Not to mention the following, "This may be the Achilles heel of forensics is that getting external cooperation is difficult at best, and often impossible."
if you want to argue infinite repeating decimals, than yes, 0.9999... is approaching 1. It's limit as we approach an infinite number of decimal points would essentially make it equal to 1. But you cannot reach infinity so this is a moot point.
I have no idea where to start with parent's post, but I'll just deal with this.
The string of characters ".9999..." *means* the limit of (9/10 + 9/100 +... 9/10^n) as n tends to infinity. The partial (finite) sums form a sequence that indeed converges to a number, which is defined to be the limit of the series, and that number is 1... the value of the given sum. What does "converge" to 1 mean? It means you can get arbitrarily close to 1 by going out sufficiently far in the series.
Also, I'd be curious to know what you think the result of (1 -.999...) would be.
No, it's me being an offensive dick for the sake of it. I'd get lynched, and rightly so.
If being offensive (for whatever reason and to whomever) is part of what determines that which shouldn't be considered "free speech", then "free speech" isn't very valuable.
What about the environmental trade-offs inherent in spending time considering this sort of environmental impact versus spending time considering more significant environmental and conservational issues?
While I certainly agree with the sentiments of those who've complained, I don't really want yet another FCC regulation or the like. I think the appropriate people to complain to would be the networks. I am not so naive as to think that would necessarily solve the problem, but that is at least where the problem is. Gripe at them, or perhaps push for a TV (hardware) feature that would accomplish what you want.
It seems that Mr. Kappos's statement would have been perfectly fine without the word "green":
"Every day an important tech innovation is hindered from coming to market is another day we harm our planet and another day lost in creating businesses and jobs. Applications in this pilot program will see a significant savings in pendency, which will help bring innovations to market more quickly."
Once I read "HAL", I couldn't help but read "Strong AI" as "Strong Al" (that is, AL) and "Weak AI" as "Weak Al" (again, AL)....all this even after reading (for several minutes) text that discussed AI.
While I'm hardly a Twitter devotee, I don't think it's fair to measure the value of Twitter's service during the Iran election fallout by whether or not it actually led to a regime change.
Anyone know (I don't) whether Coolio asked permission from Stevie Wonder for incorporating core elements of one of his songs ("Pastime Paradise") in making "Gangsta's Paradise"?
This is free content, right? I don't see where they are wanting you to pay "MORE". Then again, my contacts should have come out about 30 hours ago, so I might just be misreading something....
they must sentence more harshly for all the other people (and other offenses by the same person) that went undetected.
Mal-2
If *this* is the reasoning, then that is truly horrible reasoning. (I'm not judging parent's reasoning, by the way.) If 100 people loot a store and one poor sap gets caught, I honestly can't imagine why the cops' (or feds' or whatever) inability to catch the other 99 should have anything to do with what sentence to give the one.
It wouldn't be surprising if people lied (or at least were mistaken) about their GPA. (Indeed this was something I didn't at first think about when I read the piece.) However, grade inflation is real. (Lots of data at that link.)
It means what the consensus says it means. There is no right or wrong answer.
[...]
So what? Most nouns are not perfectly unambiguously defined in all circumstances defined.
Nouns that denote scientific objects need reasonably specific definitions. The ambiguity of meaning is a problem in these situations. Those who are knowledgeable of the matter, those who need such a specific definition, are those who should make such decisions. (Specifically, a consensus of such specialists.) Certainly the noun might find itself used in a broader, more common, sense outside of science.
I think there is another point to be made. The reason "planet" has been used to describe this object we call "Pluto" isn't because of some sort of folksy wisdom that "of course it's a planet!" Most people's belief that Pluto even exists is based completely upon the word of such specialists. We have, for years, depended upon their definition of planet to include Pluto, but exclude other orbiting bodies. Now that these specialists have determined that a reclassification needs to be made, I find it a little silly to buck against this change.
If cell biologists, for whatever reason, decided that a ribosome does not fit the most reasonable definition of an organelle (a decision I think they are best suited to make), I would certainly feel a little silly telling people, "Well, it's still an organelle to me!"
The defendant was 'not objecting' to the request for extension of time.
I realize that, and thanks for the reply.
Is it more, then, that they have no grounds upon which to reasonably object?
Because, once more, I do not see what they actually gain from the granting of the motion (that seeks an extension), except possibly in such cases as:
(1) They need more time themselves (for whatever reason). (This benefit would have to outweigh the risk of the DOJ deciding to intervene, defending the constitutionality of the act, and perhaps swaying the judge to side with the Plaintiff.)
(2) They believe the DOJ might intervene in their behalf. (This doesn't seem likely.)
(3) They believe a DOJ intervention on the Plaintiff's behalf (or at least to support the constitutionality of the act in question) would in some strange way *help* their case. (I don't understand how this could really be the case.)
(4) They believe that objecting to the motion is futile, and so such an objection would only waste time and resources, with the possible side effect of annoying the judge. (This seems rather likely.)
Paragraph(?) 7 of the motion states, in part, "Counsel for both parties do not oppose the motion."
I understand why it is important to debate whether or not the DOJ should intervene, what stance the DOJ might take, and whether or not this motion should be granted.
However, my question is the following (series of questions). What benefit does the Defendant seek to obtain by not opposing the motion? (Do they need time for other things, and this is a convenient opportunity? Do they have reason to believe the DOJ might intervene on Defendant's behalf? Does this [DOJ intervening and agreeing that a certain act is unconstitutional] happen often/ever?)
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the following, "This may be the Achilles heel of forensics is that getting external cooperation is difficult at best, and often impossible."
if you want to argue infinite repeating decimals, than yes, 0.9999... is approaching 1. It's limit as we approach an infinite number of decimal points would essentially make it equal to 1. But you cannot reach infinity so this is a moot point.
I have no idea where to start with parent's post, but I'll just deal with this.
The string of characters ".9999..." *means* the limit of (9/10 + 9/100 + ... 9/10^n) as n tends to infinity. The partial (finite) sums form a sequence that indeed converges to a number, which is defined to be the limit of the series, and that number is 1... the value of the given sum. What does "converge" to 1 mean? It means you can get arbitrarily close to 1 by going out sufficiently far in the series.
Also, I'd be curious to know what you think the result of (1 - .999...) would be.
No, it's me being an offensive dick for the sake of it. I'd get lynched, and rightly so.
If being offensive (for whatever reason and to whomever) is part of what determines that which shouldn't be considered "free speech", then "free speech" isn't very valuable.
What about the environmental trade-offs inherent in spending time considering this sort of environmental impact versus spending time considering more significant environmental and conservational issues?
While I certainly agree with the sentiments of those who've complained, I don't really want yet another FCC regulation or the like. I think the appropriate people to complain to would be the networks. I am not so naive as to think that would necessarily solve the problem, but that is at least where the problem is. Gripe at them, or perhaps push for a TV (hardware) feature that would accomplish what you want.
"Every day an important tech innovation is hindered from coming to market is another day we harm our planet and another day lost in creating businesses and jobs. Applications in this pilot program will see a significant savings in pendency, which will help bring innovations to market more quickly."
So what exactly is the logical derivation of your claim in part (A)?
Once I read "HAL", I couldn't help but read "Strong AI" as "Strong Al" (that is, AL) and "Weak AI" as "Weak Al" (again, AL). ...all this even after reading (for several minutes) text that discussed AI.
While I'm hardly a Twitter devotee, I don't think it's fair to measure the value of Twitter's service during the Iran election fallout by whether or not it actually led to a regime change.
Why on Earth is the parent modded "Troll"? Please people, and I know this is said here quite often, but troll != disagree.
It's merely iLegal.
Your point is well-taken, but a subject's noteworthiness does not depend so much upon its literal existence in the real world.
Anyone know (I don't) whether Coolio asked permission from Stevie Wonder for incorporating core elements of one of his songs ("Pastime Paradise") in making "Gangsta's Paradise"?
You seem to already have the negative caged-animal attitude that suing the shit out of everyone is your only option.
Considering this quote in the summary,
I'm open to suggestions.
I don't really think that's a very fair characterization.
"Top * Lists" aren't necessarily unassailable data, but mathematicians, statisticians, and actuaries can do pretty well.
No problem dude, I'll just change my email to FU_KenFiori@gmail.com .
Florida University would like to have a word with you....
Either way, it's piss-poor server/network management and someone should be fingered for it.
I'd be satisfied if they were just fired.
What the law actually does is of no consequence, silly! The really important bits for the politicians are
(1) they do SOMETHING
(2) they look good doing it
(3)[optional] it's also a plus if they don't actually have to read the bill
This is free content, right? I don't see where they are wanting you to pay "MORE". Then again, my contacts should have come out about 30 hours ago, so I might just be misreading something....
they must sentence more harshly for all the other people (and other offenses by the same person) that went undetected.
Mal-2
If *this* is the reasoning, then that is truly horrible reasoning. (I'm not judging parent's reasoning, by the way.) If 100 people loot a store and one poor sap gets caught, I honestly can't imagine why the cops' (or feds' or whatever) inability to catch the other 99 should have anything to do with what sentence to give the one.
It wouldn't be surprising if people lied (or at least were mistaken) about their GPA. (Indeed this was something I didn't at first think about when I read the piece.) However, grade inflation is real. (Lots of data at that link.)
It means what the consensus says it means. There is no right or wrong answer. [...] So what? Most nouns are not perfectly unambiguously defined in all circumstances defined.
Nouns that denote scientific objects need reasonably specific definitions. The ambiguity of meaning is a problem in these situations. Those who are knowledgeable of the matter, those who need such a specific definition, are those who should make such decisions. (Specifically, a consensus of such specialists.) Certainly the noun might find itself used in a broader, more common, sense outside of science.
I think there is another point to be made. The reason "planet" has been used to describe this object we call "Pluto" isn't because of some sort of folksy wisdom that "of course it's a planet!" Most people's belief that Pluto even exists is based completely upon the word of such specialists. We have, for years, depended upon their definition of planet to include Pluto, but exclude other orbiting bodies. Now that these specialists have determined that a reclassification needs to be made, I find it a little silly to buck against this change.
If cell biologists, for whatever reason, decided that a ribosome does not fit the most reasonable definition of an organelle (a decision I think they are best suited to make), I would certainly feel a little silly telling people, "Well, it's still an organelle to me!"
The defendant was 'not objecting' to the request for extension of time.
I realize that, and thanks for the reply.
Is it more, then, that they have no grounds upon which to reasonably object? Because, once more, I do not see what they actually gain from the granting of the motion (that seeks an extension), except possibly in such cases as:
(1) They need more time themselves (for whatever reason). (This benefit would have to outweigh the risk of the DOJ deciding to intervene, defending the constitutionality of the act, and perhaps swaying the judge to side with the Plaintiff.)
(2) They believe the DOJ might intervene in their behalf. (This doesn't seem likely.)
(3) They believe a DOJ intervention on the Plaintiff's behalf (or at least to support the constitutionality of the act in question) would in some strange way *help* their case. (I don't understand how this could really be the case.)
(4) They believe that objecting to the motion is futile, and so such an objection would only waste time and resources, with the possible side effect of annoying the judge. (This seems rather likely.)
Paragraph(?) 7 of the motion states, in part, "Counsel for both parties do not oppose the motion." I understand why it is important to debate whether or not the DOJ should intervene, what stance the DOJ might take, and whether or not this motion should be granted. However, my question is the following (series of questions). What benefit does the Defendant seek to obtain by not opposing the motion? (Do they need time for other things, and this is a convenient opportunity? Do they have reason to believe the DOJ might intervene on Defendant's behalf? Does this [DOJ intervening and agreeing that a certain act is unconstitutional] happen often/ever?)
Presumably, the compassionate Commission "permits" this one device.