In one episode he gets it wrong and kills a person he thinks is a murderer but it turns out the murderer was someone else. In another episode he kills someone just because he takes a photograph of his children and he suspects that he is a pedophile. There are lots of episodes where we learn that he does kill the right person, usually because they confess just before he finally stabs them to death (but after he has revealed himself and must kill them to stay free), but the evidence he had up until they confessed was really rather flimsy. There is also your example where he kills someone just because he was extremely rude. So the actual Dexter is very much a menace to society and certainly he is someone that Dexter himself would have no qualms about killing. The story that Dexter tries to portray to himself is that he only kills very bad people, so it is OK. There might be an argument that if Dexter was actually like that story, then he wouldn't be the villain that he is. Still makes for entertaining TV though. I find it very sad that people are so ready to explain away the terrible deeds of characters like Dexter.
As far as medical insurance goes, it really hasn't been handled well by private industry. Ideally, we all pool, and all receive care.
That is absolutely not what insurance is. When you buy insurance what you are paying for is to reduce your risk by paying the average expense of someone with that risk up front, plus whatever fee the insurance company charges to provide this service. So someone with higher risk pays much more because the average cost of someone with that risk is much more. If you have particularly bad genes, your rightful insurance payment may be much more than most can afford, because those factors put you so much at risk. That is what insurance is, and that is the service insurance companies are offering. The idea that unaffordable risk can be eliminated with insurance is simply a misunderstanding of what insurance is. Thus insurance can never be a vehicle for health care for all, not even health care for all people working and with a median US income. To make that happen you have to do what you described - pool the expenses, with the people less at risk subsidizing the people more at risk by way of everyone paying a similar price. That is socialist redistribution of expenses from the people with a lesser need to the people with a greater need. Which is great - it's just that in the US socialism is a dirty word so there is a great attempt to classify socialist ideas as something else. In this case redistribution is being sold as insurance to avoid facing the truth that some socialist ideas are just the right thing to do, because everyone can immediately perceive the unfairness of a good person being ruined and then dying because his bad genes makes insurance unaffordable and then he gets sick and can't pay to be cured. Insurance can do nothing for this person, only redistribution can.
I could be using any of an infinite number of possible different definitions of the integers and addition, and I could be using any number of different formal systems. As you stated previously: "Ultimately, the informal meaning would be the same, but the details and therefore proofs could be quite different."
I think we agree that it has the same level of informality that 1+1=2 does. That's very informal or not informal at all depending on one's perspective.
As the other poster pointed out, 9.999... IS exactly the same as 1. It is two different ways of writing the same thing, just like 1+1 is a different way of writing 2. a is not inexactly expressed. Any finite number of 9's would be an inexact approximation of a, yes, but in a itself there is an infinite number of 9's, and that is why a equals 1. Consider this: What is the i'th digit of 1-a? It's clearly zero for every possible i, so 1-a=0. You are confusing yourself by imagining an ever increasing but at every point finite number of 9's. Instead imagine what happens when you have an ACTUAL infinity of 9's - when you go to infinity, instead of an approximation, you get 1=a.
Sad to tell you no, though I imagine married scientists who fit the statistical pattern would say something like that to justify the way they now do things. The other poster had a plan to supply hookers instead of wives. No telling how that would affect productivity, so I was wrong, just not for the reason you stated.
Slashdot Mirror
In one episode he gets it wrong and kills a person he thinks is a murderer but it turns out the murderer was someone else. In another episode he kills someone just because he takes a photograph of his children and he suspects that he is a pedophile. There are lots of episodes where we learn that he does kill the right person, usually because they confess just before he finally stabs them to death (but after he has revealed himself and must kill them to stay free), but the evidence he had up until they confessed was really rather flimsy. There is also your example where he kills someone just because he was extremely rude. So the actual Dexter is very much a menace to society and certainly he is someone that Dexter himself would have no qualms about killing. The story that Dexter tries to portray to himself is that he only kills very bad people, so it is OK. There might be an argument that if Dexter was actually like that story, then he wouldn't be the villain that he is. Still makes for entertaining TV though. I find it very sad that people are so ready to explain away the terrible deeds of characters like Dexter.
Holy crap, you can't reply to tells!?!
As far as medical insurance goes, it really hasn't been handled well by private industry. Ideally, we all pool, and all receive care.
That is absolutely not what insurance is. When you buy insurance what you are paying for is to reduce your risk by paying the average expense of someone with that risk up front, plus whatever fee the insurance company charges to provide this service. So someone with higher risk pays much more because the average cost of someone with that risk is much more. If you have particularly bad genes, your rightful insurance payment may be much more than most can afford, because those factors put you so much at risk. That is what insurance is, and that is the service insurance companies are offering. The idea that unaffordable risk can be eliminated with insurance is simply a misunderstanding of what insurance is. Thus insurance can never be a vehicle for health care for all, not even health care for all people working and with a median US income. To make that happen you have to do what you described - pool the expenses, with the people less at risk subsidizing the people more at risk by way of everyone paying a similar price. That is socialist redistribution of expenses from the people with a lesser need to the people with a greater need. Which is great - it's just that in the US socialism is a dirty word so there is a great attempt to classify socialist ideas as something else. In this case redistribution is being sold as insurance to avoid facing the truth that some socialist ideas are just the right thing to do, because everyone can immediately perceive the unfairness of a good person being ruined and then dying because his bad genes makes insurance unaffordable and then he gets sick and can't pay to be cured. Insurance can do nothing for this person, only redistribution can.
I dread for the day of Goatse 3D, right out there in your face.
I could be using any of an infinite number of possible different definitions of the integers and addition, and I could be using any number of different formal systems. As you stated previously: "Ultimately, the informal meaning would be the same, but the details and therefore proofs could be quite different."
I think we agree that it has the same level of informality that 1+1=2 does. That's very informal or not informal at all depending on one's perspective.
It is a precise and true mathematical statement that 0.9999...=1 - it is not informal.
As the other poster pointed out, 9.999... IS exactly the same as 1. It is two different ways of writing the same thing, just like 1+1 is a different way of writing 2. a is not inexactly expressed. Any finite number of 9's would be an inexact approximation of a, yes, but in a itself there is an infinite number of 9's, and that is why a equals 1. Consider this: What is the i'th digit of 1-a? It's clearly zero for every possible i, so 1-a=0. You are confusing yourself by imagining an ever increasing but at every point finite number of 9's. Instead imagine what happens when you have an ACTUAL infinity of 9's - when you go to infinity, instead of an approximation, you get 1=a.
Sad to tell you no, though I imagine married scientists who fit the statistical pattern would say something like that to justify the way they now do things. The other poster had a plan to supply hookers instead of wives. No telling how that would affect productivity, so I was wrong, just not for the reason you stated.
That's exactly backwards. Science productivity falls off a cliff from scientists who get married.