Difference between revisions of "User:B0rken"
From Geohashing
imported>Zorg |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I think that the Melbourne formula should include the following modifications | I think that the Melbourne formula should include the following modifications | ||
| − | 1. a Log [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm] function to skew results towards the CBD so we see more interesting places and less bush, (as fun as the bush | + | 1. a Log [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm] function to skew results towards the CBD so we see more interesting places and less bush, (as fun as the bush can be) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpacker_murders]<br> |
2. ASX 200 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P/ASX_200] data, not the DOW [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average]. Oi oi oi. | 2. ASX 200 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P/ASX_200] data, not the DOW [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average]. Oi oi oi. | ||
:I agree totally, a smaller graticule closer around the CBD and surrounding suburbs would be much better. Too much bush! [[user:zorg|zorg]] | :I agree totally, a smaller graticule closer around the CBD and surrounding suburbs would be much better. Too much bush! [[user:zorg|zorg]] | ||
Revision as of 13:36, 22 May 2008
I think that the Melbourne formula should include the following modifications
1. a Log [1] function to skew results towards the CBD so we see more interesting places and less bush, (as fun as the bush can be) [2]
2. ASX 200 [3] data, not the DOW [4]. Oi oi oi.
- I agree totally, a smaller graticule closer around the CBD and surrounding suburbs would be much better. Too much bush! zorg
