b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 9214919 (Thread)

# why would you put holes in yourself?
they are not the easiest things to maintain
(, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 22:09, archived)
# No, I knowww.
But they look cool. :D
(, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 22:11, archived)
# real men have scars
:)
(, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 22:13, archived)
# But I'm a laydee.
:]
(, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 22:14, archived)
# a lady with metal work?
(, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 22:18, archived)
# Yepp.
Only 6 piercings...so far.
(, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 22:23, archived)
# why?
(, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 22:31, archived)
# Why
'so far'?
(, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 22:33, archived)
# :(
d(attractiveness)/d(piercings)=-k*piercings , k > 0
(, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 22:36, archived)
# I don't know what that means?
I'm not a math person.
(, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 22:38, archived)
# pretty much means, that attractiveness is a maximum at zero piercings
decreases as piercings increase.

but as I said down there V the problem requires an initial condition (ie initial attractiveness) to be completely specified.
(, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 22:50, archived)
# So someone could be really ugly and have no piercings
and they're at their maximum of atractiveness? So when they get more, they get uglier?
(, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 22:53, archived)
# only in my humblest of opinions.
(, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 22:55, archived)
# why is it a differential rate?
:)

and only first order
(, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 22:43, archived)
# I didn't just want to write that it was an upside down parabola.
second you should be asking why the problem isn't completely specified.
(, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 22:47, archived)