.00000...0001 is a fictitious concept. Basically what you're saying is take an endless expansion of 0s after a decimal point and add a 1 to the end of it. No such animal exists.
As stated before, 0.99999999... is exactly equal to 1.
Fact: There are at least 57 known lies and/or distortions in F9/11. I challange anyone to find a single known lie from the Swiftvets. Navy records written by John Kerry don't count, since that's precisely what the swiftvets are disputing.
Come on now. A bunch of veterans take it personally when one of their own comes out against the Vietnam war and you don't even take the time to do a simple Google to check if they make any misstatements. What's wrong with you?
The reason I prefer Opera is that it handles tabs the way I want. In Firefox, if I click on a link that wants to open up a new window, it opens up a whole new window instead of just a tab. If I knew beforehand that the link was going to go to a new window I could just ctrl-click on it and get it in a new tab, but that's not something I know I have to do before I click. In Opera, nothing gets put into a new window unless you ask it to. Why Firefox can't be changed to implement something so simple is beyond me.
$30 won't kill you if you don't like Adware. But even with the Adware, you can barely notice it anyways. *shrug*
If he loses the elections, no future president will dare attacking a contemptuous tyrant, and the tyrants will know, that the "leader of the free world" will be reminded by his/her staffers about the "fate of the Bushes", who waged and promptly won to just wars, but lost the subsequent re-elections..
Bush Sr. didn't lose because of the Gulf War. He lost because of economic issues. Anyone who seriously follows politics, be they from the left or right, acknowledges that George H. was very astute when it came to foreign policy and that going to war against Iraq was the right call. But there were many good reasons he gave against going all the way to removing Saddam which you should look up if you get the chance. The possible problems he brought up fit disturbingly close to the situation today.
If the second Bush loses because of Iraq, the next president should take as a lesson, "If you're going to attack a contemptuous tyrant, be sure you properly evaluate if it's worth it by balancing the potential costs both of action and inaction. And if you're going to start, make sure you know how to finish it properly."
In any case, note, that if you disaprove of the war, Kerry is not your candidate either.
Now that the Bush administration has linked the war in Iraq with the War Against Terrorism and terrorists have made it their cause to wreck our naive hopes of forced democracy in Iraq, it is vital we are successful in Iraq, whether it was the correct decision to begin it or not. Bush has painted us into a corner. And like the majority of presidential elections, I have to pick the lesser evil.
Kerry approved the current war, and continues to approve it.
Although I thought it was a mistake to get into the war in Iraq in the first place (as Bush Sr. has so eloquently argued against regime change in the past), there are arguments to go in backed up by the correct way to wage it I can respect. The way the current administration executed it has been an absolute circus. What was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" can be more accurately described as "Operation Al Qaeda Recruitment Program."
Like the administration you support, you are blindly assuming that the course in Iraq was the correct one without considering other arguments. And now we have to live with the results.
True. But remember Clinton was against the Vietnam War while Bush and (I think) Cheney was for it. If you believe something is worth fighting for and yet you're willing to let others less fortunate than yourself who don't have your conviction risk themselves instead, then I'd have absolutely zero respect for you. If I met someone like that on the street I'd consider it my duty to spit in their face. Unforgiveable.
Kerry has his faults, but for some people to hold his actions involving Vietnam beneath those of Bush (who openly said that Kerry was more courageous) and a lot of his cabinet takes a type of moral double-speak that I simply cannot comprehend.
Yeah, no kidding. It's so much better to support someone who dodged the experience altogether by using his daddy's power. Or with several deferments, maybe. Especially in a conflict they supported at the time.
Bush/Cheney for 2004! Because true patriots choose hypocritical, cowardly chicken-hawks to decide foreign policy.
Ok, but besides gunpowder, rockets, astronomical records, the printing press, martial arts, paper money and toilet paper what have the Chinese ever done for us?
Quantum mechanics trumps biology, and the uncertainty principle guarantees that human behavior can never be predicted, which can be interpreted as meaning that we have free will.
Even if our behavior can never be predicted, that doesn't necessarily mean we have free will. When the choices you make are "determined" from some outside force, whether the force acts randomly or not, you still cannot be said to have free will.
I think Roger Penrose tried to make the same argument you are making.
What we do is determined by our biological makeup and the inputs from our environment. This I believe. However, does this automatically mean that we should not be held responsible for our actions? Should we despair that we are being controlled and accept that nothing we do matters?
If you assume strict determinism, then biology and environment cannot be seen as mere outside influences that control us. They are what *define* us. They are an expression of who we are as people. In my opinion, the real reason we at first shy away from the thought of determinism is that since we often (falsely) think of our formative biology and environment as states and events apart from ourselves, we feel like we're being manipulated from without. This viewpoint is incorrect.
Using a quantum computer it can search every possible key simultaneously, cracking the encryption almost instantly.
Acutally, that's not true. The quantum algorithms created to break numbers into their prime components are able to solve the problem in polynomial time when it is believed to be solvable at best in exponential time under classical computing. Much much quicker, but not instantaneous, which would be a quick instance of constant time.
He's just obnoxious. It's easy to be obnoxious, yet he portrays himself as being some sort of iconoclast, a rebel. I find that pose very annoying.
Your opinion is duly noted. Now here's another.
Many many DJs are merely obnoxious and get away with much more stuff, and yet Howard Stern is among the most popular around. There's a reason for that. If you listen to the show for any length of time it comes to feel like you know the people. He's probably the most unhypocrytical and honest people on the air, which is why he often comes off as being crass. I'm sorry that you can't get past the curse words and "obnoxiousness".
It you liked The Smartest Kid On Earth, you should check out some of Ware's older stuff in The Acme Novelty Library as well. Those things are both hilarious and deeply disturbing at the same time.
They're worth it for some of the twisted advertisements on the edges alone. Also, I think every comic had these elaborate, workable 3D cut-out assemblable projects on the very edges. I guess they meant for people to buy 2 copies of each issue.
The fact that cyclists can ride a 40+ mile route at an average of 33+ MPH is amazing. Especially if you consider all the rain. And that I have a tough time going 30+ MPH... downhill.
You probably just need higher gears on your bike.
I often wonder what the ratio between gears on the professionals' bikes are. A lot of times when I'm riding downhill I'm pedaling as fast as I can with no tension left to gain speed. I need a better bike. 'Course no bike in the world is going to make me anything near as fast as those guys.
Chess as an intellectual pursuit is a part of western culture and has had vast intellectual and material resources poured into it for decades, were the same true of Go, you might see more machines that played it better.
There probably has been just as much intellectual resources poured into Go as there has been with chess over the years as Go is just as old if not an older game, and the hemisphere those resources come from doesn't matter one whit.
The only problem from a programming standpoint is the analysis of what constitutes good moves in chess is much more specific and direct while in Go they are more hazily defined. This is partially because chess is a much more direct game (I may lose a pawn in this move, therefore I must justify it with a comparable gain in positional advantage or material later on) than Go (I may lose a stone here - *feh*.) The reasons for this are that there are so astronomically many more viable possible moves in Go that direct analysis is simply impractical, and the more intuitive skill of pattern recognition is more helpful to a Go player than it would be to a chess player.
So I think it would be more accurate to say that the nature of intellectual inquiry of both games may explain why one plays better on computers than the others. But even then, it's likely that it's simply a natural result of the natures of the games.
I'm not sure when it will be "over," but chances are that we'll be over before we learn all we could about the universe (possibly due to misunderstanding how it works).
Or even, maybe it never can be "over". Perhaps there will always be weaknesses in theories to explain weaknesses in older ones, ad infinitum. All theories are simply models to reduce the workings of the universe to a form we can make sense of. There may be no perfect model.
I forgot who said this, but there's a quote that reads something like, "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagined, but it may be stranger than we can imagine."
I must say it was quite a relief when I replaced Safari with Opera 7.50. This after trying Firefox, Safari and whatever the last version of Opera working with OS X was. (That one was just too crash-prone to be usable). AFAIK, only Opera handles windows/tabs the way I want it to. That is, it never creates a new window unless I specifically tell it to. If I'm browsing and a link from a site wants to open an additional page without replacing the old one, it comes in as a new tab. End of story.
I don't know what you mean by integration with the OS. I expect a browser to do just 2 things for me. 1) Browse web pages. 2) Stay the fuck out of my face. (Unfortunately, I have to live with mail and newgroup functionality in Opera that I never use it for. Oh well.)
The only bigger relief than replacing Safari with Opera was replacing Mail with Thunderbird. But that's a different stoy.
Slashdot Mirror
.00000...0001 is a fictitious concept. Basically what you're saying is take an endless expansion of 0s after a decimal point and add a 1 to the end of it. No such animal exists.
As stated before, 0.99999999... is exactly equal to 1.
Piece of cake
Come on now. A bunch of veterans take it personally when one of their own comes out against the Vietnam war and you don't even take the time to do a simple Google to check if they make any misstatements. What's wrong with you?
Bad day?
Whoops, $39. My bad.
The reason I prefer Opera is that it handles tabs the way I want. In Firefox, if I click on a link that wants to open up a new window, it opens up a whole new window instead of just a tab. If I knew beforehand that the link was going to go to a new window I could just ctrl-click on it and get it in a new tab, but that's not something I know I have to do before I click. In Opera, nothing gets put into a new window unless you ask it to. Why Firefox can't be changed to implement something so simple is beyond me.
$30 won't kill you if you don't like Adware. But even with the Adware, you can barely notice it anyways. *shrug*
That or any of the many other alternate browsers that allow tabbed browsing. And that includes Opera, which did it in the first place.
Bush Sr. didn't lose because of the Gulf War. He lost because of economic issues. Anyone who seriously follows politics, be they from the left or right, acknowledges that George H. was very astute when it came to foreign policy and that going to war against Iraq was the right call. But there were many good reasons he gave against going all the way to removing Saddam which you should look up if you get the chance. The possible problems he brought up fit disturbingly close to the situation today.
If the second Bush loses because of Iraq, the next president should take as a lesson, "If you're going to attack a contemptuous tyrant, be sure you properly evaluate if it's worth it by balancing the potential costs both of action and inaction. And if you're going to start, make sure you know how to finish it properly."
In any case, note, that if you disaprove of the war, Kerry is not your candidate either.
Now that the Bush administration has linked the war in Iraq with the War Against Terrorism and terrorists have made it their cause to wreck our naive hopes of forced democracy in Iraq, it is vital we are successful in Iraq, whether it was the correct decision to begin it or not. Bush has painted us into a corner. And like the majority of presidential elections, I have to pick the lesser evil.
But where you have doubts, I have facts.
Vietnam is irrelevant.
But character is relevant.
Kerry approved the current war, and continues to approve it.
Although I thought it was a mistake to get into the war in Iraq in the first place (as Bush Sr. has so eloquently argued against regime change in the past), there are arguments to go in backed up by the correct way to wage it I can respect. The way the current administration executed it has been an absolute circus. What was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" can be more accurately described as "Operation Al Qaeda Recruitment Program."
Like the administration you support, you are blindly assuming that the course in Iraq was the correct one without considering other arguments. And now we have to live with the results.
True. But remember Clinton was against the Vietnam War while Bush and (I think) Cheney was for it. If you believe something is worth fighting for and yet you're willing to let others less fortunate than yourself who don't have your conviction risk themselves instead, then I'd have absolutely zero respect for you. If I met someone like that on the street I'd consider it my duty to spit in their face. Unforgiveable.
Kerry has his faults, but for some people to hold his actions involving Vietnam beneath those of Bush (who openly said that Kerry was more courageous) and a lot of his cabinet takes a type of moral double-speak that I simply cannot comprehend.
Yeah, no kidding. It's so much better to support someone who dodged the experience altogether by using his daddy's power. Or with several deferments, maybe. Especially in a conflict they supported at the time.
Bush/Cheney for 2004! Because true patriots choose hypocritical, cowardly chicken-hawks to decide foreign policy.
Ok, but besides gunpowder, rockets, astronomical records, the printing press, martial arts, paper money and toilet paper what have the Chinese ever done for us?
Oh, and besides silk too.
Maybe because if everybody who dared think there might be something wrong with the country moved it would never improve?
Even if our behavior can never be predicted, that doesn't necessarily mean we have free will. When the choices you make are "determined" from some outside force, whether the force acts randomly or not, you still cannot be said to have free will.
I think Roger Penrose tried to make the same argument you are making.
What we do is determined by our biological makeup and the inputs from our environment. This I believe. However, does this automatically mean that we should not be held responsible for our actions? Should we despair that we are being controlled and accept that nothing we do matters?
If you assume strict determinism, then biology and environment cannot be seen as mere outside influences that control us. They are what *define* us. They are an expression of who we are as people. In my opinion, the real reason we at first shy away from the thought of determinism is that since we often (falsely) think of our formative biology and environment as states and events apart from ourselves, we feel like we're being manipulated from without. This viewpoint is incorrect.
Oh great, project UV from our TV sets. That would be good.
;)
"So where did you get that sunburn?"
"Too much TV I guess."
Or better yet...
"Oh neat, Jesse James is about to weld something again..." *ZAP!* "...oh fuck, my eyes!"
Acutally, that's not true. The quantum algorithms created to break numbers into their prime components are able to solve the problem in polynomial time when it is believed to be solvable at best in exponential time under classical computing. Much much quicker, but not instantaneous, which would be a quick instance of constant time.
I'd try meditation myself. With enough practice, one could really calm the brain activity.
Time for me to get back to doing some zazen.
Your opinion is duly noted. Now here's another.
Many many DJs are merely obnoxious and get away with much more stuff, and yet Howard Stern is among the most popular around. There's a reason for that. If you listen to the show for any length of time it comes to feel like you know the people. He's probably the most unhypocrytical and honest people on the air, which is why he often comes off as being crass. I'm sorry that you can't get past the curse words and "obnoxiousness".
It you liked The Smartest Kid On Earth, you should check out some of Ware's older stuff in The Acme Novelty Library as well. Those things are both hilarious and deeply disturbing at the same time.
They're worth it for some of the twisted advertisements on the edges alone. Also, I think every comic had these elaborate, workable 3D cut-out assemblable projects on the very edges. I guess they meant for people to buy 2 copies of each issue.
But how fast can you go downhill? Is 30 mph really that unapproachable for the average biker with a long descent and high gears?
You probably just need higher gears on your bike.
I often wonder what the ratio between gears on the professionals' bikes are. A lot of times when I'm riding downhill I'm pedaling as fast as I can with no tension left to gain speed. I need a better bike. 'Course no bike in the world is going to make me anything near as fast as those guys.
There probably has been just as much intellectual resources poured into Go as there has been with chess over the years as Go is just as old if not an older game, and the hemisphere those resources come from doesn't matter one whit.
The only problem from a programming standpoint is the analysis of what constitutes good moves in chess is much more specific and direct while in Go they are more hazily defined. This is partially because chess is a much more direct game (I may lose a pawn in this move, therefore I must justify it with a comparable gain in positional advantage or material later on) than Go (I may lose a stone here - *feh*.) The reasons for this are that there are so astronomically many more viable possible moves in Go that direct analysis is simply impractical, and the more intuitive skill of pattern recognition is more helpful to a Go player than it would be to a chess player.
So I think it would be more accurate to say that the nature of intellectual inquiry of both games may explain why one plays better on computers than the others. But even then, it's likely that it's simply a natural result of the natures of the games.
Or even, maybe it never can be "over". Perhaps there will always be weaknesses in theories to explain weaknesses in older ones, ad infinitum. All theories are simply models to reduce the workings of the universe to a form we can make sense of. There may be no perfect model.
I forgot who said this, but there's a quote that reads something like, "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagined, but it may be stranger than we can imagine."
The Mac didn't crash, but the older version of Opera sure did. A lot.
So far so good with the Mac.
I must say it was quite a relief when I replaced Safari with Opera 7.50. This after trying Firefox, Safari and whatever the last version of Opera working with OS X was. (That one was just too crash-prone to be usable). AFAIK, only Opera handles windows/tabs the way I want it to. That is, it never creates a new window unless I specifically tell it to. If I'm browsing and a link from a site wants to open an additional page without replacing the old one, it comes in as a new tab. End of story.
I don't know what you mean by integration with the OS. I expect a browser to do just 2 things for me.
1) Browse web pages.
2) Stay the fuck out of my face.
(Unfortunately, I have to live with mail and newgroup functionality in Opera that I never use it for. Oh well.)
The only bigger relief than replacing Safari with Opera was replacing Mail with Thunderbird. But that's a different stoy.