We've been hit pretty hard here in Northeast NJ, although not as hard as farther NE. One tip I'd like to pass on - especially to those in urban environments - is the importance of not only clearing the sewer grates but ensuring that there is a trench in the gutter for water to actually get to the grates. My city was inundated with 1-2 meter wide pools of water at every crossing to the street.
Since you have experience with large pileups of snow, I've a question for you (or anyone who would listen). There are more than a few jackasses in my neighborhood who own big trucks and therefore feel that they are duty-bound to show off its power by hammering right over the snow piles in front of my house and making a horrible mess of things. I've resorted to putting 2x4s (painted bright orange) sticking out of the piles to prevent this, but I've actually caught one jackass trying to run right through the damn things! I'm this close to littering the snow piles with caltrops or letting the air out of tires. How do you deal with stuff like this in your community (aside from talking to the drivers if you catch them)?
What the hell kind of e-mails are "most people" (i.e. your average Joe, not the kind of guy on his Blackberry 18 hours a day) getting that they need to be read immediately?
This whole article has had the "you are now breathing manually" effect on me. Now I'm watching my mouse cursor intently, trying to remember what the hell I usually do with it on instinct.
But yeah, I'm probably a lot like you; I just leave it in some whitespace where it faffs about until I need to click on something. I often see it in the periphery more than my direct focus because I have good vision and good reaction times.
The difference being that most of the EU member states have decently-sized, modern, well-equipped military forces of their own whereas the states of America today do not.
I can agree with that. Hell, that's Real Time Strategy games 101. Whether it's Starcraft or Age of Empires or Dawn of War, hitting the supply lines is an effective and important part of warfare. And thank you for concluding your statement with the fact that this is not the thing I have a problem with.
One might reach the logic of "well, they're listening to that infidel American music which supports the American government through taxes which supports the military and therefore they must die", but that is really stretching things.
Ah, I messed up there. You're right that we're making more money, but we have less of it to spend as discretionary money (so-called "disposable income"). That's the point I meant to get across. Sorry, I was really tired when I wrote that... ^.^'
So I can't tell you how, but please understand - for religious reasons - that some do define that as honorable.
Welp, that would explain why I think that religion is one of the most harmful plagues ever set upon this planet.
Religion can take away the fear of death from the weak-minded, and moreover it empowers those clever enough to elevate themselves into a position of power over them.
Anyone who would kill unarmed civilians is honorless in my book. How could you even rationalize this falling under your code of honor?
Bombing the U.S.S. Cole or Army Barracks are attacking military targets. That's fine. Setting off a bomb at a market or a school is just being a worthless piece of shit.
If anyone can tell me how killing unarmed civilians could fit into anyone's code of honor, I'd love to hear that logic. I could use a good laugh.
Poorer than the poor almost 40 years ago actually, yes. The middle class has been steadily eroding. Have a look at this why don't you and get the details. (tl;dw: we're making less inflation-adjusted dollars on average than we were 30-40 years ago, and there are more non-discretionary expenses).
I'm rarely one to say good things about a big, multi-billion dollar corporation, but I really do think that Verizon has good service.
Before I go further, let me preface everything that follows with this disclaimer: the quality of a phone company's network depends on your area. I've been in places other than home where previous networks I was one worked amazingly, and there are places I go to where Verizon works poorly.
I live in Newark, NJ. Originally my family had one cell phone with Sprint. Sprint's service at the time was pretty good, but we had a unique situation. My father insulated our home so well that it acts like a Farraday cage; only the best phones and/or networks can penetrate the wall (although my wireless signal, for some reason, can make it to the house next door or across the street - good ol' WRT54G!). The Sprint phone only really worked near (or hanging out!) a window, or outside - and a lot of the time, not even outside.
After a few years with Sprint, my mom elected to get a pair of new phones - one for her, and one for dad. She went with T-Mobile because she had a friend who worked at a T-Mobile store. T-Mobile had pretty good customer service, but their network was godawful in my city.
Not too long after that we were off contract with T-Mobile. Another important example of Farraday cages in modern architecture is NJIT's cafeteria. For most people, you had to literally hold the phone against the glass - not just be near it - to get a text out the building. Voice calls were a no-go. (Ironically, this has rendered the cafeteria of a high-tech school conspicuously free of cell phones and the like). A similar situation existed in many dorms and older buildings. One time while I was waiting to visit a friend, I did an informal survey of the students who were hanging around in the dorm's lobby. Out of all of them, AT&T was considered to have the poorest service, then Sprint, then T-mobile, and then finally Verizon at the top. That plus my friends who used Verizon (compared to the signal quality of friends who did not) convinced me, and I convinced my mom to make the switch.
Ever since we've been with Verizon. Yes, Newark can be a shithole, but it's not so bad that someone would jack up a cell tower on concrete blocks and steal all the goodies out of it. I can't fathom how the largest city in New Jersey has such largely poor cell service. It's getting better, but if you live around here and use anything but Verizon you're gonna suffer.
I think a fair few people are still under the "siege mentality" of WW2 and the Cold War, where if we don't make an innovation it will not be available to us.
But honestly, the prospects of such a war happening again seem pretty slim to me (at least against a country as technically competent as Germany or Russia). I mean, it's doubtful some little shepard boy in Syria is gonna come up with warp travel and then we'll have to deal with Space Jihadists or something. because he won't share with the rest of us.
Well, keep in mind in government there are a fair few executives (like Mike Bloomberg) who take $1 salaries because, well, they're filthy rich and they figure it would either be wrong (or political suicide) to draw a salary from an already stretched budget.
I wonder how many other politicians get paid a buck a year?
Hm, I think I'm rather the opposite of you. I stopped playing consoles because of the lack of freedom. Little to no freeware, for instance. I just started playing Scorched Earth for the first time a few days ago without having to shell out $10 like I would if I had wanted to get a copy of Super Mario Bros.
I'm a pretty big advocate of Steam and I use it heavily. Yeah, it requires you to be online (at least once, to authenticate), it has DRM, and you don't really "own" your games. That's fine by me; I've spent less on Steam than I would have on 6 or 7 AAA console titles brand new and I have over a hundred games to play.
I can understand why you wouldn't like the particular bit about always being connected to the Internet, but nowadays not having a reliable Internet connection is like not having reliable running water or power.
Considering that my post was modded overrated, I'd like to preface the following by saying that I am in no way trolling. I genuinely lack the understanding of the concept.
Well this would fall under theoretical math and not practical math, would it not?
I hear the:
1/3 = 0.333...
1/3 x 3 = 1
>
0.333 x 3 = 0.999...
Therefore 0.999 = 1
...argument and it honestly doesn't quite yet make sense to me.
One of the later things I learned was that mathematics is taught in stages. i.e. when you're very young you may be taught that 0 is the start, but a few years later they break out negative numbers on you, and so on.
One of the first things I learned is that 0.333... (as an example) is an approximation of 1/3. A fraction such as 1/3 cannot be 100% accurately represented in a decimal system. (I am not making a statement of fact here per se; I am merely stating the concept as it was taught to me).
Perhaps you can help me by explaining further; I'm going to respond to your post point by point as I understand it. The simpler you can explain it, the better - once I got into the higher maths like calculus I had a very difficult time wrapping my mind around a lot of the theoretical stuff.
For instance, one of the things that defines what a real number is that it is not exactly the same as a different number. Seems pretty common sense, huh? So what number, exactly, comes between 0.999... and 1?
Nothing, but what is the significance of there being nothing between 0.999... and 1? If there is nothing between 0.999... and 1, then you would not the logical conclusion be that there is nothing between 0.888... and 0.999..., therefore 0.888... = 0.999..., and since 0.999...... = 1 then 0.888 = 1 as well?
Like you said, those 9s go on forever, so if there is nothing that you can add to the first term to turn it into the second, they must be the same. They are just 2 different ways of expressing the exact same number.
Ah, when you say this I can understand it a little better in a way - the infinite nature of it therefore means that nothing can be added to it to make it 1, therefore it is 1... but I don't quite get why the fact that it runs on forever and nothing can be added to it (because of its infinite nature) makes it equal to 1.
But even so, why would one make the assertion that 0.999... = 1 because nothing can be added to it? Could you not just as easily make the assertion that because nothing can be added to it, 0.999... is not 1?
You probably don't have a problem with the idea that 1/3 =.333..., so multiply both sides by 3 and what do you get?
Well, obviously 1/3 x 3 = 1, and.333... x 3 =.999..., but as I've said I've always been taught that.333... is not exactly equal to 1/3; it is just the best approximation we have.
Honestly, it seems more metaphysical or theoretical to me - a sort of Zen Math version of "All roads lead to Rome" ; "all run-on decimals are in 1". I'm usually more concerned with practical mathematics over theoretical mathematics, but I am genuinely stumped by this.
Honestly, I wish someone could just draw me a picture, but I probably wouldn't be able to view it since my graphics card doesn't go to the Infinity x 768 resolution. d:
So, in short, to number and summarize my questions (and I apologize to both any who read and/or reply to this as well as all of my past and future teachers who I've constantly nagged with my inquisitive nature):
.
1) If you make the assertion that 0.999... = 1, would making the assertion that 0.888... (or 0.777..., or 0.34667777..., etc.) are also 1?
2) Is the assertion that 0.999... = 1 because of the infinite nature of a run-on number?
3) If so, why?
4) If not, then what is the property that would cause one to make the asse
You mean paying another group to reduce pollution so you can pollute isn't a scam? It's a shell game whose goal isn't to improve things just to maintain the status quo. It's a pointless exercise. Offer companies tax credits to reduce emissions and fine them for exceeding but letting them pay to pollute is a joke.
I have a headache and I'm quite tired, so feel free to correct me if any of my understanding of the subject is wrong here.
.
.
As I understand it, the basic concept is thus (shown via a hypothetical example):
1) The nation of Countrystan decides that there will be no more than 1,000 tons of carbon exhausted per year, by law, from certain industries.
2) Each business within the industry is allocated a certain number of "carbon credits" that effectively cap how much bad stuff they can spew into the air.
3) Since the total number of credits is a fixed number, any business that doesn't want to be hit with major fines will try to stay under their credits.
4) Businesses that are way below their credits can sell other businesses their credits. Businesses that may exceed their cap can purchase credits from other businesses, but the total number of credits (and thus the total amount of pollution) out there doesn't increase in any way.
5) Due to 4, there are economic incentives to reduce carbon output. Heavy polluters would likely need to buy extra credits, thereby incurring a cost that would offset any financial benefits of lackadaisical pollution control. Light (or non) polluters would (rather than a cost) receive a gain in revenue by selling their allotted credits to businesses that can't keep pace. Therefore, businesses stand to lose money if they pollute and gain money if they cut back on pollution, thereby providing the best kind of incentive (economic) for businesses to get their pollution under control.
6) Eventually, more businesses would have a surplus of credits that no one needs to buy. At this point, I imagine the total number of credits in circulation could be reduced.
.
.
So, this is how I roughly understand the whole carbon credits thing is supposed to work. Am I right here? And does the real-world application work like this model, or is it rife with corruption, bureaucracy, and an inability to accomplish its stated goals like every other government project? Have their been any studies on the effectiveness of such a system?
I honestly have a difficult time with some of this theoretical stuff.
For instance, the whole 0.999... = 1 thing. I think that's a load of crap. You can bring in all sorts of complex calculations, but the fundamental rules (as we're taught) say a run-on number like 0.999... goes on forever. No matter how far back you get, there's a 9 at the end. That 9 isn't going to get a 1 added to it and start a domino effect to magically make it 1.
Can anyone explain to me how someone would even believe this particular statement?
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that that it was essentially impossible and illegal to give up your fundamental rights?
For instance, one couldn't be beholden to being a slave, even if they signed documents permitting it...
We've been hit pretty hard here in Northeast NJ, although not as hard as farther NE. One tip I'd like to pass on - especially to those in urban environments - is the importance of not only clearing the sewer grates but ensuring that there is a trench in the gutter for water to actually get to the grates. My city was inundated with 1-2 meter wide pools of water at every crossing to the street.
Since you have experience with large pileups of snow, I've a question for you (or anyone who would listen). There are more than a few jackasses in my neighborhood who own big trucks and therefore feel that they are duty-bound to show off its power by hammering right over the snow piles in front of my house and making a horrible mess of things. I've resorted to putting 2x4s (painted bright orange) sticking out of the piles to prevent this, but I've actually caught one jackass trying to run right through the damn things! I'm this close to littering the snow piles with caltrops or letting the air out of tires. How do you deal with stuff like this in your community (aside from talking to the drivers if you catch them)?
Not all nerds are unattractive. Very many are just socially inept.
What the hell kind of e-mails are "most people" (i.e. your average Joe, not the kind of guy on his Blackberry 18 hours a day) getting that they need to be read immediately?
This whole article has had the "you are now breathing manually" effect on me. Now I'm watching my mouse cursor intently, trying to remember what the hell I usually do with it on instinct.
But yeah, I'm probably a lot like you; I just leave it in some whitespace where it faffs about until I need to click on something. I often see it in the periphery more than my direct focus because I have good vision and good reaction times.
Everybody steals from everybody else; China's just the worst at hiding it.
The difference being that most of the EU member states have decently-sized, modern, well-equipped military forces of their own whereas the states of America today do not.
I can agree with that. Hell, that's Real Time Strategy games 101. Whether it's Starcraft or Age of Empires or Dawn of War, hitting the supply lines is an effective and important part of warfare. And thank you for concluding your statement with the fact that this is not the thing I have a problem with.
One might reach the logic of "well, they're listening to that infidel American music which supports the American government through taxes which supports the military and therefore they must die", but that is really stretching things.
Ah, I messed up there. You're right that we're making more money, but we have less of it to spend as discretionary money (so-called "disposable income"). That's the point I meant to get across. Sorry, I was really tired when I wrote that... ^.^'
So I can't tell you how, but please understand - for religious reasons - that some do define that as honorable.
Welp, that would explain why I think that religion is one of the most harmful plagues ever set upon this planet.
Religion can take away the fear of death from the weak-minded, and moreover it empowers those clever enough to elevate themselves into a position of power over them.
Anyone who would kill unarmed civilians is honorless in my book. How could you even rationalize this falling under your code of honor?
Bombing the U.S.S. Cole or Army Barracks are attacking military targets. That's fine. Setting off a bomb at a market or a school is just being a worthless piece of shit.
If anyone can tell me how killing unarmed civilians could fit into anyone's code of honor, I'd love to hear that logic. I could use a good laugh.
No one worked in a vacuum back then.
Well, except for physics professors...
Poorer than the poor almost 40 years ago actually, yes. The middle class has been steadily eroding. Have a look at this why don't you and get the details. (tl;dw: we're making less inflation-adjusted dollars on average than we were 30-40 years ago, and there are more non-discretionary expenses).
Paul/Franken 2012!
.
.
.
4chan already has an official keyboard
.
I'm rarely one to say good things about a big, multi-billion dollar corporation, but I really do think that Verizon has good service.
Before I go further, let me preface everything that follows with this disclaimer: the quality of a phone company's network depends on your area. I've been in places other than home where previous networks I was one worked amazingly, and there are places I go to where Verizon works poorly.
I live in Newark, NJ. Originally my family had one cell phone with Sprint. Sprint's service at the time was pretty good, but we had a unique situation. My father insulated our home so well that it acts like a Farraday cage; only the best phones and/or networks can penetrate the wall (although my wireless signal, for some reason, can make it to the house next door or across the street - good ol' WRT54G!). The Sprint phone only really worked near (or hanging out!) a window, or outside - and a lot of the time, not even outside.
After a few years with Sprint, my mom elected to get a pair of new phones - one for her, and one for dad. She went with T-Mobile because she had a friend who worked at a T-Mobile store. T-Mobile had pretty good customer service, but their network was godawful in my city.
Not too long after that we were off contract with T-Mobile. Another important example of Farraday cages in modern architecture is NJIT's cafeteria. For most people, you had to literally hold the phone against the glass - not just be near it - to get a text out the building. Voice calls were a no-go. (Ironically, this has rendered the cafeteria of a high-tech school conspicuously free of cell phones and the like). A similar situation existed in many dorms and older buildings. One time while I was waiting to visit a friend, I did an informal survey of the students who were hanging around in the dorm's lobby. Out of all of them, AT&T was considered to have the poorest service, then Sprint, then T-mobile, and then finally Verizon at the top. That plus my friends who used Verizon (compared to the signal quality of friends who did not) convinced me, and I convinced my mom to make the switch.
Ever since we've been with Verizon. Yes, Newark can be a shithole, but it's not so bad that someone would jack up a cell tower on concrete blocks and steal all the goodies out of it. I can't fathom how the largest city in New Jersey has such largely poor cell service. It's getting better, but if you live around here and use anything but Verizon you're gonna suffer.
I think a fair few people are still under the "siege mentality" of WW2 and the Cold War, where if we don't make an innovation it will not be available to us.
But honestly, the prospects of such a war happening again seem pretty slim to me (at least against a country as technically competent as Germany or Russia). I mean, it's doubtful some little shepard boy in Syria is gonna come up with warp travel and then we'll have to deal with Space Jihadists or something. because he won't share with the rest of us.
Well, keep in mind in government there are a fair few executives (like Mike Bloomberg) who take $1 salaries because, well, they're filthy rich and they figure it would either be wrong (or political suicide) to draw a salary from an already stretched budget.
I wonder how many other politicians get paid a buck a year?
Hm, I think I'm rather the opposite of you. I stopped playing consoles because of the lack of freedom. Little to no freeware, for instance. I just started playing Scorched Earth for the first time a few days ago without having to shell out $10 like I would if I had wanted to get a copy of Super Mario Bros.
I'm a pretty big advocate of Steam and I use it heavily. Yeah, it requires you to be online (at least once, to authenticate), it has DRM, and you don't really "own" your games. That's fine by me; I've spent less on Steam than I would have on 6 or 7 AAA console titles brand new and I have over a hundred games to play.
I can understand why you wouldn't like the particular bit about always being connected to the Internet, but nowadays not having a reliable Internet connection is like not having reliable running water or power.
I thought the requirement to defend only applied to trademarks?
Hey man, thanks! I think I have a pretty good handle on things now.
Considering that my post was modded overrated, I'd like to preface the following by saying that I am in no way trolling. I genuinely lack the understanding of the concept.
Well this would fall under theoretical math and not practical math, would it not?
I hear the:
1/3 = 0.333...
1/3 x 3 = 1
>
0.333 x 3 = 0.999...
Therefore 0.999 = 1
...argument and it honestly doesn't quite yet make sense to me.
One of the later things I learned was that mathematics is taught in stages. i.e. when you're very young you may be taught that 0 is the start, but a few years later they break out negative numbers on you, and so on.
One of the first things I learned is that 0.333... (as an example) is an approximation of 1/3. A fraction such as 1/3 cannot be 100% accurately represented in a decimal system. (I am not making a statement of fact here per se; I am merely stating the concept as it was taught to me).
Perhaps you can help me by explaining further; I'm going to respond to your post point by point as I understand it. The simpler you can explain it, the better - once I got into the higher maths like calculus I had a very difficult time wrapping my mind around a lot of the theoretical stuff.
For instance, one of the things that defines what a real number is that it is not exactly the same as a different number. Seems pretty common sense, huh? So what number, exactly, comes between 0.999... and 1?
Nothing, but what is the significance of there being nothing between 0.999... and 1? If there is nothing between 0.999... and 1, then you would not the logical conclusion be that there is nothing between 0.888... and 0.999..., therefore 0.888... = 0.999..., and since 0.999...... = 1 then 0.888 = 1 as well?
Like you said, those 9s go on forever, so if there is nothing that you can add to the first term to turn it into the second, they must be the same. They are just 2 different ways of expressing the exact same number.
Ah, when you say this I can understand it a little better in a way - the infinite nature of it therefore means that nothing can be added to it to make it 1, therefore it is 1... but I don't quite get why the fact that it runs on forever and nothing can be added to it (because of its infinite nature) makes it equal to 1.
But even so, why would one make the assertion that 0.999... = 1 because nothing can be added to it? Could you not just as easily make the assertion that because nothing can be added to it, 0.999... is not 1?
You probably don't have a problem with the idea that 1/3 = .333..., so multiply both sides by 3 and what do you get?
Well, obviously 1/3 x 3 = 1, and .333... x 3 = .999..., but as I've said I've always been taught that .333... is not exactly equal to 1/3; it is just the best approximation we have.
Honestly, it seems more metaphysical or theoretical to me - a sort of Zen Math version of "All roads lead to Rome" ; "all run-on decimals are in 1". I'm usually more concerned with practical mathematics over theoretical mathematics, but I am genuinely stumped by this.
Honestly, I wish someone could just draw me a picture, but I probably wouldn't be able to view it since my graphics card doesn't go to the Infinity x 768 resolution. d:
So, in short, to number and summarize my questions (and I apologize to both any who read and/or reply to this as well as all of my past and future teachers who I've constantly nagged with my inquisitive nature):
.
1) If you make the assertion that 0.999... = 1, would making the assertion that 0.888... (or 0.777..., or 0.34667777..., etc.) are also 1?
2) Is the assertion that 0.999... = 1 because of the infinite nature of a run-on number?
3) If so, why?
4) If not, then what is the property that would cause one to make the asse
You mean paying another group to reduce pollution so you can pollute isn't a scam? It's a shell game whose goal isn't to improve things just to maintain the status quo. It's a pointless exercise. Offer companies tax credits to reduce emissions and fine them for exceeding but letting them pay to pollute is a joke.
I have a headache and I'm quite tired, so feel free to correct me if any of my understanding of the subject is wrong here.
.
.
As I understand it, the basic concept is thus (shown via a hypothetical example):
1) The nation of Countrystan decides that there will be no more than 1,000 tons of carbon exhausted per year, by law, from certain industries.
2) Each business within the industry is allocated a certain number of "carbon credits" that effectively cap how much bad stuff they can spew into the air.
3) Since the total number of credits is a fixed number, any business that doesn't want to be hit with major fines will try to stay under their credits.
4) Businesses that are way below their credits can sell other businesses their credits. Businesses that may exceed their cap can purchase credits from other businesses, but the total number of credits (and thus the total amount of pollution) out there doesn't increase in any way.
5) Due to 4, there are economic incentives to reduce carbon output. Heavy polluters would likely need to buy extra credits, thereby incurring a cost that would offset any financial benefits of lackadaisical pollution control. Light (or non) polluters would (rather than a cost) receive a gain in revenue by selling their allotted credits to businesses that can't keep pace. Therefore, businesses stand to lose money if they pollute and gain money if they cut back on pollution, thereby providing the best kind of incentive (economic) for businesses to get their pollution under control.
6) Eventually, more businesses would have a surplus of credits that no one needs to buy. At this point, I imagine the total number of credits in circulation could be reduced.
.
.
So, this is how I roughly understand the whole carbon credits thing is supposed to work. Am I right here? And does the real-world application work like this model, or is it rife with corruption, bureaucracy, and an inability to accomplish its stated goals like every other government project? Have their been any studies on the effectiveness of such a system?
I honestly have a difficult time with some of this theoretical stuff.
For instance, the whole 0.999... = 1 thing. I think that's a load of crap. You can bring in all sorts of complex calculations, but the fundamental rules (as we're taught) say a run-on number like 0.999... goes on forever. No matter how far back you get, there's a 9 at the end. That 9 isn't going to get a 1 added to it and start a domino effect to magically make it 1.
Can anyone explain to me how someone would even believe this particular statement?