
CONFUSION OVER THE NATURE OF MONEY The main explanation is that as a group, the founding fathers didn’t have a good understanding of the nature of money! Sound far-fetched? Well, even today the various schools of economics have not accurately defined, or even agreed on a concept of money. This may be the greatest failure of economics, since money is at the heart of every aspect of it. Economists are still squabbling over the most basic question about money:
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION DOWNPLAYED US EXPERIENCE Yet by the time of the Convention, the great benefits of the Continentals was nearly ignored; along with much of the rest of our hard won monetary experiences. Many wanted to emphasize that the Continentals became worthless; placed all abstract money under that cloud, and rejected the idea of paper money altogether. They ignored the fact that paper money was crucial in giving us a nation; that abstract money usually requires an advanced legal system in place; that the normal method of assuring its acceptability is to allow the taxes to be paid in it. And then there was the little matter of a War against the world’s strongest power! Tom Paine would say it best: “But to suppose as some did, that, at the end of the war, it was to grow into gold or silver or become equal thereto was to suppose that we were to get $200 millions of dollars by going to war, instead of paying the cost of carrying it on.” (p.117) CONVENTION SKIRTS THE MONEY ISSUE The Convention met from May to September, 1787, but the money question was not taken up in earnest until August 16! When we think of the “Founders” at the Convention, we should remember that Jefferson and Paine were not there; and Franklin was so advanced in age that someone else had to deliver his closing speech for him. Van Buren was 6 years old. In addition to ignoring the nations rich practical experience with money, the convention paid little heed to the brilliant writings of John Locke and Benjamin Franklin on money. The delegates didn’t bother to find out why Locke in 1718 wrote: “Observe well these rules: It is a very common mistake to say that money is a commodity … Bullion is valued by its weight … money is valued by its stamp.” Locke viewed money as a pledge for wealth, rather than wealth itself: “For mankind having consented to put an imaginary value upon gold and silver by reason of their durableness, scarcity and not being liable to be counterfeited; have made them by general consent, the common pledges … they having as money, no other value, but as pledges … and they procure what we want or desire only by their quantity, it is evident that the intrinsic value of silver and gold, used in commerce is nothing but their quantity.” They didn’t consider the reasons Ben Franklin gave in his 1729 “Modest Inquiry Into The Nature And Necessity Of A Paper Currency, for agreeing with Locke’s view: “Silver and gold…(are) of no certain permanent value…” and “We must distinguish between money as it is bullion, which is merchandise, and as by being coined it is made a currency; for its value as merchandize and its value as a currency are two distinct things …” THE ABUSE OF MONETARY THEORY Unfortunately the delegates were more influenced by a crude and primitive theory which heavily supported the Bank of England, and contained several crucial monetary errors, which tended to “legitimize” the Bank’s system of finance. This theory of money was part of Adam Smith’s WEALTH OF NATIONS, published in 1776, and quoted by delegates to the Convention. Smith wrote very little about money, but his monetary mistakes and inconsistencies have had such a bad effect an mankind’s money systems, that we’ll devote a full chapter to him later. His book promoted the idea that only gold and silver are money, and never mentions the legal concept of money, as put forward by the philosophers and jurists Bishop Berkeley, John Locke, Julius Paulus, Plato, Aristotle, and others. In 1786, anticipating the Convention, a very curious book, “ESSAYS ON MONEY” was published anonymously in the US Its entire thrust was to “theoretically” attack the idea of government paper money: “State bills are an absurd form of money and not money at all.” Why? – no answer. It turned out to be written by the Clergyman, John Witherspoon. Referring to Locke and Franklin’s views, he misrepresented their point on money, saying: “They seem to deny the intrinsic value of gold and silver.” Discussion? – none. Then, using a rhetorical device, he stated some arguments for government paper money, and stonewalled them, pretending they didn’t matter. Concerning those with personal knowledge of some of the colonies paper money systems: “We are told by persons of good understanding that (paper money) contributed to (the colonies) growth and improvement.” Rebuttal ? – none. Concerning the fall of the Continental Currency: “(Some say it was due to the) Counterfeiting … of our enemies”. Disagreement? No germane discussion. THE BANKERS UNDERSTOOD Those delegates who understood money were mainly the bankers, Hamilton, and Robert Morris. Both had attempted to set up private banks to issue money, since 1779, even before the revolution was won. They didn’t want the Nation to have the money power because their intention was to assume that power themselves – to take it from the nation, as had been done in England. This would soon be demonstrated, when as Van Buren tells us Hamilton and his associates put forward “a funding system, upon the English plan, … as the first great measure of the new government…” “TO EMIT BILLS OF CREDIT” The coveted monetary power was contained in those 5 “magic” words. They were already in the Articles of Confederation which was being supplanted. They were the authority under which the Continental Currency came to be issued. “To emit bills of credit” is what the various colonies had done when they created their paper moneys. Madison recorded the arguments over this provision: Gov. Morris (Pa.) “The moneyed interest will oppose the plan of government if paper emissions be not prohibited.” Mr.-Mason (Va.) “The late war could not have been carried on had such a prohibition existed.” Mr. Ellsworth (CT.) “By withholding the power from the new government, more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost anything else.” Madison thought the power was needed for emergencies, but wanted to make its acceptability voluntary, not a legal tender. The power to create money, long regarded as a key element of sovereignty, was withheld from the new government by the “Moneyed interest”, while they proclaimed the need to strengthen the national government! They tried to get a clause forbidding it, but failed. the Constitution is silent on the power, neither conferring or forbidding it. What would be the effect of ignoring this power? Delegate Gorham of Massachusetts sluffed it off-. “The power so far as it is necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing.” Really? In other words the government would be forced into borrowing “money’ instead of creating it. The honest patriots would assume that the government would be borrowing physical assets – gold and silver commodities – and paying interest on it. The bankers however, knew that they would soon have the government borrowing paper bills of credit emitted out of thin air by their private bank, and paying interest on it to the bankers, as was being done in England at the time. Their bank would be allowed to do what they had blocked the government from doing – to create paper money – their own bank notes, pretending to back them with gold and silver. The bank would be issuing paper money notes not really backed by metal, but pretending to be redeemable in coinage, on the condition that not a lot of people ask for redemption! So the real question in practice was not whether money was a legal power or a commodity, but whether private banks or the government would be allowed to create paper money. Will the immense power and profit of issuing currency go to the benefit of the whole nation, or to the private bankers? That’s always been the real monetary question in this country.
THE COLONIAL EXPERIENCE WITH MONEY English laws forbade sending coinage to America. She didn’t want the colonies to trade with each other, but to send raw materials back home. The scant coinage in the colonies came mainly from pirates or trade with the Spanish West Indies. The colonists were in dire need of a money system and England refused to provide it, continually placing them in distress. For 10 to 20 years after 1640, more people were going back to England, than were coming here. Out of necessity, the colonies became a kind of monetary laboratory, devising several different monetary solutions. In the”Country pay period” (1632-1692) many agricultural products were legally declared to be money, at values fixed from time to time. But this wasn’t any more efficient than barter everyone wanted to pay with the least desirable commodities, in the worst condition. In 1652 Massachusetts allowed a mint for gold coinage, but the coins quickly found their way back to England, hardly circulating in the colonies. Guarding its monetary prerogative, the Crown called the mint treason, and it was closed. From 1675 to 1739 several privately owned land banks were formed, issuing paper money backed by land. But the colonists shunned this privately issued money, considering that currency should be a function of government, as it was in England until 1694. MASSACHUSETTS PAPER MONEY EXPERIMENT Then in 1690 Massachusetts embarked an a radical experiment, and began to issue “Bills of Credit”; a form of paper money not backed by any physical thing. Rather than a promise to pay any thing, it was a promise to accept the paper bills for all monies due to Massachusetts. At first, this paper was not made a legal tender – that is the people were not forced to accept them, but everyone did and the bills immediately began circulating as money, ending the colony’s distress. This money didn’t flow back to England like the coinage. This worked exceptionally well for two decades, so long as they were not issued in too great a quantity. Other colonies copied Massachusetts, emitting similar bills of credit. Invariably they transformed life in the colonies, improving industry and commerce; building real infrastructure. When the colonial governments authorized the issuance of too many bills – and this sometimes occurred – their value dropped. But when the paper issues were moderate – and there was no exact science to this – they kept their value well. Of great importance is that the colonies did not issue more bills-than-their legislatures authorized. They were learning one of the basic laws governing the value of money; that if too much money is circulating, in relation to the work it has to do, its value will start to decline. PENNSYLVANIA’S PAPER MONEY Pennsylvania, thanks partly to the support of Benjamin Franklin, created a different form of paper money, which was loaned into circulation. In 1723, Pennsylvania was petitioned by a group of merchants to alleviate “the evident decay of the province … for want of a medium to buy and sell with, and praying that a paper currency be established.” A state loan office was created, authorized to loan L15,000 of paper money at 5% interest for 8 years. L250 was the maximum loan and the borrower had to pledge collateral – mostly land, and annually pay the interest and 1/8 of the principal. The results of this circulating medium were so good that more were authorized, and as the loans were repaid, they were loaned out again to others. Pennsylvania used the interest it earned on this paper money, which it created out of thin air, for colonial expenses, thereby reducing taxes. The LORDS OF TRADE AND PLANTATIONS, the British group charged with overseeing the colonies, had sporadically attacked the colonists paper money systems, but in 1763 they passed a general law against all of them, and in so doing, provided one of the main causes of the revolution. CONTINENTAL CURRENCY – LIFEBLOOD OF THE REVOLUTION The skirmishes at Lexington and Concord are considered the start of the Revolt, but the point of no return was probably May 10, 1775 when the Continental Congress assumed the power of sovereignty by issuing its own money. Congress authorized a total of $200 million; and though at first, they had no legal power to do so, had no courts or police, or power to levy taxes; the Continental currency functioned well in the early years and became a crucial part of the revolution. In 1776, it was only at a 5% discount to coinage, when General Howe took over New York city and made it a center for British counterfeiting. Newspaper ads openly offered the forgeries: “Persons going into other colonies may be supplied with any number of counterfeit Congress notes for the price of the paper per ream. They are so neatly executed that there is no risque in getting them off. … Enquire for Q.E.D. at the Coffee House from 11 PM to 4 AM.” Congress did not exceed its authorized issue of $200 million (except to replace worn out notes), but the British certainly did’ We don’t know how much they counterfeited, but it could have been billions; and yet the Continental currency continued to function! In March 1778 after 3 years of war, it was at $2.01 Continental for $1 of coinage. General Henry Clinton complained to Lord George Germaine that “The experiments suggested by your lordships have been tried, no assistance that could be drawn from the power of gold or the arts of counterfeiting have been left untried but still the currency … has not failed.” Finally it did fail, but not before providing the foundation for delivering the nation, carrying the revolution over 5 years to within 6 months of its victory. Thomas Paine wrote: “Every stone in the bridge that has carried us over, seems to have a claim upon our esteem. But this was a corner stone, and its usefulness cannot be forgotten.” (p.116)
Robot dog Spot runs just for kicks
It follows from the last three pairs of axioms above (identity, distributivity and complements), or from the absorption axiom, that
A Boolean algebra with only one element is called a trivial Boolean algebra or a degenerate Boolean algebra. (Some authors require 0 and 1 to be distinct elements in order to exclude this case.)
The term "Boolean algebra" honors George Boole (1815–1864), a self-educated English mathematician. He introduced the algebraic system initially in a small pamphlet, The Mathematical Analysis of Logic, published in 1847 in response to an ongoing public controversy between Augustus De Morgan and William Hamilton, and later as a more substantial book, The Laws of Thought, published in 1854. Boole's formulation differs from that described above in some important respects. For example, conjunction and disjunction in Boole were not a dual pair of operations. Boolean algebra emerged in the 1860s, in papers written by William Jevons and Charles Sanders Peirce. The first systematic presentation of Boolean algebra and distributive lattices is owed to the 1890 Vorlesungen of Ernst Schröder. The first extensive treatment of Boolean algebra in English is A. N. Whitehead's 1898 Universal Algebra. Boolean algebra as an axiomatic algebraic structure in the modern axiomatic sense begins with a 1904 paper by Edward V. Huntington. Boolean algebra came of age as serious mathematics with the work of Marshall Stone in the 1930s, and with Garrett Birkhoff's 1940 Lattice Theory. In the 1960s, Paul Cohen, Dana Scott, and others found deep new results in mathematical logic and axiomatic set theory using offshoots of Boolean algebra, namely forcing and Boolean-valued models.
The set of axioms is self-dual in the sense that if one exchanges ∨ with ∧ and 0 with 1 in an axiom, the result is again an axiom. Therefore, by applying this operation to a Boolean algebra (or Boolean lattice), one obtains another Boolean algebra with the same elements; it is called its dual. 3
do (1), (2), and (4) form a basis for Boolean algebra? Calling (1), (2), and (4) a Robbins algebra, the question then becomes: Is every Robbins algebra a Boolean algebra? This question (which came to be known as the Robbins conjecture) remained open for decades, and became a favorite question of Alfred Tarski and his students. In 1996, William McCune at Argonne National Laboratory, building on earlier work by Larry Wos, Steve Winker, and Bob Veroff, answered Robbins's question in the affirmative: Every Robbins algebra is a Boolean algebra. Crucial to McCune's proof was the automated reasoning program EQP he designed. For a simplification of McCune's proof, see Dahn (1998).
It follows from the first five pairs of axioms that any complement is unique.
Choose where you want your office. Many people earn money
(May) 57/14 (Jun) 52/11 (Jul) 49/9 (Aug) 50/10
(Sep) 74/23 (Oct) 77/25 (Nov) 78/26 (Dec) 78/26
(May) 72/22 (Jun) 68/20 (Jul) 67/19 (Aug) 69/21