No mention is made of the role of the scrap dealers (aka fences) and a lack of police work. In Ohio, you have to provide a picture identification when you get money at a scrap yard. Oh, and if the material is stolen, the scrap yard has to give it back without any compensation (unless they get it back from their customer). But I'm seeing a trend in policing: Personal crime (armed robbery, assault, murder) is given much higher priority than property crime. Phone cables can be replaced, and a lot of people make good money doing it so it actually helps some who are not criminals. I'm just sayin'...
Correction: It's now the Rural Utilities Service and it has morphed to where it provides "public utilities (electricity, telephone, water, sewer) to rural areas." (quoted from Wikipedia)
The consumer buys from a local provider which either shapes the traffic or doesn't. The local provider buys connections from one or more backbone providers (at one time, called Tier-1 providers) that either shape the traffic or don't. Net neutrality discussions can apply to either level of service.
In the case of natural gas, which is an interchangeable commodity, you can have one set of pipes and multiple suppliers. The company that I buy my natural gas from is not the one that delivers it to my house. For Internet service, you can separate the delivery service (wires or cable) from the service that connects that "last mile" to the Internet.
Republicans have an answer for this: They will provide more money to the Rural Electrification Administration to provide at least one company a way to make a profit providing rural residents with basic Internet service. (In case you missed it, the REA has electrified everything but the Amish farms but the REA won't go away.) To guarantee everyone two providers in rural areas would be socialism, and we can't have that.
If you think I'm being facetious, just look at what the new House of Representatives tries to do. I don't think they'll be able to roll back a lot that Obama signed into law, but they'll try. The reality is that Republicans are going to try to help big business (including, as one person pointed out, the media companies) at the expense of the individual consumers. There is an inherent clash between telling Comcast that they can run their Internet service any way they want and then saying, "Oh, but we also want net neutrality, although we Representatives have no clue what that means."
Agreed. Capitalism as it's practiced today is less about beating your competitor in the open market and more about beating them in the legislature. If you can get the government to allow you to have a monopoly (like the monopoly usually granted for local cable service) that's even better. Getting laws passed or tax incentives that are awarded to you and not your competitors is also a desirable thing.
Under capitalism, the providers get to provide whatever traffic shaping they want. If you don't like it, get a another provider. If you only have one choice, well, that's part of the system, too. The people have spoken: Capitalism rules, this touchy-feely stuff like "net neutrality" is out the window.
In the United States, job-related injuries are covered by Workers' Compensation, not by your normal health insurance. Every employer, even those with one or two employees, is required to have Workers' Comp. insurance.
"admits it was a mistake to hire him to run the company" should be "admits it was a mistake to hire Scully to run the company." There, fixed that for you. The original summary implied that Scully felt that it was a mistake to hire Jobs to run the company. Actually, Scully felt that Jobs should have been made president when Jobs was 25 or 26 years old.
25 years ago, I married a girl and her Apple//e and we've had a good life. We're getting ready to buy our sixth family Macintosh (all but first one are still running but too far out of date; only the fifth one has an Intel processor).
I watch Fox Sports Ohio quite a bit (Cincinnati Reds, high school football) and the quality is as good as the "national" media put on (CBS, NBC, ESPN).
After this discussion, I'm going to add this to my sig: "There are 10(base 2) people in this world: Those who understand the concept of infinity and those who don't."
We might./.s get all excited about things they have never heard of before because they assume that nobody has ever heard of them before. We midwesterners experience the same thing when something happens in New York that has never happened to them and the news folks (all based on the East Coast) get all excited not realizing that it happens in the midwest all the time. I remember when there was a story about possibly adding tornado sirens in New York City like it was a new concept.
Fail. There is no such number 0.999...8. With an infinite number of 9s, you can never get to the end to tack on the 8. If you follow Lightstone and say you can, then, fine, you can prove all kinds of weird things. But your proofs are based on a false concept so they're not valid in my world.
mikein08, The world is not as bad as you image it. First, you are missing the concept of significant digits. The 10**-34 in Planck's constant is irrelevant. If I change the units of measure in the equation, the 10**-34 just disappears. The 6.626 is what makes it important.
Second, as we have discussed in these comments,.999... doesn't approach 1, it IS 1.
This has already been discussed. The repeating decimal does exist and comes from our representation of fractions using base ten arithmetic. Using your logic, a third of a mango couldn't exist (.333...) but I can certainly cut a mango into three equal pieces.
This is about the limit when going to infinity. There are functions that approach a value but never reach it, even if you go to infinity. In this case, taking.999... to infinity doesn't just approach 1, it becomes 1.
Slashdot Mirror
No mention is made of the role of the scrap dealers (aka fences) and a lack of police work. In Ohio, you have to provide a picture identification when you get money at a scrap yard. Oh, and if the material is stolen, the scrap yard has to give it back without any compensation (unless they get it back from their customer). But I'm seeing a trend in policing: Personal crime (armed robbery, assault, murder) is given much higher priority than property crime. Phone cables can be replaced, and a lot of people make good money doing it so it actually helps some who are not criminals. I'm just sayin'...
Correction: It's now the Rural Utilities Service and it has morphed to where it provides "public utilities (electricity, telephone, water, sewer) to rural areas." (quoted from Wikipedia)
You're speaking like a Democrat. But the Republicans are in charge of the House now, and they disagree with you. I'm just pointing out the obvious.
The consumer buys from a local provider which either shapes the traffic or doesn't. The local provider buys connections from one or more backbone providers (at one time, called Tier-1 providers) that either shape the traffic or don't. Net neutrality discussions can apply to either level of service.
In the case of natural gas, which is an interchangeable commodity, you can have one set of pipes and multiple suppliers. The company that I buy my natural gas from is not the one that delivers it to my house. For Internet service, you can separate the delivery service (wires or cable) from the service that connects that "last mile" to the Internet.
Republicans have an answer for this: They will provide more money to the Rural Electrification Administration to provide at least one company a way to make a profit providing rural residents with basic Internet service. (In case you missed it, the REA has electrified everything but the Amish farms but the REA won't go away.) To guarantee everyone two providers in rural areas would be socialism, and we can't have that.
If you think I'm being facetious, just look at what the new House of Representatives tries to do. I don't think they'll be able to roll back a lot that Obama signed into law, but they'll try. The reality is that Republicans are going to try to help big business (including, as one person pointed out, the media companies) at the expense of the individual consumers. There is an inherent clash between telling Comcast that they can run their Internet service any way they want and then saying, "Oh, but we also want net neutrality, although we Representatives have no clue what that means."
Agreed. Capitalism as it's practiced today is less about beating your competitor in the open market and more about beating them in the legislature. If you can get the government to allow you to have a monopoly (like the monopoly usually granted for local cable service) that's even better. Getting laws passed or tax incentives that are awarded to you and not your competitors is also a desirable thing.
Under capitalism, the providers get to provide whatever traffic shaping they want. If you don't like it, get a another provider. If you only have one choice, well, that's part of the system, too. The people have spoken: Capitalism rules, this touchy-feely stuff like "net neutrality" is out the window.
In the United States, job-related injuries are covered by Workers' Compensation, not by your normal health insurance. Every employer, even those with one or two employees, is required to have Workers' Comp. insurance.
"admits it was a mistake to hire him to run the company" should be "admits it was a mistake to hire Scully to run the company." There, fixed that for you. The original summary implied that Scully felt that it was a mistake to hire Jobs to run the company. Actually, Scully felt that Jobs should have been made president when Jobs was 25 or 26 years old.
25 years ago, I married a girl and her Apple //e and we've had a good life. We're getting ready to buy our sixth family Macintosh (all but first one are still running but too far out of date; only the fifth one has an Intel processor).
I watch Fox Sports Ohio quite a bit (Cincinnati Reds, high school football) and the quality is as good as the "national" media put on (CBS, NBC, ESPN).
After this discussion, I'm going to add this to my sig: "There are 10(base 2) people in this world: Those who understand the concept of infinity and those who don't."
In this case, make w infinite which makes 1/w equal to zero. This leaves you with 0.999... = 1 which is the point of the proof.
We might. /.s get all excited about things they have never heard of before because they assume that nobody has ever heard of them before. We midwesterners experience the same thing when something happens in New York that has never happened to them and the news folks (all based on the East Coast) get all excited not realizing that it happens in the midwest all the time. I remember when there was a story about possibly adding tornado sirens in New York City like it was a new concept.
You missed the "..." at the end, indicating that the 9s go to infinity. 0.999... * 10 does equal 9.999... when you have an infinite number of 9s.
Fail. There is no such number 0.999...8. With an infinite number of 9s, you can never get to the end to tack on the 8. If you follow Lightstone and say you can, then, fine, you can prove all kinds of weird things. But your proofs are based on a false concept so they're not valid in my world.
mikein08, The world is not as bad as you image it. First, you are missing the concept of significant digits. The 10**-34 in Planck's constant is irrelevant. If I change the units of measure in the equation, the 10**-34 just disappears. The 6.626 is what makes it important.
.999... doesn't approach 1, it IS 1.
Second, as we have discussed in these comments,
Ah - right. You're missing the part about infinity. Just read some of the comments and you'll understand the proof.
mysidia, if you're going to challenge the multiplication of a number by 10, then we have a long way to the end of the proof.
This has already been discussed. The repeating decimal does exist and comes from our representation of fractions using base ten arithmetic. Using your logic, a third of a mango couldn't exist (.333...) but I can certainly cut a mango into three equal pieces.
You missed the "..." at the end, indicating that the 9s go to infinity. 10 * 0.999... does equal 9.999... when you have an infinite number of 9s.
There is no such number as 0.000...001. With an infinite number of zeros, you can never get to the end to add the 1.
This is about the limit when going to infinity. There are functions that approach a value but never reach it, even if you go to infinity. In this case, taking .999... to infinity doesn't just approach 1, it becomes 1.